…and this is a 
The news that Obama has won a Nobel peace prize was weird — and don't get me wrong, I don't think he has done badly at promoting peace, I just don't think he's made the kind of exceptional effort that something with the prestige of the Nobel ought to reward — but here's something much, much crazier: WhirledNutDaily has begun a campaign to impeach Obama. You might be wondering on what grounds they would commit this act…but they don't seem to have anything specific. I just got email from WND begging for donations for their little crusade, and here's the best reason they offer, from some wingnut radio personality, Tammy Bruce.
"... ultimately, it comes down to... the fact that he seems to have, it seems to me, some malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."
That ranks right up there with the "he looked at me funny" excuse for starting a fight.
The whole piece is a detestable incitement to take any action necessary to bring down Obama. Look at their 'reasoning':
Make no mistake. We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup - the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd - a cold-blooded gang that despises American's prosperity, our standing in the world, our trust in God and our generosity and goodness.
America is a monument to the triumph of freedom. When Barack Hussein Obama thinks about freedom... he sees a world in which some people, due to personal initiative and good fortune, will do better than others... live better than others.
And in that regard, he is right. But Barack Obama sees that as unfair. Where you see freedom, liberty and the opportunity for any American to be all that he or she can be, Obama sees greed and bigotry.
And, like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity" even if Americans must learn to live in chains to make it happen (in fact, servitude to the iron will of government will be required).
That worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today.
That dangerous worldview also explains why he has already gobbled-up major banks and why the government now controls more and more of our money - yours and mine.
And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke... don't be surprised... and while you're at it, don't feel bad either because at least everyone will be broke... destitute... under the iron yoke of government... but everything will be fair and equal... that's what extremists, like Obama, mean when they use the term... "social justice."
And he'll make it happen... he can make it happen... he's already started to make it happen. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal.
That dangerous worldview explains the sudden and shocking erosion of your freedom to make a living, to run your own business, whether a Mom-and-Pop grocery store or General Motors.
That dangerous worldview explains why his Attorney General, Eric Holder, despises the 2nd Amendment... why, if he had his way, he would take away our guns, leaving us defenseless against gangs and hoods - and, more to the point, against Obama's own shock-troops from ACORN or SEIU. Remember, it was the healthy and rational fear of government that led to the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.
And that dangerous worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own doctor... your own treatment. Wherever government controls health care, bureaucrats decide who gets treatments... who gets transplants... who gets dialysis... who gets costly medication... and who needs to die for the common good.
What can we do to stop this monomaniac... this American dictator? There's only one answer.
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
It goes on and on like that — you can just picture the authors frothing at the mouth.
So I guess I'd have to say that maybe a Nobel was a useful counterbalance to the lunacy going on here.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Michelle R
|
October 9, 2009 11:27 AM
Ow. My sinuses. I wounded them from all the snorting.
Posted by: Zifnab
|
October 9, 2009 11:29 AM
How can you argue? They're using their crack team of Super Pyschics to probe the thoughts of not just the President, but their entire readership!
I mean, if they can actually see through Obama's eyes and read his very thoughts, who am I to disagree? I don't have any nifty mind reading powers to prove WND wrong.
Posted by: robhoofd
|
October 9, 2009 11:30 AM
It's probably just a political statement by the Nobel Foundation, like with Al Gore; all he had to do was give a Powerpoint presentation.
Also, it looks like someone forgot to close a tag.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 9, 2009 11:30 AM
You only just noticed?
The "Impeach Obama" movement was gearing yp before he even took the oath of office.
Posted by: robotaholic
|
October 9, 2009 11:31 AM
Obama took office only 2 weeks before the February 1 nomination deadline for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize & consequently didn't really have much time to do...anything. There are plenty of people who have done more and should be recognized. I'm a gay liberal Obama supporter, but I don't think he deserves this as much as some other people.
...BUT DON'T IMPEACH HIM! that's crazy
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 11:32 AM
We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup - the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd
But wasn't it the right-wing cheering when Brazil beat out the US for hosting the Olympics?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 9, 2009 11:33 AM
O RLY Taitz approves of this message.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 11:34 AM
Translation:
Posted by: Bill
|
October 9, 2009 11:36 AM
Jeeebus H. Christ! Given the number of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the previous administration, these people must just not be capable of paying attention.
The Nobel is certainly working up a froth amongst the right-wing crazies. Clearly grounds for impeachment.
What a bunch of maroons, to quote the eminent philostopher Bugs Bunny...
...bc...
Posted by: flyonthewall
|
October 9, 2009 11:36 AM
i like obama just as much as the next sane person, but let's be fair, Nobel Prize? Don't you have to actually do something in order to get that?
on a side note, the crazy, do we need to make up another level greater than bat-shit?
Posted by: CalGeorge
|
October 9, 2009 11:41 AM
Speak eloquently, carry a big stick, "don't oppose all wars," say things like: “I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines,” increase the military budget, and win a Peace prize.
The bar seems to be set as low over in Stockholm as it is on WorldNut Daily.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
October 9, 2009 11:42 AM
Well, I went through 8 years of Dubya & Dick arguing that they should be impeached for crimes against the American people as well as other crimes against others (mostly the million or so dead Iraqis), but it got me nowhere, and the bastards got to finish out 2 terms in peace.
And they were actually guilty, according to all available evidence.
So, give Obama the damn Nobel. I just hope that he lives up to it and brings some peace.
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 9, 2009 11:44 AM
That's right. Because we all know that a gang member's greatest fear is not a rival gang member, nor the police, but that Little Blond-Haired Susie in the suburbs may be packin'.
And haven't we all seen video footage of ACORN volunteers goose-stepping over the corpses of Wholesome Republican Christian PatriotsTM?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 11:45 AM
I just hope that he lives up to it and brings some peace.
Seconded.
The "fierce advocate" is also speaking this weekend to a group of wealthy LGBT donors (the Human Rights Campaign) during the National Equality March. He's going to talk about the importance of incremental change, and he's demonstrating that by doing the same incremental things Bill Clinton did, like appointing an openly gay ambassador. Baby steps from previous administrations. Yup, that's moving us forward.
Posted by: Bob L
|
October 9, 2009 11:46 AM
I suppose you could describe an election as a "bloodless coupe" but that still doesn't change it as an election. You got to love the arguement that being left of the Wingnut Daily is an impeachable offense.
Posted by: keoke
|
October 9, 2009 11:48 AM
All this scary talk of freedoms being taken away comes from the same crowd who actively seeks to deny the rights of others, who are not "real Americans"
(ie. the ethnic minorities, those annoying educated types and scientists, opponents of wars, gays, those who seek some sort of accountability in the insurance and defence industry etc ).
Posted by: MrFire
|
October 9, 2009 11:49 AM
Oh Noes! Teh South-Central Blackz are coming to our home towns to rape our daughters!
Posted by: Tulse
|
October 9, 2009 11:53 AM
Would that be the same General Motors that took billions in government bailout money? I think it's a reasonable rule that if you don't want the government to interfere in your business, don't ask the government for money for your business.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 11:53 AM
Mel Brooks called it.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 9, 2009 11:57 AM
"Took", hell, they begged for it.
Posted by: Victor
|
October 9, 2009 11:58 AM
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the blogosphere. These right wings are getting nuttier an nuttier by the hour.
Posted by: Ian
|
October 9, 2009 12:03 PM
Pre-Obama America was itching for a war with Iran, discussing the use of nukes. It was also in the business of promoting torture, on a global scale. Bush had alienated Europe and the Muslim world. And was moving towards an ever-more hostile stance with Russia. Simply defusing some of that means making a huge contribution to peace.
On one hand, you could say that he just got the award for "not being Bush". But look at the alternatives. McCain was being even more hawkish than Bush. In the Senate, and in her primary campaign, Clinton was quite the hawk as well. Given the momentum towards "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" (and the like) it takes more than just a change in leadership - it requires that you actually change course, that you actually stand up to the accusation of being "weak".
Replacing Bush and defeating McCain-Palin is actually a huge contribution to peace. Reaching out to the Muslim world despite being called a "secret Muslim" ,standing by his willingness to talk to Iran, despite all the ammunition it gave his enemies...they would only be modest contributions at any other time. At this time, it's a significant achievement.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 12:04 PM
Here's the whole thing. Excerpt:
Actually that was Rabbi Hillel, but better not to quote a Christ-killing Jew.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 12:07 PM
And now Obama is still itching for a war with Iran.
Posted by: MrFire
|
October 9, 2009 12:08 PM
MAJeff OM, am I right in thinking only Kucinich announced any real commitment to furthering LGBT rights during the 2008 primaries? If you have any time, I'd value your opinion on prominent pols who genuinely give a shit.
Posted by: Hot-Z
|
October 9, 2009 12:09 PM
I'm at a loss for words, Nobel Peace Prize?...seriously? based on what?.....the drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan?...oh wait, it was the nice speeches he gave, that's it!
I know that this is just 5 peoples opinions, but don't you actually need some "hard evidence" for this thing? I just don't see it.
This is more of a slap in the face to Bush prize, who deserves a slap, but when did the Nobel Peace Prize become a slap in the face prize?
Posted by: btj
|
October 9, 2009 12:11 PM
Wait, let me explain, we have this equivalent of a bloodless coup called "free and fair elections" and the winner.... Ah, never mind.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 12:11 PM
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 9, 2009 12:11 PM
Actually, he does, mostly because you right-wingers kept calling us left-wingers traitors when we warned you about the dangers of the Bush Imperial Presidency. Those newly acquired powers didn't leave office with Dubya, you know. So suck it up, crybabies; this is your fault.
Posted by: fauxrs
|
October 9, 2009 12:12 PM
Pre-Obama America was itching for a war with Iran, discussing the use of nukes. It was also in the business of promoting torture, on a global scale. Bush had alienated Europe and the Muslim world. And was moving towards an ever-more hostile stance with Russia. Simply defusing some of that means making a huge contribution to peace.
I couldnt agree more, yes Obama won a Nobel for essentially not being another Bush. Gitmo is still open but not for not trying, freaking congress refuses to let him close it.
These fruit bats talking about impeachment must have the most rose colored glasses known to man, the previous administration flaunted laws left and right but where was their righteous indignation then? oh but wait,, Dubya was the second coming then.....
Posted by: rlrr
|
October 9, 2009 12:12 PM
You might be wondering on what grounds they would commit this act…
It all boils down to: "Presidenting while black"
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey
|
October 9, 2009 12:13 PM
Those nutters are the real America-haters. They preach "freedom from government" only because the government won't do what they want -- adopt their loony social control agenda. If they had the government they wanted -- an authoritarian theocratic dictatorship -- anyone wanting "freedom from government" would be branded a traitor.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 9, 2009 12:14 PM
If the Nobel Prize wanted to make conservatards' heads explode, they certainly succeeded!
Oh, wait, the conservatards' heads have been exploding for MONTHS now.
Anyway. Listen, WingNutDaily, there's something you need to understand. This "hate-America" crowd of which you speak...it does not live where you think it lives. Team Hate America lives in backwater mountain villages where frothing semi-literates stockpile ammo and bottled water and murder Census workers. It lives in the town hall meetings where people would rather continue letting our healthcare system simultaneously bankrupt us AND deliver underwhelming outcomes, than do anything that resembles what they do in...*hushed* France. It lives in the churches where ministers tell their congregations to pray for the death of the democratically elected president. It lives with people who use Socialism as their bogeyman without the slightest idea what Socialism means. It lives in the homes of people who shoot doctors and blow up clinics while declaiming about the "sanctity of life." It lives in homes where children die because their parents think using medicine means disobeying God. It lives in the right wing of Congress with elected officials who would rather drag America into the Second World than allow the president and the elected officials of his party to succeed in their legislative goals. It is in the schoolboards headed by people who oppose public education and actively undermine the instruction of science, who want to see our nation's children not just ignorant, but filled with misinformation, rather than live without Jesus.
