Slashdot Mirror
George W. Bush Live From Facebook
tekgoblin writes "Facebook has just announced that George W. Bush is going to be present November 29th to answer questions about his new book, Decision Points. The discussion will happen on Facebook Live at 2PM PST."
Can't see this over the Internet, but I assume you've got a teabag tied on your ear and a "LISTEN TO ME" sign in your hand.
I'm sure this will be a quiet affair. Well balanced, with well thought out talking points and few interruptions.
Also, could someone ring the nurse for me? The pink elephants have begun playing the banjo again...
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
After adding over $1T to the federal deficit to fund a sham war in Iraq that has cost over 4400 American lives (http://antiwar.com/casualties/) and over 100,000 civilian casualties (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) -- how do you sleep at night?
Especially since the looney left will ask all the hard questions, which Shrub will avoid by saying, "It's in the book. You should read the book."
I wouldn't expect him to actually answer anything that he could be indicted for with the actual truth.
Only certain questions will be selected and they will probally be ones he already has an answer prepared for.
I would be more interested in seeing him squirm when asked more controversial questions, like questions about how it felt to lie in a coffin with a ribbon tied around his penis during the Skull and Bones initiation ritual (not joking, this is exactly what happens and has been confirmed by multiple sources)
This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
Are you saying there's something "loony" or wrong with objecting to soldiers dying needlessly?
"Was your invasion of Iraq entirely to prove that you could do something your father couldn't, to depose Saddam Hussein?" If the answer to that was in any form affirmative, my follow up would be "At any point after you did so, did you realize that he didn't go that extra 20 miles back in the 90's because he realized what would happen if he did?" That's the one question I'd love to have answered from his administration. I can't imagine that the rest of his administration would put on such a dog and pony show and ruin their own careers to advance such a simplistic goal, but "We need a distraction from the fact that we haven't caught Bin Laden yet," really isn't that much better.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Bush on Facebook? I feel like I am a character trapped in an Orwell novel still in its first revision.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Exactly. Because the right never does anything loony, like comparing Obama to Hitler.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Is our children learning?
He'd better make sure he has the Shoe-Dodging app.
My prediction for most common question: "Mr. President! Mr. President! How did you manage to be so super-awesome that people over the entire political spectrum, from tree-hugging hippies to gun-toting Alabama rednecks, wanted to blow you day and night?"
weinersmith
Stuff he can be indicted for is already in the mainstream press. He admitted ordering water-boarding of detainees. Water-boarding is inhumane and a form of torture. If the US recognised the authority of the ICC, he'd be in the Hague, not giving Q&A's.
Yes, I do know I've just paraphrased my sig.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I'd just ask him who *was* making the decisions.
As I assume it was one of the grown-ups.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
It's almost amazing what passes as a discussion these days.
Ask for his opinion about Farmville Subsidies.
One more reason I don't have a Facebook account...
Can't see this over the Internet, but I assume you've got a teabag tied on your ear and a "LISTEN TO ME" sign in your hand.
Well, I definitely don't; I'm a Buckley conservative. But it's pretty funny to listen to liberals trying to claim the Tea Party is nuts.
The Tea Party was formed out of anger with Bush on a broad but specific issue: excessive government spending, which was then compounded by Obama's actions. And it is far more bipartisan than establishment liberals care to acknowledge.
Bush derangement syndrome started when Bush was a candidate; the NAACP ran an ad in 2000 claiming that electing him would be like dragging James Byrd through the streets of Texas. BDS is most prominent among the truther movements, and of course includes execrable characters like Julian Assange.
There's really nothing to defend about BDS because there aren't really any coherent arguments. It's basically all the things the liberals claim the Tea Party is. I'll take the Tea Partiers, who are merely amiably chaotic, over people the left gets to hang out with any day.
Even without recognizing the authority of the ICC, the US has punished users of waterboarding (both Americans and captured foreign opponents) independently, and some of the legal precedent on the subject actually comes from crackdowns on certain rather dodgy police forces which had stumbled upon this most excellent method of closing cases...
Furthermore Ronald Reagan, practically a saint among the right, was the one who pushed for the US ratification of the UN convention against torture, saying:
"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."
Even if we have not the slightest interest in giving the ICC the time of day, we have a legal obligation to prosecute torturers we find on our soil, and in some cases to extradite them to the jurisdictions where their crimes took place, assuming extradition agreements are in place.
We can only assume that Ronald Reagan was actually a soft-on-terror deep-cover liberal...
Or we will be treated to pages of:
"So, how DID you blow up the World trade Center?" and "You lied, People Died!" and "What's it like to be like HITLER you babykiller!?!?!?"
Nothing like W. to bring out the loony left.
Yup, apparently he was president for 8 years, attended hundreds of press conferences, had more people carrying signs of him as hitler, burning him in effigy, lunatics setting up camp outside his ranch, etc., but what will *really* make him squirm is asking him something they read on some idiot website.
yea no, water boarding sucks and I disagree with using it. I'd even say that we should pass a law. But it's in no way torture and calling it such diminishes what true true torture is.
Except being waterboarded by friends who won't let you "die" isn't really scary. Try it with a stranger and nobody else around. Then you'll see what it is about. Hell, I'll volunteer... all you have to do is sign this form. :D
Only in a complete state of denial could you argue that Bush didn't deserve those slogans. He was a shitty President and did more to harm our country than any terrorist ever could. There's loony folks on both sides, but if someone is ripping on Bush then I wouldn't automatically dump them in that category. Maybe if we'd heeded some of those criticisms our country wouldn't be endlessly mired in war, financially ruined, and globally scorned by people around the world who are not infected with Tea Pary logic.
I would be more interested in seeing him squirm when asked more controversial questions, like questions about how it felt to lie in a coffin with a ribbon tied around his penis during the Skull and Bones initiation ritual (not joking, this is exactly what happens and has been confirmed by multiple sources)
What is so controversial about that? And, since the book is about his presidency, how is it even remotely relevant?
Hazing used to be common practice. Then people started reporting it, bring to light the fact that it was at least idiotic, often dangerous. So we stopped hazing people, mostly. When I went through Airborne school, I got my "blood wings" even though there's a regulation specifically prohibiting it. My first jump with my unit was the "cherry jump" so my pockets were full of cherries and cherry pie, which my buddies helpfully mashed up. After I landed, I had to eat it. Thankfully, the cherry stains came out with cold water and detergent.
Since we had hazing for so long, though, there are a ton of people who went through stupid initiation rituals. Most likely, all the Democrats in office were in clubs like Skull and Bones and went through hazing, too.
Everyone I've ever talked to who thinks the Tea Partiers are nuts know absolutely nothing about them and are just parroting the MSM and each other.
Are there nuts among the Tea Partiers? There are nuts in every political movement, but I'd like to see a comparison of the fringe content of any Tea Party Rally with any similar liberal protest or gathering. In comparison, they are probably very tame.
BDS is real and amazing exercise in mouth-foaming bigotry and childish petulance coming from people who otherwise claim to be tolerant. There's nothing wrong with disliking President Bush and what he did, even strongly. That's not only your right, but your duty as a concerned citizen if you feel that way.
What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man. I would imagine the hooded thugs at Klan rallies would just shakes their heads sadly at one of their own acting the way too many people act regarding President Bush (along with Sarah Palin and a few others targeted by the left for derision and scorn.)
As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that.
Disagreement, dislike, protest, and harsh criticism are all legitimate and honorable actions to take in politics, but the unbridled hatred I've seen directed against President Bush (or any politician, or any _person_ for that matter) has no place in civilized society.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
"...US has punished users of waterboarding..."
I'd be curious to know of examples where the US prosecuted the waterboarders specifically for waterboarding.
I'm not being sarcastic, I'd seriously like to know some examples where this precedent was set.
I *personally* don't believe waterboarding rises (sinks?) to the level of torture, no more so than sleep denial or loud music. But we're a nation whose legal system is based in precedent - if there is a precedent of the US gov't recognizing waterboarding as torture (and I could certainly see that, given our ability to be 'flexible' when pursuing our enemies) then it's no longer a matter of some pantywaist 'claiming' waterboarding is mean, it would be the US gov't breaking it's own rules as defined by itself.
-Styopa
Everybody who is disliked by anybody gets compared to Hitler. Get over it.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Most people wouldn't last more than 5 seconds of water boarding, the technique is to trigger the primal fear of drowning without actually killing you. It's very effective at getting a response from an individual. From there, you can use it to extract information and sort out the truth embedded in it later. That is to say, most people would squawk just to end it!
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lasted 2 1/2 minutes!!! He was fixated on dieing for a cause, even in torture. My guess, fatigue and fear eventually set in.
Now, do we really want to get rid of water boarding? No. But I believe the commander in chief (POTUS) should have the final say-so if and when to use it. Or not.
Life is not for the lazy.
But it's pretty funny to listen to liberals trying to claim the Tea Party is nuts.
For those of us outside the US, it's absolutely fucking hilarious to listen to right wingers trying to claim the Tea Party isn't nuts.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
He heard that facebook is how you get friends -- I'm not sure this is going to work the way he planned.
Sorry but you are way off. Just look at the candidates of the Tea Party. It is not just a minority in the Tea Party that is nuts. They let people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell represent the party. You don't let yourself represent by a whacko if you are not totally out there too. You cannot argue that the majority is well informed and reasonable if they allow Sarah Palin to be their spokesperson.
I beg your pardon? Waterboarding is not torture? I'm sorry, but by any definition you care to mention being exposed to "simulated drowning" is torture. If you read up on the practice you'll find that it's slightly more serious than someone splashing a bit of water on you. For extra points go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding and become enlightened. Yes, it doesn't involve cutting people's hands off, breaking legs, setting fire to their eyeballs or anything of a more graphical nature. However, calling it "not torture" is ignorant at best.
I beg to differ. There were a lot of people on the loony right (and the unloony right) who attacked Bush.
And regarding the current President, I find the scariest things about him are not what the loony right charges, but the things that are unquestionably true but ignored, like his 20 years with a racist "church", his unprecedented efforts to suppress his own paper trail, the associations and politics of many of the "czars" and other advisors he surrounds himself with. The list goes on.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Funny, waterboarding is the only form of "torture" that Marines do to each other on weekends for fun. Not even remotely kidding. I was in the Marines, and I have friends who waterboard each other for fun.
There are people who eat broken glass, inject their cocks with cocaine and headbutt iron posts for fun, that doesn't mean it is a legitimate treatment for political prisoners.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using "the water cure." In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges constituted "resort to torture with a view to extort a confession." He recommended disapproval because "the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture." Yet President Theodore Roosevelt defended the practice. "The enlisted men began to use the old Filipino method: the water cure," he wrote in a 1902 letter. "Nobody was seriously damaged." A Punishable Offense In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. "All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier. Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison." From here.
As for it being torture or not, there are a couple of convenient tests(The first is Erich "Mancow" Mueller, talk radio host, attempting to refute critics of waterboarding, the second is Christopher Hitchens writing about his experience with trying it).
