A Simple Choice
Glenn Greenwald has the dirt on a right-wing blogger named Al Maviva who deliberately misquoted the law in order to make a dishonest case that what Bush did in authorizing warrantless wiretaps was not illegal: Purposely misquoting FISA to defend the Bush Administration. It’s kind of involved, but worth a read.
On a related note, I liked this part of Bush’s Saturday radio address:
Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
I thought it was a cool statement, because by changing one key phrase, it could serve as a perfectly apt criticism of another, quite different, act:
Yesterday the identity of Valerie Plame was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
See how that works?
In doing my best to think objectively about this latest outrage, I find myself reaching a new appreciation of what Bush has been doing. And I actually (I mean actually actually; I’m not being snarky here) think Bush has a pretty strong argument re: the whole Patriot Act renewal, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, torture as an instrument of government policy, and so on.
Bush’s argument basically comes down to this: It’s a dangerous world out there, with really nasty terrorists who want to do really, really nasty things to us. And it’s Bush’s job to protect us from that. And Bush is arguing, quite explicitly, that he needs these extra-legal powers in order to do that job.
His position is that in this modern era of terrorism, we simply can no longer afford the rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, and any sort of limits on the power of the president. And he’s right about that — but with one important caveat. With George W. Bush as president, we can’t afford all those things. Because the fact of the matter is, he’s proven that he is incapable of defending the country against large-scale terrorist attacks while constrained by traditional limitations on presidential power.
But here’s the thing: It isn’t necessarily the case that no one could protect us while also protecting the Constitution. In fact, international terrorism has been around for a while, and every president before George Bush seemed to be doing a pretty decent job of keeping large-scale attacks from happening on US soil. It’s just George W. Bush who’s turned out to be an abysmal failure in that regard.
We clearly must protect ourselves against large-scale terrorist attacks. That’s not negotiable. So we have a simple choice before us: We can choose to retain George W. Bush as president. Or we can choose to retain the rule of law, separation of powers, and civil liberties as national attributes.
We just can’t have both.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:57 am
So basically: “Give me liberty or give me [George Bush]”??!!!
It’s Monday morning and what’s on T.V.: George Bush once again. Isn’t this like his third appearance in like 3 days? That’s got to be some kind of record. He must really be in deep es-atch-eye-tee.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
I’m wondering about the White House’s skirting laws and broad interpretation of the Constitution. At what point will someone high up be held legally (criminally) accountable for breaking the law? Do they just get a slap on the wrist? I hate bringing up Clinton’s lies about his weenie…but seriously, if lying about whose mouth a penis visited is impeachable, where does intentionally breaking federal wiretap laws fall? Does he get a pass since Gonzales (his apointee) said that it was cool?
Similar to wiretap laws, and related to recent news, I’ll admit that I do have some reservations about completely outlawing torture. For example, if some sucker knows that there’s a ticking time bomb in some place where it will take out scores of people…if pulling this person’s toenails out will reveal where this ticking bomb is sitting, that’d probably pass my muster. However, it’s been said over and over that torture is not a reliable method of extracting information from an individual. At a certain point, they’ll say that they’re Adolf Hitler just so the torture will stop. (As a side note, if any argument springs out of this, does Godwin’s Law dictate that my very mention of Hitler automaticlly loses it for me?) Perhaps the person authorizing the torture should be personally accountable for the results. The top dog certainly would be very careful about using torture if he/she were criminally accountable for their actions.
What’s really funny is that the executive branch has been saying that there are legal safeguards in place to protect American civil liberties…but under FISA, the safeguard is that a court (albeit a secret one) must grant a warrant. So while the president and his staff assure us that there are safeguards in place, they’re turning around and sidestepping those safeguards. They cite the fact that we are at war (not necessarily the Iraq war, but the War on Terror), and certain civil liberties must be temporarily suspended. I have some concerns with that statement, primarily; any war on a non-proper noun (drugs, terror, poverty) is an ongoing effort , with no end in sight. The Bush administration constantly sites that these are temporary measures, and they will end when the war on terror does. Does any reading this expect that the war on terrorism will end after 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? I don’t ever see an end to it, since terrorism is a behavior, and not a people or country. This behavior (terrorism) has proven to be an extremely effective behavior. It’s not going away, thus my prediction that the ‘war on terror’ will not end in any of our lifetimes. That means that if the Bush administation has their way, we will never see the return of our civil liberties…and the chances are that our children will never know the civil libirties that we grew up with, except for what they read about in books (until they’re banned).