I can't speak for other lefties, and I can't speak for Obama, either, but I can say that I don't hate America. I don't hate the country that taught you how to read and write and maintains an infrastructure such that you can maintain a website and other lunatics can follow it. I don't hate the country that will pay for your medical care once you reach a certain age while allowing you to rail against the evils of government power. I don't hate this country at all. I hate people like you.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 12:17 PM
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 9, 2009 12:18 PM
Also, OT but amusing, this hilarious piece of pareidolia:
http://www.tampabays10.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer&maven_referralObject=1287769474
I finally saw the face at the very end of the clip; someone iron those curtains!
Posted by: NixManes
|
October 9, 2009 12:18 PM
The political right of this country is really scaring me now.
I've been on this planet well over 40 years and have never experienced anything like this (or read about it) in U.S. politics.
The more sane forces in the country need to stop giving these folks any platform on which to stand. When supposedly unbiased news and basic information services give people like this "equal" time or space, they offer legitimacy to those willing to accept the nonsense being spewed.
This is getting very serious.
The blind hatred and vile attitudes are disgusting. To pretend that it's just another political position in order to "show respect to all points of view" is just wrong.
They can exercise their free speech all they want. But the rest of us don't need to legitimize it. It's hateful nonsense and should be treated as such, openly and honestly.
Posted by: Greg F.
|
October 9, 2009 12:22 PM
Ah yes, Tammy Bruce. She's one of those rare idiots that's trying to steal Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's crowns by being even more ridiculously stupid than they are.
I guess we saw just how stupid she's willing to be in public...
Posted by: aduzik.myopenid.com
|
October 9, 2009 12:24 PM
Oh for Cthulu's sake. These people are fucking nuts. So the massive expansion of government -- both in size and power -- under Bush was A-OK, but trying to work within the confines of the Constitution to, in most cases, effect positive change is an impeachable offense? (Presumably they're insinuating he's guilty of treason? They didn't really say.)
Give me a fucking break. These people are completely insane.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 9, 2009 12:25 PM
Is anyone else more than tired of these loony-tunes harping on Obama's middle name? "Ooooh, his middle name is Hussein, save us from Teh Ebil Muslin!" Do they think he named himself at birth, that he spoke up and demanded that his parents middle-name him after his Muslim grandfather? This is all sailing, also, on the assumption that Muslims cannot possibly be patriotic Americans, but they're not about to give up that ghost any time soon, so I won't even bother. Does it ever occur to them that their middle-name fetish makes them look patently ridiculous?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 9, 2009 12:26 PM
Ian, just who do you think the Secretary of State is at the moment? Calling Hillary a hawk is unfair.Posted by: Unaspammer
|
October 9, 2009 12:27 PM
While the Nobel prize is certainly undeserved, the worst part about it is that this just clinches it for all the members of the religious right who already think that Obama is the Antichrist -- who is supposed to be a champion of peace or some such.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 12:28 PM
It looks like he's screaming.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 9, 2009 12:32 PM
Fund-raising tripe. The sad thing is that it apparently works.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: mwsletten
|
October 9, 2009 12:33 PM
The Nobel foundation awards Obama with the Peace Prize. At the foundation's website, it provides the following justification:
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
And Phil says although he isn't aware of any particularly strenuous effort to date, the committee's justification is okay because it's 'less nuttier' than what some nutcake fringe fanatics are posting on an internet blog that almost nobody pays any attention to.
Okaaay...
Posted by: Bill
|
October 9, 2009 12:38 PM
Just a thought--is it possible that the Nobel committee acknowledges the fact that Obama was actually doing things BEFORE he was elected (in a free and fair election that the GOP couldn't come up with an excuse to steal this time) President?
Much as the idea of community organizing and activism are of course clearly Communist Evil Muslim terrorification, as any good Amurican knows.
Just a thought...
Posted by: TomRiddle
|
October 9, 2009 12:38 PM
Strange gods before me #34, I'm hoping you might be able to reconcile this for me:
First/Second Commandment of the Christian Bible, "I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me"
First Ammendment of the US Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof"
The very first right granted to all Americans by the constitution is the right to ignore the first one/two commandments of Yahweh. How precisely does that make us a Christian Nation?
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 9, 2009 12:40 PM
mwsletten,
Who's "Phil"? Why should anyone care what he says?
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
October 9, 2009 12:42 PM
Regarding the Nobel Peace Prize, I think the last thing we need to do is to argue over whether or not Obama deserves it or had earned it (yet). Also, getting the prize is not something you DO. It is something that happens TO you.
If you don't understand why he got it (the generally you, here, not anyone in particular) consider what the Nobel committee is, what they do, how they generally act, and learn that end of it, before drawing conclusions about what has happened here. It is amazing to see people say "NOOO! This makes the Nobel Peace Prize Political!!!" Well, Jesus Christ on a Hockey Stick, folks, you must understand that the most important single function of politics is to promote and ensure peace. The rest of it is shit.
Obama winning the NPP says something about Americans. This is indeed a pat on the head for not fucking up last November. We shocked the world by not electing another yahoo as president. And now they are thanking us. Accept the thanks graciously for once.
Posted by: Chupper
|
October 9, 2009 12:44 PM
ewww... they even wrote their message in Comic Sans.
Posted by: foo.ca
|
October 9, 2009 12:45 PM
Hang on... ACORN has shock troops? ACORN is the New World Order scapegoat for the extreme right, isn't it?
Does ACORN control the banks and the world court now too?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 9, 2009 12:47 PM
And hollywood, don't forget hollywood.
And the press. Right the press too. They own all the newspapers.
Posted by: Alverant
|
October 9, 2009 12:52 PM
I find it very pathetic of how the conservatives think they're the only patriots and how disagreeing with them means you hate America.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 12:59 PM
God established America to ensure your right to burn in hell.
Posted by: JiminKy
|
October 9, 2009 1:08 PM
I agree that Obama hasn't yet done anything like what past Peace Prize winners have; but then again, it's been a pretty crappy year for peace. Who does deserve it, apart from several of those who've already received one? In a world short on peacemakers, they might as well give it to Obama as to anyone else. For him, at least there's hope of progress.
After all, they once gave a Peace Prize to Henry fucking Kissinger.
Posted by: jbeck.myopenid.com
|
October 9, 2009 1:11 PM
ACORN and shock troops? The beneficiaries of ACORN would barely get to eat otherwise, and are among the most marginalized folk you can think of. I thought since I am from India nothing can shock me. Was I surprised? You bet. And SEIU? It represents minimum custodians employed by service firms whose executives are paid millions. The service jobs we have created after we shipped out manufacturing are not worth it, they haven't helped us. It's time to hit RESET!
Posted by: leepicton
|
October 9, 2009 1:14 PM
Alyson Miers at #33 - That was Molly worthy!
Posted by: Merkin Muffley
|
October 9, 2009 1:14 PM
Projection Translation:
We hate African Americans so they must hate us.
When we were in charge we ran the country to favor our race so we know they will do the same now that they are in power.
When we run voter registration drives we change party affiliation and and toss the ones we can't change so Acorn must also cheat.
We imposed policies based on an economic theory designed to channel virtually all of the nation's new net capital and income to the wealthy and we know they will try to send some to the poor and the middle class.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
October 9, 2009 1:14 PM
Bloodless coups! What a terrible idea! Did you know there was a country where the government system was deliberately designed to have bloodless coups on a regular schedule every 4 years?! Outrageous! The shame! Good to know the good America-loving folks at WorldNetDaily are taking a stand against this terrible America-hating practice of bloodless coups. Good on them. It's about time we stopped having them every 4 years.
Posted by: Richard Smith
|
October 9, 2009 1:19 PM
@JiminKy (#54):
See, this is the sort of thing I don't get. It's a terrible thing when someone's middle name is "Hussein," but there was never a peep of complaint about Kissinger's middle name.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 9, 2009 1:25 PM
Re: Nobel
I thought this was a sort of lifetime achievement award, not a purely political plum to be doled out because some Eurobots want to reward the USA for playing well with others again. Even Obama seems embarrassed. Also, it doesn't help him politically.
WingNutDaily & the banks:
So tired of this canard about Obama and the banks. Bush could have whispered in Bernanke and Geitner's ear and simply allowed the worst banks to collapse in 2008. Instead, he said that sometimes you have to suspend your faith in capitalism in order to save it, or something like that. Bush put a trillion of taxpayer dollars on the line with no oversight, but when Obama tries to protect the public's money, all of a sudden he's a socialist? BUSH is the socialist for taking over the banks (with capital) to begin with! But a stupid one because he was letting the public get ripped off. Tired of the moon logic. Even some investors I admired were getting het up about the administration trying to put some restrictions on banks--and these were the same people who kept saying that the bank leaders should be PROSECUTED and sent to PRISON. So, it's okay to send someone to federal poundmeintheass prison for malfeasance, but capping salaries as a stop-gap measure is creeping socialism? Even when the goobermint basically owns the bank at that point? Socialized ownership, privatized raiding? It's amazing to me that little guy investors can so easily rationalize kleptocracy. A little guy, or an honest guy, like Warren Buffett has no chance today with the see-no-evil attitude of the SEC, the blatant manipulation and lying, the subsidy of the biggest risk-takers by the government, and the revolving door between the big banks and the Fed. (That started in Clinton's second term.)
*Sigh* It's always the same with these people. When a Republican does it, it's okay. ("Only Nixon could go to China.") When a Democrat does it, it's the end of the Republic.
Posted by: JustaTech
|
October 9, 2009 1:29 PM
SEIU has shock troops? Is this yet another e-mail I'm not getting? (For the record SEIU also represents nurses, child-care workers and scientific technicians.) These people can't even remember to send me a t-shirt, but they have "shock troops"? In what universe?
I agree that the Nobel is weird, but honestly, what makes anyone think that suddenly this means that America is over?
These people need to watch more Ken Burns.
Posted by: TomRiddle
|
October 9, 2009 1:31 PM
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 9, 2009 1:39 PM
@8 SGBM
I was wondering why the vitriol against the President was so vehement. I mean, nobody went up there and said "Clinton hates America" even though I think he was really quite a bit more liberal than Obama. But then I hit on it: racists think that everyone else is a racist too.
That's why white racists always act like they've got enhanced super-'nads for "speaking their minds" and talk about "censorship" all the time: they think that other white people would openly agree with them if they weren't afraid to do so.
Even if a liberal is president, if that person is white, they figure, wink wink, nudge nudge, they are just saying something to get elected, because they secretly are looking out of white people, including themself.
I'll bet a lot of fuckwit fundies in rural red counties really believed that Bush II was a racist like themselves. But of all the things he was, he was not that ... though favoring his geographic supporters and punishing Democratic-voting regions economically often amounted to the same thing. Bush didn't put Powell in his admin b/c of affirmative action or political expedience--he did it because Powell is a family friend. (So ... nepotism. Not that he wasn't also a pretty popular choice.) He put a lot of his buddies from Texas and his ideological allies in high places, and not all of them were white. Some lefties missed that too ("all my enemies are racists. I mean, duh, it's written right there in the handbook.").
Racists think everyone else is a racist, so of course a black racist in power is their worst fear because that person will logically try to take what they have and give it to other blacks. I mean, it's what they would do if they were in power (take from blacks and give to whites). Logical ... if you're a thug.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 9, 2009 1:40 PM
Words fail me.
God damn sociopathic bigoted ignorant piece-of-shit delusional mother-fucking bat-shit crazy lunatics.
In the village of America, they are the idiot.
