Self Editor

Forum: pol
Page 2851
Subject: Bill Maher, 1 of the Most Dangerous Men in America

Posted by: Jag - [14849321] Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:09

Any person that moves us closer to socialism is damgerous. Unforuately, many young folk get their political agenda and news from comedians like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, But Maher, while not overly brillant,(he believes Americans are more apt to illness because we take medication to prevent us from coughing and sneezing, and that we need to get those impurities out of our system, maybe next time I get the sniffles I can get Tree to pull my finger and rip out a big cloud of impurities), he is adept at propaganda. You would think Valerie Plame was a female James Bond, instead of the anti-Bush secretary with a gloryhound husband, by listening to him. Like most liberals he surrounds himself with like minded Leftwingers, so not to forgo the scrutiny of his wacko beliefs. But inspite of incrediably unrealistic agenda, he is mildly entertaining and like the Jedi Mindtrick, his words can have an affect on the more feeble minded.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:12

Any person that moves us closer to socialism is damgerous.

Any closer than we are right now, you mean? Define "socialism" in this context. Does this mean universal health care is dangerous? In what way?

I think we'd take your points more seriously if you were to make them a little more clearly. What arguments of this entertainer are you against, in particular?

Tree
ID: 29082512
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:19

he believes Americans are more apt to illness because we take medication to prevent us from coughing and sneezing

actually, there certainly is evidence to support that ascertation.

there are good germs and bad germs. you need the good ones to help you remain healthy.

it's already been established that over use of antibacterial soap can wash the good away with the bad.

it's already been established that something like douching can wash away important germs and such that women need to fight off various infections.

so, it would make sense, that the over-medication of americans would could very well have the same negative effect.

he is adept at propaganda

he surrounds himself with like minded

for all the times i've used a similar illustration for Baldwin, you have surpassed him.

i hope you keep posting. you are a joy.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:23

I would think that if one felt "socialism" to be a bad thing, that there are plenty of others who would be more "dangerous" than a liberteraian. Barney Frank, for instance. Dennis Kucinich. Al Franken. George Soros even.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:28

Here is a good one from his last show (there are so many, it is like Clinton scandals, you forget most of them, because they are so numerous) if we would legalize Marijuana, we could donate all those resources to fight terrorism. This is coming from the same guy, who argues against every effective policy we have towards the terrorism battle, wiretaps, internet searches, etc...in fact he all but denies terrorism is even a threat, all for his Holy Grail of legal drug abuse.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:34

Man, you really miss his points badly.

Maher believes that we need not give up our own civil liberties (such as not being tortured) in order to badly fight a war we need not be in.

Maher actually supported the Iraqi War for a time, but became disillusioned about the attempts by the Administration to start attacking Americans in the name of "terrorism."

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:36

Here's a good one. The first half are jokes, the rest is a long rant. Good stuff:

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:37

Actually, the most dangerous people in America, are those MITH alluded to in the other thread. Those who vote based solely upon the letter contained within the () following the candidates name, w/o benefit of research into what that candidate actually tries to do. (Witness, the last presidential election.) Even IF, your portrayal of Mahers views were accurate AND all those views were instituted into law tomorrow...they would pose a far lesser threast to America, than is posed by those currently sitting in the WH.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:57

I know what his point is, I simply believe it is an over-exaggeration of a non-issue. Maher would rather take the chance of another 9-11, then the government use their best tactics to fight terrorism, in fear the same tactics may be used toward fighting illegal drug sales. If I ever saw signs of the government abusing those tactics on everyday Americans, I would be the first to champion his cause, but as of right now, terrorism, not Big Brother, is the greater threat. Even as liberal as England is, that have come to realization, that some liberties have to be forgo, if the country is to be protected.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 14:08

You really don't understand him, Jag. Most of his opinions come from a libertarian perspective rather than a liberal one.

But since you've made it clear that you have no grasp of the concept liberalism to begin with, I wouldn't expect you to understand libertarianism, either.

Holding true to his libertarian perspectives does not make Maher a liberal. It makes him a libertarian.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 14:11

I think it we've learned anything, it is not that the cost of freedom is temporary restrictions of civil liberties. It is that fear mongering can make us do some very stupid things in the name of "security."

Is there any proof that the many things Americans have been forced (not asked) to sacrifice has made us any safer?

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 14:12

Damn: Wanted to add that the fact that Maher is a liberterian means he is much more sensitive to government's trampling of individual rights than a liberal is (many liberals would gladly trade away rights to achieve a stated societal benefit).

That's what liberterians do: Complain about government intrusion.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 14:14

Liberal or Libertarian doesn't matter, he hurts our fight on terrorism.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 14:18

Bush hurts out fight on terrorism much more than any individual speaking out against what he's doing.

So long as you continue to equate "Iraqi War" with "fighting terrorism" most of this criticism will be lost on you.

Plenty of people want to fight terror. We just believe we need to do so where the terrorists actually are.

Tree
ID: 29082512
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 14:19

Liberal or Libertarian doesn't matter, he hurts our fight on terrorism.

absolutely. political affiliation has no bearing on who hurts the fight on terrorism. i mean, heck, look at George the Dumber. republican, and absolute nightmare when it comes to the war on terror - i think he's created more terrorists then when we pulled out of Afghanistan in the 80s.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 14:40

Liberal or Libertarian doesn't matter, he hurts our fight on terrorism.

It only matters if you care to be taken seriously. If you don't, I fail to see why you waste your time here. Because your posts are so warmly embraced?

walk
ID: 259313119
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 14:52

I never miss a show, and tune into hbo.com for OT. We could not be more unalike, Jag. I wish there were more Mahr's. He is very funny and often quite "on" with his observations, IMO. Some say he is just too smug. I laugh and laugh and laugh and toast him with bong hits.

- walk

walk
ID: 259313119
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 14:55

Now, topicly, he does not hurt our fight against terrorism. There is no valid war against terrorism that our gov't is fighting. I wish they were, but what we are doing is diverting our efforts against terrorism. Well, not completely, we are also feeding the war on terrorism by staying in Iraq and breeding more terrorists and anti-American sentiment.

Iraq and the Fox propaganda about the war on terror is just one big smoke screen for oil, non-bid grants, and the war machine. Keep getting fooled, again.

- walk

boikin
ID: 59831214
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 15:22

I have a question how is that a liberbertarian can move us closer to socialism? Socialism is contrary to everything that libertatians beleive.

nerveclinic
ID: 282342013
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 15:37

Jag

Where did you study English?

In particular, where did you learn to express your thoughts and ideas into the written english language?

Just curious.

prefek
ID: 5261317
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 17:20

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- - Ben Franklin (apparently, one of the most dangerous men in America)

Re: walk 16
I have no idea how someone who lights up as much as he must can still be so smug. It's an accomplishment, really. Regardless, I'm not sure what part of defending civil liberties and legalizing some drugs to use the proceeds towards national priorities is "dangerous."

walk
ID: 259313119
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 17:59

Funny prefek. Altho Maher always talks about hitting the bong, I really have no idea how often he does toke. Either way, it's a drug that is far more benign than alcohol, that's for sure, but alas, there are greater forces at play to keep pot illegal. Maher is smug, but it bothers me not. He does remark on having a skewed panel in favor of the left side, and his audience also leans way left, but at the end of the day, right now, the right side of the equation does not have much to say that does not sound, well, idiotic. So, it is what it is. I mean, even when he has some of the righties on, and the comments they make about how we are doing not so bad in Iraq, or that we need to give the surge a chance, or that it's ridiculous to think that Cheney's motives are not selfish and financial, etc. The groans. It is telling. What is also skewed is the fact that most celebrities are liberal thinkers, and so having a celeb automatically means one more seat for a lefty. I tune in to hear humor, outrage, debate and new rules. The shows vary in level of laughs, with Maher definitely toned down this year in his closing rants, but hey, I think we need more TV like this, and like Stewart and Colbert, not less. More criticism, more humor, more sarcasm, skeptism and just lack of fear for calling out idiots. And, I think Maher does a decent job of holding Dems to account for their lame leadership.

- walk

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 19:59

Jag

Where did you study English?

In particular, where did you learn to express your thoughts and ideas into the written english language?

Just curious.
Nerve, I am from Kazakhstan.

So, it is what it is. I mean, even when he has some of the righties on, and the comments they make about how we are doing not so bad in Iraq, or that we need to give the surge a chance, or that it's ridiculous to think that Cheney's motives are not selfish and financial, etc.

Walk, this is typical of Maher and the Liberal Left. The truth is Cheney donated all the money from his Haliburton shares to charity. This is why your comment and 90% of what Maher says is ridiculous.

You really don't understand him, Jag. Most of his opinions come from a libertarian perspective rather than a liberal one.

But since you've made it clear that you have no grasp of the concept liberalism to begin with, I wouldn't expect you to understand libertarianism, either.

Holding true to his libertarian perspectives does not make Maher a liberal. It makes him a libertarian.

He may say he is a Libertarian, but on the vast majority of topics he sides with the Far-Left. Hell, if wants to be called a Libertarian then I want to be titled Grand Poobah of the Universe.

i mean, heck, look at George the Dumber. republican, and absolute nightmare when it comes to the war on terror - i think he's created more terrorists then when we pulled out of Afghanistan in the 80s.

It doesn't matter if there is 10 or 10,000 terrorists, as long as we stop the States and Organizations sponsoring them.

the right side of the equation does not have much to say that does not sound, well, idiotic.

Walk, this is because you are wrong on almost every political point, But that's OK, if it weren't for you and the Corkys of the world, I wouldn't feel so mentally superior.

Tree
ID: 192502016
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 20:03

It doesn't matter if there is 10 or 10,000 terrorists, as long as we stop the States and Organizations sponsoring them.

you missed the point. the U.S. is creating more terrorism than it is stopping.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 20:24

you missed the point. the U.S. is creating more terrorism than it is stopping.

This would explain why there have been no successful terrorist acts since 9/11?

Why is it so outlandish that the terrorists are focusing on Iraq instead of us, other than the fact you guys just don't like Bush.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 20:34

Because there is no evidence of that.

Follow me here:

-We know that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist;
-We know, in general, where he is;
-We aren't there.

Tree
ID: 192502016
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 20:34

This would explain why there have been no successful terrorist acts since 9/11?

that's a joke, right? you are talking about what was a singular event in the 230+ years of US history. nothing before, or since, has been as devestating.

although i realized you basically doublespoke, making my point before i even had to.

