The Beat

The War on T-Shirts

posted by John Nichols on 02/01/2006 @ 1:05pm

Minutes before the President of the United States would tell the Congress how much he appreciates "responsible criticism and counsel," the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was dragged from a gallery overlooking the House chamber where Bush would speak, handcuffed and arrested for the "crime" of wearing a T-shirt that read: "2245 Dead. How many more?"

Cindy Sheehan, who had been invited to attend George Bush's State of the Union address by Representative Lynn Woolsey, the California Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, did not put the "dangerous" shirt on for the event. The woman whose protest last summer outside the President's ranchette in Crawford, Texas, drew international attention to the antiwar movement, had been wearing it at events earlier in the day.

Indeed, as Sheehan, who had passed through Capitol security monitors without incident, noted, "I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her."

No one has suggested that Sheehan was in any way disruptive.

So why was she arrested?

Because, as Sheehan recounts, she was identified as a dissident.

Before the arrest, media reports buzzed about official concern regarding Sheehan's presence. And, as she was being dragged from a room where the President would shortly extol the virtues of freedom and liberty, police explicitly told Sheehan that she was being removed "because you were protesting."

Capitol Police and other security officials, whose rough treatment of Sheehan was witnessed by dozens of people who attended the State of the Union event, said she was arrested for "unlawful conduct." Conveniently, she was held until after the President finished speaking.

Is there really a law against wearing a political T-shirt to the State of the Union address?

No.

The Capitol Police, who on Wednesday dropped the charges against Sheehan, have acknowledged in an official statement that: "While officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the department in the House Gallery for years, neither Mrs. Sheehan's manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention."

What they have not acknowledged, and what is truly troubling, is the evidence that Sheehan was singled out for rough justice.

Beverly Young, the wife of Representative C.W. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who chairs the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, showed for the State of the Union address up sporting a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops--Defending Our Freedom." When Capitol Police asked her to leave the gallery because she was wearing clothing that featured a political message, Mrs. Young says, she argued loudly with officers and called one of them "an idiot."

But Mrs. Young was not handcuffed. She was not dragged from the Capitol. She was not arrested. She was not jailed.

Sheehan, who caused no ruckus, was arrested not because she engaged in "unlawful conduct." Rather, by every evidence, she was arrested because of what her T-shirt said--and, by extension, because of what she believes.

That makes this a most serious matter. Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who is one of the senior members of the House, is right when he says that Sheehan's arrest by officers he refers to as "the President's Gestapo," tells us a lot more about the George Bush and the sorry state of our basic liberties in the midst of the President's open-ended "war on terror" than anything that was said in the State of the Union address. "It shows he still has a thin skin," Stark says of the President who claims to welcome dissent.

It also shows that the father of the Constitution, James Madison, was right when he warned that, in times of war, the greatest danger to America would not be foreign foes but Presidents and their minions, who would abuse the powers of the executive branch with the purpose of "subduing the force of the people."

This one incident involving one T-shirt is a minor matter. But seen in the context of the mounting evidence of constraints on legitimate protest, warrantless wiretaps and the abuses of the Patriot Act, it reminds us of the the truth of Madison's warning that: "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Comments (476)

  1. Mr. Nichols,

    I do not believe you could be so disingenuous as to not believe (or perhaps know) that given Cindy Sheehans prior behavior that she was likely to engage in a Medea Benjamin type disruption of the State of the Union Address.

    That she would not be disruptive is about as likely as Democrats suddenly being strict constructionist believers in the Constitution.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 1:36pm

  2. That's right Love LIberty, give Nichols hell.

    To protect our rights we need to arrest criminals before they are able to commit a crime!!!

    Love Liberty, twit & fascist

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/01/2006 @ 1:44pm

  3. Thank you for highlighting this disgraceful action. As the President waxed poetic about the need to export democracy his handlers were busy quashing it at home. Maybe we've exported so much that we have none left.

    Posted by rachelmay at 02/01/2006 @ 1:47pm

  4. Censor all Patriotic Americans In Kansas, a young woman, somehow got entry in the President's speech last week and was able to ask him a question publicly about gutting funding for Pell grants, loans for college. Bush was flabbergasted and sand bagged by a very reasonable question from a young American, not a criminal. I know one thing for sure. Clinton would have been able to answer the question in detail. Bush couldnt come up with anything for an answer other than " we're trying to reform college loans" which means in Republican doublespeak: " we need to keep you dumb and poor so we have cannon fodder for our perpetual wars for our military industrial complex".

    Posted by ajdjr73 at 02/01/2006 @ 1:55pm

  5. To protect our rights we need to arrest criminals before they are able to commit a crime!!!

    Love Liberty, twit & fascist

    Posted by NATHANHALE 02/01/2006 @ 1:44pm

    Nathanhale,

    I'm sure it was a freudian slip, but you phrased it well; yes, we arrest criminals before they can commit another crime.

    If police or fire personnel see a known arsonist with matches, they are going to take proactive action.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 1:57pm

  6. Posted by brunowe at 02/01/2006 @ 1:58pm

  7. I don't normally cut & paste between threads, but...

    www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0201-01.htm

    We don't care what you think of our service,

    We still have the power to bomb,

    We swagger like cowboys while staying the course,

    (But we're deathly afraid of a mom.)

    Posted by drhammer at 02/01/2006 @ 2:12pm

  8. Censor all Patriotic Americans In Kansas, a young woman, somehow got entry in the President's speech last week and was able to ask him a question publicly about gutting funding for Pell grants, loans for college. Bush was flabbergasted and sand bagged by a very reasonable question from a young American, not a criminal. I know one thing for sure. Clinton would have been able to answer the question in detail. Bush couldnt come up with anything for an answer other than " we're trying to reform college loans" which means in Republican doublespeak: " we need to keep you dumb and poor so we have cannon fodder for our perpetual wars for our military industrial complex".

    Posted by AJDJR73 02/01/2006 @ 1:55pm

    AJD,

    Thank you, I have been waiting for someone to present this left wing talking point so it can be revealed for the sham that it is.

    The various Lib groups have been trying to present as fact that somehow Bush and the Republican Congress are cutting Pell Grants, and cutting spending for Education. Conference Report S1932 is the Budget Conference agreement already agreed to by the Senate and now waiting for House approval.

    A few facts to correct the misstatements:

    1. The cuts are not to the available funds but to Administrative accounting. In fact, the dollar limits have been raised substantially.

    2. While some overall dollars are taken away from the Pell Grant program they are put into 2 new programs for students. The new SMART Grant programs direct student loans specifically for those majoring in Sciences and Math.

    3. Not addressed by critics also is a provision to cancell the repayment provisions for certain teaching positions

    4. The revised Student Loan programs reduce Loan origination fees (hence less money back to the government and cheaper loans for students).

    There are other features that I believe liberals would support (in fact far more than conservatives) if you actually read the legislation. The Title VIII Educatio provisions begin on page 65.

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7028/s1932conf.pdf

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 2:12pm

  9. I support Ms. Sheehan, but I am not naieve enough to to think that she is not at least prepared to make some sort of statement every waking moment. She is incredibly driven, for reasons I hope I only have to sympathize with, and never experience myself.

    But manhandling her out of the chamber like some violent offender or potential terrorist once again exposes the POTUS and his crew for what they really are - prevaricating chickenhawk aristocrats who soil themselves when confronted by anything they don't have the time to spin.

    Posted by drhammer at 02/01/2006 @ 2:34pm

  10. THIS....apparently, is the only "spin" coming out of the Left on the SOTU. Seen it on several blogs already. Not much on the content of the speech...NOTHING on Tim Kaine's response (except Right AND Left discussing his "Spock-like" eyebrows).....it's all about Cindy.

    Of course, Cindy is "all about Cindy" these days. Nobody (even Mr Nichols who's being disengenous) thinks that Cindy, who has taken EVERY opportunity she can to try to "make a statement" (from Crawford to Venezuela) would have "sat there quietly".

    She announced earlier this week she might run a primary challenge to Dianne Feinstein....can you think of a BETTER way to kick it off and "fire up the base in Calif." than to scream out "You killed my son" and get dragged out of the balcony kicking and screaming.

    THEN the spin would be...."Nobody cares what Bush said...the REAL story is about Cindy, the Rosa Parks of the anti-Iraq war movement".

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 2:39pm

  11. Love (fascism more than) Liberty, I loved your snappy comeback! That was even better than your retort that the Pope was against the war in Iraq 'cause he hadn't read the Bible!!!

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/01/2006 @ 2:45pm

  12. LL

    I'm sure it was a freudian slip, but you phrased it well; yes, we arrest criminals before they can commit another crime.If police or fire personnel see a known arsonist with matches, they are going to take proactive action.

    So what was her crime? Having a different opinion? Oh, that's right, that's the biggest sin in the Koolade Klub.

    No, the officials said that it was wearing a t-shirt that had a "political" message. And how Beverly Young, wife of a Republican politician, who wore a t-shirt that was a political message in support of Republican policies, managed to keep her seat in direct violation of the rules and in direct contrast with precedent set less than a football field away? HMMMMMM, let's think about this one (if you're able to think without the President telling you what it is you think).

    You people will defend any bullshit that the administration says, does, thinks, and attempts. Mental midgets, one and all. Keep defending the indefensible. We expect nothing less of the lock-step Koolade Klub.

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/01/2006 @ 2:49pm

  13. Mask,

    THIS....apparently, is the only "spin" coming out of the Left on the SOTU. Seen it on several blogs already. Not much on the content of the speech

    It's hard to comment on "content" when there was none.

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/01/2006 @ 2:50pm

  14. So Cindy is now a "dissident." Remember the good old days, when the only dissidents we worried about being dragged off by goons for merely showing up in public were in the Soviet Union?

    Posted by AbeLincoln at 02/01/2006 @ 2:53pm

  15. Thank you LL for clearing up the urban myth that the Bush Administration is cutting student loans-- As for the Cindy ---she got what she wanted--arrested and put in the news---why isn't everyone happy???? This whole student loan myth is one of the reasons that we are 7.5 trillion dollars in debt. Anytime it is perceived that a program is cut, people scream bloody murder. So the result is that programs don't get cut, nor do we hold the line on spending. We just keep on spending. Of course I know that many on this board will say if we just didn't cut taxes we would not be in debt---this ignores the fact that the federal government set an all time record for taxes collected last year and it still wasn't enough. Give the President the power of item veto--start the amendment now--this is something that Dems and Repubs should both be able to agree on. The item veto would be a rational response to all the "earmarking" and "pork" that you find in most spending bills.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/01/2006 @ 2:53pm

  16. Although I did like when Bush called Iraq an "Empire of Evil" - and you guys have the sack to say liberals are masters of hyperbole? Millions of years of evolution or God's plan to make people dumb enough to believe this bullshit?

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/01/2006 @ 2:56pm

  17. Taxes?

    How about forcing the corporate big wigs, like those at Halliburton, to abandon their offshore tax havens in the Caribbean and actually pay taxes. I mean, that seems like a pretty patriotic thing to do. Over $20 billion escaped the US Treasury last year thanks to our island banking schemes.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/01/2006 @ 2:58pm

  18. There are two more State of Lying Speeches from President Pinochio. I hereby call upon all invitees to wear a t-shirt with a message (including Republican's). The end result will be about 300 arrests and a chamber half filled but with people wearing glorious messages like "I heart Bush"!

    Will that convince the moron apologist's that things might have gone a bit too far in terms of suppression?

    Probably not....after all, we established yesterday that Bush could kiddie rape on live TV and still he'd have 40% support!

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/01/2006 @ 3:02pm

  19. RIO

    Funny thing few heard their message and even fewer saw it!

    Not covered = not true; Seen by millions = gospel truth

    I have got to convert back to Republicanism - they're so warm and secure in their coccoon of bullshit.

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/01/2006 @ 3:05pm

  20. Posted by TURK33 02/01/2006 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person

    Wow, TURK....you mean there was nothing that Bush said last night that you would disagree with or debate?!?!??!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 3:06pm

  21. kiddie rape---Wasn't Clinton actually guilty of something close to that? His approval rate went up--especially among democrats.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/01/2006 @ 3:06pm

  22. Len

    Keep your eye on the ball of Clinton. Yeah that's the ticket!

    He's the guy telling Iranian's how great liberty is while having citizen's arrested for wearing a t-shirt.

    He's the guy wire tapping without warrants.

    He's the guy that let 9/11 happen.

    He's the guy that is going to let OBL die of old age rather than bring him to justice.

    He's the guy that Pinochioed us into a war that is creating untold enemies.

    In your warped state of reality, if you could just get rid of Bill Clinton and Cindy Shehan things would be OK!

    ARRRRGGHHHH!

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/01/2006 @ 3:12pm

  23. FREEDOMPLEASE, you left out Ted Kennedy. And Clinton is plural. But who's counting.

    Amazing how the grown-up ideology is so afraid of boogeymen (or women). And then they squeal "Bush bashing" whenever we make a peep about their guy. Hey all, we don't hate him. We just want him to do his job every now and again.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/01/2006 @ 3:22pm

  24. And in the end, it's not what people have actually done, but what they MIGHT do that is decisive. Yes indeed. The premonition school of law and order.

    And these are the people who think we should trust the government with phone taps and reading our email.

    Posted by bkarloff at 02/01/2006 @ 3:28pm

  25. Ther was a person removed frorm Clintons impeachment trial and a congreesmans wife removed for a T-shirt that said. Support our troops at the same time as Sheehan,...how come no support for them?...HMMMM

    Sheehan is going to sue, should congressmans wife? She is a GOPer wife so she probablty doesn't deserve to..........no case..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 3:31pm

  26. The people's Freedom of Speech. The people's Right to Petition their Government. Wait, except for in the peoples house of congress when all three branches are in one place at one time. (You can read that in the US constitution ,right?)

    I guess strict construction is dead (accept for abortion)

    And the anti-Christain right has told us in no uncertain terms that they are the anti-American right

    It seems we Americans threw off george the third, just so one day those anti-Americans could replace him with george the forty third.

    Welcome to the twenty first century America.

    Kiss your freedom goodbye

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 3:32pm

  27. Abe

    Could be worse...he coulda had her run over by a tank!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 3:37pm

  28. THEN the spin would be...."Nobody cares what Bush said...the REAL story is about Cindy, the Rosa Parks of the anti-Iraq war movement".

    Posted by MASK 02/01/2006 @ 2:39pm | ignore this person

    Er, you're on the wrong blog. Lots of comments on the other one that says "sotu" somewhere in the title-- this one is clearly about the "t-shirt"...

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/01/2006 @ 3:38pm

  29. RIO,

    Maybe no one is saying because no one knows if anyone was removed for wearing clothing deemed "inappropriate" during either Carter or Clinton's SOTU addresses. Why don't you look it up and then tell us what you found?

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/01/2006 @ 3:44pm

  30. It is hard to know if anyone has a double-standard on the matter if we don't know if something happened or not. If you find something bring it here. That is what this forum is for.

    But anyway, don't you think removing someone for wearing a shirt is a bit much? After all, did you read articles that appeared in numerous newspapers (including the Washington Post) during the 04' campaign where people were removed from Bush campaign rallies for wearing anything that suggested support for Kerry? The same was not true for Kerry rallies.

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/01/2006 @ 3:46pm

  31. It is interesting how anytime anything goes wrong for this administration President Clinton is immediately brought up. . . .

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/01/2006 @ 3:47pm

  32. HHEMWM,

    It's not interesting....it's utterly pathetic.

    John Maasch the Republican t-shirt "protester" didn't get arrested, so how is that the same?!!! READ THE DAMN BLOG BEFORE YOU OPEN YOU"RE STUPID MOUTH!

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/01/2006 @ 3:54pm

  33. here's some connection to the sotu posted on the other one that may be aprpo:

    "a quiet transformation -- a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment." = Cindy Sheehan, invited by a Democratic House member, revealed an antiwar T-Shirt emblazoned with the question "How Many More?" She was arrested by Capitol Police.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/01/2006 @ 3:56pm

  34. HW,

    "It is interesting how anytime anything goes wrong for this administration President Clinton is immediately brought up. . . .

    Posted by HHEMWM 02/ "..

    Only because of the double standard...when Clinton had done the same, ie wiretap, corruption, enter WH broke and leave multimillionare,scandals, bin Laden inactivity,ect..nothing was noriced or condemned in MSM or here..this is a perception of many of us on the right..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 3:56pm

  35. Free,

    Yes, but why not? Sheehan resisted and made a scene as this was her goal...in that she succeeded,whereas, the wife just wanted to be there and support her point without getting arrested...Sheehan could have walked out the same way the wife did and she would have been treated the same, instead,she played the celeberty role to draw attention and now pays the price. She is personaly responsible for her actions and what they resulted in causing.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 4:00pm

  36. It is quite astonishing how utterly afraid Bush is of Cindy. I'll give Bush the slightest bit of respect if he would just get some balls and meet this woman face-to-face. He would completely deflate her campaign if he would agree to meet with her. Yet, amazingly he keeps giving her reasons to continue her crusade and a spotlight with which to do it. Alas, he'll keep quaking in his boots at her, and more than 60% of the country won't respect him because of it.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 02/01/2006 @ 4:02pm

  37. John,

    Are you really this dumb?

    I beg you (for the second time) to read the blog to which you are responding.

    Sheehan did not resist and the Republican apparently did make a fuss (but was still not arrested).

    How can anyone take you seriously? It is no wonder you are Republican!

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/01/2006 @ 4:03pm

  38. Blue,

    He already met her and was received kindly by her and he treated her with respct.. later she changed her tune and she is now a circus...why

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 4:03pm

  39. Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/01/2006 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person

    really? more revenue than ever? i'll check that out. whats the iraq bill up to now?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 4:04pm

  40. Only because of the double standard...when Clinton had done the same, ie wiretap, corruption, enter WH broke and leave multimillionare,scandals, bin Laden inactivity,ect..nothing was noriced or condemned in MSM or here..this is a perception of many of us on the right..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 3:56pm

    you mean he left the white house with multi million dollar legal bills from defending himself from all the wingnut generated "scandels" which hid the "corruption" that in the end was made up of only one smokin blow job(yeah, baby)

    Maasch, Clinton was condemned by the media throughout his two terms and in the five years of his illigal third and forth terms (that's the real scandle)

    Oh and he did wiretap but he followed the law.

    Oh and while you guys were scandelizing him, the republican congress was weakening the armed forces and paving the way for 9/11 (good job)

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 4:04pm

  41. "Sheehan did not resist and the Republican apparently did make a fuss (but was still not arrested). "

    Sheehan always makes a fuss..I would like to hear from the Capitaol police on this one....if I am wrong, I will admit it and condemn the entire event..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 4:08pm

  42. John,

    Oh aren't you clever. Cindy deserves to meet again with Bush.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 02/01/2006 @ 4:09pm

  43. John,

    I don't recall Cindy making a fuss when they carted her off from protesting in front of the White House. As a matter of fact she was carried off with a big smile on her face.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 02/01/2006 @ 4:11pm

  44. Its almost as though Cindy has achieved Hillary-like status among the right. The right just cannot stand independent, strong-willed women.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 02/01/2006 @ 4:12pm

  45. Will,

    You are quite the left trooper..only thing missing are the banners..

    Yes, he had legal bills and the US paid for most of them, he also charges the Secret Service the entire cost of his mortgage for his house,which someonelse bought for him,...really, we can go scandal to scandal, but why...it is a waste of time.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 4:12pm

  46. I love independent strong women so much I married one..

    Sheehan is certainly not independent, but she does have a strength of sorts...Hell, Bush should meet with me too, but he won't and I don't expect him to do so.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 4:15pm

  47. Besides, what could Sheehan have to say to him that the entire left wing associations and Democratic have been shrilling for 5 years? Kind of like a nagging wife who offers only bitching but no help..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 4:17pm

  48. John,

    What attempts have you so far made to find the Capitol Police Report? Do you expect it to fall into your lap?

    Or are you happy in yout caccoon of ignorance?

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/01/2006 @ 4:17pm

  49. Free,

    No I have had the time to look for and I am sure it will surface if it helps Sheehans cause.

    I have to go to work...I can't afford to protest and go to jail..I have to keep up my home and family..

    I would love to see her run against Feinstein, tho....it will be hilarious and good for the country to see..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 4:20pm

  50. kiddie rape---Wasn't Clinton actually guilty of something close to that? His approval rate went up--especially among democrats.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/01/2006 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person

    no - he was fellated by an attractive if rubinesque young jewess in white house (woo hoo!) while he was married (oh...) to hillary clinton (...?) and did not realize the curvaceous young tempress (woo hoo!) had neglected to wash his semen from her dress (ugh...) so he lied, thinking, "screw it, its my word against hers", and lied to us about it (imagine that) then shat a brick when he found out she hadnt washed the gizz dress ("what?!?! she did't wash...you mean...aw shit!)

    what are YOU talking about?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 4:21pm

  51. Could THIS...be "Plan B"?

    Was the ORIGINAL idea that Cindy would have "spoken up" in the middle of Bush's speech....and Mr Nichols et al would turn something that probably will result in a "poll bounce" for Bush into another round of "Sheehaniastic" (combination of her name and "orgiastic") fervor to drown that out?

    But the Cap Police interrupted the plan...and now the "fall-back" is a discussion of how "Bush is scared of a T-shirt"?

    That ("Plan A") COULD have been very good....IF they had picked another anti-war Gold Star Mom, who was less recognizable than CS. Bush gets to "Iraq" part of speech...Jane Smith stands up and yells "My son died for nothing"....cameras pan up...House goes into uncomfortable silence....Bush thrown off his game, while the police haul out the woman....and the "after-game" spin is about HER and not the speech.

    Problem is...after her "terrorists=freedom fighter" comment and the recent "pilgrimage to Hugo Chavez with Harry Belafonte"...Cindy's profile was not only recognizable but embaressing.

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 4:24pm

  52. Sorry but, so much fuzz because of a T-shirt makes me believe the President really does not feel at ease with all his collateral damage, if the President would really be easy with his policies, he would not be afraid of a protester, but seems to me the President prefers not to see such a protest taking place, strange Presidential behaviour, isnt it ?.

    Posted by areyouok at 02/01/2006 @ 4:29pm

  53. Wake up people. Cindy Sheehan is so insignificant in the broad scheme of things it is a silly waste of time to even debate her. If you're going to be spied upon, at least give those listening and watching something of substance, not just this pointless exchage of accusations and recriminations over a simple message on a t shirt. You might as well talk about Laura Bush's bra size if you're going to play these games...

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/01/2006 @ 4:30pm

  54. Posted by MASK 02/01/2006 @ 4:24pm | ignore this person

    i just dont think she would have had to do anything at all but just sit there wth that now outdated t-shirt on...just sit there impassively with that shirt on. i dont believe she was planning to make a scene...but who knows...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 4:31pm

  55. Mask,

    When Cindy Sheehan lies us into a war that has made us less safe, and cost thousands of American lives, ten of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, and costs us trillions of our kids/grandkids earnings, and alienates most of our international allies and causes Iran to go "NUKULAR", then I'll join you in your crusade to crucify Cindy.

    For the moment though I think it's best to stay focused on the baffoon that has made Cindy into a grieving widow. Don't you?

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/01/2006 @ 4:32pm

  56. mother not widow....sorry

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/01/2006 @ 4:34pm

  57. Love Liberty said "yes, we arrest criminals before they can commit another crime."

    Why do we even let criminals out of jail? I say give them criminals perpetual sentences so they never leave jail.

    That'll protect our freedom!

    Posted by ChimpOrBush at 02/01/2006 @ 4:34pm

  58. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/01/2006 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person

    IBBLE, the question isn't what she "had to do"...the question is....what WOULD she have done?

    Any indication that a woman who camped out at Crawford...tried to chain herself to the White House...and the week before SOTU visited Hugo Chavez with Harry Belafonte and said she might run a primary challenge to Dianne Feinstein.....

    would "just sit there impassively with that shirt on"...when Bush got to part in his speech about Iraq and his view of the successes there?

    Do you REALLY believe that?

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 4:34pm

  59. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/01/2006 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person

    Pretty much gives her "free reign" for anything then, eh FREE?

    I mean, if she's beyond criticism in perpetuity....ANY criticism of even the MOST outrageous comments or actions by her can be shot down, right?

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 4:36pm

  60. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/01/2006 @ 4:30pm | ignore this person

    well, sometimes we do get "have you no decency sir?" monents, chimi. this was not allowed by the security, to even have a chance of going there...seems like that everywhere bush goes.

    but i still don't think that was where it was going, nor would it have been so momentous if she had...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 4:37pm

  61. Mask,

    Unless you're prepared to criticize the policy or leader of why she is a grieving woman in the first place.....yes you are NOT allowed to criticize her.

    Bush will not allow dissent why should she?

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/01/2006 @ 4:38pm

  62. Good f-ing grief people! Do you realize you are equating a woman in a t-shirt with the President of the United States! Why can't he handle this situation without his underlings taking her away?

    The only possible explanation for this ridiculous situation is that he does not have the self-awareness or personal skills to handle this situation, or for that matter any situation that's not scripted in advance.

    Which goes a long way toward explaining why we are at war with a country that possessed no arms that could harm us, and are slowly going broke as Congress moves to make tax cuts permanent. To hell with reality, it's the script that matters.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/01/2006 @ 4:43pm

  63. Any indication that a woman who camped out at Crawford...tried to chain herself to the White House...and the week before SOTU visited Hugo Chavez with Harry Belafonte and said she might run a primary challenge to Dianne Feinstein.....

    would "just sit there impassively with that shirt on"...when Bush got to part in his speech about Iraq and his view of the successes there?

    Do you REALLY believe that?

    Posted by MASK 02/01/2006 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person

    oh my god!!!! she was seen with (flourish of ominous music) HUGO CHAVEZ?!?!?! you think they got it on? you know how crazy latinos are for blondes...

    so what? i mean, if she is going to run for political office, even appealing to the angry, ultra liberal land of fruits and nuts style chavezvniks, i still don't see what a potentially disasterous confrontation with the president would have accomplished....

    i dont know what was in her head,...she said she planned to sit there and listen to the speech. you seem to assume she was a liar...what leads you to assume she is a liar? is lying so accepted as standard practice on the right that such behavior is automatically imputed onto everyone else?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 4:46pm

  64. Hello regressives out there!

    Can one of you tell me what Dooh Nibor means? I've hear someone out there refer to regressives and neocons as Dooh Nibors but I don't know what it means.

    Thanks

    Posted by ChimpOrBush at 02/01/2006 @ 4:47pm

  65. it is a waste of time.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 4:12pm

    I agree it was a waste of time. And while you guys were impeaching him our enemies were training in our flight schools.

    I could be wrong but I remember Clinton having a figure in excess of a million in legal bills that we Americans argued the state should pay becuase that was the law and that you republicans argued Clinton should pay because(HE GOT A BLOW JOB)or something like that.

    and ah, you're going to have to give me a little more info on the secret service paying for Clinton's house, the program that allows it and the legality of it(this is a nation of Laws, right? We do follow the rule of law, right?)

    well someone once said we were and we did. But then they took control of the legislature, the executive mansion and the supreame court and now they are singing a whole different toon.