Perhaps the Bush administration should simply say ‘look, we can do whatever the hell we want, whenever the hell we want. But seriously…trust us, guys!’ I suppose that this may be too direct, but this is what they’re doing. I guess that enough of us are either too unquestioning and loyal, or just too dumb and simply buy it.
I know that Bush considers it unpatriotic to question this stuff…or maybe the fact that his actions were leaked was the unpatriotic part. However, there is nothing patriotic about his squandering civil liberties. It wasn’t a one-time thing…it was apparently systematic, and he should be held accountable for his actions.
Any predictions for the fallout?
December 19th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
A new corollary to Godwin: As criticism of any issue increases, the likelihood of the Bush Administration linking it to 9/11 approaches 100 percent.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:45 am
I can see it now the 2006 Democrats contract with America lets return Osama bin Laden’s rights with the new Terrorist Protected Act….. if you want to plot to blow up NYC you can use any telecommunication network available without the fear of uncle sam eavesdropping…
December 20th, 2005 at 6:52 am
trg34221,
That’s right, because after 9/11, you’re either with us or against us. Anything against Bush’s agenda for any reason must be pro-terrorist. That’s the whole reason why I’m against warrantless phone taps of American citizens, so that terrorists can use our telecommunication networks whenever they want. I’m glad that you’re wise to the tricks of those who wish to protect our civil liberties, trg.
Are you for real? Do you believe in checks and balances, or are those a thing of the past too?
PS, would you mind making an attempt at proper punctuation or maybe proofreading? I’m having a difficult time sorting through your posts.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:17 am
yup, that musty ol Constitution is (in gwb’s wurds) “just a goddamn piece of paper”
please, right wingers, imagine just for a moment this is Clinton doing the illegal wiretaps on US citizens, or perhaps preznit Gore… you folks wouldn’t stop until angry mobs tore the perp limb from limb on the white house lawn. And you’d be bombing telephone exchanges cuz they are evil.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:07 am
As much as I think that bumper stickers are lame, I saw a great one the other day, which this discussion brings to memory. It simply said: “That’s alright, I wasn’t using my civil liberties anyway.”
December 20th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Yeah, I don’t think as a country we can claim to be spreading freedom and democracy if we are circumventing our own.
To borrow a favorite line, “if we did that, then the terrorists win.”
December 21st, 2005 at 7:07 pm
GW Bush said it best, “The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties, and that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the president of the United States.”
PS: even Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.” http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
OMG it looks like Bill Clinton went further than GW Bush when he signed an Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval… http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
With that brother Bill approved of secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames’s office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant. or court approval.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:15 pm
No trg, actually Carter and Clinton did nothing similar. But I guess you believe everything Drudge feeds you.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
As I understand it, neither involved spying on U.S. citizens with no accountability like what Bush has been doing. If they had, I’m sure your side would have raised hell about it.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:40 am
Facts are pesty things that are hard to sweep way the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union.
No matter how much spin you left wing extremist make of it that case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames’ home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants. PS: Last time I checked he was an American Citizen and traitor but still a citizen……
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:43 am
Umm, did you actually click on Sven’s link?
That’s the problem with the right-wing media. The like to spew forth all kinds things, but don’t really care about the facts. Then there are people like you trg, who lap it all up, and say, “Oh, well, Clinton did it!”
Pretty weak, man.
Oh btw, Bill Clinton is NOT our president anymore. I repeat, Bill Clinton is NOT our president anymore. One more time for my homies… Bill Clinton is NOT our president anymore.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:28 pm
TRG, you have yet to answer Sven’s rebuttal. He showed that your assertions are incorrect, and did a pretty good job of it.
I’m also curious as to why when one complains about Bush that you are compelled to show Clinton and Carter’s follies. For many of us, this isn’t an either-or thing with either a Bush or a Clinton. The fact is that many of us think for ourselves, and don’t share your seemingly polarized view of American politics.
While I admit that I don’t know much about the Aldrich Ames case, I can say that I believe that a warrant was necessary in that case. I’m also willing to go further and say that Clinton was probably wrong to sign off on his search with no warrant, and such a search was illegal.
TRG, are you famaliar with the ? It’s OK if you aren’t, because apparently our president doesn’t seem to be famaliar with it either. I’ll paste it in for you:
Let me turn your polarized politics around at you for a second: Was it OK to impeach Clinton for perjuring himself? Didn’t Bush swear (under oath) to uphold the US Constitution? If he were found to have violated the US Constitution, doesn’t that mean that he commited purjury too? If this is the case, shouldn’t he be impeached too?
