Still down with the flu, guys. But I’m hoping a few more days of rest will do the trick.
And by “a few more days of rest,” I mean weed. Conservatives and their “code words,” eh?
Anyway, just now got to looking at Greenwald’s response to Dan’s faggot post, which I note mentions me (and my Pajamas Media affiliation) by name. Dan, on the other hand, is not mentioned by name — though Greenwald takes a screencap and posts it, lest we wingnuts try to make the post disappear down the memory hole like, say, Rick Ellers, or Wilson McEllersby (where have you gone, fellas? A nation turns it lonely eyes to you!)
This is typical of the nasally phony, who, though he pretends toward being an intellectual, is really nothing more than a verbose character assassin, a predictable essayist who panders to a niche audience by gussying up their vitriol and mirroring it back to them in lengthy, often footnoted pieces larded with the kinds of fallacies of argument one finds frequently in freshman comp papers from guys named Corky that argue for marijuana legalization. The attack by implication and association is one of his favorite ploys, and he uses it here — but hey, it gets him a paycheck from Salon, and, one presumes, keeps his fruit drinks rimmed with Kosher salt and festooned with fancy paper umbrellas in bold, bright colors. So, you know, you go, girl!
My favorite bit from his ridiculous piece is this:
Nothing is more sacred in the right-wing/neocon religion than the intense fear of Muslims and the belief that they are coming to get us all.
This, of course, is not true: Because no one thinks Islamic fanatics (who, to help Greenwald out, are different from “Muslims” in the same way Eric Rudolph is different from “Christians”) have an eye on Brazilian cabana living just yet. So Glenn and his roommates, all of whom share his love for himself (if one can believe their few internet testimonials) are perfectly safe.
For now, that is. Because what is true is that Islamists don’t much care for the gays, which I take it was Dan’s original point: Greenwald spends an inordinate amount of time feigning fear of Satan’s domestic NeoCon army, a clan of evil and closeted latent homosexuals who, when they aren’t watching tackle football with nascent chubbies, are 1) bent on establishing endless war against a largely blameless brown Other, and 2) cooking up a saucy totalitarian state (one with a hank of theocratic meat, drizzled with Constitutional puree and garnished with a goodly side of hypermasculinity disguising clearly conflicted sexuality. Seriously. Google it, people!). This “fear” — if we take him seriously (and I don’t; I think he is simply doing what he always does, and hoping to demonize the advocates of a political ideology defined by certain policy prescriptions in order to marginalize legitimate political positions) — manifests itself in a body of work that endlessly generalizes about what is, in fact, a diverse political group, one made up of classical liberals, hawkish Democrats and libertarians, many traditional Republicans, and some social conservatives.
In this context, Greenwald’s suggestion that the “right wing” was overreacting to Ahmarockahmanislandinejad’s being granted ideological legitimacy by way of a speaking engagement at Columbia — a legitimacy denied to people like, say, Larry Summers or Ward Connerly at other institutions suddenly embracing free speech absolutism (one wonders if on these days, they expand their campus free speech zones a bit as a show of benevolence, or like modern day Carnivale) — seemed remarkably disingenuous. And Dan was left to wonder why someone who is a professed homosexual wishes to sniff at those who would protest giving a forum to one whose country punishes homosexuality with death, and whose eliminationist rhetoric with respect to Israel is particularly troubling in light of his country’s nuclear ambitions.
Or, to put it another way, why would Greenwald concern himself with strained psychosexual explanations for why “right wingers” were interesting in protesting Columbia’s granting Ahmahumanbeatboxinajad legitimacy (it is some sort of projection of their hypermasculinist desire to see war everywhere; or else some Jew thing, I can never make it through one of Greenwald’s essays in its entirety) instead of protesting that granting of legitimacy himself? Or at the very least, why would he be afraid to acknowledge that the “right wing” has perfectly valid reasons for not wishing to grant the Iranian president legitimacy that have nothing to do with fear of Muslims, and everything to do with an embrace of liberal values.
Columbia can bring in whatever speakers it wishes; but the arguments as to why bringing in certain speakers may be sending the wrong kinds of messages to those engaging us in a proxy war against us are, at the very least, worth hearing and debating.
Greenwald has said that the right is a blight on the body politic. It should be marginalized, and politics returned to the right kinds of people — people who, coincidentally, just happen to share his worldview. And he is doing his part to bring this about, with rhetoric so transparent that one can see the veins pumping familiar tropes like so much elitist blue blood.