    Right?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 4:50pm

  66. HEY how about that canadian mine accident! got 'em all out alive!! oh, do they put mining company execs in mining regulatory agencies there too?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 5:00pm

  67. neocons are slick obverse neofascists

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 5:01pm

  68. MyParadigm,

    Did you just say that President Bush is responsible for removing Cindy Sheehan from the Capitol building? Exactly what planet are you living on?

    Ms. Sheehan grandstands and while she has a right to protest the war, she really does not have anything valuable to say.

    I put far more stock in someone like John Murtha [intergalacticjester.com] who can live in the real world and come up with solutions to bring the troops home safely. He is at least trying to work with the President of the United States who does not have to address every person who disagrees with him... in fact, he should ignore most people who disagree with him otherwise he wouldn't have time for anything else. That's why he has "underlings."

    Posted by Croaky at 02/01/2006 @ 5:01pm

  69. Will,

    I did not impeach him, the House did.

    The FBI knew they were in flight schools and did nothing. FBIs fault, not Clinton or Bush.

    Clinton should have paid law bill as he lied to Grand Jury and on tape(IDIOT). The only thing he blew in my opinion was a chance to be a great president, what a waste. Blow jobs were not mentioned in charges to my knowledge. If we arrest for BJs then we are in need many more jails...

    I will find the info on the mortgage, I think I read it in Time a few years back, but I can not remember, I will try.

    On a personal note, I never cared about Bills BJ, if Hillary didn't, why should I? Not my business any more than yours are, if you get them or give them, couldn't care less.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 5:02pm

  70. Never mind! Someone shot me an email telling me what Dooh Nibor means... It means Robin Hood in reverse -I guess because Republicans take from the poor to give to the rich.

    Posted by ChimpOrBush at 02/01/2006 @ 5:09pm

  71. would "just sit there impassively with that shirt on"...when Bush got to part in his speech about Iraq and his view of the successes there?

    Do you REALLY believe that?

    Posted by MASK 02/01/2006 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person

    Actually you're right-- she had a nuke stitch into the fabric of the t-shirt and was going to detonate it when the pres got to a certain sentence. The police saved the day.. Yeah, right do you REALLY believe that?

    What it really was/is is guilt. The bush is filled with guilt and must be convinced continually that all the suffering he's personally responsible for is transitory or doesn't really exist. Seeing her there would've been the last straw that breaks the façade of the poser. He would have started balling from shear fear of retribution and damnation if she had stayed. He might have even confessed to all his corrupt deeds at his moment of vulnerability. He is in deed weak and his handlers know it.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/01/2006 @ 5:11pm

  72. Chimp,

    "I guess because Republicans take from the poor to give to the rich."

    How can you take something from someone(poor) who has nothing to take? Are you refering to taxes? Poor pay no taxes..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 5:13pm

  73. CROAKY, hello, you're the first Bush defender today who can write complete sentences. Your points are well taken. Now you're welcome to explain why this president seems to be so adept at letting problems fester long after they should have been corrected. I say he's a grossly underqualified figurehead for a dangerous agenda. What say you?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/01/2006 @ 5:13pm

  74. Chimp, Dooh Nibor is Robin Hood backwards - i.e., rob from the poor and give to the rich.

    Posted by publius at 02/01/2006 @ 5:14pm

  75. "I'll give Bush the slightest bit of respect if he would just get some balls and meet this woman face-to-face"

    LIARS LIARS LIARS LIARS LIARS LIARS LIARS

    Hey you stupid nitwit...he already has met with that anti american anti semetic bitch...you LIBS are so fucking nuts I love watching you fools self destruct.

    THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SITE TO BEHOLD

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/01/2006 @ 5:15pm

  76. "I'll give Bush the slightest bit of respect if he would just get some balls and meet this woman face-to-face"

    LIARS LIARS LIARS LIARS LIARS LIARS LIARS

    Hey you stupid nitwit...he already has met with that anti american anti semetic bitch...you LIBS are so fucking nuts I love watching you fools self destruct.

    THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SITE TO BEHOLD

    Posted by LIBZSUK 02/01/2006 @ 5:15pm | ignore this person

    hi libz

    we were just talking about cindy sheehan and politics and stuff... would you like some vegan scones and california rolls?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 5:20pm

  77. John Maasch said "How can you take something from someone(poor) who has nothing to take? Are you refering to taxes? Poor pay no taxes.."

    How about cutting Medi-Cal, Medicaid. How about cutting education, Welfare? College grants. Medicare... Those are billions upon billions of dollars.

    They also steal from the poor by giving to the rich so they can leech off the poor like oil and drugs.

    Who do you think is paying for this war?

    Posted by ChimpOrBush at 02/01/2006 @ 5:33pm

  78. I'll never understand why, when pressed on an issue of constitutional rights, the wingers attack Bill Clinton, our FORMER president. I doubt MAASCH will ever follow up on this, but in truth, under law, the Clintons have a right to charge the Secret Service $1,100 a month. Bill and Hillary, however, declined the payments.[Link] [urbanlegends.about.com]

    On topic, though: There's little in the way of media that this administration can't handle. But it seems to me that Bush looks like he's ducking the issue everytime he's within 100 yards of Ms. Sheehan. It just looks bad. Why NOT meet her, offer a few kind words and recognize her position? It would end the situation quickly and effectively, and she'd turn into an historical footnote almost immediately. Moreover, why, if you're the Bush team, open yourself up to more charges of suppressing constitutional rights?

    I think the answer has to be that they're well aware that Bush couldn't handle the situation, and Sheehan would come out on top. Which is unfortunate. You'd expect that the leader of the free world, who we would expect to be able to defuse a high-stakes military standoff (see the Russian missile crisis, e.g.), would be able to defuse, or (God forbid) comfort, an angry and grieving mother.

    Posted by breasonable at 02/01/2006 @ 5:37pm

  79. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 5:02pm

    I did not impeach him, the House did.

    But John, our government derives it's power from the consent of the governed. You and every other republican that voted republican and installed a republican congress impeached Bill Clinton. Your vote was your consent

    The FBI knew they were in flight schools and did nothing. FBIs fault, not Clinton or Bush.

    Singing a new toon, eh? becuse a few blogs ago you guys were arguing that the president had to spy on Americans without a warreent because he is responsible for the security of America. But hey, it' policies for the moment from the unpricipled and anti-american right. (different thread must equate to different moment)

    Clinton should have paid law bill as he lied to Grand Jury and on tape(IDIOT). The only thing he blew in my opinion was a chance to be a great president, what a waste. Blow jobs were not mentioned in charges to my knowledge. If we arrest for BJs then we are in need many more jails...

    that's an argument, and it supports my point that his bills made him a few million poorer and not as you said a few million richer

    I will find the info on the mortgage, I think I read it in Time a few years back, but I can not remember, I will try.

    We get enough trying from the right. I'd like to see a little succeeding.

    On a personal note, I never cared about Bills BJ, if Hillary didn't, why should I? Not my business any more than yours are, if you get them or give them, couldn't care less.

    but you keep supporting the party that did and continues to put it's nose in the sexual affairs of all of us.

    you are truly blinded by the right

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 5:40pm

  80. Excuse me...what give the bitch any more right to meet with Bush more than once???? No other soldiers family has that opportunity. Your LIB arguments are so fucking hollow...thats one of the many reasons you fools will remain in the minority for a long time to come...THANK GOD

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/01/2006 @ 5:42pm

  81. How can you take something from someone(poor) who has nothing to take? Are you refering to taxes? Poor pay no taxes..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 5:13pm

    he said the poor, not the homeless

    and the poor pay property taxes and sales taxes and gas taxes and liquer taxes and cigarette taxes...and yes, income taxes.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 5:44pm

  82. Has Cindy Sheehan met with Bush(it)?

    Posted by ChimpOrBush at 02/01/2006 @ 5:53pm

  83. yes

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/01/2006 @ 6:02pm

  84. Cindy's shirt reads, "2245 Dead. How many more?"

    For this, she was arrested, an obviously unconstitutional act: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    This arrest is part of a pattern of government criminality relating to the Iraq war. To see this arrest in context, see the Iraq War Timeline [ameswire.com].

    Posted by arbes at 02/01/2006 @ 6:02pm

  85. LibZ

    Meds wear off? Run out of Kool-Aid? Calm down...go eat a Prozac, tank down a coupla shots, or find Monica Lewinsky (I hear she'll do it for a cigar....just make sure you take her dry cleaning in personally!)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 6:08pm

  86. ARBES

    When Dubya wants us to have rights he'll let us know!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 6:16pm

  87. Excuse me...what give the bitch any more right to meet with Bush more than once???? No other soldiers family has that opportunity. Your LIB arguments are so fucking hollow...thats one of the many reasons you fools will remain in the minority for a long time to come...THANK GOD

    Posted by LIBZSUK 02/01/2006 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person

    are these rhetorical questions?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 6:40pm

  88. correction - substitute "is this a rhetorical question" oops

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 6:42pm

  89. Police Apologize, Drop Charge Vs. Sheehan

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_go_co/state_of_union_sheehan

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 7:05pm

  90. Oh wait, that would have been okay to hustle her out the door, right?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/01/2006 @ 7:09pm

    Wrong

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 7:11pm

  91. What's the State of the Union?

    After last night's speech I couldn't tell. MASK and others claim they can find no comments on the content of the speech. Have you tried looking for them in the English language? You may not realize this, but that is indeed the language that the White House claims last night's talk was presented in, and, so, responses have tended to be more numerous in that language rather than, say, Polish.

    Now I am getting a clearer view of the state of the union. It is one in which a still high number of Americans will not only look the other way when their leader leads them to hell, but actually take their jackets off and lay them on the path so that he doesn't soil his shoes in the process. (I am beginning to feel the urge to type "He" instead of "he" given the amount of worship in this virtual room.) You who coddle him have lost your bearings. You excuse things you would not dreamed of excusing until 2001 (maybe He is right when he says 9/11 changed everything).

    Is the Sheehan matter the most important to come up last night? Of course not--simply par for the course. Another year or two and even those of us on the left will just shrug and shake our heads...or not. We heard the terms "values" and "moral compass" tossed out with implications, even when there was no means of actually defining the terms, during the '00 election. Plan to hear those terms a lot until those who still give a damn about this country snatch it from His.

    Please, point us to the high points in the speech. Reducing his deficit by half during the remainder of his term? Even if he accomplished this, and he won't, what would this mean? That he has strapped this country to China for the long-term, helped a struggling economy by spending money he does not have in the short run, and then tossing the economy to the dogs before he bails. That'll win him a spot as the "head" on the penny. Toss more money to companies to help them develop alternative energy? Why on earth would you believe he would do this when he has a lifelong love affair with crude?

    Geez, I want to go on, but it's just embarrassing. Biggest health care problem: malpractice suits. Biggest blockage to the spread of democracy: countries that practice democracy but just don't seem to come up with right winners. Best thing to do to crack down on Al Qaeda: listen in to conversations between them and us; meanwhile our Army is apparently so disengaged from capturing Bin Laden that we send drones to blow up suspected hideouts for #2 rather than sending in troops to capture #1.

    And then there's Iran. No "B" word (bomb) used, but why else would we be afraid of them gaining nukular power when we is promoting its use in this country? Obviously they're building bombs and if you're not worried yet, then you best be getting to it. I've converted my laundry room into a safe house already.

    Enough. Please. Enough with the excuses for Him. He's lived 50+ years on excuses. It's time for Him to actually stand in front of the tens of millions of Americans who distrust Him (He can wear His cowboy hat and big belt buckle if it helps His ego) and try to speak honestly about the state of the union. If He can't take the heat of Sheehan, what good is He?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/01/2006 @ 7:12pm

  92. The bottom line is that she wore a tee-shirt in protest of the war. Many guests wore flags and other symbols to indicate their support of the war and this administration's policies. The House rules explicitly ban demonstrations in the chamber.

    It seems to me that even the President, who wore a Flag pin on his lapel, was demonstrating. Cindy Sheehan was singled out because of her message, not because of the fact of demonstrating.

    Posted by DaoudaW at 02/01/2006 @ 7:14pm

  93. i dont know what was in her head,...she said she planned to sit there and listen to the speech. you seem to assume she was a liar...what leads you to assume she is a liar? is lying so accepted as standard practice on the right that such behavior is automatically imputed onto everyone else?

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/01/2006 @ 4:46pm

    IB,

    I for one don't find her to have much credibility. Nor will you find many Americans (except the far left) who believe her to be a credible person.

    By all appearances and her history, she is a rather gullible person who is now being used by the far left to further their agenda. Perhaps someone here can tell me how this person with apparently no job experience, no other financial wherewithal except that provided by the left, is able to travel the world now speaking at extreme leftist conferences?

    And as I noted in a previous post, given that she is spending time with Medea Benjamin, I'm sure Medea has been training her on the art of disrupting public events.

    The intellectual dishonesty by those on the left who continue to support this woman reveals either naive ignorance or will collusion. I leave it to each reader to draw their own conclusions.

    BTW, lying is a well practiced art on the left. John Kerry just demonstrated it this morning by saying with a straight face that only 53% of high school students graduate (the actual figure is 89%) and that it is Bush's fault.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 7:36pm

  94. Give the President the power of item veto--start the amendment now--this is something that Dems and Repubs should both be able to agree on. The item veto would be a rational response to all the "earmarking" and "pork" that you find in most spending bills. Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/01/2006 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person

    Len,

    I suspect you are referring to the line item veto that many state governors have and tangentially the Line Item Veto Act passed in 1996 and effective the following year. The key phrase in your post is "start the amendment now" since that would be the process required to arm the president with this authority.

    To review, after the Line Item Veto Act was passed, several Members of Congress sought to have it ruled unconstitutional and won that decree in District Court (See Byrd v. Raines, 956 F. Supp. 25). The act provided for expedited hearing on appeal before the SCOTUS whereupon SCOTUS said the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not prove injury and remanded back to District Court for dismissal.

    Within two months the president exercised his new authority by canceling certain provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Tax Payers Relief Act of 1997. Lawsuits by injured parties were brought before District Court (see, for example, Clinton v City of New York, 1998). The District Court again ruled the law unconstitutional and the government appealed under the expedited provisions to the SCOTUS. This time SCOTUS agreed that it was unconstitutional under the presentment clause of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. The Court did not give an opinion on the constitutionality of Congress passing such a law and the President signing such a law, but did say If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role, such change must come through the Article V amendment procedures.

    President Bush has issued more than 500 signing statements during his tenure in the Oval Office. That is by far more than any other president has issued. Arguably, these statements are a de facto veto, but this whole issue will not be resolved until it is argued before the SCOTUS. Given the separation of powers arguments inherit in such power that concern many of us, I hope Mr. Bush will not have the privilege of appointing any more Sam Alitos to the SCOTUS. There is more at stake than just pork barrel spending.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 02/01/2006 @ 7:52pm

  95. LL,

    Who gave you the figure of 89%? That is absolutely ridiculous. 78%--maybe. Kerry lied, no question. He has restated this lie a couple of times. If he would tinker with the lie to refer to disadvantaged kids, he would be right on, however.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/01/2006 @ 7:55pm

  96. By the way,

    wasn't the topic still related to the State of the Union?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/01/2006 @ 7:55pm

  97. Or is your inability to address the complexity of his speech as telling as your speed at redirecting the topic?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/01/2006 @ 7:56pm

  98. The Capitol Police do have protocols that are followed in order to avoid "incidents" during major events.

    Could Mr. Nichols enlighten us as to what these protocols include? It might answer the question of why she was removed and arrested. And while she may not have caused a "ruckus", I'd just as soon get the opinion of an unbiased observer if one is available. To the point, I don't think we have enough facts to assign blame yet. That being said, unless she violated some code, it really would be beyond stupid to remove/arrest her simply for wearing a T-shirt.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/01/2006 @ 7:58pm

  99. Given the apology she has received, why are you still doubtful that proper procedures were, in fact, NOT followed?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/01/2006 @ 8:03pm

  100. Rather, by every evidence, she was arrested because of what her T-shirt said--and, by extension, because of what she believes. That makes this a most serious matter.

    I'm relieved that Mr. Nichols believes this. One question though. Does he support "hate crime" legislation?

    Posted by usc1 at 02/01/2006 @ 8:03pm

  101. You know....it REALLY is fun sometimes to check in with RESE....the poor guy's going full-blown wacko--

    "wOULD SOME HONEST fbi, cia, AGENTS CHECK THESE aBOVE LINKS OUT????????????????????? help! [seattle.indymedia.org] cHECKING OUT LINKS MEANS FOLLOW THE LINKS."

    Posted by RESE 02/01/2006 @ 7:54pm | ignore this person

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 8:05pm

  102. USC1,

    Read

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-01-sheehan-charges_x.htm

    and then be quiet please.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/01/2006 @ 8:08pm

  103. LL,

    Who gave you the figure of 89%? That is absolutely ridiculous. 78%--maybe. Kerry lied, no question. He has restated this lie a couple of times. If he would tinker with the lie to refer to disadvantaged kids, he would be right on, however.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/01/2006 @ 7:55pm

    TJ,

    The news article I read about Kerry's comments noted the 89% figure. I just checked through the Dept of Education site and the actual figure is 87%.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 8:16pm

  104. We're angry ay what's happened to our country since this reckless president was appointed. We're angry at all the unecessary loss of life at the free pass given to the real terrorists. We're angry at the treatment of a Gold Star Mother simply because she thinks her son's life was given in vain. We're angry at democrats who simply are not getting the point across because they are so afraid of their own shadows. But no CPT., the speech wasn't anything special. Bush simply read what someone else wrote for him and he's becoming a better reader.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2006 @ 8:02pm

    Frank,

    You would have so much more credibility if you didn't just wage a campaign based upon your false facts about Bush's intelligence and that Rush Limbaugh supposed gives conservatives their marching orders.

    BTW, be angry about Cindy Sheehan. She is a dupe who is helping dupe many moderate to left Americans with an agenda meant to destroy America. The Ramsey Clarks and Leslie Cagans along with ANSWER and Not in My Name among those behind her actions, are all dedicated communists sworn to destroy the United States and it's constitution.

    These people don't respect your son and the millions of heroic American military personnel. They think they are war criminals.

    I respect your son and am thankful for his service to our country. I just pray one day you explore deeper and see what the agenda of these people really is all about.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 8:26pm

  105. TJB:

    Is your partisanship so thick that you can't see when someone may be agreeing with you? To be clear, I have absolutely NO problem with BOTH women being asked to leave because of "inappropriate attire," but I do have a problem with the arrest if there was no cause. I would hope most conservatives would agree with that as well.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/01/2006 @ 8:27pm

  106. LL,

    Most recent figures I found indicate approximately 73% graduation rate.

    http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006601.pdf

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/01/2006 @ 8:41pm

  107. Factcheck.org has an interesting evaluation of gws latest misstatements. http://factcheck.org/article376.html

    I see that the great and pious antichrist LL is again regaling us with assumptive logic.

    In regards to Ms Sheehans arrest the capitol police also agree she was accosted for no legal reason.

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/01/2006 @ 8:47pm

  108. Mask -

    I've mentioned before that I think EVERYONE has a right to dissent, even "wackos" like you (and me!!!), so please don't blow off what I'm about to say like you and I are enemies, OK?

    Believe it nor not, Rese (whose War-and-Peace-sized posts are incredibly fucking annoying, granted) actually posted a grain in the chaff that upset me a great deal:

    (Check this part out and read the link, all of you, please, right and left, blue and red, Democrat and Republican)

    --------http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/ story/387392p-328749c.html

    "Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy."

    I repeat:

    "e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy."

    Fitzgerald's letter says that "we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

    Now, this is extremely disturbing to even a guy like me, a "not-on-your-life-will-I-ever-suspend-critical-thinking-and-just-roll-ov er-to-ANY-party-line" kind of guy, because it echoes the Nixon admin's Watergate tapes' missing minutes to a frightening degree.

    Forget all of our infighting for a quick minute, fellow Americans, and read the link (it's short), then let's discuss it critically and logically, instead of emotionally, on this or any other thread.

    Pretty please, can we play nice just for these few minutes I ask? I would be simply orgasmic if we could really discuss this civilly and logically.

    P.S.

    Liberty - Stop and think a little longer before you write. God, please, for the love of all that is holy, just stop and think a little more.

    I think you were actually right on in describing Sheehan's abduction and brain implant by the wacko left until you said those behind her "are all dedicated communists sworn to destroy the United States and it's constitution." That's a little off the deep end. Some well-meaning people support her, too, just like some well-meaning people support your president.

    (check it out, all, I conceded to Liberty on something, for the most part - don't anyone ever dare me of being some kind of partisan)

    In spite of these gems, the vast majority of the balloon-rubbing-annoying rhetoric you espouse with such an air of inerrant wisdom still makes my head hurt.

    (And all of my idealistic pining for civil discourse stops with you, Rio, and the ever-ludicrous LibzSuck, and I admit it, so don't bother calling me on it.)

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 8:49pm

  109. LL, You also need to understand that when Bush ridiculed the fact that no WMD's were found while speaking at that correspondents dinner and feigning looking under the lectern, while our troops were dying because HE sent them there to find the WMD's, that did it for me. Since then, his presidency has been irrelevant. He simply has no understanding of reality.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2006 @ 8:44pm

    Frank,

    Sorry Frank, I thought that was a great bit of self parody that Bush played on himself. I have never met a soldier who took it the wrong way.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 8:56pm

  110. Uh-oh, Frank. What'd I do I shouldn't a' done?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 8:59pm

  111. Grits

    Olbermann on MSNBC Countdown is doing a full spread on this topic

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/01/2006 @ 9:00pm

  112. My lady and I are laughing hyterically at your last post, Frank.

    Thanks, man. I needed that. Looooong day at work.

    :)

    And Liberty -

    You must not speak to many soldiers. Not one of the ones I spoke to found that bit amusing.

    Most also said they were treated in a much more hostile manner after "Bring it on". And they were speaking for not only themselves, but many dead friends.

    Didn't I just ask you to engage your brain before you put your fingers in "drive"?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:02pm

  113. Frei -

    Could she have been a disruption? Hell, yes.

    Would it have been an embarassment for both sides? Hell, yes.

    Did we just live a scene out of Cruise's Minortiy Report, whereupon the thought police arrested the criminal before they committed the crime because our sophisticated technology enabled us to see future events?

    EeeerrrrrCHHHH!

    Sorry, you just lost me. If you haven't yet committed the crime, you shouldn't be doing the time.

    I think the most embarassed individuals so far should be the Capitol Police, but the bigger question is, who finalized the order to take her into custody in the first place?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:09pm

  114. Minority.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:09pm

  115. Now, Frank... Be nic-- Oh, never mind, you incorrigible man.

    :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:13pm

  116. Cindy Sheehan has been able to protest all over the place and everyone knows who she is because of the media attention given to her protests! This was just a silly, disruptive stunt that shows the far left for what they really are......spoiled, irrational, selfish brats! How can anyone vote for people who act so irrational? The left cries freedom of speech by continuously tries to disrupt and censor speech it disaggrees with! The left continuously preaches non-violence and then gets violent, destroys property and blocks traffic during it's so-called peaceful protests! And let's not forget the far left's cries about voting rights, yet in the last month at least four Democrats ( connected to Dem. politicians ) were CONVICTED of slashing the tires of vehicles that were part of the Republican "get out the vote" program to get people to the polls! Undeniable facts that cannot be disputed proving beyond a reasonable doubt that todays liberalism is completely hypocritical and in my mind, possibly....a mental disorder!

    Posted by bush man at 02/01/2006 @ 9:21pm

  117. John Maasch,

    With regard to your earlier posting: Clinton never engaged in illegal/unconstitutional wiretapping of American citizens.

    Love Liberty,

    I guess you never looked into any instance of anyone being removed from a Carter or Clinton SOTU. I guess that is because it did not happen. . . And you know it.

    You also know that Bush had loyalty oaths during his campaign rallies and had people who supported his opponent removed from the campaign stops. It is a funny thing that in a democracy we can't go hear the president because we don't want to vote for him or agree with his policies. How do you expect anyone to ever learn anything if they are not allowed to attend meetings and rallies where different opinions are articulated? How about that?

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/01/2006 @ 9:21pm

  118. Love Liberty, Maybe the reason this president has never been able to get much beyond his "base" of support is because he is only interested in appealing to a narrow span of the electorate.

    You wonder why many people dislike or disagree with Bush, that is partially why.

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/01/2006 @ 9:23pm

  119. New Dawn,

    We are making some progress but, just as you cautioned me to slow down, I think it a good suggestion for you likewise.

    I think you were actually right on in describing Sheehan's abduction and brain implant by the wacko left until you said those behind her "are all dedicated communists sworn to destroy the United States and it's constitution." That's a little off the deep end. Some well-meaning people support her, too, just like some well-meaning people support your president.

    What I actually said: The Ramsey Clarks and Leslie Cagans along with ANSWER and Not in My Name among those behind her actions, are all dedicated communists sworn to destroy the United States and it's constitution.

    So, thank you for the acknowledgment and I would be the first to acknowledge that not everyone who supports Cindy Sheehan is a communist. I was very specific in whom I named and attempted to make the distinction clear. If I didn't, then I apologize.

    And I'm sorry you don't find our discourse civil. I think it is far above much of what I read on this site.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 9:23pm

  120. He is also cynical.

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/01/2006 @ 9:23pm

  121. Frei -

    Don't mock me, friend. I have been respectful to you even in our disagreements, and would appreciate it if you returned the respect. If you were just flipping me shit, great, I can take it, as long as I know it's in jest and not disrespect.

    Mockery or ball-busting. There's a line, and nothing fine about it.

    Are we crystal?

    Now, how about an answer-answer? I'd really like to hear your opinion.

    Was there some radical right reason for taking her into custody or an honest mistake in interpreting a fairly innocuous provision of conduct within the rules of the proceedings?

    Not a loaded question, Frei, I swear. What's your take?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:24pm

  122. I guess you never looked into any instance of anyone being removed from a Carter or Clinton SOTU. I guess that is because it did not happen. . . And you know it.

    You also know that Bush had loyalty oaths during his campaign rallies and had people who supported his opponent removed from the campaign stops. It is a funny thing that in a democracy we can't go hear the president because we don't want to vote for him or agree with his policies. How do you expect anyone to ever learn anything if they are not allowed to attend meetings and rallies where different opinions are articulated? How about that?

    Posted by HHEMWM 02/01/2006 @ 9:21pm

    HH,

    Actually, I did look out of curiousity, and in fact you are correct. However the point is rather irrelevant. Unlike libs, conservatives tend to be more focused and evidently busier with their lives than liberals. We just don't place the level of priority on protest that liberals do. Furthermore, I think that most conservatives with their respect for tradition would find it unthinkable to protest a SOTU address.