Why is it so outlandish that the terrorists are focusing on Iraq instead of us, other than the fact you guys just don't like Bush.

so, it's ok to make the rest of the world unsafe, and for there to be more terrorist attacks in other countries than ever before, as long as there are none in the United States.

if that's what you believe, you're one sick bastard.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 20:38

So PD, you are saying we should invade a sovereign country?

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 20:43

There's nothing sadder than watching someone who is truly clueless think he is outsmarting everyone in the room.

Yeah buddy. A step ahead of the pack with each post.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 20:44

You mean like Iraq?

LOL!

Pakistan? I've said this already on this forum: If they aren't up to rooting out bin Laden, abso-freaking-lutely.

Pakistan will be the next big problem. Hardcore, military-style government. Nukes. Hatred of their irrational hatred of the neighbor India. We shouldn't be giving these people cash and then not letting them at least do out hunting for us.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 21:00

Are you saying Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran?

R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 21:45

Yes. Iran has a somewhat democratic society with lots of moderate policy makers and citizens. They don't hold alot of power, but they do have a voice. Pakistan is about as moderate as Saudi Arabia is. The average civilian is a Taliban/Bin Laden sympatheiser and most of their government is as well.

While Iran is flexing its muscle in international affairs, Pakistan is imho far more reckless and unrestrained. Iran is playing the power game. Who the hell knows what Pakistan is doing.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:07

Re 30: YES

Just being clear here. Pakistan, remember, has the bomb.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:24

Amazing, we have a friendly government with the bomb and you want to start some crap with them, we have a very unfriendly government developing the bomb, admittedly training 1000s of sucide bombers and is the chief backer of terrorism in Iraq and they should be ignored till they have the bomb. All I can say is wow.

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:28

A friendly government? I thought you wanted to root out terrorists? Here is a hint: They *the leadership) are holed up....under the nose....of your "friendly government" and within the confines of the Pakistan national borders.

Tree
ID: 192502016
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:32

we have a friendly government with the bomb

i think you just broke the internet with that statement...

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:33

Wow, indeed. We've lost the lives of thousands of brave young Americans and we can't go after bin Laden because a "friendly government" is in the way.

How friendly are they, exactly? This is a government who stole nuclear secrets from the US. They have a military dictatorship (keep repeating to yourself if you forget: "miltary dictatorships are BAD"). They appear to be propping up the Taliban. And they have the bomb.

They are a "friendly government" how, then? This is a government which consorts with known terrorists. We went to war against Iraq on slimmer evidence.

Wow, indeed. Prop up military dictatorships because they are "helping" us.

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:38

Islamists have Pakistan's president high on their deathlist and he has clearly chosen sides against them. What else do you want?

That there are islamists in his country and that there are elements in Pak institutions and in their past who don't share his choice doesn't undo the choice that has been made at the top of that government.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:42

Enemy of my enemy is my friend, B? They don't like the Pope either. Tell you what: I'll meet you down at the Cathedral for your confession and conversion. Would you like full or partial immersion?

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:42

So, where are you guys geting your info for the exact location of Bin Laden?

You guys are warmongers, wanting to invade a country on the slim chance of catching one man.

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:45

Nope. We want to go into the sparse hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and flush out Bin Laden to bring him to justice.

Do you believe us to be in a war on terror or no? You do until the point where you have to go into territory "controlled" by a "friend" is that it?

I can certainly guarantee you that you won't catch him where we are right now.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 22:53

Perm Dude, you are probably more of a threat to national security then Bin Laden at this current time.

walk
ID: 259313119
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 23:01

Well, I don't want to go to war with non one, but our relationship with Pakistan is very bizarro. PD is right about how much more they work against us than with us, and they are a military dictatorship...and one with a ruler who barely avoided assassination last year.

On a different note, weren't 16 of the 19 terrorists involved in 9/11 from an altogether different country, Saudia Arabia? None of this sheet adds up except for oil, and Israel. In comparison to Pakistan and Saudia Arabia, Iran has a far more modern socialized society, a populace not in tune with their strict leadership, relative gender equality, an arts community, and just a couple of extremists in charge. But the fear of them having domination in the middle east, a Shiite country, now that's the kicker for the Bushies there...and for the rest of the Middle East.

- walk

R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 23:02

Fwiw, I never said I wanted to invade Pakistan. You asked: Are you saying Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran?

And the answer is yes. Friendly/Unfriendly can change overnight. What creates lasting friendships is stability and the rule of law. Pakistan arguably has very little of either. The country is being led by a man who overthrew the government, and has little backing from the common man. He could be gone tomorrow and it wouldn't shock too many people. (Somalia is a good example of how fast things can change when instability is the order of the day.)

Iran has had a 'stable' form of government for decades now. We can argue wether we like or dislike HOW they govern (and I'd likely side with you on many aspects of their policies) but it is stable. Iran is slowly reforming, and their posturing is an effort to increase their welfare and power. You don't do that by nuking Israel. Threatening them maybe, but not actually doing it. Iran (and Iranians) have far too much to lose. The extremists inside Pakistan have already stated that they feel they have nothing to lose. Who is more dangerous indeed?

Perm Dude
ID: 51230208
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 23:06

ROFL, Jag. Yes, I'm causing the deaths of hundreds of our citizen-soldiers. Relaxed emissions standards. Tortured citizens and tossed away nearly all the soft power we hold.

And I'm currently spending more than $2 billion a week in the Middle East.

Yea, I'm the threat. Because I want to get Bin Laden, and the fake excuses by the Taliban-propping Pakistani military dictatorship means nothing to me.

If respect for military dictatorships while trashing our own democratic ideals of civil liberty is the recipe for being a non-threat, then I probably am the biggest threat.

If I ever run for Congress, Jag, your post will figure prominently in my ads.

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 23:30

admittedly training 1000s of sucide bombers and is the chief backer of terrorism in Iraq

Please cite your sources.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 00:12

50,000 they claim

I thought it was common knowledge but here you go

soxzeitgeist
ID: 192382022
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 01:15

It's rare that a thread these days showcases so much ignorance -
it kind of makes me all misty and nostalgic.

The basic premise of the whole discussion is ridiculious on the
face of it - how is a comedian/pundit with a once weekly late-
night cable pay station one of the "most dangerous" people in
the US? Are we to believe that his expressions of opinion are
more dangerous than the questionable leadership demonstrated
by the current administration? Last time I checked, Maher lacked
the authority to send US troops into harms way, or the ability to
direct foreign policy. And if "90%" of what Maher is ridiculious,
jag, then what are you worried about? It's curious (but
I suppose understandable in a way) that someone who
presumably emigrated to the US from a more closed society
would be so offended by free speech. In that vein, wouldn't Ann
Coulter be just as "dangerous"?

And just as an aside, your first source in post 46 (Iran Focus) is
the public relations mouthpiece for The People's Mujahedin of
Iran, a militant political party that advocates overthrowing the
government of Iran and replacing it with its own leadership.

PMOI is designated as a terrorist organization by the United
States, Canada, European Union, and Iran.

You might want to dig a little deeper with both your sources and
into the history of Iran and US involvement there, starting with
the British/US engineered coup that deposed a freely elected
government that had the temerity to stand up to Anglo
business/oil interests.

soxzeitgeist
ID: 192382022
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 01:16

that should read ...once weekly late-
night cable pay station tv show...

Jag
ID: 14849321
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 01:24

I just threw up the first website I found on Goggle. I have seen them training on television, they have no rifles, but pretend they are holding one and wear fake bombs.

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 01:37

Your first link is a bad joke. Your second link in no way supports that Iran is the chief backer of terrorism in Iraq, because there is no way to support such a false statement. Your common knowledge is common only to uninformed, easily-led morons who get their news from agenda-based radio-opinion shows.
I suppose you think Iran and Al Qaeda are allies instead of sworn enemies?

soxzeitgeist
ID: 192382022
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 01:46

I just threw up the first website I found on Goggle. I have
seen them training on television...

And apparently this is demonstrative of how deeply you bother
to look into any issues before forming an opinion and writing a
post, so can someone please remind me why we bother
responding to you?

I know that sounds harsh, but your tendency to make
extraordinary claims requires us to ask for extraordinary
evidence, or at the very least you need to be able to make a
cogent argument.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 03:57

Unlike the Democrat House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Reyes, I know Al Queda is a Sunni based terrorist group, while Iran backs the Shiite side chiefly Hezbollah.

I shouldn't even of bothered posting those links about something reported on almost daily. It speaks loads about Sox and Pancho's lack of knowledge on Iraq.

Tree
ID: 3721214
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 06:35

I shouldn't even of bothered posting those links about something reported on almost daily. It speaks loads about Sox and Pancho's lack of knowledge on Iraq.

based on your history here - a history that includes minimal, if any, backing up of facts, the above was quite entertaining, even if the coffee i laughed out of my nose burned on the way out.

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 07:36

You are doin fine, Jag.

Like Rush, it takes a face of flint and a leather tuff ego to deflect the favorite tool of the ignorant...booing.

You'll know you have Tree's head spinning when he asks you to connect lines between your answers and the questions which elicited them. It's too hard for him to read with comprehension but he's got the booing and poop-flinging down.

On second thot it doesn't take such tuff skin to handle the derision of someone who could be replaced effectively with a chimp. You'll do fine, Jag.

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 07:42

I know Al Queda is a Sunni based terrorist group, while Iran backs the Shiite side chiefly Hezbollah.

Congratulations. professor. Except Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iraq. Iran backs the democratically elected government in Iraq, which is led by the SCIRI and DAWA parties. Rather than further embarrass yourself with nonsensical postings, take a few minutes to read this in-depth article outlining the current situation in the region. It may suprise you to learn who we consider the enemy and why.

The Redirection

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 08:27

Unlike the Democrat House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Reyes, I know Al Queda is a Sunni based terrorist group, while Iran backs the Shiite side chiefly Hezbollah.

If you got your information from places other than biased radio shows and Fox News Channel, you'd also know that much of the rest of the intelligence committe, including the House committee led by the previous Congress, didn't get marks much higher than Reyes.

Badwin
You are doin fine, Jag.

Are you really that desperate for an ally? He's absolutely clueless and hostile to boot.

Thinking again, I guess that makes him your ideal lapdog. Even better than loyal Fidos past such as Cosmo's Cod Piece and Greg the plagiarizer W. I guess your full-time return to the forum is now complete.

Perm Dude
ID: 28245217
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 09:48

#55: Exactly.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 10:12

You guys are warmongers, wanting to invade a country on the slim chance of catching one man.

If you didnt break the internet with your previous absurdity, this one should have. Tell me again, who is it here arguing for sending MORE troops into a foreign nation and who is it arguing against that? Now...who is the warmonger?

