Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Andrew Sullivan accidentally attacks himself [Karl]

Excitable Andy thinks he is attacking Hillary Clinton for criticizing Barack Obama’s condescending comments about the culure and values of people who live in “small towns” in Pennsylvania and the Midwest:

The “bitter” spat is gold for Morris-Rove politics, which is why Clinton is exploiting it so baldly. It is exactly the kind of debate that has constructed American politics since Vietnam; it is exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been trying to transcend…

Is this election about how to salvage the least worst option in the Iraq disaster? Is it about restoring some kind of fiscal sanity? Is it about doing all we can to unite Americans in a war against Islamic terrorism? Is it about restoring America’s compliance with the Geneva Conventions? Or is it again about red-blue culture wars?

This from one of America’s foremost proponents of gay marriage.  Perhaps Sullivan has forgotten that his beloved Obama finds gay marriage to be one of those issues that distracts not only from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians, but also from health care, employment, the environment and other issues vital to this country’s long-term well-being.  Indeed, as people like Josh Marshall have noted, a Rovian campaign to get anti-gay marriage initiatives and referenda on the ballot in a number of key swing states in 2004 may have provided a man Sullivan deems a “war criminal President” with the crucial turnout boost necessary to continue what Sullivan has called a “torture regime.”  In Obama’s worldview, Sullivan is a part of the very problem Sullivan now criticizes.

Michael Young, posting at Reason’s Hit & Run blog, aptly describes that worldview:

What Obama implicitly regards (in both his statements) as signs of disintegration, as reflections of popular frustration, are in fact examples of a thriving culture… Obama’s approach betrays a very suffocating vision of the state as the be-all and end-all of political-cultural behavior. Outside the confines of the state there is no salvation, only resentment.

It should surprise no one that this worldview is held by someone who has attended a church based on Black Liberation Theology for the past 20 years, as that theology is based on the notion of collective salvation through crypto-Marxist political action.

However, Sullivan is correct in noting that debate over culture and values has strongly influenced American politics since Vietnam.  As noted earlier, losing Democratic nominees are those that have been freighted the baggage of the New Left.  That baggage includes more than the obvious social issues like abortion, gun control, and hositility to religion in the public square.  It also includes a shrieking, hyperbolic hostility to the government during wartime that alienates Jacksonian voters, who are dismissed by The Narrative™ as “reactionary.”  Although Sullivan has not traveled so far from his old positions as to earn the New Left tag, his rhetoric about war criminals and the torture regime certainly echo it, as did his defense of fabricated smears of US troops in Iraq.

Recently, Sullivan was surprised to discover that he has become Keith Olbermann with an accent, but it is another way in which Sullivan fuels exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been purportedly trying to transcend.

(h/t Memeorandum.)

Update: HotAir-lanche!

Update x2: Insta-lanche!

Update x3:  Visitors from AoSHQ may want to read my post about how Black Liberation Theology plays into the argument between Excitable Andy and Bill Kristol.

150 Replies to “Andrew Sullivan accidentally attacks himself [Karl]”

  1. cjd says:

    A “true conservative”, saving the country one tortured argument (or a dozen) at a time.

  2. N. O'Brain says:

    “Is it about restoring America’s compliance with the Geneva Conventions?”

    Restoring?

    When did we stop observing the Geneva Convention?

  3. David R. Block says:

    We didn’t stop observing the Geneva Convention. Excitable Andy can’t read them, so he misunderstands them.

  4. Jeffersonian says:

    When we failed to immediately cap illegal combatants in the field in favor of sending them on a prolonged Caribbean vacation.

  5. Terry Ann says:

    I never thought of it like that, Karl. But, yes, I’m assuming when Obama talks ending partisan bickering, he’s also talking about hysterical people like Andrew Sullivan (at least I hope so).

  6. Kralizec says:

    “Is it about restoring America’s compliance with the Geneva Conventions?”

    It seems that if the Americans were to depart from the Geneva Conventions utterly, their wars would be shorter and their victories more decisive.

  7. Tom W. says:

    “Is it about restoring some kind of fiscal sanity?”

    I guess it depends on your definition of fiscal sanity.

    This isn’t it for me: a global poverty tax paid to the U.N., sky-high new income taxes on everybody who makes more than $50,000 a year, federally-legislated caps on CEOs’ salaries, having the federal government run your 401k plans, having the federal government control the stock market, and national health care based on the rat-turded Cuban/Canadian/British model.

    And we won’t talk about surrendering to Islamic terrorists all over the globe, deferring to Euroweeny eggheads and bureaucrats, cutting Israel loose, appointing delusional TV personality Oprah Winfrey frigging ambassador to the frigging U.N., and kissing the mullahs’ asses in exchange for Iran not using its forty-year-old military hardware against us.

    In a sane world, Obama the slimy buffoon and his repulsive, wild-eyed wife would’ve been laughed off the stage years ago.

  8. McGehee says:

    It seems that if the Americans were to depart from the Geneva Conventions utterly, their wars would be shorter and their victories more decisive.

    It may be an unanticipated blessing for the world that we switch off leaders every few years, lest one be in place long enough to get sick and tired of dicking around with America’s enemies.

  9. McGehee says:

    @ #8, For the world a blessing. For us, maybe not so much.

  10. Rock says:

    Back in 2004, after the election, Sullivan was on Bill Maher’s show. Surrounded by clueless liberals trying to figure out how in the world Bush could possibly have been re-elected, Sullivan hammered home the point that the hard Left was hopelessly out of touch with the large part of America that voted their values. He even used Maher’s choice of a first guest–Noam Chomsky–to prove his point…that the Left was so easily dismissive of, and amazingly condescending to the majority of Americans who live their lives by a certain belief system. It seems Sully has forgotten all that in the four years since. He used to be sensible…now he’s encroaching lunatic territory.

  11. Cowboy says:

    That’s right, Rock. Changing your positios over time isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but to go from where he was to his present spittle-flecked little corner bespeaks of intellectual light-weightedness.

  12. Cowboy says:

    *positions*

    Oh, and he’s not encroaching lunatic territory–he’s the mayor of lunatic territory-ville!

  13. Karen says:

    Isn’t in White and Asian voters best economic interest to vote against a candidate who supports affirmative action? Wouldn’t gay marriage cost lots of revenue to the federal government, as it will allow weathly homosexual couples to avoid paying the death tax? Isn’t it in the economic best interest of voters to not vote for the lawyer beholden to trial lawyers? Anywhere that tort reform has been inacted shows a increase in job creation. Would it be in the best economic interest of a voter to go with the candidate least beholden to unions? Unions don’t allow bad teachers to be fired, bad government employees and corporates flee to right to work states. Why does anyone pay attention to Andrew Sullivan. I thought his psychosis was agreed upon and ignored in 2004. For him to go after Hillary for holding Obama feet to the fire is ridiculous. Let us remember, Barack Obama blamed the CLINTON and Bush administration for the problems with these small town simpletons. AM I to understand Obama has become so teflon Hillary isn’t allowed to dissent against Obama’s libel? The McCarthy-like tactics of the David Axelrod manipulated media of any criticism of Barack Obama is verbotten is downright un-American. What is more American that to stand up against the powerful cabal of the media annointed candidate, its puppet master David Axelrod and the Manchurian Candidate Barack Obama. It is our right to dissent against these powerful forces. Do not let these powerful left-wing forces stifle free expression and criticism of their candidate.

