Jose Bove's Not Welcome in Bush's USA

Few figures have contributed more to the debate about corporate globalization than Jose Bove, the French farmer whose dismantling of a McDonald's restaurant that was under construction near his sheep farm was something of a "shot-heard-round-the-world" in the struggle against the homogenization of food, culture and lifestyles.

While his assault on the local manifestation of the restaurant chain that has come to symbolize the one-size-fits-all character of globalization was a blunt act, Bove is known in France and abroad as a thoughtful theorist and strategist whose critique of the World Trade Organization's pro-corporate agenda has done much to alert activists around the world to the threats posed to workers, farmers, communities and democracy by WTO moves that allow multinational firms to disregard the laws and traditions of countries in which they operate.

But Bove, who has been a frequent visitor to the United States since he played an important part in the 1999 anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle, is no longer welcome in George W. Bush's America.

When he arrived Wednesday at New York's JFK Airport on a trip that was supposed to take him to Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations for events sponsored by Cornell's Global Labor Institute, Bove was stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents who told him he was suddenly "ineligible" to enter the U.S. Before the night was done, Bove was hustled onto an Air France flight that returned him to his homeland.

Why can't Bove, one of the most influential political activists on the planet, speak in the U.S.?

According to Bove, the agents told him he was being denied entry because of his past prosecutions for "moral crimes."

The French activist's "crimes" may have been motivated by a deep sense of morality. But they were, more precisely, political acts, usually involving nonviolent civil disobedience or symbolic gestures meant to raise the awareness of the French regarding globalization -- most notably the 1999 dismantling of the restaurant McDonald's was developing in Millau, a community in southern France that is not far from the cooperative farm where Bove has lived and worked for decades.

And Bove's political views are not in synch with those of a president who used his recent State of the Union address to talk up his commitment to globalization with a corporate face.

Bove does not for a second believe that the U.S. officials who blocked his entry were concerned about morality, or particular "crimes." Rather, he suggested to reporters on Wednesday evening, the militantly pro-free trade Bush administration has found a new avenue to constrain the debate about its policies.

"I think this administration is crazy," Bove explained. "They don't want any discussion that can affect all the things going on with globalization. They don't want people coming from outside to discuss it."

Coming at a time when the Bush administration faces scrutiny for warrantless wiretapping and other assaults on basic liberties, when new evidence of domestic spying on dissidents surfaceson a regular basis, and when we just witnessed the removal of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan from the Capitol before the president delivered his State of the Union address, that's hardly an unreasonable claim.

Certainly, it is a matter that merits a Congressional inquiry -- not just into this incident but into the whole question of whether customs and border operations have, like so many other functions of the federal government, been abused for political purposes by an administration that is far more committed to advancing the agenda of its corporate contributors that it is to respecting the rule of law.

Comments (296)

1. Although I agree with your general premise that the exclusion of individuals by Customs needs looking at (I recall that Nobel-Prize winning author Gabriel Garcia Marquez was barred from entering during the Reagan administration), I can't get that upset about Bove's exclusion. Taking a chainsaw to a McDonald's isn't just blunt, it was a gratiutiously destructive act, even if, from a legal standpoint, technically non-violent, taken without regard to the rights/choice of people who chose to eat there (silly thing to do, but people have a right to go to hell in the handbasket of their choice) are the workers there who presumably lost their jobs. Perhaps Customs just wants to make sure that he doesn't take a chainsaw to a Starbuck's.

   Posted by brunowe at 02/09/2006 @ 1:28pm

2. If he wants to end homogenized food, enourage the people in France to not eat the stuff,,then he could have saved the planet from the exhaust fumes belching out of his chain saw. Apparently his French compatriots disagree with his view on MickeyDees....super size that please...we were spared from another idiot entering our land.

   Posted by john maasch at 02/09/2006 @ 1:49pm

3. liberal protesters have consistently shown themselves unable to protest peacefully or behave in any respectable manner, therefore, like the spoiled little children they are, Bush has to, in effect, ground them! If they decide to start behaving properly and protesting peacefully, maybe he'll let them out of detention!

   Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

4. "Apparently his French compatriots disagree with his view on MickeyDees...."

   And this is relevant because...?

   Posted by drhammer at 02/09/2006 @ 2:09pm

5. How about the food we serve the islamo barbarians at club gitmo?? Even the terrorists struggle against the homogenization of food???Right???Another pathetic LIB written bucket of shit.

   Congratulations

   Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 2:10pm

6. I was just wondering when the United States surrendered the right to determine who they want to allow in the country? Perhaps Bin Laden could just saunter in on a flight from Paris and be accorded rights simply because he wanted to come and attack the US (even verbally). Or anyone else who dislikes us.

   I don't invite someone into my home who wants to verbally abuse me, why should the US?

   Also for Zero, Carriles is still in detention in El Paso TX at the immigration detention center as of today.

   Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 2:25pm

7. CALVIN AND HOBBES -- AND MUHAMMAD February 8, 2006

   As my regular readers know, I've long been skeptical of the "Religion of Peace" moniker for Muslims -- for at least 3,000 reasons right off the top of my head. I think the evidence is going my way this week.

   The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace. It was subtle things, like a Danish comedian's statement, paraphrased by The New York Times, "that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Quran."

   So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever.

   But three cartoons made political points.

   One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop -- we ran out of virgins!" -- which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular -- oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.

   In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.

   Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.

   The little darlings brandish placards with typical Religion of Peace slogans, such as: "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," "Europe, you will pay, extermination is on the way" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." They warn Europe of their own impending 9/11 with signs that say: "Europe: Your 9/11 will come" -- which is ironic, because they almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.

   The rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam prohibits any depictions of Muhammad -- though the text is ambiguous on beheadings, suicide bombings and flying planes into skyscrapers.

   The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad.

   But apparently the Quran is like the Constitution: It's a "living document," capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will. Muslims ought to start claiming the Quran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it.

   Other interpretations of the Quran forbid images of humans or animals, which makes even a child's coloring book blasphemous. That's why the Taliban blew up those priceless Buddhist statues, bless their innocent, peace-loving little hearts.

   Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries (by which I mean France and England) with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey -- maybe this democracy thing does work! The barbaric behavior of Europe's Muslims suggests that the European welfare state may not be attracting your top-notch Muslims.

   Making the rash assumption for purposes of discussion that Islam is a religion and not a car-burning cult, even a real religion can't go bossing around other people like this.

   Catholics aren't short on rules, but they couldn't care less if non-Catholics use birth control. Conservative Jews have no interest in forbidding other people from mixing meat and dairy. Protestants don't make a peep about other people eating food off one another's plates. (Just stay away from our plates -- that's disgusting.)

   But Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?

   Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 2:27pm

8. by- Ann Coulter

   Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 2:28pm

9. Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

   Ah, yes. Preemptive punishment. What an inspiring component to add to our democratic process.

   What if you were to find yourself living under an administration that you didn't agree with, and they were to deport you, or otherwise deny your ability to speak, because they were certain that you would say something stupid and/or obnoxious?

   How would you respond to that portion of the citizenry whose view on your treatment was simply that we had been "spared another idiot"?

   Posted by drhammer at 02/09/2006 @ 2:28pm

10. I join BRUNOWE in a rather passive reception to this news. While it's certainly unfortunate that we're denied the chance to hear, in person, a "thoughtful theorist" on an issue of tremendous importance, it's also not unreasonable in this day and age to turn away someone who has proven himself willing to literally knock down buildings in a quest to make a broader social point, even if it's one we might agree with.

    Whatever you think of McDonald's, people can't go taking down buildings that are owned by someone else (or even corporations) to make political statements. Open the door to that kind of thinking, and next thing you know someone like BUSHMAN is standing outside the ACLU headquarters.

    More importantly, what's extremely disturbing about this article is the appearance of the sort of "law" I thought existed only under incredibly repressive regimes: "moral crimes." Morality is by definition deeply subjective, and it's certainly a terribly slippery slope if the authorities are allowed to arrest/deport/whatever anyone whose morality is "suspect" -- that seems an awful lot like it might lead to the ability to charge with a crime anyone who disagrees with the powers that be. I'd love to see the statute listing these alleged criminalities, but somehow I guess that there's no such "crime" on the books.

    Unfortunately, these days, the authorities don't seem to need legal justification for the actions they take.

    Posted by breasonable at 02/09/2006 @ 2:41pm

11. Why it's obvious. Dubya is just singing a cowboy song in his head

    "...and never is heard, a discouraging word. And the skies are not cloudy all day!"

    If you don't let any dissenting voices in, and don't listen to dissenting that are already here, the world must seem all cozy and rosy! Must be kinda blissful to be so deluded.

    Bush Man

    Try reading the first couple of items HERE [rncprotestrights.org]..might give some insight as to why liberal protesters are angry. Of course, I can think of no more violent protesters than the right-wing nut-jobs who shoot up abortion clinics to "save lives" and kill people in the process.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 2:50pm

12. to the poster above: the bush administration is actively sheltering latin american terrorist posada carrilles, a man wanted for numerous serious crimes, including using explosives to blow up a Cuban civilian airliner in mid-air as a deliberate act of terrorism.

    the administration has knowingly and deliberately granted carrilles asylum in the US because he would otherwise be immediately extradited to either Venezuela or Cuba for trial.

    Actually, a federal judge ruled that Posada Carilles couldn't be extradited to Venezuela because he faced the possibility of torture. The same BBC story also said that he had already be acquitted in Venezuela (although the BBC story doesn't say that the acquittal was tossed and Posada Carilles broke jail while awaiting a new trial) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4289136.stm

    Further, he withdrew his asylum request in September. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4201266.stm

    I'm not so sure about the torture threat, but do you really think he could get a fair trial in Venezuela under Chavez?

    Posted by brunowe at 02/09/2006 @ 2:53pm

13. "whose dismantling of a McDonald's restaurant that was under construction"

    "Dismantling"?!?!?? iS THAT what it gets called? so if Tim McVeigh had merely "dismantled" an under-construction Federal Building....same term from Mr Nichols?

    Posted by Mask at 02/09/2006 @ 3:05pm

14. we were spared from another idiot entering our land.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/09/2006 @ 1:49pm

    He wouldn't stand out in the crowd in America. Have you ever listened to right-wing talk radio? Why do idiots have radio programs while others are denied the simple rights of speech and association?

    It's royalism, Maasch, a throwback to the 16th century. What part of our Constitution gives morally degenerate King George the right to enjoy the weird pleasure of tramping on the unalienable rights of others?

    There are too many in America who have no concept of what our heritage stands for.

    I disapprove of the chainsawing but I assume that he already paid an appropriate penalty for that and there are surely plenty of people who have done much worse who speak and pass freely. You along with the Idiot King are simply enjoying the wielding of absolute power, an un-American sympathy.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 3:11pm

15. ZERO

    For the LAST TIME, Posada Carilles was NOT GRANTED ASYLUM!!! He withdrew his asylum request in September and is still in the custody of Immigration. Secondly, he had a deportation hearing, it's not as if the Bush administration wasn't running him through the system.

    As to the sending of people to countries that torture, secret tribunals, etc., most of here aren't for it. The answer to that inconsistency is for those practices to stop.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/09/2006 @ 3:11pm

16. I lived under an administration I didn't agree with and I used peaceful methods to deal with it including, writing letters to the editor, contributing money to politicians I supported, informing my fellow citizens of the reasons why I disaggreed with that administration ( Clinton ) and so on. Guess what, I wasn't arrested, deported, or even harrassed for that matter! Now, if Clinton were giving a speech, and I tried to " crash the party " and make an ass out of myself, then i would expect to be removed from the premises and not allowed to attend another speech due to my own behavior! But, then again, I believe in personal responsibility and many on the left don't! So, let's say Cindy Sheehan had went to the state of the union and let the president speak while acting with class and not trying to undermine his speech with her little political stunt, and she was still arrested, I would say that is wrong! Peaceful protest in public is everyone's right, but many on the left can't peacefully protest, so they must be grounded! Furthermore, anyone who claims that Bush likes killing American soldiers ( Sheehan ) is psychologically unstable and should be kept away from our Pres.!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 3:12pm

17. It's royalism, Maasch, a throwback to the 16th century. What part of our Constitution gives morally degenerate King George the right to enjoy the weird pleasure of tramping on the unalienable rights of others?

    There is no right for a foreign national to enter our country unless US laws grant it (exceptions exist, I believe, for asylum seekers and refugees). Bove's rights aren't being trampled on. It's immaterial that if he paid his penalty in France, one may legitimately exclude someone who thinks that's acceptable behavior.

    there are surely plenty of people who have done much worse who speak and pass freely.

    The solution to that, if there are such people, is their extradition, if it may be legally done.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/09/2006 @ 3:14pm

18. No, ZERO, not at all.

    I'm not well-read on the Carrilles issue, but from what I've learned in this thread, it seems like another in a long string of ill-informed and intensely hypocritical decisions made by the Bush administration when it comes to ANYTHING having to do with Central America.

    My thoughts re Bove are simply that he's a man who has proven himself willing to destroy buildings to make a political statement (and his point is one with which I wholly agree). But in this day and age, a willingness to physically destroy something to make a political or cultural point has to be taken seriously. There's a difference between dissent and proving your point through violence. The latter's never an answer.

    If anyone was or is being denied access to the US because of the former, it's a black mark against everything we stand for. I'm just not sure that's the case here.

    Posted by breasonable at 02/09/2006 @ 3:22pm

19. I'm not so sure about the torture threat, but do you really think he could get a fair trial in Venezuela under Chavez?

    Posted by BRUNOWE 02/09/2006 @ 2:53pm

    Carriles is much more likely to get a fair trial in Venezuela than a lot of people are to get a fair trial in America. Arabs for example.

    The real fear is that Carriles will be convicted by a Venezuelan jury that, for some mysterious reason doesn't like the idea getting blown up in an airliner, and start singing about his relationship with the US government.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 3:22pm

20. How come the Republicans did not need to interrupt, shout down, or "crash" speeches of Democrats or block traffic and destroy property while " peacefully protesting" in order to take back power? How come Republicans win elections with clas and don't resort to the childish antics that the left employs? Were they just raised better, do they read Ms. Manners, do they actually propose ideas instead of attacking constantly, or are they just more rational overall?

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 3:22pm

21. Zero,

    Don't forget Orlando Bosch [en.wikipedia.org] (& here [independence.net] too):

    Orlando Bosch is a Cuban exile and former CIA-backed terrorist, head of CORU organization, which the FBI has described as "an anti-Castro terrorist umbrella organization". He has been accused of having taken part in Operation Condor and of a variety of terrorist attacks. Most notably he is accused, together with another anti-Castro Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, of taking part in the October 6, 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner in which all seventy-three people on board were killed. This bombing would have been decided at the same meeting, attended by Luis Posada Carriles and DINA agent Michael Townley, where Chilean former minister Orlando Letelier's assassination, in Washington, D.C. in 1976, was decided...

    ...Bosch was also overheard stating: "Now that our organization has come out of the Letelier job looking good, we are going to try something else." Several days later, Posada was reported to have stated that "we are going to hit a Cuban airplane" and "Orlando has the details." (Both the Bosch and Posada statements were cited in an October 18, 1976 report to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger posted by the National Security Archive on May 17, 2005.)...

    ...Bosch was pardoned of all American charges by President George H.W. Bush on July 18, 1990....(from wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org])

    But, according to many the terror problem is not one of our own making, it's something born from an islamic fundamentalist culture of violence. Don't see how this is soo hard to understand. The lesson for the day is, sponsor terrorist attacks against another nation & become the victim of your own tactics. Don't want violence, don't allow your government to sponsor it.

    Posted by thejman at 02/09/2006 @ 3:27pm

22. brunowe, the man was stopped at the border because he is an anti-globo political activist. end of story. there is no other consideration that was made.

    Immaterial, he shouldn't be let in because of his acts. That should not apply to the anti-war activitsts and, you may recall, I argued against the people who thought Sheehan's removal was okay.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/09/2006 @ 3:27pm

23. Oh, yeah, I forgot... Check Mate!

    Posted by thejman at 02/09/2006 @ 3:27pm

24. Zero,

    "hey maasch what about the idiot terrorist your godhead you worship granted asylum in the US to just last year? blowing up civilian airliners is OK"

    No, I would have jailed his ass, if found guilty, had him shot.

    Also, my godhead??Come on....

    Posted by john maasch at 02/09/2006 @ 3:28pm

25. The State of the Union was BUSH"S time to make a statement!!!!!! Cindy had plenty of CINDY"S time to make statements and her podium was in front of Bush's Ranch and she wasn't removed from there, now was she? She had ample air time and Bush didn't need to interupt her or her protest, now did he?

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 3:28pm

26. Since there is a pissing match as to the current state of Posada Carrilles I should probably note that Bosch was granted asylum & now lives in the US thanks to his former boss at the CIA Georeg HW Bush & a gentelmen (to be extremely polite)named Otto Reich (a former Reagan & Bush I official also appointed Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere in January 2002, but was blocked by a senator. I don't know which one.)

    Posted by thejman at 02/09/2006 @ 3:34pm

27. " disapprove of the chainsawing but I assume that he already paid an appropriate penalty for that and there are surely plenty of people who have done much worse who speak and pass freely."

    Maybe he should have come in the southern door via Mexico, like everyone else..would that be better? Illegasly? At least he was shown the exit door legally..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/09/2006 @ 3:36pm

28. It has widely been accepted in the US that wantoned destruction of property is NOT analgous to noviolent protest.

    BUSHMAN

    Very true

    Posted by CPT at 02/09/2006 @ 3:37pm

29. Interesting article from Libzsuk. I endorse the views expressed except, of course for the gratuitous reference to libs at the conclusion of the article. It's past time we took a stand against the tendency to make a virtue out of violent outrage.

    On the muslim predilection for violence to which the writer takes such strong objection, I was amused by this comment in the London Times by Anatoly Kaletsky upon receiving a great deal of right wing hate mail after Rush Limbaugh read out one of the leader articles he wrote in The Times criticising Bush.

    "White trash American ultra-conservatives were the only people on earth who could possibly rival Islamic fundamentalists in their paranoia, touchiness and lack of humour".