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 11:27

Wow, raising to the standard of Rush, that is quite an achievement. I am dismayed about Reyes' appointment, but many of the other feebs in our administration share the same level of ignorance about Islam, and they started the fraudulent war.

- walk

bibA
ID: 3122376
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 11:54

OK, we now know Jag feels Maher is one of the most dangerous men in America. And, that Perm Dude is more of a threat to national security then Bin Laden.

The next obvious question is: who is more dangerous? Maher or Perm?

I do feel a lot more secure now that I know Bin Laden is not much of a threat. That is, unless Maher and Perm are such extreme enemies to US security that being behind them on the threat-o-meter still makes Bin Laden a villain.

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 12:03

I guess your full-time return to the forum is now complete. - MITH

Au contraire mon amie, consider well how you treat the only conservative you will have to punch around for a while, cause it's not gonna be me.

Drive Jag off with unneccessarily ignorant behavior and then whachagonnado?

Have all the liberals join hands and sing kumbaya? Listen to the crickets?

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 12:11

This forum is severely lacking a consistant and informed conservative voice (obviously it could use several) and isn't worth much time without one. Your return goes a long way to filling that void and even though your recent posts fall far short of your previous work, I do appreciate having you around.

But Jag is a hack and a joke. He can't match depth on any topic with the least informed regular poster here. You know I'd never say such things about you or MBJ or Toral or Houpt or Madman.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 12:53

Pancho, it is you that is embarrassing himself. You are like a 3 year, who just learned how to use the toilet. You are so proud of your limited knowledge.

Maybe this link will help you learn more

Here is an old link

There were no current ones as common knowledge is not news worthy. The bottom line is Iran has been and is supporting Al-Sadr. If you want to deny it, fine, but don't be so smug in your ignorance or post an Editorial link which is about as bias as a link to Rush Limbaugh's website.

I believe some of the posters here are like the Leftist Hollywood elite. They just want to be
different. Most people with common sense see Iran as our primary threat in the Middle East, so they decide Pakistan is currently more of a danger. The majority believe capitalism is the best system for America, so they become socialists.

Sarge, we are already in Iraq, so we can't reinvade it. I was guessing you guys were joking about Pakistan, but if you were serious, then all I can say is wow, again.

Tree
ID: 29082512
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 13:50

Your return goes a long way to filling that void and even though your recent posts fall far short of your previous work, I do appreciate having you around.

But Jag is a hack and a joke. He can't match depth on any topic with the least informed regular poster here. You know I'd never say such things about you or MBJ or Toral or Houpt or Madman.

i have to agree with MITH. i don't make any bones about my dislike for you Baldwin, especially since lately nearly every attack you make is personal.

but, when you're on your game and presenting a point that isn't mixed in with some uber-crazy religion-based rant (such as the mode of insanity you went into regarding Terri Schiavo), your arguments are strong and solid, and i have no problem admitting that sometimes i don't have a good counter. the others too - i've had my disagreements, but more often than not, present rational, logical, arguments.

but Jag has been countered at every turn with indisputable evidence that disproves his point, and instead of acknowledging, he either puts his fingers in his ears and shouts louder; or he backs out of the argument so he doesn't have to agree with a christ-killing jewish liberal from new york.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 14:00

Jag
There are no socialists in this forum.

Personally, I disagree with PV's doubts regarding Iran's aid to parts of the Iraqi insurgency.

But lets remember that if not for the administration's unnecessary war in Iraq there would be no anti-occupation insurgency for us to worry about Iranian involvement in. Further, Saddam-run Iraq certainly would have railed hard against any Iranian efforts to go nuclear, if Iran would or could have even attempted as much with Hussein still running things across their border. Moreover, the Iranian populace, contrary to its leadership, is very young and for some time has been growing increasingly pro-west. It stands to reason that the seeds for considerable long-term benefits could be sown by appealing to Iran through direct talks now, as Secretary Gates has suggested.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is a nation constantly near the brink of overthrow, it's populace is largely ant-west and much more heavily Islamist than that of Iran. It's government and is a direct sworn enemy of India, an important American ally. Their so-called pro-American president has a working agreement with al Qaeda and the Taliban, which allows both to exist, move freely about and operate without harrassment within Pakistani borders. What was it Bush used to say about nations that harbor known terrorists? Why, exactly, does Pakistan get a free pass?

Both nations have become increasingly dangerous hornets' nests to us since 9/11 and from where I sit, where invasion would be another terribly counter-productive action in the war on terror. The difference is that much of the increased threat from Iran is a direct result of bad American foreign policy while much of the increased threat from Pakistan is not of our doing.

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 14:09

"Christ-killing Jewish liberal from New York."

Classic. Guess that makes two of us.
- walk

Jag
ID: 14849321
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:02

Tree, you are so full of it your eyes are brown. Your indisputable evidence is generally an op-ed piece from some liberal rag like the New York Times. The one thread where I see the liberals may have a point is about the AG firings and I admitted it looked bad for Bush, but will hold judgement till more information comes out. Besides I am not the one general wrong, liberals are wrong on just about every political issue and I have yet to see any of you move off your leftist ideologue.

MITH- I agree Pakistan could eventually be our greatest threat, but I see no purpose in increasing that chance by alienating the entire country. I am still hoping the remarks made by PD were in jest. I believe he is more intelligent than that.

This reminds me of the commercial where the guy is in a shark cage and a Great White is banging on the outside, he shoots off a spear gun and the shot scares off the shark, He goes wooohoo, but he sees the spear hit his boat and now it is sinking along with his cage. Moral of the story is threats change, lets run off the shark (Iran) without sinking the boat (Pakistan).

Perm Dude
ID: 28245217
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:06

I laid out my plans in depth elsewhere regarding Pakistan. The "Reader's Digest" version is: Tell them what we need and ask them to do it. Give them a deadline to start the process. If they miss the deadline we tell them to get the hell out of the way because we're going to look ourselves.

The worst that could happen, if Pakistan is our "friend": They cannot locate him and let us doubecheck. If they are our "friends" they certainly won't stand in the way unless they are hiding something. And if they are what other way would bring that to the forefront?

Jag
ID: 14849321
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:12

I don't know what to say, personally when I see a hornet's nest I walk around it.

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:13

PV's doubts regarding Iran's aid to parts of the Iraqi insurgency.

Uh, the statement in question was that Iran is chief backer of terrorism in Iraq, not that Iran aids parts of the Iraqi insurgency.

You would be hard-pressed to find any reputable journalist, politician, military official, or even member of the administration who thinks the combination of Sunni and secular Baathists aand Sunni foreign jihadists are not the chief perpetrators of terrorism in Iraq. Their backers, as documented in this forum, originate from the schools of salafi and wahabi Sunni Islam, which are prevalent in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Iran's influence and support of the Badr and Mahdi militias within the Iraqi Shiite community is well documented. Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani is himself an Iranian, Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim, leader of SCIRI and the Badr Brigade(trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard), spent his exile years in Iran, while Al-Sadr is considered by many to be more of an Iraqi nationalist than Iranian pawn.
The bottom line is that the Iranian allies in Iraq are a major part of the legitimate, democratically elected Iraqi government, much to the consternation of the Bush administration.

But that wasn't the claim.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:17

I agree Pakistan could eventually be our greatest threat, but I see no purpose in increasing that chance by alienating the entire country.

Tit for tat over who is the "greatest threat" is pointless. I think any attempt at regime change in either country will do far more harm than good. We have too much on our plate as it is and diverting any further attention from Iraq or Afghanistan will just make it all worse.

The war on terrorism that I signed on for was about hunting down and capturing and/or killing terrorists who threaten us, wherever they are. Not about invading countries with no operational ties to terrorists that threaten us, thereby creating a terorism problem where we did not have one before, which hinders our efforts to hunt down and capture and/or kill terrorists who have been threatening us since all this started.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:35

I can't believe I have to say this, it is like explaining jokes to a group of blondes, my comment about PD being a greater threat then Bin-Laden was just a way of stating that Bin-Laden has been rendered impotent.

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:42

ROFL

Been there, done that!!!

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:42

....just a way of stating that Bin-Laden has been rendered impotent.

A belief which clearly YOU, in the realm of "most dangerous" to America.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:43

PV

Thanks for clearing up.

Tree
ID: 29082512
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 15:45

Bin-Laden has been rendered impotent

you seriously believe that? as an idealogue, he is a powerful and dangerous man - stop fooling yourself to try and prove a foolish point.

Perm Dude
ID: 28245217
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 16:10

Bush: "Make no mistake. The United States will hunt down and pursue those responsible for these cowardly actions"

Make no mistake here...

US President Geoge W. Bush said in an interview said he would not hesitate to track down and kill Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and other terror operatives even if it meant hunting them down on Pakistani soil.

"We would take the action necessary to bring them to justice," said Bush in an interview with CNN television.

Really?

CIA Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden

Instead, we're using Sioux trackers to track terrorists crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan, since our "friends" seem to have some "border problems"

Since most of that border is unmanned, perhaps, if caught, we can just pretend we're Swiss.

But its "not all that important" apparently.

So let's see where this leaves us:

-On 9/11/01, Terrorists attack the US unilaterally, killing thousands of Americans
-In response, Bush developes the Bush Doctrine, which says, in the end, that we're not going to get kicked around anymore and we're taking the fight to them.
-Bush vows to take Osama "dead or alive" and places a $25 million bounty on his head. Payable in unused Susan B. Anthony dollars, I hear.
-In March 2003 Bush invades Iraq, in part to end what he terms Hussein's support for terror and just-around-the-corner biological, chemical, and nuclear warmaking capability.
-thousands of deaths later, the US public grows tired of the Iraqi War and overwhelming votes Democratic in November 2006.
-The Bush Administration slowly steps back from the hardcore rhetoric about Bin Laden (remember--the cause of all this), but refuses to leave Iraq.

That's where we are now. Dismissing Bin Laden as "unimportant" which letting Al Qeada build up training camps and recruits in Afghanistan, while our attention is in Iraq that we invaded for reasons that have been shown to be vacuous.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 16:25

Sounds about right, except I am pretty sure we are attacking Al-Queda training camps and my reasons for going to Iraq are not vacuous, because Rumsfled mishandled it.

walk
ID: 259313119
Wed, Mar 21, 2007, 18:44

Rumsfeld was the man responsible for poor exececution, but Cheney & Bush were responsible for the idea and the marketing, which was based on lies and very poor consideration of consequences. It will go down as the biggest U.S. foreign policy blunder of the past xx(x) years (fill in the blank)...maybe of all time. It could even result in WWIII if they play their cards right. A$$holes they are.