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Oops…I screwed up my link (damnit, Tommy — I want a preview button!). Let me try to get it right this time:
…TRG, are you familiar with the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution? It’s OK if you aren’t, because apparently, our president doesn’t seem to be familiar with it either…
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:43 pm
I’ll second ethan’s statement’s about the Ames case tgr is referring to in admiting I know nothing about it. However, it’s pure loony to say that an executive order Clinton signed in 1995 allowed him to do warrentless searches in a case in 1993. Did Clinton invent time travel as well?
In any case, I fail to see how your accusation of a wrong perpetrated by Clinton somehow makes Bush’s violation of the Constitution O.K. Who’s really being the extremist?
December 24th, 2005 at 4:45 am
Careful, folks, or you will invoke the wrath of enkidu, who will assure you that a google search will involve only a “one minute” expenditure of time to become thoroughly educated on the Ames case.
December 24th, 2005 at 8:44 am
geez TV, still hurting from my popping your lies with a minimum of searching?
gosh so sorry I mentioned how easy and quick it is to sort thru a few pages of google searches on your “we found the WMDs!” talking points and shove your bigoted nose in the truth. Hurts don’t it? To know your magical thinking, your precious belief in a party so corrupt and inept we are actually worse off than before 9/11 must provide a massive cognitive dissonance. Your posts do nothing to advance debate, you just sling around some ad homiem horseshit, stamp your feet and repeat your talking points.
you are a tool
The results of the recent Iraqi election are coming in and the big winner… Iran! And Islamic fundamentalism.
oh and merry christmas!
December 24th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Sorry to disappoint, but no, it doesn’t hurt. I know how proud you are to have found opinions that contradicted my own, but you did no damage with your goofy name-calling and charactizations. I responded one time in a similar manner, prefacing the post with my one-time intention to “play your game,” and you can’t get over it. Are you an adult?
You still refer to mistakes as lies – you are a complete fool. I’m bigoted? You’re 100 percent wrong, so I suppose it’s appropriate to say that besides being an idiot, you’re mistaken. Oops, sorry, you’re a liar.
How could we not be worse off than before 9/11? Did you think the deeds of that day would improve our condition? It’s no surprise that you would cast a conservative president, with a conservative agenda, elected by a conservative majority, as corrupt and inept. Don’tcha just hate it when democracy works – hurts, don’t it? After all, you’re the guy who thinks most of the planks of the Cummunist Manifesto actually “look pretty good.”
Results of the recent Iraqi election are coming in, and it looks as though the will of the people might prevail, even if it’s not the result we wanted. I think it called…democracy…or something like that, eh? Again, no surprise that you would not approve of the will of the people, either here at home or over there. Check out the constitution that was adopted by majority vote of the Iraqi people – somehow, it appears to be in direct contrast to the Iranian government.
I am a tool? In your anger, did you omit a letter? Perhaps you meant fool, or troll, or stool? I’ll accept any of those coming from you, since words have no meaning with you, but I promise to use your posts as a tool – again – in future elections. Your blind hatred is the greatest tool we have in keeping leftist extremists from gaining the highest office in the land, and I’m grateful.
That’s my dose of “ad homiem horseshit” for the day, and if it does nothing to advance debate…..ignore it. “Repeat your talking points” – funny. Read your own posts. They are as senseless and unoriginal as the script of a Michael Moore comedy. My point about your silly “google boasting” was that you appear incapable of original thought.
December 26th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
TeacherVet Says:
December 24th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
So let us paint a little picture here… its Christmas Eve, the night where most of our Christian nation is thinking about the message of Christ, going to church to sing beautiful music, spending time with friends and family, eating ourselves silly and prepping the kids for Santa’s arrival. Yet at 5 (or is it 8pm?) TV is sitting at his computer pounding out another screed of hate and divisiveness. A powerful image, and one that moves me more to pity than anger.
What to say to such intolerance? You have lied or misrepresented or stubbornly dismissed any viewpoint but your own time and time again. You cling to a shrinking segment of the population that swears unwavering fealty to an incompetent regime that is making the world after 9/11 a much more dangerous place to live in. Greed, corruption and despite seem your only products, but you choose only to believe believe believe.
btw – I read a wikipedia entry on the communist manifesto because you went on and on and on about how liberal/dem = commie. My exact words were: “A quick perusal of the CM made me think, hmmmm, most of these aren’t so bad! As a political philosophy, communism is pretty lame” But I know you can edit that to make it sound like whatever hateful garbage you want. Or just make it up, write whatever lunacy you like and lie about it… the gullible and the stupid may be swayed but the truth remains the truth.