    The complete article by Kaletsky is here.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2031276,00.html

    Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 3:37pm

30. It's royalism, Maasch, a throwback to the 16th century. What part of our Constitution gives morally degenerate King George the right to enjoy the weird pleasure of tramping on the unalienable rights of others?

    There is no right for a foreign national to enter our country unless US laws grant it (exceptions exist, I believe, for asylum seekers and refugees). Bove's rights aren't being trampled on. It's immaterial that if he paid his penalty in France, one may legitimately exclude someone who thinks that's acceptable behavior.

    Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution specify that only Americans have unalienable rights. They refer only to men (the gender specification is another discussion).

    For some reason you seem to have an unshakeable belief that if someone does something you don't like then you have the right to trample on them the rest of their life. There's no justification for this action of Bush's government unless there was an indication that he was going to engage in what you like to call a "violent" act here. Attitudes like yours let powermongers slowly envelop society in dictatorship.

    there are surely plenty of people who have done much worse who speak and pass freely.

    The solution to that, if there are such people, is their extradition, if it may be legally done.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 02/09/2006 @ 3:14pm

    It isn't being done unless the Busheviks don't like them- that's the point that seems to go over your head with plenty of clearance.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 3:38pm

31. Isn't it typical the LIBS here bitching about this nitwits free speech yet they use the ignore button with pride.

    Now isnt that special

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 3:41pm

32. Red,

    "The real fear is that Carriles will be convicted by a Venezuelan jury that, for some mysterious reason doesn't like the idea getting blown up in an airliner, and start singing about his relationship with the US government."

    ...in that case would you expect Chavez to arrest Castro for brutal crimes against his own people, murder, support naro groups using his island as a stop and transit point, sponsoring illegal invasions in Congo.....? fair trials?

    Posted by john maasch at 02/09/2006 @ 3:42pm

33. On the muslim predilection for violence to which the writer takes such strong objection, I was amused . . .

    Posted by INVERESK 02/09/2006 @ 3:37pm

    Any normal human being will have a predilection for violence when treated violently for over half a century. Or is that part of history out of bounds in your mindset?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 3:42pm

34. "breasonable: senator ted kennedy ended up on the no-fly list "

    Now this makes sense given his drinking and driving record........

    Posted by john maasch at 02/09/2006 @ 3:44pm

35. " disapprove of the chainsawing but I assume that he already paid an appropriate penalty for that and there are surely plenty of people who have done much worse who speak and pass freely."

    Maybe he should have come in the southern door via Mexico, like everyone else..would that be better? Illegasly? At least he was shown the exit door legally..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/09/2006 @ 3:36pm

    Dipped into your bag of rational reason and came up empty?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 3:44pm

36. LIBZSUK, thank you for exposing their hypocracy! I've been trying explain this contradiction to them for some time now, but some NUTS are hard to crack! Keep up the good work!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 3:46pm

37. No, I would have jailed his ass, if found guilty, had him shot.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/09/2006 @ 3:28pm | ignore this person

    Hopefully you felt this way about OBL (until 2004 that is when he came out and said he was responsible for 9/11). But probably not though. Everyone was foaming at the mouth wanting to get their hands around the necks of the "towel heads" because they were riled up by a government preying on the emotions of a recently devastated populace wanting revenge so bad they could taste it. We had no proof. At least none that was presented to us other than a "we said so" from the Bush Admin.

    And before the accusations start flying I don't sympathize with any terrorists, whether they sit the White House, belong to Hamas, are employed by the CIA or are operatives of al Qaeda. They all make me sick. That's the point I'm trying to make.

    Posted by thejman at 02/09/2006 @ 3:46pm

38. It isn't being done unless the Busheviks don't like them- that's the point that seems to go over your head with plenty of clearance.

    My point, which has sailed miles above your head, is that letting Bove in doesn't really solve that, now does it?

    For some reason you seem to have an unshakeable belief that if someone does something you don't like then you have the right to trample on them the rest of their life. There's no justification for this action of Bush's government unless there was an indication that he was going to engage in what you like to call a "violent" act here. Attitudes like yours let powermongers slowly envelop society in dictatorship.

    That's hyperbolic and paranoid. No one is trampling on him, he is simply being denied entry into this country.

    Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution specify that only Americans have unalienable rights. They refer only to men (the gender specification is another discussion).

    Neither do they specify that foreigners may enter this country at will.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/09/2006 @ 3:47pm

39. Posted by breasonable at 02/09/2006 @ 3:48pm

40. Sorry about that blank post...

    ZERO, I don't at all disagree with you that the Bush administration quite often egrigiously abuses its power to stifle dissent or prevent dissenting information from reaching the American public. And it angers me as much as it angers you.

    I understand the decision to turn Mr. Bove away at the border, though, based on his previous actions (not opinions). The "moral crimes" rationale is extremely disturbing.

    Which brings me to one of the things that I'll never understand about this administration: when presented with a situation where they can actually reasonably explain their actions, they usually choose an indefensible position as opposed to a defensible one.

    Posted by breasonable at 02/09/2006 @ 3:49pm

41. By the way, I believe the right-wing-nuts who shoot up abortion clinics are every bit as crazy as islamic terrorists and should be punished just as serverely, I just think there aren't quite as many of them, and that they just don't quite pose the same level of threat! But hey, maybe I'm just biased!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 3:49pm

42. "Discussing" civil liberties, freedom of speech and association, and freedom from tyranny with those who have an authoritarian mindset is a waste of time and effort. Non-violent authoritarians are no different although their self-described commitment to non-violence is rather hypocritical in that the individual would have had violence applied liberally if he had refused to leave US soil.

    The only thing an authoritarian wants out of life is either material or vicarious participation in the application of authoritarian acts. Civil liberties and freedom of speech are a different planet for personalities like that.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 3:56pm

43. I notice Zero must have me on ignore but others have picked up the fact that Carriles is still in custody and has not been granted asylum.

    Back to Boves, again, no country including the US is under any obligation to let anyone enter their country. It is a subjective decision and always has been.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 3:58pm

44. Huh, guess I'll have to work reverse order.. Maasch, since when would drinking make one unfit to fly on a plane? That was obviously just a cheap shot with no actual rational justification.

    Libzsuck, not all of us ignore you. I get a kick every time out of seeing people like you post long, heavily edited diatribes by your leaders, and then follow it up with something to the extent of "X is obviously just anohter failed liberal attempt to reamake the constitution to suit their nutty worldview of ideological tolerance for all and a hope for a better future". Shite. Pure, dripping shite, taken from the bottom of a cesspool, where the darkest, foulest turds end up. (According to Kurt Vonnegurt, anyway).

    And finally, Bush Man. You just love to talk, don't you? You're especially found of this point.. "Peaceful protest in public is everyone's right, but many on the left can't peacefully protest, so they must be grounded". Yet, from what I've seen, every time peaceful protest is done, it is mocked for being "ineffective and idealistic", or something to that effect. The man took a chainsaw to a McDonalds (dismantling is done to uninhabited buildings, unlike the McVeigh example, to the prick who used that). That's a nice, dramatic act causing little property damage but plenty of political imagery. Kind of reminds me of another act.. what was it.. Oh, Yeah. The Boston Tea Party. Destruction of property is A-Ok with me, so long as the damage is paid back. What would it cost, another girder or two? Whatever. That a person can be driven to such acts, however, speaks volumes about the effect that corporation has had upon him, and presumably, his culture.

    Posted by Megido at 02/09/2006 @ 4:00pm

45. MEGIDO

    Destruction of property is A-Ok with me, so long as the damage is paid back. What would it cost, another girder or two? Whatever. That a person can be driven to such acts, however, speaks volumes about the effect that corporation has had upon him, and presumably, his culture.

    I disagree. When non-destructive forms of protest are available, which they were here, I don't see how destruction of property is justified.

    FROMREDBIRD "Discussing" civil liberties, freedom of speech and association, and freedom from tyranny with those who have an authoritarian mindset is a waste of time and effort.

    If you're referring to me, I have no idea where you're getting that authoritarian stuff from. I said at the outset that I agree with Mr. Nichols' premise, just not with the application to Bove. I also think I've spent enough time in other threads writing in opposition to the Sheehan rejection and to the warrantless wiretapping that I don't think I have to establish my non-authoritarian credentials.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/09/2006 @ 4:06pm

46. ZERO, my reading of the article was that he was turned away at the border for "moral crimes." I find THAT unacceptable.

    There are three reasons that he could have been turned away at the border:

    1) His history of making political and cultural statements through destructive acts. This is a valid reason to turn him away from our borders.

    2) His political views. It would be an unacceptable abuse of power to turn him away for this reason.

    3) "Moral crimes." This is absurd. There's no such thing.

    I could understand the first reason, and I think most people could accept that as a reason why he should be denied access to the US. Which is why I wonder why the administration chose the third explanation, which is indefensible, rather than the first, which is.

    Posted by breasonable at 02/09/2006 @ 4:07pm

47. Just echoing BREASONABLE.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/09/2006 @ 4:09pm

48. LibZ & Bush Man

    Speaking of hypocrisy: Go to your "stomping ground" Redstate.org

    The posting rules for redstate.com are as follows:

    # No profanity. # No personal attacks. # No harassment or demonization of a particular individual. # No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.

    The purpose of this site is promote conservative and Republican ideals. This is our home, and we ask you kindly not to track mud into it. Revocation of posting privileges (banning) will take place after a warning of behavior which violates the intent and spirit of these rules.

    So, you (well, LibZ) would be out on your ass for the crap we put up with here. Free speech and the right to not hear it. Your site; "monitoring" and censure if you don't "play nice".

    So go to your kin-folk in RedState Trailer Park and start cussing and being an ass. You'll be back here to rant and rave in a day cause they won't put up with your shit...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 4:22pm

49. I don't think I have to establish my non-authoritarian credentials.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 02/09/2006 @ 4:06pm

    If he got in a fistfight when he was eight-years-old, would you bar him from America? And if you invoke the authority to do so, it is called what? Where's the dividing line? The dividing line you advocate is not reasonable, most especially in light of the fact that the Bush administration applies authority extremely capriciously.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 4:23pm

50. Sorry to drift OT here, but has anyone seen this? Bush buried detailed Social Security privatization proposals in his budget. Can the surprise move jump-start bipartisan reform? [msnbc.msn.com]?

    Looks like it's back & with no mention of it publically, just shoved in the back to page 321 of the new budget proposal. Unlike the vague descriptions before this time there are detailed numbers. One must ask though, why the big secret? Because the idea was originally met with such a large opposition? And if this is supposed to be in our best interests why not come out with the details. After all it will be quite a bit of money diverted from the current system ($712.144 billion over a 7 year period). I guess we aren't in a democracy anymore? Do we not get to decide what we do with our tax dollars? Don't we get a say? Apparently not.

    Surprised no Nation column on this today. Or did I miss it?

    Posted by thejman at 02/09/2006 @ 4:28pm

51. "So, you (well, LibZ) would be out on your ass for the crap we put up with here. Free speech and the right to not hear it. Your site; "monitoring" and censure if you don't "play nice".

    So go to your kin-folk in RedState Trailer Park and start cussing and being an ass. You'll be back here to rant and rave in a day cause they won't put up with your shit..."

    Hey you fucking shit for brains fool....the same rules apply over at the liberal haven the daily kaos. So why dont you go over there and spew all you anti american hate speech. you would be in good company there. And despite your weak efforts at speech suppression it still is a free country and I will continue to call you a fucking asshole every chance I get.

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 4:29pm

52. I notice Zero must have me on ignore but others have picked up the fact that Carriles is still in custody and has not been granted asylum.

    Back to Boves, again, no country including the US is under any obligation to let anyone enter their country. It is a subjective decision and always has been.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/09/2006 @ 3:58pm

    Get off it. Bush is protecting that terrorist Carriles from extradition. I notice that you aren't calling Carriles an "animal", a term you love to apply to any Muslim who even mentally countenances a terrorist act.

    re: Boves

    The obligation they are under is to apply the executive power equally and judiciously and additionally not make America a laughing stock of the whole world and an object of derision.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 4:29pm

53. If he got in a fistfight when he was eight-years-old, would you bar him from America? And if you invoke the authority to do so, it is called what? Where's the dividing line? The dividing line you advocate is not reasonable, most especially in light of the fact that the Bush administration applies authority extremely capriciously.

    No, you can't hold someone responsible for what he did as a minor. What Bove did, he did as an adult. Invoking the authority to do so isn't authoritarianism. That is when unquestioning obeidience is expected. What's happening here is the right of a sovereign nation to control its borders. That shouldn't be done capriciously, especially in a free society. Here, regardless of Bush's reasons, there is cause to do so. One may say that someone who thinks his political cause, meritorious as it may be, entitles him to just destroy property shouldn't be let in. That doesn't mean that Bush is entitled to any benefit of the doubt on other issues.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/09/2006 @ 4:30pm

54. "...no country including the US is under any obligation to let anyone enter their country. It is a subjective decision and always has been. -- Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/09/2006 @ 3:58pm

    Let's get to the heart of this issue. Many countries limit visas and don't allow people in. The USSR was famous for that (actually in both directions). We hold up countries that restrict freedom of movement for political reasons (political views, e.g.) to ridicule as police states or worse.

    We flaunt our freedom and criticize those countries with less freedom.

    Now, following quite logically from these premises, we should not limit visitor visas unless for serious cause. I suppose that there are people here (like NACL, BUSH MAN, etc.) who seriously believe that Bove will recreate his action in our country. So, he'll be jailed and eventually deported if he does. He's given us no real reason to believe he'll do it. The only likely weapon he'll use is words.

    Ah, but words (unlike sticks and stones) can hurt the Bushies because they live by the manipulation of language.

    Anyway, we should be proud to be a beacon of freedom and not make exceptions when we don't like someone's opinions.

    Once again, LOVE LIBERTY proves that he doesn't -- except for himself.

    Posted by adr at 02/09/2006 @ 4:32pm

55. Keep your indignation under wraps, Redbird. It's misplaced.

    What I'm referring to is the likes of the British muslim who dressed up as a terrorist bomber carrying plackards stating that 7/7 (the day London was bombed) is about to be re-enacted. Turned out that devout muslim was a felon, released early from a 5 1/2 year sentence for selling heroin and crack cocaine. Meanwhile his Pakistani family are supported by the British welfare system.

    Muslims, like the rest of us, need to pick their fights, some of which are undoubtedly anchored in justice. Burning foreign embassies and threatening to kidnap innocent foreign civilians for summary beheading isn't.

    Or do you think these are justified responses to the publishing of twelve cartoons?

    Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 4:33pm

56. why do you "wonder" about something? the administration wishes to squelch dissent. it wishes to criminalize the expression of dissent. there is no concern for whether somebody busted up a mcdonald's franchise or not. it is about the man's dissent.

    if this confuses you, so be it, it seems clear enough

    Posted by ZERO 02/09/2006 @ 4:20pm | ignore this person

    Not only squelch dissent, but rewrite history at the same time.

    Wikipedia users expose flattery by political staff [msnbc.msn.com]

    Contributors to Wikipedia, the online user-written encyclopedia, have exposed extensive efforts by political staff in Washington to change the biographies of senators and congressmen in order to show them in a more favourable light...

    ...Among the revisionism taking place, Senator Joe Biden's office removed a reference to a 1996 plagiarism scandal, while California staffers took out a reference to Senator Dianne Feinstein's 1997 conflict of interest issue over her husband's investments in China. An aide for Representative Marty Meehan replaced his Wikipedia biography with a flattering official one and removed a reference about a pledge by the seven-term congressman to serve only four terms.

    The Wikinews reporters also found a handful of entries vandalised by Washington politicos, including a description of Senator Tom Coburn as being voted "the most annoying senator by his peers in Congress"...

    How shameless! A website that allows users to have free access to countless amounts of information is permeated by such asswipes. Fortunately wikipedia has already corrected the alterations and has blocked the House of Representatives from making alterations to entries for a week while they review the issue.

    Posted by thejman at 02/09/2006 @ 4:37pm

57. I should've mentioned that the above issue crosses party lines.

    Posted by thejman at 02/09/2006 @ 4:38pm

58. Megido, so I believe that certain liberals are a threat to my well being and country, therefore, using your logic, it is understsndable for me to then go and destroy the places that they inhabit because of the negative effect I feel they have had on my life! So when wack-job liberal judges let child rapists go free, threating my children and the children of my fellow cititzens, with no or little jail time, it is OK for me to go burn down their homes of courthouse, because those things can be re-built! Furthermore, according to your INSANE LOGIC, I should be let back into any courthouse or other govt. building without scrutiny because after all, I had a reason to be angry! I recommend intense psychotherapy for those of you who defend Bove!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 4:46pm

59. LIBZSUK, take it easy on these ignorant fools! Although I thoroughly enjoy the way you constantly clown these knuckleheads, i think you are going to cause their heads to explode very soon! On second thought, keep it up, it's very entertaining and if their heads don't explode they'll probably be cut off anyway by the people they constantly defend!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 4:53pm

60. Thank you Bushman. I have totally enjoyed the way you cut through the liberal crapolla. I admire your efforts.

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 4:55pm

61. You Have simply got to check this out....Unbelievable!!!!!!!!

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6034322259

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 5:00pm

62. LibZ

    You are indeeed a pathetic loon and the epitomy of what is wrong in this country. I am all for free speech and have never been to the Daily Kaos, and in fact hadn't heard of it before you. This just proves that you are a goading troll who lives to gibber and spew excrement at liberal blog sites. Kind of like a chimp at the zoo slinging its feces at the humans, you scamper about and jump up and down, grinning and flinging turds.

    So do us a favor here and go watch Springer, or My Name is Earl open a Bud and fondle a cousin, or yourself, or whatever other close relative you bed down with.