Well, maybe words didn't quite fail me.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton
|
October 9, 2009 1:42 PM
FTFY, wingnut lunatic.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 1:48 PM
Maybe you should. You know, there are over ten million undocumented trolls in the United States today.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 9, 2009 1:49 PM
You know what? You're right. For all I've been frustrated with the way he's approached certain issues (and I was really pissed about him appointing Geitner, but then again I knew very well that he didn't know jack about what had really been going on in New York--and apparently, neither did anyone in his inner circle), you bring up a great point that he has shown considerable resolve in his foreign policy despite all the fodder it gives the nutjobs.
In a way it's an own-goal for them, because by simply going out and doing the reasonable thing day after day, out in the open with nothing to hide, his detractors just look like wingers and the centrists dismiss them as such.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 9, 2009 1:56 PM
Greg said:
Well, Greg, I'm grown, so I don't take pats on the head graciously.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
October 9, 2009 2:08 PM
OK, she's a cougar. ^_^
I don't think Obama should get the Nobel Peace Prize... yet. Maybe in a few years, but it's still far too early. He really hasn't had a chance to show his peacekeeping (or peacemaking) mettle as yet.
I have sympathy for this President. Expectations of him around the world are so insanely high, he's going to tick off a lot of the starry-eyed when they discover that while he seems like a genuinely nice human being, he's still just a human being, and I don't expect their reaction to be very polite. He doesn't have a stylized letter "S" on his chest, and he doesn't wear a red cape, but that's how he's being perceived.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 2:08 PM
So what you're saying is, some of his best friends are black.
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
October 9, 2009 2:10 PM
Too many of us are buying right into the negative atmosphere that pours out of the right-wing fog machine. Kindly STOP making catty remarks about the Nobel committee, or this award. You’re playing into the hands of the wingers.
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded based not so much on any specific act, but on the effect a person has on the social atmosphere of the world -- the positive effect he has on PEOPLE.
If that's the case, Obama deserves it. He HAS done something – for THIS guy (not just a black man, but yes, that’s part of it) to get elected president in THIS United States, in THIS world, that’s one serious accomplishment, kids. He’s a diamond that floated up out of a septic tank, and that didn’t just happen by itself. He won that office after a lot of damned hard work.
And yes, he has reached out to the rest of the world.
I see this less as a slap at Bush and more the result of the ugly context Bush created in the world. If you're stuck down in a well, even the faint light of dawn looks really bright.
To a lot of the world, Obama is that light. Admiring the light is not the same as cursing the guy who dug the well.
However ... Just last night I was watching a report about how badly things are going in Afghanistan, and I said to a friend "The one thing that didn't make it into this report is the biggest reason WHY things are so bad there -- that Bush got us into that other idiot war and ignored the really important one. I wonder how many MORE kids are gonna die now because of it."
Say what you will, Bush ->IS
If the Nobel Committee can spotlight Obama for being somebody new and different after the tiring, malignant 8 years of Bush and his right-wing cronies, I say Hell, yeah!
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
October 9, 2009 2:13 PM
Ahem. Some of my post got cut out:
Say what you will, Bush IS the guy who dug the well. He pulled a trigger that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. Our own young people -- somebody's sons and daughters -- will still be dying in Afghanistan ten years from now, thanks to Bush. There will never be any justice for that.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 9, 2009 2:14 PM
This reminds me of the time an acquaintance made a joke about my "mob connections" because I'm an officer in a small union affiliated with AFL-CIO, and I joked back that we weren't the Teamsters, actually we barely have our s*** together, and then I found out he wasn't joking.
I told him I do the books and we definitely aren't getting any "extra" money (boy, would that be nice... though very, very dirty, and I do realize this), and his response was that he was from Jersey and therefore all unions are in with the mob. Okay, that's awesome, dude, we're NOT in Jersey, and my local does NOT have mob connections. I also have been to headquarters in DC. They run on little more than a shoestring. (I was going to say shoestring but I've seen shoestring, and with over a hundred locals they do have enough change to operate a small office that a) isn't falling down (much) and b) is in a part of the District that only has shootings once a day.)
As for AFL-CIO, well I could believe for sure that they are dirty as hell. I stayed at the George Meany labor college and ... well, outrageous doesn't even really describe it. (You know how at 4 star resorts they ask you to save your towels to save the earth, etc? Well, they didn't.) But my union? If you knew what industry I was in you would realize that we are BROKE-ASS.
But no, his experience trumped all, I'm in a union therefore I must have mob connections.
I think I'll ask my invisible friend Vinny to arrange a little invisible "visit".
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 9, 2009 2:15 PM
On W and racism, let's not forget Hurricane Katrina and Bush's infamous words: "Heck of a job, Brownie."
Posted by: shonny
|
October 9, 2009 2:15 PM
Oops, they forgot to close the gates at the loony bin. Again.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 9, 2009 2:23 PM
@70
Defending Bush from a hyperbolic charge does not imply that I approve of everything he does. Executing Karla Faye Tucker, and then laughing at her, for example--as long as we're going to set the clock back to his governorship.
Btw, if the worst you can drudge up is that Mr. Fuck-Up-At-Everything supported a group in 1996 that styled itself as "heritage not hate" but was then exposed in 1996 as being about hate, and then you can't show that he continued to support them after that (the heat was on!), well, that's even weaker than calling Obama a wanna-be Weatherman because he served on a city council board with Bill Ayers.
I'm sure you would be the first to excuse Obama's connection with Reverend Wright, so why do you think this passes for debate?
Since I brought up Wright, I will just state for the record that he don't skeer me. Just another religious clown who sometimes appeals to people's worst instincts, like all goddist buffoons, because that keeps the till nice and full.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 9, 2009 2:25 PM
Frankly I think Bush is / was too incompetent to be a good racist even if he wanted to.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 9, 2009 2:27 PM
In a deranged kind of way, I'm enjoying the fact that the nut-jobs are seething and writhing and gnashing their teeth.
It's time for the pro-civilization forces to turn up the rhetoric and point and laugh at the lunatics coming unraveled. By their own words, they are supplying us with tons of material to use against them.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 9, 2009 2:31 PM
@74
I hate to continue this debate, but how is an incompetent praising another incompetent for his incompetent handling of a situation any sort of evidence of racism?
Bush thought Condi and Alberto Gonzales were doing a "heck of a job" too. Granted, Condi isn't so much incompetent so much as an ideologue whose skills were misapplied. But still. She was ineffective and more or less sucked.
It was widely said at the time that Kanye misspoke: it wasn't that Bush didn't care about Black people, it was that he didn't care about poor people, ie, Democratic voters. Which he proved again and again in his policy decisions. (Starting with import steel policy early in 2001--a giveaway to a red region and a sock to a blue one.) His tax policy is an obvious example.
Do you dispute any of this?
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 9, 2009 2:31 PM
Obama is no more liberal than any other Dem that's been in the Whitehouse since Kennedy.
The reason these people are frothing is:
1. He's hugely popular, and for good reason
2. His intellect makes their hero, George II, look like a kindergartner
3. He's effective (so far)
4. The rest of the world recognizes him as the huge improvement over George II that he is
5. They are still stinging from the EPIC FAIL of the George II admin. They had their (neo-con) shot and they wiped their asses on the Consitution, started a preemptive war, tortured people, kidnapped people, declared their enemies to be "unlawful combatants" who can be disposed of any way "the decider" (George II) wants, and let the economy run into the ditch. (These are the neo-con family values.)
And the real reason, drum-roll please:
6. They don't think a black man can legitimately hold the presidency of the US. Somehow they think the concentration of melanin in a person's skin has a causative effect on their competence and/or motivations. (Which goes right along with young-earth creationism nicely.)
What a bunch of ignorant tools.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 9, 2009 2:38 PM
"Condi isn't so much incompetent so much as an ideologue whose skills were misapplied. But still. She was ineffective and more or less sucked."
This is exactly correct. She's an analyst as was OK as NSA; but a fish out of water as SoS.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 9, 2009 2:42 PM
Sure, though it's a useful indication that whatever follows is thoughtless pablum and can be skipped without fear of missing anything. A real time-saver when I'm busy.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 2:44 PM
I can understand this objection if you are not familiar with America.
It was always known that the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy are white supremacist organizations.
This was never news.
Forgive me, I don't watch Fox News. Remind me again what was supposed to bother me about Reverend Wright?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 9, 2009 2:44 PM
Take a expert on the USSR and then start a war with the middle east. You'd at least think she could have said,
"Hey guys I'm pretty sure the Russians tried this already and ..."
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 9, 2009 2:50 PM
Here ya go Rev..
From the Wikipedia article:
The Jeremiah Wright controversy gained national attention in March 2008 when ABC News, after reviewing dozens of Wright's sermons,[27] excerpted parts which were subject to intense media scrutiny.[28][29] Wright is the former pastor of Barack Obama.[30] Obama denounced the statements in question, but after critics continued to press the issue of his relationship with Wright he gave a speech titled "A More Perfect Union", in which he sought to place Dr. Wright's comments in a historical and sociological context. In the speech, Obama again denounced Wright's remarks, but did not disown him as a person. The controversy began to fade, but was renewed in late April when Wright made a series of media appearances, including an interview on Bill Moyers Journal, a speech at the NAACP and a speech at the National Press Club.[31] After the last of these, Obama spoke more forcefully against his former pastor, saying that he was "outraged" and "saddened" by his behavior, and in May he resigned his membership in the church.[32]
(emphasis mine)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 9, 2009 2:54 PM
Rev.?
Posted by: Tulse
|
October 9, 2009 2:56 PM
To date, it is arguable that he has been the least liberal of any Dem since Kennedy, at least in terms of actual accomplishments.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 9, 2009 2:58 PM
Rev.
Whoops.
I started happy hour a bit too soon today.
Pardon me Rev.. That was for strange-gods.
I felt I also needed a bit of a refresher on the Wright situation and just decided to add it for all to peruse.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 9, 2009 3:02 PM
Mr. Laden:
Exactly!
And doesn't the world have a low standard for us 'Murikins? Just don't give us an amoral nitwit like George II and we'll praise y'all. Wow.
Obama doesn't deserve it as he himself acknowledged today. But he may -- in the future (I hope.) This is a political statement from the rest of the world: You're not a wingnut like George II, we are all very relieved.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 9, 2009 3:03 PM
Rev BigDumbChimp
Oh, snap ...
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 9, 2009 3:05 PM
Wow. Those wingnuts . . . err, I mean Whirlednuts Daily types sure are packing some weapons grade paranoia.
Imagine going through life seriously believing that there is some all-powerful devilish conspiracy aimed at you?
If you actually bought into such tripe, I suppose you would think you needed your guns.
Posted by: raven
|
October 9, 2009 3:08 PM
He's black and not out picking cotton. Probably lives in a real house without a dirt floor. May even know how to read and write.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 9, 2009 3:08 PM
Hey no worries, I was just concerned that maybe I had written something somewhere that I didn't remember
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 3:09 PM
Okay, so what in #85 was supposed to bother me?
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 9, 2009 3:13 PM
@67:
"In a way it's an own-goal for them, because by simply going out and doing the reasonable thing day after day, out in the open with nothing to hide, his detractors just look like wingers and the centrists dismiss them as such."
I think this is true. I just hope it works out that way at the polls in 2010 and 2012 ...
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 3:20 PM
Gregory, there is something you need to know about America.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 9, 2009 3:28 PM
What I don't get is why American political discourse is increasingly so polarised between two ideological camps, neither of whom seem to have much grasp on reality.
Obama isn't a god among men - but nor is he Teh Ebil Socialist America-Hating Muslim Terrorist. In reality, he's a moderate, middle-of-the-road, able politician who, as Presidents go, isn't doing a bad job. I strongly disagree with him on some issues - trade protectionism, in particular - but his foreign policy hasn't been too bad, and his healthcare plan is actually much more reasonable than I expected. By and large, Obama-the-President is a much more reasonable character than Obama-the-candidate, and (depending on who runs) I may well be in favour of his re-election in 2012 (since it seems unlikely that a non-batshit-insane GOP candidate is going to emerge).