For my part, I seldom give him a second thought these days, other than to marvel at the place he occupies at the progressive table. He is a talking points generator for those who count on him to turn their hatred into high sounding rhetoric. But I doubt he’s fooling anyone who isn’t either looking to be fooled, or else willing to play along with him in an attempt to see political opponents marginalized, even if that means pretending to support arguments they know to be as weak as Greenwald’s chin.
“Nothing is more sacred in the right-wing/neocon religion than the intense fear of Muslims and the belief that they are coming to get us all.”
Well, I guess I’d better change my sheets again. As Ellersberg McGlennison has implied: the bed, she is wet.
In all the time that I have come here to read you Jeff, I have never read your links to Glenn. He sounded like your usual leftwing hack and I figured “why bother?”
But I did read this time. And it truly is like reading something from the twilight zone. I read these things and think “he’s talking about me and yet there is nothing of “me” there.” Liberals like Glenn paint a picture in their mind of what conservatives are like and that is that. The picture is wrong and it is distorted, but they cling to it. Why? Because it justifies their world view. If the other side is “racist, homophobe, ignorant, and war mongering, ect… then they surely must be right.
The sad fact is that the picture in their head is completely wrong. Which you and I know. And so they base their arguments and their justifications ON A LIE. A lie they tell themselves.
Gleen isn’t our enemy. He’s just running interference for our enemy out of partisan domestic political concerns.
Gleen isn’t our enemy.
I’m skeptical. Got any evidence of that?
The term for that is “bigot”. I’ve certainly heard bigoted statements from conservatives, but they’re generally called on it.
Liberals, though… they never seem to catch any heat for their bigotry. Particularly when the bigotry is against the Enemy(tm).
Just a small note because Greenwald’s to insignificant to comment on…
Timothy McVeigh wasn’t a Christian of any type, not at the end anyway. He was raised Catholic but there’s no evidence he was one by the time of the OKC bombings. McVeigh claimed in an interview that he had “lost touch” with religion by the time he got out of the Gulf War and, according to numerous reports, described himself as “agnostic” after he was arrested. He also told Lou Michel he was agnostic for a book Michel wrote.
…like, say, Rick Ellers, or Wilson McEllersby (where have you gone, fellas? A nation turns it lonely eyes to you!)
Hey, that Theraflu’s some good shit, huh?
If we’re so afraid of Muslims, and Gleen(s) aren’t, why is it that we’re in favor of standing up a whole army of them, nay, a whole country of them, and he’s for running away from them as fast as humanly, or puppetly, possible?
Oh, make that two countries. My bad.
Well, I’m glad to see Jeff is well enought to give a proper smackdown to Gleen. The Libs just never seem to get the point…
I guess Greenwald doesn’t get that as a dirty “christianist” if we do let the scary Muslims take over the only real change is my wife gets a burka. You can’t say the same for a sizable chuck of San Fran, can you Glen? But then I guess he sees it as “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” despite the fact that GLADD doesn’t have many middle eastern chapters.
Their caricature of conservatives serves not just to justify their worldview, sparkle, but their tactics as well.
why is it that we’re in favor of standing up a whole army of them, nay, a whole country of them…?
We’re not. We’re an occupying force who is trying to impose political self-determination on a populace who obviously prefers the iron fist of tyranny.
And who wouldn’t?
I was just listening to a Glenn Beck podcast wherein he wonders why in Sam Hill some people don’t get that Socialism Doesn’t Work?
Well, Glenn, because for them, it does work. Religion is crushed, evil capitalists are executed, there’s no ever-increasing gap between rich and poor, nobody gets out of line, there’s none of this free play of ideas that does nothing but confuse people, and life continues on in the same comforting rhythm day in and day out. No change, no challenges, no danger, no risk.
They LIKE the idea of being controlled by a dictator, provided that the dictator spouts the right ideas. Or maybe I should say they like the idea of those #&^%$ rethuglican God-botherers being controlled.
It’s all about comfort and purity. Eden. Stasis. The end of history.
They can have it.
Not yet, but I’m predicting that, as soon as it’s Hillary’s situation in Iraq the Gleens of this world will suddenly find a reason to, not only stay, but wage total war on those who threaten their President’s poll numbers.
I’m reminded of a world described by Madeleine d’Engle. “Two and two is four. Four and four is eight.”
Tessertacts. They’re not just for logic anymore!
Tesseracts, even!
I kind of scratch my head at the Greenwald(s) tellimg me I am afraid of Muslims. All I have done with (Afghan Sunni) Muslims is help build their schools, dig their wells, supply their helath clinics and train them to govern, police and fight more efficiently – and I am so scared of them that I am about to go do it again (this time with Iraqi Arab Shi’a Muslims).