    Spew all the crap you want....us visitors to the zoo will just laugh at the foolish little chimp! [tinyurl.com]

    Bush Whacked

    You're almost as bad in defending such an ignorant fool, but at least you have actual thoughts from time to time. More than I can say for monkey-boy!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 5:15pm

63. LIBZSUK, see what you're doing to these people! How many derogatory names did LEFTOFREALITY call you as opposed to arguments disputing claims or facts that you have presented ( although I always get a kick out of their "cousin" references, that crap is funny ). You really get their PANTIES in a bunch and I commend you for it! I sooooooo enjoy this!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 5:24pm

64. LEFTOFREALITY, by the way, I doubt the honorable LIBZSUK would watch much Springer unless he wanted to keep an eye on the enemy since Springer is a trash spewing liberal who has a show on air-america, you know that organization that steals money from charities to fund it's faltering radio shows! By the way, I've noticed lately that there is a lot of dead air during the commercial breaks on air america, could it be that they have no advertisers? The end of the road is near for the Air America because communist re-education isn't very popular anymore! Man this is fun!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 5:29pm

65. IT IS INDEED A BEAUTIFUL SITE TO BEHOLD THE LIBERAL CRACKUP

    ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LET THEM SPEW AND THEY SHIT ALL OVER THEMSELVES.

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 5:32pm

66. Reuters article on the subject HERE [tinyurl.com].

    It has a different set of quotes from Mr. Bove than Mr. Nichols' article (offering different explanations as to why he was denied access. More interestingly, though, he apparently visited the US with no difficulties in 2005 and seems to have avoided incident. Why the difference in policy?

    Posted by breasonable at 02/09/2006 @ 5:37pm

67. Yo LEFTOFREALITY, poking fun at people who live in trailer parks isn't very tolerant, understanding, sympathetic, fair, or polically correct ( you know, all those things liberals demand for THEIR constituents )! It seems as though you are a hypocrite with your mocking of people who live in trailer parks! It seem as though you are STEREOTYPING these people! Aren't you feel good, sensitive liberals against that type of behavior? Man, I am stickin' it to you like Clinton with a new, fresh intern!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 5:37pm

68. AND A CIGAR

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 5:42pm

69. Sorry, I always forget that damn cigar!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 5:43pm

70. Question, would he have needed a cigar if VIAGRA was more readily available? And if so, what does this say about the physical condition of Clinton during his tenure? Could it be that he was not only mentally ( or at least morally ) unfit to serve but also physically? I'm sorry, I'm just kind of bored!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 5:47pm

71. Bush Man

    What part of the insightful dialogue....

    IT IS INDEED A BEAUTIFUL SITE TO BEHOLD THE LIBERAL CRACKUP ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LET THEM SPEW AND THEY SHIT ALL OVER THEMSELVES. Posted by LIBZSUK 02/09/2006 @ 5:32pm | ignore this person

    ...should I address first?

    Should I have tolerance for venemous morons? No. Am I politically correct? No! Should I care more than spit for a pair of Bush apologist imbeciles? No!

    Stereotyping? Me? Sure...and you two as well so say what you like, your idiot cousin LibZ and you do it ALL THE TIME. So go whack each other off, or whatever secret handshake it is that you two do. Bend over, I've got a ciagr for you....

    Hey monkey boy

    Nice bout of turd-slinging. You make my point with me not lifting a finger.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 5:47pm

72. "Should I have tolerance for venemous morons? No. Am I politically correct? No! Should I care more than spit for a pair of Bush apologist imbeciles? No!"

    Like anyone gives a rats ass what you may or may not think. You are liberal nitwit like all your anti american asshole friends on the left. You are weak and need to be crushed like the grapes you are.

    BEHOLD YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CONTINUING MARGINALIZATION OF THE LIBERAL LEFT LOONYTOON CROWD

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 5:55pm

73. One may say that someone who thinks his political cause, meritorious as it may be, entitles him to just destroy property shouldn't be let in. That doesn't mean that Bush is entitled to any benefit of the doubt on other issues.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 02/09/2006 @ 4:30pm

    If someone had stolen a car, wrecked it, and served his time, he wouldn't be barred. There are plenty of other examples, all the way up to not barring terrorists if their politics meet with Bush's approval. Admit that it's about politics, not "violence".

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 5:58pm

74. Monkey Boy (LibZ)

    I leave more patriotism in the toilet than you have in your entire person. Do you have a child in Iraq? I do - so piss off you brainless, spineless twit. Real Americans care about the future of our nation, but not so much about spouting troll turds and apologies for the Despot in Chief.

    Rat's ass huh? Well, at least we know what you're having for dinner tonight!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 6:06pm

75. LEFTOFSANITY, I have to admit, you are one of the few liberals who will admit who you are and who will admit that you are a blatant contradiction to the constant cries and claims of tolerance and political correctness of your cohorts! Acceptance of one's inadequacies is the first step in true growth of one's character! I commend you and hope that you will stay the course of much needed introspection! If your are successful in your journey, the Republicans will have one more enlightened convert voting for them! Just flat-out schooled once again! You guys have got to start paying me!!!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 6:09pm

76. "Real Americans care about the future"

    Too bad you LIBS cant be counted on as REAL AMERICANS.

    Just because we both have family members in the military and in IRAQ does not give license to be an anti american shit for brains fool. So go and scoop all your patriot poop out of you LIB commode and smear your disgusting excuse for an american carcus LIBERALLY

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 6:14pm

77. ann, i see you really really wanted to talk about the cartoon uproar. katha pollit started a thread on this topic in "the notion" section of the blogs of the nation.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/09/2006 @ 6:15pm

78. LEFTOFCENTER, I respect and appreciate your child's sacrifice in IRAQ and wish him all the safety and success possible! I also believe that it is a very tough thing for a parent to go through and wish you the best of outcomes! But, you and I both know that having a child in Iraq does not make you right in your political views. For every Anti-war parent with a child in Iraq there are at least as many Pro-war military parents!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 6:15pm

79. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/09/2006 @ 6:06pm

    My primary surprise is that anyone who thinks doesn't have LIBZ on the ignore list.

    Posted by adr at 02/09/2006 @ 6:16pm

80. Keep your indignation under wraps, Redbird. It's misplaced.

    What I'm referring to is the likes of the British muslim who dressed up as a terrorist bomber carrying plackards stating that 7/7 (the day London was bombed) is about to be re-enacted. Turned out that devout muslim was a felon, released early from a 5 1/2 year sentence for selling heroin and crack cocaine. Meanwhile his Pakistani family are supported by the British welfare system.

    Muslims, like the rest of us, need to pick their fights, some of which are undoubtedly anchored in justice. Burning foreign embassies and threatening to kidnap innocent foreign civilians for summary beheading isn't.

    Or do you think these are justified responses to the publishing of twelve cartoons?

    Posted by INVERESK 02/09/2006 @ 4:33pm

    Why didn't you say, "the British muslim who dressed up as a terrorist bomber" the first time rather than "the muslim predilection for violence"? That's nothing less than current-era anti-semitism, a virtual duplicate of the methods employed by the German nazis against Jews in the 1930's. Many "liberals" seem to be just as susceptible to it as many "rightists". I'll repeat:

    "Any normal human being will have a predilection for violence when treated violently for over half a century." It has nothing to do with Islam or it's unspoken correlate, race. It's the result of "Western" behavior, something the current-era anti-semites excitedly insist on denying.

    The cartoons? That's called pouring gas on the fire. Sort of like raping and murdering someone's daughter and then going to the funeral with placards accusing her of asking for it. Guess what's going to happen.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 6:20pm

81. LIBZ rocks the house bro! How can you ignore him? He's so effective, he's got you ranting, raving, cussing, attacking, contradicting, and STEREOTYPING! All he is doing is putting liberals in front of the mirror, and they don't like what they see, so instead of looking within, they lash out! It's just a classic whoopin', I tell you!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 6:21pm

82. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/09/2006 @ 6:06pm

    Just block the dope, like just about everyone else. I wouldn't know he was there otherwise.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 6:26pm

83. A Jewish magazine seems to be connecting the dots:

    http://www.forward.com/articles/7339

    Posted by plunger at 02/09/2006 @ 6:28pm

84. Bush Man

    Thats pretty funny. My brother was a life-long GOP (and hard-core) until BushII. Now he's a rampant Libertarian. Said that Dubya is the cure for being a Republican!

    My handle is my inclination...Left of Center. I am fiscally conservative (unlike Dubya who has never found a dime he didn't wanna spend), and socially kinda liberal. For instance, I do believe in universal health care, and "some" entitlements. I also believe in the death penalty and think that convicted criminals should be subject to forced labor. I don't mind taxes if they are used for something "good" (noting the inherent relativism of the term) and don't believe blindly in the purported "altruism" of big business. Reaganomics didn't work then and doesn't work now. I am secular by-and-large, not terribly religous (although consider myself moral and spritiual in what I do), and educated. I'd like to think humanity will leave a world fit for my children, and the more I see of the way we are going, the more convinced we are heading down the shitter. Also can't support the concept of a war that was built on lies primarily for petroleum security. If we wanted Sadaam out, we shoulda used a sniper instead of a trillion dollar war (not that I am advocating assasination of a Head of State, but if you're gonna do it, then let's get cost-effective!)

    Monkey Boy

    That's carcass. I guess the you are one of the ones who got "Left Behind" in NCLB? Lemme know how that BBQ'd rat's ass is!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 6:28pm

85. Libz and Bush 'man'

    I actually unignored you both to see if I had made a mistake in ignoring you in the first place last night.

    I didn't.

    Bye, Bye.

    BTW - Wingerstillswallow

    Posted by skeletonman at 02/09/2006 @ 6:30pm

86. BM...and please note the embedded pun

    "It's just a classic whoopin', I tell you!"

    ...a monkey slinging poop out of its cage? You're kidding right?

    BM and Monkey Boy sounds like wanna be super-heroes!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 6:32pm

87. Zero:

    I hear you and you make good points. However, there are a couple of problems. Most Europeans can travel here without visas if they qualify under a "machine readable passport". Immigration and Customs law says to effect:

    "By law, some travelers are not eligible to enter the U.S.. These include people with criminal records, certain serious communicable illnesses, previous deportations from the U.S., previous overstays on the visa waiver program and certain other problems. Such travelers may not travel under the VWP and must apply for special restricted visas. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they will be refused entry into the U.S."

    This guy is personna non grata in many countries. He was refused entry into Canada last year. He has a hard time getting around Europe, where it's so easy to cross borders. He has several felony convictions and has served two sentences.

    Do I agree...? No, not for what he's done. But...immigation laws are designed for a reason.

    I recall last year a palestinian professor was denied entry (even though he had a visa) to give a seminar at Univ of Chicago. he was a Said disciple and made so much sense. But, he was put on the next plane back to Europe. That was totally fucked.

    Posted by doumer at 02/09/2006 @ 6:32pm

88. Hey Libzuk:

    What; no CRACKUP yet today? Get with it boy.

    Posted by doumer at 02/09/2006 @ 6:34pm

89. While it is indeed the Bush Admin which oversees the Immigration Department, it is Congress that wrote the laws governing the issuance of a visa.

    I recommend you read the rules on ineligibility for Visa from the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1001, et. seq., as amended. Clearly the law says that Bove is ineligible due to his having committed a violent act on property. I agree the moral crimes answer is stupid.

    http://www.immigration.com/frame/sponvisa.html

    Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 6:38pm

90. By the way, excellent article on the main page on the subject of free speech: The Right to Be Offended, Gary Younge.

    In the "enlightened West" it's apparently quite alright to publish a drawing of Muhammad with a turban shaped like a bomb regardless of the fact that bombs hadn't yet been invented in the early 7th Century . . . immediately after refusing to publish what sounds like immeasurably milder cartoons of Christ because they might "upset" Christians. The Muslims of course, have not the least right to be upset with the vicious stereotype.

    But then, also, it's not alright to say, "Junk food is bad."

    It's "Western" hypocrisy, highly refined and full strength.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 6:39pm

91. LEFTOFREALITY, wow, I am impressed. Reading your self-description I'd have to say that I would describe my political beliefs in almost the same exact fashion! We seem to be more alike than I had originally thought! Except the Bush hate, for one! Again, if you can give me PROOF ( remember innocent until proven guilty ) that Bush lied then there would not be much to talk about, but you can't give it because it does not exist, at least as of today! It's also kind of hard to make up something the previous admiministration claimed! This is obviously our quagmire! neverless, You seem, on most issues to be rational, convicted, and realistic! So, although I don't agree with a lot of what you said, I respect you much more than the majority of left leaners on this site!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 6:45pm

92. This guy is personna non grata in many countries. He was refused entry into Canada last year. He has a hard time getting around Europe, where it's so easy to cross borders. He has several felony convictions and has served two sentences.

    Still doesn't explain why right-wing terrorists are handled by the Bush administration so much more graciously.

    Do I agree...? No, not for what he's done. But...immigation laws are designed for a reason.

    I recall last year a palestinian professor was denied entry (even though he had a visa) to give a seminar at Univ of Chicago. he was a Said disciple and made so much sense. But, he was put on the next plane back to Europe. That was totally fucked.

    Posted by DOUMER 02/09/2006 @ 6:32pm

    Put that last case together with Bush's harboring of terrorists and you have the complete explanation of why the Bove exclusion should be opposed.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 6:48pm

93. Right wing terrorists? What are you living in, reality or Disneyland? my goodness, they just get crazier by the minute! Again, try intense psychotherapy and focus on the REAL, TRUE threats we all face!

    Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 6:52pm

94. I recommend you read the rules on ineligibility for Visa from the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1001, et. seq., as amended. Clearly the law says that Bove is ineligible due to his having committed a violent act on property.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/09/2006 @ 6:38pm

    If he was ineligible why did they issue him a visa?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 6:55pm

95. Question, would he have needed a cigar if VIAGRA was more readily available? And if so, what does this say about the physical condition of Clinton during his tenure? Could it be that he was not only mentally ( or at least morally ) unfit to serve but also physically? I'm sorry, I'm just kind of bored!

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 5:47pm

    Naw...Bush Man. A personalized humidor.

    Posted by doumer at 02/09/2006 @ 7:08pm

96. LL:

    Quit spouting. The French don't need visas if they have readable passports. Why not take the time to do a little reading on regs before shooting wads.

    Posted by doumer at 02/09/2006 @ 7:13pm

97. Posted by Redbird

    Why didn't you say, "the British muslim who dressed up as a terrorist bomber" the first time rather than "the muslim predilection for violence"?

    Precisely because recent events across many parts of the globe, including the examples I cited, are nothing short of a symptom of the muslim predilection for violence.

    It seems as if the first and principal reaction to being offended is destruction, even of themselves. If what we've seen - mobs in their thousands setting fire to foreign embassies, the gutting of the EU office in Beirut, assaults on American Afghani bases, violent demonstrations and destruction of property across two continents - isn't a predilection for violence, perhaps you'd explain precisely what is!!

    I understand their inndignity. They were wrongly offended. But to show it in this way is indefensible.

    Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 7:21pm

98. REAL, TRUE threats we all face!

    Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 6:52pm

    And what are those REAL, True threats Bush Man?

    Scared little hamster.

    Posted by doumer at 02/09/2006 @ 7:22pm

99. Quit spouting. The French don't need visas if they have readable passports. Why not take the time to do a little reading on regs before shooting wads.

    Posted by DOUMER 02/09/2006 @ 7:13pm

    Doumer,

    Try a little bit of logic. Bove obviously applied for a visa so there must have been some indication he had that he was not eligible for he Waiver Program (see below).

    When does a national of a VWP country need to apply for a visa instead of using the VWP?

    Nationals of VWP countries must meet the conditions noted in Which travelers may use the Visa Waiver Program to enter the United States? in order to seek admission to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program. Travelers who do not meet these conditions must apply for a visa. In particular, a visa must be requested if the traveler:

    Wants to remain in the U.S. for longer than 90 days, or envisions that they may wish to change their status (from tourism to student, etc.) once in the United States; Wants to work or study in the United States, wants to come to the U.S. for other purposes not allowed on a visitor visa, or intends to immigrate to the U.S.; Does not have a machine-readable passport (MRP) as of June 26, 2005. Intends to travel by private aircraft or other non-signatory air or sea carriers to the U.S.; Has been refused a visa or admission to the U.S. before, or did not comply with the conditions of previous VWP admissions (90 days or less stay for tourism or business, etc.); or Has a criminal record or other condition making them ineligible for a visa (see Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas).

    http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html#2

    Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 7:34pm

100. I understand their inndignity. They were wrongly offended. But to show it in this way is indefensible.

     Posted by INVERESK 02/09/2006 @ 7:21pm

     I agree, emotional and faith-centric violence is not defensible. Move religion out of politics and we create a brand new world. same for all religions...i don't care which.

     Not so different here with bombings of abortion clinics, assasination of practitioners, mass squacking when a CA atheist tried to remove the god thing from the plege, when Moore defied removing the 10 commandments etc...etc.

     There will never be a day in my lifetime when it happens, but perhaps....someday....religion will just become obsolete...for the good of all.

     Posted by doumer at 02/09/2006 @ 7:35pm

101. Redbird, tell me if the undernoted is, or is not, a cultural predilection for violence, bearing in mind they are enshrined in Sharia law.

     1 Honour killings

     2 A group of muslim village elders ordering the gang rape of a woman because her 12 year old brother happened to be friendly with someone of a higher caste. By this I mean the well publicised case of Mukhtar Mai. The abusers walked free until there was such a backlash in the west that Musharraf himself had to intervene. The point is that these sorts of acts are sactioned by well respected members of the community.

     3 Public, beheadings, amputations, floggings and stonings. I spent a number of years in a country where this went on each Friday. The place where these acts of brutality took place was nicknames "chop square".

     Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 7:35pm

102. Countries have the inherent power to police their borders and decide who enters and who doesn't. Though it does seem a bit ridiculous that the strong on national security crowd would deny a cheese eating surender monkey legal entry (cause there all afeared of him) while at the same time turning a blind eye to the free flow of MS-13 gang members illigally across our southern border.

     (maybe it's because Bove wouldn't have caused enough pain?)

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:00pm

103. Posted by INVERESK 02/09/2006 @ 7:35pm

     Again...agree totally. The ordered stoning of a woman in northern Nigeria because she was "accused" of having had sex with someone she wasn't married to.

     The clitorectomies performed widely throughout islamic africa.

     The list goes on and on.

     The solution? I wish I knew other than to say that knowledge conquers all. Educated persons still wantonly commit crimes of religious passion.

     Economic solutions perhaps? Equity and viability seem to temper behaviour to some extent. A good place to start,

     BTW: from previous posts, I garner that you are a Euro residing in Vancouver. Hmmm! Love Van. My daughter lives there and I make every excuse I can every year to visit. Hmmmmm.....oh well. I'm in a desert and I have to keep it alive.