In any case, calling for his impeachment is plain ridiculous. As I said on the Scalia thread, and I will say every time this issue comes up, impeachment should not be used as a political weapon. It's intended as an exceptional measure, to remove officials who are corrupt, abuse their offices for personal gain, or otherwise act in a manifestly illegal or unethical manner. There's a reason the Constitution refers to impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanours", not to impeachment for "doing stuff I disagree with". It was ridiculous, and a total abuse of the process, when the Gingrich crowd tried to impeach Clinton; it was equally stupid when Dennis Kucinich tried to introduce a motion to impeach Bush. Neither president had committed "high crimes and misdemeanours", or anything close to it.
Posted by: Leon
|
October 9, 2009 3:30 PM
True enough, but we're not going to let your little coup succeed, you right-wing nutcases.Posted by: Aunt Benjy
|
October 9, 2009 3:45 PM
Oooooh...there's a poll
http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=571
Posted by: Merkin Muffley
|
October 9, 2009 3:58 PM
"I congratulate President Obama on receiving this prestigious award. I join my fellow Americans in expressing pride in our President on this occasion."
Gracious words from John McCain.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren
|
October 9, 2009 4:07 PM
PZed, do you have a policy of not linking to WND directly? (Not that I'd blame you if you did...)
Oh, and BigDumbChimp, I love you.
Posted by: windy
|
October 9, 2009 4:08 PM
Hank Fox:
Oh, come off it. I'll make all the catty remarks I want about them for embarrassing the rest of us Europeans. We seem to have been slow in starting to pay attention to Obama's actual policies. The sooner the rest of the world drops the uncritical attitude, the better.
Posted by: llewelly
|
October 9, 2009 4:16 PM
strange gods before me | October 9, 2009 1:48 PM
I believe that makes atheists a larger minority than undocumented trolls. Hooray for us!
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 9, 2009 4:17 PM
Well umm, basically it shows that, umm, well, you see there's the whole reason behind, umm, and then was able to, umm, before the thing happened, when, umm...
So there.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
October 9, 2009 4:26 PM
I'm going to guess it has to do with geography first and foremost. When you live in a place where you can get in your car, drive for three days straight, and STILL be in the same country, then the rest of the world doesn't actually seem to exist. And so American ideas are just too isolated to mix with foreign ideas/perspectives and tend to produce these inbred, unrealistic monstrosities
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 9, 2009 4:28 PM
@97
Holy crap, I find myself in agreement with Walton.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
October 9, 2009 4:34 PM
don't worry, it happens. under all that thickheadedness there is a functioning brain, and his stay at Pharyngula is having a positive effect on said brain(primarily due to SGBM's efforts).
;-)
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 9, 2009 4:43 PM
I will say that long after Obama stopped attending Wright's church, Wright made some disturbing comments conflating Jews with Zionists, an irresponsible and offensive mistake that is often encouraged by Zionists.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 9, 2009 4:45 PM
aww. You need to register. Not a chance in hell I'll register for WND.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 4:47 PM
it was equally stupid when Dennis Kucinich tried to introduce a motion to impeach Bush
REally? Instituting a torture regime, in violation of international and domestic law, isn't a high crime or misdemeanor?
Posted by: timgueguen
|
October 9, 2009 4:56 PM
I'm surprised the impeachers would use a phrase like "bloodless coup." After all coup is a shortened version of the French coup d'etat, and you know how much that lot hates the French.
Posted by: Badjuggler
|
October 9, 2009 5:02 PM
On the plus side, they refer to Obama as an American. Progress!
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 9, 2009 5:02 PM
Off topic re:#79
I do feel it was racist how he selectively mistreated whole swaths of people. Yes, it was more complex than just personal racism and probably more a part of the racist neoconservative strategic package he bought into coupled with his roots in the racist American aristocracy. I don't think you can remove racism from W's time in office, especially with regard to his failure to take necessary action following Hurricane Katrina.Posted by: Nec_V20
|
October 9, 2009 5:09 PM
Obama inherited the worst possible scenario of any POTUS including FDR. He has been unravelling the economic and international crises that his sociopathic and to be generous "special" predecessor left him.
George W. Bush came VERY close to destroying the NATO alliance - for instance when W threatened the German chancellor Schroeder with withdrawing US troops from Germany Schroeder answered, "My foreign minister Joschka Fischer has the documents drawn up - shall we both sign now? And bye the way, how soon can you leave, yesterday would be good."
The threat was made when Schroeder refused to help Bush in any way in his attack on Iraq.
Obama has ignited a support for the US in Germany not seen since the eleventh of September 2001.
The US has been ruled by a rabid minority of approx. 10% of the population - loons one and all. The world is breathing a sigh of relief that finally some adult supervision has been restored to the Executive branch of the United States.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2009 5:14 PM
holy crap.
I'm guessing the paranoid rich sheltered folk are so over the edge now that they can only communicate through projection.
I keep seeing the head of some giant pyramid scheme, yelling at the rubes at the top of his voice:
"They're coming to shut down our
pyramidmoney making scheme! They want to take away all your money!!! Are you going to let them get away with that?"again, just like with the religious moneytakers like Robertson and Falwell (yeah, I know he's dead), it's not the liars that really get my ire up, it's the damned demented fuckwits who listen to what they say as if it's mana from heaven.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 5:16 PM
Falwell (yeah, I know he's dead)
Just makes me smile to say it again. Jerry Falwell is dead.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2009 5:17 PM
As I said on the Scalia thread, and I will say every time this issue comes up, impeachment should not be used as a political weapon.
and as we said, time and time again, this is a fucking strawman.
fuck the hell off, moron.
Posted by: Drosera
|
October 9, 2009 5:19 PM
Greg Laden @48 nails it. This Nobel Price is first of all an expression of gratitude to the American people (the non-looney part of it) on behalf of the rest of the world for keeping McCain/Palin out of the White House. *shudders*
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 5:22 PM
and as we said, time and time again, this is a fucking strawman.
The thing about it is that Walton is again engaging in false equivalence.
One Democratic member of the House introduces a resolution because the President of the United States violated international and domestic law by putting in place a torture regime. while Republicans impeached the President for getting a blowjob.
Where is the institutionally legitimate Democratic equivalent to the Arkansas Project? MoveOn? ACORN? SEIU? Who?
Stop the bullshit Walton.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2009 5:25 PM
Neither president had committed "high crimes and misdemeanours", or anything close to it.
-Bush violated the constitution with his wiretapping initiative.
-ignored the Geneva convention in the creation of the Guantanamo camp.
-Violated UN charter to invade Iraq (NOT afghanistan - so don't even conflate the two)
http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/george-w-bush-in-violation-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/
here's a more complete list of the many violations of our constitution (which you, Walton, obviously know fuck all about):
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf
seriously, I'm so fucking tired of your neocon fanboydom that's just filled with utter ignorance.
equating the reasons the right tried to impeach Clinton with the reasons Bushco SHOULD have been impeached are so far apart it's like comparing a game of chutes and ladders to professional baseball.
don't fucking apologize, don't ask me to.
just go the fuck away.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 5:28 PM
here's a more complete list of the many violations of our constitution (which you, Walton, obviously know fuck all about):
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf
Cato. *shudder*
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2009 5:35 PM
Cato. *shudder*
yeah, yeah.
it's a proper list, though. I checked.
Just happened to be the first I ran across. There are certainly many, many places where Bushco's shredding of the US constitution and Congressional approved treaties are documented.
hell, I'll be there's even a wiki.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2009 5:42 PM
oh, and since Walton
liesstates he's interested in learning about American politics and procedure...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm
I'm just so tired of his utter neocon fanboydom.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 5:43 PM
yeah, yeah.
it's a proper list, though. I checked.
I figured you would.
The thing that's driving me crazy is the false equivalence. I expect Walton to be a torture apologist. It just seems to be in his character.
But it's the fucking false equivalence. There is NOTHING that we on the left (and I tend to be further on the left side of the Democratic Party) did that came anywhere close to what the Republicans were doing during the Clinton administration. NOTHING.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2009 5:46 PM
But it's the fucking false equivalence.
ayup. got me too.
...and it's so obvious, one has to wonder if it was intentional.
I find it hard to believe Walton, who apparently is a wanna be american rethuglican, living in a UK body, would be THAT ignorant of the vast differences between the two presidencies.
again, it smacks of dishonesty, and I really have concluded people here generally cut him too much slack on that.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 9, 2009 5:59 PM
MAJeff, OM #124
There's a school of thought that the Clinton impeachment was in retaliation for the threatened impeachment of Nixon. Especially considering how the Republicans tried so desperately to get something, anything on Clinton, there might be some truth to this idea.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 6:06 PM
There's a school of thought that the Clinton impeachment was in retaliation for the threatened impeachment of Nixon. Especially considering how the Republicans tried so desperately to get something, anything on Clinton, there might be some truth to this idea.
I'm familiar with that. There was more going on, though. As Frank Rich noted this weekend, since the Reagan years, they believe they have a divine right to rule. Any Democrat is inherently illegitimate, simply because s/he is not one of them. But, there's also the issue of obstructionism. Compare the number of judges blocked by Republicans during the Clinton era to those blocked by Democrats during the Bush era. Not even close. Same thing goes for the use of the filibuster.
But, we've got to keep up the myth of equivalence. And Walton's got to continue showing off what a fuckwit he is.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2009 6:09 PM
But, we've got to keep up the myth of equivalence. And Walton's got to continue showing off what a fuckwit he is.
it got tiring after the first month...
how long has he been hanging around now?
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 9, 2009 6:25 PM
MAJeff and Ichthyic,
I don't know why you're characterising me as a "neocon fanboy" and "wannabe rethuglican". While I used to be a fairly hardcore right-winger, I find that, as I've learned more, I've gained a more nuanced and balanced perspective. I've come to realise that reality doesn't fit into neat, simple ideological boxes, and that people of many different political persuasions can bring legitimate points to the discussion table.
I've made clear, many times, that there are many respects in which I think the Bush administration was totally wrong. The use of torture at Guantanamo, the suspension of civil liberties, and the attempts to use legal technicalities to evade both habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention, were entirely morally unacceptable and very dangerous to liberty. The Obama administration is right - though it has not yet gone far enough - in ending and reversing these practices. I do not support or condone torture or arbitrary detention without trial. As a strong advocate of civil liberties, I entirely condemn both these things. How much clearer do I have to be on this? Calling me a "torture apologist" is both untrue and offensive.
I'm not a "Bush supporter" or an admirer of his legacy. Like many presidents, he was a mediocre politician, who was fundamentally incompetent for the office to which he ascended; it's really a job that's too big for any ordinary person to perform well. He was influenced by people with untested and radical ideas about foreign policy, and, when put into practice, those ideas - like many radical schemes throughout history - ranged from ineffective to disastrous.
But because I don't unequivocally condemn and pour out rage against the Bush administration at every opportunity, I'm accused of being a "Bush supporter" or "Bush apologist". You're acting as if this is a case of "if you're not for us you're against us"; in your eyes, it seems that everyone who doesn't despise Bush and everything he stood for must automatically be a fanatical Bush-supporting right-wing ideologue. It is possible to occupy a middle ground.
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 9, 2009 6:26 PM
I've seen it time and time again, and you all have, too. It's how libertarians try to claim the middle ground - "See? The Liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans are exactly the same, and only WE - the Sensible, Middle-of-the-Road Libertarians - can truly represent you, the masses." I see it all the time on Ed Brayton's blog. In a sense, it's the same B.S. the mainstream media does - trying to appear "balanced" by inviting on a liberal with facts on her side to debate a conservative with whackaloonery on his side. Accuracy is discarded in an effort to be fair.