There are certainly even nastier ways of hurting people(which, in part, is why waterboarding is so popular, none of that pesky physical evidence) but it is apparently way less fun than it sounds, especially if it can be repeated over and over, in combination with sleep deprivation, isolation, and the like...
Funny, waterboarding is the only form of "torture" that Marines do to each other on weekends for fun. Not even remotely kidding. I was in the Marines, and I have friends who waterboard each other for fun.
I don't know which is more pathetic; your friends' idea of fun, or your complete lack of understanding of what torture really is all about. As others have observed, anything your friends do to you utterly lacks the requisite psychological dynamic that truly qualifies something as torture.
"What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man."
Exactly! Just because he's responsible for over 100,000 deaths in an illegal war, we shouldn't forget what a nice moron he is.
Let's see how those bastards like it.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Most people wouldn't last more than 5 seconds [citation needed] of water boarding, the technique is to trigger the primal fear of drowning without actually killing you. It's very effective at getting a response from an individual.
A "response" yes. People will say anything to make truly effective torture stop. The truth has little to do with it. As such, warterboarding is well established as a way of coercing false confessions and if necessary, ginning up false "intelligence" to support your desired course of action. As a means of reaching "truth", torture is shit.
Bush's public appearances will have to be on Facebook because if he leaves the country he'll be arrested for ordering the invasion of a sovereign nation and the torture of people.
it feels like "Commentation Fixtures". or, "Movement Cornishes" ...
are there any book names that re shittier than this ?
Read radical news here
Ah, yes. Two more targets of the MSM and liberals for derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism.
O'Donnell may be a dingbat, but Nancy Pelosi has been making dingbat comments for some 30 years or more in Congress and the left never seems to mind. Or any of dozens of others in the House and Senate who make Sarah Palin sound like a Rhodes scholar...
You need to get out of your liberal echo chamber and learn the truth that not everyone who disagrees with you is either nuts or evil.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I've read Musashi, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli. All of them claim that the end justifies the means. However, we claim as Americans to be better than that. We claim to believe in that every human being possesses certain inalienable rights by virtue of his humanity. We cannot espouse such an ideal while also claiming that in war the end justifies the means. The two are contradictory.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Given that he was waterboarded at least 183 times, according to official figures, I imagine he got lots of practice(or fell into the increasingly unresponsive state that looks a lot like broken compliance; but is actually pretty useless because the suspect is too shot to tell you what you want to know, or even lie about it, they just sort of collapse into profound lethargy)...
Tell that to Christopher Hitchens.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
But we must never have trials for the real despots of the world. Because that would me invading countries to go get them. So when we finally do, it's the paladin who's ultimately the criminal even if it's a failed attempt? Now you understand why western civilization is doomed.
I
Life is not for the lazy.
It isn't torture when the good guys do it to the bad guys. Then it's simply "aggressive intelligence gathering". Come on, have you learned nothing from Jack Bauer?
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Sorry, but even most moderates don't like Bush, quite a few conservatives too.
It's not just the loony left. There's plenty of good complaints about him, and it'll be interesting to see which ones show up, and how he responds.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Are you one of those who have managed to ignore the steady stream of FBI and other professional interrogators who claim that torture is, at best, no more effective that conventional techniques and, at worst, actually directly counterproductive, along with causing you to stoop to your enemy's level?
I'm sorry, but I can't think of ANYONE, including some truly good and decent people, who don't have some whacked-out-crazy associates. That's hardly something to criticize someone for.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
We have some activist neighbors here in Ithaca, NY. They put out a sign in their front yard for motorists to see. It says, "Have you heard about Bush's new novel?"
Sleep deprivation and loud music both strike me as forms of torture. Are they not legally considered that? I was under the impression that torture was causing pain and discomfort and possible permanent damage in a controlled setting (otherwise it's just assault or something).
Sleep deprivation can cause massive headaches, hallucination, and if prolonged it can cause death.
Loud music can cause headaches, ear aches, disorientation, dizziness, and permanent deafness if exposed too much. And I'm assuming we're talking about something more than what people subject themselves to or it wouldn't be particularly effective.
That isn't torture?
yea no, water boarding sucks and I disagree with using it. I'd even say that we should pass a law. But it's in no way torture and calling it such diminishes what true true torture is.
Torture is the infliction of severe physical or mental pain on someone in order to force them to talk. You can't just change the definition to something like "only things which leave permanent physical damage" as some people here try to do.
Waterboarding is a combination of physical and mental torture, there is both a physical and mental sensation of imminent death unless you talk.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The most successful soldiers have already accepted they are already dead on the battlefield. The fact they are still alive is a momentary extended gift of life. When you have that mindset along with religious zeal, toddling along 183 times doesn't seem all that impressive anymore. But you're right. The human body eventually says otherwise. Laws of physics/biology and all that notwithstanding.
Life is not for the lazy.
In hindsight, failing to prevent 9/11, invading Iraq under false pretenses, and ending with the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression, do you think you did a good job as President of the United States?
My UID is prime. Hah!
It might surprise you to find out that there is a whole subgroup of people who enjoy torture, perhaps we just need to give the detainees 'safe-words'. Also, one doesn't have to be into BDSM to be a Marine, but I'm told that it helps.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
You think that this will be a sham?
Son, you don't know what a sham is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
The questions and answers are already written.
The people tasked with "asking" those "questions" already have their Facebook accounts created.
Leave NOTHING to chance.
Tea Partiers might be perfectly sane, but when you're that willfully ignorant about *everything*, anybody's going to look crazy.
As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that.
Really? You've seen enough rage against Bush to name/quote an invented disorder about it, but 'just haven't seen any evidence' of the Right's ridiculous, over-the-top, impotent rage over having a black 'liberal' man as president? The Facebook pages, the chain emails, the snippets of AM talk radio, the hand-painted signs, the mass-produced bumper stickers, and completely context-free anti-Obama comments that just "pop-up" when talking about other, politics-free subjects, like say, the weather?
You lose your keys when they're in your hand, don't you?
Hell, just look at the number of comments on this very article asking stupid questions about "the real reason" we went to war with Iraq, despite the fact that the reasons for going to war with Iraq are very, very well documented.
The point is that the reasons given at the time (i.e. Saddam Hussein had WMD's capable of attacking the US/UK) turned out to be false, and that the US/UK governments knew this in advance.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yeah, it's odd how people feel strongly when someone starts a war which hundreds of thousands of people. What's up with that?
I mean, I don't especially appreciate any of your last presidents, Obama included, but G.W.B. was more than simply a bad president.
Dilbert RSS feed
....Its going to be W that answers questions, not Dick Cheney.
You have violated the rules of Slashthink. The pre-programmed mods will respond in an automatic fashion.
You know, while that may be true, it does not really support your implied statement.
I don't care if your friends do it to each other for fun. If you don't have a problem with it being done to unwilling participants then there is something wrong with you.
Ever see the movie Salo? That's exactly what your quote reminded me of. The Marines are just like the libertine fascists, enjoying bum fuckery and shit-eating.//
Please, enlighten me. You said, "I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that."
I said, and I paraphrase, "WTF, dood. It's everywhere. Open remaining eye, and take spoon out of cup."
... be more appropriate on FacePalm?
Have gnu, will travel.
Then you're not paying attention. Threats on the president's life have skyrocketed since Obama took office. Right wing politicians fantasize about "second amendment remedies." There was a national day of prayer for his death.
You're wilfully remaining ignorant if you truly believe that there was more venom directed agains Bush than against Obama.
I know that Americans tend not to care what the rest of the world thinks about your country, but most of us think your tea partiers are nuts. Here's this wishy-washy, do-little centrist president, and you lot are going on and on about his socialist communist tyranny? And you invite open racists from European nationalist organisations to speak, but then claim the Tea Party isn't racist. Your infrastructure is crumbling because no one has the political will to use tax dollars to fix it, but you're Taxed Enough Already? We all think you're nuts.
You're either blind and deaf, or lying. While calling you a liar is much more satisfying, I don't know you from Adam, so I'll just assume you just don't know any better and note that the number of death threats Obama received has been 400% more than Bush; there have been active calls for imprecatory prayer against him, and I have seen more than one billboard say 'do it to him before he does it to us.' Somehow, I don't think 'do it to him before he does it to us' means 'give him universal health care.' And what are we to make of signs with Obama's family quoting a certain verse in Psalms that goes 'And may his children be orphans and may his wife be a widow?'
Yeah. Real classy. And not at ALL wishing physical harm on him. Nope.
So, which was it? Blind and deaf, or lying?
P.S. Just because liberals are no longer putting up with your shit and calling you out when you're being an asshat doesn't mean they're intolerant. It just means they're no longer putting up with your shit.
He wants to be remembered as the Deciderer, so "Decision Points" is a fully adequatious choice of book entitlement.
Sadly, even though the cause of the war is known to be falsified, there is no direct proof Bush indeed ordered that -- even though the contrary would be ridiculous.
If you want a clear-cut case, it's FISA warrantless wiretapping -- which is a federal felony to which he admitted. And paid no consequences, even though he should be sitting in prison -- preferably in the same cell as Obama who ordered the wiretapping to continue.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
We called it torture when the North Koreans did it to prepare prisoners for show trials, because it is. Then utter bastards in the realms of unaccountable spooks (not marines) took notice, learnt how to do it and used it at GITMO and other places for what looked like was going to be the same thing. In the end we only had a few pointless show trials that nobody really was convinced by at the cost of a whole lot of evil and the USA losing the high moral ground everywhere. Those same evil bastards are still in the system, picked up lots of tricks from the Saddams torturers, and will probably ply their trade at home some day just like some of the French veterans of Algeria did.
And he still fed us complete bullshit after that. It's not an interrogation technique. It's just another way to spread fear. The KGB knew that very well and that's why they used it since they just needed to match the number of crimes to bodies and didn't care whose body it was. The North Koreans knew it very well and they gave us the waterboard technique as part of the tortures they used to break prisoners before show trials.
Your problem is that you throw the word "liberal" around way too much as if it was some kind of insult. To begin with, there's nothing in GP's post that even indicates him as a liberal. He could just as well be a libertarian, for example.
not everyone who disagrees with you is either nuts or evil.
An advice you should consider applying to yourself.
Decisioner pointerers, then ....
Read radical news here
He may have been a bad president, but he made a great puppet!
Scientists now say the future will be far more futuristic than originally believed
I misread it as "Facebook has just announced that George W. Bush is going to be president on November 29th".
I thought that either we were stuck in a time warp or America was having some kind of Republican coup. The really bad thing is I couldn't make up my mind which would be worse.
And liberals never associate with open racists?
I'd make a list, but it would take hours and surely go beyond the limits of a /. comment length.
Your infrastructure is crumbling because no one has the political will to use tax dollars to fix it, but you're Taxed Enough Already? We all think you're nuts.
Maybe because they are using those tax dollars to do pointless things that waste the money and fail to do any good. If the U.S. government and the States can't keep things going with close to half the GDP of the richest nation in the world, isn't it time to think the people in charge are incompetent?