     Posted by doumer at 02/09/2006 @ 8:01pm

104. So, if you educate a person that stoning another person to death is wrong, then the problem will be solved?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 8:04pm

105. So, if you educate a person that stoning another person to death is wrong, then the problem will be solved?

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 8:04pm

     the nazareene did it

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:07pm

106. Ah Will, always lurking.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 8:11pm

107. I don't have an answer, Doumer, but what I know isn't a solution is to temper our own morality within the west so that we make allowances for these acts. And it's happening - a case in point in Britain was where a judge took due cogniscance of Pakistani customs when he sentenced a young thug to only three and a half years for the honour killing of his sister and her boyfriend of whom the family dissaproved.

     I believe we have to firmly and clearly signal that these acts do not belong in our culture and will not be tolerated under any circumstances. It's political correctiness gone mad.

     I'm not quite in Vancouver, Doumer, although close, and we do keep a condo in the city as my partner has her business there. I live on an 11 acre waterfront estate on the largest of the gulf islands, Saltspring, only a 45 minute hop by seaplane into Vancouver's inner harbour. The best of both worlds.

     Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 8:11pm

108. Ah Will, always lurking.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 8:11pm

     USAPRIDE, always prey.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:16pm

109. Posted by INVERESK 02/09/2006 @ 8:11pm

     You are indeed a bastard INVERESK. Saltspring! Hmmm! I am totally jealous. The greenery, the ocean, whale watching, salmon!

     Ok. Enough.

     Gotta step out for a bit, but would love to carry this out a bit further. I have some ideas.

     Posted by doumer at 02/09/2006 @ 8:20pm

110. WILL, how's your Nepoleon thing coming along? Still wearing that uniform to work?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 8:20pm

111. USAPride, it isn't that long ago that western europe embraced capital punishment and flogging was a legitimate form of chastisement. I don't think it's only education that caused us to realise these things were wrong but a stage of spiritual evolution that enabled us to be able to empathise. I'm not sure what each of the motivating factors were but there are a host of them.

     And I do believe we're a better society for not permitting brutality by the state and for having a judicial system that is capable of both forgiveness and tolerance.

     I also think that an important stage in developing such a society was the separation of church and state.

     Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 8:26pm

112. WILL, how's your Nepoleon thing coming along? Still wearing that uniform to work?

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 8:20pm

     Can't say. Still haven't gotten them shoes from ya.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:26pm

113. Yo' DOUCHer...I mean Doumer! I guess I'll have to continue workin' you like a Ted kennedy coctail! Here's the answer to your pathetic question! In case you missed it, there were a couple of planes that were hijacked and flown into the world trade center sometime back in 2001! Some innocent "little eichman's " died when those towers fell! This was not the first time or the last that " some people" tried to kill Americans on this soil! These same people are sawing off heads ( innocent heads that is ) and targeting and blowing up INNOCENT CIVILIANS AROUND THE WORLD! I know who is doing this, and it is not right wing nuts ( although you'd like to believe it is )! I try to avoid using profanity but when some fucking piece of shit, ungrateful, lowlife, seditious motherfucker asks me such an idiotic and inflammatory question like you did, I lose it! I hope the next person who disrespects the victims of Islamic terrorists by asking me such a question, will ask it in my presence, because then there could be true retribution towards those in this country that take the side of the enemy you moronic, low-life, oxygen-thief, embarrassment to your family, race, gender, mother and human-kind! I think I've lost it, you seditious bastards!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 8:29pm

114. Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 8:29pm

     OK I'll ask...

     It was a bunch of crazy assed foul mouthed right wing nuts that took down the trade center wasnt it?

     (and when they aren't sneaking around launching suprise attacks they're scampering away to hide)

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:38pm

115. Will C. you are an embarrassment to your mother for even thinking what you wrote

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 8:40pm

116. I hope the next person who disrespects the victims of Islamic terrorists by asking me such a question, will ask it in my presence, because then there could be true retribution towards those in this country that take the side of the enemy you moronic, low-life, oxygen-thief, embarrassment to your family, race, gender, mother and human-kind! I think I've lost it, you seditious bastards!

     Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 8:29pm

     what you gonna do to me hamster boy?

     You gonna get your brains all over me when your head explodes?

     Or you just gonna stand there and terrorize me for a spell before you scamper off agin?

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:41pm

117. Hes a nutty LIB....Are you surprised???

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 8:41pm

118. Will C. you are an embarrassment to your mother for even thinking what you wrote

     Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 8:40pm

     my mother isn't a conservative. She's got the spine to take a little embarrasment.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:43pm

119. I'd insult your mother but you do it for me daily!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 8:45pm

120. Seems to me that the left is still in the process of digesting the whole concept of terrorism while the right has already defined it and wants to remove it - now!

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 8:48pm

121. I'd insult your mother but you do it for me daily!

     Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 8:45pm

     You got the sweets for my mother, bush boy?

     You think you could survive her laughing herself off the chair when she starts a giggling at your little conservative winky.

     Or would you run away to get your little two passanger cessna and try to fly it through the front door

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:49pm

122. Seems to me that the left is still in the process of digesting the whole concept of terrorism while the right has already defined it and wants to remove it - now!

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 8:48pm

     funny thing about now.

     It'll still be now in a million year

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:51pm

123. Trouble is I don't think terrorism can be removed by guns and bullets, USAPride, else Palestine would be a haven of peace and tranquility.

     I think the left realise they don't have a definitive answer for its removal either and we have to face the fact that it may be here to stay, regardless of any action, peaceable or otherwise, that we might take.

     I think it was George Orwell who wrote "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

     We clearly need the capacity to defend ourselves but we've also got to be very careful when and how we let those rough them loose.

     Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 8:55pm

124. Will, only if the weenies win.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 8:56pm

125. Educated persons still wantonly commit crimes of religious passion.

     Posted by DOUMER 02/09/2006 @ 8:01pm

     That sentence is an oxymoron. People, who act out of 'religious passion', are by definition, not educated or insane.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 8:56pm

126. Correction - rough men, not rough them . . .

     Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 8:56pm

127. Will, only if the weenies win.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 8:56pm

     You fellas are running the country

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:57pm

128. Best comeback to a right wing piece of horseshit ever, Will C. ("Funny thing about now...") You are the master. We are not worthy. Bop 'em another one for us.

     Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 8:59pm

129. Yes, I agree. Terrorism has always existed and always will. But not on our soil. Not within the USA.

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

130. I hope you're right USAP. Seems you grow just as many as you import, though, at least to date. That little issue is not going to be as easy to resolve as throwing a bunch of troops into Iraq.

     Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 9:03pm

131. Yes, I agree. Terrorism has always existed and always will. But not on our soil. Not within the USA.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 9:01pm

     If only you wingnuts felt the same way before ol Gee Dubya went on vacation and let a few of Daddy's business buddies put a new hole in lower Manhatten

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 9:05pm

132. Yes, I agree. I am still conflicted on the Iraq issue. I do feel GWB acted in a sincere manner. However, I have always questioned the decision to invade Iraq on such a grand scale.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 9:09pm

133. "Terrorism has always existed and always will. But not on our soil. Not within the USA."

     And of course, aside from the obvious examples of terrorism on U.S. soil- the Ku Klux Klan, White Citizens Groups, state terror in suppression of the indigenous population of the Americas as well as in the suppression of the labor movement and the early Civll Rights Movement, bombings of birth control clinics and the Federal Building in Oklahoma, terrorism has never existed on U.S. soil. Oh no. Never never never.

     Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 9:13pm

134. It seems, USAP, it wasn't quite grand enough for his senior military advisors, all of whom he sacked. He was told 400,000 troops to secure all borders and the interior and to uphold the rule of law. Maybe if he'd listened to those seasoned rough men that he employed for that specific purpose, the insurrection wouldn't have grown exponentially.

     Better still, maybe if they'd all stayed at home . . . .

     Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 9:17pm

135. LEGRA, When I typed my first letter on that comment I knew one of you would come back with the KKK, or the OK City Bombing and use it in a sarcastic way. This only proves how narrow minded you are.

     I'm not talking about a bunch of smelly skin heads. I'm talking about fuckers who want, (CAN!) set off a dirty bomb in the center of a populated area and kill 8-10 thousand and give the remaning 300,000 cancer in 5 years.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 9:23pm

136. USAP, even if I grant (which I don't) that the war was launched in good faith, it's also how it's been so abysmally managed, like Katrina only worse.

     Not enough troops, prisoner abuse, not proper armour for troops and humvees, the scandal of rendition, Iraqi weapons arsenals not being secured in the first few days and so being pilaged, being excessively heavy handed and so losing popular support of the Iraqi population, billions and billions of dollars going missing, Halliburton scandals, etc. etc. If GWB was a businessman in head of a corporation, his ass would have been in a sling a very long time ago.

     What we've seen is incompetence of the worst possible order. His position should be untenable and I'm damned if I know why he's still there.

     Posted by inveresk at 02/09/2006 @ 9:25pm

137. I'm talking about fuckers who want, (CAN!) set off a dirty bomb in the center of a populated area and kill 8-10 thousand and give the remaning 300,000 cancer in 5 years.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 9:23pm

     a dirty bomb isn't going to kill eight to ten thousand. It'll cause immediate casualties like those Timmy V created.

     Cancer figures aren't predictable. Too many variables

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 9:30pm

138. USAPRIDE -

     You're another right-minded fellow (wing, not correctness - and I don't mean that disrespectfully, I swear) doesn't realize that even arguably left people like me agree with on your last post quite a bit...

     Or perhaps you agree with us more than you realize...?

     I wrote,

     "It is ridiculous to suggest that we are fighting the terrorists abroad instead of having to fight them here when any extremist can walk across the border into our country from Mexico or Canada.

     No country on the planet can mount a realistic invasion of the United States of America, and no military would stand a chance even if we didn't see them coming across the water or though the air weeks before they got here.

     Short of a nuclear exchange, no country in the world can mount a realistic offensive against us except through terrorism.

     We need do less worrying about a war in America (but not America in wars), and more about what we can do to combat as little as nineteen extremists with boxcutters who entered this country legally to commit their extremist atrocities."

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 9:31pm

139. ADR & Skel

     Yeah, I usually do have the various incarnations of Libz on "ignore". However, someone has to have the dirty job of thrashing him now and then. I suppose I should just leave it gibber in the corner...it would keep the place cleaner I guess...what with all the dead rats and fecal matter.

     ALL

     Just came back from a James Carville seminar. Very good speaker...quite dynamic. He is very, very correct on this point (among others) Dems need to have a more unified voice and defend themselves against the flailing insanity that many of the right have become. Have always been fairly political...guess nows the time to step up. So to all the Dems / Progressives / Independents...hell, even the Lbertarians and sane Republicans. C'mon....jump up on deck and let's "Get'er done!" Dubya's "Every man (or corporation) for themself" is what the Capt of a sinking ship says....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 9:32pm

140. Dubya's "Every man (or corporation) for themself" is what the Capt of a sinking ship says....

     Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/09/2006 @ 9:32pm

     I wish I thought of that

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 9:34pm

141. Actually, USA Pride, what it proves is that you don't want to contend with the roots of terrorism in your own country, but instead prefer to chase phantom bombers instead of doing the day to day hard work of countering a political culture that generates terror trends on U.S. soil.

     No, you'd rather talk about what people MIGHT do as opposed to what has actually transpired, although, truth be told, what a national security state is fully capable of doing with impunity never troubles you in the least.

     Well, obviously I'm not as open-minded as I should be. I generally am pretty discriminating as regards bullshit. Harmless bullshit I'll indulge. But this nonsense you're talking is dangerous bullshit, so yes, I have a tendency to shut down when it's put on my plate. I know I don't have to eat it.

     Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 9:43pm

142. "However, someone has to have the dirty job of thrashing him now and then"

     Dont flatter yourself nitwit. Your a LIB fool that only serves as entertainment for me. Hows your patriotic poop smearing going fool???

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 9:43pm

143. Hey, LEGBA, you forgot the Black Panthers, or do they get a free pass because you are a racist?

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 9:43pm

144. Wow, Libzsuk. Patriotic poopsmearing. That's alliteration. Have you been studying literary form or something? Your style has improved so much.

     Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 9:46pm

145. Hillary Rotten Clinton used to represent the Black Panthers as an attorney...Cant wait till her BP buddies start campaining for her

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 9:46pm

146. Hey, Bush Man, your making the Black Panthers- who had many problems to be sure- the equivolent of the Ku Klux Klan is only betraying your ignorance, but no more so then your idea that my calling silly white people like yourself out on racial patterns is the same as racism. I like lots of white folks, I just can't stand the ignorant ones. Okay? Okay.

     Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 9:49pm

147. LOC-

     Are people still responding to those two, Bush whatever and Libz?

     Bush Man called me a pedophile, unprovoked, and I'm not sure that he and Libz don't actually know each other.

     And I'm talking "know" in the Biblical sense.

     C'mon, man, neither of them have any desire to act American or intelligent and have dialogue. Why waste the effort?

     It's like trying to explain to a Klan member that racism is wrong. They are bigots, and we are the enemy, not fellow Americans with differing opinons.

     "Compassionate" Conservatism. Hah.

     High hilarity, if you ask me.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 9:49pm

148. "They are bigots, and we are the enemy, not fellow Americans with differing opinons"

     What a bucket of total horseshit!! You are not Americans with simply different opinions...you are undermining our country for purely political purposes because you out of power crybabies....Well that attitude is gonna get all of us killed. You do nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy because you think it hurts Bush and you ahould be ashamed of yourselves...But you wont be...cause you want power so bad and you hate Bush so much. Pathetic excuses for American patriots if you ask me and over 50% of the country I might add

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 9:55pm

149. Legba, Will C. and DOUCHE, you pathetic liitle twerps are actually trying to compare the terrorist threat we face today, with small splinter groups that either no longer exist or are comparable to ELF in terms of their threat level! Listen, you 3 oxygen thieves are LOSERS! There are not to many things that get me this riled but when you scumbuckets try to downplay the threat we face after seeing the death and destruction of INNOCENT lives around the world caused ( factually ) by Islamic terrorists who claim that nothing short of conversion to Islam will satisfy them, you show yourselves to be the enemy within and complete and total psychopaths! If I were to be granted a wish, it would be 10 min.s locked in a room with each one of you terror defending, victim disparaging bitches, along with your butt-buddy hero Ward Churchill! That's one motherfucker that doesn't want to cross my path! Now, my BITCHES, Will C. seems to have a fetish for hampsters! Could it be because, like Richard Gere, he's got one up his ass and it's pissing him off! Look on the upside, it's better a hampster then my foot, you little twerps!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 9:57pm

150. Here Here Bush Man....Beautifully stated...As always

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 9:58pm

151. Legba, Will C. and DOUCHE, you pathetic liitle twerps are actually trying to compare the terrorist threat we face today, with small splinter groups that either no longer exist or are comparable to ELF in terms of their threat level!

     Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 9:57pm

     No.

     we're saying the terrorist threat is you.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 10:01pm

152. Move to France you silly pacifist

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 10:01pm

153. Blowing someone is cool.

     Blowing someone up is not cool.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 10:02pm

154. Hey Legba, you are actually somewhat correct with that one. The KKK was much worse than the Black Panthers and committed far more atrocities than the Black Panthers> The two, in terms of the threat they posed, should not be compared in any way, which proves my point, JERKOFF! The same rule applies to Islamic terrorists being compared to the KKK or any other domestic terrorist group, DINGBAT! Grow up, grow a sack, and grow a conscience, DILLWEED!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 10:03pm

155. That's one motherfucker that doesn't want to cross my path!

     Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 9:57pm

     Why? Caase he might trip over your sorry ass down on the ground rubbing the seman from the corners of your mouth after a job well done?

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 10:04pm

156. You seem to know a lot about semen around the mouth Will C.

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 10:05pm

157. WillY, I beginning to like you...

     You sic fuk.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 10:05pm

158. Blowing someone is cool.

     Blowing someone up is not cool.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 10:02pm

     Should I?

     Or is it just too easy?

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 10:06pm

159. Libzsuck and Bush Man:

     Nice, but a little over the top. Go back to the bathroom, talk to the mirror a little longer, play the revenge fantasy a little more low key. It's too much. It won't fly on screen. Bush Man, I like what you're trying to do with the "bitches" part, but it seems inauthentic. Try "Punk" or "Pussy". And don't work it up so fast, your character is reaching flash point before the main message of the monologue and the audience won't go for it. Maybe if you vomited out one of those big turds in your mouth or something. Okay. Now, back it off, count to three, and go for it.

     Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 10:08pm

160. Hey guys,

     The bottom line for me is, I'm just not going to allow my country to become a place where I go to shop and get blown up by a hidden bomb in the produce section.

     How can any of you disagree?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 10:09pm

161. USAPRIDE -

     My 9:31pm post did not disagree.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 10:11pm

162. LIBZSUK, ah France! The lib-utopia of double digit unemployment, Islamic rioting, food for oil scandals, hairy armpits ( on women ) and last but not least, bad hygene havin' cowards! Their pledge of allegiance should read " I surrender "! By the way, honorable LIBZSUK, have you ever stood next to a hippie-liberal.....they smell just as bad as those non-bathing Frenchman! I guess it's caused by poor roles models and irresponsible people procreating!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 10:12pm

163. My apologies to all for my love of frolicking with the wing nuts

     It's good training for Hannity and O'reilly, Savage (formerly McGillacuddy)...

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 10:13pm

164. Will C., if you keep it up, I'm gonna start talkin' bout' me and yo' mama! Trust me, it will be messy ( literally)!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 10:14pm

165. Redbird, tell me if the undernoted is, or is not, a cultural predilection for violence, bearing in mind they are enshrined in Sharia law.

     1 Honour killings

     2 A group of muslim village elders ordering the gang rape of a woman because her 12 year old brother happened to be friendly with someone of a higher caste. By this I mean the well publicised case of Mukhtar Mai. The abusers walked free until there was such a backlash in the west that Musharraf himself had to intervene. The point is that these sorts of acts are sactioned by well respected members of the community.