  14. Dan Collins says:

    Geez, Karl. You talk about getting fucked by Obama as though it were a bad thing.

  15. JD says:

    Baracky just told the good folks of PA that algore won the 2000 election.

  16. Dan Collins says:

    Get us the link, JD?

  17. thor says:

    It should surprise no one that this worldview is held by someone who has attended a church based on Black Liberation Theology for the past 20 years, as that theology is based on the notion of collective salvation through crypto-Marxist political action.

    Oh no, Shoeless Joe, say it ain’t so! Not the crypto-Marxists! Run! It’s too late to hide under a school desk and go fetal. The Cryptonian Marxotologists are armed with subliminal sub-scripts! We’re totally Red dicta fucked! My mostly aging Jewish-populated condo structure is lightly armed and barely defended. I’ll be easily taken by the rampaging sons of Slavs in the first wave of the pogrom. They’ll rape all the women and torture every child, just like the did when they plundered the Ukrainian steppes.

    Can someone send me some reliable weapons, loaded, and extra boxes of ammo?

  18. Merovign says:

    Andy seems to have read the “graphic novel” version of the Geneva Conventions, penned by the ISM.

    WRT to what JD just said, holy noodle. If that’s true..! Well, it pretty much just continues the pattern, doesn’t it?

    Man, the hole just keeps getting deeper.

  19. N. O'Brain says:

    “Can someone send me some reliable weapons, loaded, and extra boxes of ammo?”

    Not if Obama is elected.

  20. cynn says:

    You all can continue your endless whacking of Barak Obama, and god knows, you have ample kindling. But maybe his awkward posturing does raise some worthy questions. For instance, the small and remotely depressed areas do seem to contract. What can or should the government do about this? Worth consideration. Or is that too itchy?

  21. N. O'Brain says:

    “Being a disinterested government official does not mean that you know what you are doing. That fact gets left out of the equation in a lot of proposals for new government programs.”

    -Thomas Sowell

  22. N. O'Brain says:

    “When government does, occasionally, work, it works in an elitist fashion. That is, government is most easily manipulated by people who have money and power already. This is why government benefits usually go to people who don’t need benefits from government. Government may make some environmental improvements, but these will be improvements for rich bird-watchers. And no one in government will remember that when poor people go bird-watching they do it at Kentucky Fried Chicken.”

    — P. J. O’Rourke

  23. N. O'Brain says:

    “What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It’s not good at much else.”

    -Tom Clancy

  24. N. O'Brain says:

    “Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.”

    -George Will

  25. N. O'Brain says:

    This ones for you, cynn:

    “The era of the state church has been replaced by an age in which the state itself is the church. European progressives [and American one, N.] still don’t get this: they think the idea of a religion telling you how to live your life is primitive, but the government regulating every aspect of it is somehow advanced and enlightened.”

    -Mark Steyn

  26. narciso says:

    He does mean ‘constricted’ right, not constructed. Andrew went from quoting Auden on the need for British and Allied
    involvement in WW2 to stammering about the need to eliminate the World’s No#1
    gulag; Guantanamo. Of course Villa Marista, Cuban G-2, Mazorra, the Castro regime’s loony bin, La Cabana, or other
    facilities are never pointed out. Obama
    on the other hand, seems like since he was born in the 60s, he has to relive them. as such he’s the reverse of the FBI character, in Flashback, who was a hippy who rebelled by being a square.

  27. JD says:

    I do not have a link. I was watching the Compassion Forum on CNN at some college in Grantham, PA. I almost fell off the sofa when he said it.

  28. Terrye says:

    cynn:

    I live in the country near a small town and the fact is that a lot of these little towns began to shrink when the family farmers started to go out of business. But hey, the consumers said those folks were inefficient. Truth is most people who live in small towns like small towns. If they want anything it is low taxes and cheap gas.

    And Obama is not going to help us anyway. We know that. After all, he does not even like people like us.

  29. cynn says:

    Well, I happen to agree with all that N.O.B. and I’ll go you one better. I say Obama’s not hard enough on these weepy, eroding, collapsing microcosmic little blips on our economic screen. Let them all go, and the great American body will dispatch antibodies to absorb their infection.

  30. Terrye says:

    So Obama thinks Gore won the election in 2000? This is interesting because it is the Obama campaign that does not want Florida to be counted. The irony of it all.

    As for small towns, at least our kids graduate from highschool…that is more than can be said for some of the big cities out there.

  31. Ric Locke says:

    Well, cynn, speaking as a long-time resident of one of “…the small and remotely depressed areas…”, there really isn’t much the Government can do for u. What they could do, quite easily, is stop killing us.

    To begin with, we know precisely where the “vast sucking sound” is coming from, and the name of the river isn’t “Irrawaddy”, it begins with “P”. I could use an employee right now, and I could afford to pay a reasonable entry-level wage. What I can’t afford is the twenty grand it would cost to set up to hire somebody, beginning with $300 for the Officially Approved Posters™ notifying them what minimum wage is, among other things. (Half or better of the attractiveness of illegal aliens as labor is that you can pay them in cash. It ain’t the taxes; complying with the bureaucracy costs half again what the dollar value of the levies is.) And yes, we do in fact actually need and use one-ton dually pickup trucks with seven-liter Diesels, and no, a special Agricultural Exemption wouldn’t help, because if it weren’t for the urban cowboys buying them the market would be so small that they’d be prohibitively expensive. There are a thousand thousand other things, each in itself niggling but adding up to the belief that people like Obama are talking out their asses — what they actually want is to have everybody living in Soviet-style apartment blocks, where their energy use, diet, (lack of) travel, and everything else in their lives can be monitored and controlled. Otherwise they wouldn’t so consistently try to make a twenty-something who’s trying to build a business as a farrier comply with the same five-foot shelf of regulations a megacorp can just sic their legal legions on, and they wouldn’t be trying so hard to force everybody into buzzy little econoboxes with motors better suited to lawn mowers, even when they have to drive thirty miles to see a doctor.

    Gah. That could go ten thousand words. I’ll stop here.

    Regards,
    Ric

  32. cynn says:

    The fact is, I think Obama misspoke about “small town values.” Nobody except an actual resident knows what those are. I do agree with him in the broader, more ineffable sense that hard times hit these areas harder, and I guess it’s his observation that people revert to guns and religion. Which, quite honestly, is perfectly understandable.

  33. JD says:

    cynn – that is kind of harsh, no?

    I am still in shock that Baracky thinks algore won, much less saying it in public. I am more and more confident that he is beatable.

  34. cynn says:

    JD: You may be surprised. But don’t worry about being humbled.

  35. JD says:

    cynn – He did not mis-speak. He has been saying that since at least ’04. As for the rest, cling to those assumptions.