Well, I guess not if you're a statist. Blind faith in government is what's nuts.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
At some point there's a threshold when you start to wonder why the person chooses and/or attracts so many of them.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
"...now watch this drive."
Even if Pelosi were a "dingbat", that has nothing to do with how crazy are Palin and O'Donnell. No one can make Palin sound like a Rhodes scholar.
Meanwhile, "dingbat" Pelosi has successfully managed the House Speaker office for 4 years. You say she's a "dingbat" because you disagree with her. But you just demonstrated that your logic and evaluation skills don't qualify you to accuse someone else of being a dingbat.
You're just like the rest of the Teabaggers: you exploit an audience's fairness in letting you speak to say anything, no matter how nonsensical, to attack your enemies. Right down to accusing in one sentence your enemies of precisely what you just did yourself in the sentence before it. Nuts and evil.
--
make install -not war
For those of us outside the US, all US politics are fucking hilarious.
FTFY
Your Marines friends, if they even exist, sound like excellent torturers. We used to have people like you denying that Marines would ever torture someone. Thank you for explaining that torture is embraced by Marines, instead of being rejected as cruel, counterproductive and illegal by sane people upholding their duty to protect the Constitution.
--
make install -not war
That huge Fox News and Murdoch's global sister corps is "the left wing mainstream media"?
You Republicans are so insane that you think people believe such a crude and childish lie.
--
make install -not war
There's a lot of dead Americans that will never come back from Iraq and he's never been able to tell us why apart from his dance on the deck of a carrier in a clown suit. It's amazing that there is so little rage. However you'll find like many times in the past that the "fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination" is just angry words like Rush Limbaugh talking about killing Chavez. If you put a gun in his hands and put them in the same room do you really think he would do it?
Let's not forget Honduras during Reagan's rule, when he supported right wing death squads down there. How quickly people forget...
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
But you do not get it.
Foreigners are tried for torture and punished.
Americans are tried for 'Dereliction of duty' or some other BS and punished for that. Slap on the hand for the bad press and not GTF out.
Americans trying an American soldier?
Are you kidding?
I remember a docu about the taxi driver that got sacked and tortured and murdered.
You think they even MENTIONED him during the trial?
Do you think 'torture' or 'murder' was even brought up?
Nope!
What do you think about Snooki's latest legal trouble!? And what is your opinion on the rumors of 3 new Star Wars films!?
Which GP would that be? The "Buckley conservative" or the one that made comments about "tea bags" and other silly insults.
I think it's reasonable to assume that you don't think I was referring to the "Buckley conservative".
In case you haven't noticed, the Tea Partiers are strongly libertarian, which is one of the reasons the Republicans, who are just another flavor of "big government" types were vert leery of them.
I think it's reasonable to assume the GP _is_ a liberal because he's bashing TP'ers while presenting no argument or facts, which is the usual liberal response.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
When foreigners thought the US didn't torture people, because it rarely did and punished the torturers when they were exposed, foreigners were more likely to surrender instead of fighting to the death, and to cooperate with US forces instead of cooperating with the US' enemies.
Now that people like you have converted torture into "just another weapon", we don't get that cooperation. Instead we get foreigners and even Americans recruited by the US' enemies because we are nothing more than torturers.
Torturers of many people who aren't guilty of anything except being easy to capture and to abuse.
Congratulations: you've destroyed one of the US' most effective defenses, established by centuries of restraint since George Washington. Along with our own knowledge that we're better than our enemies. The wars in which the US was better than that are the ones we've won. The ones in which the US wasn't better than that are the one's we've lost. Including the current Terror War that you people have been losing at every step.
Rather than talk tough and recommend cliche strategy books that have evidently taught you nothing, why don't you join the military and go to Afghanistan?
--
make install -not war
Maybe because they are using those tax dollars to do pointless things that waste the money and fail to do any good. If the U.S. government and the States can't keep things going with close to half the GDP of the richest nation in the world, isn't it time to think the people in charge are incompetent?
Like the TSA, DHS, Border Patrol, and the astronomical amount of defense spending? I look forward to the link to your comment pointing out these failures when Bush was the head cheese.
Blind faith in government is what's nuts.
We agree on something! We probably both like ice cream too!
is 20 years with a racist "church"
Sounds like most church's, Although W. Bush only found religion in 1985, he chose southern Methodist, it has to be one of the more racist churchs, excluding "black churchs", from gatherings with the white churchs until 1968, and the first black bishop in 1980. Pretty typical of all southern "white" churches, Although the Methodist church admitted their racist past, and repented for their actions, even money if W's church agrees.
I've always been puzzled by the Marines use of the word "honor." As the phrase goes, I do not think that word means what they think it means.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
No, I say she's a dingbat because she says things that are stupid. There's a difference. If you like, I can make citations, but I doubt it will matter.
There are plenty of people with whom I disagree that aren't dingbats. Please don't project on me.
Your circular argument goes in circles.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Give me a fooking break!
George W. Bush is one of the biggest assholes I have ever seen and anything bad anyone says about is is deserved. Don't give me the crap "unbridled hatred has no place in civilized society". If society were better oranised (and/or voters or better yet the media, less stupid) such that sociopaths like him don't get elected, then you don't have such 'problems'.
The first time I saw him on TV I knew this guy was the worst a-hole I'd ever seen as he said, when the results of the elections were being recounted etc., that Gore should give up as he wanted to continue preparing for hist term. As the vote count was close, Gore could have used the same argument! These sort of reversible arguments immediately show someone is a sociopath. And that's been proven time and again by his reactions. You want to talk about civilized society? Then talk about why such a guy is not immediately taken away unfit to 'rule' anyone. Why such a guy is allowed to stand for office anywhere in any position.
Bush/Cheney's Iraq invasion worked very successfully. It transferred $TRILLIONS into Bush/Cheney crony hands directly from war expenses. It got them reelected despite all they'd done to harm America (including the invasion itself). It drove up the price of oil to over $100 a barrel and in the neighborhood for years, gasoline to around $3-4 a gallon, which transferred more $TRILLIONS into Bush/Cheney crony hands. It demonstrated that the president can do whatever he wants, regardless of the Constitution or even a Congressional majority and successor president of the other party. It let the very rich Saudi who actually attacked us get away while we arbitrarily made war somewhere else, pleasing Saudis who are Bush/Cheney cronies, while hiding the concession to that Saudi's only specific demand: removing US troops from Saudi Arabia. It did a favor for the apocalyptic theocrats working to take over America as the Taliban took over Afghanistan, according to the script for their crusade, so they'd keep donating money, votes, volunteers and online comments. It strengthened Iran, giving credibility to Bush/Cheney cronies who want war with Iran (for all these same reasons).
WMD? Spreading democracy? Containing a dictator? That's all just propaganda. Bush/Cheney don't care about that, except that Americans believe it long enough for the scam to work. And it worked like nothing has ever worked before.
--
make install -not war
We already know it's boxers. He never could get past the security briefs.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
That's funny, because everyone I've listened to who *doesn't* think the Tea Partiers are nuts is breathtakingly ignorant about what is going on in the world.
Waterboarding does cause permanent harm. That kind of conditioning leaves prisoners with a pervasive fear of water falling on them, which then generalizes to other similar forms. I'm pretty sure being unable to go outside when it rains without collapsing in fear would qualify as "clinically significant distress" and that kind of conditioning isn't something you can just magically extinguish in any reasonable amount of time. It's like a very severe case of agoraphobia, artificially inflicted on you.
Not only that, they are astonishingly uneducated about a wide array of subjects, from history to economics to science.
They let people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell represent the party.
I'm not taking sides in this debate, but I am curious as to exactly how a loosely organized group like the Tea Party would go about not letting individuals "represent" them. It's not like either person that you named was elected to speak on behalf of the party. Right?
Oh wait, I am talking to A/C, which is a lot like talking to myself. Anyone have a helpful reply?
I know you're being facetious to underline your point
Well, it's nice to see that someone noticed that.
but the best intel we've ever gotten has been from when we treated prisoners and 'persons of interest' professionally and did nothing more than talk with them. [Citation needed] but it's not that hard to find. Look up how we got information from German officers during the Second World War.
There is a documentary about The Ritchie Boys ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritchie_Boys ). They were Jewish Germans who were in the intelligence branch of the US army, who served as translators and interrogators. One of their "shticks" was to dress one up as an American officer, and the other as a Russian Officer. The American one would start the interrogation with the German officer. Then when the German officer refused to answer questions, the "Russian" one would burst into the room, and demand to have the prisoner. The American would chase the Russian out, and told the prisoner, "look, if you don't cooperate, I will have to give you over to the Russian.
It's the classic good cop / bad cop routine, but was highly effective. And it used no physical force.
My doctor has a friend who is a psychiatrist, and discussed with me once the effectiveness of "Sleep Deprivation." The psychiatrist said that when you deprive people of sleep, their mind starts going crazy: the person is awake, but is actually dreaming. They'll tell you all kinds of nonsense, and start telling the interrogator anything he wants to hear.
A lot of intelligence in World War II was gathered by simply bugging the prisoners' quarters. When they thought that nobody was listening, they divulged vital information. One specific case was the German navigation beam "Knickebein" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knickebein ). Secret recordings of German POW pilots led the British intelligence to discover that their bombing aid was hidden in a radio in the bombers, which was much more sensitive than it had to be.
Conclusion? Try to use your brain, instead of brute force.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
And what if a person considers President Obama, or Vice President Biden, or Speaker Pelosi to be whackos? Does that mean the Democrat Party is totally out there, too?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Please, then, introduce me to some Tea Partiers that aren't nuts. Every gathering I've witnessed, every piece of tea party media, every tea party leader, the origins of the party itself all point to the same thing. The tea party ideal is entirely a handful of conservative flavored truisms layered with a lot of yelling and draped in an American flag.
A group of people that have realized that, in America, complete dissolution from reality works as a party platform. That, and, they're eager to submit their wills to powerful people and seem glad to receive their opinions from a director rather than be burdened with critical thinking. Funny, though, that the Tea party is not an actual political party. Where does it's money come from? Are their fund raisers? Is the tea party a way to funnel vast amounts of private funds in to public elections while sidestepping election law?
This isn't 'Parroting MSM' (Don't even know what the fuck MSM is) or whatever convenient rationalization you'd love to package up. This is rational, independent, observation from objective sources. If you wonder why people keep telling you the same thing.. Sometimes a duck is a duck.
Now you'll reply. "The tea party is just X people that believe that Y. What's wrong with that?"
No. It isn't. We've heard that line. Crazy is crazy, buddy.
Yeah, it's odd how people feel strongly when someone starts a war which hundreds of thousands of people. What's up with that?
Simplistic platitudes make the world go 'round, i.e. "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
That huge Fox News and Murdoch's global sister corps is "the left wing mainstream media"?
You Republicans are so insane that you think people believe such a crude and childish lie.