- walk

J-Bar
ID: 25911418
Thu, Mar 22, 2007, 01:24

let me see if i have the facts

1. fraudulent war

2. tell Pakistan to help or what we will ask again
and again, and again, and again, and again,
ect...

3. Saddam was innocent of all charges, never not ever supported, befriended, or even considered terrorism as a tactic to be used against anyone and would not have caused the world or the middle east any problems when he was finally allowed to
have full access to his country's resources and the freedom to continue his own aspirations of what he felt the region should be like.

4. The Americans are the bad guys for invading a poor defenseless neutral country like Iraq for no reason.
5. The only Iraqi opinions, of our presence there, that matters are those of the insurgents.

6. It is ok to invade Pakistan, Iran, N.Korea or any other place until we do and then it would be fraudulent and rejected for the falseness that it it really is.

7. Haliburton and the likes have done nothing but steal the money, the Iraqis do not have more schools, hospitals, sewage plants, fresh water, and electricity than prior to Jan 2003.

8. the U.N. is capable of dealing honestly and efficiently with all of the world's issues and it would be in our best interest to always follow their guidance blindly and trustingly.

9. Oil is not important to the world's economy and it is not in America's interest (only Bush's and Cheney's) to take an active role in trying to ensure that the flow is not interrupted.

10. Lying to a grand jury is a crime. (Depending on political affiliation)

I appreciate the effort that all you have made and I believe that I am clear on the facts as you have presented them. Thanks

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Mar 22, 2007, 08:26

No spin zone!

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Mar 22, 2007, 08:29

J-Bar who are you talking to?

While it might be expedient for you to act as if everyone on the left here is of a single perspective, that isn't the case.

In my opinion:

1. Yes

2. I don't understand your point.

3. No. Saddam-led Iraq was a known state sponsor of terrorism in 2002, just like Iran, Lybia, North Korea, Syria and Sudan. But a competantly run war on terror targets nations that pose the greatest threat to us. Unlike al Qaeda, Iraq was not a significant threat to us at the time, certainly no more significant than most other countries on that list and by the explicit account of the White House, State Department and Department of Justice, was not in any was an imminant threat (despit all of their implicit public suggestions to the contrary).

4. Who says this?

5. Who says this?

6. Question the actual opinions espoused but don't invent wild exagerations to accuse others of. I might as well call you a bloodthirsty muslimkiller bent on genocide. If thats the level of debate you want here you need to grow up.

7. Well, the record is pretty poor.
You are aware that less than 1 year after the invasion the US Army found that Haliburton had already overcharged them for food and fuel by well over $100million?
That Haliburton had been found to be serving our troops spoiled food and contaminated water?
That Haliburton is being investigated for defrauding the US Army?
That Haliburton has been exposed as using it's offshore subsidiary in The Caymans to circumvent US law and deal directly with Iran?
Have you ever seen the list of the United States Governments' list of audits against haliburton?

Are you really sure that you want to back a corporation that shows so little loyalty or respect for the US military and US government, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars we have dubiously handed them in guaranteed contracts? Just because it is politically expedient for you? Do you really care more about preserving talking points for the political right than what is right for the country? If a Dem president handed the Iraq deal to Haliburton with no bidding process your side would have been in attck mode over a record like this since the beginning. Why don't you grow a pair?

Further: Haliburton is being investigated for bribing the Nigerian Government.

The record on electricity, schools and sewage treatment is difficult to pin down. Whether there is progress really depends on where you get your information and exactly when the reports come out. Elements of the insurgency have sought to slow and destroy progress made in those areas so what might look like a step forward one day is sometimes a step back the next. Haliburton sub-contractors there don't have it easy but don't ever attempt a claim that they are working efficiently or with American or Iraqi interests as their priorities. I've said all along that the progress would have been much faster and cheaper and eliminated motive for many to join or assist the insurgency to boot if we had put far greater numbers of Iraqis to work at rebuilding their country from the beginning.

How many Iraqi men angrily joined or reluctantly assisted the insurgency out of the frustration of not being able to feed their families while they watched foreigners employed by American contractors doing the work for 10X or 20X (or whatever it is) the salary they'd be thrilled to accept for the same work?

8. I cartainly haven't been afraid of reporting UN transgressions as they have come about.

9. More nonsense. Who says this?

10. Still more. Who has defended lies made to a grand jury as not criminal?

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Mar 22, 2007, 08:40

Nic one MITH. You are a patient and thorough poster!

- walk

Tree
ID: 29082512
Thu, Mar 22, 2007, 09:03

amen to that sentiment. i was going to respond earlier this morning, but i was like "nahhh, i betcha anything MITH comes through with much better post than i could make..."

and sure enough...

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Mar 22, 2007, 11:27

Yeah I can smack softballs off a tee all day long.

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 13:55

So, I guess Mr. Penn would also be "dangerous." Well, I like what he has to say:

Sean Penn's Letter to Bush

- walk

boikin
ID: 412352612
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 15:03

9. More nonsense. Who says this? i can think of several times it has been implied that the war was started because Bush and Chenay where in bed with the Oil companies and that is why they wanted to invade Iraq. Right or Wrong that is the implication.

So, I guess Mr. Penn would also be "dangerous." Well, I like what he has to say: well i guess he could be then again i guess when you are too busy not helping and sinking in small boats how dangerous could you really be.

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 15:36

???

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 16:51

i can think of several times it has been implied that the war was started because Bush and Chenay where in bed with the Oil companies and that is why they wanted to invade Iraq.

Thats not what J-Bar accused. He implicates liberals as indifferent to the importance of oil to the world's economy and attributes to them the opinion that "it is not in America's interest (only Bush's and Cheney's) to take an active role in trying to ensure that the flow is not interrupted."

If anyone is citing oil as a specific reason for the Iraq War - it's him.

And regardless, who cares what you can remember being implied "several times"? Why should all liberals have to answer for the opinions of some? Jag is a blithering idiot who rarely knows the first thing about topics he argues, remains defiant in the face of facts that refute him and prances around like he has everyone on the ropes all the time.

Should you have to answer for his ignorance all the time because you happen to agree with him on a few topics of discussion?

In political discussion and debate, its always easy to tell what someone really cares more about: seeing things made better or seeing their political opponents made to suffer. You just have to listen to their rhetoric. Whenever someone is bigotted enough to implicate an entire side of the political spectrum (i.e.: "the right" or "the left" or "liberals") as collectively wrong or malicious or disingenuous or whatever, you know exactly where they are coming from.

Sure you might take issue with particular subsets, questioning the priorities liberals who are soft on crime or certain elements of the religious right. But these subgroups rarely define half the country. So why lower the debate by demonizing everyone with broad attacks?

And why is that this intolerance so much more prominant on the right here at Rotoguru? Jag, Boxman and Baldwin all freely and broadly villify "liberals" and "the left" and "Democrats" for appeasing America's enemies and undermining our values and strengths. As far as they and people like them are concerned, the political left is disloyal and even treasonous and therefore an enemy first and only possibly after that a collection of individual countrymen who happen to disagree on some semi-fundamental political issues. Even Tree, perhaps the most volitile of leftist posters here, does not share in Baldwin's and Boxman's and Jag's open and broad disdain for the collective opposition.

So what's the reason? If I were apply their logic, I might just surmise that being a rightist simply makes you an assh01e. But I know better than that.

Anyone?

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 17:14

And no more than 5 minutes later do I see a post from Baldwin in the "Moderate & Conservative Thread" in which he posts a youtube video of Evan Sayet at the Heritage Foundation explaining how he was a liberal until after 9/11 when he realized that liberals really do hate America.

I'm quite certain that I don't hate America. But Sayet and Baldwin want you to think I do - or at least that I'm too stupid to know that ideolgies I subscribe to are designed to serve those who hate America. I don't consider Sayet and Baldwin my enemies and I don't automatically lump them in with what I perceive to be the worst of the political right. I wish they'd afford me the same courtesy.

Tree
ID: 29082512
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 17:45

a blithering idiot who...prances around like he has everyone on the ropes all the time.

good lord, that image has me in hysterics. it's like an old Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck cartoon.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 18:05

Did you watch all the video?

walk
ID: 259313119
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 19:06

I think it's 47 minutes. I started nodding. I know that Coulter says that liberals are treasonous and hate America, and the republicans had her as a speaker at their conference. Nice. I think there are more intelligent arguments for and against "liberalism." I don't hate America. I like America! But, I do very much dislike Bush and Cheney and their minions who IMO are undermining America for whatever reasons (incompetence, big biz, religion, a combo of many of these?). I think it's feasible to think differently and not hate your country.

- walk

Jag
ID: 14849321
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 19:20

If you finish watching the video, he explains Liberals don't hate America, just the American way of life.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 19:34

Depending on exactly what he means, thats really only a little less slanderous.

No, I didn't watch it all. I can guarantee I gave it much more of my time than you'd consider allotting to similar anti-right hate speech.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 20:09

It is not hate speech. It is an in-depth analysis of the Liberal mindset.

Perm Dude
ID: 21230268
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 20:19

In-depth? You can't seriously believe that?

Actually, nevermind. It is pretty obvious you do. And that you consider words to be pretty much useless things. If words don't matter, please just go somewhere else where tossing around words like "treason" and "truth" have so little meaning.

Jag
ID: 14849321
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 20:22

He never once mentions treason and he defines the Liberal meaning of truth.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 20:31

Likening "liberals" to a man who watches his wife being beaten is hate speech.

100

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 20:39

That is unusually 'head-in-sand' for you MITH.

You will have a harder time reaching truth than I thot.

101

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 20:44

Spare me. I wasn't violating any broad American liberal ideologies as I fully supported America's military response to 9/11 in Afghanistan.

102

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 20:46

That video may be uncomfortable to you but that is the path you must follow to self-knowlege.

103

walk
ID: 259313119
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 20:58

What? "Like watching your wife beaten? Hate the American way of life?" Fcuk that sheet. That's just inflammatory rhetoric to make the other side appear bad, and well, maybe if they're really not thaaaaaaaat bad, they are close. Stupid school yard tactics (but the path to self-knowledge).

The only thing I hate about conservatives or folks like that or anyone like that no matter what their affiliation is their hate. Must be an anti-American thing.

- walk

104

Jag
ID: 14849321
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 21:10

By far the greatest amount of hatred on this forum is the Liberals hate towards Bush and Cheney.