    As to exclusionary practices at political rallies and townhall meetings, I can assure you that both Dems and Repubs exercise that practice liberally.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 9:30pm

  123. I can't believe that Air Force Airman was shot today while he was laying on the ground offering no resistance. Did anybody see that. Some nutty cop shot him three times in the chest, ribs and leg because he was trying to get up, in response to an order by the cop to do so. Then after shooting him the cop starts yelling, "Shut the fuck up", because the poor guy was moaning from the three bullets in him. This guy just got back from Iraq and was a passenger in a car that was in pursuit for speeding. He wasn't even driving. This cop should be in jail. Agreed?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2006 @ 9:27pm

    No argument Frank

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 9:31pm

  124. Love Liberty, Maybe the reason this president has never been able to get much beyond his "base" of support is because he is only interested in appealing to a narrow span of the electorate.

    You wonder why many people dislike or disagree with Bush, that is partially why.

    Posted by HHEMWM 02/01/2006 @ 9:23pm

    HH,

    I can't believe you honestly think that the Dems have a different political philosophy in that regard. That is the political fact that we live with today given the stark differences between the two major parties. If you don't keep your base, you cannot be elected.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 9:35pm

  125. Bush Man is my first iggy, and I haven't even banished Rio, LibzSuck, or even you, Liberty.

    I anticipated your line-item rebuttal and will even acknowledge that your wording (the part you cherry-picked to respond to) was as you say. However, here is your complete statement in context for those paying attention and not locked with you in the throes of your self-depracatingly-admitted age-induced-memory-hole:

    "BTW, be angry about Cindy Sheehan. She is a dupe who is helping dupe many moderate to left Americans with an agenda meant to destroy America. The Ramsey Clarks and Leslie Cagans along with ANSWER and Not in My Name among those behind her actions, are all dedicated communists sworn to destroy the United States and it's constitution."

    What "moderate to left American" has an agenda "meant to destroy America"?

    You dance like a Vaudeville act.

    And Liberty, you ain't my friend and I'm not working towards that goal even if we ever DO agree politically, so I couldn't possibly care less any more about having civil discourse with you, though I still encourage you to learn the skill and apply it LIBERALLY when speaking to others.

    How about that "Bring it on" thing?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:37pm

  126. Damn, you guys type fast. Trying to catch up.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:38pm

  127. Frei -

    Agreed again, in total. And all in honor and mutual respect, ya wanker. ;)

    Agreeing with you is going to get boring. Maybe we should fight after all?

    Frank -

    That cop should be shot, and this from a guy with police department employment acceptance letters in two states.

    And Sheehan's tit? Why, oh why, would you inflict such a terrible mental image on all of us? What is WRONG with you?

    If I don't sleep tonight, I'm suing you for intentional infliction of mental distress. And I live in California, pal, so I can find an attorney to do it!

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:45pm

  128. (I didn't really iggy him)

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:45pm

  129. Watching Carter on Larry King right now!!!

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 9:48pm

  130. New Dawn,

    Upon reading the repost you made of my statement, I can see where I didn't phrase it so as to preclude your reaction.

    What I intended was to say that she is part of an agenda that means to destroy America, not that moderate to left Americans are part of that agenda or agree with it.

    I don't even think she is quite as hardline as those who are using her, but then again she did say that we have been a terrorist nation from the beginning with our killing of the Indians.

    Re the "bring it on"--I'm too tired, and I do try to have a life outside of blogs.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 10:03pm

  131. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/01/2006 @ 8:49pm | ignore this person

    I would NEVER deny RESE the right to post his 5000 oDDlY cAPitALIzeD links to www.theycontrolyourminds.org or whatever....I merely hit the Ignore Button on him.

    But as the 2006 midterms draw near, and the likelihood of a Democrat House launching impeachment of Bush in 2007 dims....I wonder how many MORE will get sucked into RESE-World?

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 10:20pm

  132. Oh wait, that would have been okay to hustle her out the door, right?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/01/2006 @ 7:09pm

    Wrong

    Posted by WILL C. 02/01/2006 @ 7:11pm | ignore this person

    Will C! I love it when we're in agreement!

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/01/2006 @ 7:35pm

    So you admit to adopting Bush speak.

    You should give english a try

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 10:23pm

  133. She is a dupe who is helping dupe many moderate to left Americans with an agenda meant to destroy America. The Ramsey Clarks and Leslie Cagans along with ANSWER and Not in My Name among those behind her actions, are all dedicated communists sworn to destroy the United States and it's constitution,

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/01/2006 @ 8:26pm

    You know I've heard some bullshit on these threads but DAMN!

    (Ground control to Major Tom)

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 10:27pm

  134. Oh, no, Mask, please don't do that... Don't just gloss over what I posted for with a cheap "Reseworld" witticism... (That's pretty funny, by the way)

    What about the link I PERSONALLY highlighted?

    --------http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/ story/387392p-328749c.html

    ..."e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy."

    ...echoes the Nixon admin's Watergate tapes' missing minutes to a frightening degree.

    Your thoughts? Please?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 10:33pm

  135. Liberty -

    You've been posting here quite frequently looooooooooong before I ever bothered to post the first time.

    But there is no disguising your frequent habit of bailing out on many posts, or only choosing to respond to half of them. So far, most recently, you've used your ministry, your age, and now your life outside the blogs as excuses for your habit of running from or avoiding tough arguments, with myself and others.

    My posts and responses to yours usually come at the end of the day, because I, too, have a life outside of these blogs. But I still address every challenge posed to me.

    Whatever, dude.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 10:38pm

  136. HOW CAN WE SIT HERE ARGUING when at this very minute Cindy Sheehan is being beaten with hoses or gang-raped in one of Bush's torture pavilions or ripped apart by dogs in one of Bush's Guantanamo Wolf Lairs or...

    what? She was released the same night? But this is Bush's Amerikkka, where you can't even have a phone call with an evil billionaire Islamist Bond villain like Osama Bin Laden without the KKKops listening in on your phone KKKall! At the very least they must have, like, gnawed off her eyebrows or something. No? Really? Well, didn't they at least napalm the people banging pots and pans or something?

    Posted by Mgmax at 02/01/2006 @ 10:44pm

  137. MGMAX = San Francisco street preacher spittle-spraying passersby or brilliantly witty satirist?

    I haven't read enough of your posts to tell.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 10:49pm

  138. "This one incident involving one T-shirt is a minor matter. But seen in the context of the mounting evidence of constraints on legitimate protest, warrantless wiretaps and the abuses of the Patriot Act, it reminds us of the the truth of Madison's warning that: "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

    It is disgusting to read this kind of crap from people who were content to have Saddam Hussein's sadistic regime remain in power, people who would be put through a shredder if they lived in Iraq and wrote this stuff about Saddam Hussein, but who feel good pretending that they are the ones who live under tyranny, in their long twilight struggle against Dick Cheney....

    Posted by RonS at 02/01/2006 @ 10:50pm

  139. RONS -

    Conceding that "This one incident involving one T-shirt is a minor matter..." and quoting Madison, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare" is disgusting to you? It shouldn't matter which American citizen says it or why.

    Ever heard of political dissent, an American political right and duty? Your post makes it appear as though that disgusts you, too...

    Liberty, Rio, Libz, Todd, meet RONS. Is it okay if he sits at the short table with you guys?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 10:57pm

  140. NEW DAWN... you are a little late, they know me. As a libertarian, I probably believe in dissent far more than you or anyone else on the Left. My point is obviously that we DO have the freedom to dissent, and what disgusts me is the pretence that we do not while being insensitive to people who truly do not have those freedoms. Mr. Nichols is concerned about the t-shirt incident, but could care less about the torture conducted by Islamic fascist states...

    Posted by RonS at 02/01/2006 @ 11:06pm

  141. If LOVE LIBERTY really loves liberty, how about Cindy Sheehan's liberty? He's quite willing to remove it because he says she will be disruptive. There's ABSOLUTELY no evidence to back up that statement. He's condemned her without trial; assumed her to be guilty rather than innocent as all our citizens are guaranteed.

    There's a message here for all of us. Eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty. We must all work very hard to preserve liberty by understanding just how dangerous to our liberty people like "LOVE LIBERTY" are. He'll have our liberty yanked just because of our opinions. Given enough LOVE LIBERTYs, we'll have no liberties left at all.

    His dislike for Cindy Sheehan has completely destroyed any sense he may ever have had for liberty in our country of hope and freedom.

    The most serious part of the whole business is not gadflies like LOVE LIBERTY, but Bush, who has similar predilictions and much more power to bring them to fruition.

    G. W. Bush -- worse than Truman, Carter, or Hoover ever was (my apologies to those honorable gentlemen for mentioning their names in the same sentence as the current parody of a president).

    Posted by adr at 02/01/2006 @ 11:13pm

  142. "Mr. Nichols is concerned about the t-shirt incident, but could care less about the torture conducted by Islamic fascist states..." -- Posted by RONS 02/01/2006 @ 11:06pm

    How do you know that he holds this opinion? Does the one necessarily exclude the other? Has he written as much somewhere (I don't follow all of his writings). Or is this just a cheap shot?

    Posted by adr at 02/01/2006 @ 11:15pm

  143. It is disgusting to read this kind of crap from people who were content to have Saddam Hussein's sadistic regime remain in power, people who would be put through a shredder if they lived in Iraq and wrote this stuff about Saddam Hussein, but who feel good pretending that they are the ones who live under tyranny, in their long twilight struggle against Dick Cheney....

    Posted by RONS 02/01/2006 @ 10:50pm

    Disgusted, eh?

    You replaced Saddam with Democratic Saddam, torture chambers and rape rooms with tourture chambers and simulated sex rooms, a collapsing economy with a collapsing economy, little girls going to school with little girls going to school, clinics with clinics, and ever crumbling infrastructure with an ever crumbling infrastucture, shitty oil production with shitty oil production, mass graves with individually marked graves,

    but most important, you repalced a population that welcomed Americans with a population that's wants to kill americans, you replaced a terrorism desert with the most sophisticated high tech terror training center ever devised by man (funded by afgani opium marketed on the streets of America to american kids in the form of Heroin)

    and it was all done in the name of our great benifactor... Dick Cheney

    (Gee Dubya, don't forget Gee Dubya)

    and George W. Bush

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 11:18pm

  144. No, it was not a cheap shot. Since 9/11, how often have you read in the Nation about the assaults on libelty by Islamic fascists? Prior to his removal by our military, when was the last demonstration by the Left against Saddam Hussein? I missed it.

    For instance, when was there a blog by Mr. Nichols or any of the other writers here about what is going on now about the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark, Norway, and Germany, which you read about every day in the European press?

    Posted by RonS at 02/01/2006 @ 11:20pm

  145. Rons -

    "As a libertarian, I probably believe in dissent far more than you or anyone else on the Left."

    What is with you smug, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou people?

    You don't know jack about me, jack, so don't broad-brush paint me in with anyone else, liberals or otherwise. At least I examine all sides before reaching conclusions and I don't claim to know what's going in Sheehan's head, Nichols' or even yours. My crystal ball is in the shop.

    And offer proof that Nichols' "could care less about the torture conducted by Islamic fascist states" before making such scurrilous charges.

    You, too, should be concerned about the t-shirt incident. It didn't just involve Sheehan, a contentious and well-known peace activist who has agitated the White House. Also removed (while hurling insults and invectives, mind you) was a lawmaker's wife who has staunchly supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

    Only one was arrested.

    Critical thinking, please.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 11:21pm

  146. WILL C: What torture by Americans? We replaced rape rooms with a few incidents of simulated sex? You ought to check out the documentary "Buried in The Sand" which has actual film of what went on in Saddam Hussein's Abu Ghraib. If you can stomach it.

    Posted by RonS at 02/01/2006 @ 11:22pm

  147. And Rons -

    I will be the first to admit that articles on American freedoms, rights, liberties, and security are higher on my priority list of reading material than Islamist torture tactics.

    I won't apologize for that, and I don't expect the Nation to, either.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 11:26pm

  148. If you can stomach it.

    Posted by RONS 02/01/2006 @ 11:22pm

    You know the torture by americans,we have pictures of it, we hide it in secret detention facilities around the world.

    I can stomach anything, I sat through a day of Vietnam Mash tapes while Fort Sam. Real casualties, real wounds, real fucked up.

    There aint nothing like the real thing

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 11:27pm

  149. correction... while at Fort Sam

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 11:27pm

  150. Hi, I know this is off-topic, but Alito's first SCOTUS vote was interesting: Filed at 11:07 p.m. ET

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

    Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution. from the NYTimes

    And on topic, the chief of the Capitol Police apologized to Sheehan for the arrest http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx? type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-02T021239Z_01_N01400453_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-S PEECH-SHEEHAN.xml

    Posted by brunowe at 02/01/2006 @ 11:27pm

  151. Rons -

    You ought to Google "torture by Americans" if you can stomach it.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 11:29pm

  152. Brunowe -

    Just read that article to my lady here in my living room. We were both relieved and will continue giving Alito the benefit of the doubt.

    I hate, however, the sick feeling that it might have been a deft and preplanned move to appear to be something besides what the left fears he is. I hate feeling that suspicion of the "other side", but it's become deeply ingrained over the last few years...

    We all have this snap mistrust of one another, and it's hard to fight. How unAmerican.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 11:32pm

  153. You can also read the latest World Report by Human Rights Watch, with one of its intro lines being "Torture and Inhumane Treatment: A Deliberate U.S. Policy" http://www.humanrightswatch.org/wr2k6/introduction/2.htm#_Toc121910421

    Posted by brunowe at 02/01/2006 @ 11:34pm

  154. The enemy is Islamic Fascism, but that is something that those of you here in the romper room will never understand. Have fun pretending that you are the oppressed... good night and good luck!

    Posted by RonS at 02/01/2006 @ 11:34pm

  155. fellas, read Rons post. He's not going to believe anything you give him to read.

    no mind

    no soul

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 11:35pm

  156. The enemy is Islamic Fascism, but that is something that those of you here in the romper room will never understand.

    What you will never understand is that Saddam had nothing to do with Islamist militancy, that the attack on Iraq diverted resources from our efforts in Afghanistan (which I, and possibly many others here) supported and probably gave their recruiting a boost.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/01/2006 @ 11:35pm

  157. Have fun pretending that you are the oppressed... good night and good luck!

    Posted by RONS 02/01/2006 @ 11:34pm

    Run Away... Run Away...

    (but it's only a rabbit)

    Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 11:36pm

  158. The enemy is Islamic Fascism? No shit??? Holy shit, you guys, did you know that? Why didn't anyone tell me???

    You win the "Well, duh!" award of the day, Rons.

    Did I ever say we were oppressed? Did any of the others here call us oppressed? What board are you reading, boyo?

    I thought I offered a rational response based on logic and reasoning... And you offered more ranting and then a hasty retreat. That was a rather weak wad you just shot, Rons.

    When will I ever learn to stop trying to reason with people?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 11:41pm

  159. "What is with you smug, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou people?

    I thought I offered a rational response based on logic and reasoning"

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/01/2006 @ 11:41pm | ignore this person

    Guys, I have a life outside these blogs. So good night. But it would be easy to prove me wrong, this guy who has been reading The Nation for a long time, and these blogs. Let the Nation writers blog away about the threat from Islamic fascism, and let you guys put aside your anti-Bush addiction for a day or two and blog against Radical Islam. I want to hear how much you hate them, I would love to hear one of you guys say that Islam is full of crap as I so often read hear about Christianity. And maybe The Nation will re-print those Mohammed cartoons, just to prove that the free press of Western nations will not be threatened by foreign tyrants.

    Posted by RonS at 02/01/2006 @ 11:47pm

  160. Rons -

    Radical Islam is as full of crap as radical Christianity.

    There, I said it, you read it, and many of my compatriots here would wholeheartedly agree. So sleep well.

    And slow down next time you join the conversation. Wind up slowly to the inflamed and inflammatory rhetoric, and then maybe you'll be heard instead of barely tolerated.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 11:51pm

  161. Another "guy with a life outside these blogs", like the rest of us live here and only here.

    It's almost nine at night and my lady is holding the TV hostage with American Idol (okay, I turn around and watch every now and then, I admit it), so why not blog?

    Don't imply I have no life. It's rude, and more importantly, untrue.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/01/2006 @ 11:53pm

  162. Rons

    We don't say that Christianity is full of Crap. It's you wingnut conservatives that claim to be Christian that are full of Crap. (Why can't they ever see the subtlety of that statement?)

    Just as the wing nut conservatives that claim to be Moslem are full of Crap.

    You are all full of crap together

    Enjoy the Holy War

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 12:00am

  163. it's funny all these right wingers want to talk about torture here today/tonite. when a detainee dies as a result of torture, it's a war crime punishable by death. this goes for those who order the torture too. and there's no statute of limitations.

    brunowe, thank you for the small tid-bit of hope about alito.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 12:22am

  164. I guess RonS can sit and babble about IslamoFascism with NaCl whilst they flick toenails at one another in the corner.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/02/2006 @ 12:31am

  165. ADR & LL

    Well, its official. Shehaan's rights WERE violated (Doh). DC police have issued an official "apology" for "wrongly removing" the two ladies from the gallery.

    Guess "unringing the bell" is OK for those on high...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/02/2006 @ 12:34am

  166. Someone said earlier that the left is sitting back and quietly (and happily) accepting the inherent political capital they've gained due to the overreaction and subsequent ejection (and most importantly, arrest) of Sheehan.

    The Republican lawmakers' wife shouldn't have been accosted, either, just for the record, and had every right to be pissed that she was questioned on her t-shirt, and I would have taken offense at anyone, Republican or Democrat, anti-war or not, wearing a shirt that read something hateful or racial, by the way, so please don't anyone try to argue free speech with me.

    My point is, I would think that the right should be pretty damned upset, too, at what their country has come to.

    The Capitol Police overreacted on both women in this new state of division and tension, and that is clearly everyone's problem.

    Are we really all this afraid of one another?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 12:45am

  167. A good read imo. May explain a little bit about why we're where we're at:

    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_466.shtml

    Commentary Last Updated: Feb 1st, 2006 - 15:34:59

    Bush/GOP supporters and the phenomenon of delusion By Dan Merica

    The delusions of normalcy created by these avoidance mechanisms in the short run minimize pain. But, in the long run they result in a 'Spiral of Silence' (Elizabeth Noelle Neumann) that plays right into the hands of the Bush/GOP regime in their destruction of our great republic and our personal lives.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/02/2006 @ 01:16am

  168. But yep-- it's fear. Some of the better off to rich are affraid of loosing what they got and pass the fear to their kids and not knowing the other half, fear them and gets to be fear about just everything not themselves.... So they're easily manipulated into doing whatever per the fear. Just keep repeating terrorist, war, rape, WMD, etc. And what you fear you hate.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/02/2006 @ 01:23am

  169. For all those who are upset about the T-shirt censoring:

    Do you get just as upset when our federal government also censors political candidates 30-60 days before elections?

    Posted by usc1 at 02/02/2006 @ 01:38am

  170. USC -

    An example of what you mean, that I can read up on, please?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 01:53am

  171. Do you get just as upset when our federal government also censors political candidates 30-60 days before elections?

    Posted by USC1 02/02/2006 @ 01:38am

    You'll get our full attention when you wingnuts arrest them.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 01:54am

  172. Damn you, Will, I was going to respond to USC with

    "Did the federal government "escort" these political candidates out of the room and then arrest them?"

    But I opted for being nice first and a smartass later and let you beat me to it.

    You rock, bro. Thanks for balancing out the angel on my other shoulder.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 01:58am

  173. Enlighten me, Frei.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 02:17am

  174. Are we talking campaign finance reform issues? HR 2356?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 02:19am

  175. Are we equating the proposal to ban union and corporate money from being spent to utter the names of political candidates in the weeks immediately preceding elections to the ejection of Sheehan and Young for wearing T-Shirts to the State of the Union?

    Wow, discussing them together is like maple syrup and antifreeze, isn't it? And how fricking far off-topic is that?

    I'm boggled...

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 02:24am

  176. then pick a wavelength

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 02:30am

  177. No?

    Something in Red?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 02:37am

  178. oh Freiheit

    you had something to say?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 02:41am

  179. or did you suddenly see the fallacy in USC1's argument?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 02:43am

  180. New Dawn

    Why do they always run from the truth?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 02:44am

  181. Think about it

    It will come to you

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 03:00am

  182. WILL C. "Fundamentalist christians are full of shit. I' ve been listening to their jive for forty years and they've yet to say anything that makes a peck of sense. It's someone else's turn to babysit those morons."

    Posted by LEGBA 01/24/2006 @ 12:08am | ignore this person

    FYI, I am an atheist, not a Christian.

    Posted by RonS at 02/02/2006 @ 07:23am

  183. Ron, your contribution to the discussion of a topic seems to be: no, look over there. don't disccuss what you are discussing, but discuss what I want to. an old, old rhetorical trick. F

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 07:52am

  184. New Dawn:

    First, I made mistake. I meant to type political groups, not candidates. It was late and I'm a bad speller.:-)

    And what I'm referring to is putting government in a position to determine what is "appropriate" speech and what is not. A dangerous precedent to set, in my book.

    Boggle away.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/02/2006 @ 08:29am

  185. Can we at some point discuss the infectious diseases the far right have that begins to limit their vision, focus, thought, starting with: distractimus contagious-- those with the disease cannot think in a straight line to save themselves from driving off the lane into another and a mack truck coming from the other direction and thus disrupting traffic for hours if not days.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/02/2006 @ 08:35am

  186. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/01/2006 @ 10:33pm | ignore this person

    Sorry for late response.

    My thoughts.....Guess Nixon wishes they had invented e-mail in 1970!

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 08:39am

  187. Sorry for straying just a little, per my previous post. How progressive, liberal minded of me to think the problem is first a disease beyond their control, but isn't it really about control? Who else deliberately disrupts, sabotages the flow of progress in order to get attention? Are these then intellectual (if one can call them that), how about mind, petty mind-terrorist? Does this then tie into why the t-shirt posed such a problem?

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/02/2006 @ 08:53am

  188. Do you get just as upset when our federal government also censors political candidates 30-60 days before elections?

    I do, actually. For the record, so does the ACLU. http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/cfr/11447prs20040908.html

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 09:19am

  189. you think that Tshirt was bad, ccheck out Tom Toles' cartoon, 1/29, that caused the joint chiefs, has anyone ever been less aptly named, to throw a hissy fit. those fellows also need a refresher course in freedom of speech

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 09:21am

  190. People that respond to these petty mind terrorists are essentially like gawkers on the highway slowing if not stopping traffic. Thus mission accomplished, destination obscured or unattainable... Who better to project the same maneuver on a t-shirt than the practitioners of petty mind terrorism?

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/02/2006 @ 09:25am

  191. Only because of the double standard...when Clinton had done the same, ie wiretap, corruption, enter WH broke and leave multimillionare,scandals, bin Laden inactivity,ect..nothing was noriced or condemned in MSM or here..this is a perception of many of us on the right..

    Oh my ... what the .... what the hell is that fucking stench? It smells like ... fucking ... someone really let one fucking rip ... (rrrrrraaaallllppphhhh) ... Oh fuck, dry heaving now, .... man, gotta cover my nose, sorry for the muffled speech but ... but this is not any any ordinary instance of someone cutting the cheese ... It's ... holy fuck ... It's ... gotta' be a truckload of reeking elephant shit! Who the ... who th' fuck dumped (rrrraaaaalllppphhh) who dumped the fucking truckload of ... gotta' find, where is it coming from? ... shit, oh, Fuckme, it's coming from the computer screen!!! (Rrrrraaaaalllppph). It's ... it's ... oh, not a-fucking-gain (rrrrrraaaallllppphhh) it's fucking JOHN MAASCH again!

    Fucking JOHN MAASCH! Comes in here, smells the fucking place up like a mountain of elephant shit, has the fucking gall and audacity to ask why people don't like him! When the hell are you going to just fucking go away, like you said, rather than fouling the air with your elephant-shit sized heap of brain dookie?

    Fucking JOHN MAASCH !!! ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/02/2006 @ 09:25am

  192. very expressive, but he's no LL

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 09:43am

  193. RONS claims that he wonders where is the concern here with the Euro press and current furor over the cartoons of Muhammad. Below, I have pasted in a translation of a defiant French paper that gives strenous voice to the clasically LIBERAL, SECULAR view on the matter (published in today's UK Guardian). Notice that the LIBERAL view squarely confronts CONSERVACRAP religionism in whatever cretinous form it assumes.

    While we are on this topic, RONS, I am wondering what do you really think of Bush's VanityWar? So far, we have only seen a string of half-assed cliches on the matter that you do not even believe, but think that you can get away with mouthing for their sheer orthodoxy. So, do you see a form of replay of the 1978 revolution in Iran currently in Iraq? Do you seriously think that the incipient human rights abusing shi'ite superstate theocracy in Iraq, aligned with Iran, is good for the subject people, the region, the world at large, or --- hell --- even US interests? What defense can be made for Bush's VanityWar on these grounds? Do tell ...

    *Extract from yesterday's France Soir*

    It is necessary to crush once again the infamous thing, as Voltaire liked to say. This religious intolerance that accepts no mockery, no satire, no ridicule. We citizens of secular and democratic societies are summoned to condemn a dozen caricatures judged offensive to Islam. Summoned by who? By the Muslim Brotherhood, by Syria, the Islamic Jihad, the interior ministers of Arab countries, the Islamic Conferences - all paragons of tolerance, humanism and democracy.

    So, we must apologise to them because the freedom of expression they refuse, day after day, to each of their citizens, faithful or militant, is exercised in a society that is not subject to their iron rule. It's the world upside down. No, we will never apologise for being free to speak, to think and to believe.

    Because these self-proclaimed doctors of law have made this a point of principle, we have to be firm. They can claim whatever they like but we have the right to caricature Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Yahve and all forms of theism. It's called freedom of expression in a secular country ...

    For centuries the Catholic church was little better than this fanaticism. But the French Revolution solved that, rendering to God that which came from him and to Caesar what was due to him.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/02/2006 @ 09:52am

  194. very good Glenn. the intolerant muslim want to live in post enlightenment countries, but want to bring their dark ages culture with them, see turkish "honor" killings in germany, exactly who killing brings honor to is not clear to this western mind.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 09:58am

  195. Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 02/02/2006 @ 09:52am | ignore this person

    As an agnostic and no fan of the Catholic Church....

    in fairness, the French Revolution ALSO led to the 'Reign of Terror' (1793-1794)!

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 09:59am

  196. I do, actually. For the record, so does the ACLU. http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/cfr/11447prs20040908.html

    Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2006 @ 09:19am | ignore this person

    What's remarkable about that provision of the beloved "McCain-Feingold" CFR....is that those who speak loudest about protecting free speech were the ones in favor of it.

    Unlike many who might be termed "on the Right" here....I think the ACLU does an outstanding job most of the time and was glad to see them oppose what is so blatently an attempt to squelch free, political speech.

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 10:02am

  197. Love Liberty,

    It is interesting you say the point is irrelevant since it was you who raised the issue in the first place. . . Why is that?

    As to conservatives having better things to do with their time than protest, where were you during the Terri Schiavo affair? I seem to recall there being a very long and drawn out protest over her fate by conservative activists. People came from all over the country to keep a "vigil." This would suggest that you have a mistaken impression of conservatives and protesting. But then again fact is not central to one's impression of a situation, is it?