Let me enlighten you a bit about the American Right -- it has developed a closed culture in which the right wing platitudes carefully developed by what is now an immense propaganda industry with numerous right-wing billionaires and huge international corporations (Murdoch counts as both for example) -- are accepted as self-evident and eternal truths requiring no evidence whatsoever to support. If challenged on any point there is either flat disbelieving denial, or if a comeback is offered it is typically a single well-worn out-of-context apples-and-oranges factoid (which is often actually fictional - like Reagan's racist Cadillac welfare queen fantasy) that is drilled into the faithful.
It has become a secular religion on the right, a political cult.
Let me give a personal example. I am a leader in a youth organization (not the Boy Scouts), and on a recent camp-out heard one of the dads, surrounded by a host of youngsters, in a state of genuine fury denouncing Obama for "being the only American president to refuse to sign presidential letters of congratulations to new Eagle Scouts". This was an astonishing claim to me for many reasons (Obama was a scout himself, this is outstanding free publicity that no politician would turn down, I had never heard this from any news source, etc.) so I simply asked him where he heard this (in a casual tone of voice). The result was him turning his fury on me: how dare I question what he said! At first he said it was "everywhere" then eventually he told me that he was a scout master and could not get the letters for his Eagle Scouts. A few minutes of searching later turned up that this was a false claim circulating on the right - and the Boy Scouts own website had news releases about all the letters Obama had signed and information about submitting letter requests. A little later I learned that the Dad he was no scout master and so the claimed source of his knowledge was a lie.
Although I scrupulously avoid discussing politics with this group, had expressed no view at all about Obama, had never done anything but ask about where I could find out about this claim in a non-confrontational way, and had never even contradicted him (though I did email him the link to the BSA page about how to get the letters) , at a later gathering he made a public snarky remark about how we didn't agree on politics. Basically not instantly accepting any ridiculous assertion about Obama as Gospel proved I was an "unbeliever".
The point is - the believers don't bother to look at evidence, and take all right-wing cant as an article of faith. They not only don't realize what they say is a lie, they don't care, perhaps don't even believe that such a thing as a lie exists if it supports the right-wing world view. Even if "not factual" it is some sort of "deeper truth" (the scout master lie is probably rationalized on this basis - it was more important to convince me that his claim was true than to speak truthfully since he was serving a "higher truth").
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
You weren't really paying attention from 2000 to 2008, were you?
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
I doubt if anybody still cares about that country hick war monger who should have been hung years ago! Bush's Vietnam will go down in the History books as the biggest illegal, screwed up wars of all time! The Iraqi journalist who tossed a pair of shoes at his head should have tossed a couple of grenades instead, which would have been way more effective and would have put everybody out of their misery! Stay in Texas, you imbecile and munch on your steaks everyday! Nobody gives a rat's ass about you! You caused enough damage in your life time, so give us all a break!!
Really? You've seen enough rage against Bush to name/quote an invented disorder about it,
At the risk of Godwin-ing the discussion, Google is your friend.
You lose your keys when they're in your hand, don't you?
About that derangement syndrome, I fear for many it also extends to anyone of an alternate political bent; I believe there is empirical data quoted right here to indicate as much.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Oh yeah. My brother, you just mention the guy's name, and he can go for *hours*.
Sarah Palin, too. I actually kind of enjoy the Palin rage, because it has so many strange, wing-nutty reasons to hate her. Like, she "failed to support" giving away rape-kits. What the hell does "failed to support" mean? I "fail to support" a thousand things every day, 99.9% of them I never even heard of.
Comment of the year
And liberals never associate with open racists?
Or are former/closet racists themselves. Let us not forget our recently departed Klan Grand Dragon Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia. Or everybody's favorite reverse racist, Attorney General Eric Holder, who doesn't think that voter intimidation laws should be applied to persons who are not white.
There's a lot of dead Americans that will never come back from Iraq and he's never been able to tell us why apart from his dance on the deck of a carrier in a clown suit.
If you would read the book in question, as I have, he goes into great, GREAT detail about why he did what he did. He has written thousands of letters and spent time with families of the fallen in Iraq, and he truly believed in his decision and feels the weight and responsibility of his choices. I have nothing but respect for the man. And the "Mission Accomplished" banner was an unfortunately-placed backdrop for his speech, as the "Mission Accomplished" was meant for the ship's particular mission, not the overall mission in Iraq itself.
Well, as you try so hard to convince us that Obama has had more death threats than Bush.. I can't help but think "maybe thats because he is doing a worse job?"
Just some food for thought.. right?
As far as your comments about things people write on signs...
Idiot writes stupid thing on a sign.. news at 11.. only on MSNBC.
MSNBC likes showing that stuff, but its not news and it certainly isnt informative in the way you want it to be. It speaks more to the quality of MSNBC as an actual source for news than anything about the group of people you want to paint.
"His name was James Damore."
In comparison, they are probably very tame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8
What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsUfbjYXBrs&feature=fvst http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8R2PDmbmA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWQHRMVBjBY
Exactly.
If anything, he's only confirmed that his friends probably have some psychological disorder from serving in the army where preforming torture on captives has caused serious damage to their mental state, to the point where they find torturing each other enjoyable.
I'm no psychologist, but I do read up on it from time to time. These guys were probably regular morally decent men at one point - and after given the order to torture, none of them really WANTED to do it. Someone likely did (their CO or someone unafraid of such things) - and they all initially felt some subconcious remorse. Identifying with the victim, they now enact fantasies of torture, where they are reliving that traumatizing moment for each of them - and they don't mind doing it because they all enjoy it with each other.
Seriously - his friends should go seek therapy. I am not kidding.
"...US has punished users of waterboarding..." I'd be curious to know of examples where the US prosecuted the waterboarders specifically for waterboarding. I'm not being sarcastic, I'd seriously like to know some examples where this precedent was set.
I *personally* don't believe waterboarding rises (sinks?) to the level of torture, no more so than sleep denial or loud music....
Although it is often described as "simulated drowning" (by media faithfully following Bush Administration spin) water boarding is actual drowning - merely interrupted before the victim suffers irreparable harm.
Water boarding thus fails even the "Yoo standard" (carefully assembled to support Bush's desire to waterboard) which is that it is torture if the victim experiences "the threat of imminent death". It is similar to the use of interrupted hanging as an interrogation method.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
I've always been puzzled by the Marines use of the word "honor." As the phrase goes, I do not think that word means what they think it means.
And I have a couple of words for you: Unbridled disrespect.
So it really doesn't even matter what the evidence is, you're still going to hold the same position. Awesome.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
The stand-up comedian Emo Philips had a nice joke about the church and it was voted The Best God Joke Ever
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
"His name was James Damore."
Everyone I've ever talked to who thinks the Tea Partiers are nuts know absolutely nothing about them and are just parroting the MSM and each other.
I don't think the tea party are nuts, I just think they are normal irrational people like the rest of us... OK... maybe a little be more irrational than the rest of us...
I find your story plausible (even if there's not going to be any evidence of it). Because I agree with you on what the rightwing culture has become, and I see plenty of instances of that kind of cult among the rightwingers I encounter, not to mention the many very public examples of it.
Except that it's not a secular religion. It's a (somewhat) non-denominational religion, in that pious Christians and Jews practice it. But it is a religious political cult. It's theocracy, even if it's largely cryptotheocracy so far. Crypto in that it denies it's theocracy when directly confronted, but when "safe" (either more privately or simply in practice if not justification) it is straight out theocracy. "Everyone must obey this rule because god says so."
Sure, the theocracy is not really religious except as a way to organize people's total behavior (rather than their moral status), but that's true of all religions. Sure, its designed with the primary value of making money and holding power, but that's true of the politics, too. It's a way of life, and it's not any more secular than was feudalism under the authority of the Vatican. Indeed, America's theocrats attend church and practice religious practices more than most feudal people did.
--
make install -not war
Actual "Bush Derangement" is you Republicans thinking people hate Bush because of some "syndrome", instead of for the ruins he left our country and our world in. Your derangement is so extreme that you think reasonable criticism and earned anger are other people's insanity. Because you are insane.
--
make install -not war
BDS is real and amazing exercise in mouth-foaming bigotry and childish petulance coming from people who otherwise claim to be tolerant.
So what do you call what's being done to Obama by Tea Partiers and Fox News?
Blind faith in government is what's nuts.
As opposed to a blind faith in the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market"?
With the 300 comments in this thread, is ANYBODY's mind changed about the man? What's the point in discussing him when you're so convinced you already know everything there is to know?
Your anecdote regarding this other dad's animus against Obama's refusal to sign Eagle Scout congratulatory letters; I'm curious why you paint all right wingers with this brush of ignorance. I am an unabashed believer in conservative values, but I'm also a thinking individual who would have no problem debunking the Eagle Scout thing. People like that give the rest of us a bad name. Frankly, if he had made a similar snarky remark about me I guess I would've been relieved that his politics were different from mine; my politics are born of considered rational thought and his are born of dogma. I will be happy to debate but I won't argue; I can't afford the time.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Sorry dude, but the Tea Party got hijacked awhile back by the mainstream Repubs and the Dems. Didn't you get the memo? And as for crazy..Sharon Angle. I actually felt sorry for the folks of NV, as they pretty much had NO choice that didn't smell up the joint.
And before you start screaming "liberal" which I personally find funny as liberal means new ideas so I don't see how it is a dirty word, I'm actually a pro isolationist "America First" type, which sadly gets NO representation from EITHER side. Silly me in thinking that US tax dollars should be spent at home instead of propping up third world dictatorships just so some multinational can get bananas for a nickel cheaper.
As for GWB, lets be honest folks and I don't care which side you consider yourself on, here was a shitty president, full stop. He blew cash like a frat boy on a coke binge while at the same time lowering taxes and starting two wars. Can you say fiscal irresponsibility? I think you can. We had the world on our side and then he blows the post 9/11 goodwill by starting a completely uncalled for war of aggression in Iraq. Whether you supported the war in Afghanistan or not (which I did, it was pretty obvious the whole country was a training camp and frankly we should have kept going into Pakistan until we had OBL's ass drug before the US courts) without following the Constitution and declaring war, allowed the terrorists to win by using PATRIOT and other power grabs to steal the very liberties he was proclaiming to protect, hell I could go on all day. He was a truly shitty president.
And before you bring up Obama allow me to say he is also a truly shitty president, with trying to claim 50,000 troops still getting shot at is "mission accomplished" when we all know Iraq is still a giant clusterfuck, not doing anything about the security theater bullshit while we have a border so leaky you could drive a bomb on a Ryder truck through the damned thing, and in fact embracing the nastiest parts like warrant-less wiretaps after lying during the campaign, lying again about don't ask don't tell, which throwing good soldiers out in a time of war because of who they sleep with is pretty fucking stupid, continuing GWB's blowing cash like a fratboy routine, etc.
Basically I give us about a decade tops before like Ireland we end up against the wall only unlike them nobody, including all those oil fiefdoms we helped to prop up, will come to our rescue. My bet is that we'll have to default, the Repubs will try to cut off all the social programs which are frankly the only things keeping the working poor from starvation and rioting in the streets, and then we will see SOME REAL CHANGE, whether for good or ill is anybody's guess. But I can tell you in the flyover states it already looks like the great depression, with signs on cars saying "looking for work, call xxx-xxxx" and whole streets abandoned and boarded up factories as far as the eye can see.