105

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 21:27

You guys are remarkably resistant to thot. You are the ones stewing in emotion. Try actually dealing with the logical points of his thesis and you will recognize yourself in the mirror for once.

107

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 21:33

Uncomfortable? Its a train wreck.

The man tells us in one sentence that half of Americans hate America and want America to fail and then says in the next that America is the least bigotted nation in human history!

He explains the philosophy (modern liberalism, he calls it) that dominates the Democratic Party - these are his assessments of the American political left - these are his assessments of me:

Dems are not wrong on just about every issue, but in fact every single issue? And not just wrong but as wrong as wrong can be? And deliberately so?

Modern liberals will "invariably side with evil over good and wrong over right and failure over success"?

"Give modern liberals a choice between Saddam Hussein to the United States and they will not only side with Saddam he will slam America and Americans in order to do so"?

"Give him a choice between a viscious mass murder and corrupt terrorist dictator Yassir Arafat and the sane wonderful democracy of Israel, he will plagiarize maps, forge documents and pledge blood libels as did Carter to side with the terrorist organization and side with a tiny state"?

This is what you think of me? Because I've done my share of soul searching and research. And I have no problem reconciling the ideals I subscribe to with what I think is right. And I don't find myself having to answer any of those questions. Even most of the liberals here don't think so harshly of Bush and Cheney. Even the harshest of them cite greed an dpower hunger, not simple evil and diametric opposition to what is good for America - for its own purpose.

I'm sure, Baldwin that you are well aware that philosophically, we're historically one of the most liberal nations in history, surpassed only by other nations that have since come, largely using America as its model. Our very founding was radical liberalism, tempered by conservativly planned structure in attempt to assure success. That balance was and still is, I believe, a major key to our success. But far too few recognize or respect the need for that balance today.

I have no patience for those who seek to undermine it through the disingenuous vilification of the opposition through hateful propaganda. The "modern liberal" that Sayet and you put on display does not speak for me or any significant majority of those who think like me.

You may think you know for absolute fact that I simply don't see the whole truth yet. You should also know that in doing so you abandon the most basic principle of fundamental conservatism: the acknowledgement of uncertainty. Take a look at your own zeitgeist, Baldwin. As long as you live you can never be sure that it wasn't you who abandoned your path to self-knowledge.

108

Jag
ID: 14849321
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 22:11

Wow, I didn't know MITH good write so purdy.

109

walk
ID: 259313119
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 22:16

Jag #014, cos we love America and they are ruining it. It's not cos they're conservative though. It's cos they're very unwise and incompetent. I would not describe my feelings as hate, but more like frustration that such bad, selfish, incompetent leaders remain in power. Any other organization and they'd have been fired long ago.

- walk

110

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 22:31

the most basic principle of fundamental conservatism: the acknowledgement of uncertainty - MITH

Do tell...where did you ever get that idea? The project to make man doubt everything isn't conservative in my book.

111

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 22:46

And yes, MITH, the postmodern, PC, 'sixties style' liberal [as opposed to the classical liberalism you are conflating it with] is fundamentally wrong about everything. To the extent you haven't asked yourself 'why you deserved 9/11' congratulations. You have escaped from liberalism in that instance. To the extent you recognize that there is such a thing as good and evil, congratulations. You have escaped from liberalism in that instance. To the extent you believe Americans are on the whole a good-hearted people who agreed with MLK's interpretation of the constitution and are not biggotted, congratulations. You have escaped from liberalism in that istance. To the extent that you judge programs based on their results and not their motives, congratulations. You have escaped liberalism in that instance.

Keep up the good work. You've got a long way to go however. Don't tell me liberalism is a true and good thing and then point to where you have escaped from it to prove that point.

112

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 22:52

And I am sick and tired of this dodge where you claim hatred is involved so you don't have to think about the logic of his piece. We are just mystified how so many apparently well intentioned people have been led to abandon logic, good judgement and common sense. It has nothing to do with hatred.

113

Perm Dude
ID: 21230268
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 22:52

Of course is isn't in your book. Your book is the Bible. No uncertainty there.

But in political terms, the conservative is defined by what he knows he doesn't know. This is why true conservatives value freedom, because they know that truth isn't coerced--that truth is obtained best by people being free to choose it.

Unfortunately, your fundamentalism and conservativism isn't always the best fit.

114

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 22:56

Show me where uncertainty is a cherished conservative principle. Quote Reagan getting misty eyed about moral waffling. Quote Buckley on the wonderous benefits of doubt. I am really looking forward to this revelation.

115

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 23:13

Conservatism is suspicious of everything and takes nothing for granted. It looks to history as our best (but still imperfect) indicator of what possible futures our options could bring and more often prefers the devil it knows to the devil it doesn't.

It prefers proven methods, even if flawed, over unforseen risks that result from change. Conservatism recognizes and respects human fallibility. Its at the basis of every fundamental conservative principle.

116

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 23:14

Conservatism recognizes and accepts and human fallibility.

117

Perm Dude
ID: 21230268
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 23:16

Baldwin, those men did, in fact, write about the dangers of fundamentalism. Doubt is not waffling. Doubt is a certainty that you don't know everything.

I realize this is a foreign concept to you, so perhaps you can just take it on faith that some of your conservative heroes were all over this.

118

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 23:19

That's it? Because we doubt the 'inevitable march of progress' liberals believe in, the 'perfectability' liberals believe in, you think that shows a doubting nature? Why not call it a certainty of the imperfect fallen nature of mankind?

119

Perm Dude
ID: 21230268
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 23:21

Because many conservatives don't believe we're "fallen."

120

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 23:22

PD

Since when did the poliboard let someone get away with 'just take it on faith'?

121

Perm Dude
ID: 21230268
Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 23:31

And yet you appear to have done just that.

But you want me to post tiresome threads, outlining famous conservatives who valued doubt and rejected fundamentalism, in order to prove to you what your stated political philisophy says?

122

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 05:16

I see, liberals don't have to prove anything but conservative should feel obligated to follow every request for a wild goose chase.

As noted, liberals never play fair.

123

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 05:46

You are the one pretending to know conservatism. Yet you ask me to take on faith that something I find anathema, is somehow a central tenet of conservatism. Now granted, I am not truly a political conservative, actually a theocrat, but I do think I know conservatism better than you.

And granted many notable conservatives are/were freemasons and held some views I would also find anathema but still...if conservatism were about doubting long held truths I think I'd know about it.

When you hear the phrase 'we hold these truths self-evident' just how does that morph into 'we doubt everything' in your mind?

124

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 06:26

The only thing I hate about conservatives or folks like that or anyone like that no matter what their affiliation is their hate. Must be an anti-American thing.

I found this hilarious. For years that is all I have heard from the Left is hate speech.

You have to subscribe for this one

Another from same author

The latest one

This is Walk's link on Sean Penn

I could go on forever with just NYTs hate speech.

How about Rosie comparing the British hostages to the Gulf of Tonkin.

Any post by Sarge or Tree.

You guys are really blind to the hate rhetoric coming from the Left.

125

Tree
ID: 41227274
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 06:51

Any post by Sarge or Tree.

right. whatever you say Jag. ::eye roll::

in the eight months since you started making threads, you've started 19 of them.

the names of some of them:
Bill Maher, 1 of the Most Dangerous Men in America
Moderate & Conservative Thread- Baldy, Box , etc
Why the Left Scares Me - Part 2 Education
The Democrat Lack of Intelligence Committee
Why The Left Scares Me- Crime part 1
Stupid Liberal Ideas Part I
Dem leaders, Traitorous or Idiots?
The Howard Dean Moronic Statement Thread

other threads included opening salvos such as:
You would think Valerie Plame was a female James Bond, instead of the anti-Bush secretary with a gloryhound husband, by listening to him. Like most liberals he surrounds himself with like minded Leftwingers, so not to forgo the scrutiny of his wacko beliefs. But inspite of incrediably unrealistic agenda, he is mildly entertaining and like the Jedi Mindtrick, his words can have an affect on the more feeble minded.

or

There are 100s of threads full of Leftist crap. The Liberal elite on this forum are obviously here for their own egos.

or

I still believe on Education, Terrorism and the Economy, the Far-Left are dangerously misguided, but a little more balance is needed from these self-rightgeous Republicans.

or

It is cheaper to operate on a Frenchman, they have no guts, no balls nor any backbone, also their head and arse are interchangable.

or

Even Democrats wouldn't put up with this.

or

We can only speculate what damage Hussein would of impose on the U.S. and other countries, because he is no longer in power, but if the liberals think he would of sat on his hands and not tried any kind of retailitory strike, and I don't mean by conventional weapons, WMD and terrorism would be his only viable options, then they are delusional.

and, finally, this doozy

After reading Zen's and Tree's comments, I am starting to believe, that strapping on a bomb and blowing someone up may not be such a bad idea. I would like to get a few facts straight first. Is it 40 or 72 virgins, will these be hot virgins or narly behemoth fat chicks and if one gave a BJ while alive is she still a virgin? Also, will I have a penis in their afterlife? I mean if I am a ghost and all I have is a gaseous rod where my Mr. Happy used to be and I have 72 naked horney virgins, that I can't boink, it would be more like Hell.

and those are just clips from the first parapraphs of some of the threads you started.

your posts are among the most baiting and inflamatory in all the time i've been part of this forum (speaking of baiting, wouldn't this be the time that Baldwin comes in with some sort of cutesy put-down?), and with the exception of Baldwin, desperate for someone to hang his hat with; and boxman, desperate for...something; you've been abandoned by most of the other conservatives on this forum - heck, in one thread, MBJ likened responding to your thesis like pulling wings off a fly.

i don't deny hating GW Bush and his cronies. they have absolutely destroyed a country i love - from sending over 3000 men and women to their deaths in an Iraqi desert to breaking laws to trampling on the U.S. Constitution (arguably the most sacred document of all governments, and what we claim to want other nations to follow, despite having a president who ignores it) - The United States of the last several years is not the one i spent most of my life living within. it is a very different nation, where idiots like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter get paid big bucks for hate, and in the process encourage little baby lions like yourself, hairless, clawless, and witless, to puff out their chests in a complete, total, and emasculated false bravado.

your track record here is one of overt hate speech - towards libs, toward Dems, towards Valerie Plame, towards Bill Maher (even if you don't understand his politics), toward the French, toward Muslims, and countless others.

you might be a perfectly nice guy in real life, but more likely, you live in your parent's basement, praying desperately to be the next Jeff Gannon unleashed on the world, a bulldog that is all bark, with no bite.