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/02/2006 @ 10:19am

  198. And what about all of the demonstrators on the mall every year marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade? Or do they not fall into your category of protest/demonstration?

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/02/2006 @ 10:21am

  199. Love Liberty,

    I would wager that you ought to consider why you keep dodging issues and changing the subject. Perhaps you realize that your anger is fueled by something other than what you are actually witnessing.

    And once more, Clinton did not exclude people from his SOTU. Neither did Carter. Neither did Bush I or Reagan. And also, you are again incorrect in stating that Democrats liberally use the privilege of removing people from their rallies. Not a single protestor or any Republican was removed from any campaign rally in 2004. Not one. Can the same be said of Bush and Cheney. No. That is a fact.

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/02/2006 @ 10:23am

  200. Wow. It's taking LL longer than usual to change his Depends undergarment.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 10:48am

  201. Conservatives who bitch that lefties love to protest, rally, and generally make a stink ought to explain how "Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith" is any different. It's the same thing, just with a bigger budget.

    I think the bottom line is they'd hate to see us get any return on such a minimal investment.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2006 @ 10:50am

  202. Cindy Sheehan speaks:

    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/02/cindy_sheehan_ t.html

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 10:50am

  203. What else can you expect from idiots who argue as one right wing post-er did here that higher fuel prices will offset the use of automobiles- at least among the poor- and contribute to conservation of fuel? Now, I thought that the whole purpose of the free market was to ensure that everyone was able to purchase whatever they needed at the lowest possible cost, and still leave room for profit for investors. But no, apparently the idea is that the market will arbitrarily discipline those who need a car to commute to work because there is no public transit. And if those folks have to commute to work and can't afford a car, well, then, they'll just have to vote with their feet and live somewhere else, right? And if there's no work in that region? Well, no one says you have to live in a ghetto. Move somewhere else. Without a car, which, as we've already theorized, is beyond affordability because of cost of fuel. Move on the non-existent bus. Or maybe a neighbor will let you borrow his mule. But don't invest in public transit, it doesn't work. Or at least it won't work once they're through breaking the transit worker's unions.

    Fuck these jerks. They're not about anything.

    Posted by Legba at 02/02/2006 @ 11:02am

  204. Cindy,

    You're a tragic figure whose circus antics have made you both the darling mascot of the radical Left and the press' favorite buffoon ("What will she do next?!?!"). Your publicity stunts and incoherent, slanderous rants may have earned you the title of media whore, but you have also disgraced the memory of your son and insulted millions of soldiers who remain in action.

    How many more?

    Posted by Beausoleil at 02/02/2006 @ 11:03am

  205. Hey, I read all the posts. Interesting stuff. Is it relevant that the Capitol Police are under the control of Congress, not the President? I mean, to what extent does the administration determine Capitol Police action?

    Posted by Zeeb at 02/02/2006 @ 11:05am

  206. beausolieil, fuck off, what right do you have to call anyone a whore? what have you done for the troops? hey everyone here is an asshole that needs to be ignored

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 11:09am

  207. Zeeb, you are correct that the so called pres does not directly control the wash police. he does however set the tone for the country, and he's a divider NOT a uniter

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 11:10am

  208. In replying to a previous post-----2.15 Trillion dollars in Federal Revenue in 2005 is an all time record for revenue received by the Federal Government. The problem is that spending has increased by 30% in past 5 years. Everytime someone talks about holding the line on spending it is called a cut and everytime a real cut is proposed people scream bloody murder. Give the line item veto to the President through a Constitutional Amendment Then we can really give credit or blame to the President for a budget that is balanced or unbalanced.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/02/2006 @ 11:11am

  209. Any boob here who claims public transportation doesn't work, or is inefficient, surely hasn't been to Europe. You know not what you say. Then again, it wasn't you who said it. You just repeated it like the sedulous repercussionist you are.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 11:17am

  210. Mosse, receipt would have been far higher had it not been for the tax cuts. military spending has increased 40%, and that's with the cost of the war being off budget. try to give a more balanced picture if you can

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 11:18am

  211. mauvaisoleil, you are a whore's son and that makes you mom a....you may connect the dots

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 11:19am

  212. BEAUSOLEIL, this is not my style, but go fuck yourself with a broken broomstick.

    People who pick on Cindy Sheehan are suspect to begin with, but you're a real piece of work.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2006 @ 11:22am

  213. rallying and protesting are good things.

    cindy says she loved her son. she says she is motivated by love for her son and the other troops. i believe her.

    she doesn't seem like the type to be motivated by cameras and fame.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 11:26am

  214. And all you pinheads who wreck the thread's argument by bemoaning "hypocracy" can learn to spell the damned word!

    Although as a conjunction of "hype" and "democracy" it is kind of interesting.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2006 @ 11:26am

  215. Why no mention of the wife of a Congressman who was forbidden from entering the Capital by the Capital policeforce because she was wearing a t-shirt that said "support the troops"? Doesn't this violate free speech as well?

    No matter what side of the debate you are on, you can't turn the State of the Union into a free for all peanut gallery, where guests of politicians can make their own statements because the politicians are forbidden to do so.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 02/02/2006 @ 11:36am

  216. frei, what was telling about what cindy said?

    when legba was addressing poverty, you said he was worshipping victimhood. so, should we never address the situation, just say it doesn't exist?

    speaking of poverty, correct me if i'm wrong, but the latest budget cuts trimmed everything except help to the homeless. now, why are homeless people better than the other poor?

    we better get on that. LL, let's go protest. i'll make us banners "cut help to the homeless! no more soup kitchens!"

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 11:36am

  217. zeddmen, there's been plenty of mention of the congressman's wife.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 11:38am

  218. paradigm, this is not my style either, but Cindy Sheehan is MY mom

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 11:46am

  219. FREI,

    Thanks for spitting out more examples of your hypnosis. But listen here: According to the World Bank, 15% of the world's population gobbles up half the energy used by the entire world. Cars guzzle a good portion of that half. The rich countries have 580 cars per 1000 people; the poor countries have 10. I mean, I know that Americans believe that cars offer consolation and companionship, that they provide identity, can be passports that allow even the biggest douche bag to cross the border into the upper levels of the American class structure, all while the liberation of speeding is conflated to the joy of firing a gun, but you don't love cars, rather, you are soulless without one. What's the most common form of ID in your country? A driver's licence. Thus it is cars that grant people identity in your nation where cars own the streets, detest pedestrians and occupy more and more public space. You adore them, giving them their own room in the house, their own restaurants in every town, their own hospitals, and their own graveyards. You glorify the automobile because without one, you are no one. USA is a bit more than 4% of humanity, yet it produces 25% of the carbon dioxide that poisons the planet. I think all that pollution is getting to your brain, Speed Racer.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 11:52am

  220. Chimi, nice work. here's a perspective from the city that has a fine public transportation system.the city authorities pay lipservice to having fewer cars in NYC, but do nothing to further that goal.

    here we don't have a traffic problem we have a parking problem. the avenues have six lanes, generally, but two are taken up by parked cars, two more are taken up by double parked cars, making deliveries, etc. this leave TWO lanes for moving traffic. astonishing.new york is like a patient with very badly clogged arteries

    that's why bus traffic generally is slower than walking. I am not in favor of any on street parking. here are folks with 30,000 dollar cars, getting free parking from the city, which is perennially strapped for cash, and public transit which is even more strapped.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 12:04pm

  221. Loveloki -

    There has NOT been plenty of mention of Congressman Young's wife on this board, except maybe by me.

    Frei -

    You're being kind of a dick this morning. Bad coffee?

    "You said "I heard Cindy say several times that "I didn't know it was against the law to wear a tee-shirt." How telling."

    Telling? How so? Indicative of what? There IS no law against her wearing that shirt, at the SOTU or anywhere else...

    And USC was still way off-topic and still never gave me anything to read up on about what he was talking about.

    BEAUSOLEIL -

    You may join Rio, Libz, Todd, and Rons at the short table until you tone down the rhetoric and use a little logic. The woman is still a greiving mother, no matter how deluded or led astray or blah-blah-blah. Show a LITTLE respect. I don't agree with her on much and she doesn't represent me, but I don't need to vilify her, either.

    How many kids have you lost in wars, by the way? When you lose some, you can come back and rant your ass off, and I won't criticize you for it at all. Promise.

    And Rons -

    I decimated your bullshit argument about the posters here being soft on Islamic Fascism by telling you it was as full of crap as Radical Christianity, and then you kind of fizzled and dried up and blew away.

    The best you had in response...?

    "FYI, I am an atheist, not a Christian."

    Whatever, dude.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 12:04pm

  222. Zeddmen -

    Refer to my 02/02/2006 @ 12:45am post

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 12:14pm

  223. JOHANNESROLF,

    I agree about the NYC public transportation system. It's very efficient. I have a friend who lives in Harlem, on 151st and taking one of those express trains downtown there is like 60 blocks without a stop, going all the way to 59th I think. You can't beat that ride. Taxis are hell, and driving, forget about it. New York drivers are known to be maniacs (Jersey is close behind), and it is due to the clogged streets as you say. Obviously, this is what has caused such ailments like road rage, which is odd given that cars are supposed to save time, yet they often end up eating up more and more time thanks to huge traffic jams, costing more money with rising fuel costs, all the while shredding your nerves. I think NY or LA could mimic México City in an effort to alleviate traffic and diminish pollution even more by only allowing those cars with plates ending in an odd number to circulate one day, then even the next. It makes a huge difference in big cities, and makes more people get around the old-fashioned way: on foot. (I know this is crazy, especially when you see many people in the states circle a mall parking lot for 10 minutes looking for a "good space", instead of just parking 40 meters further and actually walking.) I also think that NY could use some bicycle lanes (if they don't already), like they have in Dublin or Amsterdam, to name a few European cities.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 12:17pm

  224. Chimi -

    I just wanted to point out that riding a bike on NYC streets generally makes you either suicidal or a bike messenger.

    Never mind, same thing.

    :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 12:20pm

  225. Want to come clean and admit I was probably wrong about Cindy Sheehan earlier....

    I thought her stunt (which failed due to her being escorted out of the Gallery, before she had a chance to scream at Bush during the speech) was the lead-up to her mounting a primary challenge to Dianne Feinstein, as she had said she contemplated just days before.

    Now, I realize that there is NO WAY that Cindy would ever mount a challenge to Feinstein.....A. because despite their rhetoric, the groups she allies herself with are still loyal to the Democrats and would never allow a fellow Democrat to be threatened, especially a Senator.

    and B. because if she did, and Feinstein stomped her in the primaries (which she surely would), it would PERMANENTLY discredit Sheehan as an opportunist and so far out of the mainstream that "even Californians rejected her".

    Like many, I both pity and am cynical about the woman. What may have started as an honest attempt at opposing the war, in her son's name, has turned into either a manipulated by others, or self-aggrandizing, "auxillary campaign" against Bush or to keep the anti-war movement SEEMINGLY relevant (when it really fizzled out atleast by the 2004 elections) to Democratic politics.

    Now, feel free to attack me as evil and cruel....because another thing I'm fairly cynical about is....this "excemption into perpetuity from criticism" for the woman, to any and all things she says and does.

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 12:27pm

  226. New Dawn,

    Yeah, I've heard horror stories about bikers and roller bladers in NY. It's a shame, because I for one know that there is no better way to wake up than to ride a bike to work. Beats the hell out of coffee. But surely it's safer doing this in NY than in Bogotá, though the city closes down all major roads ever Sunday for ciclísmo, as Colombians are avid bikers. The streets fill up with people on bikes, roller blades, skateboards or plain old walkers, and the absence of screetching tires, horns and mufflerless taxis is a huge relief...

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 12:30pm

  227. Chimi, we have bike lanes, but they are clogged with double parked cars. what we need is bike parking, so that folks can take their bikes to work.I owened a car for a time and in my neighborhood as in most others, if you did not get home early you could drive around for an hour to find a parking space. I will not have another car, unless I can afford to garage it, which cost plenty. the estimated cost for car ownership here is at least $3,000 a year

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 12:30pm

  228. Sheehan's and Mrs. Young's situations are not comparable ...

    Sheehan was arrested and detained for the duration of the event. Young was approached, and then chose to turn the situation into a news event.

    What's below was all I could find on the subject, I'm sure more is out there. In the meantime, off with this Cindy bashing (after all, she is Jo's mom). The only time she's been treated with any respect is when Bush sent a couple people out to talk to her on the roadside last summer. Apparently they now find her more useful as an object of ridicule.

    'St. Pete Times': Wife of GOP Congressman Booted Out of State of Union Speech

    Published: February 01, 2006 2:00 PM ET

    WASHINGTON, D.C. Cindy Sheehan wasn't the only. The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young said she was ejected during President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that said, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom," a newspaper reported Wednesday.

    Beverly Young said she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave, according to the St. Petersburg Times.

    After reluctantly agreeing, she said, she argued with several officers in an outside hallway.

    "They said I was protesting," she said in a telephone interview with the newspaper Tuesday. "I said, 'Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'"

    Capitol Police disagreed with Young's account of the incident.

    "She was not ejected from the gallery. She did leave on her own," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, who said she could not provide further information.

    Young, 50, said her shirt is a message of support for U.S. soldiers and Marines. She often wears such T-shirts when she visits her husband, a Republican from Indian Shores, at the Capitol, as well as troops who have been wounded.

    Rep. Young found out about the incident after Bush's speech.

    "I just called for the chief of police and asked him to get his little tail over here," Young said. "This is not acceptable."

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2006 @ 12:50pm

  229. Myparadigm -

    Without all of the supporting details, I already posted on this earlier...

    "It didn't just involve Sheehan, a contentious and well-known peace activist who has agitated the White House. Also removed (while hurling insults and invectives, mind you) was a lawmaker's wife who has staunchly supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

    Only one was arrested.

    Critical thinking, please."

    I still think that both sides should be pretty pissed, but I admit to a bit of schadenfreude in that the lawmaker's wife acted like quite a bitch on the way out, whereas I understand the looney-guaranteed-to-make-a-scene Sheehan went quietly.

    Not defending her in any way, just making an observation that I personally found pretty amusing.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 1:02pm

  230. Johannesrolf-----balanced account-----Your assumption that without the tax cuts that revenue would have been larger may not be correct. The reason for the record revenue is because the economy recovered from a mild recession. The tax cuts may have played a large role in making that recession mild and short. Without the tax cuts the recession may have been longer and deeper thus reducing federal revenues. We are in agreement about increased spending being a problem. Besides the military budget (not a good idea when we are war) what do you want to cut?

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/02/2006 @ 1:05pm

  231. the sovietization of the US continues. the fact that two days after Bush's speech everyone is talking about Ms Sheehan and not that soporific, lying weasel speech speaks volumes, and puts lie to the claims that she is insignificant

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 1:07pm

  232. JOHANNESROLF: I'm a fellow New Yorker, and I've always thought that the best way to alleviate congestion on our streets would be to build a dedicated rail tunnel. At the moment, only 5.6% of NYC's goods arrive via rail, far less than other comparably sized cities. As a result, the streets and highways are clogged with trucks, which impede traffic and create untold amounts of pollution. A dedicated freight tunnel across the Hudson would dramatically decrease traffic, open the streets up for personal automobiles, pedestrians and bikers, and since it's cheaper to ship in rail cars than in trucks, lower prices across the city. Which is to say nothing of the reduced wear and tear on the streets themselves, and the associated costs to the city.

    Posted by breasonable at 02/02/2006 @ 1:25pm

  233. Maaaaaask...!

    "I thought her stunt (which failed due to her being escorted out of the Gallery, before she had a chance to scream at Bush during the speech)..."

    Again with the Minority Report preemptive arrest of someone who had not yet committed the offense you're assuming she would... Come on, man, that simply isn't fair.

    And "...to keep the anti-war movement SEEMINGLY relevant (when it really fizzled out at least by the 2004 elections) to Democratic politics."

    The anti-war movement fizzled out by 2004? Oh, now, that's just preposterous. Right here, right now, millions of Americans are against war, deluded though some of them may be.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 1:39pm

  234. BREASON

    But...wouldn't that STILL mean you'd need trucks to get the stuff FROM the railway stations (there could only be a few) TO the stores, shops, and restaurants that needed them?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 1:40pm

  235. Mosse, you are in a dream world. the deficit has balloned because of the tax cuts.. you are advocating trickle down economics, an idea debunked ever since the Reagan admin

    .the obscenely bloated military budget did not protect us from attack, and has not assured a positive outcome in Iraq. that money largely goes to weapons systems designed for tank warfare against the soviets.despite this military boondoggle, the troops in Iraq do not have adequate equipment, or even sufficient water, as Frankgrits has reported.

    I would cut the corporate welfare, sugar supports, export credits, I would roll back taxcuts, which dwarf any increased revenue, see deficit. I would cut the"star wars" program, cut back NASA to unmanned exploration, I would start withdrawing troops from Iraq and start negotiations. we are back to the vietnam syndrome, negotiation is a sign of weakness, bullshit it is.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 1:40pm

  236. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/02/2006 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person

    How many at the FIRST anti-war marches in 2002,2003?

    How many at the last?

    How much of a decrease can be safely termed...."fizzle"?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 1:42pm

  237. Mask -

    Many have realized the futility of trying to get war policies changed by a wholly-Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House, and have stopped marching.

    I would label that less as "fizzling" than "being suppressed and ignored and not having a leg to stand on or a fist to fight with".

    I didn't realize you were initimating that marches were the only means of "movement".

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 1:46pm

  238. intimating

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 1:48pm

  239. Chimi, we've had I believe 20 bicycle fatalities in one year here.

    welcome breasonable,you are absolutely correct about rail moving goods, we used to do rail-barge from jersey to manhattan, also things used to come by ship directly to new york, instead of containers to jersey and trucks to manhattan. also the bridge fares are structured so to encourage trucks to go through NYC on the way to new england

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 1:48pm

  240. Piece by piece, NEW DAWN

    "Many have realized the futility of trying to get war policies changed by a wholly-Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House, and have stopped marching."

    Ergo they aren't out there ...hence INVISIBLE to the Media and the body politic. In other words...."irrelevant" (See my earlier post)

    "I would label that less as "fizzling" than "being suppressed and ignored and not having a leg to stand on or a fist to fight with"."

    Not sure how they were "suppressed", any denial of permits? Ignored?...yep. No leg to stand on....yep. (See above again)

    "I didn't realize you were initimating that marches were the only means of "movement"."

    Let me guess...."online petitions"...."blogging"...and "writing e-mails to Democrats who have already made their positions clear...or Republicans who aren't going to listen to www.notinournames.org"....right?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 1:50pm

  241. speech is protected and politiccal speech doubly so. let them ALL wear Tshirts with slogans, as long as they behave themselves as audience no problem

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 1:51pm

  242. LEN MOSSE,

    You are an idiot. You write like an idiot who is a robot too. Your sentences are short and dull like this one. Like your brain. Nothing happens fast or at all in your brain. You are LEN MOSSE. LEN MOSSE see the budget. It has numbers. They are very big numbers in the budget. But should not be so big.

    we are war

    You wrote this. It is a mistake. Or is it a mistake? Maybe it is not a mistake. You are LEN MOSSE and maybe LEN MOSSE is poet. What are you doing for the war, LEN MOSSE? Do you write letters for support? Do you fight war too? Fight war, it is good for budget. Because we are war. Cindy Sheehan should go to war too but with smaller budget and no shirt. Shirt offend me too.

    Iraq has no weapons. Al Queda hate Iraq, no go there. It is no problem. Bush can change it like Lincoln who change Middle East. They will die. Cindy is in her shirt. We are war. And I am LEN MOSSE...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/02/2006 @ 1:56pm

  243. Thank you, JOHANNES. I've never understood why it wouldn't be attractive to build the tunnel...there are even unused railyards all the way up the west side.

    On topic, though: Did anyone else notice that The NY Times Online had this morning's article on Ms. Sheehan under the topic heading of "Apparel"? Talk about treating the issue seriously...

    Posted by breasonable at 02/02/2006 @ 1:59pm

  244. Mask -

    Boy are you an argumentative cuss! ;)

    I wrote "Many have realized the futility of trying to get war policies changed by a wholly-Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House, and have stopped marching."

    And you responded "Ergo they aren't out there ...hence INVISIBLE to the Media and the body politic. In other words...."irrelevant"

    Mask, your earlier reference to irrelevance, as far as I can tell, was insinuating that the anti-war movement itself was irrelevant, not just marching. Please don't be revisionist.

    I wrote "I would label that less as "fizzling" than "being suppressed and ignored and not having a leg to stand on or a fist to fight with"."

    You responded, "Not sure how they were "suppressed", any denial of permits? Ignored?...yep. No leg to stand on....yep."

    I know you read this blog and all of these posts. What the hell are we discussing if not the suppression of an anti-war sentiment??? And hand-picked audiences for your president are the epitome of suppression - if you don't let the dissenters (I don't mean the screaming wackos, I mean anyone with a differing opinion) into the event, period, you are SUPPRESSING their input.

    I wrote, "I didn't realize you were initimating that marches were the only means of "movement"."

    Let me guess...."online petitions"...."blogging"...and "writing e-mails to Democrats who have already made their positions clear...or Republicans who aren't going to listen to www.notinournames.org"....right?

    Sadly, these avenues are some of the only ones left for dissent.

    I find that tragic and sad even if you don't, Mask.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 2:00pm

  245. B, those railyards will soon be luxury apartments, or? football stadia, if Bloomie had his way

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 2:14pm

  246. I seem to recall a large section of the presidents audience dissenting.

    Posted by Eggplant at 02/02/2006 @ 2:16pm

  247. Johannesrolf-----balanced account-----Your assumption that without the tax cuts that revenue would have been larger may not be correct. The reason for the record revenue is because the economy recovered from a mild recession. The tax cuts may have played a large role in making that recession mild and short. Without the tax cuts the recession may have been longer and deeper thus reducing federal revenues. We are in agreement about increased spending being a problem. Besides the military budget (not a good idea when we are war) what do you want to cut? ------Excuse me GLennc Lemon--I left out the word "at" in the phrase "we are war" --I apologize for may offense. I was doing my taxes while posting. I got somewhat distracted when I determined how much I still owe the federal government. As to you not liking my style of writing--I guess I'll just have to live with it--it will be hard but I'll give it my best effort.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/02/2006 @ 2:16pm

  248. Boy are you an argumentative cuss! ;) Posted by NEW DAWN 02/02/2006 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person

    Always!

    Again, some points---- So Ms Sheehan's right to dissent was "suppressed" by not allowing her to stay in the Gallery with her T-shirt? What ELSE should she have been allowed to do in the name of dissent at the SOTU? I have a feeling (as I said earlier) that "more than just sit there passively" would be the answer.

    And if it WAS just "sitting there passively"...how much "dissent" is that? Would you require the Congressional camera crew to show her? Would failure to show her be "suppression of her right to dissent"?

    I think there is a LOT of disengenuousness going around about the "passivity" of Ms Sheehan at the SOTU, given her past actions.

    As to the rest of your post....if the anti-war movement no longer is on the march (in large numbers like 2002,2003) and they are relegated BY CHOICE (no suppression of march permits that I'VE seen) to "blogging"....and if 50% or more of the Democrats in power ignore them.....what "relevance" do they truly have?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 2:22pm

  249. Johannes, most likely the former. They're popping up all along both sides of the Hudson. Really, though, why use existing infrastructure for the public good when there's millions to be made by private developers?

    Posted by breasonable at 02/02/2006 @ 2:23pm

  250. Eggplant -

    I wasn't talking about the SOTU audience. Mask and I were discussing anti-war dissent in general, and I was referring to the varied "town hall" type of meetings (which I thought was pretty unambiguous), not the shooting down of Bush's Social Security ideas that Democrats stood and applauded.

    Nice try at misdirection, though.

    I would respectfully suggest reading previous posts to keep your comments in context.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 2:23pm

  251. Johannesrolf--------without a restructuring of entitlements no real cut can be done to the budget. Your recommendations (some of which I agree with) would have no real effect. Obviously I disagree with your assertion of an immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Also your assetion that the tax cuts have been debunked as trickle down economics is not relevant to my statement of fact that since the 2003 tax cuts the revenues of the federal budget have increased.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/02/2006 @ 2:23pm

  252. NEW DAWN posits,

    Mask -Boy are you an argumentative cuss! ;)

    NEW DAWN, it is worse than that; namely, MASK is full of shit. You pointed this out earlier in MASK's risible and utterly stupid, Minority Report pretence to know what Cindy Sherman was going to do during the speech. Sheer bullshit, yet MASK makes his usual maneauver when he has no fucking evidence and aserts findings from "thought experiments" about a future he presumes to read with the acuity of Jeanne Fucking Dixon going down on Nostradamus. What a crock of shit. The offensive part of the whole incident in DC was that Mrs. Sherman (and the other woman, the GOP bimbo) were hassled about their shirts when there was no reason (again outside of ther precincts of Dixon-Nostradamus-MASK) to believe they were going to do more than sit and listen. Anyone who belives in appropriately made political expression should find it offensive, anyone who does not should stick a fucking diaper on their head and start ranting about it in Arabic (Al-LIBERTI; JOHN MAASCH; LEN MOSSE, and so on, that's your cue).

    Since MASK likes thought experiments so much, I'll take the liberty of doing my own: MASK, I see via my psychics moaning in the pool, spends all day in the office arguing about whether the water bottle is properly affixed to the fucking cooler thing, challenging all passerbys in the office with projections of what could happen if/when someone careened into the gawdamn device in an of-control-hummer. Annoying in an office; annoying in this virtual place as well ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/02/2006 @ 2:27pm

  253. Mask -

    I believe (and it's only my belief, which means zip) that you argue more to argue and to play devil's advocate more than you are standing on any courage of your convictions.

    You wrote, "So Ms Sheehan's right to dissent was "suppressed" by not allowing her to stay in the Gallery with her T-shirt?"

    Yep, and I've repeatedly stated that it was an overreaction. Congressman Young's wife was also suppressed for expressing a political opinion.

    You wrote "What ELSE should she have been allowed to do in the name of dissent at the SOTU? I have a feeling (as I said earlier) that "more than just sit there passively" would be the answer."

    Just open up a fortune telling booth on Venice Beach and call it a day, man. Your "feelings" on what MIGHT have happened are of less worth than my opinion.

    "And if it WAS just "sitting there passively"...how much "dissent" is that?"

    She's been made the figurehead of dissent by the right and the media with every bit as much fervor as she has tried to make a show of herself. Be real.

    "Would you require the Congressional camera crew to show her? Would failure to show her be "suppression of her right to dissent"?"

    Nope. Silly postulations and attempts at equating these things, Mask. Come on, you're better than this.

    You wrote "As to the rest of your post....if the anti-war movement no longer is on the march (in large numbers like 2002,2003) and they are relegated BY CHOICE (no suppression of march permits that I'VE seen) to "blogging"....and if 50% or more of the Democrats in power ignore them.....what "relevance" do they truly have?"