  36. darwins says:

    I think cynn that they do what they want to do, say what they want to say, live how they want to live, play how they want to play. There’s a difference between wanting to be president and wanting to be Sociologist In Chief. He’s retarded.

  37. JD says:

    More beatable as compared to my prior opinion that he was unbeatable. I still think he will win, but pray I am proven to be grossly wrong.

    Your assumptions about small town America, religion, etc… are sad. I expect better from you, cynn.

  38. cynn says:

    You constantly try to misdirect. I merely point out that some dying manufacturing areas of the country, as Obama has said, are slipping into resentment and decline. A nobrainer.

  39. WAL says:

    “I do agree with him in the broader, more ineffable sense that hard times hit these areas harder, and I guess it’s his observation that people revert to guns and religion.”

    Cynn, there was a time when there were more jobs in rural Pennsylvania. If you have reasons to believe this was a time consisting of fewer guns, irreligion, and greater racial tolerance as opposed to today–could you support it?

    Implicit in his argument here is this in an unnatural state of affairs – that if everything were going hunky dory, this wouldn’t be the case. On that point, I differ and I’m fairly certain I can back that up.

    BTW, his argument that people cling to “anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”–I find this part interesting in light of his criticisms of NAFTA. Agree?

  40. Gulermo says:

    Cynn-ic. One question. Why do you give him the benefit of your doubt? Do you give that same latitude to everyone?

  41. darwins says:

    Also, speaking of white trash, at Ralph’s they have these single-serving Kraft Mac & Cheese thingers you make kind of like those noodles in a cup thingers. There’s three kinds. Original, Triple Cheese, and Bacon. I got the Bacon one cause it had the lowest sodium and I think slightly fewer calories. I haven’t tried it yet, but I’m pretty excited cause sometimes you just want Kraft Mac and Cheese but if you live by yourself it’s not like you want to make a whole thinger of it. Here.

    Maybe they’ve been out for awhile. Ralph’s is weird like that. Oh hey. And also alfredo.

  42. thor says:

    I live in a Soviet-style concrete box with an authoritarian COA. The beady-eyed babushkas of the gulagist power formation are always watching me, warning me of the dangers of drinking my Budweiser from bottles in the pool area, glass in the immediate pool area is against several city, county and state ordinances, as well as clearly disallowed on the the posted rules sign poolside. I can not dive head first into the deep end. I can’t play loud music or throw sporting balls the length of the pool. Galloping followed by a cannonball-style entry into the water is also strictly prohibited. The can-opener style of entry is not addressed, but I’m sure it is also outside the neighborly spirit of wave free water entry.

    I am the enslaved subject of Obama’s niggling quasi-government administered panopticon. The only thing I truly control are my colorful fish refrigerator magnets, one of which is not a fish at all; it’s a bottle opener, which is my black-gloved fist-raised form of protest. Fuck you buddy! Corona does not come in cans nor is it bottled with twist off caps. Obama, just you come and try and pry my cold, wet fingers from my Corona long neck. Motherfucker!

  43. darwins says:

    Oh. Scroll down for Amanda’s poem what she wrote for the alfredo one.

  44. JD says:

    That is not at all what Baracky said, cynn. He went much much further than that, painting with an incredibly broad brush, using some particularly unfounded assumptions.

  45. cynn says:

    darwins: If you want white trash, look in your fucking recycle bin.

  46. Ric Locke says:

    I live in a Soviet-style concrete box …

    Y’know, Thor, I really, really seriously doubt that, I really do.

    Regards,
    Ric

  47. Mark A. Flacy says:

    A nobrainer.

    Well, that explains why you wrote it.

  48. thor says:

    #

    Comment by JD on 4/13 @ 9:10 pm #

    That is not at all what Baracky said, cynn. He went much much further than that, painting with an incredibly broad brush, using some particularly unfounded assumptions.

    Unfounded? Oh shit, I feel a rendition of Long-Haired Country Boy coming, which is the message nucleus that you rednecks have been paraphrasing since yesterday’s Obama-gotch’a meme went out.

    A poor girl wants to marry, And a rich girl wants to flirt.
    A rich man goes to college,And a poor man goes to work.
    A drunkard wants another drink of wine,And a politician wants a vote.
    I don’t want much of nothin’ at all,But I will take another toke.

    ‘Cos I ain’t askin’ nobody for nothin’,If I can’t get it on my own.
    If you don’t like the way I’m livin’,
    You just leave this long-haired country boy alone.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs4y5si8DGs

  49. Andrew Sullivan says:

    I have an accent?

  50. hitnrun says:

    “I merely point out that some dying manufacturing areas of the country, as Obama has said, are slipping into resentment and decline. A nobrainer.”

    This is true, much in the same way that Pat Robertson is speaking true when he starts a speech about evil homosexuals by talking about the decaying morality of our society or crime rates or whatever.

    Nobody cares what opinions Obama has about Rust Belt economics or “frustration” (except the MSM, of course). The rest of the country is discussing, you know, the part where he says “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    Liberal blogs have developed an almost fascinating la-la-la routine in the last 48 hours, where they pretend the sentence that set off the firestorm simply was never uttered.

  51. thor says:

    #

    Comment by Andrew Sullivan on 4/13 @ 9:19 pm #

    I have an accent?

    A pronounced lisp, more likely.

  52. cynn says:

    Sorry, but Obama’s observations still make sense to me.

  53. WAL says:

    “‘Cos I ain’t askin’ nobody for nothin’,If I can’t get it on my own.
    If you don’t like the way I’m livin’,
    You just leave this long-haired country boy alone.”

    Obama seems to have missed that part.

  54. WAL says:

    “Sorry, but Obama’s observations still make sense to me.”

    Cynn, so again, back up, can you provide it?

  55. cynn says:

    Provide what? I’m entitled to bevieve what I want.

  56. WAL says:

    “Provide what?”

    Reason to believe that a few decades ago, rural Pennsylvania was a center of greater irreligion, fewer guns, and greater tolerance towards other races and immigrants

  57. cynn says:

    You’re forcing me into an an absurd argument, and I surrender. Collect your money; I dare you.

  58. WAL says:

    No reason to take it personally, Cynn, but it is implicit here, it’s wrong.

  59. MattinChicago says:

    A couple of points:

    (1) The Geneva Convention applies to uniformed soldiers of Nation states, the fact that the current enemy is neither is the source of the problem. The Geneva Convention does allow for the summary judgement and execution of spies or non-uniformed combatants. As an interesting aside, since the non-signatory party (i.e. terrorists) do not act under the strictures of the convention, we (the US) is not bound by the convention. If we were being intellectually honest, we’d admit that the conventions need to be updated to address this problem. Instead, we hurl false accusation and feign hysteria in the name of political gain.