Best of luck on your operation.
Peace on Earth, good will toward men.
December 26th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
If you check the dates, you’ll find that a poster with the username “enkidu” posted twice on Dec. 24, Christmas Eve. Is this the same “enkidu” who now criticizes because I posted on the same day at 6:52 pm?
“our Christian nation”….”the message of Christ”….”going to church”? Interesting, and worth remembering. Is this a new, sanctimonious enkidu, or the same one whose filth and vulgarity usually dominate his posts? Today, you send a Christian message….what’s to be expected tomorrow? Somehow, one tends to doubt the character of the messenger.
The operation was fine, recovery is going well, and thanks for the expression of concern.
December 26th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I posted early on the day before Christmas
You posted on Christmas eve
Evening is defined as when the sun goes down, right?
I generally look over the news/blogs of the day at the beginning of the work day and at the end (today we didn’t get the office going until noon, too much chit chat with my posse and some darn fine spice cake Francine brought in – mmmmm)
Occam’s razor says – who cares? The picture is still accurate.
Filth? Vulgarity? Look in the mirror.
Judging by your posts (the times, the ‘content’) you are a sad, sick, pitiable old crank with an extremist partisan axe to grind. On xmas eve you sit down and type in… what? A message for good old liberal values like peace, tolerance, understanding and community? No, you fly off on your wild rants regardless of the season or the truth.
Seek professional help.
December 26th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
When I see a copy of your psychiatry degree, I’ll happily take your advice and your analysis. Until then, I attribute your counsel to obvious bitterness.
Evening is as you defined – but Christmas Eve is acknowledged as the day before Christmas (set your stop-watch before you google it), and most of us recognize the message of Christ more than a few hours yearly during an “appropriate season.”
The extent of my “filth and vulgarity” (except for quotations from your own posts) has consisted of a single word, in one post in which I “played your game,” for which I apologized several times….unaccepted. I am not your equal in that regard.
By your skewed definition, I’ve always been an extremist. When I supported Clinton’s actions as CiC, that support was deemed inappropriate by conservatives. When I support Bush’s actions as CiC while troops are in the field, I am labeled an extremist. I can accept that, considering the political agenda of the source.
Hopefully, the time of this post meets your approval.
December 28th, 2005 at 9:44 am
blah blah blah
you lied about so many things its difficult to find any truth in your rants
the picture is accurate, on xmas eve you sit down to write yet another hate filled rant… maybe you should actually read and comprehend the teachings of Jesus rather than using his words as a partisan football?
You can rail all you like about my mentioning how quick and easy it is to find reputable sources via google or wikipedia, it doesn’t change the fact that you were wrong about WMDs, wrong about your false sense of nobility, wrong about plagarising (copying) partisan drivel, wrong to support a preznit who has failed at nearly every turn along the road. And yes you did lie repeatedly about all these things.
Your bitterness is evident for any who can stomach reading your vitriol and hate filled blather. As an independent voter I find your extremist views repugnant and more than a little sad and pitiable.
December 28th, 2005 at 10:14 am
I do love a good pissing match.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
ethan, let’s check the score.
1) WMD. I gave a list of banned items that were found in Iraq, supposedly destroyed years earlier. The items existed, regardless of their functional condition, in violation of UN mandates, undeclared by Saddam – and that was my point. I also mentioned many large caches of modern gas masks – obvious indicators of chemical weapons. Enkidu debated the condition of the banned items, avoiding the issue of illegal possession, incurring no damage to my allegations. He wins nothing by evading the issue.
2) False sense of nobility. I come from a background of poverty, and “grew” to the noble position of a public school teacher. Having no idea what he’s talking about, I can’t assign a winner or loser. Perhaps he is making reference to own nobility, characterized by setting aside a few hours yearly for reflecting on the message of Christ; I won’t be his ultimate judge in that regard.
3) Plagarising (sic). I pled guilty, although we disagreed on semantics – but the issue was his limited knowledge, his dependence on cut/paste of others’ opinions. Again, by avoiding the issue, he wins nothing.
4) Partisan drivel. We are both 100 per cent guilty – I support, he hates – so there’s no winner or loser.
5) Support for this preznit (sic). I plead “guilty.” My trust of Bush makes me “wrong” in the opinion of enkidu; his hatred of Bush, in my own opinion, makes him “wrong.”
6) Lie. The conservative (traditional) definition of the term requires intentional misrepresentation of known facts, while the liberal definition has no literal meaning – but is applied in place of “wrong” or “stating a contrary opinion.” Labeling of a contrasting view as a lie is….a lie.