If we don't start putting Americans before the needs of multinationals this whole powderkeg is libel to blow up, although I think thanks to treasonous bribery we are probably already too far gone. To quote the great man Thomas Jefferson "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.". And sorry about the length, I'm just tired of the "liberal" "conservative" bullshit when BOTH sides are fucking us over and kissing the multinational ass as fast as they can.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I find your story plausible, too, but the post in which you are responding is completely off base. I don't watch Fox News or read their website... I'm about 1000 times more likely to read CNN or something else... they all have bias, and people watch what they want to watch; people who generally lean left are not going to watch Fox, and they're only going to hear one side W.R.T. "Tea Parties."
I've never attended a tea party rally, and have no inclination to do so - I think they're just as bad as any other party, none of which suit my personal ideologies. However, I do think the MSM has shown a decidedly one sided view of them... racists (despite minority keynote speakers at many of the rallies), hate mongering revolutionists... it's just plain ridiculous. I've heard the unsubstantiated stories from people claiming to be "victims" of tea partiers, but I've actually seen and heard evidence of actual violence against the tea party supporters... none of which I have EVER seen reported on CNN or in any foreign media (which is, granted, limited).
I see this and I don't even support the tea party, and I'm not "conservative." Why are so many people blinded by their own confirmation bias? And they don't even realize it. I'm not implying you are, but a general sentiment about slashdot.
The facts are the facts... there is right wing media out there, to be sure, and I certainly won't say Fox isn't biased, but the large majority of media in the U.S. and throughout the world leans to what we would call left, and they all show bias in their reporting. Remember that bias is not necessarily lying, just showing issues from a particular point of view; if you watch National Geographic, and if the show is about lions, you want the lion to catch the gazelle to feed it's young... if it's about gazelles, you want them to escape the lions. Same facts of life from two different perspectives. News reporting is no different, you get the same facts from a particular point of view, and what they choose to report and not report makes all the difference in the world.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
You do realize that there is a difference between "the water cure" and waterboarding right? The water cure involves forcing the recipient to drink large quantities of water resulting in gastric distension and can lead to death. The Japanese when using this during WWII would then smack the recipient's belly and cause the stomach to burst. Waterboarding involves running water over the face of the recipient, simulating drowning, not forcing them to drink it.
Yes, because your evidence (even if it does exist) is coupled with your bad "logic". It doesn't prove what you say. As so many others have explained in response to your post.
What's awesome is how complete you Republicans are encased in denial/projection. Your evidence is easily shown not to support your conclusion, and easily shown to support the conclusion that debunks you. To which you respond that I am not swayed by the evidence, when that is precisely your problem and not mine. Really, though, the word is "awful". You Republicans are truly awful. You're not even good torturers. Where's Binladen?
--
make install -not war
"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt." - Nancy Pelosi's inaugural address as speaker of the house.
And I'm not a "teabagger." I also don't like Palin, and didn't vote for McCain; well less than half my midterm votes were for republicans, and I specifically didn't vote for ones "endorsed" by the Tea Party because I don't like them, but I don't belittle them and make up crap about them either.
Both major U.S. parties are terrible and destructive to this country and the things that made it great, one is worse than the other, however.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
As in for raped and murdered civilians?
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
To imply that the US won't/doesn't try its soldiers is simply absurd.
There are ample cases in US history - from current all the way back the Revolutionary War - of the US gov't trying US soldiers for all sorts of crimes.
Now, you might contend that the US is RELUCTANT to try its soldiers, and have a point.
Even there, I'd argue that where the blame is clear, no, the US military has actually been fairly swift to try some soldiers.
Where the evidence is sketchy or brought forward by people whose personal agenda is clearly anti-US or anti-military, then I believe that they do investigate/explain/exonerate to a point that might be overcorrecting.
-Styopa
You Republicans are truly awful
I voted for Nader. But hey, since everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, why bother with troublesome facts? Like I said, it doesn't make a difference anyway, and you proved my point again.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I'd say the party that led us into these wars, torture, domestic spying, banking collapses, and multiplied debt is worse than the party that didn't stop them. That would be the Republican Party being worse than the Democratic Party. And yet you voted for its members to take over the House this month.
--
make install -not war
IANAL but I'd guess not.
Part of the problem with most 'broad' definitions of torture is that they don't take much extrapolation to see it in real life, and then you start to question the basic functions of everyday life.
The guy next door has Rick Astly blasting "on 11" 24/7, thus providing both sleep deprivation and loud music.
Can I really prosecute him for TORTURE?
Medical students are often required to work bizarre-long hours to force them to get used to operating without lack of sleep or in conditions where their rest is impaired (I guess) - are their teachers guilty of Geneva-convention torture?
It seems to me obvious that electrodes to the testicles IS indeed torture. Having wooden splinters shoved up your fingernails = torture. To some other people waterboarding is no doubt equally "obviously" torture, though it isn't to me - making the subject really, really scared doesn't cross the line for me.
-Styopa
Hazing can run the gamut from "Aw! You ASSHOLES!" to really, really horrible.
On the left end of the scale: ask a coal miner about "greasing" sometime. Generally an "oiler" (someone in charge of keeping equipment lubed) will sidle up to a newbie and inject a generous portion of grease into whatever opening in newbie's clothing happens to be gapped open at the time. Points are awarded for doing the greasing while engaging the newbie in conversation. My dad said the best thing about women entering the mining work force in the `70's was one female oiler's ability to ask "ditzy" questions of a new miner while filling every pocket of his Carhartts with grease and walk away before he noticed it. Not much fun working the rest of your shift with a pocket full of grease. :-)
Skydiving, coal mining, anything with a fairly high degree of shared danger seems to tend toward this sort of silly, harmless behavior. A pocket full of crushed fruit is way preferable to looking like a pocket full of crushed fruit if your chute "tampons" on the way down. Gallows humor is a lot easier for most people than saying "I'm really fucking scared every time I (jumpfromthisplane|godowninthishole) too. I'm here for you".
Vis. "bad hazing" My scientific wild-ass guess is, if your group doesn't run many real risks to life and limb, then you try and substitute it in the ritual it's self.
He truly believes in helping his buddies make money, and will let the crocodile tears flow if that makes it palatable to the American people you mean. He ordered torture, he should be on trial for war crimes.
I would imagine it depends on the part of the country you live in. Here in California, I've seen nothing like what you just described, though I did see some similar stuff for Bush (including a house that had a Bush effigy hung from a tree). I wouldn't be surprised if such exists for Obama in other parts of the country, though.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
As a European, I saw the Tea Party from only two points of views :
- Complete whackos like Sarah Palin, and the other woman, what was her name ? Said it was important to spend government money to fight agaisnt masturbation or something like that... Oh, also Glenn Beck. In short, people that are spokepersons of the tea party.
- Lawrence Lessig, admittedly a liberal, that said the tea party was a great political initiative. Despite disagreement on almost every point, he agreed on the two most central points in his view : the fight against corruption and lobbying and the need for grassroots politics.
I mean, there may be something, but why, oh why in heaven's sake do you let people like Palin speak out for you ? Why don't you criticize the complete nutjobs that speak in your name ? Do you realize that it takes a person you probably consider like an enemy to explain the good things that are in this party ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
That's right... and most of these republicans who won were not in office when we went to war (which most of the democrats voted FOR, by the way), but the economy is almost entirely democrats fault. Deficits are republicans faults (Reagan was the one who taught is deficits were great, after all).
But we can namby pamby back and and forth all day... the difference is that I see destructive policies all around, but it's mainly liberals and democrats that block legislation what would limit the destructive power the government has over us.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
It already had a 40% off sticker slapped on it.
Dingbats aren't competent to run the House of Representatives.
Rubbish. All it takes to run the House is the right political connections. I suppose if that dimwit Palin runs for office (and God forbid wins) you'll say she's not a dingbat because Dingbats aren't competent to be President, right?
Pelosi is a moron, and Obama is a junior senator slash community organizer that idiots like you voted into office because it made you feel good about yourself. Let's face simple facts, at least.
I really just can't let this ludicrous attempt at logic stand. You're projecting your hate of Republicans on me, a liberal Nader supporter, and accuse me of being in denial and not properly using evidence. Ironic much? To which you add some drivel about torture and bin Laden, as if the two are somehow related. We know where he is. In a sovereign nuclear nation that does not want us there. Would you like us to invade Pakistan? Maybe if Obama invades a country it'll better than if mean 'ol Bush does it, right?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Illegal war? I'm no Dubya fan, though I am softening a bit on him in hindsight. But what exactly do you think the phrase "illegal war" means? You do understand that using that phrase marks you as a complete dolt, right?
You leave mein fuhrer out of this! I would point out this whole series of posts is very insensitive to Nazi's.
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
We all think you're nuts.
Like we care. Are you from an EU member state? I'll be eating popcorn watching the EU crumble and watching you fuckers riot at every tiny entitlement you lose over the next few decades. We'll see who's smug when the few sane EU member states decide they're crazy to continue supporting the outrageous, unsustainable spending of the rest.
"Ooooh, Sacre Bleu! They have raised zee retirement age 6 months and replaced welfare checks with zee housing and food cards! We must all riot!".
There's a lot of dead Americans that will never come back from Iraq and he's never been able to tell us why apart from his dance on the deck of a carrier in a clown suit.
It was for one of two reasons.
One, because we thought they had WMD. I find this ridiculous, and if this is truly the cause then they were incompetent boobs.
Two, because they wanted a battleground. They pulled all our enemies into Iraq and they've been focused there instead of making (more) terrorist attacks on civilians. It hasn't stopped terror attacks, but one could argue that it's slowed them. In this case, WMD was the flimsy excuse, and it's possible killing Saddam was a nice icing on the cake.
No, most of the Republicans in the House were in office when we went to war, which means that they voted to go to war. But even if these were "new faces", what's the difference? The Republican Party is exactly the same. It never admitted its members shouldn't have voted for the invasion, never admitted Bush/Cheney lied us into war. It ran on a platform this year of "we're going to be the same", and Republicans like you voted for it. You voted for the Republicans who voted for the war, and for Bush/Cheney, too, through all those years. And you haven't changed either.
The liberals and Democrats spent the past 2 years sending banking and other regulations through Congress to limit the government, but the Republicans blocked all reregulation. Republicans have blocked everything, and will soon shut down the entire government (which is mostly working in the service of the public), just as it did the last time it had the power to do so to a Democratic president.
There are destructive policies all around. But they're mainly produced by Republicans (and by "Conservative" Democrats, the fifth column), who even abuse government illegally to to get what they want.
--
make install -not war
"Pretty funny".
We elected a nobody community organizer to the office of President based on some laughable feel-good nonsense. It only gets more hilarious from there on out!
For those of us inside the US, it's absolutely fucking hilarious to watch Europeans riot as their ridiculously unsustainable form of EuroSocialism starts to unravel.
Riot, fuckers. Riot.