    (2) I am not sure what I find more scary, the fact that Obama thought and said these things in a forum where he couldn’t get caught, or the people who are defending his stereotyping because it fits with their prejudices. What happened to my party? We’re supposed to be open and tolerant, what happened? Now we just pretend that we have hope when we’re in public, but in private we’re mean spirited and vindictive. And if that isn’t bad enough, now people are rallying to his defense saying that he can’t be held accountable for his own words, or worse yet views, because stereotypes we like are acceptable. How is this different than a rascist spewing hate to fellow bigots?

    I am not saying that I am leaving the Democratic Party, but I am beginning to fear that it is leaving me.

  60. cynn says:

    Matt: I have been going thru these gyrations forever. We’re just stupid because we believe. And then we don’t. You know how it goes.

  61. cynn says:

    P.S. spot me you guys, This is a campaign plant.

  62. Sam says:

    Wow, you guys clearly know nothing about the Geneva Conventions. Ask any lawyer or scholar and they will tell you that what the Bush administration has done is unprecedented in (democratic) history. There are two categories of people in the Geneva Conventions: combatants and civilians. NEITHER CAN BE TORTURED. What kind of laws of war would say that simply because you’re not wearing a uniform, we can do anything to you? Women and children – helloooo? Anyone home?

    What Bush & co have done is INVENT a new category – the “non-combatant” – to which NO laws apply. They have engineered a legal black hole, where in their sick interpretation anything can be done.

    Wake up, people. I come from a proud military family and I what Bush has done is destroy at least a century of pride in military professionalism and humanity.

  63. cynn says:

    Forget it. I’m too paranoid. Time to take a break.

  64. WAL says:

    “There are two categories of people in the Geneva Conventions: combatants and civilians. NEITHER CAN BE TORTURED.”

    There are two categories to the Geneva Convention – those who have signed it and those who haven’t. When Al Qaeda signs it, let me know.

    To be able to claims rights under the Geneva Convention you have to follow it. If you want your soldiers treated like regular prisoners of war, they have to act like regular soldiers – wear uniforms, openly portray yourselves as soldiers, etc.

    Otherwise, the side that doesn’t wear uniforms, the side that hides in civilian populations gets the unfair advantage – and in the end that’s what you encourage: people adapting to those tactics because it’s the most successful way to fight us. You’re gonna get the rights anyway (whether you follow the restrictions or not), so why follow the restrictions? Our policy pre-Bush, whatever it’s other merits, helped foster this.

    It was specifically debated whether or not to add these rights to other groups a few decades ago (as part of the Geneva Convention) and it was turned down.

  65. thor says:

    Oh horse padookie, Matt+Cynn, these wingers sit there in their Lazy-Boys fingering their firearms with one hand and cuddling warm tall-boys with the other. They sit there and wait. When Sean Hannity reads the daily talking point memo they jump up in unison shouting “ee sayed wat!” Their children scatter and their wives duck into the kitchen to avoid having to agree with everyone word of the curse-filled screed that follows.

    So what if Barack Obama took the liberty of speaking in generalities. That they hear a grainy barely audible secret recording only adds weight to the evidence that underscores their never-ending suspicions. They wait day and night for this crap and then explode.

    Thor’s hick credentials: Texan, born and raised, graduate, Texas A&M University, hunting licenses – duck, deer, fish.

  66. WAL says:

    Comment by thor on 4/13 @ 10:35 pm

    I can’t quite tell if you’re trying for parody or not – but if you’re trying to undermine your side, you’re doing a damn fine job, sir.

    “Obama doesn’t have contempt for all you redneck hicks – but make no mistake, all of us supporters of Barack do!”

    Bravo!

  67. B Moe says:

    I come from a proud military family…

    Playing Risk a lot as a kid doesn’t count, you know.

  68. Sam says:

    “To be able to claims rights under the Geneva Convention you have to follow it.”

    Putting aside the obvious legal problems with your idea of a false distinction between those have signed and those who haven’t, you have a (very small) point here… but only if we were talking about lesser rights like the right of a soldier to only give your rank and serial #. But we’re talking about TORTURE. The international legal norm against torture is a peremptory norm, jus cogens, supernorm, or whatever you want to call it. The point is that NO ONE CAN BE TORTURED. It doesn’t even matter if you’ve signed the Geneva Conventions, although those do provide extra protection. Another example of a peremptory norm is genocide. You can’t commit genocide, even if it’s in your national interest. Pretty obvious, isn’t it?

    The non-state groups you refer to were not included in the Geneva Conventions merely so as not to give them POW status, not to deprive them of their basic human rights!

  69. B Moe says:

    Otherwise, the side that doesn’t wear uniforms, the side that hides in civilian populations gets the unfair advantage – and in the end that’s what you encourage: people adapting to those tactics because it’s the most successful way to fight us.

    That is the nut of it right there, these pinheads have almost twisted them around to do exactly the opposite of what was intended.

  70. um, so could you please define TORTURE for us Sam? cause we’ve been round and round on that one, and it’s not terribly clear.

  71. B Moe says:

    The non-state groups you refer to were not included in the Geneva Conventions merely so as not to give them POW status, not to deprive them of their basic human rights!

    Amazing. If they can’t be deprived of basic human rights, what does POW status mean?

  72. Pablo says:

    What Bush & co have done is INVENT a new category – the “non-combatant” – to which NO laws apply.

    No, Noncombatant is an existing category meaning “one who does not partake in fighting”. You’re referring to Unlawful Combatant or Illegal Combatant, also an existing category to which laws apply, but protections do not. And don’t just ask any lawyer, ask one who knows what the hell he’s talking about.

    And…the military has nothing to do with the “torture” that has your panties in a bunch. That would be the CIA. Yet I, a veteran, would gladly see KSM and friends waterboarded every day next week and twice on Saturday if the circumstances under which it happened the first time existed.

    I’m glad that you come from a proud military family, Sam, mostly because I’m hoping you at least got that right.

  73. RTO Trainer says:

    “Provide what? I’m entitled to bevieve what I want.”

    The unexamined life is not worth living. Are you saying that these are core assumptions on which you base other beliefs? If not, then presumabaly you have a set of assumptions and observatiosn that underpin the beleifs you have articulated.

    This is a disucssion forum, so go to.

  74. thor says:

    My side? Who says I’m on a side. Cynn, she finds me revolting while Karl prays I’ll choke on a ham sandwich. I like barking at ’em equally.

    As if this country needs a tug-o-war. I want a decent President. I don’t want no side.

  75. WAL says:

    “Putting aside the obvious legal problems with your idea of a false distinction between those have signed and those who haven’t, you have a (very small) point here… but only if we were talking about lesser rights like the right of a soldier to only give your rank and serial #. But we’re talking about TORTURE. The international legal norm…”

    International legal norm =/= Geneva Convention (and, really, highmindedness aside, I seriously question the argument that never torturing people is the international legal norm in most countries)

    “The non-state groups you refer to were not included in the Geneva Conventions merely so as not to give them POW status, not to deprive them of their basic human rights!”

    Basic human rights is a wonderful thing – feel free to defend that all day long. It should be defended. Argue against Bush over that. It’s by no means a requirement of being a signatory of the Geneva Convention (hell, China’s a freakin’ signatory).