126

Jag
ID: 14849321
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 07:06

After reading Zen's and Tree's comments, I am starting to believe, that strapping on a bomb and blowing someone up may not be such a bad idea. I would like to get a few facts straight first. Is it 40 or 72 virgins, will these be hot virgins or narly behemoth fat chicks and if one gave a BJ while alive is she still a virgin? Also, will I have a penis in their afterlife? I mean if I am a ghost and all I have is a gaseous rod where my Mr. Happy used to be and I have 72 naked horney virgins, that I can't boink, it would be more like Hell.

LOL,I forgot that one!

I was not the one that brought up hate speech and no way will I take the time to bring up all yours.

127

Tree
ID: 41227274
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 07:31

I was not the one that brought up hate speech and no way will I take the time to bring up all yours...

...because you don't take the time to bring up evidence on anything you claim to believe. you couldn't be bothered because either you're lazy, or there is no concrete proof of anything you claim.

as i said, i make no bones about my hatred of Bush, and my distaste for the current crop of Conservatives such as yourself that are all bark and no bite.

128

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 07:50

The hate speech that I'm referring to is that which implicates an entire side of our political dichotomy with malice or stupidity or whatever, i.e.: "liberals hate America" or "the right is motivated by nothing but greed".

And of course I never said that it is a specifically left or right phenomenon. Only that this kind of hate is for some reason far more pronminant on the right here at this form. I've asked for any ideas for why that is so. My best guess is that we are just lucky.

129

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 11:12

There isn't an iota of hate motivating the speaker in that video. That you can't see that should tell you how desperately you are blocking the obvious truth he is telling.

130

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 11:22

131

Perm Dude
ID: 32241278
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 11:25

On the other hand, I have no doubt that Baldwin believes Al Franken and Michael Moore to be hate spewers. He's pulling a Coulter, MITH. No need to beat your heat against the wall anymore.

132

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 11:50

Right MITH #128, exactly, and then the wise Pocono man, PD in #131. Jag, even Sean Penn's letter -- what you read is hate, what I read is outrage and frustration. I am appalled by our WH leaders, but don't hate conservatives and sure hope that the conservatives here don't hate me cos I am liberal. The stereotypes spewn about by the coulter's of the world -- that breeds hatred. Real hatred.

If you want me or any other person to respect Cheney and Bush, well like any other person, they have to earn it. I hate their behaviors, their tactics, and their lack of accountabilities. I dunno what these guys are like to have dinner with, so I don't hate them as individuals. I hate their views, decisions, insular ways of thinking, and arrogance. The only individuals I truly hate, are the one's that truly spew hatred towards groups of others. I mean, I hate coulter, but I also think she might just be a big, thin put-on, an act, and she might not be like her public persona, but I hate her tactics cos others believe them and they hate others cos of her trash talk.

At the end of the day, what you perceive as hatred is different than me, and him and her, but in a righteous way, I think it's the worst of the worst, as MITH says, to hate groups of people. To lump people into categories, and brand them as inferior. That is bigotry, prejudice and in some cases, hatred -- the worst kind. And it can lead to really bad things when left unchecked and then festered.

Sean Penn aint gonna go out and hurt someone, and he would be very upset, I think, if his rants incited violence. However, what I see in terms of hatred towards muslims spewn by that congressman from Virginia (Goode?). Now that's fear, ignorance, and hatred, and that could lead to violence. That's bad stuff.

- walk

133

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 12:01

That's funny, "Sean Penn aint gonna go out and hurt someone." Well, I think you know what I mean. Just don't get in his face (I actually did once, in SF, to say: "you're a fcukin great actor," and left unscathed, and was given a nice nod).

- walk

134

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 13:19

I think this rant by Steven Weber is somewhat indicative of liberal angst, not hate, but it's also funny (but that's subjective):

Weber's Rant, with wine

135

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 21:07

There's no other way to describe someone who so broadly and thoroughly vilifies a hundred million people as to say that they knowingly and deliberately choose evil for the purpose of doing and seeing done harm to their own country and their own countrymen - MITH

The hate speech that I'm referring to is that which implicates an entire side of our political dichotomy with malice or stupidity - MITH

To lump people into categories, and brand them as inferior. That is bigotry, prejudice and in some cases, hatred -- the worst kind. - Walk

Sorry Walk, but there are general trends of thot on the 'left' and it's not hatred or dangerous to recognize the truth in that. Interesting dodge to claim that everyone on the left has to be taken on a case by case, person by person basis when we examine the left. You could hide a world of iniquity behind that curtain if you could get away with it.

Sorry MITH and WALK, but yes, something like 40% -50% of Americans can identify with the lyrics 'I've done all that I could, to see the evil in the good'.

The problem with that reflexive position is when you actually apply it. When 9/11 happens they wonder what evil in America might have been responsible.

They can watch them saw off Daniel Berg's head just for being Jewish and then say in the next breath, 'well you know one man's terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter.

When Abu Ghrab is discovered they are more upset by that than the institutionalized rape rooms of Saddam. They forget that Saddam imprisoned people in coffins and dropped people into shredders and laid them down on roadways and blacktopped over them and committed genocide against hundreds of thousands and all the left can see is moral equivalence. The reason there is no proportional reaction to those two sets of facts cannot be chalked up to anything other than stupidity [not being able to see the big picture beyond the immediate media spin] and America hating and cynical power-greedy political opportunism on their part.

There isn't any other way to describe that reflex but stupidity, moral stupidity and America hating.

You go figure out why they do it. It is one of the great unexplained mysteries of our age.

136

walk
ID: 259313119
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 21:09

Who is "they." I am they, and I don't say that stuff. Do you say the same sh1t that ann coulter says? No. So, what up with the gross (more ways than one) generalizations?

- walk

137

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 21:14

You tell me.

Do you identify with those Jackson Browne lyrics or not?

138

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 21:16

Wanna bet I can search back thru your posts and find you doin the 'moral equivalence shuffle'?

139

walk
ID: 259313119
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 21:26

Unless I misunderstand, which is a distinct possibility, I don't agree with your premise that our actions in Iraq are to be weighed against Saddam's actions against his people. We did not invade Iraq to stop his immorality. We did not think through the consequences of our military strategy and tactical decisions. We being our administration, not America. I don't agree that my dislike of our current administration = my dislike of my country. I hold my administration up to a higher standard than Saddam, too, when it comes to our policies around torture, rendition, wiretapping, etc. It certainly was a good thing to remove Saddam; we just did not do it correctly. We replaced evil with chaos.

- walk

140

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 22:08

I don't know what those lyrics mean so I can't speak on whether I identify with them. To my knowledge, Jackson Browne doesn't speak for me.

Interesting dodge to claim that everyone on the left has to be taken on a case by case, person by person basis when we examine the left.

Dodge? I respect that your perspectives point your opinions in a different direction and accept that I can disagree with you while acknowledging that your assessments have merit, that you have arrived at them after careful consideration and reflection.

Except for when it comes to your assessments of people who do not subscribe to your paradigm.

You either think I'm evil or you don't. I subscribe to liberal ideals and just like you -and as I've stated - I've done my research and committed to reflection and I have no problem reconciling those ideals with what I think is right.

As far as you're concerned, that makes me either stupid or evil.

You do not respect me.

What you do extend the logic of each leftist perspective until it reaches a twisted end, and then insist that this arrival point was oviously the leftist objective from the very start.

When the the same ploy is applied to rightist ideals, you acknowledge that we must be careful not to take principles beyond their limits or contort them outside of their intent, but assure us that the goals are only benign.

This bigotted and yes hateful discrepency you maintain.
.......................................

When 9/11 happens they wonder what evil in America might have been responsible.

Some do. Just as there are rightists who do the same.

But neither is it's side's consensus or majority. But you create the illusion by exploiting the leftist tendency to look at the hate that committed 9/11 and ponder why. Asking what motivates terrorism, even objectively considering the possibility that such an attack was a response to a terrible transgression of our own is not the same as blaming ourselves.

I can understand your contempt for those who come to the conclusion that the attacks were deserved. But this is not a prominant opinion. So in order to sufficiently villify, you keep a standard far less strict. In your eyes, it is not just treasonous to come the conclusion - but to ask the question, to self-reflect, in the first place!

When Abu Ghrab is discovered they are more upset by that than the institutionalized rape rooms of Saddam.

We knew about Saddam's rape. We expected to find those horrors. Expectation precludes shock.

Did you expect Abu Ghraib to happen?

They forget that Saddam imprisoned people in coffins and dropped people into shredders and laid them down on roadways and blacktopped over them and committed genocide against hundreds of thousands and all the left can see is moral equivalence.

In the broad terms in which you are speaking, you are simply wrong. We've had these discussions before and you can't back that up. As Walk says, no sane person weighs American transgressions in Iraq against Saddam's reign of terror.

But you'll provide a Huffington Post entry or a political speech or a paragraph from a regarded comlumnist or a even an argument from a broadly supported party leader twisted and extended beyond its intended limits and call it the liberal agenda and the Jags and others who prefer hate will hop on board without even bothering to consider the matter.

141

walk
ID: 259313119
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 22:45

Thanks MITH. I agree and need not repeat it. Well said.

- walk

142

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 23:39

Every now and then, a post is made that is genuinely reflective of sincere thought and a thorough grasp of the topic at hand. MITH #140...is shining example of one such post.

143

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 23:58

I love the way when you try and pin them down, they are not now nor have they ever been a liberal.

144

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Thu, Mar 29, 2007, 08:22

I was curious about the phrase moral equivalence, but Ann Coulter cleared it up for me today on TownHall.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid draws interest on the sale of a property he sold in a complicated land swindle -- but American hero Randy "Duke" Cunningham rots in prison.

145

nerveclinic
ID: 52254298
Thu, Mar 29, 2007, 11:01

I've been downloading podcasts of Maher's show from Itunes store. It's free and you get the whole hour...sound only.

I think the guys funny, edgy, and pretty sharp most of the time. He definitely comes with Biases but it's an intelligent show and a fresh perspective on politics that you can't get from the mainstream news.

I've really enjoyed the podcasts, if you can't watch the show...grab the podcast for free.

I've been listening even more since Jag criticized him. I knew if Jag didn't like him, then he must be really good.

146

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Mar 29, 2007, 12:05

I have rarely missed a show since its inception. I laugh hard at Maher, and like his views.

Baldwin, I consider myself a liberal, but I think it means one thing to me and something else to you. I define it based on pretty lowest common denominator media level definitions. I care less about what label I affix myself to though, and whether the elected officials in my country have similar values, beliefs and policies as I'd like to see. So, maybe I am not liberal, maybe I am... I just don't care if my beliefs are consistent with someone else's definition. What's more important is whether my president wants to start WWIII for some whacky reasons...which is not consistent with my "liberal" views.