We techies are not the only ones to be entitled to semi-rudely RTFM newbies...
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
You're just being moronic now... I clearly stated well less than half the people I voted for were republicans... that makes me a republic? That's idiotic.
The legislation the democrats sent through congress does nothing to limit government, it limits private businesses... it's unbelievable you'd pretend it's otherwise.
And the claims republicans are blocking things are also, by and large, completely disingenuous... I realize they have a knee jerk opposite reaction to democratic legislation (but then so do democrats to republicans), but unless you're only viewing completely biased media you know you are not getting the whole story when they claim "republicans" blocked anything... republicans have a minority, how can they "block" anything? But most opposition comes from the fact that so much legislation is tied to other legislation... if I were a politician of ANY party, I would not vote for bad legislation just to get good legislation passed, no matter how "emotionally" appealing it is.
Look at Pelosi's quote, after all... so when republicans refuse to pass something that has no pay-go financing, they get accused of wanting to starve poor little children or "destroy the hopes" of the unemployed (yes, I actually saw that quote).
It's unfreaking believable the bias I see and the absolute confirmation bias you have.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
Up to plus 5, then down to "Troll"!
However the scoring ends up, I have never been so pleased to be labelled a "Troll"!
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
The `Tea Party' is a fiction that was planned and created by the far-right in anticipation of the loss of the executive branch in 2008. The planning, organization and funding started in late 2005. A bunch of far-right billionaires and republican strategists scheduled the whole thing. Fox, the hate-talk hosts and the others were primed, and the launch was kicked off after Obama was elected. If Obama had lost to McCain, we'd never have heard of the Tea Party.
There's a difference between "running" and "running into the ground". Under an actual moron, John Boehner, the House did little but deregulate the country into ruin.
Under Obama, we've stabilized the country in many ways against the ruin stuffed into us under Bush. Who you voted for twice because you were told that's who Republicans vote for. I felt good about myself voting for Obama, because I knew he wasn't a fool and would remain calm while managing us through the epic catastrophes you Republicans insist on doing to our country. Which is why you'll be voting for her in 2012 if that's who you Republicans pick as the next fool to afflict the country with. You'll say "but it's better than Obama". Simple facts about simpletons.
--
make install -not war
And given the number of associates he has in total, he's hardly there.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
And regarding the current President, I find the scariest things about him are not what the loony right charges, but the things that are unquestionably true but ignored, like his 20 years with a racist "church", his unprecedented efforts to suppress his own paper trail, the associations and politics of many of the "czars" and other advisors he surrounds himself with. The list goes on.
They're ignored because the first is a personal attack unrelated to policy, "guilt by association" style. The second is an unverifiable claim. The third is a trick of words because Obama has not had more "czars" than past presidents.
The scariest thing about him is that he's done hardly anything to change the course on 4th amendment rights. We still have the Patriot Act, he's expanded the attacks using drones to include U.S. citizens, and right would rather talk about the stuff you bring up and "death panels" than have substantive discussion.
I've never understood the "derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism" for Pelosi or Reid. Can you give me some examples of initiatives, legislation, or comments that describe what you're talking about?
Too bad the Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Just think of what they could have done with that! Oh, wait...
And if Nancy Pelosi is so wonderful why is half of her own party asking for her to step down as minority leader while the Republicans are cheering her on?
It couldn't be because she's the best advertisement in the House for Republicans in decades, could it?
But around here it's impossible to criticize Democrats without being ad hominem'ed into next year, while treating President Bush, Sarah Palin, etc, like nothing short of the anti-Christ is perfectly reasonable.
My first rule of American politics is this: But anyone who talks or acts like they implicitly trust one party (of the Big Two) and finds the other absolutely "evil", and these folks talk about "Republicans" or "Democrats" the same way Robert Byrd used to talk about blacks, or Obama's "spiritual mentor" of a fifth of a century talks about whites, well, those people are idiots.
More concisely: If you prefer one party over another fine. If you think one party is inherently good and the other inherently evil, you're a moron.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
If Tea Partiers are strongly libertarian, why do they try to elect social conservatives like O'Donnell who want to legislate christian morality? Government out of the boardroom and into the bedroom sounds Republican, not libertarian. You may not like Pelosi or her policies (or, more likely, your imaginary versions of same) but she is no wingnut. I challenge you to find something really crazy she has said. And supporting socialism is not "crazy," it is a policy position you disagree with.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Put up or shut up, give us an actual Pelosi quote that is crazy. You say,
not everyone who disagrees with you is either nuts or evil.
and yet you treat everyone who disagrees with you as nuts, or evil. Hypocrite much?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yeah, it's odd how people feel strongly when someone starts a war which hundreds of thousands of people. What's up with that?
Simplistic platitudes make the world go 'round, i.e. "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
And THAT was the one thing he felt bad about. Kanye West saying that was, in Bush's own words, the worst thing that happened during his presidency. The. Worst. Thing. Not Katrina. Not wars, not economic collapse, not friggen' 9/11. That one sentence from Kanye was, according to our ex president, the worst thing. That says everything about what a narcissistic, sociopathic egotist the man is.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Make that list or shut up about it. Stop insinuating things and not backing them up. Your ultra conservative world view is not shared by most Americans, what you are saying is 'common knowledge' is accepted by only a small minority.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Are you saying Obama is doing a worse job than Bush, or just implying it, so you don't look like a total fool? Don't be so wishy washy, if you think Bush was better than Obama, say so.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Starting an unnecessary war is certainly one of the worst thing you can do as President.
Claiming now, even with the all the better information we have, that it was actually a good idea, adds insult to injury.
You know the Navy sent that banner back to Bush saying "It's not our banner, we don't want it, so we are sending it back to its owner." Pretty damn funny, IMHO. I wonder if they will put it in the Bush Museum, I mean, it is a legitimate banner and he must be very proud of it, so why not? Haha, yeah. That's not gonna happen.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Bush ordered that banner. After the carefully staged photo op, the Navy sent it back to him saying, "We don't want this It isn't ours, so we are giving it back to the rightful owner."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Sorry, man, AC is reading from the talking points. You won't get any response.
I suppose the person will claim Bush "stole" the 2000 election too, which is still claimed early and often, but which is to me an even bigger sign the person is a moron.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Right, because everyone in Iraq was just happily flying kites and minding their own business.
I won't argue the post-major-combat process was totally messed up, but it's funny how every major Democrat was on board with the idea of WMD in the years preceding and up to the point the war started: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, the list goes on and on.
But "Bush lied", yeah, whatever.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I never said Bush didn't do those kinds of things, but Obama has only sped the process up doing it faster and harder.
We'll spend our way out of debt! Sure, why not?
They kept unemployment under 8% just like they said they would if we let them dump the better part of a trillion into "shovel-ready" jobs the President now admits that never existed.
Oh, wait.
TSA, DHS, the Border Patrol and defense spending are a small fraction of the entitlements time bomb which at its present rate of growth will exceed the entire size of the budget in a few years, but that's OK when you have _good intentions_.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
"Successfully" is a manner of opinion.
Further, it doesn't help to criticize someone for "attack[ing his] enemies" just after you did just that. In fact, your whole comment is ironic (you attack and then criticize the parent for attacking); hopefully it was done on purpose.
I guess there _is_ a place in the world for spittle-spraying mouth-foaming hatred. How could I have been so foolish?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Yes, waterboarding is inhumane but it is not torture (although some people are defining it as torture in the wake of the waterboarding). FYI, I am very much opposed to waterboarding but let's not beg the question by calling it torture when that is what is still under discussion.
You're right. I can't argue with ad hominem.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Faith in the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is easy to have. People generally act in their own self interest, which is the same reason that blind faith in the government is nuts.
Sie ist tunbar!
How do you know people hate Obama because he is black? Do you have telepathy? Have you interviewed hundreds or thousands of people? Or are you just buying into the liberal strategy of playing the race card as fast and often as possible?
"Making government bigger" is a contrived complaint?
Have you seen the numbers? Between the Democrats winning Congress and Obama winning the Presidency the budget deficit increased by a factor of 7. But yeah, it's all about skin color.
The sad thing is that for people like you, there is _no_ possible criticism of Obama that wouldn't be called racist.
Who's the real racist here?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I find your story plausible, too, but the post in which you are responding is completely off base.... However, I do think the MSM has shown a decidedly one sided view of them... Same facts of life from two different perspectives. News reporting is no different, you get the same facts from a particular point of view, and what they choose to report and not report makes all the difference in the world.
On the other hand, Tea Party claims are typically aired without any examination of whether they are factual or not.
The MSM does not do a good job of reporting the news. It makes little effort to separate fact from non-fact and is happy to "balance" any quote with a counter-quote without examination as if they were equal. But this is quite different for having any sort of systematic bias.
If a systematic liberal bias actually existed it should be possible for research that withstands critical review to demonstrate it. The largest study attempting to address this (a meta-analysis of dozens of studies spanning decades) found no systematic bias: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/cobb/p_courses/ps411/assigned%20readings/dalessio_meta%20analyses%20media%20bias.pdf . The often cited recent study to support the claim of liberal media bias is the one of Groseclose and Milyo published in December 2005 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. This study is notable for its highly idiosyncratic classification of what was liberal and conservative - the most liberal media outlet was the Wall Street Journal, the NRA was considered a liberal organization, the ACLU was a conservative one. In general defensible research supporting a claim that a systematic liberal bias exists seems absent.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Appealing to Wikipedia doesn't count as authoritative (especially since the current page was written after the controversy erupted); at least link to the primary sources. In any case, hindsight is 20/20. Yes, I'm opposed to waterboarding but you don't have to be ignorant to believe that it is not torture. That's part of what the controversy is about - whether or not it is torture.
Don't forget Colonel Sanders - with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face - he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly
Sie ist tunbar!
No, there's a difference between "attacking your enemies" and "say anyting, no matter how nonsensical, to attack your enemies". You Republicans will ignore everything to protect each other from criticism. Your whole cult is built on cherrypicking like that.
Hell, you don't even know what "ironic" means.
--
make install -not war
Psh. The political Right is compared to Nazism. The Left is compared to Stalin.
Get it right!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It's the "invisible hand of the free market" that is stealing the cash out of your pocket, while you're watching Dancing with the Stars.
The whole concept of the "invisible hand" is a joke. People act in their own best interest, not in the interests of anyone else.
I've never understood the "derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism" for Pelosi or Reid. Can you give me some examples of initiatives, legislation, or comments that describe what you're talking about?
Fux News, Rush Limbaugh, et al. tell them to hate Pelosi and Reid, so they do. It gives them a face to vent at during the standard Two Minutes Hate they undergo.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I challenge you to name two other tea party candidates without looking them up on the internet. I bet you can't. I bet you also have no idea what those candidates stand for or what kind of people they are. As the OP said, you're just parrotting what the hype machine (be it other buddies with similar views, the media, or left-leaning blogs) focuses on. Two morons do not comprise an entire movement, no matter how much they're spotlighted and focused on.
Are you saying Obama is doing a worse job than Bush, or just implying it, so you don't look like a total fool?