Maybe Ellers or Wilson or whomever can explain it to me.
“Ahmahumanbeatboxinajad” is nice, and it reminds me that before I saw a picture and learned that the Glenns look like an “If they mated…” of Shelley Duvall and Gonzo, I always pictured his writings emanating from a guy who’s so fat he can barely breathe — sort of an overinflated balloon-animal version of David Horowitz dipped in bacon grease, sweaty and red from the effort of shifting in his desk chair, hazy in a hot cloud of crotch-fungal miasma.
And so he is. As I have just demonstrated.
psychologizer–
Stop humanizing him! I don’t want to feel pity for Gleen!
A view which, not coincidentally, tracks pretty closely to Gleen(s)’ view of the conservative menace:
Projection: It’s not just for breakfast anymore!
– Theres nothing wrong with being bigoted against serial killers, pedophiles, and Secular Progressives.
– (….and yes, I like that grouping….all three criminal, unprincipled, G_dless minds. )
While I’ve heard a lot about Gleen the Sockpuppet on various blogs, but never read any of his stuff (his screed on Salon linked above) until now.
My reaction is rather like some others here. Sort of “Huh? Who is this dingdong talking about?” I don’t know anybody on the right who thinks the way Gleen claims they do, particularly with that psychosexual psychobabble thrown in.
And I have to wonder if he was being deliberately obtuse or is actually so incredibly stupid as to not get what that guy “RH Potfry” was saying to him. Let alone quoting (and twisting into an unrecognizable pretzel in the process) something that Podhoretz wrote over forty fucking years ago.
Jeff has the right idea. This moonbat is not worth the effort.
I agree with a lot of what Greenwald says because of the hysterical reaction the right-wing seems to have to Muslims. It is true that Muslims execute homosexuals and require women to wear burkas, but under what scenario does the right-wing expect the conquest of America to occur? Fear of the terrorists by the 108th and 109th Republican Congress caused them to willing lay down and allow Bush to violate the Constitution and The Bill of Rights without so much as an open debate on either floor. I am no fan of Greenwald’s political philosophy but he is right in saying the conservative reaction to 9/11 is a disgrace. Someone has to start asking if the trade-off of freedom for security is a good one.
Really? And what about the trade-off of freedom for security in Iraq?
Also, lightning doesn’t have an “e”.
Not to mention…how many Democrats was it again? Damn these shades of grey.
So, what would the appropriate reaction to 9/11 have been? Please do be specific. Gleen(s) is good at bitching, but he doesn’t ever seem to offer any constructive solutions.
Really? And what about the trade-off of freedom for security in Iraq?
Isn’t it a little bit late for that debate?
Also, lightning doesn’t have an “eâ€Â.
It does if you are not a real cowboy.
Yesterday, Glenn Beck was interviewing a middle-aged Muslim woman and asked her how he could tell the difference between her and a terrorist. She is an American citizen. How is she suppose to know? How is anybody suppose to know? Muslims have become a conservative phobia.
What was Beck’s point? What was the context? It’s pretty gleeny not to supply that.
Wait a minute, you guys, you’re allowing this idiot’s premise to stand. That being that the Bushies and their allies in Congress have been tromping on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is just another mindless lefty talking point. Go ahead, dumbass, enlighten us with specifics about how our precious rights are being stripped away. With links and citations, please.
I call Moby on quick draw.
The Constitution is being shredded because they say it is. The Bill of Rights, gone. History.
Good Allah. Is that Gleen himself?
We are now phobic of Muslims? First, we do not fear them. Even if we did, given the history of jihadi death and destruction against us, it would hardly be irrational.
Now, scurry on back to the cabana, and whip up a few more frothy umbrella drinks for the rest of the Gleens.
Muslims are so not a conservative phobia. The only phobia is in having some bizarre fear of offending them. Do you tell your mom when you break fast I asked this guy the other day and he was like hell no. They’ll beat me. And it was just funny cause he had that perfect serious tone. I think this fear of Muslim sensitivities is bipartisan, just expressed differently. Point is, they laugh at both sides cause really what can they do?
This is typical of the nasally phony, who, though he pretends toward being an intellectual, is really nothing more than a verbose character assassin, a predictable essayist who panders to a niche audience by gussying up their vitriol and mirroring it back to them in lengthy, often footnoted pieces larded with the kinds of fallacies of argument one finds frequently in freshman comp papers from guys named Corky that argue for marijuana legalization.
HEH – and of course Corky reads Glenn out loud like a Democrat Senator on record.