    It isn't by "choice" so much as not being listened to by their reps (Republicans AND Democrats). I believe I said this before, also. And please stop representing an anti-war momvement as being a strictly Democratic thing. Unless you're saying Republicans are actually pro-war?

    Anti-war sentiments are relevant, Mask, and to both sides. There is no arguing that.

    Me, I'm all for war for the right reasons. Afghanistan? Hell, yes. Iraq, not so much.

    Does that make me anti-war or pro-war?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 2:32pm

  254. Glenn -

    I'm stil lreading your post, but I want to point out politely that it's "Sheehan" before some smartass with ill intent does it. I just mean it as a gentle correction.

    :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 2:34pm

  255. Just another digression for the powerwhores and self-proclaimed original thinkers who believe they're not only free, but actually doing something by approving the words and actions of their masters... They say jump. You say, how high?

    "But how is it that a vague idea so often has the power to unite deeply felt opinions? These opinions, we recall, however deeply they may be felt, are not in continual and pungent contact with the facts they profess to treat. On the unseen environment, Mexico, the European war, our grip is slight though our feeling may be intense. The original pictures and words which aroused it have not anything like the force of the feeling itself. The account of what has happened out of sight and hearing in a place where we have never been, has not and never can have, except briefly as in a dream or fantasy, all the dimensions of reality. But it can arouse all, and sometimes even more emotion than the reality. For the trigger can be pulled by more than one stimulus."

    "The stimulus which originally pulled the trigger may have been a series of pictures in the mind aroused by printed or spoken words. These pictures fade and are hard to keep steady; their contours and their pulse fluctuate. Gradually the process sets in of knowing what you feel without being entirely certain why you feel it. The fading pictures are displaced by other pictures, and then by names or symbols. But the emotion goes on, capable now of being aroused by the substituted images and names. Even in severe thinking these substitutions take place, for if a man is trying to compare two complicated situations, he soon finds exhausting the attempt to hold both fully in mind in all their detail. He employs a shorthand of names and signs and samples. He has to do this if he is to advance at all, because he cannot carry the whole baggage in every phrase through every step he takes. But if he forgets that he has substituted and simplified, he soon lapses into verbalism, and begins to talk about names regardless of objects. And then he has no way of knowing when the name divorced from its first thing is carrying on a misalliance with some other thing. It is more difficult still to guard against changelings in casual politics."

    "For by what is known to psychologists as conditioned response, an emotion is not attached merely to one idea. There are no end of things which can arouse the emotion, and no end of things which can satisfy it. This is particularly true where the stimulus is only dimly and indirectly perceived, and where the objective is likewise indirect. For you can associate an emotion, say fear, first with something immediately dangerous, then with the idea of that thing, then with something similar to that idea, and so on and on. The whole structure of human culture is in one respect an elaboration of the stimuli and responses of which the original emotional capacities remain a fairly fixed center. No doubt the quality of emotion has changed in the course of history, but with nothing like the speed, or elaboration, that has characterized the conditioning of it."

    "People differ widely in their susceptibility to ideas. There are some in whom the idea of a starving child in Russia is practically as vivid as a starving child within sight. There are others who are almost incapable of being excited by a distant idea. There are many gradations between. And there are people who are insensitive to facts, and aroused only by ideas. But though the emotion is aroused by the idea, we are unable to satisfy the emotion by acting ourselves upon the scene itself. The idea of the starving Russian child evokes a desire to feed the child. But the person so aroused cannot feed it. He can only give money to an impersonal organization, or to a personification which he calls Mr. Hoover. His money does not reach that child. It goes to a general pool from which a mass of children are fed. And so just as the idea is second hand, so are the effects of the action second hand. The cognition is indirect, the conation is indirect, only the effect is immediate. Of the three parts of the process, the stimulus comes from somewhere out of sight, the response reaches somewhere out of sight, only the emotion exists entirely within the person. Of the child's hunger he has only an idea, of the child's relief he has only an idea, but of his own desire to help he has a real experience. It is the central fact of the business, the emotion within himself, which is first hand."

    Within limits that vary, the emotion is transferable both as regards stimulus and response. Therefore, if among a number of people, possessing various tendencies to respond, you can find a stimulus which will arouse the same emotion in many of them, you can substitute it for the original stimuli. If, for example, one man dislikes the League, another hates Mr. Wilson, and a third fears labor, you may be able to unite them if you can find some symbol which is the antithesis of what they all hate. Suppose that symbol is Americanism. The first man may read it as meaning the preservation of American isolation, or as he may call it, independence; the second as the rejection of a politician who clashes with his idea of what an American president should be, the third as a call to resist revolution. The symbol in itself signifies literally no one thing in particular, but it can be associated with almost anything. And because of that it can become the common bond of common feelings, even though those feelings were originally attached to disparate ideas.

    "When political parties or newspapers declare for Americanism, Progressivism, Law and Order, Justice, Humanity, they hope to amalgamate the emotion of conflicting factions which would surely divide, if, instead of these symbols, they were invited to discuss a specific program. For when a coalition around the symbol has been effected, feeling flows toward conformity under the symbol rather than toward critical scrutiny of the measures. It is, I think, convenient and technically correct to call multiple phrases like these symbolic. They do not stand for specific ideas, but for a sort of truce or junction between ideas. They are like a strategic railroad center where many roads converge regardless of their ultimate origin or their ultimate destination. But he who captures the symbols by which public feeling is for the moment contained, controls by that much the approaches of public policy. And as long as a particular symbol has the power of coalition, ambitious factions will fight for possession. Think, for example, of Lincoln's name or of Roosevelt's. A leader or an interest that can make itself master of current symbols is master of the current situation. There are limits, of course. Too violent abuse of the actualities which groups of people think the symbol represents, or too great resistance in the name of that symbol to new purposes, will, so to speak, burst the symbol. In this manner, during the year 1917, the imposing symbol of Holy Russia and the Little Father burst under the impact of suffering and defeat."

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 2:35pm

  256. Mosse, a taxcut is an expenditure, compared to no tax cut. receipts have gone up, hurrah, expenditures have gone up more. let's cut education, medical support for oldsters, big mistake, they vote, and poor people, not to worry they don't vote. the socalled pres has not vetoed any spending bill. but cutting programs for the poor was the strategy all along. congressional earmarks, bridges to nowhere we don't cut. rtaising taxes? perish the thought

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 2:36pm

  257. Concerning the Cindy Sheehan arrest at the SOTU address: LET IT GO. Everyone got what they wanted. Those who dislike Bush are happy because that gives them one more thing to fuss about. Those who dislike the far left are happy because she got arrested. Even Cindy is probaby happy with the arrest. A win,win, win situation.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/02/2006 @ 2:40pm

  258. Chimi -

    Interesting, but nothing I didn't already know. Hope it benefits some others here...

    I was with a clinical psychology nurse for some years who constantly ran around psychoanalyzing and quoting the DSM like it was gospel...

    (The DSM is a Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders, for those who don't know)

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 2:41pm

  259. Len Mosse -

    You can "let it go" right to another board. Have you LOOKED at the topic of the board?

    Thinking this event meant happy times for anyone involved is extremely short-sighted and simplistic.

    Don't be stupid.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 2:44pm

  260. One more time on Ms. Sheehan:

    1. Free Speech does not mean anytime, anywhere, and whatever you wish to say or do (ie, you cannot yell fire in a theater when there is no fire). Without some sense of order in society we merely have anarchy (not that some of you wouldn't mind that condition).

    2. It is now obvious what was previously assumed about the nature of Ms Sheehan being at the SOTU. Rep's Woolsey and Lee (especially Ms Woolsey) had set up this up hoping to stir up trouble. If you think I'm misstating the facts, in Cindy Sheehan's post which someone posted here, she notes herself that Lynn Woolsey called the media to tell them Sheehan would be in the Gallery.

    This just shows how far the left wants to go to enact politics by shananigans rather than political dialogue. It also demonstrates that Ms Sheehan is either easily manipulated or a willing participant in this type of politics. Either way, it runs counter to civil society.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 2:48pm

  261. If a tax cut is always an expenditure then why did receipts go up after 2003? You continue to go on the assumption that the economy remains the same if you cut taxes or raise taxes. This is just not true. Fiscal policy directly effects consumer behavior. Tax cutting (to a point) can spur the economy into growth thus increasing tax receipts. This has nothing to do with trickle down economics which we can debate at another time. Also your assertion that a tax cut is an expenditure implies that the money belongs to the government and not the tax payers. A tax cut allows tax payers to keep more of their money. I do agree with you that Bush should have vetoed some of the pork filled spending bills. I have repeatedly stated that the President should be given the line item veto (amendment needed) so that we could truly hold the President accountable for out of control deficit spending.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/02/2006 @ 2:49pm

  262. Speaking of mental disorders, here's LOVE LIBERTY.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 2:49pm

  263. NEW DAWN,

    Yes, you are right. Cindy Sherman is a photographer of great note, hence the slip.

    Welcome aboard with your insights and clear prose/thinking.

    Best Regards, G.C.L.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/02/2006 @ 2:51pm

  264. The truth can be painful,

    Whether hugging dictator Hugo Chavez as part of a publicity stunt, hawking copies of her book, or slandering America -- "this country is not worth dying for" -- Sheehan continues to disgrace our troops (friends and family of mine included) by pandering to the lowest common denominator of the radical Left.

    She remains a media whore in the very same brothel occupied by Michael Moore et al.

    Apparently, her family agrees:

    "The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

    Posted by Beausoleil at 02/02/2006 @ 2:53pm

  265. New Dawn---I don't believe a lesson on limitations of free speech need be given at this time. I am sure that almost all on this board are familiar with them. Cindy Sheehan got what she wanted---arrested, headlines, and the continued support from the far left community.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/02/2006 @ 2:53pm

  266. the same brothel as your mom, soleil?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 2:55pm

  267. Mosse, you are assuming that Sheehan wanted to be arrested, you have no way of knowing that.

    back to economics, the tax cuts far outstrip the increase in revenue, hence deficits as far as the eye can see, your kids will be paying for this, as will mine

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 2:57pm

  268. Liberty -

    Back and full of shit as ever.

    "1. Free Speech does not mean anytime, anywhere, and whatever you wish to say or do (ie, you cannot yell fire in a theater when there is no fire). Without some sense of order in society we merely have anarchy (not that some of you wouldn't mind that condition)."

    What the hell are you blathering about? What does any of this have to do with the topic? And why do you insist on smearing others, even if have to do it generically? Who here has advocated anarchy???

    "2. It is now obvious what was previously assumed about the nature of Ms Sheehan being at the SOTU. Rep's Woolsey and Lee (especially Ms Woolsey) had set up this up hoping to stir up trouble. If you think I'm misstating the facts, in Cindy Sheehan's post which someone posted here, she notes herself that Lynn Woolsey called the media to tell them Sheehan would be in the Gallery."

    You sure assume a lot, or is one of your gifts also that of precognition? Or are you and Mask going in together on a fortune-telling booth on Venice Beach? (Apologies to Mask for lumping you with this guy - that was low even for me - I just did it for the punchline)

    "This just shows how far the left wants to go to enact politics by shananigans rather than political dialogue. It also demonstrates that Ms Sheehan is either easily manipulated or a willing participant in this type of politics. Either way, it runs counter to civil society."

    YOU just show how ridiculous and paranoid some people can be, regardless of the facts. You're a shining example of one easily manipulated by your beliefs and yet you have the balls and gall to vilify others for being dedicated to theirs???

    Suggest you read the rest of Sheehan's own words on the event (in their entirety instead of cherry-picking) ---

    Never mind. I keep forgetting that CHERRY-PICKING is what you do BEST.

    How about that "Bring it on" thing?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 2:58pm

  269. AL-LIBERTI is in the house:

    1. Free Speech does not mean anytime, anywhere, and whatever you wish to say or do (ie, you cannot yell fire in a theater when there is no fire). Without some sense of order in society we merely have anarchy (not that some of you wouldn't mind that condition).

    Dah, no shit, you pompous clown. Death threats are, for example, not protected speech but criminal acts in themselves. So what about a tee-shirt with Bush's VanityWar body count on the US side?

    Also: You have been studiously avoiding my earlier question about ass cleavage. I'll ask again: Do you like ass cleavage? Is it protected speech? Does ass cleavage make your spine tingle --- or does it make you want to go all Taliban? Or both at the same time?

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/02/2006 @ 2:58pm

  270. New Dawn, I seem to recall you telling me that the discussion was not the state of the union. I am sorry for thinking earlier that you were on topic.

    Posted by Eggplant at 02/02/2006 @ 2:58pm

  271. Chimi and others who contributed on the mass transit subject:

    It may surprise some of you but I heartily endorse more development of mass transit in the US. I worked on a project in the late 80's to develop a Maglev train for LA. Our company was involved with the propulsion engineering side. Unfortunately, a combination of negative lobbying and cowardly County and City officials killed the project.

    I would add that out here in the Western States, there are still many of us for whom mass transit just isn't practical. I live far from the Urban centers. On any given day, I will travel 200-300 miles visiting my clients. I utilize telephone and email whenever possible, but much of what I do requires me to be in front of the client for signatures and to often carry several boxes of materials in addition to my laptop.

    For those in sales like myself, I just don't see any technology on the horizon that will eliminate my current travel requirements.

    I travel weekly to Las Vegas to my other office and for years now they have been promising a bullet train to LV. Now they say they will have it in place by 2020. Well, that's way beyond my retirement, but good news if it happens for future generations.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 2:59pm

  272. Also: You have been studiously avoiding my earlier question about ass cleavage. I'll ask again: Do you like ass cleavage? Is it protected speech? Does ass cleavage make your spine tingle --- or does it make you want to go all Taliban? Or both at the same time?

    Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 02/02/2006 @ 2:58pm

    Glenn,

    Why should I respond to vulgarities? It has nothing to do with political dialogue and beneath most civilized speech.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 3:00pm

  273. Thanks, Glenn.

    And Len? You just made clear for me what you're about. As a fellow American, I'll still listen to you, but I'll take you with a grain of salt from now on.

    Seems to me you "got what you wanted", too. An opportunity to spit a little venom at Sheehan and the left.

    Bully for you, big guy.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 3:00pm

  274. LL,

    I guess there's no manipulation whatsoever when Bush screens all those who attend his speeches, or demands they sign a waiver stating they'll vote Republican as he did last year, or only giving speeches on the war at military bases. Yeah, that's really democratic and transparent. I guess your kind of politics are more akin to dictatorship. One train of thought, no discussion, debate or dissent.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 3:01pm

  275. Eggplant -

    Mask and I both followed the natural progression of our conversation about T-Shirtgate and moved on to dissent in general. I was responding in kind, and we were having a fairly pleasant discourse while disagreeing politely.

    I will suggest again as politely as possible that you read previous posts to keep your comments in context.

    Or if you wish to continue to be a sarcastic ass, we can take this in an entirely new direction...

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 3:06pm

  276. YOU just show how ridiculous and paranoid some people can be, regardless of the facts. You're a shining example of one easily manipulated by your beliefs and yet you have the balls and gall to vilify others for being dedicated to theirs???

    Suggest you read the rest of Sheehan's own words on the event (in their entirety instead of cherry-picking) ---

    Never mind. I keep forgetting that CHERRY-PICKING is what you do BEST.

    How about that "Bring it on" thing?

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/02/2006 @ 2:58pm

    New Dawn,

    From reading your posts since you joined us, I hardly believe you are that naive about political shenanigans. If you want to make these kinds of statements just to be contrary, well, that is your perogative. It is hardly honest.

    As to the anarchists; we have had a number of folks post here in the past 8 months who are favorable to the anarchist movement. I would suggest your comment is more exemplive of cherry picking than anything I have said.

    On Ms Sheehan, I listen to most everything she says or writes, and who she associates with. I am well aware of her attitudes including lying, duplicity, and a long standing hatred of America. If you observe the habits and patterns of an individual, over time you can come to some fairly accurate assumptions about their behavior.

    As to Bring it on--I was not aware you meant anything by it other than you wished to challenge everything written by me. I did not assume it required some direct response.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 3:11pm

  277. New Dawn, Your posts make sarcasm irrisistable since even when you try your best to be polite, you label me an ass and make some sort of threat...

    Posted by Eggplant at 02/02/2006 @ 3:13pm

  278. Love Liberty,

    You never answered my questions. . . .

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/02/2006 @ 3:14pm

  279. I hope you are not engaged in a "cut and run"?

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/02/2006 @ 3:15pm

  280. GLENN

    My degree of "full of shitness" may be debated....But atleast I'm sure of what Ms SHEEHAN's name is....

    "what Cindy Sherman was going to do during the speech."

    Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 02/02/2006 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 3:17pm

  281. LL

    1. Free Speech does not mean anytime, anywhere, and whatever you wish to say or do (ie, you cannot yell fire in a theater when there is no fire).

    Wearing a T-shirt with a slogan is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The latter would result in instant mayhem, injury, loss of life, etc. At most, the T-shirt would be an attention grabber, the situations are hardly comparable.

    It is now obvious what was previously assumed about the nature of Ms Sheehan being at the SOTU. Rep's Woolsey and Lee (especially Ms Woolsey) had set up this up hoping to stir up trouble.

    Regardless of what Ms. Sheehan may have wanted, it was the decision of the Capitol Police (for which they later apologized) to remove and arrest her. You still have no basis for believe that she was going to shout out or anything like that. If she was hoping to get in a camera shot with the T-shirt, that is hardly disruptive, TV coverage does camera shots of the audience all the time and a mere transmission of the image of the T-shirt is hardly a disruption warranting ejection.

    This just shows how far the left wants to go to enact politics by shananigans rather than political dialogue. It also demonstrates that Ms Sheehan is either easily manipulated or a willing participant in this type of politics. Either way, it runs counter to civil society.

    How does it possibly? A visual stunt, if you want to put it that way, is no more counter to civil society than the type of visual framing that politicians regularly do (for example, the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op).

    Mask

    Again, some points---- So Ms Sheehan's right to dissent was "suppressed" by not allowing her to stay in the Gallery with her T-shirt? What ELSE should she have been allowed to do in the name of dissent at the SOTU? I have a feeling (as I said earlier) that "more than just sit there passively" would be the answer. And if it WAS just "sitting there passively"...how much "dissent" is that? Would you require the Congressional camera crew to show her? Would failure to show her be "suppression of her right to dissent"?

    No one here has said that she should've been permitted to do more than just sit there. It is not incumbent on the TV networks to do a visual of the T-shirt and that would not be suppression. The use of govt. physical force to eject her was. As to the "how much" question, it is as much dissent as would be appropriate/permissable under the circumstances.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 3:20pm

  282. Liberty -

    It's tough to even take you seriously.

    "From reading your posts since you joined us, I hardly believe you are that naive about political shenanigans. If you want to make these kinds of statements just to be contrary, well, that is your perogative. It is hardly honest."

    You're trying to imply that --I-- am dishonest??? Anyone here agree with that assessment? ANYONE on either side of the aisle, even if you don't like me or my views? ANYONE think I've been dishonest? And I wasn't taking exception to the "shenaningans" comment, cherry-picker. I take exception to your hypocrisy.

    (You're a shining example of one easily manipulated by your beliefs and yet you have the balls and gall to vilify others for being dedicated to theirs???)

    "As to the anarchists; we have had a number of folks post here in the past 8 months who are favorable to the anarchist movement. I would suggest your comment is more exemplive of cherry picking than anything I have said."

    Show me ONE example. Just one.

    "On Ms Sheehan, I listen to most everything she says or writes, and who she associates with. I am well aware of her attitudes including lying, duplicity, and a long standing hatred of America. If you observe the habits and patterns of an individual, over time you can come to some fairly accurate assumptions about their behavior."

    If I used your logic, Liberty, I'd say I've come to know you pretty well, and that you exemplify cowardice, duplicity, and a long standing hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with you and your belief system. Try to tell me that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your beliefs isn't doomed to an eternity of pain and fire.

    I don't think Sheehan hates America at all, but I believe she hates a whole hell of a lot of its policies. Whether she's right or wrong is not my decision, nor is it really my concern.

    "As to Bring it on--I was not aware you meant anything by it other than you wished to challenge everything written by me. I did not assume it required some direct response."

    You coward. You repugnant coward. You know exactly what that was about and again, you feign some sort of hat-in-hand innocence.

    You said that Bush looking under a desk for nonexistent WMD's and joking about it when American soldiers were dying looking for the real thing was an amusing self-parody on Bush's part. I said it was insensitive and sick and that you must not talk to many soldiers (paraphrasing).

    As if I wasn't looking for a response... yeah, right. You ducking, shifting, jiving COWARD.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 3:25pm

  283. Egg-

    Come up with something substantive or leave me alone.

    Deal?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 3:26pm

  284. I guess there's no manipulation whatsoever when Bush screens all those who attend his speeches, or demands they sign a waiver stating they'll vote Republican as he did last year, or only giving speeches on the war at military bases. Yeah, that's really democratic and transparent. I guess your kind of politics are more akin to dictatorship. One train of thought, no discussion, debate or dissent.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/02/2006 @ 3:01pm

    Chimi,

    You simply have to quit relying upon your far left websites for all of your "facts".

    I have attended events that the President spoke at. We never had to sign any waiver such as you imply. Also, the president often (but not always) speaks to military oriented crowds about the war because this means more to them than anyone else and who should have more right than those folks to hear him out?

    Furthermore, the facts don't really bear you out. This week since the SOTU, Bush spoke at the Grand Ol Oprey in Memphis, today at the 3M company in Minnesota. These are hardly military bases. Last year, I heard him speak at the Mission Inn (a hotel that is part of a historic California Mission).

    Let's clear up one more misconception you seem to have. A speech appearance is when interested parties agree to hear someone speak on issues of interest to them. There is sometimes questions afterward, but it is not the primary purpose of the event.

    A debate is where two or more parties agree to debate opposing positions on an issue or issues.

    Trying to mix the two entirely different subjects is a common attempt by liberals bring confusion and contempt rather than acceptance of the norms of a civil society.

    I'm not aware that we have banned dissent or protest in this country within the boundaries of our laws and civil discourse. To go outside of these self imposed societal restraints is to open up to anarchy (just for you New Dawn).

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 3:26pm

  285. NEW DAWN-

    "And please stop representing an anti-war momvement as being a strictly Democratic thing."

    Aside from Pat Buchanan and maybe Lincoln Chaffee, I know few Republicans even close to joining up with "CODEPINK"....and since there are NO "Green Party" or "Workers' Party" members in Congress, I doubt if the anti-war movement has any other options for which party affiliation to try to appeal to for changes.

    I also would doubt, given the low turn-out for Ralph Nader in 2004, that many of them "stuck to their principles" and did NOT vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. Kerry.

    Actually, the anti-war movement is a SUB-set of the Democratic Party by and large...given that there ARE Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, who still refuse to sign off on any "pull-out quick" options put forward by the anti-war groups.

    and back to Ms Sheehan, here's a "thought experiment" for you and GLENN---

    Suppose a Democrat President had enacted a permanent "right to abortion" amendment to the Constitution...and "Candy Sherman", whose daughter "Katie" had died in a botched, but legal abortion, was launching a vigil outside of Camp David....chained herself to the White House...called abortion doctors "Nazis"...aligned herself with Operation: Rescue extremists....and then showed up in the Gallery at that Democrat President's SOTU at the invitation of a vehement opponent of the President, with a "bloody fetus" T-shirt on....and the Cap Police had hustled her out before the speech started.

    How many of "The Nation" writers....or leftist friends of "freedom to dissent" would have been "outraged"? And how many of them would have had a "feeling" (as I did on this) that she would have "done more than just sit there"?

    (BTW....this is an example....and as I've stated on many occasions...I'm pro-choice!)

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 3:30pm

  286. Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2006 @ 3:20pm | ignore this person

    I'll simply ask you too to comment on the "thought experiment" I outlined to NEW DAWN.

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 3:31pm

  287. new dawn, some fine pugilistic posts, let 'em have it

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 3:34pm

  288. aligned herself with Operation: Rescue extremists....and then showed up in the Gallery at that Democrat President's SOTU at the invitation of a vehement opponent of the President, with a "bloody fetus" T-shirt on....and the Cap Police had hustled her out before the speech started.

    How many of "The Nation" writers....or leftist friends of "freedom to dissent" would have been "outraged"? And how many of them would have had a "feeling" (as I did on this) that she would have "done more than just sit there"?

    I can't speak for what other bloggers/posters would've done but my answer would be the same. Until she actually starts making a disruption, here presence there (as an invitee of a Representative) is legal and you can't arrest someone for what you think they might do (do you have any actual proof of a conspiracy?). At most, a measure of caution in the form of keeping a couple of cops in close proximity is justified.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 3:38pm

  289. hypotheticals, and shoddy reasoning, old rhetorical trick, no sale

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 3:40pm

  290. You coward. You repugnant coward. You know exactly what that was about and again, you feign some sort of hat-in-hand innocence.

    You said that Bush looking under a desk for nonexistent WMD's and joking about it when American soldiers were dying looking for the real thing was an amusing self-parody on Bush's part. I said it was insensitive and sick and that you must not talk to many soldiers (paraphrasing).

    As if I wasn't looking for a response... yeah, right. You ducking, shifting, jiving COWARD.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/02/2006 @ 3:25pm

    New Dawn,

    It is almost tempting to engage in a long back and forth with you. However, your attitudes, duplicity, and manipulative behavior just doesn't merit it. You can say that I am some coward for refusing to play your games. It matters not. You are stuck in some time warp of vitriolic hatred (even though you deny it, which only makes it worse).

    Let someone else waste time with your nonsense. Even Chimi who can barely contain his contempt for me at times is a better opponent at real dialogue.

    It is a shame because when you first began posting, I thought there was some opportunity for real debate. My mistake.

    And just for a last response. I did note in response that the soldiers I had spoken to found Bush's comments funny. You or someone else disagreed saying you had a different experience. Just for the record, the soldiers were Marines from Camp Pendleton. They were from one of my son's unit. They and my son, all whom went to Iraq found it funny. They understood that the event was one in which presidents historically poke fun at themselves and that the President had done just that. It is no different than the type of humor we often used about Johnson and then Nixon ourselves during Nam.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 3:41pm

  291. since when is hatred of america a crime? this from people who hate humanity

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 3:42pm

  292. LIBERTY,

    OK, I guess Bush doesn't give the majority of his speeches on bases, and I guess he doesn't avoid press conferences like the plague. He's given less than even Nixon, who as you know harbored a strong hatred for the media. As for Sheehan having a long history of hating America, you're smoking crack there, pendejo. How about proving that one, Chief? How honest and noble of you and your craven cohorts to accuse someone of anti-Americanism for a simple difference of opinion, whether that opinion is in the form of a t-shirt, interview, or other species of self-expression. So I guess I'm an infidel because I think you suck, I'm anti-Christian, right? You have a lot of nerve equating her dissent with hatred, but I guess this is what comes from believing yourself some kind of demigod on a mission to convert the backwards masses of the Filipino hinterland into maleable monkeys in your own image, or those of your corrupt organization, which obviously never sends you into the field anymore, since you're always wetting your pants here on this blog.