I'm saying that greater numbers of death threats could imply that he is doing a worse job.
Sometimes groups assess situations better than individuals. Such a statistic would be a sampling of society as a whole, and it could certainly be argued that it carries more weight than individual opinion.
As for me personally.. I think the democrat monopoly of house, senate, and oval office combined has not done as good a job as any period in history where there wasnt such a one-sided monopoly.
"His name was James Damore."
No, but they were dying by the dozens each die like after the invasion. Everyone knew what was going to happen - hell, listen to Dick Cheney in '93. He knew it would be a disaster.
And why should I care about what democrats thought. I'm Portuguese, and we disagreed, as did plenty of Europe.
Dilbert RSS feed
Then you're not paying attention. Threats on the president's life have skyrocketed since Obama took office. Right wing politicians fantasize about "second amendment remedies." There was a national day of prayer for his death.
Bullshit.
You're wilfully remaining ignorant if you truly believe that there was more venom directed agains Bush than against Obama.
Bullshit. Show me *anything* like this. And you haven't been in this country where you could actually see the *constant* hatred of Bush. You'd go to a theater or a musical piece and they'd just stop to spend a few minutes bashing the president. I had lecturers who couldn't resist insulting him, even when it was completely irrelevant.
I supported Bush initially assuming that he'd be a one termer who wouldn't do much. Then I was stuck constantly defending against these insane attacks. People were completely out of their gourd over the guy. One guy claimed that I was a chickenhawk for supporting Bush, and this was after I had already signed enlistment papers for the Army. I was accused of being a "torture apologist" because I defended waterboarding, something that our own guys go through in SERE school all the time.
The worst Obama gets are people who claim he didn't file his birth certificate. Bush had a 24 year CBS anchor take his career down in flames, desperately trying to prove that he missed drill at the national guard.
I know that Americans tend not to care what the rest of the world thinks about your country
That we can agree on. Here's the thing: you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You get a sliver of headlines of American news filtered through editors whose sole incentive is to get you fired up.
So, please, shut the fuck up and take care of the problems in whatever country you're from before subjecting me to your ignorant lectures about the mental faculties of my fellow Americans whom you have never met.
Are you saying it could imply that he is doing a worse job, or are you implying it? Rather than implying it, you could clarify and say "I think the fact that Obama is getting more death threats is an indication he is doing a worse job than Bush." or something. I bet you won't say that, because you know it to be false, and you don't want to sound like an idiot. I bet you will keep on implying it, though, because you don't like Obama.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
BDS is real and amazing exercise in mouth-foaming bigotry and childish petulance coming from people who otherwise claim to be tolerant. There's nothing wrong with disliking President Bush and what he did, even strongly. That's not only your right, but your duty as a concerned citizen if you feel that way.
What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man. I would imagine the hooded thugs at Klan rallies would just shakes their heads sadly at one of their own acting the way too many people act regarding President Bush (along with Sarah Palin and a few others targeted by the left for derision and scorn.)
Klan rallies? you're comparing people who firebomb churches and hang people for being the wrong color to some people calling for a man's criminal prosecution for war crimes... do I even need to point out how crazy that is?
As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that.
Disagreement, dislike, protest, and harsh criticism are all legitimate and honorable actions to take in politics, but the unbridled hatred I've seen directed against President Bush (or any politician, or any _person_ for that matter) has no place in civilized society.
First of all, consider that actual death threats on Obama are up 400% over the previous president. (i'd cite something but it's easy enough to google) People on the airwaves regularly question his nationality, religion, and whether or not he's a "socialist." before the man was even elected someone shouted "kill him" at a mccain rally and NOBODY BLINKED. Yes there is reason to dislike Obama. There's reason to dislike any politician that doesn't go along with what you personally want. But most of the criticism of Obama comes in two flavors: 1) he's "not one of us" and 2) he's spending our country into oblivion. Regan and both bushes did #2 and #1 is just code for "he's black". So when the tea partiers say they're for smaller goverment and fiscal responsibility, and then turn around and vote republican when their dark-horse candidate fails to deliver the voter turnout, I don't think they're crazy, I just think they're willfully ignorant of history.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
If you quoted me, you would see that I said could imply. You didnt quote me, but then ask if I meant could or does.
You are suggesting that I would limit myself only to could because I (a) believe the theory its wrong, or (b) believe it would make me sound like an idiot.
Such false dichotomy.
(c) I know that I do not know.
Apparently the idea that someone would know that they do not know, and for that reason alone will not claim that they do know for that very reason, is foreign to you.
Knowing that I do not know and speaking in a manner consistent with that knowledge is actually the sign of my honest, rational thinking on the matter. You not seeing this possibility is a sign of your tendency to dichotomize everything.
"His name was James Damore."
Gee, what was I thinking, trying to make a Bush-hater listen to reason? Nevermind; you're right. About everything. Always. The US is nothing but an imperialist state hell-bent on imposing their values on a cowering world, and Bush is Hitler/Satan/et cetera.
And I'm sure you're going to run right out and get that book, right? Probably not; it might tamper with your carefully constructed version of reality.
If you don't know, why bring it up?
Let me quote you:
Well, as you try so hard to convince us that Obama has had more death threats than Bush.. I can't help but think "maybe thats because he is doing a worse job?"
You can't help but think? Sounds different from "I don't know." We both know what you were doing there. Don't try to weasel out of it. You just don't like being called out on it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That says everything about what a narcissistic, sociopathic egotist the man is.
Narcissism? Sociopathy? Not sure how you arrive at those two derisions. But again, if you actually read his book, you would read that he and his father have worked their entire lives to create opportunities for minorities, and to do the best he could with Katrina and have not just Kanye, but the media as a whole portray his handling of the incident as racially motivated was a huge blow.
But like I'm going to change your mind, anyway.
[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED.]
Even if he did, the banner was for the ship, not for him.
When talking about the Tea Party I think it's helpful to think of it in two ways. There's an amorphous "the Tea Party Movement" which many Americans project their generic anger at gov't spending and corruption on to, and then there's The Tea Party Express. This is the most public, legislatively powerful, and well funded entity of the Tea Party. It's mainly funded by the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch and is the entity that supported most(if not all) of the "Tea Party Candidates" that ran in the primaries and elections. It also has Sarah Palin as one of its spokespersons.
This is why many observers consider "The Tea Party Movement" to be co-opted. Its most powerful entities are the same ones that helped neo-conservative Republicans get elected in the past, and its spokespeople are cut from the same mold.
Since when do the actions of a few mentally unstable individuals determine the judgment of a whole? But as far as you're concerned, Bush may as well have raped and murdered every one of them himself, right? There's no talking sense into people when they've convinced themselves of what they want to hear...
Of course he claims to have worked for minorities, but Bush and his father only worked for one set of minorities: the filthy rich. The truth is, he doesn't care about poor people, and a lot of minorities happen to be poor.
Seriously, though, whatever the reason he said it, it is pretty pathetic for him to claim that is the worst thing that happened during his presidency.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Of course he claims to have worked for minorities, but Bush and his father only worked for one set of minorities: the filthy rich.
Your ridiculous platitudes make me sick. Show me one shred of evidence to back up your claim that he only cares about the rich. This is a man who spent us into a hole providing AIDS funds for Africa. Tax cuts and deregulation are just what Republicans (as I am damn proud to be) believe is best for the economy. Let businesses keep more money so they can spend it on growing and hiring. If you want to spin that and say it's about letting the filthy rich keep more money, that's your right, but don't think I buy into it for one second.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050302138.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-11-17-banner17_ST_N.htm
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/19/bush-library-may-show-mission-accomplished-banner-from-2003-ir/
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-10-28/politics/mission.accomplished_1_aircraft-carrier-conrad-chun-banner?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/05/01/who-was-responsible-for-the-mission-accomplished-banner/
You will note that Rumsfeld has admitted the banner was made by White House staff, and reflected wording from Bush's speech. Bush's production manager flew out to the ship five days earlier, checking every detail for his boss's triumphant deck-swagger in a flight suit. Being the commander in chief, if Bush told the Navy "Take the rap for me on this," they had no choice but to say, "Yeah, we asked for the banner."
And you openly display your pride in the man. Unbelievable.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The evidence of nearly daily suicide bombings since then argues very loudly otherwise.
You guys love tax cuts for the rich, you will note Republicans want to repeal the tax cuts for the middle class.
As for AIDS funding, our paltry donations were hardly enough to have bankrupted Vanuatu. Nine billion? Chump change. And Bush did it? Wow, amazing how congress was to blame for going to war and ruining the economy, but for THIS, Bush gets credit. Did we come close to meeting the UN goals for aid to Africa of 0.7% of GNI? No. Did other countries? Yes, they did.
http://www.oecd.org/document/49/0,2340,en_2649_201185_38341265_1_1_1_1,00.html
Letting business keep more money would only help if business invested it in creating new jobs in America, but there is no demand here, and so despite record profits for Wall Street this year, we have seen no real increase in job creation. The rich hoard the money, spend it on luxuries manufactured overseas, or invest it overseas where desperate workers are ready for the slaughter.
It is ALL about giving the filthy rich the wealth created by the productive class, that is, the working class that creates all real tangible value. All Republican policies have the same goal: making the poor more desperate so they will accept even worse mistreatment from their bosses. Republicans are "cheap labor conservatives" as their policies are designed to provide the rich with cheap labor, be it here or overseas.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What do you think the book is then? It's an attempt to make a failure of a President look good and give excuses as to why he could do very little other than keep a seat warm and get treated like the royalty he really wanted to be. All I've heard so far is bullshit like: I couldn't do X because I didn't have the absolute power of a fucking medieval monarch so I didn't even try like every other President before me has done.
Go on then, give me his good reason. Nothing honest or coherent has made it into the newspapers in the last decade so you'll have the scoop.
First article:
After Woodward's book came out, Bartlett said, he went back to the files. "I looked at every draft of the speech, every draft that was sent to the principals, the Cabinet secretaries," he said. "There was never 'mission accomplished' in any draft of the speech." Rumsfeld could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Second article:
The White House later acknowledged that it had provided the banner at the Navy's request.
Third article simply states that the banner is going back to the Bush library. So what?
Fourth article:
Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Fifth article is an opinion piece in a blog with no sources. How is that a citation exactly?
There is not one mention in any of those first four articles even insinuating that Bush personally ordered that sign. The debate was whether or not his staff ordered it, and it seems as though it was the Navy's idea and the White House made it.
I'm not impressed by your skills at copying and pasting random articles from a Google search into a browser. Don't think I can't see through your bullshit, you fucking snake.
Go on then, give me his good reason.
Why, so you can spin it and beat me over the head with it? I'm not playing your game.
It's an attempt to make a failure of a President look good and give excuses as to why he could do very little other than keep a seat warm and get treated like the royalty he really wanted to be Bush is a egotistic black-hating terrorist blah blah BLAHAHGH
There is no evidence to back up any of what you're asserting. Where Obama's votes have been ALL along party lines, Bush enjoyed bipartisan support for most of his major initiatives for the first six years. He accomplished a hell of a lot more than Obama has, and with more support (that is, if you consider Obamacare and the stimulus package "accomplishments").