I find the puppet master, Glenn’s claim to have been read by a US Senator to be hilarious given those same US Dem Senator have no intention in accomplishing what Glenn says they should. It just equates to being a pander whore.
Except for the humorless ones.
LFD
Without security – such as the Bush strategy has obviously provided, and you admit – freedom becomes less possible. So are you willing to risk success – no further 9/11 attacks, fighting Islamofascists on their own territory, and our objective current freedom – by surrendering?
Hillary isn’t going to risk it.
Someone should also ask why the Democrat members of the Intelligence Committees previously signed off on the NYT-leaked NSA program you seem to fear – so hysterically.
Instead, you also seem to prefer further attacks.
I’m just talking about American Muslims – the other ones are foreign.
Also—
(who, to help Greenwald out, are different from “Muslims†in the same way Eric Rudolph is different from “Christiansâ€Â)
Like Code Pink progressives who call US Soldiers assassins are different than the Glenn brand of progressives right? Or not.
We keep throwing facts at the progressives, but they don’t stick!
It’s the Magic Teflon philosophy – reality doesn’t stick to it!
Sean M
It is not what we did but how we did it. We reacted emotionally to 9/11; with anger and fear. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, I did not support the invasion of Iraq and I have never supported torture, suspending Habeas Corpus or violating FISA or violating any other of our individual or collective freedoms that Americans have fought and died for. If there is some reason why we should, it had better be a damn good one. To my way of thinking, losing our freedom for the sake of protecting our lives is too big a trade off and if the people we have elected don’t see that then we need to elect somebody else.
Moby.
Quick Draw – Name one right you have lost. Name one freedom you no longer enjoy.
It is odd to see how far people who call themselves conservatives have drifted from conservatism. As far as I can tell, I am the only conservative here. Reagan, Bush Sr., Ford, Goldwater, Nixon; somebody name a conservative who would have invaded Iraq. All you have managed to do is trash the Republican Party and dance with the neocon left.
I was going for the Bipartisan Culpability angle. It’s not as if Democrats will come to power, snap their fingers and fix everything.
for Gitmo detainees.
JD – You must be out of your mind if you haven’t noticed.
Somebody has a plank in their eye.
mmmm, yeah, I’m thinking someone’s got something backwards… but go ahead, don’t support your argument, just call everyone else crazy! WHY CAN’T YOU ALL SEE THE UNICORNS?!!
A. “Someone has to start asking if the trade-off of freedom for security is a good one.”
Still waiting for even ONE bit of empirical…what’s the word…oh yeah…EVIDENCE to back this up. Wes Clark, Gleen, and/or Sean Penn statements either in the idiotic verbal, obtuse written, Hollywood faux serious grunted form do not count.
Supreme Court opinions DO. As do the past voting records on these matters of those in the “loyal opposition.”
B. Glenn Greewald. Deep Thinking Super Genius. (Some assembly required; Deep Thinking Super Genius not included.)
Are you lonely, Lightening? You sound lonely. Sometimes when I feel lonely I watch episodes of broadcast network television programs and drink heavily. Maybe you should give it a go.
Ah…there it is, just as I suspected:
“All you have managed to do is trash the Republican Party and dance with the neocon left.”
Lightening, please tell us how you feel about Pat Buchanan.
This should be good.
Quick Draw – Name one right, one freedom which you no longer enjoy. If it is so obvious, it should be easy.
I still call BS on you being a conservative. So far, all you have managed to do is puke out Leftist hysteria with you assertion being the evidence. Quite circular. And tedious.
Before I let Lightening get away with the whole “policies of our conservative forefathers” crap–here are a couple seminal moments that we should review in light of his “Chimpy is the only person who would have create THE MESS THAT IS IRAQ.”:
Goldwater–“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”–Barry wasn’t just talking about domestic politics here, genius.
Reagan–“I know in my heart that man is good.
That what is right will always eventually triumph.
And there’s purpose and worth to each and every life.” Ditto.
Um, would Grenada count for anything?
Habeas Corpus, for example, can be suspended for anyone of us. Greenwald was a constitutional lawyer before he was a blogger. He argues, and I agree with him, that suspending Habeas Corpus is unnecessary and contradicts what America is suppose to represent. England has been dealing with terrorists much longer than we have and hasn’t found it necessary to jail suspects indefinitely.
Also, I believe suspending Habeas Corpus dishonors the sacrifice of our patriots. It wasn’t that long ago when they were spilling their blood for our Constitution and Bill of Rights and I don’t believe we should be so eager to give up one sentence of any of them.