Are there lunatics on the left? Sure. Do they run the Democratic Party? Nope. Are there lunatics on the right? Sure. Do they run the Republican Party? You betchya, for sure, and also too! There simply is no equivalence.
And as for libertarians representing the mainstream - they never have, they don't now, and I hope for damn sure they never do.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 6:28 PM
And yet, Walton, articles of impeachment against Bush for instituting a torture regime are equally illegitimate to impeachment for a blowjob.
Keep up with the false equivalence and intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 6:32 PM
But because I don't unequivocally condemn and pour out rage against the Bush administration at every opportunity, I'm accused of being a "Bush supporter" or "Bush apologist".
And as I noted in the previous thread, it's not the inadequate personality, it's the inadequate intellect.
See everything about about the nonsensical false equivalence you drew...
...and we'll prepare for some whining about how people hate you, and about how you can't catch a break, and finally some justification for some blah blah blah blah blah.
And what makes you a torture apologist is your equivalence between articles of impeachment for someone who instituted a fucking torture regime and a blowjob. Apparently, waterboarding is the same as fellatio.
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 9, 2009 6:33 PM
Walton, consider one factor: torture. By all reasonable accounts, the knowledge of, and approval for, the use of torture reached the highest levels of the Bush administration. How can one justify a "middle ground"? I have heard people try to explain that they are "okay with a little torture" (!), depending on the circumstances and the subject.
And this is just one issue. There was the invasion of Iraq, the constant denial of global warming (which may have more far reaching and dire effects than all other Bush decisions; time will tell), the abandonment of New Orleans... how does one stake out a "middle ground"?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 6:36 PM
And this is just one issue. There was the invasion of Iraq, the constant denial of global warming (which may have more far reaching and dire effects than all other Bush decisions; time will tell), the abandonment of New Orleans... how does one stake out a "middle ground"?
ACORN!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Copyleft
|
October 9, 2009 6:56 PM
Walton, the reason you're getting accusations of false equivocation is because that's what you're doing.
You say you "disagreed with some of Bush's actions" just like you "disagree with some of Obama's and Clinton's."
But Bush's action were actual CRIMES. That's an important difference, don't you think? Whether you personally criticized them both as "flawed" is irrelevant; one violated the freakin' Constitution, and the others did not.
How much clearer does that need to be for you to acknowledge that articles of impeachment against Bush WERE warranted, whereas impeachment against Clinton and Obama were and are not?
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 9, 2009 7:04 PM
OK... after thinking about it, I will admit that the two sets of circumstances are not really equivalent. I was lazy in lumping them together.
It seems that you and I both agree that the impeachment of Clinton was transparently partisan bullshit, and an abuse of the process. No argument there.
Kucinich's motion to impeach Bush, however, I find questionable for a number of reasons - which I think we can, and should, discuss. As far as we can tell from the facts that have so far been released, the use of waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods was, as Bobber says, authorised at the highest levels of the administration. I agree with the consensus of legal scholars that waterboarding constitutes illegal torture, under both domestic and international law. However, in Bush's defence, he does seem to have been advised by Justice Department lawyers that waterboarding was legal. That was bad advice - and it's true that, traditionally, ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse) - so if this were a purely legal proceeding, and we were talking about Bush being prosecuted for the use of torture in an ordinary criminal court, rather than impeached, he wouldn't get a free pass on that basis.
Obviously, since Bush is no longer in office, the question of his impeachment is purely academic. So, without expressing any opinion myself, I'll ask you a question. Do you believe that Bush, Cheney, and other senior officials who authorised the use of waterboarding should, having left office, now be prosecuted in federal court for violations of the anti-torture provisions of the United States Code? Do you think such a prosecution would be likely to succeed?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 7:09 PM
OK... after thinking about it, I will admit that the two sets of circumstances are not really equivalent. I was lazy in lumping them together.
Typical Walton. Intellectually lazy nonsense followed by a long justification and attempt to move the conversation.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 9, 2009 7:34 PM
From the Molly thread:
Thanks a lot, Walton. I also gave arguments against the flat tax.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 9, 2009 7:47 PM
My comments about flat taxes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/baby_bears_lament_james_wood_i.php#comment-1905288
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 9, 2009 7:49 PM
'Tis Himself
Sorry - I didn't mean to exclude you or minimise your contributions. The reason strange gods leapt to mind is because he's spent a lot of time talking about the flat vs. progressive tax.
For the record, you're one of the commenters here from whom I have learned the most, and I do enjoy discussing things with you. It saddens me that you seem to hold me in some level of contempt, but you've explained your reasons for doing so, and I suppose I can understand them.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful
|
October 9, 2009 7:52 PM
Walton wrote (in the Molly thread):
Congratulations! You have graduated from Libertarianism! Your diploma will arrive in 4-6 weeks. Please place all of your Ayn Rand books in the bin at the back of the room, and be sure to return your cap and gown by 5:00 p.m. to avoid being assessed a late fee.Posted by: Sauceress
|
October 9, 2009 8:20 PM
#23 strange gods before me
Looks ripe for a few sidewiki comments
http://idoinfotech.com/1589/internet/review-google-sidewiki-comment/
Posted by: Fred
|
October 9, 2009 8:52 PM
If he gives a good speech, you can't impeach.
I miss Johnnie Cochran.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris
|
October 9, 2009 9:17 PM
Walton,
To answer your first question, yes. The fact that the Bush/Cheney administration solicited opinions from the Justice Department to support a course of action that they knew was illegal (we prosecuted our own soldiers for waterboarding during Vietnam) does not, as you noted, constitute a viable defense. The bottom line is they violated US law and betrayed their oaths of office. I think the term for this kind of behavior is "guilty as sin."
Further, prosecuting Bush and Cheney sends a message to other would-be abusers power in the USA that they will not be able to retire in peace.
As for whether a prosecution would be successful, I doubt it. However, that shouldn't stop us from trying. Bush and Cheney were elected officials. They acted in the names of the citizens of the USA. The fact that people were tortured in my name makes me sick. Nothing will ever make up for the administration's complete disregard for everything the Constitution and this nation mean to millions of Americans. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 9, 2009 9:45 PM
Strange Gods @ 96;
Interesting Poll. I was surprised that such a comparatively high percentage of people who identified as 'liberal' or 'extremely liberal' owned fire arms. I imagine gun ownership for personal protection may be seen as an issue transcending politics.
I must admit that as a citizen of the mostly gun-free UK, I am probably biased on this issue.
Still, you do seem to have your fair share of gun-toting, far right nuts over there.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2009 11:07 PM
They acted in the names of the citizens of the USA. The fact that people were tortured in my name makes me sick.
made me leave.
Hey now...
Walton can have my place!
How would you like to live in the very conservative desert SW in California, Walton?
I bet you'd love it to death. Big bunch of Rush Limbaugh fans.
Posted by: Matthew Hodson
|
October 9, 2009 11:25 PM
Wait, Obama is far left? What the fuck? Hahahahaaha hehehe heh. These people would probably literally implode if someone who is actually far left got into office.
Posted by: evis nuture
|
October 10, 2009 12:31 AM
The nomination for Nobel Peace prize ended in February, but the actual voting was not until much later. Still early in his first term, but later than the calls for his head over the stimulus package or health care reform.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
October 10, 2009 1:33 AM
#145
Although I haven't owned a gun in years, I'll try to get you inside the heads of liberal gun owners, and give some of the typical reasons, in no particular order.
For some of us, it's normal to own guns. We grew up with them, or we've had them around at some point in our lives.
Some people just like things that go boom (seriously). They aren't maniacs, and they're not interested in shooting people; they like to shoot at paper targets, bottles, cans, old fridges, &etc. Why? I don't know. Probably something close to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes for the hell of it. They think it's fun. As long as it's not hurting/bothering anyone, why not?
Some people fear that the police will not arrive in time to save them from a crime, so they need to protect themselves.
Sadly, in some cases, the police can be worse than criminals (:::cough:::LAPD:::cough:::). Calling them could only make things worse, so it's better to take care of it yourself, deal with the consequences if you must. You're on your own, baby.
And, finally, some people are just fucking paranoid, and see the bogeyman everywhere, ready to take everything they care about, at any second. Even liberals aren't exempt from this mentality.
Posted by: of-the-willows
|
October 10, 2009 2:01 AM
Jumping out of an airplane doesn't require skill. Aiming at a target and consistently bulls-eyeing does. That's the only problem with that analogy.
I suppose you could say jumping out of a plane takes skill, as does base jumping, in that you must pack your 'chute correctly. You can get it right, all the time, by learning it straight from an instructor or a book, while the only thing that improves is your skill in packing your 'chute more efficiently. But the one time you screw up you don't learn nuffin from it.
To have 'deadly' aim is a challenge, especially in skeet shooting. That shit takes practice and devotion. Jumping out a plane... not so much.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
October 10, 2009 2:21 AM
Uh, dude, you do need some skill to jump out of an airplane. Have you ever gone skydiving? You don't get to charter a plane and start jumping out on a whim.
Anyway, have you ever been around go ka-boom nuts?
The people who like things that go boom aren't worried about accuracy. They're shooting at bottles on a fence.They're shooting out the fridge they were going to drop off at the dump. They shoot at rusted out engine blocks. They like the boom.
When these guys dabble in science, it's only deep enough to figure out what sodium does in water, and then they toss blocks of the stuff into lakes when nobody's looking. But they aren't skilled in chemistry. They're lucky if they know that Na and sodium are the same thing.
Posted by: windy
|
October 10, 2009 4:11 AM
The fact that people were tortured in my name makes me sick.
From Scott Horton at Harper's on Oct. 2:
Peace is on the march! I guess it's more peaceful to just keep the wrongfully detained people in detention.
Posted by: of-the-willows
|
October 10, 2009 4:22 AM
Aquaria
You didn't say anything about "joe six-pack kaboom lovin jones" in your other post. You mentioned liberal gun-owners and the fact that all they want to do is have a little fun. I say it's a hobby which requires skill (and now I'm going to say it requires a little talent as well.) Those who make shooting a hobby do so because it's fun AND challenging, not just simple fun, as you want to reduce it to.
Skydiving is pure fun with a little bit of preparation and planning, the same prep and planning goes into every jump. It's stagnant knowledge which isn't improved upon by repetitive jumps. Skydiving is an event for people who want the thrill of it.
Posted by: ostranenie
|
October 10, 2009 4:27 AM
since i'm relatively new, i suppose the prudent thing to do would be to just not get involved. but unless all you old-timers want this thread to be a small circle of smug back-slappers, there needs to be some changes.
1. knock off the ad hominem attacks on walton. he's polite, he's articulate, and if he didn't exist, somebody would have to invent him, if only to make lazy liberals sharpen their arguments. (for example, re: comment 97: calling two things "stupid" is not "equating" them; he did call them "equally stupid", which was a fuck-up, but it was only one word, and i'm pretty sure he would have immediately agreed to omit that word. so call him on his tiny writing error, rather than his whole philosophy of life.)
2. define "torture." there's been way too much said on this subject over the last several years--and even way to much in this single thread--without a bit of necessary clarity. i always thought "torture" had to involve massive physical pain. but ever since that picture on newsweek (or whatever magazine that was) a few years ago, it seems the jon stewart crowd has redefined torture to mean "anything that makes one uncomfortable, physically or even just psychologically." is having a dog bark at you torture? a naked human pyramid? are you sure you want to equate "humiliation" and "torture"? don't pretend that this is a cut-and-dried subject, b/c it isn't.
2. define "just war". as with torture, an unbelievable amount of words have been written about the Iraq war in the last few years, and it seems to me (right or wrong), that 90% of those words are just froth over the real issue: when is war just?