    Funny you should criticize her for visiting Chavez and expressing solidarity with Venezuela. I guess it would have been better if she was more like your assclown hero Pat Robertson who suggested killing the man, that would be more patriotic and in keeping with your sacred religion. Go ride a bike with no seat you serpent.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 3:43pm

  293. She was removed for being a disruption, not because of what the shirt said.

    Again, freedom of speech does not entitle you to a podium and an audience.

    Protesters can't wait to get arrested.

    Cindy, your 15 minutes are up. Go home and bake some cookies and mail them to the troops in Iraq.

    Do something useful.

    Posted by Zamfeer at 02/02/2006 @ 3:50pm

  294. Mask

    ....if the anti-war movement no longer is on the march (in large numbers like 2002,2003) and they are relegated BY CHOICE (no suppression of march permits that I'VE seen) to "blogging"....and if 50% or more of the Democrats in power ignore them.....what "relevance" do they truly have?

    First, I'd like to know what basis you have for saying that the numbers in 2005 were lower than the numbers in 2002-3. You might want to look up this article on Wikpedia and then follow the citations (to get the orig. sources) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war

    I followed one to a Washington Post story on the September 2005 demonstration. The article started: "Tens of thousands of people packed downtown Washington yesterday and marched past the White House ,b.in the largest show of antiwar sentiment in the nation's capital since the conflict in Iraq began" with estimates ranging from 150,000 to 300,000.(emphasis added) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR200509 2401701.html

    Second, given that polls suggest that half of the country thinks the war isn't working out, how is the anti-war movement marginalized. ABC/WaPo poll of 1/23-26--"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" Worth Fighting--44%, Not Worth Fighting--55% and the latter has been at 50% of higher since September. CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll of 1/20-22--"Next, we'd like to ask you some questions about Iraq. First: In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?" Made a Mistake--51%, Did Not Make a Mistake--46%

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 3:51pm

  295. Liberty-

    "It is almost tempting to engage in a long back and forth with you."

    But you wouldn't dare do that, since I regularly eviscerate your horseshit and expose it for what it is. You run and duck and dodge instead and we've all watched you do it.

    "However, your attitudes, duplicity, and manipulative behavior just doesn't merit it."

    Are you talking to yourself in a mirror? You sure ain't describing me.

    "You can say that I am some coward for refusing to play your games."

    I can and did. And they're only "games" when you don't have a response...

    "You are stuck in some time warp of vitriolic hatred (even though you deny it, which only makes it worse)."

    Deny that I "hate" you? I sure do deny that. But I'll admit you piss me off and irritate me to no end. Same thing? I don't think so.

    "Let someone else waste time with your nonsense. Even Chimi who can barely contain his contempt for me at times is a better opponent at real dialogue."

    Chimi can't stand you, either!!! LOL And you may be right, he may be just better at containing his contempt for you than I am!!

    Coward.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 3:54pm

  296. Zamfeer

    She was removed for being a disruption, not because of what the shirt said.

    Again, freedom of speech does not entitle you to a podium and an audience.

    Protesters can't wait to get arrested.

    Wrong, there is nothing inherently disruptive about a T-shirt. I would also remind you that the Capitol Police have apologized for ejecting her and Mrs. Young. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-State-of-Union-Sheehan.html? _r=1&oref=slogin

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 3:54pm

  297. My name is George Walker Bush, and I piss my pants at the sight of Cindy Sheehan.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 02/02/2006 @ 3:54pm

  298. zamFEAR,

    Let put this to you in simple language.

    Cindy was not being disruptive. She was not asked to cover up her shirt she was removed, arrested, processed and released. No resist. No arguments. No nothing.

    The other woman was (by police accounts) somewhat "disruptive". She was removed but not arrested.

    Why is there a difference?

    My position is that there is and should be a "dress code". The enforcement of that dresscode should be ejection....not arrest (in my opinion), but in either case the enforceemnt should be equal.

    Does that make any sense to you Bushies?

    If it does then either the arrest of Cindy was wrongful or the non arrest on the other woman was wrongful.

    Take your pick.

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/02/2006 @ 3:56pm

  299. >>Wrong, there is nothing inherently disruptive about a T-shirt

    Really?

    So if somebody showed up at a NAACP rally wearing a t-shirt that had 'KKK' and a picutre of a lynching on it, that would be OK with you?

    Posted by Zamfeer at 02/02/2006 @ 3:56pm

  300. Posted by ZAMFEER 02/02/2006 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person

    "She was removed for being a disruption, not because of what the shirt said."

    She didn't disrupt anything.

    "Again, freedom of speech does not entitle you to a podium and an audience."

    She didn't get a podium and an audience during the topic in question.

    "Protesters can't wait to get arrested."

    True, but she wasn't protesting at the time, she was removing an arm from her coat.

    On a positive note, Zamfeer, I commend you for being calm and not getting personal with anybody. You're being nicer and more measured than me today.

    :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 3:57pm

  301. Zamfeer -

    Racist and hate speech is a horse of a different color. Even I would readily admit to that, and I'm sure many others here would, too.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 3:58pm

  302. Zamfeer

    So if somebody showed up at a NAACP rally wearing a t-shirt that had 'KKK' and a picutre of a lynching on it, that would be OK with you?

    Okay, no; defensible free speech, yes. The problem is that you're defending the doctrine of the heckler's veto, that if someone what get violent over speech, that that is a rationale for censoring the speech--it isn't.

    New Dawn

    Racist and hate speech is a horse of a different color. Even I would readily admit to that, and I'm sure many others here would, too.

    Not as far as what constitutes free speech is concerned. I wouldn't, and i hope that the majority of posters wouldn't either. Incidentally, SCOTUS didn't either, in the opinion R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/377.html

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 4:02pm

  303. Does anyone here know what intellectual honesty is?

    She was invited by a politician we knew she would do something to get arrested/removed/whatever and end up in the headlines.

    Her GOAL was to get hauled out of there in handcuffs for doing as little as possible to make Bush look bad.

    Mission accomplished.

    The reason the cops have a short fuse with her is because she has a history.

    If I had a history of starting fights on airlplanes and then got on an airplane and cocked my fist back, the air marshalls would haul me and in handcuffs and I would go 'duh, I didnt hit anybody'.

    Come on.

    Posted by Zamfeer at 02/02/2006 @ 4:04pm

  304. Zamfeer

    Does anyone here know what intellectual honesty is?

    She was invited by a politician we knew she would do something to get arrested/removed/whatever and end up in the headlines.

    Her GOAL was to get hauled out of there in handcuffs for doing as little as possible to make Bush look bad.

    Does anyone know what a substanceless, conclusory statement is? You have no proof whatsoever that her goal was anything but wearing the T-shirt and hoping it would get noticed? Repeating it time and again doesn't constitute proof. Secondly, she didn't do anything but wear the T-shirt. Finally, you haven't addressed the point that the Capitol Police have now apologized for the action.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 4:08pm

  305. zamFEAR,

    In other words, like your name suggests, you're yellow bellied and panty waisted enough to be so scared of what she MIGHT do that you'll pre-empt......sounds like a chicken shit President that I know!

    Get a set of balls you wimp.

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/02/2006 @ 4:08pm

  306. MASK:

    Your "thought experiment" is not generating much intellectual activity. I suggest an alternative:

    Switch "Kosovo" for "Iraq" and "Clinton" for "Bush". What would the conservatives be saying about Cindy Sheehan?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2006 @ 4:08pm

  307. If I had a history of starting fights on airlplanes and then got on an airplane and cocked my fist back, the air marshalls would haul me and in handcuffs and I would go 'duh, I didnt hit anybody'.

    Further, cocking a fist is inherently an act threatening violence, wearing a T-shirt is not inherently an act suggesting that one is going to heckle the President.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 4:09pm

  308. LL,

    Do you honestly believe that it is treason to disagree with the policies of your government? Do you believe the Founding Fathers espoused this idea in their writings? Can a person not be a patriot unless they back their country, even in its darkest most atrocious hour? By this standard, the Nazis were heroes, as they followed their leader down a road to 20th century hell.

    What is wrong with you? I'm serious, do you have the crazies today? You better just remember to shut your big fucking mouth next time the Dems are in power, otherwise, you might just be guilty of anti-Americanism, duplicity, mendacity and overall heresy. Hell, if your fireman son happened to be one of the guys killed in Somalia, and you cursed Clinton for going to Somalia in the first place, criticized all his foreign policy decisions, made public rants against the excursion, ect, I'd understand that you were angry over your son's death, that it had profoundly changed your life forever, perhaps destroying you for good, made you suspicious of your government, and that you probably were not going to get over it any time soon, especially if Clinton continued to send your son's comrades into Mogadishu on a fool's mission.

    And you know damn well you'd have plenty of Clinton's detractors to give you ideas and bring you out on stage to do their bidding, letting people know the reality of war via your personal, tragic experience. Or would you just shut your mouth and wait for the broken body of your son delivered to you in the dead of night, wrapped in a flag that supposedly justified his early and needless demise?

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 4:10pm

  309. Brunowe -

    Admittedly, I wasn't speaking from a legal standpoint, but a personal one.

    I personally would have found Zamfeer's example of racist or hate speech an NAACP meeting a horse of a different color (meaning more morally and ethically repugnant) than either a shirt showing the number of dead American troops or a shirt supporting the war in Iraq at the SOTU. I should have been more specific.

    Sorry about that, all.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 4:11pm

  310. Who cares if they apologize?

    If I am Cindy Sheehan, I have two possible outcomes.

    1) Get arrested for doing 'nothing' by jack-booted warmongers, be in the headlines the next morning, get on some talk shows, sue and maybe get some money, add a new chapter to my inevitable book deal, and watch donations to my web site spike.

    2) Have to sit through a boring 51 minute speech. Go home. Get up the next morning and watch 'Fox and Friends'.

    I am sure she was hoping for #1.

    Posted by Zamfeer at 02/02/2006 @ 4:11pm

  311. Yeah! Who cares if her and Mrs. Young's rights were violated and that Sheehan was subjected to a false arrest.

    Who cares???

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 4:13pm

  312. ZAMFEER, punching people on airplanes is against the law. Being a vocal critic of a president acting illegally is not.

    Let's pretend Cindy Sheehan were German. And she lived back in the 1930s. Suppose she wore a t-shirt to a Hitler speech (pre-invasions) that said, "Why are we discriminating against Jews?" She would have been hauled out and arrested. We would say that she would have been a hero and a prophetess. How is Cindy any different. (This hypothetical also raises some scary similarities between the two regimes...yikes).

    Posted by BlueTexan at 02/02/2006 @ 4:13pm

  313. Who cares if they apologize?

    Right, who cares about the facts?

    If I am Cindy Sheehan, I have two possible outcomes.

    1) Get arrested for doing 'nothing' by jack-booted warmongers, be in the headlines the next morning, get on some talk shows, sue and maybe get some money, add a new chapter to my inevitable book deal, and watch donations to my web site spike.

    2) Have to sit through a boring 51 minute speech. Go home. Get up the next morning and watch 'Fox and Friends'.

    I am sure she was hoping for #1.

    It doesn't matter what you think she was hoping for, the decision to arrest her was in the hands of the Capitol Police, who had no business doing anything as long as she was just sitting there (which incidentally, is doing 'nothing').

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 4:15pm

  314. Perhaps 'hauling her out in handcuffs' was excessive, but she understood the no-slogan rule and broke it.

    I am not sure that given the number of people there the cops have to deal with, they should be cutting anybody any slack when they knowingly break the rules.

    Frankly, I amused at all the subjective interpretations of what is offensive and what is not.

    'KKK' is inflammatory and inciteful. Anti-war messages on t-shirts are not.

    Again, subject matter is irrelevant. There were rules, she (and that other lady) broke them. Yeah, she got the 'platinum' edition of being ejected by the cops. Big deal.

    Posted by Zamfeer at 02/02/2006 @ 4:17pm

  315. new dawn,

    i think mr. nichols discussed beverly in this post before you did. and this incident has been discussed in other threads of the nation's blogs in which you took part.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 4:18pm

  316. >>>ZAMFEER, punching people on airplanes is against the law. Being a vocal critic of a president acting illegally is not.

    See previous reference: Freedom of speech entitles you to neither a podium or an audience. She can go wear her shirt out at the street corner and say whatever to whoever. I am the worlds biggest fan of the 1st amendment (and 2nd amendment) but there is such a things as 'rules' in some places. If you cuss like a sailor in a courtroom they'll haul you out. Even if you do so in a civil tone.

    Posted by Zamfeer at 02/02/2006 @ 4:20pm

  317. Perhaps 'hauling her out in handcuffs' was excessive, but she understood the no-slogan rule and broke it.

    There doesn't appear to have been an actual rule, just an assumption that people wouldn't wear slogans to a SOTU (thus, perhaps the T-shirts could've been criticized on ettiquette grounds). The Capitol Police Chief said "Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts" http://www.nytimes.com/aponline /national/AP-State-of-Union-Sheehan.html

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 4:23pm

  318. Frankly, I amused at all the subjective interpretations of what is offensive and what is not.

    'KKK' is inflammatory and inciteful. Anti-war messages on t-shirts are not.

    Again, constitutionally there is no difference. I, and I think most people, would be more offended by an anti-war t-shirt than a KKK t-shirt, but legally there's no difference.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 4:26pm

  319. I can't believe these neocons are angered over a simple fact painted on a t-shirt at the SOTU, yet weren't bothered one bit by the Swift Boat ads, which claimed Kerry was a coward, even though he was wounded in combat in Vietnam, a war he could have evaded as easy as Bush and Cheney. These same fuckpuppets probably also see no problem with calling Max Cleland an anti-American coward, despite leaving three limbs behind in Vietnam. Appropriate? You sleezeballs don't follow ANY rules of decency and decorum. You're all hypocrites for your criticisms, and have no right to call her a pawn when no one manipulates the common Americano for thier own twisted self-interest like the Repubs do.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 4:26pm

  320. There doesn't appear to have been an actual rule, just an assumption that people wouldn't wear slogans to a SOTU (thus, perhaps the T-shirts could've been criticized on ettiquette ....

    >>

    Then who exactly are you all mad at? Bush?

    I am pretty sure the Capitol police are just cops thinking they are doing their jobs. Many have worked there for multiple administrations and are apolitical, like the secret service.

    Sound to me like they just erred on the side of caution during an event when they had little time to think about it, and then apologized later when they did the postmortem.

    You should applaud their candor.

    Posted by Zamfeer at 02/02/2006 @ 4:27pm

  321. I applaud their candor, but clearly they should've clarified their procedures beforehand. It gives me no comfort that police officers don't know when they can arrest someone.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 4:28pm

  322. Loki -

    You are ABSOLUTELY correct. I stand corrected.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 4:31pm

  323. Brunowe -

    I'm a little surprised to hear you say that you would be more offended by an anti-war shirt than a KKK shirt.

    No offense intended, I'm just genuinely surprised to hear you feel that way.

    I still say you're entitled to that opinion.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 4:34pm

  324. Do you honestly believe that it is treason to disagree with the policies of your government? Do you believe the Founding Fathers espoused this idea in their writings? Can a person not be a patriot unless they back their country, even in its darkest most atrocious hour? By this standard, the Nazis were heroes, as they followed their leader down a road to 20th century hell.

    What is wrong with you? I'm serious, do you have the crazies today? You better just remember to shut your big fucking mouth next time the Dems are in power, otherwise, you might just be guilty of anti-Americanism, duplicity, mendacity and overall heresy. Hell, if your fireman son happened to be one of the guys killed in Somalia, and you cursed Clinton for going to Somalia in the first place, criticized all his foreign policy decisions, made public rants against the excursion, ect, I'd understand that you were angry over your son's death, that it had profoundly changed your life forever, perhaps destroying you for good, made you suspicious of your government, and that you probably were not going to get over it any time soon, especially if Clinton continued to send your son's comrades into Mogadishu on a fool's mission.

    And you know damn well you'd have plenty of Clinton's detractors to give you ideas and bring you out on stage to do their bidding, letting people know the reality of war via your personal, tragic experience. Or would you just shut your mouth and wait for the broken body of your son delivered to you in the dead of night, wrapped in a flag that supposedly justified his early and needless demise?

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/02/2006 @ 4:10pm

    Chimi,

    When have I ever said that I was against free speech? Have I ever said that people were not allowed to disagree with the policies of the government? Of course not. Stating that a civil society provides a time and a place for protest or debate is not the same as prohibiting it. What seems to be appropo for many on this site is that anytime, anyplace is appropriate for dissent, even if it steps on the rights of others. Yet, liberals would be outraged if conservatives behaved in the same manner.

    There is so much opportunity for dissent in the US that it is ludicrous to suggest that anyone is being prevented from exercising their first amendment rights.

    As to the example of my son, I'm surprised given our previous dialogue that you would even suggest it. You know that I have previously stated that I supported Clinton on Kosovo because he was the Commander-in-Chief. Likewise Somalia where we suffered due to poor planning and execution, not becaue Clinton made a mistake sending troops there. I would never have gotten angry over my son's death, because that is the nature of being a soldier. We all enlisted knowing that we could die in service to our country.

    And a last reminder re a future Democratic president using this type of power. I would remind you that I enlisted under a Democratic President with full enthusiasm and unrestricted support even though I was a Republican.

    I hope that makes my position clear. I have supported every president engaged in military action. I would never hold a president personally responsible for the death of a son or other family member who willingly served their nation and their president.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 4:35pm

  325. Brunowe -

    I'm a little surprised to hear you say that you would be more offended by an anti-war shirt than a KKK shirt.

    No offense intended, I'm just genuinely surprised to hear you feel that way.

    I still say you're entitled to that opinion.

    AAUUUUGGGHHHH!!!!!! I got that ass-backwards. I DID mean it the other way. I go in the corner with my dunce cap (slowly, of course, as both my feet are in my mouth)

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 4:39pm

  326. brunowe, at 4:26, you said you would be more offended by an anti-war shirt than a kkk shirt. was this a mistake?

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 4:43pm

  327. sorry brunowe, i was typing while you were posting. glad that was a mistake.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 4:43pm

  328. Brunowe -

    Oh, thank God. Man, you floored me for a minute there.

    Allowing KKK shirts is the rough part of being a country that allows free speech, but I still support it, as much as I don't like it personally.

    Don't feel too bad, my friend. For exercise, I stick both feet in my mouth and go for a brisk jog every now and then, too!

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 4:44pm

  329. LL,

    You never have a wrong answer, do you? You're such a sage. I've said more than once that you are no idiot, but the idea to march to your death, no matter who's giving the orders, or what the real reasons for battle are, is truly ridiculous. As if even the grunts were told and could understand the purposes for which they are used and the role they are to play. This is why governments like the current one love people to act with the brain of an action figure and go fight for something that has nothing to do with them. To think that fighting in Iraq has helped the average American is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's just too bad that it wasn't CPT instead of Sheehan's son who went down.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 4:48pm

  330. LL, can you think of any hypotheticals where you would not support a president in military action? or does everyone get blanket support from you re: military action?

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 4:48pm

  331. The tone on the subjectivity is certainly left-leaning.

    We reluctantly supprt the KKK thing, but anti-war protests are to be celebrated. Don't you know they they are both VERY offensive depending on who you ask?

    Again, I am a big supporter of free speech.

    If you think Bush is a moron, I would gladly defend your freedom to shout it from the top of a mountain.

    Coincidentally, there are 130,000 some odd men and women facing death every day who feel the same way.

    If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read in English, thank a soldier.

    Posted by Zamfeer at 02/02/2006 @ 4:49pm

  332. wow chimi, same idea at the same minute.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 4:50pm

  333. Its funny how Bush trys to act like a tough cowboy, but down here in Texas we all know that real cowboys are accomodating to little moms like Cindy, especially if they are Gold Star moms. Yet when it comes to the simpliest courtesy any real cowboy would allow to a mother that has sacrificed, Bush is nothing but a pussy. (Pardon my french, since Bush is known to be a profaner, then he'll understand this kind of talk.)

    Posted by BlueTexan at 02/02/2006 @ 4:55pm

  334. LOVELOKI,

    Yeah, you owe me a coke since I got mine in .035 seconds quicker.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 4:56pm

  335. Zamfeer -

    Much of what you've written is very right-leaning. So what? You do know what site you're on, of course, so the left tilt shouldn't surprise you.

    I don't recall anyone on the site saying that "anti-war protests are to be celebrated". Could you cite an example of the expression of such a sentiment, please?

    There are 130,000 some odd men and women facing death every day who feel that Bush is a moron, too? Interesting. (just poking you, Zam - I know what you actually meant)

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 4:57pm

  336. LL, can you think of any hypotheticals where you would not support a president in military action? or does everyone get blanket support from you re: military action?

    Posted by LOVELOKI 02/02/2006 @ 4:48pm

    Loveloki,

    Well firing on our own citizens except in the event of a violent revolution would be one case. On the whole though, I support the judgment of the president no matter which party, to make their best judgment in matters of war.

    Secondly and as I have noted from similar questions, as a Christian I am to submit to the ruling authorities and to understand that they are servants of God to bear the sword against evil (Romans 13). I do not ask or require anyone else to be in complete agreement with me in this. Non Christians are under no such compulsion to follow Christian Scripture and each Christian must answer before God for how they respond to scripture.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 5:00pm

  337. If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read in English, thank a soldier.

    Posted by ZAMFEER 02/02/2006 @ 4:49pm

    If you can play the pan flute, thank Zamfir

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 5:03pm

  338. Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/02/2006 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person

    I'll answer yours....if you answer mine.....I'll even go first.

    The conservatives would laud "Candy Sherman" for her protest of Clinton and the Kosovo War...and she's probably garner a WEE bit of support from the Hard-Core anti-war Left (that tiny fraction that opposes ALL wars, even Democrat-led ones)....

    and of course the hypocrisy would be on the OTHER side too....she's be called a "ditto-head" and "fringe ultra-right winger"...all of which MIGHT be true, I might add...by the Left who love Cindy now.

    Would I guess that "Candy" would shout out at Clinton during his SOTU?....yes. Same for Cindy.

    Now....your turn at some honesty?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 5:06pm

  339. Chimi,

    You must remember in regard to Sheehan's son that he re-enlisted and volunteered to go to Iraq. This was his choice in life. Sheehan's anger (as has been well described by others) deals with her son's disagreement with her lifelong involvement in leftist peace movements. If a member of the military is not aware that they may be called upon to lose their life in carrying out the orders of their superiors, they should not be in the military since they obviously lack the mental faculties, and represent a danger to their fellow soldiers.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 5:06pm

  340. LL,

    I thought JC taught that there were no kingdoms on earth, and therefore no earthly kings, that the only kingdom was the kingdom of heaven, the only real king God.

    Zamfeer,

    What if you live in Appalachia and can't read or write? Who's to thank for that?

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2006 @ 5:09pm

  341. Chimichenga

    He also said "Render unto Caesar".

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2006 @ 5:15pm

  342. He also said "Render unto Caesar".

    Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2006 @ 5:15pm

    They are creating a Caesar

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 5:17pm

  343. after that they'll stop whining about taxes

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 5:18pm

  344. Everybody who is even occasionally anti-war should read Love Liberty's post above.

    LOVE LIBERTY 02/02/2006 @ 4:35pm

    This is what soldiers do. This is how they look at reality. Nations have armies, armies have soldiers. When your commander says it's time to fight, you fight. You hesitate, you're literally dead. There is no ambiguity.

    When you speak out against this, you need to know what you're speaking out against. It's an unbelievably strong position, and yours must be equally strong.

    LL, sorry if I've misrepresented you. I thought it was worth mentioning on a day when the tempest is over a t-shirt.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2006 @ 5:19pm

  345. MASK, you're on. But later.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2006 @ 5:19pm

  346. This is what soldiers do. This is how they look at reality. Nations have armies, armies have soldiers. When your commander says it's time to fight, you fight. You hesitate, you're literally dead. There is no ambiguity.

    When you speak out against this, you need to know what you're speaking out against. It's an unbelievably strong position, and yours must be equally strong.

    LL, sorry if I've misrepresented you. I thought it was worth mentioning on a day when the tempest is over a t-shirt.

    Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/02/2006 @ 5:19pm

    Myparadigm,

    For those who find this position unrealistic or unthinkable, what other position should a person have who swears to obey the lawful orders of their superiors and who have trained for one purpose=to fight?

    If soldiers were to make their own decisions they do 3 things; 1) they place in jeopardy the lives of their fellow soldiers who are counting on their support, 2) they demonstrate that their word means nothing, 3)they institute anarchy thereby causing the complete collapse of society.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 5:41pm

  347. If soldiers were to make their own decisions they do 3 things; 1) they place in jeopardy the lives of their fellow soldiers who are counting on their support, 2) they demonstrate that their word means nothing, 3)they institute anarchy thereby causing the complete collapse of society.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/02/2006 @ 5:41pm

    Thank you for pointing out that our troops are simply tools for the president. I think this puts to bed any future assertions that if we don't support the president we don't support the troops.

    The troops are just pieces on a chess board and the president is master of their destiny. Except that the president works for us.

    and the boss can diaprrove of anything an employee does.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 5:50pm

  348. with the tools he's given

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 5:54pm

  349. correction... disapprove

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 5:55pm

  350. If soldiers were to make their own decisions they do 3 things; 1) they place in jeopardy the lives of their fellow soldiers who are counting on their support, 2) they demonstrate that their word means nothing, 3)they institute anarchy thereby causing the complete collapse of society.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY

    Point one is true but 2 & 3 are questionable. 1) True 2) To say that their word means nothing after being but through basic is a conundrum in basic you are taught not to think but to react and to follow orders blindly. 3) To say they would institute anarchy is only related to the military not society on the whole unless you have militaristic society similar to Germany in 1943.

    If this were true we would be an oppressed society with no freedom of speech or thought you know like little wingnuts running around in circles following orders from the president who sits and laughs at his fools whilst making them jump through hoops.

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/02/2006 @ 6:04pm

  351. opps thats being put through basic

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/02/2006 @ 6:10pm

  352. Dycel8r,

    On point 2, I agree there is room for debate, as to point 3, it is my belief that when order breaks down beginning with those most relied upon for order, there follows a similar breakdown in society itself. Free Societies function on order without sacrificing liberty. If those we depend on for our security like the military, the police, and fire departments lose a sense of their oath of duty, I believe firmly that you would witness a complete breakdown in our society.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 6:28pm

  353. John,

    How can you conclude that Pete Stark is right to say that the Capitol Police are "the President's Gestapo" and also quote Madison on the "abuse of powers of the executive branch" when Bush has no control over the Capitol Police, a force that is under the control of the Legislative Branch? If you want to bash the Republican leaders of Congress, OK, but Bush had no power to order the removal of Sheehan or Young. Therefore the conclusion you draw about Bush is invalid.

    By failing to get your facts straight, you epitomize the credibility problems faced by the Left today. In the end, you just sound shrill and overwrought and only the Loony Left buys it.