     3 Public, beheadings, amputations, floggings and stonings. I spent a number of years in a country where this went on each Friday. The place where these acts of brutality took place was nicknames "chop square".

     Posted by INVERESK 02/09/2006 @ 7:35pm

     Your question is moot because of it's falsehoods.

     (1) There is no provision in the Quran for "honor killings"; ipso facto, cannot be "enshrined in Sharia law" since the Quran is the original source of Sharia law.

     (2) The gang rape was ordered not under Sharia law but by a tribal council (panchayat) and was the result of a violent conflict between two different tribes. At the immediately following Friday prayers the local Muslim Imam condemned the perpetrators and it was condemned by the country's Islamic authorities, when they became aware of it, who demanded that the perpetrators be punished. They were tried (in an anti-terrorist court), condemned to death, were acquitted on appeal, and have been ordered retried. So your item is more an example of Islam defending women than the opposite that you intended.

     (3) Please provide some details about where this took place and when. I would like to evaluate it's authenticity.

     Posted by Redbird

     Why didn't you say, "the British muslim who dressed up as a terrorist bomber" the first time rather than "the muslim predilection for violence"?

     Precisely because recent events across many parts of the globe, including the examples I cited, are nothing short of a symptom of the muslim predilection for violence.

     Please refer back to notes immediately above.

     It seems as if the first and principal reaction to being offended is destruction, even of themselves. If what we've seen - mobs in their thousands setting fire to foreign embassies, the gutting of the EU office in Beirut, assaults on American Afghani bases, violent demonstrations and destruction of property across two continents - isn't a predilection for violence, perhaps you'd explain precisely what is!!

     Please explain to me what you would call a culture that dumps hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives on a Muslim country's people who had done nothing to harm us and were no threat to us? This was tens of thousands of times more violent than anything any Muslims have done in the last hundred years if not last millenium. Maybe you should be focusing on the violent predilections much closer to home, i.e., "Western culture". We can go into the British applying poison gas to the Iraqis back in the 1920's, also, if you like.

     I understand their inndignity. They were wrongly offended. But to show it in this way is indefensible.

     Posted by INVERESK 02/09/2006 @ 7:21pm

     USAPride, it isn't that long ago that western europe embraced capital punishment and flogging was a legitimate form of chastisement. I don't think it's only education that caused us to realise these things were wrong but a stage of spiritual evolution that enabled us to be able to empathise. I'm not sure what each of the motivating factors were but there are a host of them.

     And I do believe we're a better society for not permitting brutality by the state and for having a judicial system that is capable of both forgiveness and tolerance.

     I also think that an important stage in developing such a society was the separation of church and state.

     Posted by INVERESK 02/09/2006 @ 8:26pm

     Spiritual evolution in the "West"? Surely, you're making a joke. Sit still for a moment, Inveresk, and roughly tote up for us a list with the numbers of mass murders in the world in the last 100 years. If you think the "West", or the rest of the world, is going to come out looking good vis a vis the Muslims, I think you're going to be profoundly disappointed. A slightly greater awareness of history is in order. It is always much easier to see a smaller fault in others while completely overlooking a larger fault in ourselves.

     I think it was George Orwell who wrote "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

     We clearly need the capacity to defend ourselves but we've also got to be very careful when and how we let those rough them loose.

     Posted by INVERESK 02/09/2006 @ 8:55pm

     The sad fact is that Muslims have more justification for such sympathies than you.

     By the way, do you consider yourself more knowledgeable about Sharia than this person below? Where does your knowledge come from? Is it from the "Western" news media? The same one that falsely whipped the world up about "mushroom clouds" and is now blamelessly peddling the same lies all over again? Please don't forget to give me more details about "chop square".

     For which crimes does the Quran mandate specific punishments?

     Five crimes known as the Hadd offenses, Lombardi* says. Because these offenses are mentioned in the Quran, committing them is considered an affront to God. They are:

     - Wine-drinking and, by extension, alcohol-drinking, punishable by flogging - Unlawful sexual intercourse, punishable by flogging for unmarried offenders and stoning to death for adulterers - False accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, punishable by flogging - Theft, punishable by the amputation of a hand - Highway robbery, punishable by amputation, or execution if the crime results in a homicide.

     Where are these laws applied? Adopting hadd punishments is considered a symbol of a country's Islamic identity, even if they are rarely carried out, Powers says. Saudi Arabia and Iran have hadd crimes on the books, as do some federal states in Nigeria. However, the most severe punishments--stoning and amputation--are inflicted sparingly, experts say, in part because the Quran insists on strict evidentiary standards. "They aren't applied in cases of doubt," Powers says. States often go beyond the Quranic safeguards to add new ones. Pakistan has hadd punishments on the books, but it has set up a series of procedural roadblocks to insure they can be enforced by the state only rarely, if ever, Lombardi says. Still, vigilante applications of hadd punishments occur in Pakistan and other parts of the Islamic world.

     *Clark Lombardi, an expert on Islamic law at the University of Washington's School of Law. [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 10:14pm

166. How can any of you disagree?

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 10:09pm

     Any wingnut could accomplish that with container of black powder from the local walmart and a swatch watch.

     Our fearless leader isn't going to stop that with his current policies

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 10:16pm

167. Anyone who cuts & pastes on this blog is a sawger.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 10:17pm

168. Will C., if you keep it up, I'm gonna start talkin' bout' me and yo' mama! Trust me, it will be messy ( literally)!

     Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 10:14pm

     So your gonna do some stand up?

     Cause you suck at the throw down.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 10:17pm

169. New Dawn,

     I joined this thread late, and I must say, reading the infantile gibbering of Rush/Savage wannabees LIBZSUCK and BUSH MAN is quite entertaining! Ignore them? I would only do that if what they said bothered me. No, it's actually entertaining to read their bilge and then their masturbatory congratulations when they think (an overstatement, I know) they have proven some point that most of us know was proven wrong months or even years ago.

     They're so cute when they think they're making sense!

     Posted by Turk33 at 02/09/2006 @ 10:18pm

170. Turk -

     "Ignore them? I would only do that if what they said bothered me."

     BushMan called me a pedophile, unprovoked. Call me thin-skinned, but, yeah, it's safe to say I didn't take that well.

     But I understand what you were getting at. You guys please give 'em hell on my behalf - I will watch with particular schadenfreude every time they are exposed for what they are - ill-educated, weak-minded bigots.

     I refuse, however, to join these types in a race to the bottom.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 10:24pm

171. New Dawn,

     Oh God, I didn't mean that we should wast time to actually reply to their nonsense! That'd be like screaming back at the TV during the SOTU...never mind, bad example.

     Posted by Turk33 at 02/09/2006 @ 10:27pm

172. "waste time"

     Posted by Turk33 at 02/09/2006 @ 10:27pm

173. I laugh at the superior intellect

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/09/2006 @ 10:30pm

174. New Dawn,

     I joined this thread late, and I must say, reading the infantile gibbering of Rush/Savage wannabees LIBZSUCK and BUSH MAN is quite entertaining! Ignore them? I would only do that if what they said bothered me. No, it's actually entertaining to read their bilge and then their masturbatory congratulations when they think (an overstatement, I know) they have proven some point that most of us know was proven wrong months or even years ago.

     They're so cute when they think they're making sense!

     Posted by TURK33 02/09/2006 @ 10:18pm |

     Turk33, absolutely. These guys are hilarious. What a couple of clowns.

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/09/2006 @ 10:31pm

175. Funny, Turk. I thought about doing that, too...

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 10:31pm

176. Will, no I got sucked after throwdown of your mama! Now I've been schoolin'your candy ass for a couple of days now and all you can do is make snide little comments like the pathetic gay cock fag that you are! are you, by any chance, a member ( I said member ) of the GAY mafia! And speaking of the gay mafia, you nitwits will be sad to know that Hollywood's profits are down, people don't care about their movies or political views anymore, Papers like the Ny and LA times are losing money and subscribers, the big three liberal news outlets NBC, ABC, and CBS are failing along with CNN while Fox news dominates, Air America is failing while Savage , Hannity , and Rush dominate and the Republicans run the whole show! Oh yeah, the Supreme Court has shifted to the right also! You and your insane political beliefs are losing in every venue because you are spineless, immoral cowards! The undeniable proof that you have lost everything is right here! Man, I just continue to school you fools, I beat you on every point, so much so, that you won't even attempt to answer simple questions, running like the little biiiiiaaaatches you are! Like usuall, it's another CHECK MATE, you polesmoking, freeloading, TWERPS!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 10:32pm

177. Man, I'm good.....but LIBZSUK still holds the crown! He's brought some anger out of you fools that I just can't quite seem match! Libzsuk, have you any advice for me?

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 10:35pm

178. I laugh at the superior intellect

     Posted by LIBZSUK 02/09/2006 @ 10:30pm | ignore this person

     ALRIGHT....I'll tolerate a LOT on these blogs....but I WILL NOT tolerate people STEALING LINES from Capt. James T. Kirk, dammit!!!

     Kirk: [taunting Khan] Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect.---"Star Trek-II: The Wrath of Khan"

     Posted by Mask at 02/09/2006 @ 10:37pm

179. Anger? Pity and chuckles, man, Pity and chuckles!

     How's this for a new cartoon on Fox - The Hapless Adventures of Libzsucksman and Bush Boy!

     Posted by Turk33 at 02/09/2006 @ 10:38pm

180. Goodnight. Look forward to more comedy tomorrow - I know Libzsucksman and Bush Boy won't let me down!

     Posted by Turk33 at 02/09/2006 @ 10:39pm

181. LIBZSUK, you have finally solved the case of who these freaks really are! They are TREKKIES in disguise, and you know about TREKKIES, most are outcasts! Sad as it may be, it explains everything. GOOD WORK, LIBS, you are always one step ahead! How do you do it?

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 10:41pm

182. Like usuall, it's another CHECK MATE, you polesmoking, freeloading, TWERPS!

     Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 10:32pm

     Wow, Bush boy, so much info and so long to put it all together.

     Did you pass those ideas aroud the circle jerk you college repubulican boys got going over in the dorm room, or does the RNC email them to you when they see you get in a jamb?

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 10:41pm

183. I guess I'm feeling a little bit insulted that our Nation blog site could attract or be sniffed out by such low-grade ignoramuses like LIBZSUCK and BUSHMAN.

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/09/2006 @ 10:43pm

184. Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/09/2006 @ 10:43pm

     are you kidding me? They sent the republican elite in here to spar with us

     Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 10:47pm

185. Will, you are starting to bore me, call your mom if you need any dirt on me because she knows alot about me, a lot! She could describe me better than Lewinski could slick willy1 How you like that, my little bitch!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 10:49pm

186. "Gay cock fag". Is that a poem you're working on, Bush Man? Try some imagery, simile, metaphor, you know, that sort of thing. Show us, don't tell us. That's the secret of good styling. Even tough guy poets have style. I'm sorry your audition didn't work out a few posts back, but maybe poetry is right for you. Still, vocabulary is helpful if you're going to write.

     Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 10:50pm

187. WILLC, is this the same LIBZSUCKS that used to change his alias every few days, lob a few Stalin references along with an Ann Coulter paste, but never dare to put together a complete sentence? I can't believe he's actually talking.

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/09/2006 @ 10:53pm

188. Funny, gay cock fag was actually a song written by a struggling band full of liberals ( no shit ) that I hung out with in school! I loved the title, and i'll make sure to inform them that their politcal buttbuddies on this site were not impressed with the title of, in my opinion, their best song! Man I just cannot stop playing you fools like a fiddle! Yeah, I can, my wife is pissed off, you jerkoffs are gettin me in trouble! Oh no, I becoming more liberal by the minute, I just blamed others for my own actions! Damn!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 10:55pm

189. Bush Man, when you say Will C. is a little bitch, are you implying that it would be better if he were a big bitch? Are you a size queen? It's okay, it's okay. You're among allies here. I know it's tough in that closet over in your political corner. But you'll meet the man for you. Keep trying.

     Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 10:57pm

190. Oh, and you've used the simile "like a fiddle" twice. Just a pointer.

     Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 10:59pm

191. LEGBA, you got me there. So how about " smeared your ass like tawanna brawley or monica lewinski"! or " Drowned your ass like Teddy Kennedy " or better yet, how about " you got smoked liked a Marion Barry crackpipe, fool!" Why do I continue to enlighten you inept children without pay?

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 11:13pm

192. I guess I'm just very charitable!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 11:14pm

193. Actually, Legba is charitable to even reply to these towering intellects.

     Legba, you're a better human being than me. I don't visit blogs to read posts that sound like World Wrestling Entertainment meets Fox News. I don't post on most blogs, I just like to see others' opinions. These two MENSA candidates have me shaking my head and wondering when scatological references and cigar jokes can actually pass for commentary.

     Posted by Rapaport at 02/09/2006 @ 11:24pm

194. Legba

     What with all the joyous grab-assing of LibZ and Bush Whacked, you gotta wonder which one is gonna be the girl tonite! LibZ IS an ass-biter dontcha know

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 11:26pm

195. New Dawn

     Guess I'm feeling charitable tonight. Helping the less fortunate by entertaining them. Plus, the Carville talk made me realize what a pitiable lot they are. Driven to the edge of reality by their witless, lying leader. Becoming poorer, and more helpless and believing that Dubya is their king. Quite sad actually.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 11:30pm

196. Her's alittle tidbit, the local communist manifesto ( a free liberal publication called the NEW TIMES, SLO, Ca. ) printed a cover story on meth! They went on to give complete detailed instructions on where to by ingredients ( locally ) and tools and how to produce it! They are about to go out of business because of this blatant mis-use of free speech because advertisers and retailers are pulling out! they are even under fire from a few liberals who actually have conviction ( this blew me away, but it is encouraging)! Funny, the liberal media outlets have still not learned a thing about responsible jounalism! This is discusting, but whenever we see this blatant disregard for right and wrong it's always the left that is involved1 Facts have been peresented, no go into denial and justify this new example of liberal psychosis!

     Posted by bush man at 02/09/2006 @ 11:42pm

197. Geez....even todd trys to make a point. LL misinterperets scripture. Cpt shares his misunderstandings of reality with us.

     The only coherent sentences these two spew out, are in their cut and pastes. (Imagine being outclassed by ann?)

     Then the rants about 'schooling' (skulin', perhaps) or their "intellect"?

     They can't really disagree with anyone. They have no thoughts of their own, beyond an eight year olds flatulations. And no capacity to even understand neocon thought, much less progressive thought.

     You guys are making me feel bad for the righties. I'd disown you, if you claimed to be a progressive.

     At least they're are good for a laugh. (That's AT you boys, not WITH you.)

     Pathetic.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 11:44pm

198. " whenever we see this blatant disregard for right and wrong it's always the left that is involved"

     Posted by BUSH MAN 02/09/2006 @ 11:42pm

     OK...you got me...that's fucking hilarious.

     ...When's the last time you actually read a newspaper?

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 11:47pm

199. LOC,

     What all did Carville talk about in his lecture?

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/10/2006 @ 12:08am

200. (Since we're so very far off topic in this thread anyway.)

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/10/2006 @ 12:08am

201. The truth of the matter, Redbird, is that Mukhtar Mai's abusers were found innocent by a Sharia court and freed. They had to be prosecuted by a civilian court before justice was done. That Sharia court is the one who sactioned gang rape as a legitimate penalty by refusing to recognize that the rapists committed an offence. It ordered them freed. If you want to know where that corrupt and putrid sense of justice in Sharia law comes from, you better ask them. I wish I knew.

     Violence is preached as rightful and just by many of their clerics. Some of them take up refuge in the west then abuse the hospitality of their adopted nations. The Danes have evidence of Muslim clerics working and living in their country, then leaving Denmark for the Middle East to sow the seeds of violence by preaching that some of the cartoons had Mohammed fucking a dog!! Lies. Clerics deliberately lying to forment violence and insurrection for their own twisted reasons.

     If preaching violence in the name of Islam is wrong, then someone better tell the worshippers at Abu Hamza al-Masri's mosque because they've been listening for years to the violence he's been spewing in the name of Allah and for which he's just received a seven year jail term in Britain, soon to be extradited to the USA where he'll likely get life. Institionalised violence preached by a muslim cleric as rightful under Islamic law.

     I don't know of any other societies that tape innocent people being beheaded whilst they shout "God is Great" and launch those tapes on the web. Even the worst satanists don't behave this way. If they did, we'd hunt them down. And where were the cries of outrage from muslim countries, from muslim clerics when those atrocities were undertaken in the name of Allah? I would have thought that committing murder in the name of one's God would deserve a far more vocal exhibition of outrage than a cartoon of a prophet. But I'm afraid my distinct impression was that the muslim world was silent.

     Our society doesn't sanction serial murder and we have no statistics for how many serial murderers there are in muslim countries so a direct comparison is impossible. THAT argument is therefore a moot point. However, we can judge them against known behaviours. Like muslim citizens celebrating 9/11 by honking their horns and dancing in the streets. I don't recollect communists, catholics, buddists, hindis, christians, agnostics, atheists, goths or satanists behaving this way. Only muslims, celebrating the deaths of several thousand innocent civilians because they happened to be doing business in an American building or flying in American planes.

     One might as well argue that catholicism during the period of the middle ages wasn't violent because, despite the fact they burned witches by the wagon load and the Spanish Inquisition was putting many political prisoners to the flame in the name of saving their souls, their bible preached forgiveness and peace. It's an argument of turgid nonsense. Seen through the eyes of the west, violence is an endemic muslim trait. Sad but true. And whether the Quran endorses institutionalised violence or not, violence to innocents is used time and time again as a political tool to further the goals and aims of their religious leaders.

     You're right that SOME muslim countries have been violated by the west in a way that is abhorrent and against our own religious doctrines. We suffer a terrible double standard and share a collective shame in both allowing this to happen and, in my case, being a citizen of one of the countries that was a principal aggressor. For what it's worth, I apoligise to Iraqis everywhere for what was and is being done in their country by my government. It's wrong. I wish I could undo it but I can't.