- walk

147

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Mar 29, 2007, 12:45

Maher: Arranged marriages = terrorism

148

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Mar 29, 2007, 12:48

Saw that 60 Minutes piece the other night.The guy seemed genuine enough. I find it interesting, that hte Clerics espousing this severe, strict, literal translation of the Koran...would seperate the traditional arranged marriages from modern day practice and use that as a recruiting tool. (I'm not surprised they do it, I'm surprised the fools they recruit cant see through it.)

149

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Thu, Mar 29, 2007, 20:59

For years that is all I have heard from the Left is hate speech

Speaking of hate speech

150

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 00:19

Yikes.

151

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 10:31

We liberals must've been the underlying cause for that kinda reactionary behavior from those non-liberals.

- walk

152

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 10:50

Its that "self loathing" thing I think.

153

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 12:33

Walk

Classic response...just joking on your part but still funny. 8]

I am assuming you guys all disavow the liberals on the internet cheering the news of Tony Snow's cancer returning with a vengence.

154

Perm Dude
ID: 16250308
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 12:52

Absolutely. In fact, for the same reasons we disavow people like Coulter.

155

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 12:55

I haven't seen it, but thats terrible if true.

Also unfortunate is the exploitation of Elizabeth Edwards' condition for a reason to attack her husband.

And what Obama has had to endure so far is kind of unreal.

156

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 12:59

Not sure Obama is getting treated so shabbily. Last I heard the Hillary camp is exasperated that he is being given a free pass.

157

Perm Dude
ID: 16250308
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:01

That's certainly true about the Clinton camp--they turned into real whiners. Of course, this doesn't mean that it is OK for Right wingnuts to openly question why Obama is "hiding his white grandmother." Or that he went to a terrorist school. Or that he's not really Christian. Or....

158

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:07

How do you know it wasn't the Hillary camp pumping all those memes into 'The Communication Stream'?

159

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:18

Alec Baldwin...loathing himself

160

Perm Dude
ID: 16250308
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:20

Yeah, B. The Right Wing needs Hilary to tell them to say bad things about a Democrat. Uh huh.

161

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:27

Baldwin #153. The only liberal blog I saw (but I did not go out of my way to search) about Snow's cancer was a nice article on The Huffington Post saying to the effect: "I disagree with his views, tactics and lies, but I feel very badly for him and his family." It was sincere and a nice thing to publish. Relatedly, I am dismayed about the media coverage and scrutiny about Edwards' personal life (wife's cancer, their decision and previous child's death). There are more substantive issues to be discussed!

- walk

162

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:34

Yeah, I dunno who started the anti-Obama stories, but I'd bet on folks other than Hillary and co. The scrutiny on candidate's personal lives, and heritage is just appalling. I don't care if it's been done before. I don't care that it's fight fire with fire. It's just wrong and low, low, low. I also do not like the allegation that Obama is so "inexperienced." He has had more time in gov't and a more diverse set of gov't experiences than Hillary, Edwards, Giuliani, and Romney. And, of course, Bush. And yet you hear on Faux News, "where's the substance?" If you ask the question, make the insinuation, it must be true. That's the MO. That's win at all costs (but not the lowest the dirty politics and news do). They all do it, but I think the neocons are much more intense and false about it. I wish it was no more.

- walk

163

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:45

That HuffPost Blog about Tony Snow and cancer

I think though several members (discussion forum comments made by individuals) commented in a nasty way about his health, but not bloggers.

- walk

164

Tree
ID: 582392917
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:47

Baldwin - i anxiously await you linking us to some of that hate speech about Snow's cancer. no doubt, a slew of well-known, highly-regarded leftists are mocking him in whatever medium they dwell in.

165

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 16:54

You know, I bowed out of the last election and I think I'll try and bow out of the next one. Unless something really funny strikes me I just wanna stay out of it.

I can think of some interesting angles to Obama and Hillary to speak on but I think we'll have to wait for the next Baldwin to appear. Maybe you'll find someone else willing and able to face down the howler monkey treatment. I really hope you find him.

166

Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 18:58

You have extremists on both sides that wish harm on the other and their families. The only mainstream politician I have seen try to pull a family member into the debate was John Edwards during the Vice-Presidental debate, when he not only brought up Cheney's daughter, he refused to get off the subject. Edwards is also one of worse of offenders of trying to create class warfare to help his campaign.

So Baldwin is going to donate a few 1000s for a college fund and this makes him a nice guy? Well, Cheney has donated millions to charity so I guess he is a 1000xs nicer a guy than Baldwin.

167

Perm Dude
ID: 16250308
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 19:04

Uh, right. All the ads which talked about Kerry's wife you must have forgotten. How about ads which included Bill Clinton's wife? Forgot those too, eh?

Cheney's daughter was, at the time, one of his political directors, and was fair game for the question as far as anyone should be concerned. You don't want to be asked about then don't accept a paid position in you father's campaign.

168

Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 19:27

Clinton's wife is a politician and, no, I don't remember ads about Kerry's wife. Edwards showed his true character bringing up Cheney's daughter and trying to polarize America by preaching class warfare is the height of hypocracy, when his next sentence is about bringing America together.

169

Perm Dude
ID: 16250308
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 19:53

She is now. She wasn't then. And that's the point, isn't it?

Don't look now, but you're mixing up your talking points on Edwards. [Hint: Edwards never talked about Mary Cheney in terms of "class warfare"]

170

Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 20:28

You are comparing Hilary, who is running for President, to Mary Cheney as far as political advocacy? Can you even see what you are typing? Hilary has been in politics since the Watergate scandal and later worked for Jimmy Carter. At any point does common sense override your partisanship?

171

Perm Dude
ID: 16250308
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 20:58

No, idiot. I'm comparing Hilary when she was First Lady to Mary Cheney.

172

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:03

You honestly claim to not recall any of the attacks ads re Kerry and his marriage to the Heiress??????? Apparently in your book, attacking the non-compensated spouse of a candidate is OK provided its the Reps doing the attacking, but for the Dems to point out the hypocrisy in a Reps stance, is off-base and going too far?

At any point does common sense override your partisanship?

A valid question Jag. So when WILL common sense make its first appearance in one of your posts?

173

Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:11

Hilary Clinton has been in politics since college and shaped White House policy more than any First Lady in history. There is no comparison, other than a grasp at straws.

174

Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:25

The only attack I remember on Kerry's wife, if you want to call it attack, was her donating millions to Tides, a far-left wing charity funding far-left extremist groups, including Islamic Jihadists. She openly supported Tides, so how can that be an attack.

175

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:32

a far-left wing charity funding far-left extremist groups, including Islamic Jihadists.

Claims like that without links are meaningless on this forum. Actually, beyond meaningless, because they destroy credibility, not that you're swimming in that anyway.

Ironically, much as it pains me to agree with you, I've come to the same conclusion about Edwards and his "two Americas" being a form of class warfare.

176

Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:33

I don't remember Cheney asking anyone about their family members in a debate.

177

Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:44

To quote biliruben, "Look it up lazy ass". I used to post links on information I had already retained, but then I would be attacked on the link. Make up your minds, if you want to demand links, then be consistent and do the same for your Left-Wing posters.

178

Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:53

Sarge, ask me if I remember any attacks ads towards Kerry's wife and that was the only one I recalled. I vaguely remember another about Heinz using other coumtries for cheap labor, while Kerry was preaching about jobs going overseas.

179

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:03

Hilary Clinton has been in politics since college and shaped White House policy more than any First Lady in history.

Possibly true, but only if you dont count Nancy Reagan.

180

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:03

How about ads which included Bill Clinton's wife? - PD

You could possibly think that was ever out of bounds? I swear sometimes you just completely zone out, posting before engaging brain, PD.

Edit that weak stuff out before hitting 'Post Now!'.

181

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:05

Sarge

I think the woman you are thinking of is Nancy's astrologer.

182

Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:08

I have heard that a few times about Nancy, never really saw it, but if it is true she did a good job running the country.

183

Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:53

To quote biliruben, "Look it up lazy ass".

I did. According to the far right rag Frontpagerag.com

Tides gave money to CAIR, admittedly a POS organization dedicated to garnering sympathy for Muslims with big mouths and attorneys, but that hardly qualifies as Islamic jihad, or funding for such.

For the record, you may want to consider the connection between the Bushes and Riggs Bank.

According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon's "Age of Sacred Terror," upon taking office the Bush administration tried to halt efforts to tighten international banking laws – some of which may have affected Riggs. As he notes, the new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush administration opposed Clinton administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center."

Newsweek reported that checks to "two Saudi students in the United States who provided assistance to two of the September 11 hijackers" may have come "from an account at Washington's Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan." This, and other details, were reportedly part of the bipartisan House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the Saudi money flow after 9/11. Yet, instead of allowing the committee's final report to be published in full, "Bush administration officials, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, have adamantly refused to declassify the evidence" surrounding the transactions.

184

Jag
ID: 14849321
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 09:27

I woudln't doubt IF the Saudis could tempoarily lower gas prices to help Bush, that they would do it. I have heard many conspiracy theories about Bush and the Saudis and to be honest, I am not sure what to think. It is a complicated situation. I can only hope the Bush administration can keep good relations without allowing for terrorist funding.

I think one thing we can all agree on is we need to be energy self-sufficent, so we don't have to kowtow to Middle East oil.

185

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 10:06

re oil...we cannot be independent. The onle route open to energy independence, is research at this point. Into alternative methods of energy, which of course, not only flies in the face of shrubs oil buddies, but calls for real science. Something this admin has shown a distinct disdain toward.

186

Jag
ID: 14849321
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 10:10

Sarge, we have had the same problem for decades and Bush wasn't president all that time.

187

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 10:47

Hillary Clinton was fair game the moment the "two-for-one" stuff was established in the 1992 campaign.

Theresa Heinz-Kerry (while obviousy very hard to resist) was not fair game to my memory. Kerry's marriage to her and her family's wealth certainly was, though.

Mary Cheney was fair game. Aside from holding a leadership position on the campaign (something that by itself should qualify her) her sexual orientation put her at direct odds with the policy of her her father and the campaign she worked for. Its entirely pertinant to challenge Cheney in areas where his very public private life are related to his policy and other pertinant aspects of him as a public figure.

Further, if there was any dounbt, Cheney opened the door wide open on his own by publicly discussing his daughter's sexual orientation on national television prior to the election.

If John Edwards were cutting hundreds of millions in cancer research, it would not be be taboo to bring up Elizabeth in a debate.