  76. Sam says:

    “um, so could you please define TORTURE for us Sam? cause we’ve been round and round on that one, and it’s not terribly clear.”

    Well, Maggie, the official definition of torture is the infliction of “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

    Now, argue away that the techniques used by Bush and gang do not fall under this definition. I disagree wholeheartedly, but fine.

    Just don’t argue that the Geneva Conventions, or basic human rights, don’t apply. That’s just silly, and setting an extremely dangerous precedent.

  77. oh, so you’re torturing me with your comments?

  78. Pablo says:

    That they hear a grainy barely audible secret recording only adds weight to the evidence that underscores their never-ending suspicions.

    For you, thor, because I’m feeling the love.

  79. Sam says:

    “No, Noncombatant is an existing category meaning “one who does not partake in fighting”. You’re referring to Unlawful Combatant or Illegal Combatant, also an existing category to which laws apply, but protections do not.”

    Yes, you are correct Pablo – that’s what I meant.

    “I’m glad that you come from a proud military family, Sam, mostly because I’m hoping you at least got that right.”

    Funny how when you speak up in favour of the Geneva Conventions nowadays, people cast doubt on your support the military. Things used to be oh so different…

  80. Pablo says:

    Just don’t argue that the Geneva Conventions, or basic human rights, don’t apply.

    The Geneva Conventions allow for summary execution of unlawful combatants.

  81. WAL says:

    “That they hear a grainy barely audible secret recording only adds weight to the evidence that underscores their never-ending suspicions.”

    BTW, you realize that audio came from the Huffington Post

  82. Pablo says:

    Well, Sam, I didn’t say anything about your support for the military. I was only hoping that there was something correct in your post. But that said, it would probably show a bit more support if you didn’t accuse them of war crimes when what you think is a war crime was actually done by the CIA.

  83. Funny how when you speak up in favour of the Geneva Conventions nowadays, people cast doubt on your support the military.

    funny how being related to military people = support.

  84. WAL says:

    “I come from a proud military family and I what Bush has done is destroy at least a century of pride in military professionalism and humanity.”

    “Funny how when you speak up in favour

    Sam, Britain and Canada have a great military history, but while you’re lamenting what Bush has done for this country’s military tradition ya might want to be more blunt about being from another country’s traditions in this.

  85. Pablo says:

    Now, argue away that the techniques used by Bush and gang do not fall under this definition.

    OK. Waterboarding does not cause severe pain of either a mental or physical nature.

    There.

  86. Waterboarding does not cause severe pain of either a mental or physical nature.

    ha, you think those protesters would be doing it to themselves all the time if it was? ;D

  87. Sam says:

    “The Geneva Conventions allow for summary execution of unlawful combatants.”

    This is somewhat true, but if you’re referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 3, the rule allowing execution is actually preceded by a requirement that these detainees “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” There was a time when honour allowed you to kill, but not to torture. You may see that as inconsistent, I see it as in keeping with military values.

    “what you think is a war crime was actually done by the CIA.”

    I’m not sure what specifically you’re referring to, but the fact of the matter remains that Bush, Yoo and company officially sanctioned the non-application of the Geneva Conventions.

  88. Pablo says:

    I’m not sure what specifically you’re referring to, but the fact of the matter remains that Bush, Yoo and company officially sanctioned the non-application of the Geneva Conventions.

    Enhanced interrogation techniques, a CIA joint. What are you taking about?

  89. WAL says:

    “There was a time when honour allowed you to kill, but not to torture.”

    Oh come on, when was this? When our Revolutionary War prisoners were being held captive on the Jersey? For that matter, when the U.S. was holding Southern prisoners in Andersonville? There was a brief period in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when Western nations made a pretense of this towards other Western nations (if you were a native who was captured during an uprising against the colonial French, god help you).

  90. Spiny Norman says:

    For that matter, when the U.S. was holding Southern prisoners in Andersonville?

    What?

  91. great…. great… speaking of torture…. y’all have got RTO writing a novel over here.

  92. Sam says:

    “Oh come on, when was this?”

    Oh, I dunno… how about today? Ever heard of capital punishment? Ever heard someone be sentenced to “torture” instead of “lethal injection”? Would that be OK with you?

  93. WAL says:

    What?

    Andersonville camp during the Civil War – it would make Guantanamo look like a cakewalk.

  94. RTO Trainer says:

    Sam,

    You get zero points for “being from a proud military family.” Just as the sins of the fatehr are not held against the son, neither virtue nor status (and certainly not expertise) is transmitted. You have worn a uniform or you haven’t. The only other reason for you to bring it up would be an appeal to authority, which, given that you have misstated the facts on the subject, is a fallacy.

    First let me point out that until you brought it up, no one here was discussing torture. This is an attempt by you to hijack the context of the discussion. The only statement made was on teh general application of the Geneva Conventions. I gather then, that your position is that the inadherance of which we are guilty, in your mistaken view, is of torturing. I find it interesting that you cite inadherance to the Geneva Conventions yet cite the UN Conventions Against Torture, a wholely different agreement and one to which we are a signatory but with “reservations, declarations, and understandings” with which you are clearly not familiar.

    Nevertheless, the techniques that have been employed by the United States do not fall under that definition.

    You again attempt to alter the context of the conversation by, first conflating adherance to the Geneva Convnetions and “basic human rights,” and then stating them together. Its a weak attemtp to bolster your position to make it appear that an argumetn against the application of the GC is also an argumet against human rights. The two are not synonymous and arent’ even especially related, so we can dispose of that notion here.

    The GC define a number of classes: combatants and non-combatants, prisoners of war, among them. However, these definitions are incomplete. There are categories into which persons fall that are not defined by the conventions. The terms unlawful combatant and detainee were around for much longer than the present administration, and have arisen from practical application of the Laws of War to cover those persons not explicitly defined.

    And those persons are not protected by the GC, though it is US practice to apply the Third General Article to every person. And we have not failed to do so in this conflict.

  95. Spiny Norman says:

    Andersonville camp during the Civil War – it would make Guantanamo look like a cakewalk.

    Andersonville prison was in Georgia. The Confederates were holding Union (i.e “U.S.”) prisoners there. You have it ass backwards.

  96. WAL says:

    “Oh, I dunno… how about today?”

    There was a time =/= not today – and again, I completely disagree with your argument that most countries today don’t torture. (BTW, China’s a signatory of the Geneva Convention and has roughly 500,000 people imprisoned in re-education camps – do you feel that might be worth raising something on the level of this amount of outrage?)

    “Ever heard someone be sentenced to “torture” instead of “lethal injection”? Would that be OK with you?”

    As a punishment, no – if I knew there was a nuclear bomb about to go off in Chicago and he was the only guy I had in custody who knew where it was located – yeah.

  97. RTO Trainer says:

    “Funny how when you speak up in favour of the Geneva Conventions nowadays, people cast doubt on your support the military.”

    Oh? That about your heritage was supposed to convery your support for the military? It wasn’t a self-serving attempt to use a miltiary connection to shield yourself from criticism? You’d do better to reprhase then.