3. define "racist". as above. i always thought it meant to think one race was inferior to another race, as Hitler did with the Jews. (and yes, i know "race" is a very fuzzy category.) but now, with you liberals, it seems that anyone who dislikes jay-z's music is a racist, or that a higher percentage of blacks in american prisons necessarily indicates racism in the judicial system, or that stupid conservatives being led by limbaugh are necessarily racist, on the thinnest evidence. (and before the stupid brigade weighs in, just b/c i use the phrase "you liberals" does not, in fact, imply that i am not a liberal myself.)
sorry to go on. but if you want pz's thread to attract new readers, i think folks need to be more articulate and persuasive. after all, isn't that why we come here? anyone can make fun of creationists, but it takes someone like pz to say WHY we should make fun of them. jus' saying.
(p.s. i do know where the shift key is. fuck you.)
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 10, 2009 5:14 AM
You know where it is, but you cannot be bothered to use it ?
Lazy fucker ain't you ?
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 10, 2009 5:15 AM
ostranenie:
... But you couldn't be stuffed capitalising, except for "Hitler" and "Jews". Right.
Good first point, but why do you ask questions the answers to which you could either Google or find by searching previous posts?
PS Welcome to Pharyngula. :)
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 10, 2009 5:20 AM
ostranenie,
knock off the ad hominem attacks on walton.
You clearly don't know what ad hominem means.
i always thought "torture" had to involve massive physical pain
You were always wrong. Psychological torture is well-documented to cause long-term damage as severe as physical torture. Just google it, fuckwit. And try to limit the dishonesty: "having a dog bark at you" - you scumbag. Maybe you'll be threatened with being savaged by dogs sometime; I'm almost tempted to hope so, but that would bring me down to your level.
define "just war"
You do not need a definition of "just war" to know that a war of aggression such as the invasion of Iraq is not just.
define racism. i always thought it meant to think one race was inferior to another race
This is the racists' own preferred definition, which, because we don't actually have the ability to read minds, allows them to deny their racism - as, for example, Nick Griffin, fuehrer of the British National Party, does. A more useful definition is that racism is policies, actions or attitudes which systematically disadvantage members of an underprivileged ethnic group or groups, simply as members of such groups.
just b/c i use the phrase "you liberals" does not, in fact, imply that i am not a liberal myself
Yes it does.
but if you want pz's thread to attract new readers
We get a pretty constant supply, including more than enough right-wing fuckwits.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 10, 2009 5:31 AM
As long as it's not hurting/bothering anyone, why not? - Aquaria
Because the more guns there are in circulation, the more people are likely to get killed by them - many, of course, accidentally. Moreover, guns are one of the first things burglars look for: they are valuable and easy to sell. Guess who buys them?
Posted by: ostranenie
|
October 10, 2009 5:34 AM
i don't know how to quote previous folks, so:
@155: yes, yes, and yes. especially the third.
@156: heh, the upper case in those two were mistakes. my humblest. the other two questions: precisely b/c i find the usual definitions too loose: "torture" wiki page says that torture includes inflicting severe mental suffering. really? so if you call my grandma ugly, you're now "torturing" me? that's just WAY too subjective and vague. and the "jus ad bellum" part of the "just war" wiki page has 7 criteria for a "just war." gw bush could easily claim to have fulfilled all seven.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 10, 2009 5:55 AM
Aquaria @ 149;
Thanks for the insight into the mind of the liberal gun owner. You do get people who enjoy the challenge of target shooting in the UK as well, but over here the law requires that the weapon be of noi greater calibre than .22 and that it must be kept in a secured gun locker seperate from its ammunition at the gun range itself.
If I may attempt a generalisation about the attitude toward guns in the UK, most Brits see the private ownership of guns for any purpose (with the possible exception of farmers using shot guns to control vermin, though this is not universally accepted) as suspect especially after the Dunblaine massacre. To be honest handguns (and even more so automatic weapons) that are not in the hands of the police or military are seen as almost synonamous with criminality.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 10, 2009 6:01 AM
"torture" wiki page says that torture includes inflicting severe mental suffering. really? so if you call my grandma ugly, you're now "torturing" me? - ostranenie
You really are a disgusting piece of shit. Psychological torture routinely involves: death threats and mock executions, threats of death or torture to the victim's family, and exposure to the sounds of real or simulated torture of others.
Posted by: ostranenie
|
October 10, 2009 6:06 AM
@157
1. "You clearly don't know what ad hominem means."
apparently not. i did indeed think that, when rebutting walton's assertions, calling him "thickheaded" (#107), "a wanna be [sic] american rethuglican" (#125), a "fuckwit" (#127), and "intellectually lazy" (#137), and referring to his presumed "utter ignorance" (#120) and "lies" (#123) did qualify as "ad hominem". clearly, my bad.
2. "Psychological torture is well-documented to cause long-term damage as severe as physical torture."
damage to what? one's psyche? can damage to the body and damage to the "psyche" really be "well-documented"?
3. "Maybe you'll be threatened with being savaged by dogs sometime"
maybe i will. and you know what, as long as none of those dogs ever makes physical contact with me, i won't give a fuck. what are you, a 12 year old girl?
4. "You do not need a definition of "just war" to know that a war of aggression such as the invasion of Iraq is not just."
yes, i do. was american involvement in bosnia just? was american non-involvement in rwanda just? does "saving people" make a war ok? was no one "saved" by the us invasion of iraq? i do need a definition. can't you come up with one?
5. "racism is ...actions or attitudes which systematically disadvantage members of an underprivileged ethnic group."
what does the verb "disadvantage" mean here? what if someone hates blacks--but doesn't think they are inferior-- but doesn't want to do anything to "disadvantage" them? or, going back to my definition, if someone thinks another race is inferior, but can't be bothered to actually "disadvantage" them, does that mean they're not racist? sorry, i like my definition better.
6. "just b/c i use the phrase "you liberals" does not, in fact, imply that i am not a liberal myself
Yes it does."
no, it doesn't. ever heard of a "devil's advocate"?
7. "We get a pretty constant supply, including more than enough right-wing fuckwits."
fine. continue on with your comfortable circle-jerk then.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 10, 2009 6:10 AM
Ostranenie, I appreciate your leaping to my defence, but I have to disagree with you on a couple of points.
I think your definition of "torture" is artificially narrow. While I agree that there is a grey area in between "torture" and "coercive interrogation", it's also fairly well-accepted that psychological torture is very real, and can in fact be more damaging, long term, than physical torture. In answer to your question, extreme and repeated humiliation is certainly capable of constituting torture. And bear in mind that the effects also depend on the individual's psyche and his or her cultural background; the same practice may be more psychologically damaging to one person than to another.
Furthermore, the Bush administration crossed the line when they authorised waterboarding, which is well-established as illegal under international law - indeed, it was one of the torture methods used by the Japanese during WWII. International war crimes tribunals have generally treated it unequivocally as torture. Waterboarding isn't in the grey area; it's well established as illegal torture, in the opinion of pretty much everyone except Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter.
I can accept that the status of certain other techniques as torture is debatable, but I don't think there's any excuse for allowing waterboarding, whatever the circumstances. In the end, if we use torture, we lose the moral high ground and become no better than our enemies. There's no point in fighting if we lose sight of the moral principles we're fighting for. The deliberate use of a known torture method is never acceptable, and I think Dick Cheney and his colleagues crossed the line, and abandoned moral decency, when they authorised and defended the use of waterboarding. Whether anyone should be prosecuted for it, I don't know - the legal issues are complex - but present and future administrations certainly need to make an unequivocal commitment that it will never be used again.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 10, 2009 6:20 AM
Aquaria, Gregory Greenwood, et al:
On the gun issue, I think British gun-control laws are needlessly restrictive. While the Dunblane massacre was horrific, the total handgun ban that followed it was over-the-top. In the end, dedicated killers and other criminals will always be able to obtain firearms, whatever legal restrictions you place on them. And there are legitimate purposes - both recreation and self-defence - for owning a firearm.
At the same time, I don't think that everyone who wants one should simply be able to walk into a store and buy a firearm. I also can't see that an ordinary civilian would ever have a legitimate need to own automatic weapons; those, IMO, should remain restricted to military and police uses. It seems to me that Canada strikes the balance approximately in the right place. Private ownership of firearms should require a permit and criminal records check. I also think that, rather like driving a car, firearm owners ought to be required to undergo basic safety training; far too many gun owners in the US don't take basic safety precautions.
So I really take a moderate position on this: I'm pro-gun by British standards, but would be considered a gun-control advocate by Americans. I think owning a firearm should really be like owning a car; both are potentially lethal, and so should be subject to regulation for the safety of the public, but neither should be banned. (The analogy is particularly apt, as far more people die in vehicle accidents every day than in shootings.) Gun ownership, like car ownership, isn't an absolute right; it's a privilege that carries responsibilities. But it's not a privilege that should be denied to an individual without good cause.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 10, 2009 6:33 AM
ostranenie @ 162;
In relation to the validity of the term 'psychological torture', I was under the impression that the idea of psychological torture was well accepted by psychologists and war crimes tribunals alike.
Speaking purely hypothetically since I have never experienced anything comparable myself, I can certainly imagine that being kept in constant fear of violence, pain or death, even if the feared event never actually occurs, could be highly stressful and harmful to a person's psyche. Sufficiently harmful to be classed as torture in the eyes of the law. It could be argued that a major element of physical torture is the psychological damage it causes. The intent being to 'break' a person's will to resist rather than just mangle their body. Physical wounds often heal more quickly and more completely than psychological ones.
If the same end that is pursued through the application of pain can be acheived without physical violence through attacking a victim's mind, then is it not reasonable to also describe this method as a form of torture?
Furthermore, as Walton points out above, the Bush administration explicitly authorised the simulated drowning technique known as 'waterboarding'. Contrary to the assertions of some on the American far right, this activity is unambiguously torture. Just because, if it is performed correctly, the likelihood of permenant physical harm is minimised this does not stop it being torture.
If we in the West employ such techniques, we lose any and all credibility when we condemn the use of torture by others. All we acheive is the loss of moral authority in return for a method of interrogation whose efficacy is suspect at best. You can make a person say anything under torture, but you cannot be certain that what they say is true.
Posted by: ostranenie
|
October 10, 2009 6:48 AM
@163
first, my point was that b/c "torture" is ill-defined, the shouting-matches between the left and the right are pretty pointless, so until the "sides" can get a grip on what's at stake, nothing will be resolved. your reply, which i mostly agree with, confirms this. everyone, even cheney, is "against torture". but that's only b/c no one seems to know what torture is.
specifically:
1. "extreme and repeated humiliation is certainly capable of constituting torture. And bear in mind that the effects also depend on the individual's psyche and his or her cultural background"
i disagree with the first sentence but agree with the second; and given the second sentence, how can your definition of torture not be fatally subjective and vague? if removing the hat of a religious person who thinks he should always wear a hat before his imaginary god, or making someone wear short pants who thinks that exposed calves are an insult to his imaginary god constitutes "extreme humiliation" and thus torture, then i guess I have to be "for torture". and somebody like knockgoats would probably be fine with pigeonholing me thus, but do y'all really want to alienate the fence-sitters? what i'm looking for is a clear definition b/c after all, we need something that an 18 year old army private who is interrogating a prisoner can understand and follow.
2. "waterboarding, which is well-established as illegal under international law"
the argument from authority doesn't work for me. believe it or not, i'm still not convinced on this. what about that guy in the papers months ago who was waterboarded 100+ times? unless you can demonstrate to me that he is physically or psychologically fucked up for life, then... i mean if he can walk away from that relatively unscathed, then can we really call it "torture"? (i admit i know nothing about all this. and no, i'm not going to read this or that book on it b/c i just don't have the time.) it can be illegal--i'm not defending waterboarding--but i don't want the definition of "torture" to be expanded so much that it means everything and nothing. (as with "racist"... which is now a totally useless term in rational discourse precisely b/c the left applied it too broadly. imho.)