    Posted by BillEastland at 02/02/2006 @ 6:29pm

  354. Zamfeer

    You are wrong. Sheehan was arrested earlier in the day for a disturbance by the WH. The SOTU incident involved her, and another "T-shirt terrorist" whose sole malfeasance was exposing their T-shirts in the chamber. Hence the Police's next day apologies for performing an illegal act upon their persons.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/02/2006 @ 6:31pm

  355. Billeastland -

    With all due respect, your pulling one paragraph out of Nichols' entire post and ignoring entirely the spirit of the blog in its entirety (as well as the accompanying facts surrounding the event available from a myriad of other sources) just so you can slip in a reference to the "Looney Left" is bothersome.

    I think Nichols was saying that Starks's concerns about George Bush and the sorry state of our basic liberties in the midst of the President's open-ended "war on terror" were still salient observations.

    Did I just read the entire rest of the post wrong?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 6:42pm

  356. OK, this is off-topic, but I haven't found a thread here in which it would be on-topic, so I'm just jumping in with this. Ignore if you like. And please don't kick me.

    But I keep thinking about history. Some argue that Islam is fundamentally barbaric, or at the very least dangerous, because it accepts (to a varying degree among Muslim clerics and believers) a cruel, terrorist, violent subset of believers who use Holy Writ to justify appalling and abhominable (Yes, the "h" in "abhominable" is intentional. It refers back to the Latin "ab" plus "homo," meaning "inhuman") acts in the name of faith.

    OK. This is just what my silly mind was pondering the other night, so like I said, don't kick me. But how old is Islam? I mean, it's, what--about 500 years younger than Christianity? OK, what was Christianity doing in 1506?

    Well, according to religious history scholar John S. Spong,

    In the 16th century the Christian Church, which had been the source of much of the stability of the western world, entered a period of internal and violent upheaval. In time this upheaval came to be called the Protestant Reformation, but during the violence itself, it was referred to by many less attractive adjectives. The institution that called itself the body of Christ broke first into debate, then acrimony, then violence and counter-violence and finally into open warfare between Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians. It produced the Hundred Years War and the conflict between England and Spain that came to a climax in the destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588. That destruction was widely interpreted as a defeat for the Catholic God of Spain at the hands of the Protestant God of England.

    Of course this conflict was not without theological issues, though they seem quite trivial in retrospect. Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians disagreed, for example, about whether salvation was achieved by faith alone, as Luther contended, or whether faith without works was dead as the Vatican, quoting the Epistle of James, argued. There was also debate over the proper use of scripture and the role of ordination. Despite the hostile appellations of "heretic" hurled at Protestants and "anti-Christ" hurled at Catholics, anyone viewing this debate from the vantage point of this century would see that, while an acrimonious and unpleasant fight, it was nonetheless a fight that pitted Christian believers against Christian believers. The Reformation was not an attempt to reformulate the Christian faith for a new era. It was rather a battle over issues of Church order. The time had not arrived in which Christians would be required to rethink the basic and identifying marks of Christianity itself.

    I guess I'm not really making any point, beyond the simple one that 500 years ago, Christians were acting a whole lot like Muslims are today. Perhaps viewing the current situation with the wisdom of hindsight might provide us with better tools for dealing with Radical Islam. Just a thought.

    Posted by LisaJo at 02/02/2006 @ 6:47pm

  357. By the way, new threads are opening here even as I type, and this one may be near-death. So I trust you all will forgive me if I re-port this somewhere else later on.

    Like I said, ignore this post if it's too off-topic, or not useful for furthering discussion.

    Posted by LisaJo at 02/02/2006 @ 6:48pm

  358. LisaJo -

    Expect a massive rebuttal by Liberty on this one. He has finally deemed me beneath himself and refuses to "play games" with me anymore, but this post should get him awfully riled up...

    I found the observations interesting. And hello again, by the way.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 6:57pm

  359. LL

    You'rew comparing apples to oranges by assuming that the command and control structure of the military is related to societys personal responcibilitys. In the military you have have to maintain strict command protical in the free society you must allow for free choice.

    The military is a tool of society for a reason not the other way around, else we would be a dictatorship not a democracy.

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/02/2006 @ 7:05pm

  360. If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read in English, thank a soldier.

    Posted by ZAMFEER 02/02/2006 @ 4:49pm

    God Gawd Are we making up bumper stickers now . Look Pan man you are way in over your head on this blog . I might suggest chat rooms where your music can be appreciated.

    Posted by vano at 02/02/2006 @ 7:18pm

  361. ll per your 6:28 post

    Per you statement "as to point 3, it is my belief that when order breaks down beginning with those most relied upon for order, there follows a similar breakdown in society itself."

    This has to apply to the president and those leaders who blindly follow him.

    When the needs of the American people are buried beneath the self interests of a few we have this very same breakdown you envision.

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/02/2006 @ 7:22pm

  362. nice post ljo. "those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it Santayana

    Posted by vano at 02/02/2006 @ 7:31pm

  363. Cindy Sheehan cracks me up. Does she have a schedule of appearances? And how much do tickets usually cost?

    Posted by Person at 02/02/2006 @ 7:33pm

  364. Suppose a Democrat President had enacted a permanent "right to abortion" amendment to the Constitution...and "Candy Sherman", whose daughter "Katie" had died in a botched, but legal abortion, was launching a vigil outside of Camp David....chained herself to the White House...called abortion doctors "Nazis"...aligned herself with Operation: Rescue extremists....and then showed up in the Gallery at that Democrat President's SOTU at the invitation of a vehement opponent of the President, with a "bloody fetus" T-shirt on....and the Cap Police had hustled her out before the speech started. How many of "The Nation" writers....or leftist friends of "freedom to dissent" would have been "outraged"? And how many of them would have had a "feeling" (as I did on this) that she would have "done more than just sit there"? (BTW....this is an example....and as I've stated on many occasions...I'm pro-choice!)

    Posted by MASK 02/02/2006 @ 3:30pm

    Basically, you are asking if liberals are more likely than conservatives to stand on the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    I've always been skeptical that anyone is really that virtuous. That quote is commonly attributed to Voltaire, but it does not appear in his writings - it was written by a lesser scholar as a summation of Voltaire's attitude toward thought and speech. Such handy phrases are rarely the product of a great intellect, because human nature cannot be defined that easily. In fact, keeping mum while someone disagrees with you is not only uncommon, but inadvisable as a practical matter.

    So we may assume that no, The Nation would not rush to defend your Candy Sherman solely on principle.

    Not long ago there was a letter-to-the-editor flame war in my hometown over an anti-abortion billboard that featured a picture of an aborted fetus. I couldn't understand it at all, because it wasn't worth fighting over. Illustrating death is not the best way to express that you are pro-life, which is why you don't see this kind of thing much.

    It boils down to what the value of the message is, and on this point I think the liberals win. If a young woman dies as a result of the failure of an elective medical procedure, that is something that happens every day. It's something else altogether to consider the invasion of another country and the consequences that follow from that.

    So liberals would do well to keep quiet and pretend to be virtuous regarding Candy's protest. You might even see a self-conscious piece in The Nation, celebrating the Left as a pillar of free speech.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2006 @ 7:38pm

  365. Hey, New Dawn, Good to read you again. I've missed talking to you.

    I can't talk about the person you mentioned, because in a fit of utter disgust (in a previous post) I promised I'd never, ever mention one particular person by name if that particular person would agree to leave.me.alone.

    I may have been too hasty, and thereby denied myself a real pleasure--one that doesn't violate any commandment. But a promise is a promise.

    I do wish I could find a place where I could discuss the possbility that I mentioned in my last long post, but I realize that this is not the place. Dang. History has so fuckin' much to teach us. Plus, it's just wicked interesting.

    Anyway, are folks heading to a new thread? Be sure to let me know. I HATE missing a party.

    Posted by LisaJo at 02/02/2006 @ 7:38pm

  366. Person -

    It is extraordinarily callous of you to say that Cindy Sheehan "cracks you up", I mean, really reprehensible, right or left.

    Regardless of whether you agree with her politics or not (and I don't), two simple facts remain worthy of consideration when talking about your fellow human beings:

    --- Her son died. (Show a modicum of respect for that and put yourself in ANY grieving parent's shoes)

    --- Her son died in a war that she believes was illegal and immoral with every bit as much passion and faith as Liberty believes in his beliefs and you believe in yours, and she is entitled to those beliefs, no matter how misguided you and I may agree those beliefs to be.

    (Liberty - that was a nice thing I just said about you, believe it or not - don't get upset).

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 7:58pm

  367. mask,

    so is bush enacting a right to permanent war amendment to the constitution? i don't think so. the times i've seen cindy sheehan talk, she almost drones and remains very calm. she probably would have just sat there, same with beverly. if candy would have come with a t-shirt saying the number of aborted fetuses for the past 3 years, ya she should have been allowed in. then, if she made a scene, escorted out or arrested, depending on what she did.

    i saw one of pelosi's speeches that demonstraters against the war were so loud, you could barely hear the question and answer session. she said she sided with murtha, but she could not go along with cutting off money to the soldiers. they were angry because they wanted her to deny support to the war machine. they stayed the entire time.

    who knows what would happen if a democratic president or congress were in power? but this did happen.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 8:12pm

  368. Here is Cindy Sheehan entering [msnbc.msn.com] the Republican horse manure shovelling extravaganza that at one time was used to inform Americans of the state of the union. Since the Republican's apparent goal is to dissolve the republic and create an emperor, they must have decided that isn't necessary anymore.

    In any case, just as I heard on the radio, she was wearing the T-shirt UNDERNEATH another top. Did the Bush brownshirts spot her in the audience and demand that she remove the top in a pre-emptive effort to discover a weapon of mass destruction- the truth?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 8:24pm

  369. LISAJO:

    The Protestant Reformation? Are we comparing present day Muslims with Christians who lived 500 years ago. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Islam. Maybe we have to wait 500 years for things to cool down. After all the decendents of the Vikings, who once plundered Europe a 1000 years ago, are now handing out Peace Prizes.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 02/02/2006 @ 8:33pm

  370. This [tinyurl.com] is probably the very moment when our own Little Goebbels [tinyurl.com] spotted her.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 8:33pm

  371. The Protestant Reformation? Are we comparing present day Muslims with Christians who lived 500 years ago. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Islam. Maybe we have to wait 500 years for things to cool down. After all the decendents of the Vikings, who once plundered Europe a 1000 years ago, are now handing out Peace Prizes.

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/02/2006 @ 8:33pm

    Don't forget the "Christians" who advocate mass murder 24 hours after they swear to live through Christ.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 8:37pm

  372. I don't know why Cindy Sheehan was arrested, but my guess is as good as Mr. Nichols' because neither one of us interviewed the Capital police.

    Maybe I could sit in my basement and blog about events I read about or see on t.v., because unfortunately, that's what passes for journalism these days.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 02/02/2006 @ 8:37pm

  373. "Don't forget the "Christians" who advocate mass murder 24 hours after they swear to live through Christ".

    Another angry anti-Christian blogger. Unfortunately the left is full of them.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 02/02/2006 @ 8:40pm

  374. It's rather relevant that the Capitol Police have admitted that she didn't break any laws. But that would just be intruding an unnecessary fact into the Republican stream of consciousness.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 8:42pm

  375. "Don't forget the "Christians" who advocate mass murder 24 hours after they swear to live through Christ".

    Another angry anti-Christian blogger. Unfortunately the left is full of them.

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/02/2006 @ 8:40pm

    Explicate your logic of how that would qualify as an anti-Christian statement. I thought it was anti-barbarian. And, where's the anger. Why is everyone who states a fact "angry" to you Republican Robots?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 8:44pm

  376. Freaks! and you wonder why you keep losing elections....keep up the good work!

    Posted by bush man at 02/02/2006 @ 8:47pm

  377. Why don't you Republicans face reality? Your cesspool vision for the future of our great country is now regarded by most Americans as a mangey, smelly nightmare.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 8:48pm

  378. Another angry anti-Christian blogger. Unfortunately the left is full of them.

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/02/2006 @ 8:40pm

    The right is overflowing with them.

    we must have caught some of your spillage

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 8:51pm

  379. America really needs a Party in the White House whose constituents don't know how to correctly spell "capitol". LOL!

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 8:51pm

  380. The Dems were happy to see that Cindy was removed.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 8:48pm

    I would have rather seen the thousand outtakes of her during the speech.

    That would have been choice

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 8:53pm

  381. I wondered, do you hate and fear Islam as much as you apparently do Christianity. Is it religion you hate, or just some religions?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 8:51pm

    Oh man! you didn't go buy yourself a copy of the wingnut book of tired old cliches' too, did you?

    CPT must be printing copies and mailing them out

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 8:55pm

  382. FROMREDBIRD:

    Who said I was a Republican anyways? I'm not. I guess if I disagree with you I must be from the radical extreme. Go figure.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 02/02/2006 @ 8:57pm

  383. Another angry anti-Christian blogger. Unfortunately the left is full of them.

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/02/2006 @ 8:40pm

    The right is overflowing with them.

    we must have caught some of your spillage

    Posted by WILL C. 02/02/2006 @ 8:51pm

    Funny, isn't it, how the epithets they hurl are often perfect descriptions of themselves? If they aren't anti-Christs they're doing a good job of impersonation. If Christ had shown up in the last five years he probably would be located in a formerly-secret Republican torture chamber- if he hadn't already been crucified again.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 8:58pm

  384. But your views aren't really centrist.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 8:55pm

    The center is a point in space defined by the sides. With the nation so far right that we are looking over the edge of the abyss, of course my views aren't centrist, Dummy

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 8:58pm

  385. Although I do not attend church or follow any specific religion, I find the hatred that the left has towards Christianity to be mind-boggling! Growing up in a cultural cornicopia, I found that the people, regardless of race, that were religous were far more trustworthy, generous, and honest than those non-believers. Throughout my life, the liberals that I know are FAR more likely to cheat, lie and steal ( personal experience mind you, not something that I read ) than conservatives. So, although there are many wacko Christians, Pat Robertson for example, who should not be paid any attention to and even possibly be feared, I will always prefer to live around and deal with them before the souless, immoral, entitled, and selfish liberals. They are the true enemy here, and in my opinion, they are the best thing that could happen to Islamic fundamentalists, for they aid and abet them daily!

    Posted by bush man at 02/02/2006 @ 9:00pm

  386. FROMREDBIRD:

    Who said I was a Republican anyways? I'm not. I guess if I disagree with you I must be from the radical extreme. Go figure.

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/02/2006 @ 8:57pm

    Because you quack like a Republican and waddle like a Republican. Ooh, ooh . . . no . . . let me guess- another Republican pretending to be a libertarian.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:01pm

  387. I see a lot of anti christian folks here seem to give islam a free pass so to speak. Wondered why.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 8:58pm

    we don't give Islam a free pass and the world didn't give radical islam a free pass after 9/11. but you wingnut did the day you decided to let usamma go and then turn Iraq into a high tech terror training center.

    I guess the facilities over in afghanistan were getting a little worn out, eh?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:02pm

  388. Although I do not attend church or follow any specific religion, I find the hatred that the left has towards Christianity to be mind-boggling!

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:00pm

    You should see the hatred on the right for christianity

    It'll turn you to salt

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:04pm

  389. By definition extremists are closed minded. Left, right, it doesn't matter. There are a lot of people on the left who have much in common with the right.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 02/02/2006 @ 9:05pm

  390. Sorry Will, as you often point out, with 39% disapproval of Bush, I thought you saw a left tilt to the real world.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 9:02pm

    The real world is tilting left, but we live in hamsterland and it can be summed up in three words: Right... Wing... Nut...

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:05pm

  391. Sorry Will, as you often point out, with 39% disapproval of Bush, I thought you saw a left tilt to the real world.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 9:02pm

    One more thing, I don't quote opinion poles.

    I have my own opinion

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:10pm

  392. Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:00pm

    Although I do not attend church or follow any specific religion, I find the hatred that the left has towards Christianity to be mind-boggling!

    Do you have any examples . . . or are you just easily boggled?

    Growing up in a cultural cornicopia, I found that the people, regardless of race, that were religous were far more trustworthy, generous, and honest than those non-believers.

    I've found just the opposite. Never do business with someone who has a Christian cross on their business card- odds are 30-to-1 that they're un-Christian hypocrites.

    Throughout my life, the liberals that I know are FAR more likely to cheat, lie and steal ( personal experience mind you, not something that I read ) than conservatives. So, although there are many wacko Christians, Pat Robertson for example, who should not be paid any attention to and even possibly be feared, I will always prefer to live around and deal with them before the souless, immoral, entitled, and selfish liberals. They are the true enemy here, and in my opinion, they are the best thing that could happen to Islamic fundamentalists, for they aid and abet them daily!

    The truth is that Osama Bin Laden and his ilk have been counting their lucky stars over George Bush. It's Western liberals of which they have a holy terror. You obviously don't know a damn thing about extremist Islam. Neither does your presidential idol- that's why we're sinking in the mud in the hinterlands.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:12pm

  393. My concerns are even worse, Willy-boy. I worry the hampsterland is summed up in three words: people..don't...care

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 9:10pm

    But that's a definition of right wing nut: people that don't care

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:12pm

  394. By definition extremists are closed minded. Left, right, it doesn't matter. There are a lot of people on the left who have much in common with the right.

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/02/2006 @ 9:05pm

    Do you do anything other than issue commandments graven in stone?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:14pm

  395. FROMREDBIRD:

    You keep thinking you're right all the time. Keep on defining who everyone is to them.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 02/02/2006 @ 9:14pm

  396. OH REALLY?! We hadn't noticed!

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 9:12pm

    You must not have hamster boy. You assured the crowd that I quoted opinion poles

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:15pm

  397. Will, your scope is a little narrow. Wingers both left and right care. It is the middle that worries me. Both extremes feed on an ill-informed middle. Surely we can agree on that.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 9:14pm

    I don't have a scope. I read the posts of all you wing nuts. You do care about your money and saving your sorry asses.

    So I guess that is a form of caring

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:17pm

  398. A few reasons why I am a Right-Wing-Nut: 1) I don't support pedophiles ( the ACLU and many liberal judges do, see: NAMBLA ) 2) I despise felons and don't have any sympathy for them and definitely don't believe they should have the right to vote ( hillary and the rest of the DEM.s are constantly fighting for FELONS rights ) 3) I am on the side of the innocent ( unborn children, victims of crime ) while those on the left are supporters of people like TOOKIE ( scumbucket murderer ) while they have no problem killing babies! 4) I believe in personal responsibility and the left believes in blaming everyone else ( especially white-christian males ) for why selfish losers do what they do! 5) I am vehemently against racism yet the left continues the fan the flames of it because they have no agenda and they still hold the race card! These are all facts that cannot be disputed, but if anyone wants to try ...bring it and I'll give you example after undeniable example of why you are wrong!

    Posted by bush man at 02/02/2006 @ 9:18pm

  399. FROMREDBIRD:

    You keep thinking you're right all the time. Keep on defining who everyone is to them.

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/02/2006 @ 9:14pm

    Are you claiming to be wrong all the time? And, how do you know what I'm thinking? Who are you anyway? Are you a divine being who can be right while not having to think that he's right? Or is it she?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:19pm

  400. Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:18pm

    Great! another Liberty clone... throw away manifesto's

    The anti-christian theology must be close behind

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:21pm

  401. These are all facts that cannot be disputed, but if anyone wants to try ...bring it and I'll give you example after undeniable example of why you are wrong!

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:18pm

    That's weird. You offer example after example immediately after failing to provide the ONE that I asked for.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:22pm

  402. Fromredbird, you need examples that the left hates christianity? talk about the lunatic fringe having their heads in the sand! I don't need to give you any more than the example of this web page. Scroll back and see for yourself! It's in plain English ( slowly becoming the second language of Ca.) Who are these people?

    Posted by bush man at 02/02/2006 @ 9:23pm

  403. Fromredbird, you need examples that the left hates christianity?

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:23pm

    He doesn't have any. The left doesn't hate christianity

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:25pm

  404. Fromredbird, you need examples that the left hates christianity? talk about the lunatic fringe having their heads in the sand! I don't need to give you any more than the example of this web page. Scroll back and see for yourself! It's in plain English ( slowly becoming the second language of Ca.) Who are these people?

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:23pm

    Why do you set up tests for yourself that you will immediately fail at? What's the problem- all show and no go? Point out the anti-Christianity that you claim is in this thread.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:27pm

  405. redbird

    How long do you think we'll have to wait?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:30pm

  406. Fromredbird, you need examples that the left hates christianity?

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:23pm

    He doesn't have any. The left doesn't hate christianity

    Posted by WILL C. 02/02/2006 @ 9:25pm

    Being a true Republican he probably equates unbelief with hate. It's a projection of his internal hatred of anyone who doesn't believe what he believes. He assumes that they must hate him, too.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:32pm

  407. redbird

    How long do you think we'll have to wait?

    Posted by WILL C. 02/02/2006 @ 9:30pm

    Given that he claims this thread is crawling with anti-Christianity, it shouldn't take long at all. But then, maybe he reads slow.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:36pm

  408. Being a true Republican he probably equates unbelief with hate. It's a projection of his internal hatred of anyone who doesn't believe what he believes. He assumes that they must hate him, too.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 9:32pm

    I agree. I said something very similar to that to Maasch over on Corn's thread

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:36pm

  409. Frei, my fellow American, this is New Dawn here, pal, take a deep breath with me...

    STOP BEING A DICK TODAY.

    Man, I asked you first thing this morning already, but you are still raging with piss and vinegar today... Whew...

    Is everything okay, man? Work, home, etc.? Not patronizing you; being serious as a coronary.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 9:37pm

  410. I'm still waitng for you to scroll back and read the proof..when you come upon it let me know and then I'll give you plenty of examples! I bet the next claim you make will be" we don't hate Bush either"! Well the next lesson of the day will be proving the incessant hatred the left has for Bush! Dealing with you people makes me think that we really do need to spend more on education beacause you people obviously didn't get enough!

    Posted by bush man at 02/02/2006 @ 9:39pm

  411. Still waiting. This is funny, but for some reason- I keep hearing the theme from The Andy Griffith Show.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:39pm

  412. Given that he claims this thread is crawling with anti-Christianity, it shouldn't take long at all.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 9:36pm

    He should look to his own posts first. Bearing false witness against his neighbor is very anti-christian

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:40pm

  413. Never mind- it's just dain bramage. LOL.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:41pm

  414. Comedy! Still waiting!

    Posted by bush man at 02/02/2006 @ 9:41pm

  415. I'm still waitng for you to scroll back and read the proof..when you come upon it let me know and then I'll give you plenty of examples!

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:39pm

    Now he's trying to weasel out. He'll make a good republican

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:42pm

  416. I also imagine BUSH MAN just sitting there bubbling like a stew pot every time someone asks him for an example of what he claims.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:43pm

  417. I also imagine BUSH MAN just sitting there bubbling like a stew pot every time someone asks him for an example of what he claims.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 9:43pm

    When you live alone in the vast red wasteland, you do become your own reality

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:45pm

  418. Alright, gotta go! I'll check in tomorrow and if you decide to do your homework, I'll enlighten you even more with proof from OUTSIDE of this blog ( it's shocking that I need to, but some people are slow )And you people wonder why you have lost control of ALL THREE BRANCHES of govt. When will they ever learn! Check Mate!

    Posted by bush man at 02/02/2006 @ 9:45pm

  419. Zedd -

    I am trying to figure you out... You came in ripping on LisaJo for posting a fairly innocuous article on Islam and Christianity that she made as clear as possible upfront was off-topic...

    And then she concluded with, "I guess I'm not really making any point, beyond the simple one that 500 years ago, Christians were acting a whole lot like Muslims are today."

    And then you devolved into some pretty broad-brush painting of the entire left as anti-Christian and ignorant.

    The bone you seem to be trying to pick and the derisiveness and venom with which you pick it are a huge reason why many Americans have become fed up with the hypocrisy of many self-professed Christians, which you may or not be. It wouldn't make a difference to the point.

    (See every post Love Liberty and I have had with one another)

    In fact, now I need to see the two of you in the same place at the same time to convince myself you aren't one and the same.

    Hmmm....

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 9:46pm

  420. Alright, gotta go! I'll check in tomorrow and if you decide to do your homework, I'll enlighten you even more with proof from OUTSIDE of this blog ( it's shocking that I need to, but some people are slow )And you people wonder why you have lost control of ALL THREE BRANCHES of govt. When will they ever learn! Check Mate!

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:45pm

    we got ourselves a runner

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:48pm

  421. And Frei -

    You glommed right onto that guy!

    Shame on you!

    Critical thinking, please!

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 9:48pm

  422. run dick run

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:48pm

  423. Zedd -

    Then you come with "By definition extremists are closed minded. Left, right, it doesn't matter. There are a lot of people on the left who have much in common with the right. "

    And I think you're reasonable.

    Trying to figure you out, Z. Keep posting, please.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 9:49pm

  424. Bush Man and Rio = Too ridiculous to waste energy even ignoring, like dogshit you pass on the sidewalk.

    Just don't step in it!

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 9:50pm

  425. I'm still waitng for you to scroll back and read the proof..when you come upon it let me know and then I'll give you plenty of examples!

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:39pm

    When the communists seized power in China, Mao said, "The Chinese people are a clean sheet of paper on which we can write." Did the Republicans ever take that lesson to heart with their own constituents, or what? The Republicans showing up here, anyway, are an intellectual, moral, and social void.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:51pm

  426. Bush Man

    you should never do tomorrow what you can do today

    but then you'll be running the rest of your life: today... tomorrow... till the day you die

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:52pm

  427. I also imagine BUSH MAN just sitting there bubbling like a stew pot every time someone asks him for an example of what he claims.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 9:43pm

    When you live alone in the vast red wasteland, you do become your own reality

    Posted by WILL C. 02/02/2006 @ 9:45pm

    Yeah. I should have said "a bubbling pot of beans".

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:54pm

  428. five more US troops dead in Iraq. the joint chiefs have nothing to say about that. nothing for the families of the dead, nothing for the families of those who will die tomorrow and the next day, and the day after that. but they have time to write a letter to the WAPO complaining about a politiccal cartoon. how reassuring that they are guarding our freedoms here at home. what are we paying these guys? abundle, so they can write letters to the editor. they should be fired, as well as their commander in chief

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 9:54pm

  429. five more US troops dead in Iraq.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/02/2006 @ 9:54pm

    This mission accomplished phase of the war is getting old.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:57pm

  430. too many dead guys

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 9:58pm

  431. Alright, gotta go! I'll check in tomorrow and if you decide to do your homework, I'll enlighten you even more with proof from OUTSIDE of this blog ( it's shocking that I need to, but some people are slow )And you people wonder why you have lost control of ALL THREE BRANCHES of govt. When will they ever learn! Check Mate!

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/02/2006 @ 9:45pm

    Oh, shit! The light is leaving.

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

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 9:58pm

  432. audioevolution.org Join a filtered conversation.

    Actually, this post is for the Nation. Don't you guys need some audio.