  98. WAL says:

    “Andersonville prison was in Georgia. The Confederates were holding Union (i.e “U.S.”) prisoners there. You have it ass backwards.”

    You’re right, I do, I mixed it up with Camp Douglas – my bad.

  99. RTO Trainer says:

    “I’m not sure what specifically you’re referring to, but the fact of the matter remains that Bush, Yoo and company officially sanctioned the non-application of the Geneva Conventions.”

    Because they do not apply.

  100. MC says:

    Perhaps Obama’s presence will turn out to be a referendum on statism.

    We can only hope…

  101. Sam says:

    “You again attempt to alter the context of the conversation by, first conflating adherance to the Geneva Convnetions and “basic human rights,” and then stating them together.”

    RTO – perhaps you are too used to legalistic parsing. I forgive you (Yoo?). The truth is that everything is related in international law. Most fundamental human rights are customary norms, irregardless of treaty. The same goes for torture, and even more so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm)

    But let’s stop the legal stuff. I also think you are missing my point. I am not attacking the military or individual soldiers, or even the CIA for that matter. I am attacking Bush, Yoo and those who explicitly said that the Geneva Conventions did not apply and, on top of that, sanctioned torture (or at least so grossly misdefined it so as to make it anything seem permissible). These are the people who have brought military professionalism into disrepute by arguing that just about nothing is dishonourable.

  102. Pablo says:

    >blockquote>Most fundamental human rights are customary norms, irregardless of treaty.

    Oh, that’s funny.

    These are the people who have brought military professionalism into disrepute by arguing that just about nothing is dishonourable.

    Sam, I’m still wondering what military actions you refer to as being GC/human rights violations.

  103. RTO Trainer says:

    “Let’s stop the legal stuff” translates to “I don’t know what I’m talking about in these matters.

    I don’t care to whom you intended to direct your meaning, you are still wrong at the premise level; the Geneva Conventions (nor the Hague Convnetion for that matter) do not apply. Yoo is a poor lawyer and has got plenty wrong then and since, but this is not one of those.

    And please explain your fixation on torture. Despite the fact that the GC do not apply, we still apply the Third General Article and always have. Despite the fact that the US has tortured no one, you insist on harping on it.

  104. Sam says:

    “Sam, I’m still wondering what military actions you refer to as being GC/human rights violations.”

    Pablo – I have some incidents in mind, but I don’t think it would be productive to get into that debate. As I said above, the point is that the decisonmakers on top have twisted the law so grotesquely as to make me sick. God knows what’s been done under that false authority. But it’s the conscious and explicit decision to depart from long-enshrined norms of military decency, established a century ago after even more of collected wisdom, that really saddens me.

    ““Let’s stop the legal stuff” translates to “I don’t know what I’m talking about in these matters. I don’t care to whom you intended to direct your meaning, you are still wrong at the premise level; the Geneva Conventions (nor the Hague Convnetion for that matter) do not apply.'”

    RTO – Your personal sniping aside, I’m not sure who’s teaching you, but I was taught that there is no such thing as international humanitarian law NOT applying in armed conflict. If IHL doesn’t apply, then human rights law does (which can be even more exacting). There’s no gap in the middle. What you are trying to argue for is that there’s a legal black hole where certain individuals are entitled to neither IHL (i.e. Geneva Conventions) nor human rights protections, nor any law whatsoever. That is called tyranny – believing that the law is merely an inconvenience.

    “Despite the fact that the US has tortured no one, you insist on harping on it.”

    And again, since you are such a good lawyer, I’m sure you will understand that I am arguing the law, not the facts, and not trying to prove that the US has tortured anyone, merely that it has been authorized.

    Well, it’s been fun, ladies and gentlemen. Apologies for rerouting the discussion.

  105. RTO Trainer says:

    How is Sam like a flock of pigeons?

  106. ooooooh, I see, Sam’s not here to argue about anything in reality. just in his fevered mind.

  107. WAL says:

    Sam, during the course of this discussion, you use the words “favour,” “honour,” “dishonourable” – fine words, but with the English spelling of them

    I appreciate your lamenting of American military tradition, but you’re not an America and I don’t believe you or your family have that much first hand knowledge of it.

  108. RTO Trainer says:

    Sam,

    You continute to conflate and to violate general to specific progressions in logical thinking. My statement that the Geneva Conventions (specific) bears no resemblance to your post hoc assertion that I’ve claimed that international humaitarian law (general) does not apply.

    Everything that flows from your addled logic, in particular your conclusions regarding US Army training on Laws of War, is the effluence of cattle. As for your understanding of my attitude the law in general, you aren’t competent to judge.

    You are arguing the law, but the facts, if you were willing to face them, woud show that you do not know the laws nor how they apply.

    I could, I suppose, correct you and write a treatise here on what laws do apply, but I feel no need to justify myself to you.

  109. RTO Trainer says:

    Both Sam and a flock of pigeons will fly in, crap on everything, and fly back out again.

  110. Sam is outclassed here. He/she is starting to bore me. Also, he/she still declines to state whether he/she is from Canada or Britain, or somewhere else that uses “Commonwealth” spelling. The braiding together of anti-“torture” sentiments with anti-Bush sentiments with the GC with “human rights” (but only, apparently, for enemies of the U.S.) with U.N. definitions of torture are starting to make my head hurt.

    Wasn’t this originally a thread about Andrew Sullivan’s intellectual inconsistencies? Or perhaps I’m mistaken . . .

  111. RTO Trainer says:

    We need to set out some rubber snakes and plastic owls here to keep the pigeons away.

  112. Pablo says:

    Pablo – I have some incidents in mind, but I don’t think it would be productive to get into that debate.

    Then why are you posting at all? It is your complaint. Please detail it or go away.

  113. Pablo says:

    What you are trying to argue for is that there’s a legal black hole where certain individuals are entitled to neither IHL (i.e. Geneva Conventions) nor human rights protections, nor any law whatsoever.

    I’m tempted to name it Africa, but that would be severely underestimating the scope of the problem, which includes anyplace jihadis attack.

  114. RTO Trainer says:

    “Wasn’t this originally a thread about Andrew Sullivan’s intellectual inconsistencies? Or perhaps I’m mistaken . . .”

    Nope. You nailed it. But there’s only so much “there he goes again” to comment on. Would have been nice if Sam had even tried to defend Sullivan’s position–not even Cynn will do that on her drunkest day.

    Maggie wondered out loud if Sam might not be Sullivan. Sullivan, Andrew Michael–SAM…hmmmmm.

  115. XBradTC says:

    Sam tells us that Bush et al. authorized torture. He did no such thing. He specifically authorized a set of interogation techniques suitable to the needs of the moment that were harsher than had been used before, but did not include torture.

    He also gasbags along about IHL. The only laws which apply to the conduct of U.S. entities are the Constitution, Federal law, and those treaties signed by the executive and ratified by the Senate. His warm feelings for accepted notions of what should be have no force of law, and are utterly irrelevant.