I will not make an evil man richer, yeah I truly am a nut.
The USA is a wonderful nation and that asshole made our friends hate us. I hate him for what he did to my proud nation, rather than rebuild the towers and laugh off some pathetic cave dwellers he used it as a chance to get his buddies rich and revenge on the man who dared order a hit on his daddy.
He ordered torture, he deserves a trial and then a short drop and a sudden stop.
Don't various tea party rallies around the country actively try to recruit Sarah Palin to give speeches?
Likewise, the primary wins of O'Donnell and Joe Miller, due to people who admit to supporting the tea party, clearly shows that these are in fact the desired representatives of many in the tea party (for those states).
Is this a 'real' tea party organization? http://teapartypatriots.org
If so, they seem to think that the recent election was a "win" for them. If so, the new freshman republicans do represent their views. Now, have you seen those views? Look up some of the things that people like Allen West are saying. Or anti-evolution reps like Sandy Adams from Florida.
None of them believe that global warning is an issue (for various reasons), most are extremely close to fundamentalist christians, etc..
I know you aren't taking sides, but I thought I'd point out that yes, Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell do represent, by request of the tea party, the tea party.
And to various posters above claiming that the tea party, overall, isn't nuts, I'd say this: The stated general principles, smaller government, more freedom, free-markets, etc.. are all sane ideas worth talking about. The problem is that those sane ideas normally come along with a host of idiotic, ignorant, and sometimes scary ideas.
There don't seem to be very many true conservatives in existence (at least in the public spotlight) anymore. The republicans were so effective at pushing the country to the right, that I believe they have permanently injured their party's ability to govern. Take the START treaty for example.
I'm curious what Obama has done (besides stretch timetables which you mentioned) that puts him anywhere near the same level of "crappiness" as GWB? There are some pretty long lists of accomplishments in the first two years. For instance: google for list of obama accomplishments. The first link thehistoricalcontext. (I'd paste the link but for some reason chrome in ubuntu 8.04 is acting weird right now....)
Assuming your issues aren't things like "health care reform was socialism grr grr bark bark". If that's the issue, don't bother responding. I'm tired of that debate hehe:) I'm a public option type person so I don't like how health care ended up either.
Pre-emptive invasion on baseless grounds. We were not under attack, nor likely to become under attack by Iraq. It was basically a home invasion.
"A war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a war crime under the customary international law."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_war
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
No, simply because I've heard nothing but the WMD crap and the fake link to Bin Laden, so I've heard nothing but lies. If you have something real I'll listen.
Forget about Obama, I'm talking about Bush jnr, not Hoover, Ford, Washington, Carter, Reagan or whoever. Nice touch with adding the "egotistic black-hating terrorist", now that you've had you little tantrum let's calm down and get back to how you told us he had good reasons that were presumably in the national interest. Somehow I completely missed them before but your heard them - care to share this information?
C'mon. A Marine is loyal first and foremost to the Marines. One can never forget that in the end they are simply hired killers.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
One funny thing about libertarianism is that apart from a small number of very strict government controls China fits their ideology perfectly. After all it's "might makes right" personified.
Want to start a coal mine and take guys off the street to work there for the minimum that anyone will accept with no pesky government paperwork to fill out or safety standards to comply to? In China you can do that and more! The government doesn't stop you living the libertarian dream so long as you don't say bad things about the government and respect their bigger guns. Think about that the next time a libertarian cries "commie" when somebody advocates Christian charity.
What exactly has she said on the campaign trail or off while she was running to make you think that?
Here is a hint to why people supported them, because they were the only ones who stepped up to run against the established set of candidates. It's somewhat of an anybody but them attitude until they get to know some of the people.
How is one supposed to forget what is bullshit in the first place? Your comments are beneath contempt. The Marines fight and die to protect this country and for that they have my eternal gratitude and respect (as opposed to foul-mouthed anonymous little jerkoffs on the internet, which garner the opposite).
The details of his initiation into the Skull and Bones are more controversial in your opinion than ordering the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan on a pretext and personally authorising torture and execution? Seriously?
The US and the UK made legal justifications. Nobody has been able to disprove or counter them. This "illegal war" claim mostly goes to show the idiocy of pretending war is anything but might makes right. If Iran invaded their neighbor, it's illegal because we can smash them. If the US or Russia does it, it's legal because nobody can do a fucking thing about it.
Second, nobody gives a fuck about international law and the war was authorized by US law. According to US law it was a legal action, as a US citizen I don't care what anyone else says.
I was strongly opposed to it as well but looking back I think the real goal was to create a battleground to draw many of our enemies to instead of having to fight them all over the world.
If you want to use Wiki links, how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Actually I'd say the "healthcare reform" was a load of horseshit because he did ZERO to stop runaway pricing by the drug companies, ZERO to lower healthcare costs or to give us a single payer option, in short it was an insurance industry wish list. Frankly my grandfather was a socialist, so that word don't scare me. He believed ALL MEN had the basic human right to a roof over their heads, food in their belly, clothes on their backs, and to be able to get medicine when they were sick. Any more than that get off your ass and earn it. He was also a big supporter of what today we would call "workfare" where able bodied men who couldn't get a job worked on WPA style infrastructure improvements.
Now as for why Obama is a shitty president? Let me count the ways: Lied about doing something about lobbyists by filling his depts plumb full of the bastards, pretty much hasn't meant an ACTA style backroom deal he didn't like, sold himself as the modern web president and then and went and pushed for bullshit like Internet kill switches, says outsourcing isn't a problem while my friends are forced to train their soon to be offshore H1-B replacements, kisses ass to Pakistan while they use OUR OWN MONEY to pay "bounties" on the heads of dead Americans, hasn't done a damned thing about all the money we piss down third world dictatorships with handouts, lied about don't ask don't tell, need I go on?
I'm sure you can point out some good things he has done, and for every one I can point out a dozen shitty ones. He has lied, he has embraced every nasty program like warrantless wiretaps, and continues to blow through cash like shit through a goose without doing jack shit about waste or worthless programs like the new fighter jet, when our enemies both current and possible future are flying either old soviet era shit or even worse our F15s and F16s thanks to the state dept letting the MIC sell to just about anyone with a checkbook. So I'm sorry pal, but that makes him a shitty president in my book and just because the thought of Caribou Barbie being one heart attack away from the button made sure the Repubs wouldn't win doesn't make him any less shitty.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I'll look into the claims you raised later (and comment), but I'm curious if you can point to a president that you think was good?
If you cannot find striking differences between Obama and GWB I truly am curious if you think that any president in our history has been beneficial for the average american.
Good presidents, okay...Clinton on the economy, even though he was still too much of a corporate suckup, both Roosevelts were good, LBJ on domestic but NOT foreign issues, and Ike for trying to stand up to the MIC. But sadly since FDR you won't find any that put America FIRST, as they all cared too much about spreading American "influence" on the rest of the world whether they wanted it or not. I believe that ALL foreign bases should be closed, that ALL foreign aid should be stopped, and that the LIE that is "free trade" be ended. Free Trade is a lie simply because everyone puts up many barriers to our products, such as China rigging their price of currency, while we bend over and take it. I also believe that the Fed should be shut down and the "free market" heavily regulated, with Glass Stegall replaced first thing ASAP. For the last 20 years our leaders have done pretty much anything the multinationals has ever asked, and now we see exactly what that gets you, ala Ireland. That WILL be us in less than a decade, mark my words.
as for what I said about Obama, feel free to Google away. I wish they weren't true, especially Pakistan offering bounties on Americans with OUR MONEY, but sadly it is 100% true. you simply cannot buy loyalty or friendship, no matter how much Yankee dollars you throw at them. And as we saw with the healthcare debate Obama is as wishy washy as Carter and couldn't even get a decent bill passed with a super majority. You can dislike the repubs policies all you want, which I do as they've become nothing but "corporation yay!" but you do have to respect the fact that they stick together. You can't get a dozen democrats in a room and even get them to agree on what to have for breakfast. Mark my words the economy WILL continue to go down like the Titanic, all their "jobless recovery" bullshit won't fly when people are out of work, and unless the repubs run Caribou Barbie or Bobby "fuck the poor!" Jindahl the repubs are gonna take the presidency easily, simply because Obama hasn't done jack shit about the economy. If he was smart he'd admit we are in the shit and start immediate WPA style programs to run fiber to every home and replace our failing infrastructure, but instead we'll get ACTA and other worthless for the populace BS. Wish it weren't so, but his hope and change appears to be hoping you don't notice the only change is from an R to a D on the door. Otherwise it is pretty much same shit, different day.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It is simulated drowning. Drowning is an horrifically painful experience, and your body has some extremely strong reflexes to try and prevent it.
If you've ever by mistake sucked down a little water while swimming, it's a lot like that. Only your hands are tied down, you're on your back with your nose and mouth exposed, and you're doing it until the guy pouring water on your head is satisfied that you've nothing more to tell him. That's torture.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Reread my post.
I mention they are not tried for the same things that foreigners would be tried for.
The example was:
Foreigner: torture
American: 'Dereliction of duty' or some other BS
As were show in many (no I have not researched ALL of them) trials of US military personnel.
Also as shown by my mention the 'taxi cab to hell' kangaroo trial where the victim was NEVER mentioned.
They were not tried for what they did to the poor man, but other crap.
It is like trying a rapist for 'sex with a superior officer'.
Okay, if you want to say his staff did it without his say so, I'll accept that as a possibility. Means he was responsible, in any case, unless you are saying the president is not responsible for thew actions of his staff.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Have you never seen her appearances on, uh, any media whatsoever? She wants to legislate against homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research and anything else the voice in her head that she calls "lord" tells her to. She HAS said she won't try to legislate against masturbation, despite her previous position on the matter. So, yay for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O'Donnell
Just read her positions, she is a hard core xtian wingnut.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Have you read your own link? In it is says she claimed that she would govern on the constitution not her personal beliefs. So she is anti abortion, anti- stem cell and anti-human cloning, most republicans are.
I didn't see where it said her political stance while running for office was against homosexual marriage but that too is something the right seems to agree with. Hell, I'm against gay marriage based only on the principle that it creates a special right or privilege not already allowed in an exception to rights already present. Everyone, gay, straight, dwarf, giant, red, blue, religious or not or whatever has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex once they reach a certain age. If you chose to act differently, don't tell me you have that as a right. Note, I didn't say being gay was a choice (it is, mostly unconsciously though so the choice is separated a bit), I said that acting a certain way that was different was a choice.
All in all, with one exception to voices in her head that I didn't see referenced anywhere, that she wanted to legislate christian morality- specifically when she said she would legislate according to the constitution and not her personal beliefs nor did I see where she is much different then other conservative candidates. It wasn't until after she won the primary that all the shit she did in the past started coming to light and scaring you.
Can you escape the noise by walking away? Or are you confined to your house in some way? Do you have the protection of local planning laws or do you live in some sort of anarchic community?
Pffft.
Still waiting.