In 2006, much was publicly made of NYS GOP AG candidate Jeanine Pirro' husband, Albert Pirro, who had been convicted of scores of counts of tax fraud and was mired in numerous other scandals. Pirro argued that the questions about her husband were an assault on her family life but the fact is that she was running for state AG and his corrupt behavior occurred under her nose while she served as Westchester County AG. Of course it was im[portant to ask her about her family life.

And given the questions regrading Rudy Guiliani's committment to conservative social issues, his marriage and divorce history is also fair game. I personally may not feel it's very important, but I'd expect the large swaths of society that do put emphasis on family life to have tough questions for him - and that makes the issue very legitimate campaign fodder.

188

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 10:54

re 186...and Clinton hasnt been President in almost 8 years. That doesnt however, slow you, Baldwin or others of your extreme biased ilk, for continuing to blame the worlds woes upon him. (Or Carter for that matter.)

189

Jag
ID: 14849321
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 13:03

I still believe the way Carter handle the hostages back in the 70s has lead to some of the problems we have today. But not just Carter, Reagan's handling of Beirut, he admitted his pulling the marines from Lebanon would have repercussions for future generations. Bush sr. letting shiites get slaughter after organizing the coup was one of the worse policy decisions I can remember and Clinton paying off the tinpot dictator of Korea both led to future problems that GW had to handle. I believe all of these Presidents knew what they were doing was wrong and just wanted to pass the buck to the next President, except Carter, who I think was just an idiot.

Liberals answer to every Foriegn policy problem is "We just need to talk." Well I have been on this forum for awhile and they haven't convinced me of much and believe it or not, I am not as radical as Ahmadinejad.

When the Left talk about Middle East policy, I think of Neville Chamberlain.

Chamberlain

Here are some Chamberlain quotes that could be turned to fit some of the Liberal's remark of today.
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war." He was talking how we shouldn't fear the Nazi's, but this could be change to fit terrorists.

"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine.... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again." This could fit any agreement made with the Middle East or North Korea.

Neville Chamberlain will go down in history as one of the worse Prime Ministers in England's history because of his policy of appeasement. It is not the Right's want for blood, that sets us apart from the Left on Foriegn Affairs, just our knowledge of history and appeasement.

190

Perm Dude
ID: 5821318
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 14:10

Clinton paying off the tinpot dictator of Korea...

Still bleeting this line, eh? Turns out, however, that we never paid them a dime.

I would suggest looking up "Agreed Framework" and looking over whatever you find before presuming to pass judgement on what Clinton didn't actually do.

191

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 17:07

PD, It's been too long for me to remember every detail but research Clinton on Korea. He completely blew that one.

192

Perm Dude
ID: 5821318
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 19:13

Already researched, B. Bush is the one who blew Korea.

193

Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 19:55

Clinton's negotiators got rolled, pure and simple.

194

Perm Dude
ID: 5821318
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 20:32

In what way, precisely?

Bush's technique, apparently, is to give NK a shorter route to nuclear weapons, and not confront him for fear of legitimizing the regime. Good thinking.

195

Jag
ID: 14849321
Sun, Apr 01, 2007, 01:13

PD, I can post a link from a far-right op-ed piece to counter that one.

Opposite view

My opinion is building light water nuclear reactors for North Korea on the promise of keeping rods lock up is ludicrous. I would give them all the food they wanted, but not more nuclear technology and equipment. I can see why Congress and South Korea opted out of the agreement, it was completely an inane proposition.

196

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 01, 2007, 09:26

Washington Monthing is not a far-left magazine.

And if you're going to present an opposing view, please make sure it makes a case for the claims it boasts. Youve already been burned bad for the links you provided.

This one claims, "There are people who try to deny the fact that North Korea owes its nuclear weapons program (and us our decreased national security) to the Clinton Administration."

North Korea NEVER GOT THE PROMISED REACTORS. Their current proliferation occurred without Clinton having to do anything.

If he had applied the same policy to NK as the Bush before him (NK's proliferation program was dicovered in 1989) and the Bush after him: DO NOTHING, exactly the same thing would have happened that did happen. North Korea would have built a bomb on her own. The Clinton legacy is identical to both Bush legacys.

I won't deny that the Clinton policy (like the policies of both Bushes) was a failure. He couldn't get Congress to comply to the deal that was brokered so it was doomed. End of story.

We'll never know if it could have worked, tho we can safely presume two things: 1) that it would be a lot harder for KJI to build weapons from light water reactors than from his current equipment and 2) the starving citizens of NK would be better off for having sanctions lifted and the benefit of nuclear power provided by the US and Japan.

Semi-related question for Jag:
Do you believe Congress was within its right to override a decision made by the Executive branch by refusing to fund it?

197

Perm Dude
ID: 1132317
Sun, Apr 01, 2007, 09:39

It is more than just trading legal reactors for illegal ones, Jag. And one thing you don't see from your article is the difference in processing plutonium with processing uranium (the second was not covered in the Agreed Framework, BTW, yet it was the excuse the Bushies took to back out of an agreement they never wanted. As it turns out, Bush's intelligence on this was as good as his intelligence on Iraq).

Congress didn't opt out--the Agreed Framework was not a treaty and was never presented to Congress to approve or no.

The important thing to remember is that when dealing with North Korea, it is just as important to talk about recognition as for anything else. In other words, it is as important for NK to trade ambassadors with the US as to have a nuclear weapons problem (for a lot of reasons, but it might help to realize that their nuclear program is a bit of an attention-getting device and not intended to get them bombs to use).

Your linked article says that "Bush is dealing with the issue head on." But is he? Six-party talks doesn't sound so "head on" to me, especially after his clear and public insults of the country.

Of the two Presidents, which one has seen North Korea increase its production of nuclear fuel? Which one has seen the test firing of a missle?

Bush-apologists (like yourself) spend a lot of time blaming Clinton for Bush's problems. This is a pretty clear case of Bush completely rejecting the Clinton-backed Agreed Framework and replacing it with, literally, nothing. And now we see the fruits of that effort by Bush. The Bush Administration's hatred of all things Clinton has actually demonstratively made this country less safe.

Here's a quote (understatement of the year, IMO), from the linked piece above:

ï¿½The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently,ï¿½ a senior administration official said this week.

No kidding.

198

Trip
Leader
ID: 13961611
Fri, Apr 13, 2007, 17:35

LOL

199

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Apr 13, 2007, 17:51

LMAO...Nice post Trip.

200

Perm Dude
ID: 50955206
Sat, Oct 20, 2007, 19:02

Bill Maher personally boots protester

201

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sat, Oct 20, 2007, 19:25

Bill Maher personally boots protester

Got to love it, there's these wacko 911 conspiracy theorists now apparently who claim the government was really behind 9/11.

Maher is in the Bush camp on this issue but you have to wonder what these people are thinking f'ing up his show screaming about 9/11.

Please it's a TV show save the rant for roto guru political forums.

202

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Oct 22, 2007, 08:45

Yeah, I saw that. Such a tremendous number of comments related to this at HuffPost, too (cos Maher occasionally blogs there). Many of the comments are pro-911 conspiracists, but to me, the issue is less about whether these folks have a case and more about what Never says in that this was not the forum for them to interrupt. They have been upset ever since Maher mocked them as part of his "new rules" a few weeks back, but at the end of the day, his show is entertainment, with his rules, and it's not an audience participation event. He spells that out in his pissed off reaction to the interrupters. Don't mess with live TV! (and an entertainer's stage).

203

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Oct 24, 2007, 17:44

Shortly after the 9/11 protesters were removed from the building, Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion who is running for President of Russia was interviewed.

His wit and cynicism, both anti Putin and Bush, made for a great interview. As guest Chris Matthews pointed out...can you imagine one of our candidates talking in a foreign language and coming off that intelligent?

Kasparov on Real Time

204

Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 09:30

I think these 911 Truthers just want their day in court so to say. They feel they have compelling evidence, and just want a Big Media venue in which to present it. So they moved it up a notch. Seldom are they allowed to speak to Big Media. And there is never any discussion of the nuts and bolts of their argument, they are just automatically dismissed at whackos. One would think that since they are such crackpots, that Big Media would want to put them on the air to let them shoot themselves in the foot. Show what idiots they are. But that seldom happens. I wonder why. IMO ratings would be huge for that show. All the 911 truthers tuning in, plus because nobody else is doing a show like that. So there must be some other reason that they are banned from Big Media.......Like maybe they are actually on to something.

205

Perm Dude
ID: 40946256
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 09:35

Big ratings would only occur if people were interested enough to tune in. Watching self-promoters yak on about widespread government conspiracies isn't something many Americans are interested in seeing.

In any case, it was Maher's show, not theirs.

pd

206

walk
ID: 7952415
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 09:40

Right, I don't think Maher's show = big media. They were upset that Maher based them a few weeks prior as crackpots, but ultimately, they basically displayed poor table manners by interrupting his show and his guests. You could see his guests were stunned and not sure what to do, and the audience was booing the conspiracy theorists to just shut up so that the show could go on. It would be nice if they did have a venue without having to cross this line of decorum, but they don't, so they made a judgment call to sorta act out in this political forum, but while the show is a political discussion, it aint one that includes the audience. Man, Maher was pissed.

207

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 13:33

Maher was pissed but I think to an extent it made kind of a unique entertainment moment.

Maher came off looking really smart in the end I thought and the conspiracy theorists just ended up looking stupid.

It was pretty cool the way he went into the audience and helped throw the guy out. Most of his reactions to the protesters were pretty funny.

The cow comment off the top of his head was classic as was the "that's right lady I'll throw your ass outta here too."

There's really not much they could have accomplished by screaming at the stage.

It's completely seperate from my opinion of whether or not their theories have any validity.

208

walk
ID: 7952415
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 13:56

Agree, Nerve. I laughed at his facial expressions of exasperation and the cow crack. I also liked the way he went in there and helped move the pile.

209

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, May 24, 2010, 00:20

New Rule: The Republican leadership in America must produce their birth certificates! Not because I doubt they're Americans, I just want to make sure they're not eight-years-old.

210

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, May 24, 2010, 10:25

Finally, one hallmark of not being adult is a tendency to exaggerate. Like this week when Newt Gingrich said "the Obama administration represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did." Which is basically saying Obama is a billion times worse than any president ever! No, he's infinity times worse!

Forum: polPage 2851Subject: Bill Maher, 1 of the Most Dangerous Men in America

Forum: pol
Page 2851
Subject: Bill Maher, 1 of the Most Dangerous Men in America