Well, Lightening–all well and good except you and Gleen trip over a very simple matter:
The Gitmo detainees ARE NOT AMERICANS. They are enemy combatants that do not fall within a legal category with any sort of meaningful precedent. They are out of uniform and out of the country and linked to others in an ongoing armed conflict. This simply is not traditional law enforcement territory. (And all the IRA fruits were British citizens–get it?)
Sorry, try again. Because if YOU (since we are talking about your freedoms as an american) were to be arrested, all the normal legal protections would apply.
See: Whatever the hell that kid’s name was from Marin County, for instance. Lindh?
wishbone –
I could not agree more with Goldwater’s statement of extremism but don’t try and pass him off as a warmonger, Johnson already did that. If anything he was closer philosophically to libertarianism and suspicious of foreign intervention.
And lo, ye shall know them by the fruits of their labor, and moreso by the questions they do not answer, amen.
– “Also, I believe suspending Habeas Corpus dishonors the sacrifice of our patriots. It wasn’t that long ago when they were spilling their blood for our Constitution and Bill of Rights and I don’t believe we should be so eager to give up one sentence of any of them.”
– Well that is of course, unless you actually had to jetison the “theoretical rhetoric” bullshit, and actuallu, you know, defend your country, laying your ass on the line for real, because like dude that would be some serious shit, and….and well……Yo!
wishbone –
Our leader can suspend Habeas Corpus for anyone he wishes to declare an enemy combatant. Jose Padilla is a case in point. Besides, any right which we lose now, even if it does not apply to us will eventually. It is the creeping nature of government.
I hope Jeff feels better soon.
so you’ve only theoretically lost rights?
Big Bang (Pumping you up)
Right Big Bang, that’s the kind of thing Greenwald is talking about.
Anyone, American citizen or otherwise can lose their right to an attorney if Bush says so.
theoretically. let’s just ignore the whole legal wrangling over Padilla.
Amen.
we could talk about wiretapping instead?
Oh, I’d love to see the “evidence” for that one!
how about the bill they are passing in congress right now to give the telecoms retroactive immunity?
Well, I just want you all to know how nice it was being ridiculed and abused by the group this evening. Thank you all very much, for the memories and goodnight.
September 22, 1964: “Goldwater said that the United States should do whatever it took to support U.S. troops in the war and that if the administration was not prepared to “take the war to North Vietnam,” it should withdraw.”
That was not a “suspicion of foreign intervention” it was a preference for sound war policy. Try again.
And if you really want to get in a habeas argument all I really have to do is say “Lincoln” and that kind of shoots the crap out your whole argument, huh? Because no good can ever come of something like that. Especially if one happens to be a secessionist Marylander.
In any event–at what point during the entire 5 year Padilla saga was he denied access to the courts? Therefore, even IF the President were to send the Rovian (oops he’s gone) Gestapo to haul me in, he’d still have to justify it at some point. The fundamental problem is that you who stand in the Gleen fold shrilly make the point that George Bush is a greater danger than al Qaeda or a nuclear Iran. I’m paraphrasing Chris Hitchens in the following sentence, but it’s reasonably accurate: People who believe that line of thought are dumber than a stack of wet cordwood.
And the “Vote for Ron Paul” speech begins in 3…2…1…
“how about the bill they are passing in congress right now to give the telecoms retroactive immunity?”
Hi, and welcome to another episode of “What part of the ascendency of frivilous trial lawyerdom should we accommodate today?” Nah, don’t pass it–instead, let’s spend years on “rights violations” litigation based on the “logic” Lightening has so carefully laid out above.
Dense as a 1964 block of Velveeta left in the sun, this one is.
Oh, and as for Quick Draw McGraw’s #39 comment, remember when I asked:
Yeah, I thought not.
And I happen to think that an emotional response of “anger and fear” to the murders of nearly 3,000 innocents in the most massive terrorist attack in history was wholly appropriate for most people, unless you were in a coma or on the other side.
I’m not worried about the jihadis conquering America. I’m worried about the left surrendering it to them.
Lightning doesn’t have to answer your questions, wingers. It’s in the constitution. Google it, people!
Lightning could be a Paulist. Ever think of that? They will never surrender America to the jihadis. Just the rest of the world.
How did you sneak that in ahead of me, Sean?
he’s just sneaky that way. probably has something to do with looking like Roger Moore.
“unless you were in a coma or on the other side.”
You left out “idiot,” Sean.
The three categories are not mutually exclusive anyway.
See #49, gang. A variant on the Paul theorem.
And though I would like to claim it because of the baldness and gray hair, I do not resemble Sean Connery. Unless you squint really hard after squirting half a grapefruit in your eye.