3. "In the end, if we use torture, we lose the moral high ground and become no better than our enemies."
i totally agree. but i still don't know what "torture" is. i know, i'm an idiot. fine, but you smart folks still need to spell it out to that hypothetical 18 year old army private, and if he can understand it, them maybe i can too.
i realize i'm trying to simplify a complex issue, but sometimes that needs to be done.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 10, 2009 6:57 AM
Insults are not ad hominem. Saying "your arguments are bad because of fact X, you shithead" is insulting but not ad hominem. Saying "your arguments are bad because you're a shithead" is ad hominem.
On a related point, I withdraw my threatened resignation from the Order of Molly if Walton is selected as an OM.
Posted by: ostranenie
|
October 10, 2009 7:03 AM
@165
i mostly agree, but:
"I can certainly imagine that being kept in constant fear of violence, pain or death, even if the feared event never actually occurs, could be highly stressful and harmful to a person's psyche. Sufficiently harmful to be classed as torture in the eyes of the law."
the key words, for me, are "kept in". "kept in" for how long? 10 minutes? 10 hours? 10 days?
second, once we trod down the path of "psychological wounds", how can we NOT want to be very specific? after all, i can tell somebody that his shoes are ugly and "psychologically scar" him for life. i'm not denying that "psychological wounds" exist, but i am saying that if we're going to impeach somebody, or prosecute somebody, for "psychologically scarring" a prisoner, then we need some specific guidelines.
all i'm looking for is clarity. then, and only then, can people even agree to disagree, much less have a proper argument. or so it appears to me.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 10, 2009 7:03 AM
Thank you. I appreciate it.
(Not that the issue is likely to arise in practice, since I'm rather unlikely to win the Molly, and would be the first to admit that I don't deserve it. I'll probably always be a controversial figure around these parts. But I'm still flattered that some people voted for me.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 10, 2009 7:07 AM
It doesn't matter if you're convinced that water boarding is torture or not. Nor is it an "argument from authority" (you really need to learn more about logical fallacies). Water boarding has been defined as torture in international treaties to which the US is a signatory. Therefore, legally water boarding is torture.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 10, 2009 7:12 AM
Walton @ 164;
I can see your point here, but the counter argument would be that the greater the number of firearms in ciculation, and the easier it becomes to procure a firearm, then the more likely it will be that criminal elemets outside "dedicated killers" will make use of them. It is also possible that hardcore criminal gangs will find it easier to expand their arsenals. Legalisation of firearms might easily exacerbate the UK's (currently comparatively manageable) problem with gun crime. More firearms could also result in more accidental shooting related injuries and deaths even with a licencing system. Just think of how much stupidity is seen on the roads inspite of driving licences.
Your idea about safety training and the issue of permits would be a prudent requirement should firearms be legalised, but your analagy to car ownership could be flawed. While cars can most certianly be lethal weapons, they were designed as a means of transport. This is their primary functiom. Guns, by contrast, were designed as weapons and are far more practical than an automobile for this purpose. Small but potent hamd guns are easily concealed and can cause a great deal of death and injury in a small timeframe. You point out that there are;
"legitimate purposes - both recreation and self-defence - for owning a firearm."
One could equally argue that there are legitimate purposes for the ownership of high explosives. This could include recreation (just ask the Mythbusters crew) as well as construction or demolition. You could issue permits and require health and safety courses before the purchase of explosives by an ordinary civilian for non-commercial use, but I am not sure that law enforcement would accept the idea that people should have increased access to such dangerous material even with extra training. While this is a question of degree, the balance that needs to be struck is a fine one.
"I also can't see that an ordinary civilian would ever have a legitimate need to own automatic weapons; those, IMO, should remain restricted to military and police uses."
I agree with you 100% on this one. Indeed I would go further and say that, in the event firearms were legalised in the UK, all military grade weapons should be restricted. A hunting rifle in the hands of a maniac is bad enough, but a sniper rifle is worse.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 10, 2009 7:22 AM
ostranenie @ 168;
You are absolutely right that in such cases a high degree of legal certainty as to the parameters of what constitutes 'physchological torture' and 'psychological scarring' is required in order to have confidence in any conviction.
The time frame issue is a tricky one. How sustained does the activity have to be to qualify as torture? I fear I am not qualified to say. You raise a good point, though.
"i can tell somebody that his shoes are ugly and "psychologically scar" him for life"
While I am not a psychologist, I think that it would be possible to draw a distinction between actions that would cause severe psycholoigical harm to almost anyone and those that would have such a prenounced effect on only a small minority. I am not familiar with the literature, but I imagine that further research is probably needed in this area.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 10, 2009 7:24 AM
Fair enough, perhaps I should have been clearer. The United States Code expressly bans torture, and the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment"; the US has also signed up to a number of international treaties banning torture. Since waterboarding falls within the accepted definition of torture, according to the consensus of most legal scholars, the US government was therefore breaking its legal obligations by allowing waterboarding. In a country founded on constitutional governance and the rule of law, I would say it's morally obligatory for a government to abide consistently by its own rules. The use of waterboarding is a violation of both domestic and international law; and in a civilised society, we have a right to expect our governments to act within the law.
This is separate from the issue of whether waterboarding is immoral in itself. I believe it is an inherently immoral practice. But even if you disagree, you should still be able to recognise that it's a violation of the current law: and do you not agree that governments should be expected to comply with the law?
The trouble is that you're simply inventing a narrow definition of "torture" which has no basis in established law. Whether or not something constitutes torture is not contingent on whether the victim is "fucked up for life". By your own admission, you don't know about the current law on the subject. That's fine - I don't expect everyone to be a legal scholar - but it would be wise to explore what the current definitions actually are, before critiquing them.
The US Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment"; similarly, in my own country (the UK), the European Convention on Human Rights forbids "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". While this is obviously a standard that requires some evaluative moral judgment, and there are grey areas of disagreement, I would contend that waterboarding is "cruel and unusual" or "inhuman and degrading" according to any reasonable, civilised standard. The courts agree with me; individuals have been prosecuted in the past for the use of waterboarding. Quite simply, it is clearly illegal under established law. You can disagree with the existing law if you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that the government is required to comply with it - and, by authorising waterboarding, they crossed the line into clearly unlawful behaviour.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 10, 2009 7:32 AM
ostranenie,
First, only fuckwits think that if something cannot be given a precise definition, there are no clear instances of it. As Edmund Burke said:
"though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable".
The effects of psychological torture are well-documented. You might start with WATERBOARDING IS ILLEGAL, since this also documents the statutes under which this particular form of torture is illegal, and notes that both the US and UK authorities prosecuted Japanese who had used it on allied prisoners during WWII.
"Maybe you'll be threatened with being savaged by dogs sometime"
maybe i will. and you know what, as long as none of those dogs ever makes physical contact with me, i won't give a fuck. what are you, a 12 year old girl?
First: imagine (if you are actually capable of this): you are completely in the power of your captors. You can see several large dogs are leaping at the door of your cage, snarling and biting the wire. Your captor only has to draw the bolt and they will tear you to pieces. You're telling me you would not be shitting yourself in terror? That your helplessness and fear would not return to you in dreams? You're either a liar, or you completely lack insight.
Second: suppose I were a 12-year-old girl. How would this make my arguments invalid? Why do you have such contempt for 12-year-old girls?
what does the verb "disadvantage" mean here?
What it usually means: treating people less favourably than others. Just how stupid are you?
i admit i know nothing about all this - ostranenie
Says it all, really.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 10, 2009 7:42 AM
Knockgoats: I note that you and I now seem to be taking substantially the same position on this issue.
Considering that I'm expressly arguing against torture, and criticising the Bush administration's policies, I hope (probably in vain) that MAJeff and Ichthyic have realised that they aren't justified in labelling me a "torture apologist" and "neocon fanboy". I note that both of them have conveniently vanished from this thread (though, to be fair, that could just be a result of different time zones / actual stuff to do in real life). In any case, I suppose it's overly optimistic to expect any kind of apology or retraction from either of them.
Posted by: ostranenie
|
October 10, 2009 8:21 AM
@173
ok. waterboarding is considered torture. torture is illegal. (ergo, gwb should be prosecuted for it.) fine, but that's not really my issue.
my issue is that "cruel and unusual" and "inhuman and degrading" are too vague to be of any practical use. i mean, not to be a dick about it, but:
1. "unusual"? making a prisoner wear a funny hat is "usual", but is it "torture"?
2. "inhuman"? what does this even mean?
3. "degrading"? there are a billion + people in the world who think that a women's exposed shoulders are "degrading" to herself and her family. if i expose a prisoner's shoulders, is it "torture"?
4. "cruel"? again, this, to me, only has any real meaning when physical pain is involved. otherwise, i'm really not sure that having someone face barking dogs is "cruel". it's just too vague... am i really the only one who thinks this? is it really that clear to everyone else?
call me dense, but i still don't know what torture is.
you're right that i have a narrow definition of torture*, but it is also clear and therefore useful.
*strictly speaking, i don't have any definition of torture at all, b/c i really no longer know what it means. growing up, prior to, say, five years ago, i assumed it had to do with massive physical pain. now i have no clue.
@167
true enough. and if those posters did indeed cite "fact X" before the insults, then my bad. (some certainly did, and i shouldn't have included them; others, i'm not so sure.)
@170
nifty website, but its definition of an "argument from authority" is too narrow. heh; just b/c a website says so don't make it so. to say that X is the case b/c it's "well-established" or b/c it's considered that way in "international treaties" are arguments from authority. i'm not asking if some "expert" thinks waterboarding is torture, or if some "international treaty" defines it as so: i just want to know: what is torture? if you can answer that, then whether or not waterboarding is or is not torture will be obvious. (unless, of course, your definition is something like "cruel and unusual", in which case, your definition will be too subjective to be of any use.)
@174
Re: the first bit. try to focus, mr. knockgoats: i'm asking for a definition of torture. if you're not up to the task, then fine, but just admit it.
Re: the second bit: does "shitting myself," "terror," and having "bad dreams" constitute torture? i wouldn't have to ask you this if you'd just man up and define it.
Re: the third bit. yes, obviously, i hate 12 year old girls. what else could i have possibly meant?
Re: the "disadvantage" bit: despite yourself, you're getting pretty close to an actual, usable definition here. congratulations. now, can you actually say it out loud in a single sentence? (although even you must know that "less favourably" is also pretty damn vague, and also pretty action-centered: what if someone treated all humans equally, but still thought some races inferior? by your almost-definition he wouldn't be a racist? then i simply beg to differ.)
Re: my ignorance. indeed.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 10, 2009 9:03 AM
ostranenie @ 176;
The specific legal definition of torture has been problematic for years. While not as problematic as the definition of terrorism (amazingly, there is still no single, universally recognised definition for this), the language used suffers from the age old problem of the legal draughtsperson. The meaning of words is often ill defined. Especially in the English language, the same word can have multiple nuances of meaning depending upon context and interpretation. This can lead to a single ill chosen word creating a nightmare of legal loopholes. The language used in the documents like the Bill or Rights has been carefully chosen as the best compramise available between the accepted meaning of the words and the linguistic structure necessitated by the fact that the document in question has to act as a legal document.
An example of what I am talking about is the somewhat storied history of the term 'reasonable' in the UK legal system. Many laws refer to 'reasonable' actions or the interpretation that a 'reasonable' person might place on a given event. In common parlance the meaning is clear, but from a legal standpoint is hopelessly vague.
In order to overcome this difficulty the famous 'Clapham Omnibus Test' was invented. This basically requires that the term 'reasonable' in legal circles be interpreted to mean; 'consistant with the actions of an average person travelling on the Clapham Omnibus'. In other words, it must be reasonable from the perspective of a hypothetical 'average' citizen.