     Posted by inveresk at 02/10/2006 @ 12:25am

202. Malcontent for the truth, i read 2 publications daily and I challenge you to rationally dispute any "Fact" I have presented here! You can't, so you'll talk some shit and feel good about yourself! You asked me if I read the newspaper, well, I answered! Now it's your turn to answer the question, are you man or woman ( being politically correct to the hypersensitive lefties )enough to answer? I bet not!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 12:54am

203. Really Malcontent for the truth, denial will only make it worse, no grow a spine and challenge me on any Fact I presented! You won't, which means I clowned you in front of your own people and you , like the wimp I percieve you to be, will just take it lying down! Damn, I still got it!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 12:59am

204. Hit it bottom with a loud thud.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/10/2006 @ 01:13am

205. It hit (not hit it)...

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/10/2006 @ 01:14am

206. Posted by BUSH MAN 02/10/2006 @ 12:54am

     You posit no facts. I was musing aloud. I have no intention of attempting to reason with you.

     I will wait for a more rational righty.

     You guys make me miss rio and todd.

     Piss off.

     Rock bottom SS. Even I won't go there. It'd feel dirty to indulge their mutual masturbation.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/10/2006 @ 01:27am

207. .

     Expelled by Nichols

     Nichols dedicates this thread to Jose Bove. That professional agitator destroyed a McDonald in France years ago. He also rampaged a US army base in 1975 and destroyed an American, genetically modified rice experiment. He has now been denied entry into the US. That upsets Nichols because he remembers bilious Bove firing "a shot heard round the world" (which no one remembers).

     Nichols has forgotten or hans't yet heard that a cartoon uproar has been thundering across the world for the last two weeks. In that time this he has dealt with:

     Checks, Balances and the Duty to Filibuster, 01/27 @ 11:46am

     What Bush Needs to Talk About (SOTU, 01/31 @ 12:23am

     The War on T-Shirts (Sheehan), 02/01 @ 1:05pm

     A Boehner in the Henhouse, 02/03 @ 2:32pm

     Lieberman's Lapdog Act Not Playing Well, 02/07, @ 10:13am

     Dose of Reality for Bush (Coretta funeral), 02/08 @ 2:11pm

     Jose Bove's Not Welcome in Bush's USA, 02/09 @ 1:16pm

     For Nichols, using the Coretta Scott King funeral to attack the President, was "A Healthy Dose of Reality." But this "journalist" contact with real life hasn't extended to facing the loudest momentary reality in the world in his blog. (Which also holds for the other Nation bloggers.)

     None of them could bring themselves to talk about the Dec 15 election in Iraq either. Reality which they cannot twist and belie they make non-events.

     These boys and girls fear the truth, facts, the real. They are quintessential Orwellians.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 02/10/2006 @ 01:29am

208. can we ignore the beanhead posters please? Posted by ZERO 02/10/2006 @ 01:18am | ignore this person

     I think they've hijacked this thread. I am about to tune out.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/10/2006 @ 01:31am

209. .

     SEATTLESCRIBE 02/10 @ 01:31am

     "can we ignore the beanhead posters please?" (ZERO)

     I think they've hijacked this thread. I am about to tune out

     You guys are naturally tuned to the infra-red spectrum. Thus your asses are violet and you inhabit the trees. Climbing branches is your forte, it suites Zero's rectum. There you pull your winkies and eat each other's flees.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 02/10/2006 @ 04:26am

210. .

     CORRECTION

     fleas, NOT flees

     Posted by nacl at 02/10/2006 @ 04:54am

211. VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: We believe, that we have all the legal authority we need. He (BUSH) indicated the other day he's willing to listen to ideas from the Congress, and certainly they have the right and the responsibility to suggest whatever they want to suggest. We'd have to make a decision as an administration whether or not we think it would help and would enhance our capabilities.

     Look at the arrogance of that statement. They would listen to Congress, and then do whatever they wanted to do? Says who? Not according to the United States Constitution you won't.

     Just because the subject is "terrorism" we're supposed to forget the basic structures of our democracy? Says who?

     If this administration and its paid media shills had not spent the last four years scaring the shit out of the citizens of the United States with hundreds of false alarms specifically designed to solidify their own power, they would not have even been re-elected, if in fact they were.

     There is no mandate for a power grab. The Congress is still a co-equal branch of government.

     In the last two days, there has been a false alarm bioterror threat at the senate building and a false alarm flash back of a purported terror threat against the tallest building in Los Angeles, which the President intentionally misnamed the "Liberty Tower" on Carl Rove's instructions so as to imply that the terrorists plotted to attack "Liberty."

     The compliant television "news" media played along and made sure to use BIG BOLD SCARY HEADLINES to go along with their images of this "Faux News." Bush holds a staged, highly-produced event nearly ever day at 10:15 a.m. complete with compliant bobble-heads in military uniforms to applaud on command. Big Brother is working overtime to remind us every day that we must take leave of our senses in order to be saved - and the corporate news media covers every word of it without commercial interruption. Who pays for this air time? Ultimately we do.

     These media companies operate under an FCC license that mandates that they operate in the public interest. They are either with us or they are against us. Define the public good. Is it good to be fearful? Do you derive any benefit from being fearful?

     These people need to be tried for Treason and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

     BREAKING NEWS...false alarm.

     Hold the media accountable.

     Posted by plunger at 02/10/2006 @ 05:26am

212. Damn, I still got it!

     Posted by BUSH MAN 02/10/2006 @ 12:59am | ignore this person

     Now THIS one is ripping off lines from "Ralph Malph"!....hehe

     Posted by Mask at 02/10/2006 @ 06:52am

213. Posted by NACL 02/10/2006 @ 01:29am | ignore this person

     NACL, I too have noted the MINUTIAE or "fluff stories" that the editors of "The Nation" have gone with lately, including Ms vanden Heuval's "Sweet Victories" which seem a desperate attempt to keep SOME "good news" out there in a slow news period.

     No doubt though once the midterms get upto speed in the late spring, we'll see more hard-hitting stories...likely boosterism for various Democrat (primarily "real progressive") candidates, as well as hit pieces on the Republican candidates.

     Posted by Mask at 02/10/2006 @ 06:55am

214. Seattle

     The main jist of the Carville talk was that a) Dems to to "buck up" and get involved to fix our broken nation and b) Dems to stay on target, on topic (stand for less things more then) and defend ourselves.

     Plus, he's really pretty humorous as well.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 08:18am

215. Posted by RedBird,

     (3) Please provide some details about where this took place and when. I would like to evaluate it's authenticity.

     I lived in Saudi Arabia in the seventies but these sorts of punishments are most certainly not restricted to that nation. As I understand it, they're imposed wherever the Hadd penal code of unalterable punishment is rigorously applied. It most certainly was in Iran at the end of the 1970's during Komeini's time and below is a link to the Sharia penal code of Zamfara, Nigeria, January 2000, and prescribes punishment which includes flogging, amputations, crucifixion, stoning, etc.

     Sharia Law [zamfaraonline.com]

     Posted by inveresk at 02/10/2006 @ 10:07am

216. NaCl

     I for one would welcome a discourse on what is going on in Iraq.

     A lot of fine reading here [tinyurl.co.uk] and a special piece titled "After Iraq's Wartime Elections" [tinyurl.co.uk]

     For more timely news, visit this blog of an Iraqi who is living it: http://riverbendblog.blogspot. com/ [riverbendblog.blogspot.com]

     and for "news of the day" in Iraq NEWS [tinyurl.co.uk]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 11:05am

217. Posted by RedBird,

     (3) Please provide some details about where this took place and when. I would like to evaluate it's authenticity.

     I lived in Saudi Arabia in the seventies but these sorts of punishments are most certainly not restricted to that nation. As I understand it, they're imposed wherever the Hadd penal code of unalterable punishment is rigorously applied. It most certainly was in Iran at the end of the 1970's during Komeini's time and below is a link to the Sharia penal code of Zamfara, Nigeria, January 2000, and prescribes punishment which includes flogging, amputations, crucifixion, stoning, etc.

     Sharia Law [zamfaraonline.com]

     Posted by INVERESK 02/10/2006 @ 10:07am

     You said this:

     "Public, beheadings, amputations, floggings and stonings. I spent a number of years in a country where this went on each Friday. The place where these acts of brutality took place was nicknames 'chop square'."

     . . . and when I ask for details you come back with that? Your first statement was a gross, huge exagerration and I knew it. Weekly "public beheadings, amputations, floggings and stonings" didn't take place, even in Saudi Arabia, even in the 60's. I quoted and provided a link to a legal expert [tinyurl.com] on the application or, more accurately, infrequent application of such punishments:

     "Adopting hadd punishments is considered a symbol of a country's Islamic identity, even if they are rarely carried out, Powers says. Saudi Arabia and Iran have hadd crimes on the books, as do some federal states in Nigeria. However, the most severe punishments--stoning and amputation--are inflicted sparingly, experts say, in part because the Quran insists on strict evidentiary standards. "They aren't applied in cases of doubt," Powers says. States often go beyond the Quranic safeguards to add new ones. Pakistan has hadd punishments on the books, but it has set up a series of procedural roadblocks to insure they can be enforced by the state only rarely, if ever, Lombardi says. Still, vigilante applications of hadd punishments occur in Pakistan and other parts of the Islamic world."

     You prefer to ignore that except to lift terminology from it to respin your basic falsehood, repeating the opposite of what an acknowledged expert says. You're even dragging in events during the Iranian revolution back in the 70's to shore up your grossly overstated case.

     Certainly, any applications of laws like this, and the laws themselves, should be condemned. It would be remiss to not do so. It is much more remiss to exaggerate their occurence so that they appear to occur many thousands of times more than they actually do. Those who are making every effort to whip up hate against Muslims to facilitate their warfare state greatly appreciate your contributions, I'm sure of that.

     Posted by fromredbird at 02/10/2006 @ 11:14am

218. Unfortunately, if the charges are against you in a court of law, what you are convicted for in a civilized society is not what you "might have" or "would have" done, but what it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you did. Not what you might do, but what you are guilty of.

     But then, why am I at all surprised at this shit logic? I've been watching you god damn cowboys rationalize police perforating kids in the inner city without due process for many years. Now you've elevated your insulated, backwoods stupidity to a standard of world politics. You're going down, shit heads. The party's over.

     Posted by Legba at 02/10/2006 @ 11:32am

219. MBB, I won't speak for everyone else here, but I do believe that Hussein would have acquired nuclear capabilities if possible. But (as many here surely said at the time) UN inspections were working, and Hussein was indeed a toothless tiger. Whatever one may think of the hardships imposed by sanctions, they were clearly working and Hussein did not pose a physical danger, imminent or otherwise, to the US. Bush insisted otherwise, and touted intelligence that his own intelligence agencies knew was, at best, questionable. It was this "evidence" that he used to convince the American people to back the war.

     I'd say that "publicly or not," most of the war's supporters would admit that he, at the very least, greatly exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam. And whether it's worth it to pay for that questionable threat with American blood and treasure is worth is where we have a difference of opinion. It's absurd to imply that those who are against this war are somehow in "support" of Hussein's regime.

     Posted by breasonable at 02/10/2006 @ 11:40am

220. The main problem with thread or whenever you get people of different political persuasions together in any forum is how both sides quickly fall into the demonization of the opposing viewpoints.

     Everyone here all too often is quick to take offense and then slimes the other in some manner, the other repsonds in kind, thus creating this never ending circle.

     In the course of passioned debate this is understandable, as both sides feel very strongly about their particualr positions. But where it starts to get out of hand and thusly leads to quick and fast downspiraling of the thread is when it gets excessively nasty, I try, though not always with success to avoid these exchanges.

     Although some posters mistake this for weakness, it is merely the wish to avoid having reasoned discourse bogged down in the muck.

     So if all wish to avoid having the thread degenerate into an infantile insult fest, then we all need, especially the liberals since your numbers here far outnumber the other side, to rise above the BS.

     This thread can be a way to gain insight into the views of your ideological opponents or it can be an excercise in demonization of your opponents solely interested in insults.

     Posted by CPT at 02/10/2006 @ 11:41am

221. And the funny part is that you're tearing it all down yourselves. Because once you've abandoned any real thoroughgoing notion of due process or rights under law, you've become what you condemn. No one should trust you, although many will for a time yet. But when they stop, you'd best run. I've seen your future, dumbshits, and it's Mussolini's past.

     Posted by Legba at 02/10/2006 @ 11:41am

222. CPT, there seems to be no shortage of insults flying around on this board, from all sides, but you certainly can't argue that LIBZSUCK and BUSHMAN come here not to discuss issues and offer opinions, but to insult and disrupt conversation, then congratulate each other for doing so. They're primarily responsible for the degeneration of these past few threads. It's hard to talk over that noise.

     Posted by breasonable at 02/10/2006 @ 11:51am

223. BREASONABLE

     Saddam was might have been a "toothless tiger" but he still had claws, and a tiger, toothless or not is a creature you want lurking in the trees.

     The techonolgy nowadays to produce certain WMDs, ie bio/chem requires a considerable less signature, as Duelfer did quite emphatically state, he did "retain the capability" to re-start certain programs.

     It is well to remember that, SADDAM had long established ties with Al Aqs Maryters Brigade and Anslar al Islam, each had a camp in IRAQ, and Anslar had lond established ties with AQ.

     Now how long would it have taken for SADDAM to have enabled that organization? who knows, but I dont want to take the chance especially in the wake of 911.

     Intell? Well intell is mostly wrong, why because it has an expiration date on it. Just like milk, after while its not ood anymore. for obvious reasons

     Posted by CPT at 02/10/2006 @ 11:52am

224. BREASONABLE

     Yes at times they do, but you are relatively new to this thread, and there have been equally profane liberal posters here as well, LIBZ is a response to the Chimichenga and Bloppys who also lurk with a similiar purpose. Not saying its right, but just a response to that

     Posted by CPT at 02/10/2006 @ 11:57am

225. CPT, the whole problem is that Bush, et al., told us that he was a tiger with teeth AND claws. I don't think that the public would have backed the war, rightly or wrongly, if they knew the actual level of threat we faced. And I believe that Bush and his team knew that, and hyped the facts to sell the war. Even assuming it was necessary to depose him immediately (a point I'm not willing to concede), if not a lie, it's certainly dishonest to make a exaggerated and deceptive case to gain public support, even for a "good cause" (another point I won't concede). That's not how good government works. We're supposed to have a president we can trust.

     Posted by breasonable at 02/10/2006 @ 12:11pm

226. Anyway, the war debate wasn't over Saddam's ability to secure nukes; it was over our continued ability to prevent him from securing them. You lost the debate, and you can't win it retroactively by falsely claiming the President is a liar.

     My advice to you is to take Carville's advice. Focus on the limited number of issues where you can win and fight for them. Stop wasting your time fighting for battles that you lost three years ago. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/10/2006 @ 11:30am | ignore this person

     MBB,

     Those who follow current events closely know the neoconservatives have advocated for removing Saddam Hussein from power since at least 1998. (See their web site at www.newamericancentury.org). The predictability of the Iraq fiasco was an easy call when, after the 2000 election, Bush appointed a nest of neocons, e.g., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, to powerful positions in government. (Even though Cheney was "elected" Vice President, he has been given extraordinary power by Bush.) They prevailed. Iraq is a quagmire. OBL is apparently still on the lamb. And the Bush PR machine has created enough confusion including purposefully obfuscating an implied link between OBL and Saddam Hussein. Who can blame people for being confused about who our enemies are?

     It is time for Congress to declare that the conditions stipulated in PL 107-243 have been remedied and instruct the President to bring the troops home from Iraq.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/10/2006 @ 12:27pm

227. MBB

     Glad you are a Carville fan. He also said Dubya went to Iraq on a false premise, without a plan and without a clue.....

     The reasons he gave such sage advice to the Dem side is to rescue the nation from the current admin's corrupt grip.

     Do you agree with this as well....?

     "The tubes were evidence"...of what? Nucear engineers tell our intel experts these are "not for enrichment" and we make public statements saying they are? I believe that is a lie and NOT a "difference of opinion." But again, as much as your side seems to revile Clinton you use his logic when it suits... "It depends on how you define LIE."

     re: the "War debate"...funny how that shifted and changed color as the world watched...9/11 (oops..no connect), "Immediate threat" (oops we didn't say that, oops - yes we did, oops - no we didn't), well he coulda maybe perchance one day stole, bought, begged or borrowed one if he really tried that's your argument? That is laughable. Hell, I want a new car but if wishin was fishin I'd be ass-deep in trout. Of course the "new and improved" rationale is to "spread democracy".

     Talk about a house of waffles.....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 12:28pm

228. Ambramoff is singing about his relationship with Bush AND Libby is singing about how Chenney AUTHORIZED him to "leak" highly classified material to build public support for the war.

     I do believe the house of cards is starting to shake very badly!

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/10/2006 @ 12:55pm

229. The truth of the matter, Redbird, is that Mukhtar Mai's abusers were found innocent by a Sharia court and freed. They had to be prosecuted by a civilian court before justice was done. That Sharia court is the one who sactioned gang rape as a legitimate penalty by refusing to recognize that the rapists committed an offence. It ordered them freed. If you want to know where that corrupt and putrid sense of justice in Sharia law comes from, you better ask them. I wish I knew.

     Posted by INVERESK 02/10/2006 @ 12:25am

     The original alleged crime was the result of a decision by a gathering of the Mastoi clan. That could only be very loosely termed a village council because the clan of the alleged victim did not participate, although they live in the same village. The local Imam condemned the alleged rape at the immediately following Friday prayers. Islamic authorities in Pakistan also condemned the alleged crime after they looked into it.

     The perpetrators were tried and convicted by an anti-terrorist court. They appealed to the Lahore High Court (a civil court) which acquitted them for lack of evidence (no direct witnesses to the attack other than the accuser, witnesses who claimed that they saw things that the defendants rebutted they could not see in the dark, etc). There were also claims by witnesses for the plaintiff that they were intimidated from testifying by the clan of the defendants.

     The Federal Sharia Court suspended the judgement [tinyurl.com] of the Lahore High Court and ordered a new hearing. That intervention is allowed under Pakistani law but rarely used.

     The involvement of Islamic leaders in Pakistan and the Sharia authorities have in each and every instance been one of intervention on behalf of the victim in this case. Your recounting of it is a complete falsehood which you undoubtedly picked up from the patchy, slanted coverage of the US news media. This is what you call, "the truth of the matter". The truth or what you want to believe?