  116. thor says:

    Comment by Little Miss Attila on 4/14 @ 12:25 am #

    Wasn’t this originally a thread about Andrew Sullivan’s intellectual inconsistencies? Or perhaps I’m mistaken . . .

    It was, early on, true. I entered the thread at the midway point only to save my favest, cyber sweetheart, cynn, from an angry mob of Obama mouth-foamers. I waved my flaming torch at their faces while cynn clung to my thigh. It was terrifying until they all slithered away.

    Then they started in on the Geneva Conventions.

  117. thor says:

    Comment by Pablo on 4/13 @ 10:56 pm #

    For you, thor, because I’m feeling the love.

    I heard it already, but thanks for the loving feelings.

    Nowadays I live in So. Flo. but I grew up in Texas. Rural people get looked down on often and it’s annoying but you get used to it. If one were to describe certain of rural attitudes, I don’t understand what the big deal is about what Obama said. Many people do feel exactly as he described. Some don’t. Some horse racnch country folk are hell’a rico. But I don’t think Obama is too far off the mark when describing the skilled machinists that had to retire early and now tinker in their garages all day. During the summers I worked in a large steel and manufacturing plant in high school and college. I effen loved it. Many a highschool grad got a job there, got married, started breeding, bought a house and financed two cars through the company credit union before they were 20. They thought it would last forever. That factory is long gone. Twas a good life that left town with it. And they don’t pay union wages at Taco Bell.

  118. Pablo says:

    The big deal is the suggestion that all of those attributes are the result of economic policy and are merely sublimations of frustration. If you weren’t so stupid, you’d be mad at Bush and Clinton instead of being a gun-toting, Bible-thumping redneck bigot. You’d be acceptable company if you weren’t so confused.

  119. The Lost Dog says:

    “You all can continue your endless whacking of Barak Obama, and god knows, you have ample kindling. But maybe his awkward posturing does raise some worthy questions. For instance, the small and remotely depressed areas do seem to contract. What can or should the government do about this? Worth consideration. Or is that too itchy?”

    Cynn –

    You are probably too young to remember the fifties, when the government was just getting started in their foray into “poverty”. Education was a good thing back then, and there were no “feel-good” basket weaving classes and other such needless nonsense. Before our “educators” decided that school was about keeping you stupid, you really did get an education – something that was useful in the real world.

    Now? Our children are being taught that they are victims. Cool, huh?

    Funny thing, but when I was growing up, people were embarrassed by being broke and stupid. The community took care of it’s own, without help fromk the voracious rapers of the government. Being ashamed of yourself is how you grow in this life. The MSM and the government have put stupidity on a pedestal, holding it up as some kind of ideal. If you look anywhere outside of yourself for your identity, you are shirking.

    A helping hand is all well and good, but not when that hand comes with fourteen tons of strings (and three thousand bureaucrats) attached.

    What a concept, huh? Better yourself! WORK on improving yourself!

    Nah. The government should take care of my needs, BECAUSE THEN THEY OWN ME COMPLETELY! I just don’t wish to find the fulfillment of taking care of my own needs, because then I might understand the joy of being alive and learning something new every day. I AM A VICTIM! The government tells me so!

    Life sucks (always has, always will), but that is no reason to let useless slugs (i.e. – the government) run evety aspect of your life.

    Put a hand out, forget a handout.

    It’s time to actually read the Constitution. A very interesting document which appears to have very little relationship to how our government now functions.

  120. The Lost Dog says:

    “A poor girl wants to marry, And a rich girl wants to flirt.
    A rich man goes to college,And a poor man goes to work.

    Sorry, cynn, but there must be something wrong with your ears.

    What it really says is:

    “A poor girl wants to marry, A rich girl wants to flirt,

    A rich man goes to college and a poor man wants to squirt”

    Trust me. I am an expert…

  121. The Lost Dog says:

    “Wake up, people. I come from a proud military family and I what Bush has done is destroy at least a century of pride in military professionalism and humanity.”

    BULLSHIT! What the Bush administration has done is save thousand upon thousands of lives. If you call humiliation torture, I can recomend you a good recto-cranial doctor to get your very fat head out of your stupid little ass.

    “Proud military family”?

    Please. Don’t make me laugh.

  122. thor says:

    Comment by Pablo on 4/14 @ 3:16 am #

    The big deal is the suggestion that all of those attributes are the result of economic policy and are merely sublimations of frustration. If you weren’t so stupid, you’d be mad at Bush and Clinton instead of being a gun-toting, Bible-thumping redneck bigot. You’d be acceptable company if you weren’t so confused.

    I’d say that’s a liberal interpretation, especially given on a website inspired by a hardened intentionalist. One of our houses in Texas is in Pottsboro. It’s real rednecky. And my dad carries a pistol pretty much everywhere he goes, yep, cause you never know, as he says. The only problem with your liberal interpretation is my rednecky dad is a engineer and a CPA, or was. He’ll not only shoot you but tell you the velocity his .38 slug will be traveling when it hits your forehead, then, of course, he can audit your estate.

    Not everyone who lives in the country is a illiterate redneck, but those that aren’t know who of their neighbors is. Only a liberal interpreting city slicker wouldn’t know that. Last time I was in Pottsboro I had to walk down the road and inform one of our redneck neighbors that the next time his fuckin’ 120-pound pet wolf got loose and came on our property I’d shoot him and his dog. That went well, I thought, seeing as I never had to drop him or his idiot dog. That’s Redneckville for ya.

  123. alppuccino says:

    I can’t quite tell if you’re trying for parody or not

    The number one ingredient for good parody.

  124. Cowboy says:

    thor:

    For me, that’s what pisses me off about your man Obama’s statement. When your neighbor’s pet wolf posed a problem, you took care of it yourself. Obama doesn’t see that in places like Potsboro, we don’t blame the government for the wolves in our yards. We know that things like this happen and so we take it upon ourselves to solve it, rather than calling on the “Bureau of Wolf Management.” We whack the owner in the head with our Bibles, and if that doesn’t work, we shoot the beast with one of our many guns.

    Preferably the big one, the .60 caliber.

    At 2,000 yards.

  125. alppuccino says:

    my rednecky dad is a engineer and a CPA,

    Wow! I wanna party with you Lee Harvey.

    DON’T SHOOT!

  126. alppuccino says:

    thor:

    For me, that’s what pisses me off about your man Obama’s statement.

    It’s barely discernible, but I’ve noticed thor goes in and out of his Obama accent from time to time. I’m betting that he’s way too smart to be an Obama-man.

  127. thor says:

    I’m not into shooting people or dogs. The people that live a across the road from us, the whiff is the head of the Anthropology Dept at UNT, and her husband was (past tense) Robert Jordan, the former Saudi Arabian Ambassador, yet there’s plenty of unemployed nice people and unemployed not-so smart not-so nice people that we’d have to claim as our neighbors as well. You could say it’s a mixed bag of broken yo-yo-s out in Pottsboro.

    Some people live out there becasuse they like the fresh air. Some people like to cook Meth. Some just get stuck in the sticks. I don’t think what Obama said was entirely untrue, he was speaking about a specific segment, namely, the many in the sticks that are gun-toting welfare recepients who don’t know what they heck to do because all the jobs within driving distance are sucky. In Redneckville all the people aren’t stupid, but it ain’t Mayberry, that’s all I’m saying.