This solution is a fudge, and unashameably so. Language, as it stands, is too vague a form to convey a sufficient specificity of meaning to satisfy the needs of certainty at law. However, 'legalese' is already enough of an impediment to understanding of the law for the average citizen. Deliberately furthering the gulf between the legal use of language and it's commom use would make it all but unintelligable to most people, and this would not only impair the function of law (since it is hard to be law abiding when you cannot understand the law) but would also undermine the credibility of law as a means to enact the will of the elected body as an expression of the democratic will of the populous.
The terminology you refer to is far from perfect, but it is the bestr language that could be found for the job without rendering its meaning to the average citizen unduly opaque.
'Cruel and unusual' and 'inhuman and degrading' are both phrases intended to convey an exceptional level of treatment that goes beyond legitimate punishment or any need to sheild the public from the actions of an offender or hostile combatant. They express a level of abuse so gross that a 'reasonable person' would consider it torture. A degree of judgement and interpretation is unavoidable when dealing with such law.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 10, 2009 9:24 AM
for example, re: comment 97: calling two things "stupid" is not "equating" them; he did call them "equally stupid", which was a fuck-up, but it was only one word, and i'm pretty sure he would have immediately agreed to omit that word. so call him on his tiny writing error, rather than his whole philosophy of life.)
Some of us have been dealing with Walton for a couple years. It's bloody pattern on his part. Same thing over and over and over again. He's lazy.
Considering that I'm expressly arguing against torture, and criticising the Bush administration's policies, I hope (probably in vain) that MAJeff and Ichthyic have realised that they aren't justified in labelling me a "torture apologist" and "neocon fanboy". I note that both of them have conveniently vanished from this thread (though, to be fair, that could just be a result of different time zones / actual stuff to do in real life).
Yes, I was in bed for 8 hours. And now will be spending the day cleaning my apartment and cooking for a party I'm throwing this evening to raise some money for the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition. I do not exist at your beck and call.
And wow, you got one right. It's what fucking led you to make the intellectually lazy and ethically unsustainable comparison between the impeachment of Clinton and a House member drawing up articles against BushII. It's a pattern with you.
Now comes Walton's whinging apology, long winded nonsense, and attempt at redirection.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
October 10, 2009 11:35 AM
They are very loud, and hence appear to be more representative of the population than they really are.
Here are gun owners' responses to the question: "Would you favor or oppose a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit before he or she could buy a gun?"
These graphs are from the General Social Survey, btw.
Law enforcement's preferences are irrelevant. They do not make the laws. They are supposed to only enforce the will of the people.
We have a serious problem in the US with the Fraternal Order of Police meddling in political issues, advocating for longer prison sentences and harsher laws. The nature of the work can trigger an authoritarian mindset.
Posted by: mwsletten
|
October 10, 2009 11:49 AM
Hank Fox @ 71 said: 'The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded based not so much on any specific act, but on the effect a person has on the social atmosphere of the world -- the positive effect he has on PEOPLE.'
By this standard the majority of Americans would say Jesus should win every year...
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
October 10, 2009 11:52 AM
The US military has clearly defined procedures which are permitted for interrogation, and informs its personnel that undefined procedures are not permitted.
The question for military personnel is not whether waterboarding is torture. Such a decision is not left up to soldiers. The question in their interest is only whether or not waterboarding remains in the explicitly permitted procedures.
If you think that soldiers need to understand a definition of torture, or cruel and unusual punishment, then you have absolutely no idea how the military operates. And you are not qualified to have an opinion.
Posted by: mwsletten
|
October 10, 2009 12:22 PM
Ichthyic @ 120 said: 'Bush violated the constitution with his wiretapping initiative; ignored the Geneva convention in the creation of the Guantanamo camp; violated UN charter to invade Iraq (NOT afghanistan - so don't even conflate the two).'
Yes, and President Obama is working feverishly to reverse all of these crimes worthy of impeachment...
Bobber @ 130 said: 'Are there lunatics on the left? Sure. Do they run the Democratic Party? Nope.'
DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse, speaking to Politico's Ben Smith said, 'The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.'
Yes, the very picture of 'civilized' political discourse...
BTW, however you choose to rank the relative 'badness' of different offenses, Clinton was not impeached for getting a blowjob, he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Under US law, these are 'actual crimes.'
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 10, 2009 12:28 PM
Starnge gods @ 179;
You make many fair points. Paternalistic policing is a serious issue. Police overstepping their powers in general is problematic as the denizens of London discovered in a recent anti-globalisation rally where an innocent man was knocked to the ground by police and subsequently died. I agree with you that the politicisation of police forces represents a direct threat to democracy.
For all this though, I still cannot get behind the idea of legalising guns in the UK. I can't help but feel that a greater concentration of firearms in society will inevitably lead to more shooting deaths.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
October 10, 2009 12:49 PM
strange gods,
Just letting you know I have replied to you on this thread, in case you haven't seen it.
Oh, and congratulations on the Molly.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 10, 2009 2:16 PM
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 10, 2009 2:41 PM
Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with a consenting adult.
My favorite political placard EVER!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 10, 2009 2:43 PM
It was not material to the case at hand; the prosecution was undertaking a fishing expedition because they couldn't find any actual lawbreaking.
And, on the lawsuit itself, see the Arkansas Project.
The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was out in the open.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 10, 2009 2:51 PM
The Geneva conventions place on obligation on signatories to ensure that military personnel are aware of their rights and obligations under the conventions.
If a soldier is unaware of his or her obligations and rights then his or her superiors are not doing their jobs.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 10, 2009 2:56 PM
'Tis @186: I hadn't seen that one before. Great placard!
Posted by: Anri
|
October 10, 2009 5:22 PM
ostranenie has hit upon a basic truth: different things are torture to different people. Most people, I imagine, would use this as a base for the understanding that this prevents a concrete definition of torture, as it inherently varies depending on the situation. Unfortunately, ostranenie has gone in the other direction, apparently saying that if something can't be explicitly defined, it can't be acted upon in any way.
This is not the case, of course, and many trials revolve around the instance-specific applications of terms that are not always expressly defined.
Different things might be torture under some circumstances, and not under others. If my 11 year old niece were to falsely tell me that my spouse has cancer and won't live to see christmas, that would not count as anything other than a kid being mean. But if her GP were to tell me this, for instance, after a minor surgical procedure, it would certainly be an attempt to cause me great mental anguish.
Threats of putting red-hot splinters under toenails is unlikely to frighten someone with no feet.
Torture isn't something that lends itself to a ten-word definition. Some things are clearly torture, some things are clearly not. There is a gray area of arguable size in the middle, and that's why we have hearings and trials and so forth to determine each case within that area.
Not all killings are murder.
Not all thrown punches are assault.
Not all attempts to hurt someone are torture.
The real world isn't always cut-and-dried, definitions aren't always precise, times change, words change, people change. Thinking adults know this, of course.
I'm not certain if ostranenie does or not.
Posted by: Woof
|
October 10, 2009 9:19 PM
Gregory Greenwood @ 171:
A sniper rifle is different from a hunting rifle... how?
In the 1960s the USMC decided they needed a new sniper rifle, so they bought a bunch of Remington 40x hunting rifles. The big mod they (eventually) made to them? They replaced the wood stocks with fiberglass because the wood stocks tended to warp in humid climates (like, say, Viet Nam).
Posted by: mwsletten
|
October 10, 2009 10:20 PM
Naked Bunny With a Whip said: '[The perjury and obstruction of justice charges were] not material to the case at hand; the prosecution was undertaking a fishing expedition because they couldn't find any actual lawbreaking.'
The idiot special investigator Kenneth Starr was most certainly conducting a fishing expedition, and if Clinton had simply said what he should have, i.e. what I did in privacy with a consenting adult is none of your fucking business, then the majority of the U.S. population would likely have agreed with him, and the prosecution (the Senate) would have had to take a flying leap.
As it happens, he lied to the investigators in a deposition pursuant to the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and to the Grand Jury about the details of his liaisons with Monica Lewinski. Lying to investigators is obstruction, and lying to the Grand Jury is perjury. These are 'actual lawbreaking,' and most certainly 'material to the case.'
Luckily for Clinton, the U.S. Judicial system allows a jury (in this case the Senate) to render a verdict as it sees fit despite the evidence. The majority voted not guilty despite clear evidence Clinton intentionally lied on several occasions.
I doubt any other politician facing an actual jury (instead of the Senate) would've fared as well.
It is a sad state of affairs in our country when an individual's private life becomes so public for such paltry reasons. Clinton made a ridiculous situation worse by not taking a stand on privacy.
And the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' wasn't actually a conspiracy since there was no collusion to commit an illegal act. Clinton actually
did
get a blow job; a group of idiots taking great pains and gobs of government money to make that fact public is not a 'conspiracy.'Posted by: Nova
|
October 11, 2009 11:22 AM
It amazes me at the arrogance of these people that they declare Obama to be on the "far left". In Europe he would be considered a moderate conservative on the Centre-right. They pretend to be the moderates when in fact it is them that hold the extreme paranoid view.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 1:08 PM
ostranenie,
i'm asking for a definition of torture.
I know you are, fuckwit. Only fuckwits think that everyday words have unique definitions, or that giving such a definition settles arguments. Because if I define torture as, say, "The intentional infliction of severe suffering for coercive purposes", you can just insist that I define "intentional", "severe", "coercive", etc.
does "shitting myself," "terror," and having "bad dreams" constitute torture?
No, moron. These are the effects of torture. Credibly threatening someone with being savaged by dogs, while they are in your power, is torture. Threatening to stick your tongue out at them, isn't. Between these two cases, there will be a grey area. I know such a sophisticated idea is hard for you to grasp, but do your best.
i wouldn't have to ask you this if you'd just man up and define it.
Re: the third bit. yes, obviously, i hate 12 year old girls. what else could i have possibly meant?
I know exactly what you meant: you meant to insult me by comparing me to a girl. Your contempt for women and girls is quite obvious, and very unpleasant.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 1:14 PM
By this standard the majority of Americans would say Jesus should win every year - mwsletten
Neither dead people nor mythical people are eligible, so Jesus could not win. Anyhow, "the majority of Americans" don't get a say in choosing the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, so their opinion is irrelevant.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 1:21 PM
Clinton actually did
get a blow job; a group of idiots taking great pains and gobs of government money to make that fact public is not a 'conspiracy.' - mwsletten
Yes it is.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 11, 2009 1:27 PM
He's also called a socialist by people who don't have a clue about what socialism is, other than they know it's bad.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 12, 2009 1:37 PM
DAMAGE TO THE BODY ENCOMPASSES DAMAGE TO THE BRAIN! R U A DUALIST?P.S. FUCK U!
Posted by: moronpolitics | November 30, 2009 4:31 PM
GM begged for bailout money? Funny thing is "GM" is now owned, 55/45, by the government and the UAW. So..... Sounds like the only people that "got" anything was the UAW. No, they weren't "owed" anything that any bankruptcy court would have ever honored as a debt in the past. In fact, contracts for high wages is one of the primary things that a bankruptcy usually frees a company from. On the other hand the bond holders who were actually owed the money they lent to GM would have normally received about 80 cents or more on the dollar. Some studies have it at 90 cents. Instead they were given approximately 1/10 of what they were owed. 8-10 cents on the dollar. That is because President Obama said these were people who "get money for doing nothing". Yes, I heard him say that on the good old TV in my widdle wiving woom. How DARE anyone call a guy who says that the "workers" should be paid while decrying the evil capitalists a socialist/communist? In fact, he and his wife giving multiple speeches about "middleclassism" --- how can somebody compare that to Trotsky and Lenin talking about the "bourgiousie"? Why it's it's.... Oh, that's right. It's exactly the same thing. Sorry.