     The real underlying truth is that this is the result of a local conflict between two clans in probably the poorest, most ignorant district of the Islamic world and yet the local Muslim Imam immediately defended the victim and condemned the perpetrators. Another underlying truth is that the attack very likely took place as described by the victim but proving it is another story in a court of law. There is conflicting testimony. Still, the Sharia court that you are seeking to portray as an example of Islamic backwardness is just the opposite, intervening on behalf of the victim, not the perpetrators, as you are attempting to portray it.

     Posted by fromredbird at 02/10/2006 @ 1:16pm

230. argh the rot in this ship hms bush is getting below the water line me thinks she will founder on a gentle swell soon, har har ahar!

     Posted by dycel8r at 02/10/2006 @ 1:20pm

231. CPT,

     How goes the cynosure, Mr. Bevo-Officer Supreme? Funny you should point out weakness, especially knowing that it was your utter weakness and prodigious lack of confidence and direction that led you to the armed forces, where in addition to being given a patriotic license to kill, you were given an ideology and a bottomless well of talking points straight out of your lousy military industrial complex propaganda manuals. This now passes as a conservative viepoint in the USA. But it is not original, rather, it is manufactured and shoddy at that. There can be no truly civil debate with someone like you - you are a grunt, possessing a debased morality and stultified intellect. You do nothing but reiterate the hollow and hackneyed catch phrases cast upon you relentlessly by your comissars and puppeteers, seeing nothing but a vision of the world pounded into your maleable mind, now cemented by a learned ignorance and the brutality of battle which you bless, for without it, you'd be much worse off, as you've admitted before having given great thanks to the pirates who rescued you from a poignant and pathetic existence in total mediocrity among the other wretches not living up to the TV ads while vanishing into a hostile anonimity.

     Though I get a real hoot out of your phony bravado and childish obsession with the war games that pump life into your regimented shell, you are underneath it all still the punk who had no map or compass in the Great Land of Opportunity, which you now so righteously praise and endorse, and therefore ended up a mercenary, giving up mind, body and soul to the wermacht and propaganda machine, becoming just another cog in the colossal military machine, which to you is one step up from being a civilian cog in the Giant Rat Race.

     You surely do not seem to appreciate the regular volley of insults here, which contradicts the manifold examples that you have scrawled here in your second-hand rhetoric and incomplete vision. Some opponents and enemies cannot be dealt with through sheer logic and civil trade of ideas and points of view, for their living room indoctrination and prescribed world view is so complete, they are incapable of even allowing the most subtle nuances to slip in between the jingoistic jailhouse that shelters their self-esteem and gives meaning through stereotypes and other shortcuts to understanding so that they can view and interpret the great gig with a star-spangled clairvoyance, where critical thinking and open-mindedness go to die, before carrying the cross of treason and anti-Americanism across the corptorate-sponsored headlines and airwaves.

     You are a casualty CPT, a casualty of the Great Society that didn't have a place for you pre-Army Man Days, and now you are a dancing skeleton echoing your masters while taking up the occupation of head-hunter. Yes, the Loser Patrol hunted you down and made you one of their own in the end. Now you're out there selling the phony dreams and hyped-up glory of being a mercenary for the Washington Cartel. You are out there every day looking for more heads to send off to the battlefield, so as to augment the casualties on both sides. People like you are out there making sure that the war in fact never ends, protecting the status quo, for without it, you'd be no one, you'd have no purpose. You're a droid, there is no point in trying to engage you. Get a mind of your own first, then we'll talk. Until then, you're nothing but a puppet trying to pretend he has no strings manipulating him. War is your savior. Peace is your demise

     Posted by chimichenga at 02/10/2006 @ 1:21pm

232. Don't normally like to repost from another blog but this hits here also, originally posted in reply to fromredbird"brain" on the issue of comic tolarence.

     RB check out http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/j/jesus_christ.asp

     More to the point it is not the minority or the majority which is outraged by these depictions. The real threat is to the leaders of these majoritys power, anything that creates an alternative viewpoint from their proscribed "reality" will in time create change and diminish their hold on those who follow. Lord Acton's statement on power is once again proven.

     The common individual a guess is in the 85 percentile could care less about weather these dipictions are a threat to their ideology, it takes a dominate force IE religious, political, greed to create a need to complain or retaliate against a perceived threat to move the common force against change.

     To cpt

     Once again you rationlize reality to make a delusional point take a good look at who starts throwing mud on these blogs to say it is the "Liberial faction" is a great misjustice to the truth!

     Posted by dycel8r at 02/10/2006 @ 1:33pm

233. To get back to the point of this blog is it not an affront to the constitutional rights of all americans when those in power can so blatantly remove someone who's opinion is not to follow their 3 monkeys act.

     Posted by dycel8r at 02/10/2006 @ 1:41pm

234. Mary,

     You are an apologist. There is a way to weasel out of virtually every lie ever told. Clinton "did not have sexual relations", you have to define the word "is" etc. etc. I'm sure you can still find people that say Clinton didn't lie but they are what are called apologists.

     To everybody else (and that is the vast majority of voting and non voting American's) Bush lied. He lied us into war, he lied about wire tapping in Buffalo, NY, he lied about allowing prescription drugs in from Canada, he lies constantly about how he's doing "everything" he can to keep us safe (then nominating unqualified cronies like Julie L . Myers to do the actual job of trying to keep us safe). The guy is a pathalogical liar and only the last few remaining apologist's can't see that yet. But you will.

     By the way, Mary, court proceedings have been released where Libby told Fitzgerald that he was authorized to leak highly classified material by Chenney to the press to build a case for war. Do you know what the penalty for Chenney's treason is? .....that's right it's death. Forget impeachment this administration is going to the chair!

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/10/2006 @ 1:53pm

235. Mbb

     Which version of the 3 ways to lie do you not get? Heres a refresher.

     The Three Ways to Lie, A Handy Guide to Deception

     Lies can often give you power like a coffin filled with flowers gives life to the living, not the dead.

     The Residents, "Silver, Sharp and Could Not Care"

     Lying is an art. A good lie is to be savored, like a fine wine. Does this surprise you? If so, consider this question: why do we wince when we hear people lie badly?

     The answer is that we recognize the lack of art, the lack of finesse. We are implicit connoisseurs of the lie.

     What surprises me is that so few people know about different types of lies. Let's examine them, in order of the skill it takes to deliver them.

     1. Contradict the truth

     This is the easiest way to lie. It's also the easiest kind to get caught telling. This is the first kind of lie that children learn:

     Adult: Who broke this lamp? Child: Sally did.

     Note the use of the lie to shift blame away from the guilty party. However, the child's choice of another person as the victim is a mistake. A more sophisticated exchange would go like this:

     Adult: Who broke this lamp? Child: The dog did when it ran through the room.

     The child is now laying the blame on something that cannot defend itself. Our pupil is learning the art of the lie.

     2. Tell part of the truth

     Let's change the scenario a little bit. The dog did run through the room, and it did break the lamp. Now let's repeat the last conversation:

     Adult: Who broke this lamp? Child: The dog did when it ran through the room.

     What the child doesn't say is that the dog was being chased by our little hooligan "GW". This is an example of the second kind of lie: the Lie of Omission. Strictly speaking, everything the accused has said is true. It is the fact that important information is left out that makes this the equivalent of a lie.

     3. Tell the truth unconvincingly

     This is a tough one to illustrate; the best example I've seen is in Neil Gaiman's Sandman story "The Kindly Ones", in which a woman recounts a murder she committed. When asked if she's kidding, she responds "Joking with you? Of course: if I had really killed a man, would I tell anyone?".

     If you have the skill to pull this off, you're home free. You can lie to the Pope without guilt.

     I hope this helps you. Now go forth and lie. If you need an example of these tactics listen to rush, o-rilly, savage and the rest of the talk show hypocrites who twist and trun reality with their personal reditions of the truth.

     Posted by dycel8r at 02/10/2006 @ 2:01pm

236. Forgot to include my source for portion of last post: http://www.rdrop.com/~half/Creations/Writings/Miscellaneous /ThreeWaysToL ie.html

     Yes a trun is a 3 dimensional turn.

     Posted by dycel8r at 02/10/2006 @ 2:12pm

237. Freedomplease, we need PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF of the lies! There was a stained dress that forced the true liar to admit his lie! You have no PROOOOOOOF! Just a sick desire to BELIEVE he lied! This is exactly what makes today's liberalism a MENTAL DISORDER, the same exact people who constantly cry " innocent until proven guilty " and " due process " have convicted Bush of lying without a SHRED of evidence out of nothing but unjustified hatred! These people also contradict themselves because they are the same people who cry " stop the hate " yet they are the real haters! More facts that cannot be disputed, proving daily to more and more Americans ( that's why Dem's continue to lose everything )that TODAY'S liberalism truly is A MENTAL DISORDER!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 2:24pm

238. Man, I just eat you fools alive daily! Now pay attention, class has begun!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 2:26pm

239. Don't normally like to repost from another blog but this hits here also, originally posted in reply to fromredbird"brain" on the issue of comic tolarence.

     RB check out http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/j/jesus_christ.asp

     More to the point it is not the minority or the majority which is outraged by these depictions. The real threat is to the leaders of these majoritys power, anything that creates an alternative viewpoint from their proscribed "reality" will in time create change and diminish their hold on those who follow. Lord Acton's statement on power is once again proven.

     The common individual a guess is in the 85 percentile could care less about weather these dipictions are a threat to their ideology, it takes a dominate force IE religious, political, greed to create a need to complain or retaliate against a perceived threat to move the common force against change.

     Posted by DYCEL8R 02/10/2006 @ 1:33pm

     Misses the mark. Doesn't depict Christ as a murderer and, by extension, all who believe in him. Which would also be a vicious caricature, by the way. Also, cartoonstock.com is not a mass circulation news media.

     All of you people, "liberals" and "reactionaries", need to admit that the Muhammad cartoon is in the same class as the German nazi depictions of Jews back in the 1930's. Thinking and honest people back then didn't consider the primary interest to be an attenuated analysis of it as a mechanism of nazi power maintenance. They condemned it's falsehood and crass viciousness. Needless to say, there were plenty who didn't, which is being repeated today when the same efforts are staring us in the face and many want to brush it off if not contribute to it.

     Posted by fromredbird at 02/10/2006 @ 2:32pm

240. One of the things that I'v noticed in reading these comments is the complete lack of respect by right wingers to any other ideas, along with off the cuff attacks on "liberals". I'v also noticed that they continually turn every argument against muslims "islamo barbarians" and everything is about being against "terrorists"- as if all muslims are terrorists and all terrorists are muslim. I think these people are closed minded, racist and hugely misinformed- but then, we know that racism is a form of ignorance. Heres some of your own back-

     Isn't the right to go where one wants part of the term liberty, Liberty? How free is someone who can't get on a private airliner with their paid airfare and go somewhere else? I'm pretty sure that a university didn't invite a speaker as their paid guest just to hear how much he doesn't "like" us. Chances are that the guy has some inciteful things to say that might trigger an educated discussion on the issues that globalization and genetically modified food pose. I would like to think that we want our students to hear those arguments to be better informed and well rounded. I hope you aren't implying that our nations children should be ignorant! If this was only YOUR home I could see where you were coming from in not wanting someone to enter, but we didn't ask you to put the guy up in your spare room. we didn't ask you to attend the speach, we didn't ask you to agree- we wanted to hear what this guy had to say- as americans I thought we had that liberty. As far as Libzsuk goes i hope your not christian. As our president is a "born again" and is commiting some of the worst human atrocities we'v seen all over the world, maybe it is the christians that are spreading violence. I remember our prez being the one who invaded a nation illegally and causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths and thousands of american deaths adn thats just the one country he has caused violence in. who is more violent? As far as catholics not caring about birth control. I dont recall it being athiests bombing abortion clinics, assassinating abortion providing physicians or organizing aggressive, often times illegal and violent, demonstrations against womens rights. I don't think that it is the agnostics who are bulldozing palestinian homes, causing thousands of people to be displaced and spending the millions of dollars we give israel on military supplies to better eliminate palestinians. I'm positive that it's catholics in ireland that have been setting off car bombs for years now, killing hundreds of civilians. Last I checked the body count in nigeria was being driven up by christians! I guess that in your mind these violent religious nuts have to be conservatives to do all of this- only the muslims got grouped with us liberals

     By the way, ann coulter needs to go back to her rich little catholic roots, get married and start popping out brats to shut herself up- try exemplifying the traditional consevative female role and start making dinner!

     Bush man, your rhetoric sounds like the justification that dictators use. dictators say that if citizens don't do as they are told, if they dont behave- then taking them out of society and shutting them up is the onyl way to have peace- now, i know that bush said he wouldnt mind a dictatorship as long as he was the dictator- but don't you think thats a bit ridiculous??

     I don't think you folks noticed but there is a debate here about a non-terrorist, a non-violent political theorist and activist- who was invited and would have been paid to speak in an academic setting but was denied entry into the US. now, some of you say that you don't want outsiders who are against this administrations agenda to come in to your country. i'd like to know when that decision was left up to you-

     This administration simply continues to act on their personal whim for friends and against dissent. How can we support any talk of morality from people who don't think that being feed is a human right, that torture is ok sometimes, that chemical warfare is alright on other countries, that 30,000 civilian deaths is a negligable number and that stealing elections is allowable since americans aren't paying attention anyway?!?!

     Posted by Think! at 02/10/2006 @ 2:32pm

241. I am absolutely certain that everybody on this board agrees that the four statements above are true, whether they admit it publicly or not. I believe the President honestly believed the 16 words and the tubes were evidence. A difference of opinion is not a lie. You can say he's wrong, but it is dishonest to call them lies.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/10/2006 @ 11:25am

     Not so fast MBB.

     William Langewiesche in this months The Atlantic writes an excellent piece on A Q Khan. His main source is journalist Mark Hibbs.

     You probably recall in 1995 when Hussein's son-in-law Kamel defected to Jordan and started talking. Investigators later found a memo from the Mukhabarat referring to an offer made to Iraq in 1990 for project designs and procurement of materials needed for production of enriched uranium.The offer came from a front man for Khan. he demanded $5 million up front. The Iraqis balked and the deal was never struck.

     After Osirak, the 1990 offer from Khan was as close as Hussein ever got to nukes.

     Everybody knows of the yellowcake found in an abandoned warehouse in 2003. It dated to the mid 1980's and was completely useless. So much so, that our forces simply left it there for months before carting it off. Please tell me why Hussein wanted yellowcake from Niger when he had absolutley no infrastruture to refine it.

     You know that the "aluminum tubes" found were certified by experts to be of insufficient metallurgy for use as centrifuge arrays.

     Hussein may have wanted a nuclear program. So what? Which country doesn't? The truth of the matter is that Bush lied to us in saying that Hussein indeed had such a program.

     Finally, tell me the following is not an outright lie:

     "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." --Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003

     Posted by doumer at 02/10/2006 @ 2:39pm

242. Bush Man;

     That was quite the piece of prose back there. If you haven't already, you need to tag team with ann colter and syndicate.

     Poignant toilet roll journalism.

     Posted by doumer at 02/10/2006 @ 2:46pm

243. DOUCHE" I mean DOUMER, dispute the facts please or you'll be sent to detention!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 2:49pm

244. Which facts are those Bush Man? I don't recall you dropping even one snippet into the debate cauldron.

     Posted by doumer at 02/10/2006 @ 3:06pm

245. BUSHMAN,

     You're not eating anyone alive here. It is you and your neocon comrades who were eaten long ago, by those whom you trust as so honest and upright. You're a pawn and you know it.

     Posted by chimichenga at 02/10/2006 @ 3:08pm

246. "The truth of the matter is that Bush lied to us in saying that Hussein indeed had such a program"

     Assuming for the sake of arguement that statement is true(which it is patently false) Answer one question LIBS.....

     How is it that such a stupid "boy king" cowboy of a president was able to manage to get the:

     Russian intel services to say he had WMDs French " " " " British " " " " Israeli The former Clinton Administration

     and on and on and on and on.....Quite a feat I would say especially since they were all saying this fact way before he ever was running for president.

     This is the total horseshit the LIB lefties try to shove down the throats of the stupid people. They know is bull but they are such out of power crybabies that they will do and say anything to try and get it back...Even at the expense of our nationa security.

     Fine...go ahead....keep your lying up...Its working great for you fools so far...How many elections have you won lately again????

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/10/2006 @ 3:10pm

247. Bush boy,

     All I can say to someone of your immense mental capacity is......Bwaaaahhhh Haaahhhaaa...Chenney's going to get tried and convicted of treason against the United States of America for authorizing the leak of TOP SECRET information.............. Bwaaaahhhh Haaahhhaaa

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/10/2006 @ 3:13pm

248. "Chenney's going to get tried and convicted of treason"

     Another LIBERAL wetdream

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/10/2006 @ 3:14pm

249. LIBZSUK,

     Why don't you go swallow a can of DEET, you loudmouthed waste of sperm and egg? I shit on the bitch that bore you...

     Posted by chimichenga at 02/10/2006 @ 3:21pm

250. Go fuck yourself you anti-american nitwit...

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/10/2006 @ 3:22pm

251. if anti-American means being totally opposed to inbred poltroons like you, then yes, I'm a rabid anti-American hero.

     Posted by chimichenga at 02/10/2006 @ 3:28pm

252. LibSuck / Ann Coulter,

     You don't read much do you? And I don't mean National Review and the Faux News website or the NY Post. Try reading the court disclosures from the case where your boy Libby is telling Fitzy about what his boss told him to do. You might be surprised to find out what a criminally traitorous guy Chenney appears to be.

     WATCHING THE NEOCON CRACKUP IS A DELIGHTFUL THING

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/10/2006 @ 3:34pm

253. Libzsuk, you laid it down perfectly! Facts, Facts and more facts....and what do they do, attack you personally! They cannot dispute what you wrote because it is INDISPUTABLE!