And unfortunately, I look more like John Candy.
Naw, I look more like George Lazenby.
(Not really.)
And, yes, the idiot category was a serious oversight.
Wishbone, I missed that implication. Good one.
I would like to see a cage match between a Buchananite and a Paulist. Who will be the last true conservative standing? Good enough for pay per view?
well, you’re also leaving out “unborn” or “under 48 inches tall”
Not to mention the dead. We’ll have to wait for the zombie uprising to find out how they felt, though I suspect they’ll respond to most poll questions with “Brains!”
Congrats, Maggie.
You’ve insulted the pro-war midgets. Media Matters, Harry Reid, and Hamsher will never let us hear the end of it.
The Brady Bill took constitutional rights away from more Americans than George W. Bush has or ever will.
Zombies vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Many living Democrats are idiots. Maybe the zombies ate their brains? Probably an earmark I never heard of.
guess I’ll have to move to an amusement park.
oh, speaking of guns, RTO picked up his TF Phoenix commemorative rifle today (m-4?). he was sitting on the couch looking it over and I hear, “oh yeah, it doesn’t have full auto”
“oh yeah, it doesn’t have full autoâ€Â
Well…where is the amusement park in that?
Bob Hope has klrtz1’s back.
Oh, swell: another formerly staunch Republican. Where do all these former-staunch-Republicans-turned-nutroot-Democrats come from?
Me, I just print out a fresh copy of the Constitution every morning, and trample it. Because I can.
“this bile that spewed forth really illustrates so much about why we continue to fight one of history’s most absurd wars ever,”
Yeah. The mindset is the real enemy. Maybe some of Bush’s ‘enhanced interrogation’ could include ‘brain washing’ for the intransigent warlocks whose mortal fear of admitting error is creating toxins in the host which have symptoms mimicking the Flu.
Just as a quick reference, Cleo, in case you are confused about the proper course of action:
The correct setting for the blender is “puree” once you stuff your head in the requisite distance.
And work on the wordsmithing. You’re throwing single A stuff and this is the Majors here.
“The correct setting for the blender is “puree†once you stuff your head in the requisite distance……this is the majors here.”
How can I compete against such ‘panache’?
Monstra mihi pecuniam!
The Missing Brain Factor™ could help explain the porgressive trolls that infest Protein Wisdom. Once you’ve had your brain eaten by a zombie, you have nothing to fear from the neck choppers. What’s left to lose?
It’s the weekend, semanticlown. Lighten up. The zombies didn’t eat your sense of humor!
Maggie – It is perfectly acceptable to mock the midgets, and that includes the mental midgets like semencleo.
The mindset is the real enemy.
And as a Ron Paul supporter, I DEMAND we declare war on mindset.
“Lighten up”
Just tryin’ to give Jeffy some layman’s medical advice. ‘Weed’ suppresses the immune system, thus needlessly extending the flu symptoms. Same with the Iraq war pathogenesis.
[…] to Protein Wisdom homepage « Flu update, and some thoughts on a gay person of non-color | Home | October 6, 2007 Integrity Boy [Dan […]
So your idea of fun is to play doctor on a blog?
Well, I certainly can’t top that!
omment by Lightening_Fast_Draw on 10/6 @ 1:58 am #
Well, I just want you all to know how nice it was being ridiculed and abused by the group this evening. Thank you all very much, for the memories and goodnight.
Next time bring your A game.
BTW Any president in time of war can suspend any part of the constitution. Your overseas telexes and telegram have been read by the US government since the Roosevelt administration. Padilla was found guilty btw. A thoroughly nasty fellow he.
Again and again: they fly our very own planes into our institutions and accomplishments. very savvy of them. my guess is 50% of the poor bastards sitting on the hijacked planes on 9-11 were convinced that if they just ignored the situation it would just go away (maybe more given the flights originated on the eastern seaboard). so, we shouldn’t be surprised that their brethren can’t believe that some Islamists would love nothing more than to break into the cockpit. gotta go, I hear ’em banging now.
Remember the old joke about the guy who goes to a prison, every few minutes a prisoner yells out a number and all the rest of the prisoners laugh?
When I listen to progressives and “true conservatives” discuss the supposed excesses of the evil Bushco I feel like the outsider in that joke. They throw out keywords like “Patriot Act”, “Guantanamo”, “wireless wiretaps”, “Habeas Corpus”, etc without any further elaboration. As if their mere mention should arouse a righteous indignation in all who value the Constitution and the ideals on which this country was founded.
I am w Rusty – hey, lighteening_fart, thx for tryin’ out!