  128. alppuccino says:

    So thor,

    when you stir the matchheads into the ammonia, how long does it need to boil before you add the Sudafed?

  129. happyfeet says:

    The segment Obama was talking about white people. Typical assed white people. White people really get under his skin it seems.

  130. Rob Crawford says:

    I don’t think what Obama said was entirely untrue, he was speaking about a specific segment, namely, the many in the sticks that are gun-toting welfare recepients who don’t know what they heck to do because all the jobs within driving distance are sucky.

    And yet Obama’s been playing up to that “specific segment”. He’s been trying to cover up his distaste for the 2nd Amendment. He’s been bashing free trade.

    I just connected a couple dots — remember Obama’s guy telling the Canadians to ignore his free-trade bashing, because it’s just campaign rhetoric? Now we have Obama in his own words, in his own voice, saying the same thing.

    So just what is Obama’s position on trade? Does anyone have any idea?

  131. Obama says:

    So just what is Obama’s position on trade? Does anyone have any idea?

    I believe the election is still too far off to answer that definitively.

  132. thor says:

    Nice one. I’m certain our closest Walmart keeps the Sudafeds locked up. It’s in Greenville, TX and right on the OK border. Cooking Meth is skilled labor for Okies. That’s why a full-friction lap dance still costs only $5 on Okieland. With all the men doing Meth prison time the women gotta pole dance to buy baby formula. But in S.E. Oklahoma weed costs about the same as butter and bread, so at least they got that going for ’em.

  133. thor says:

    133 for 129

  134. Rob Crawford says:

    Another thought…

    The left’s narrative about Obama’s gaffe has been “Well, it’s true! Your focusing on it is just another way to keep the boobs voters from voting their economic interests! You nasty Republicans just can’t stop ginning up fake issues to keep the voters distracted!”

    Well, wait. Obama campaigns as being against free trade, against NAFTA in particular. When an advisor was revealed to be telling Canadians something different, Obama’s campaign backpedaled like mad. They want their public face to be as against free trade, as protectionist.

    But speaking to a different audience, Obama expresses contempt for people who are against free trade. Could his opposition to free trade be a fake issue, ginned up to distract voters from the rest of his policies? Could he be trying to use economic ignorance to keep voters from voting their values?

  135. Obama says:

    #133

    “Bitter and hopeless, they cling to the things they can count on.”

    “….. You’ve always been there for me pole. I know you’ll never leave me. That’s why I cling to you.”

    “……..in and upside-down, flying-V kind of way.”

  136. alppuccino says:

    That’s not funny Obama.

  137. royf says:

    #133

    Thor if you do live in Pottsboro, Tx your much closer to the Oklahoma border than Greenville, Tx is. Greenville is 61 miles southeast of Pottsboro. You would only have to drive to Denison which is only 7 or 8 miles away or you could go south to Sherman, both of those cities have Walmart stores.

    I think you need to learn just a bit more about rural Texas because it doesn’t sound like you know your way around North East Texas very well.

  138. alppuccino says:

    You’re going to share that crank when you get back from Denison, right thor?

  139. Neo says:

    “I understand what it is like to have one’s elitism so painfully exposed before the Plebian hordes,” Sen. Kerry said in an interview. “Senator Obama and I share this unfortunate distinction, in addition to our natural eloquence, sonorous voices, tall, slender physiques, Ivy League educations, and taste for outspoken, domineering women who dress us in pretty clothes and make us go shopping with them. I assured him that this ordeal would pass, and I recommended that he take the night off and watch something on the Sundance Channel. Enjoying a pretentious art film that most Americans find offensive and inaccessible always makes me forget my troubles.”

  140. The Ace says:

    Wow, you guys clearly know nothing about the Geneva Conventions. Ask any lawyer or scholar and they will tell you that what the Bush administration has done is unprecedented in (democratic) history. There are two categories of people in the Geneva Conventions: combatants and civilians. NEITHER CAN BE TORTURED

    1. “any lawyer” will not tell you any such thing.

    2. You have no proof that the US has “tortured” anyone as a matter of policy or procedure.

    The rest of your comments are silly and irrelevant.

  141. Pablo says:

    I’d say that’s a liberal interpretation, especially given on a website inspired by a hardened intentionalist. One of our houses in Texas is in Pottsboro.

    You houses don’t mean shit, thor. I’m going by the literal reading of the words Obama chose. You’re blowing Messiah scented smoke up our ass. Read them again:

    You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them — like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they’ve gone through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

    He’s laying out cause and effect. And he’s wrong. You’re gonna have to blow him by yourself because I’m not interested.

  142. thor says:

    Comment by royf on 4/14 @ 8:03 am #
    I think you need to learn just a bit more about rural Texas because it doesn’t sound like you know your way around North East Texas very well.

    Yes, I misspoke. That Walmart is in Sherman. My brother used to live in Greenville.

  143. Slartibartfast says:

    I accidentally attacked myself, once. It was awesome. I’m trying not to do it again.

    I didn’t even know there was a Wal-Mart in Sherman, but I haven’t been there for a couple of decades. My dad used to live there, once upon a time.

  144. Slarti, they even have a mall. not a large one mind you, but it’s gots a Sears.

  145. RTO Trainer says:

    Thor if you do live in Pottsboro, Tx your much closer to the Oklahoma border than Greenville, Tx is. Greenville is 61 miles southeast of Pottsboro. You would only have to drive to Denison which is only 7 or 8 miles away or you could go south to Sherman, both of those cities have Walmart stores.

    Or to Durant if you just had to go to OK, but there’s no place there to get a lapdance.

  146. RTO Trainer says:

    Must live toward Fink or Locust to have Serman be closer than Denison.

  147. Carl Raymond Crites says:

    Re: Comment #27 by J.D. See the Washington Post.

    Obama: He also slipped in a plug for Gore, the 2000 nominee who has yet to announce his preference for 2008, and alluded to Clinton’s earlier remark on the same stage. “I know that Al Gore was mentioned earlier,” Obama said. “By the way, I have to say, I think Al Gore won.”

    Here is site:

    CRayC

  148. happyfeet says:

    Tom Maguire linked from here

    Clarice says this there…

    Here’s what I find particularly interesting about Karl’s observation. For decades the left has been jumping aboard all these social issues–abortion, gay rights, feminism–to build a coalition and now, in essence, O says–those things are really not important, income redistribution is. Once that is achieved the right will fall into line on all these other things, which they adhere to because of economic difficulties in their own lives.

    The mask slips, I think, but those drawn to it aren’t jumping ship. (Look at Sully for proof.)*

    I had to read that twice to really get it cause it’s kind of startling I think.

  149. The Lost Dog says:

    Neo –

    Telephone – $29.95 per month

    Cable TV – $29.95 per month

    Internet – $29.95 per month.

    Your comment about Kerry and Obama – priceless.

Comments are closed.