     Freedomplease, although I also believe you are having a wet dream, let me say this: If it is proven that Cheney broke the law concerning the Plame leak, I believe and hope that he is punished to the fullest extent of the law! Got it you little twit! Because unlike you foolish sheep, I desire even a higher punishment for those on my side who break the law and discrace my party and country! Problem is, he hasn't been charged or convicted yet, dicklick! So laugh all you want, but if he is guilty, hopefully he'll get what he deserves, it's no sweat off my back! I believe in justice no matter what party you belong to! The lesson I taught you here is: CONSISTENCY ( something that is inherently missing in the liberal mind of today ) I just cut and diced you like a Nancy Pelosi facelift, Jerkoff!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 3:35pm

254. Chimi

     There is no reasoning with those lacking the capacity for reason. Give'em a quick "Fuck off" and move on...unless they actually start using adult words, facts, and/or logic. I got trapped in it myself yesterday...it is to no good purpose overall (but a certain satisfaction admittedly.)

     Am feeling much more levelled after yesterdays James Carville lecture!

     As my earlier posts (upthread a mite) deal with these same "facts that don't exist", they don't read them, or don't beleive them if they do...they are just here to troll and disrupt. Do yourself a favor and stay out of the shallow end of the gene pool whenever possible....lord knows they probably peed in it!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 3:42pm

255. "Am feeling much more levelled after yesterdays James Carville lecture"

     I think that should speak volumes...

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/10/2006 @ 3:46pm

256. Bush Boy,

     I have to concede that your superior intellect and debating skills have diced me badly. Your logic, backed with facts, referrences and links have overwhelmed my feeble abilities!

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/10/2006 @ 3:46pm

257. Really Bush Man: let's have a closer look!

     Here's what the Germans said:

     "According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said."

     "Here is one telling excerpt from the long article which shows how the CIA analysts convinced themselves that Curveball's WMD accounts were true:"

     "The analysts refused to back down. In one meeting, the chief analyst fiercely defended Curveball's account, saying she had confirmed on the Internet many of the details he cited. "Exactly, it's on the Internet!" the operations group chief for Germany, now a CIA station chief in Europe, exploded in response. "That's where he got it too," according to a participant at the meeting."

     Hmm Bush Man! Our intel peeps got their info from the internet. Now that is hardcore intelligence gathering.

     Ok, now how about the Israelis:

     "JERUSALEM - Israeli intelligence had few facts about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons ahead of last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, leading officials to take unnecessary steps to protect the public, participants in a parliamentary inquiry of the intelligence services said Sunday. A report on the investigation was to be released later Sunday."

     "The report does not suggest Israel deliberately misled U.S. intelligence, but says Israel's coordination with foreign intelligence agencies was faulty, said members of the panel of inquiry, speaking on condition of anonymity."

     "The investigators are expected to deliver a sharp rebuke to the country's vaunted intelligence services and offer recommendations for avoiding similar mistakes in the future, the legislators said."

     Even the Mossad can't get it right!

     OK, now about the French:

     " However, the essence of Chouet's account - that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim, found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA - was extensively corroborated by the former CIA official and a current French government official, who both spoke on condition of anonymity."

     "The repeated warnings from France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure did not prevent the Bush administration from making the case aggressively that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons materials."

     "It was not the first time a foreign government tried to warn U.S. officials off of dubious prewar intelligence."

     The Russians actually told the US administration that Hussein was planning a terrorist attack in the US. Why? They had been wheeling and dealing with Iraq for over 30 years and no doubt didn't want much of their sordid activity revealed. In any event, nothing ever came of it and the intel was found to be completely bogus.

     Is it any wonder why Russia, France and Germany all voted "no" on the UN resolution to authorize the war.

     Now, maybe you can "teach" me something else Bush Man?

     Posted by doumer at 02/10/2006 @ 3:49pm

258. Left of reality, still refusing to answer questions or dispute facts , huh? That's the problem with liberals, they are fearful, paranoid, irrational, whimpy people who lack self-confidence! That's why, when challenged, they run! Well son, that's OK, because the conservatives in this country have carried the burden of protecting and providing for your candy asses ( and France's) for a very long time now, and willcontinue to do so even if it's like pulling teeth! We are convicted, so rest assured, little boy, we will protect you out of the kindness of our hearts and our unwavering conviction to do what is right!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 3:50pm

259. "Is it any wonder why Russia, France and Germany all voted "no" on the UN resolution to authorize the war"

     Ever heard of oil for food???

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/10/2006 @ 3:56pm

260. Douche', I read it, means nothing, doesn't change fact that Russia, france, Brittain, and Isreal had same intel we did! nice smokescreen, poke a little hole here, a little thrid party comment there and create doubt, kind of like the OJ trial ( if it doesn't fit you must acquit)...and I'm sure you believe he's still innocent ( I bet you are even helping him look for the real killers on some golf course in Fl.) I must admit, though, i give you credit for finally growing a sack and at least trying to step up to the plate! This feels good, I am possibly having a positive effect on you nitwits1 Now, I have to take a break, so do your homework, study hard, and when I come back, i'll grade your jibberish and give you more of the much needed direction I provide daily for FREE!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 3:59pm

261. MBB & Bush Wacko

     For the "facts" on lies & deception that you purport do not exist see the text and/or links in the following two posts up thread.

     Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/10/2006 @ 12:28am

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/10/2006 @ 12:55am

     AND: Can you spell Downing Street Memo? Also:

     One [tinyurl.com]

     New "US Analog" of Downing St (new Bush Memo re: war)

     Two [tinyurl.com]

     Three [tinyurl.com]

     Feel free to give actual insights and not LibZ type rants. Refute if you can.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 4:01pm

262. "The tone is completely uncalled for"

     Uh excuse me...why not try doing a little reading from the likes of Left of Reality, Chimishithead and Bloppy for starters...Im am tired of our side always being the one that shows the class while these silly nitwits get away with murder.

     Sorry Mary, but I will respond how I see fit and if you dont like it put me on Ignore like all the other good little Stalinists here at this miserable website/blog Thank you

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/10/2006 @ 4:08pm

263. LIBZSUK,

     The inside of a closet called, it wanted you back.

     Posted by chimichenga at 02/10/2006 @ 4:16pm

264. Go eat a banana you 3rd world shit for brains fool

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/10/2006 @ 4:16pm

265. LibZ

     Posted by LIBZSUK 02/10/2006 @ 3:56pm

     Nice....Dubya is skipping the whole "middleman" concept by taking the country over! Instead of oil for food, its "Oil or else!"

     Maps and Charts of Iraq & other mideast oil fileds, lists of developers FOIA docs [judicialwatch.org]

     NRDC's exmplary work in uncovering over ten thousand pages of "Secret Energy Task Force" docs....of course some 2500+ docs still withheld. Shows that energy industry wrote the legislation (including the air quality standards) at: NRDC [nrdc.org] ..and let's not forget yet ANOTHER memo showing that many "Big Oil Execs" were privy to the process OIL WAR [tinyurl.com]

     Clueless leader and evil Dick selling out the US citizenry to feed industry...any cogent thoughts?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 4:16pm

266. MBB

     My own language yesterday was indeed coarse, but was in reposnse to Bushwhacked & LibZ own jibes. I have been keeping it civil today overall, but they refuse to play nice. Unfortunately many "trolls" like these exist and really give you right-wings a bad name. Sure we have Bloppy (sometimes) and Chimi riles pretty easy...but it is when taunted generally.

     I'm all for discourse, but if they start flinging crap I can and will fling back from time to time.... After all, me and you don't agree on much....but we do so in a roughly civil tone, yes?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 4:20pm

267. No your always rude and disgusting..you dont need any prompting...typical LIB discourse

     Posted by libzsuk at 02/10/2006 @ 4:22pm

268. Typical...try to reason and the lack of capacity causes you to resort to insults....much like when yousatrted the disruption yesterday with Bush-whacked. I should expect no better I suppose.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 4:28pm

269. Mary,

     Libby is specifically squealing about how he was authorized by Chenney to leak an NIE to the press. National Intelligence Estimates are HIGHLY CLASSIFIED and are thus not supposed to be made public. In fact making them public is illegal. Some would even say it is treasonous.

     Why did these goons commit treason against the USA? Because they were trying to build public support for a war that otherwise would not have been fought.

     It is utterly disgraceful and the blood of more than 2200 American's and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's is all over Cheneys grubby little hands.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/10/2006 @ 4:33pm

270. MBB & Bush Wacko

     For the "facts" on lies & deception that you purport do not exist see the text and/or links in the following two posts up thread.

     Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/10/2006 @ 4:01pm |

     LEFT,

     Sorry, but NACL all by himself, debunked the Downing Street Memo through personal conjecture and some urine analogies. It was quite convincing, don't you agree?

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/10/2006 @ 4:54pm

271. Bush Man and Libzsuk,

     The tone is completely uncalled for. I'd like to challenge you guys to elevate the discourse to a level above playground taunts. It makes it difficult to engage in serious discussions.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/10/2006 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person

     MBB -

     These fellows are on your side, and have been acting this way for days now. You won't reach them any more than a moderate Muslim can reach an extremist one.

     I don't agree with you politically, MBB, but these two are a bigger waste of your time than any liberla could ever be.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/10/2006 @ 4:54pm

272. liberal

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/10/2006 @ 4:54pm

273. CHIMICHENGA

     My God man, stop obessesing over me.

     How long did it take you to craft that post? an hour? two hours?

     Talking points? Programmed thought? Where did you get these platitudes? TV?

     You cannot beat me or what I represent, we are strong and you are weak.

     You cannot win on any level, whether spiritual, intellectual, and most certainly physical.

     That is simply the HARD truth you must face one day.

     You are a coward, you hide in South America.

     You are a non-entity, a non-player, a fart in the wind, you rise up rant leave a putrid smell and are gone and forgotton.

     You want to fight me? Fine, I tell you what, my orders back to the sandbox are due in the next 10 months, I talked to my personnel manager and he has spot reserved for me, lets meet in Hab-een-knee-ah and get it over with.

     What do you say? Are you that demented?

     Posted by CPT at 02/10/2006 @ 4:58pm

274. Looks like Beavis and Butt-Head are back. Time to change the channel. Bye.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/10/2006 @ 5:03pm

275. CHIMICH

     I do NOT wish you harm, but I do think your rants are pathological, somewhere down the line a Soldier must have wounded you deeply. For that i am sorry.

     Posted by CPT at 02/10/2006 @ 5:05pm

276. You want to fight me? Fine, I tell you what, my orders back to the sandbox are due in the next 10 months, I talked to my personnel manager and he has spot reserved for me, lets meet in Hab-een-knee-ah and get it over with.

     What do you say? Are you that demented?

     Posted by CPT 02/10/2006 @ 4:58pm

     Yesterday Bush Man said he wanted 10 minutes in a closed room with me and 2 fellow bloggers.

     Now you want to meet Chimi in Hab(?)and "get it over with"?

     What's up with you guys? A little war of words and you flip out. I shouldn't be surprised. Kinda like your pals in DC. Naysayers get one of those friendly "clean your clock" attitude checks (and invasions). All on the house. Right-on captain!

     Posted by doumer at 02/10/2006 @ 5:09pm

277. Hello? Is anyone home?

     Libby is selling Chenney down the river of treason and everyone here is having some homo-erotic revelations about physical intimacy with other (presumably) male posters!

     The fate of the nation is at stake ladies!

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/10/2006 @ 5:13pm

278. CPT,

     I owe allegiance to no one. You sir, cannot say that.

     Posted by chimichenga at 02/10/2006 @ 5:14pm

279. You cannot beat me or what I represent, we are strong and you are weak.

     Posted by CPT 02/10/2006 @ 4:58pm |

     CPT,

     Actually, what you represent is preying on this nation similar to how the close-minded and one dimensional Spartans fed like parasites from the larger society. Your side is draining this nation of anything worth preserving. We are a declining (economically) empire placing ever greater and predictable emphasis on war-making to achieve our goals. Chimi chose to go live his life directly, not through some bullshit abstractions as people do here: always pursuing their unattainable happiness through neverending pursuit of materialsm.

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/10/2006 @ 5:17pm

280. DOUMER

     I guess you could not tell I was going for ironic, maybe it didnt play to well.

     Posted by CPT at 02/10/2006 @ 5:18pm

281. OUST

     I agree with your last sentence.

     Posted by CPT at 02/10/2006 @ 5:19pm

282. FREEDOMPLEASE,

     You're right, this is quite a development, though the only details I have as yet, are from Mr. Nichols's report. I do not have a tv, how are the news channels playing out this story? Or has it even been mentioned?

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/10/2006 @ 5:22pm

283. DOUMER

     If you took offense, understandable, on the surface of it, it is horribly brutish remark.

     But understand this, I do NOT take offense for myself when those rail against my profession, i take offense for the O'Neils and Espositos who did not come back, I know how they saw themselves and their mission. I defend them, in a sense.

     Posted by CPT at 02/10/2006 @ 5:23pm

284. CPT, My message was directed at the policy makers (not you personally), as they have all the influence and power in this society.

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/10/2006 @ 5:27pm

285. OustBush

     Geez...you mean the almighty "legend in his own mind" NaCl. How dare i suggest a dissenting opinion.

     ...ok, I can't take it.....Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha....hoo-eee!!

     OK, I feel better now

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 5:28pm

286. Downing Memo, Huh? You mean that memo written by a THIRD party that claims absolutely nothing! So anything that a third party writes ar says about any issue is automatically fact? If so, why did you not believe the conspiracy theories behind Vince Foster's murder? Why didn't you believe Jennifer Flowers ( first party ) or any of the other spooge targets of slick willy? Why were you in denial about the Clinton administration selling nuclear secrets to the chinese? I could go on and on! Do you have a double standard? Just polished you of like the bottle of vodka in teddy kennedy's back pocket! Ah, my bitches, just treatin' you like my ho'!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 5:43pm

287. Give up! I can't be beat! I will always work you on any issue! I can refute anything you bring! And as for LIBZSUK, his mastery of you fools is legendary!

     Posted by bush man at 02/10/2006 @ 5:45pm

288. Bush-whacko

     Calm down boy...take a Prozac, or a shot of Jim Beam.

     So you pick one item from a list, make a light-weight insinuation, and declare victory? You'll pardon if I ain't exactly shakin in my boots...and what does Clinton have to do with this conversation? Nothing. Just wing-nut diversion tactics....ho-hum.

     ...as for LibZ...yes, he is the Master of Fools!, or was that the Master of Bait?

     ...as to "Bitches & Ho's"...I'll send your little sister home right after I moisten my cigar...she's kinda busy right now ridin "Air Force 1" if you know whadda mean!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 6:08pm

289. Is it lost on you that Blair won't deny the memo, on related issues he says "Nothing new", and it is accepted pretty much everywhere else. Oh, but that's right...we have the uncany ability in the US to sift thru any sort of intel and "know" everything...just like that WMD thing, right? Where's OBL?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 6:11pm

290. Are any of these statements in dispute? …

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/07/2006 @ 4:24pm

     No, they are not. They also apply to dozens of other countries. Countries without strategic oil interests. Countries that bushco, hasn't had a hard on for since 98 (at least).

     Seriously, is it not obvious that 911 was an excuse to do what they wanted to do for years?

     "If you insist on calling the President a liar, you could at least acknowledge that you are doing it on faith alone; that it is only your opinion and that have absolutely no proof."

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/10/2006 @ 1:38pm

     No proof?!?!?

     We have his videotaped confession. He said he had proof. He gave examples of said proof. They were all lies. Thouroughly debunked, in the mainstream press and by ACTUAL EXPERTS in their fields. Please refer to my earlier post.

     If I knew (Yes, knew, not took on 'faith'. I take nothing on faith, except a few good friends.) he was lying. Then he should have too.

     I will reiterate: Liar or Moron. I tend to areee with JR (i.e., both), but you can pick only one, if you like.

     If I say something, that everyone here knows not to be true, that makes me ignorant or a liar.

     Same goes for your boy. Sorry. You may like his policies. (As I did many of clintons (and many, I did not)). But, a lie is a lie is a lie. Spin away. Redifine 'is'. Try to portray a small bit of 'doubt', by non-experts, who had an agenda, into doubt. Even if the moron believed it, it was patently untrue. Semantics. Utter BS.

     (Not a jab at you personally (Honest, maybe some other time ;) ), but, do you REALLY BELIEVE bush believed what he was saying?

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/10/2006 @ 6:43pm

291. Reread libz & bushboy.... The mutual masterbatory style, says to me, they are one and the same.

     The boy is talking to himself.

     Almost as sad as the things he says.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/10/2006 @ 6:45pm

292. Bush Man:

     Care to respond to the nuveau developments re: libby singing and dancing? Sweet shit man! Kinda like, in the words of our most esteemed co-contributor, THE CRACKUP IS COMING.

     I love that phrase.

     Posted by doumer at 02/10/2006 @ 6:49pm

293. MBB:

     Remember this?

     "Finally, tell me the following is not an outright lie:

     "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." --Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003

     Posted by DOUMER 02/10/2006 @ 2:39pm

     Congrats on evading and hiding. Lying is just that...lying. Tell me the above is not a lie. You wanted proof... this is just one small example. There is a plethora of "mispeaks", "malspeaks" or just plain "nonspeaks". Which do you want?

     And, Bush Man.....another fine example of "cut and run", my "educated" friend. No third party stuff bro. Actual facts that scare you. Guess what? Reality is not WWF turbofluff. Now refute the points raised or cut and run for good. Weasel!

     Posted by doumer at 02/10/2006 @ 7:10pm

294. Doumer & Mal

     Bush-whackoff ain't comin back to this thread cause when the going gets tuff, the wing-nuts crack.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/10/2006 @ 7:21pm

295. CPT:

     I read you subsequent posts to Chimi and for that I have a very slight slithering thread of hope for you.

     Having said that, and the fact that you are soon to be back in the sandbox, may I relay a message to you.

     Iraqis form opinion in many different ways. As our "ambassador", in direct face-to-face contact, you are the first "visualization" to Iraqis of what Americans are all about. I sincerely hope that you can, and will portray an image of genuine empathy for civilians and non-combatants.

     Your temper fuse seems, from observation, to be perhaps two millimeters long. Allow yourself the conceptualization of being in their place and react accordingly. It ain't about you or me, it's all about our place in the world and how we can all make it a degree better. Your call.

     Posted by doumer at 02/10/2006 @ 7:46pm

296. Redbird,

     I enjoyed your posts on Sharia law.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/11/2006 @ 5:58pm