“Comment by Lightening_Fast_Draw on 10/6 @ 1:47 am #
Anyone, American citizen or otherwise can lose their right to an attorney if Bush says so.”
Errrr, well, no.
“Comment by Lightening_Fast_Draw on 10/6 @ 1:53 am #
how about the bill they are passing in congress right now to give the telecoms retroactive immunity?”
Well, they do need protection from George Soros rabid attack dogs.
“Comment by klrtz1 on 10/6 @ 7:14 am #
It’s the weekend, semanticlown. Lighten up. The zombies didn’t eat your sense of humor!”
But he did have a humorectomy.
I’ts sort of like a bris for assholes.
“Today I am a dicksneeze!”
And such a party you get.
El Latin es una idioma muerta. Yo prefiero espanol.
Yo tengo el dinero, Semantipayaso. Desafortunadamente, tu compraria los CD’s de Hugo Chavez con los dolares yanquis imperialistas y nosotros no podemos tener eso.
Cual es tu proxima tentativa debil al humor?
<pedant> Little-known fact, wish: “idioma” is masculine, having been appropriated from Greek. Same as “drama” and “mapa” and a few others </pedant>
Confound those exceptions!
Sorry I missed the final lightweight breakdown, but the thing these moonie / paulies miss most aggressively is any historical context whatsoever.
Compared to any other wartime administration, the “Evil Chimperor” has treated the Constitution with kid gloves. Heck, they’re better than average for peacetimes, AFAICT. EVERY administration, court, and congress in America’s HISTORY has poked the Constitution with a stick because it said they couldn’t have something they wanted.
Heck, probably two thirds of the Federal Government was never properly squared with the Constitution. Somehow we managed to survive.
I guess maybe the fact that I allow my allies to be imperfect has something to do with the fact that I actually have allies, whereas Paulies… not so much.
We’ve had such a blessed history, we Americans, that we tend to forget just how nasty and brutish the lives of most people in history have been. We start from the point of the wonderful gifts we enjoy and have screaming bitch-fits if it looks like we might have to scrabble a bit.
I’m out of practice, dicentra.
O, Estoy afuera la pratica.
Mike C wrote:
You seem to be implying that they should provide… actual proof of the above and back up their claims or something. How rude! Don’t you know it’s a magic mantra they chant over and over thinking it makes it so after the millionth or so iteration?
Though I must admit it’s amusing to see folks like LFD go with the “people who call themselves conservative” claim as well, since IIRC not everyone here who supports the Bush administration call themselves that. But I guess I shouldn’t pile on and point out yet ANOTHER little flaw in his pontifications…
wishbone, JD,
Let us assume that your dismissal of Lightening_Fast_Draw’s objections to the actions of the current administration rests on a firm grip of fact and rigorous (or at least deep) analysis. This is not sarcasm, but courtesy. It is also a (friendly rather than otherwise) challenge and a device for obtaining further information.
There are still those of us (at least one) who have read these objections before and found them plausible, not because we are easily panicked, nor because we are a priori Bush-bashers, nor because we are stupid, nor because we were unwilling to give the current admin. a very great benefit of doubt. Further, there are those of us (at least one) who have not seen facts and analyses that would refute the serious (as opposed to frivolous, panicky, or merely partisan) questions regarding those allegations.
I, for one, would learn. If you can point me to sources where I can find such digests of fact and analysis, I would thank you. Particular topics of interest include executive rejection of judicial oversight for wiretaps (e.g., re. the FISA courts); imprisonment without charges (cf. Padilla); whether “justice” has two definitions, depending on whether one is a citizen or not; the president’s practice of signing bills while inserting exceptions; and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
I would also gladly receive references to such source material from any other PW readers.
Thanks.
T&T
Jeff,
Glad to hear you are better. Take lots of rest and lots of (water-based) fluids. Hope this passes soon.
This should have come before the previous note, since it deals with the more important matter.
T&T
T&T you might try a site search. Jeff did some extensive posting on FISA in particular. ha, just noticed it’s a sidebar category.
Honorable men and woman are fighting and dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan, But back home, the left wing senate and the leaders of the left wing mass news media are undermining their every effort to win.
The only lost war is the war left wing senate created in their self-serving anti American, anti military and anti Bush delusional minds.
TO
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority leader Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durban, Chuck Schumer, Russell Feingold, Barak Obama and Barbara Boxer et al
“Give up your dreams of freedom, because to save your own skin, you are willing to make a deal with your terrorist masters.” and “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a terrorist master, and deserves one.”
What will history say of the 2001-2007 senate democrats?