    Posted by audiojoebob at 02/02/2006 @ 10:01pm

  433. This mission accomplished phase of the war is getting old.

    Posted by WILL C. 02/02/2006 @ 9:57pm

    What the hell . . . didn't we advance to the "PLAN FOR VICTORY" phase? What happened . . . did the odometer turn over?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 10:01pm

  434. didn't we advance to the "PLAN FOR VICTORY" phase?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 10:01pm

    right, the plan for victory phase.

    Aren't you supposed to do that first?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 10:07pm

  435. is dyslexia boy in cheif a little bass ackwards?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 10:08pm

  436. Posted by Bush Man

    Throughout my life, the liberals that I know are FAR more likely to cheat, lie and steal ( personal experience mind you, not something that I read ) than conservatives.

    It's an interesting (and quite factual) statistic that 8 out of 10 incarcerated serial killers voted Republican.

    No data are available on how many Republican voting serial killers actually make it to the White House.

    Posted by inveresk at 02/02/2006 @ 10:16pm

  437. INVERSEK

    Actually a poll prior to the 2004 election found, felons are 95% DEM. If you want to split hairs

    Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 10:26pm

  438. There are also no data on how many of those Republican Voting serial killers post on the Nation's blog.

    Posted by inveresk at 02/02/2006 @ 10:29pm

  439. Actually a poll prior to the 2004 election found, felons are 95% DEM. If you want to split hairs

    Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 10:26pm

    You take the serial killers, we'll take the shoplifters. By the way- I'm not a shoplifter. Do you want to make any revelations?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 10:33pm

  440. is dyslexia boy in cheif a little bass ackwards?

    Posted by WILL C. 02/02/2006 @ 10:08pm

    The State of the Union address was proof of that. They must have needed every shovel within 100 miles of D.C. to clean up after that.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 10:36pm

  441. The LEFT:

    We support the troops, too. But then tells them they are dying for lies.

    We support the troops, too. But then tells them they are going to lose.

    We support the troops, too. But then likens them to Nazis and accuses them of terrorizing women and children.

    We believe in CIVIL rights, but then feverently supports affirmative action and racial quotas.

    We believe in ending the Death penalty, because its inhumane, but support partial birth abortion.

    We believe in free speech, but only if its "correct" speech.

    Only the tip of the iceberg, but so many paradoxes to contemplate.

    Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 10:41pm

  442. FROMREDBIRD

    You take the serial killers, we'll take the shoplifters. By the way- I'm not a shoplifter. Do you want to make any revelations?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 10:33pm | ignore this person

    Ok the right takes the serial killers, there relatively few of them, and later we WILL execute them. But then YOU must take the child molesters and rapists and there are far many more of them.

    Care to come out of the closet? I hear in Vermont thats not really a serious crime anymore.

    Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 10:45pm

  443. bush man,

    you exclaim you've got hundreds of examples. redbird asks you for one, you say right here in this thread. he says where? you say just find it then i'll show ya.

    then comes you're usual insane rant followed by, check mate!

    the check mate gave you away, you're really libzsuks aka ann coulter.

    fuck off ann.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 10:55pm

  444. You take the serial killers, we'll take the shoplifters. By the way- I'm not a shoplifter. Do you want to make any revelations?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 10:33pm

    Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 10:45pm

    Ok the right takes the serial killers, there relatively few of them, and later we WILL execute them.

    You didn't even give that a second thought. Democratic administrations do execute serial killers. But don't let that stop you from pretending that only Republicans do.

    But then YOU must take the child molesters and rapists and there are far many more of them.

    Something tells me that most of them are voting Republicans.

    Care to come out of the closet? I hear in Vermont thats not really a serious crime anymore.

    Does that mean you prefer to not answer the serial murderer question?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 11:03pm

  445. Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 10:41pm

    He spent all afternoon thinking that up

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 11:03pm

  446. the check mate gave you away, you're really libzsuks aka ann coulter.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 02/02/2006 @ 10:55pm

    Ah ha! It wasn't just idiotic- there was a familiar idiocy to it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 11:05pm

  447. i'm thinking todd, darin and cpt are real. but libzsuks, zeddmen, bushman and mr. salty,nacl are all different aspects of ann's shattered personality.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/02/2006 @ 11:12pm

  448. But then YOU must take the child molesters and rapists and there are far many more of them.

    Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 10:45pm

    Something tells me that most of them are voting Republicans.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 11:03pm

    I think the republican obsession with what everyone is doing with their winky supports Redbird on this point CPT

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 11:15pm

  449. The LEFT:

    We support the troops, too. But then tells them they are dying for lies.

    We support the troops, too. But then tells them they are going to lose.

    We support the troops, too. But then likens them to Nazis and accuses them of terrorizing women and children.

    We believe in CIVIL rights, but then feverently supports affirmative action and racial quotas.

    We believe in ending the Death penalty, because its inhumane, but support partial birth abortion.

    We believe in free speech, but only if its "correct" speech.

    Only the tip of the iceberg, but so many paradoxes to contemplate.

    Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 10:41pm

    Most of that crap is just pure hype. For example, if abortion was banned the number of women who would die getting illegal abortions would far exceed the number of partial birth abortions. You choose to pretend that wouldn't happen because reality disarms your imaginary point. In any case, many Democrats are opposed to partial birth abortion. Your list is filled with false pretense.

    A concern about people dying doesn't seem to concern you when it's Iraqis getting shot to pieces at impromptu, unsigned checkpoints of the US Occupation Army (the definition of a checkpoint being: when they stop driving and start shooting).

    US Army recruiting is sinking through the floor and you're sitting around putting together dopey lists like this. It's beginning to show. The social-elitist Republicans, who look on you as only cannon fodder, have sent you on a war that served not the national interests of the USA but the personal interests of themselves and their cronies. You and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dying for that- a self-serving lie and fraud. Wake up and come back to America, soldier. The republic needs you. The craven Empire will throw you in the wastecan when it's through with you.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 11:26pm

  450. We support the troops, too. But then tells them they are dying for lies.

    Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 10:41pm

    I just noticed an error in CPT's argument. The first sentence should read: We support the troops.

    We don't actually have any competition on that.

    Remember the good old days when a democratic congress raised an army that through its simple existence caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Now fast forward ten years to a republican congress that raises an army in which two whole divisions report in… not ready for duty.

    Then fast forward a few more years where that same republican congress raises an army that doesn't have enough body armor, cuts veterans benefit, hires a whole bunch of recruiters that sit around and blog all day.

    Face it all you red blooded liberals out there in America

    We support the troops!

    Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 11:39pm

  451. "The various Lib groups have been trying to present as fact that somehow Bush and the Republican Congress are cutting Pell Grants, and cutting spending for Education. Conference Report S1932 is the Budget Conference agreement already agreed to by the Senate and now waiting for House approval."

    Posted by LL

    "This whole student loan myth is one of the reasons that we are 7.5 trillion dollars in debt."

    Posted by Len Mosse

    Hey LL and LM,

    What a load of bullshit.........as if you two know anything about what is really taking place with student loans. First of all Len, an attempt to blame our deficit woes on student loans makes you sound less intelligent than usual, which is difficult in itself. Are you actually stating that student loans are a major reason that the deficit is out of control. I realize that as a student, I'm probably not as smart as you, but my education and a thousand educations similar to my own cost about the same as one smart bomb that we drop on Iraq.........so give me a fucking break already.

    Liberty, as for your cut and paste........your usual style, do you have any evidence that Pell grant money has been redirected into these new programs. I ask because my financial aid advisor at the University I attend told me that our University's Pell money was cut by about one half this last year under Bush. Personally, I received two thousand less dollars per year than I had my previous two years. Empirical evidence doesn't lie........when I asked my advisor about Pell, he told me that they had cut so much out of the program that 90% of the students at my tier I research university were being cut substantially, and there just wasn't enough money to go around. If this money was just diverted to math and science.........where is it? I'm an honors pre med and science student, so where is all this new money LL, please let me know. Furthermore, please advise me on why the Pell cuts were necessary if the same amount of money was still going to be distributed. While you're at it, why not defend the tax cuts for the rich again, since they obviously have nothing to do with the deficit...........along with the billion dollar war that our country does not support.

    Posted by jpolston at 02/02/2006 @ 11:42pm

  452. Did you say "billion"?

    Updated: 6:08 p.m. ET Feb. 2, 2006 WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Thursday it will ask Congress for $120 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    If approved by Congress, the war money would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11145948/

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 11:46pm

  453. Bush is about to ask for a defence budget of close on half a trillion.

    Now that would be for an education or two.

    And, no doubt so would Chaney's under the counter bonus from Haliburton . . .

    Posted by inveresk at 02/02/2006 @ 11:47pm

  454. pay

    Posted by inveresk at 02/02/2006 @ 11:48pm

  455. "Actually a poll prior to the 2004 election found, felons are 95% DEM. If you want to split hairs."

    posted by CPT

    CPT,

    I'm going to have to request empirical evidence on that one big guy. If you want to throw out numbers like 95% of felons are Democrat, you need to back it up with the poll, and the margin of error. I know you are a drinker of the kool aid CPT, but we cant allow you to play loose with facts like POTUS and his crew. Kindly post this supposed poll and I will leave you to your senseless rant.

    Posted by jpolston at 02/02/2006 @ 11:50pm

  456. CPT is blowin' smoke, JP. The 95 is really his IQ test results, taken twice and the scores added together.

    Posted by inveresk at 02/02/2006 @ 11:55pm

  457. Yes Freheit, it's my financial aid advisors fault that he has fifty percent less grant money to give to his student this year. Another astute analysis on your behalf!

    Posted by jpolston at 02/03/2006 @ 12:23am

  458. Frei -

    I'm about to abandon you entirely.

    You've been vitriolic and hyperbolic today, almost all day, with no good reason.

    Why throw a silly swipe at Polston like that? I thought his post was quite enlightening, since my college years are well behind me. Kind of like listening to a front-line soldier like CPT on the war (though he's been all over the map on all of the anti-liberal rhetoric tonight); both are entitled to their opinions on topics they're close to.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/03/2006 @ 12:27am

  459. It's an interesting (and quite factual) statistic that 8 out of 10 incarcerated serial killers voted Republican. No data are available on how many Republican voting serial killers actually make it to the White House. Posted by INVERESK 02/02/2006 @ 10:16pm | ignore this person

    Inv,

    While I haven't seen the numbers you cite, you may be onto something. At one point in time, Ted Bundy was active in the Young Republicans in our state.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 02/03/2006 @ 01:10am

  460. Frei -

    Exactly my intention with my screen name, which has been my screen name for years on e-mail, boards, etc. Tomorrow is a new dawn, indeed, and a chance to start over and try to do better than yesterday.

    Larry Elder? The guy's whole article is based entirely in sarcasm, and ironically, half of those things he thinks are funny are true.

    Townhall.com?? That that's where you get your rhetoric explains much.

    A site containing such compassionate gems as "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy didn't cease operations when Hillary climbed onto her broomstick and flew out of the White House"...

    A site mighty concerned about Patriot Act provisions that will dramatically increase government search and seizure powers and collection of data on individuals, but only because they'll include tracking of every person purchasing a firearm. No worries about all of that pesky domestic spying and warrantless wiretapping...

    Wow, Frei, it's official. I DO give up on you.

    I'm fairly certain that you'll see that as no big loss.

    Bummer.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/03/2006 @ 01:20am

  461. Seattle, I understand the statistics were sourced from the International Association of Correction Officers but haven't seen them myself so they're no more than heresay.

    Citing them does seem to rattle a few Rep. cages though.

    Posted by inveresk at 02/03/2006 @ 01:44am

  462. I think Nichols was saying that Starks's concerns about George Bush and the sorry state of our basic liberties in the midst of the President's open-ended "war on terror" were still salient observations.

    Did I just read the entire rest of the post wrong?

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/02/2006 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person

    To New Dawn: Sorry for taking so long to respond--I passed a pleasant evening at my neighborhood bar.

    I was referring to these paragraphs in Nichols' piece:

    That makes this a most serious matter. Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who is one of the senior members of the House, is right when he says that Sheehan's arrest by officers he refers to as "the President's Gestapo," tells us a lot more about the George Bush and the sorry state of our basic liberties in the midst of the President's open-ended "war on terror" than anything that was said in the State of the Union address. "It shows he still has a thin skin," Stark says of the President who claims to welcome dissent.

    It also shows that the father of the Constitution, James Madison, was right when he warned that, in times of war, the greatest danger to America would not be foreign foes but Presidents and their minions, who would abuse the powers of the executive branch with the purpose of "subduing the force of the people."

    Notice Nichols unequivocally says Stark "is right." Well, Stark is not. And neither is Nichols. These are the concluding paragraphs that the rest of his post builds to. I could stipulate all the facts described by Nichols regarding Sheehan and Young are true. But, his conclusion that it was "the President's Gestapo" who arrested them is plainly false because the President has no control over the Capitol Police. This is just a fact. If you disagree, then you and I clearly live in alternative universes. You did not read the rest of the post wrong, you read the concluding paragraphs wrong.

    I am sorry you don't like my reference to the 'Loony Left.' Too often today Lefties and their willing accomplices in the media deliberately lie or shade the truth in attempts to discredit the Republican Government. An excellent example is the current flap over 'warrantless wiretaps.' The actual facts are ignored by the Left and demagoguery becomes the order of the day. The President and the alternative media fight back and, behold, the polls show about 60% of the people agree with the President.

    Now, I don't have a problem with having a debate over whether the executive should have the authority to engage in warrantless searches that involve non-citizens, but that is precluded by the failure of the Left to agree to debate. They just want to scream that Bush is a law-breaking liar when most people, looking at the facts, just don't buy it. The left starts to sound like Chicken Little, so anything they say is discounted.

    Any serious debate over the proper public policy occurs only within the Republican Party, if at all. This is not good for the Republic.

    Nichols concludes with Madison's warning about preserving freedom in the midst of continual warfare and I think this is a legitimate area of concern given that we may be at war a very long time. But claiming that Mother Sheehan's experience is a constraint on 'legitimate protest' is just bunk. She got a far bigger stage to voice her opinion in media interviews after the fact than she would have ever gotten from a few camera outtakes of her sitting demurely--and quietly, as the liberal apologists claim she would have--at the event itself. No one is hauling her off to a Tower of London to rot in silence. It is not 'legitimate protest' to create a scene at the SOTU. It is legitimate to get a permit and bang pots and pans in protest outside the building, as actually happened.

    We actually live in the era with the greatest amount of individual freedom of expression (except, ironically, on university campuses) in our history. In the face of the war ahead, we should be engaged in a reasoned debate over Madison's warning and how to preserve that freedom. The performance of the Democrats at the SOTU prove they have no desire to join that debate. That level of irresponsibility, if continued, will likely lead to the extinction of that once great party.

    Posted by BillEastland at 02/03/2006 @ 03:57am

  463. Will:"Remember the good old days when a democratic congress raised an army that through its simple existence caused the collapse of the Soviet Union."

    sorry Will, that is not history. that statement is unsupportable. pick up a history of the cold war, or a bit of focused googling, and please don't make these inane statements, evn when your points are good, which they are.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 08:25am

  464. Rumsfeld:"It's certainly not going to last two years, but it's going to cost money," Mr Rumsfeld said six months before the invasion in March 2003.

    thanks Rummy, the 2450 widows and orphans thank you,liberty, CPT who is a phony military man, mask,and the usual goons thank you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 09:33am

  465. one little known provision of the patriot act, prohibits the wearing of the wrong Tshirt. you have benn warned

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 09:37am

  466. Billeastland -

    Your well-thought-out post notwithstanding, I stand by my previous statement that I think concerns about George Bush and the sorry state of our basic liberties in the midst of the President's open-ended "war on terror" are still salient observations and worthy of discussion.

    I also think you are sifting through Nichols' post and finding that which you agree with (as would be expected - all of us filter what we see and hear - it's been said that "We all alter our memories so we can live with them"), as well as dismissing that which you do not. Still, as far as I'm concerned, no harm, no foul.

    However;

    Your response is still worded to imply that it was NICHOLS' who talked about "the President's Gestapo". It was not. And Nichols' did not endorse this idea, he said that STARK did.

    "Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who is one of the senior members of the House, is right when he says that Sheehan's arrest by officers HE REFERS TO [STARK refers to] as "the President's Gestapo," tells us a lot more about the George Bush and the sorry state of our basic liberties..."

    And further, you wrote "But, HIS CONCLUSION that it was "the President's Gestapo" who arrested them is plainly false because the President has no control over the Capitol Police." The president/Capitol Police statement is quite true, but again your 'his conclusion' is about Stark, not Nichols'.

    (By the way, I am from California, and I think Stark was a fucking moron to say something as stupid as "the President's gestapo".)

    You go on, "I am sorry you don't like my reference to the 'Loony Left.' Too often today Lefties and their willing accomplices in the media deliberately lie or shade the truth in attempts to discredit the Republican Government."

    Bill, "Looney Left", "Lefties", and the implied charge of liberal media bias are all very tired. Please be reasonable and acknowledge that Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rice, Rumsfeld, McLellan, Delay, Frist, have ALL have lied or deliberately 'shaded the truth' (what a generous characterization), and keep in mind, these people are in power, not venting against those who are from the outside.

    "The actual facts are ignored by the Left and demagoguery becomes the order of the day." Again, with the broad-brush. I'd suggest a trip to factcheck.org to view the facts on Bush's SOTU before you talk about facts being ignored by the left. They are also ignored by your President with frightening regularity and hubris.

    You say, "Any serious debate over the proper public policy occurs only within the Republican Party, if at all." And the Republicans accuse the Dems and liberals of elitism?????? Talk about being holier-than-thou. Wow. Then why are you here debating with me and other Nation readers? Do you take me as a non-serious debate? Like a clown, like I amooze you? ;)

    You write "But claiming that Mother Sheehan's experience is a constraint on 'legitimate protest' is just bunk. She got a far bigger stage to voice her opinion in media interviews after the fact than she would have ever gotten from a few camera outtakes of her sitting demurely--and quietly, as the liberal apologists claim she would have--at the event itself. No one is hauling her off to a Tower of London to rot in silence. It is not 'legitimate protest' to create a scene at the SOTU."

    Two little facts you're ignoring... She did not create a scene and she was given a bigger audience than she would have gotten BECAUSE she was falsely arrested. I notice you conceded neither fact.

    And lastly, you write "The performance of the Democrats at the SOTU prove they have no desire to join that debate. That level of irresponsibility, if continued, will likely lead to the extinction of that once great party."

    For the most part, Bill, I agree with you here. That's why I am not a Democrat.

    Good posting with you, disagreements and all.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/03/2006 @ 11:57am

  467. Frei -

    "New Dawn, you see, that's what bothers me. It would be like me saying to you, "oh yeah, I see you get your rhetoric from the Nation."

    Fair enough. I concede your point.

    Incidentally, I checked a number of posts on the blog boards there, and I see a lot longer and more well-thought out posts here.

    By the way, I do check out other sites regularly, for both sides. (Not saying you're saying I didn't)

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/03/2006 @ 11:59am

  468. it's poetic justice that Cindy Sheehan's arrest got more coverage than the so called president's dour speech.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 12:16pm

  469. (In fact it sounds like something Will C's brain damaged right wing twin brother would write. ;-)

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/03/2006 @ 02:11am

    See what being a wingnut does to you.

    It destroys perfectly good human beings

    Posted by Will C. at 02/03/2006 @ 1:37pm

  470. but we leave the light on hoping one day he may come home

    Posted by Will C. at 02/03/2006 @ 1:38pm

  471. sorry Will, that is not history. that statement is unsupportable. pick up a history of the cold war, or a bit of focused googling, and please don't make these inane statements, evn when your points are good, which they are.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/03/2006 @ 08:25am

    Sorry JR

    I use this blog as a test bed for ideas and other things. Considering that congress has the power to raise an army and the republicans keep giving Ronald Reagan credit for the job done by Tip O'neil and friends, perhaps you could help me hone my argument.

    Because look around you, the strong on defense crowd can't raise an army for shit. Nor do they know how to employ one.

    time to take our country back.

    looking forward to your input

    Posted by Will C. at 02/03/2006 @ 1:46pm

  472. Will, of course, and I apreciate your efforts, as I have told you before.the history of the cold war is an important one, as many lies and misconceptions abound. my comments, perhaps somewhat imtemperate, were meant to encourage your curiosity. I have been trying to find the history of the cold war I read recently, so to recommend it, but I've been unable to find it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 2:55pm

  473. New Dawn,

    Re "the President's Gestapo": Let's ignore Stark's inflammatory language. Nichols still states that Stark "is right" about the arrest being more about George Bush and "the sorry state of our basic liberties," that "he still has a thin skin" and then references Madison about Presidents abusing the powers of the executive branch. That language left me with the impression that Nichols thinks Bush's thin skin led him to order the arrest of Sheehan and this is Madison's abuse of the executive branch. As I said, I have no problem with a reasoned debate about how to preserve freedom "in the midst of continual warfare" but I reject the idea that Sheehan is somehow an example of the erosion of basic liberties. If you still disagree with me, we really are in alternative universes.

    Re Liars, Facts, and Factcheck.org: Let me stipulate that I don't think any of the 'liars' you mentioned are perfect people any more than the cast of 'liars' that served under the 'liar in chief' Bill Clinton or any other previous President, for that matter. (By the way, you left out Powell, Rove [ROVE!!], Wolfowitz, Bolton, etc.) However, I won't "be reasonable and acknowledge" that they are all liars. Shaders of the truth, maybe. After all, that is McClellan's job description. The practice of politics often leads to shading of the truth or at least omission of facts. I dare say that most humans go through life shading truth or omitting facts whether on the job, at school, at play, in the bedroom or in marriage.

    Yes, government officials must be held to a higher standard. But the press should adhere to the highest of standards because the public needs to trust they are telling us the truth. And there is my problem with Nichols. If he wants to argue that Bush is endangering our basic liberties he needs to use a real example, not a sham of one.

    I'll leave to another day the argument over who the bigger liars are. Suffice it to say that I don't see evidence that all those you mentioned are liars. In the future, when the records are unsealed, our children, and some of us, may discover they were all terrible liars--or not. Until then, we have to analyze the evidence we have. I have been watching politics since Kennedy and to me, this Bush crowd is the least dishonest of all.

    I went to FactCheck.org. Their judgment on the SOTU? "We found nothing that was factually incorrect..." What they found were omissions of facts "that tended to make the state of the union look less rosy than he presented." I perused the rest of FactCheck and discovered the most common crime by anybody from Right or Left was the omission of facts, the very thing you complained to me about Bush. But I think there is a big difference between failing to give the full picture and leaving out facts that impeach the claim being made. Even FactCheck admits that Bush did not do the latter, but Nichols clearly did when he failed to point out Bush had no authority to order the Capitol Police to trample on Cindy Sheehan's basic rights.

    BTW, the most common flat-out liar on FactCheck.org seemed to me to be MoveOn.org....

    Re Serious debate elitism: What I am talking about is the inability of the Democrats to propose any new ideas as alternatives to Republican government. Often they either call us names or trot out old policy positions that have been thoroughly vetted and they have lost elections on. I am not saying Democrats are not capable of debate, I am just saying they should return to the arena of civil debate. BTW, I wound up in this debate because Nichols' piece was linked on RealClearPolitics.com and once I got here, I slapped that tar baby. (OK, don't get all offended at the literary reference.) I am not really a Nation fan, my regular preference is for The New Republic and the Weekly Standard.

    Re Sheehan's creating a scene and her bigger audience because of the false arrest: Obviously I was taking at face value her statement that she would not be disruptive. But even at that, sitting in the gallery with the t-shirt on would create a scene (as would Young's) because the cameras and the TV commentators would surely notice. So, no matter what, Cindy was going to be a story. I think I did concede that she got a bigger audience because of her arrest--false or not. It didn't have to be a false arrest to be news.

    I hope I've explained myself a little better.

    Posted by BillEastland at 02/04/2006 @ 12:26am

  474. Billeastland -

    Explained yourself much better, indeed and I thank you for taking the time to do so.

    However, we still disagree, and that's okay, too.

    You wrote: "I reject the idea that Sheehan is somehow an example of the erosion of basic liberties. If you still disagree with me, we really are in alternative universes."

    Well, apparently, we are. I can't speak for Nichols' characterizations anymore, because we've now departed from that in our discussion. But I'd be happy to make this argument personally, Nichols be damned. Sheehan's false arrest represents an erosion of our basic civil liberties as does the removal of Young.

    You wrote, "However, I won't "be reasonable and acknowledge" that they are all liars. Shaders of the truth, maybe."

    I didn't say they were all liars. I said "Please be reasonable and acknowledge that Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rice, Rumsfeld, McLellan, Delay, Frist, have ALL lied -----OR----- deliberately 'shaded the truth'".

    Apparently we haven't disagreed at all on this, but you did not accurately represent what I said.

    You wrote, "Yes, government officials must be held to a higher standard. But the press should adhere to the highest of standards because the public needs to trust they are telling us the truth. And there is my problem with Nichols."

    Point taken and conceded. Nichols has an agenda, as do we all. That is not a veiled half-concession; I mean it sincerely. We agree on that. But keep in mind that we all alter our memories so that we can live with them. Agreed?

    You wrote "If he wants to argue that Bush is endangering our basic liberties he needs to use a real example, not a sham of one."

    Is Bush directly responsible for Sheehan's arrest? No, and anyone who says so is an idiot. I do want to point out, though, that a POSSIBLE incident was prevented before it happened just because it MIGHT happen. As I've said befor, this is still America, not Cruise's Minority Report. Should Bush and you be as concerned about it as Joe Citizen? Absolutely.

    You wrote "we have to analyze the evidence we have. I have been watching politics since Kennedy and to me, this Bush crowd is the least dishonest of all."

    That statement is just silly. Google "Lyndon Johnson Lies", then "Richard Nixon Lies", then Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and then Clinton. Then, Google "George Bush Lies". That statement was just plain silly, and beneath the rest of your argument.

    Come on, now.

    Previously, you wrote "The actual facts are ignored by the Left and demagoguery becomes the order of the day" and later that you "...perused the rest of FactCheck and discovered the most common crime by anybody from Right or Left was the omission of facts, the very thing you complained to me about Bush. ...there is a big difference between failing to give the full picture and leaving out facts that impeach the claim being made"

    I referred you to Factcheck.org to combat the hypocrisy of your initial insinuation that ignoring facts is a left-leaning thing. I say again, your president does this with alarming regularity and hubris. I did not refer you to Factcheck.org to say the president lied.

    And you wrote "I think I did concede that she got a bigger audience because of her arrest--false or not. It didn't have to be a false arrest to be news."

    Indeed you did, and with that, I have no further argument.

    Altogether, a pleasure jousting with you, worthy adversary.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 01:43am

  475. Dawn,

    Are you still watching this thread or are you over on the Boehner thread?

    Posted by BillEastland at 02/04/2006 @ 6:51pm

  476. Bill -

    I try to bounce around whenever I can and try to avoid leaving discussions unclosed.

    I'm here now, and if I'm not when you read this, we can still post in absentia.

    I'll catch up later if I miss you.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 7:04pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin | The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL." But 60 senators decided to follow the real leader.
John Nichols
12 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
133 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
79 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
207 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
65 Comments