Lets just take Padilla for example. He was apprehended for conspiring with this nations enemies to wage war on the United States. Which places him not as an enemy combatant, but as a traitor.In any other place and time in history he’d simply be taken out to a field and shot, or the nearest tree and hung. Summarily, without trial. His rights were attended to. More than he deserved.
Like tryin to explain something to a six year old.
OK, T&T–
I concede you do have a point on one element of your list above: Signing statements. I frankly don’t see the point or the legality. Perhaps one of the regulars on the lawyerly side of things could clear that up for us.
However, in Padilla case, you can just Google it and follow a timeline of events. The courts were always in the mix in that case as were attorneys. And there was a conviction at the end of the process.
I see absolutely no/no evidence that the President is overreaching in either the Gitmo policy or NSA programs. I define overreaching as using those instruments against political opponents in addition to, or in the place of, the nation’s enemies. Dubya is not Dick Nixon. Period.
All those cries of “Fascist!” are theatrics intended to keep certain anachronistic ideas alive (see, Jackson, Jesse for example) or are deliberate misrepresentations for political ends. The resulting irony is too thick for description. Although it does make a great fondue.
Apparently they go back a long way. Either Congress hasn’t cared enough (so far) to challenge their legality, or constitutionality or whatever, of the Executive declaring at signing how he intends to implement the law he’s signing, or they’ve challenged and lost.
I’m inclined to suspect the former. It’s been my observation that Congress only cares how the laws are implemented if they can score a political benefit of some kind from the brouhaha.
Signing statements are a lot like throwing a flag on a play. It puts the other side (Congress) on notice that some part is in contention on constitutional grounds, and invites the ref (The Supes) to decide the issue.
Yet another reason why Congress might not have gotten around to challenging the use of signing statements.
As a tepid neo-con (Ha!) I have a certain empathy for lightening fast draw’s silly arguments. But, then I sober up and realize that only three United States citizens have actually been denied their habeus corpus rights. And they’re all fuckwads anyway, so who the fuck cares. Well, LFD does, but then again…To be honest, I cannot stand the Bush presidency other than the tax cuts and his understanding of the threat of these islamofascist fucks that are part of modern life. Believe it or not, I was calling these idiots fascists, way before President Bush ever entertained that designation. And then he uses it ONCE! Oh well, just ranting. Until these Paul supporters can actually articulate an adult foreign policy, I’ll be eating nachos, wondering which republican I’m going to vote for in 2008. Go Indians and go Buckeyes!
Rusty,
I do not dispute that Padilla was a traitor or an enemy combatant. He is, however, a US citizen, apprehended on US soil. Had he been pointing a live firearm (or the equivalent) at someone, then shooting would arguably have been in order. He was, however, accused with cause and arrested. That is the job of the executive, whether the accusation be treason, armed robbery, some less heinous crime. Arrest, accuse, and prosecute. That is the job of the executive. The job of evaluating the evidence, establishing a verdict, and assessing penalties belongs to the judiciary. Without that separation, even honest executives can be mislead by their own involvement in a case. Beyond that, the system would be exposed to those who connive to convict the innocent for any of a number of reasons. I do not impune the Bush administration on any of those counts, nor do I absolve the current judiciary machines of their many faults. But to avoid the judiciary branch altogether corrupts the system and stands as a precedent to those who will come later, who are less honest than those currently in power. Our system of government gains its strength because it diffuses power instead of concentrating it. The Padilla case, whatever it was, was not an emergency and did not call for extraordinary handling. Treason, of all charges, must be the most carefully handled.
Thank you for the comparison to a six year old. In my experience they are more humble, more willing to learn, and more hopeful than I usually am.
T&T
Not to be contentious, but I keep seeing this said as though it makes a difference during wartime. It never has before, that I’m aware of.
And exactly no one is experiencing this at this time. So we’re down to zero people being denied habeas corpus.
T&T he got his day in court. The system isn’t damaged. But from my point of view by conspiring with a foreign power to wage war on the United States he abrogated his constitutional protections. But hey. That’s just me. Prior to his aborted career as a terrorist wannabe he was a very successful gang banger. So in some small measure his victims from that career got some justice. He has been treated all along far better than he deserved.
McGehee,
The bill of rights is not suspended during a war. Yes, Habeas Corpus can be suspended during a war. Did Congress declare war, by the way? Has Habeas Corpus been suspeneded generally, or only point by point (by point by …)
Pablo,
Until the next one. Will it be you, or me, or who?
Rusty,
Yes, eventually he was give his day in court.
T&T
“given”. Sorry.
T&T