I mentioned my “pity” for his “bitterness” early in our discussions. Now he applies the same rhetoric, further evidence of his ability to think independently. His rhetoric is no different than that of the immature youngsters with whom I deal on a daily basis; as are his logic and inability to deal with the reality of contrasting opinions.
My opinion – he has won nothing. His opinion – he wins every point. Predictably, he will label that assessment as “vitriol,” while being unable to recognize his own vitriolic speech. So be it. His ability to “debate” is contingent on generalized labeling and evasiveness, and void of self evaluation, leaving his “winning” status in question.
__________
My original reason for visiting this site was…to discover a reason to vote for John Kerry. Instead, I have found the reasons John Kerry lost. He needed “red state” votes, but, instead, those voters on whom he was dependent were alienated. That tendency toward alienation continues with growing intensity. The ploys being used will probably solidify blue states (cities), but also solidifies red states – so, can we expect a different result in 2008? I doubt it.
December 29th, 2005 at 7:15 am
TeacherVet — I’m sort of ignoring the scorecard…you are both sort of covered in pee. I’m laughing at both of you for even going at it in the first place. (Hence my love for a good pissing match). I’m going to ignore most of your talking points as they tend to be inflammatory (in other words: don’t get me involved in your pissing match…maybe we can visit these in a later pissing match in which I am involved).
To answer a question you never asked: Why vote for Kerry? I’ll give the same reason why people voted for Bush. Not because he was a good candidate, but because the other candidate really sucked. I don’t think that very many people walked away from the polls feeling like they voted for the best person for the job…just the lesser of two evils.
If you voted for Bush in 2000, it’s pretty easy to trust that he’s not abusing his power and wouldn’t have a problem voting for the guy again. If you didn’t, you’re probably screaming for some oversight and maybe a new candidate.
Bush has been very good at polarizing Americans. This polarization is swinging in Bush’s disfavor, and many Republican lawmakers are finding it easier to distance themselves from Bush. Similar to how the folks in the ‘red states’ felt alienated by Kerry, the ‘blue state’ folks feel alienated by Bush.
The fact is that the candidate who appears to be the most moderate will usually win a presidential election. That is, the candidate who is least offensive to both the red and blue states tends to win. The fact is that we’re different (the people on the coasts from the people in the middle of the country). We talk differently, we dress differently, we even tend to look a little different. We have different values, and thus different political views. There’s nothing wrong with this — it’s a big country with different cultures.
The problem is that these two cultures tend to clash a little. It’s not the left’s fault, and it’s not the right’s fault.. It’s not the candidate who creates the culture clash — I feel that this has a bit more to do with federalism and states rights. This goes both ways. Personally, I feel like the solution is simple: leave people the hell alone.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:39 am
ethan, I agree almost entirely.
However, anyone with an elementary grasp of mathematics can see that the “left” must win favor with voters in a couple of the so-called red states – the “right” needs none of the blue states to continue in their position. But the “left” cannot resist the temptation to alienate middle Americans, then wonders why they can only field one winning candidate in in the last 30 years – and you’re analysis is right on; Clinton was viewed as a centrist in many ways by most, including myself.
In making my decision of Bush vs Kerry, I contacted both RNC & DNC headquarters via e-mail, asking both the same question about the military background of each respective candidate. From the RNC I received a predictable response, with which I was only partially in agreement. From the DNC I received an email with no message; only a destructive “worm.” I 1) replaced my computer, and 2) made my decision.
I still have the infected email on a floppy. It’s origin was confirmed by three independent computer technicians. From the experience I reached conclusions about personalities, characters, of the good folks at the DNC – and those analyses/conclusions are confirmed regularly.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:29 am
look lads, facts is facts: TV made some claims about WMDs that were false/mistaken/lies/whatever. I was very much open to finding out whether those claims had any basis in fact/truth/reality (esp the 1.77 tons of eUr – which it turns out were under lock and key since GW1 btw). When I searched each of his claims in turn (using fairly reputable sources like the GAO, DoD, BBC, etc) it was easy to see that they were non-factual/exaggerations/lies/BS. I was more than willing to find out the MSM and my own views were wrong/mistaken/lies/whatever, but even a cursory search yielded the truth on each of these matters: there were no significant US threatening quantities of WMD in Iraq as of 9/11/2001 or GW2 start in 2003. My sincere apologies (ha!) if I mentioned how quick and easy it is to search and sort thru large volumes of information using google/wiki/other search engines. TV is the one with the satirical stopwatch.
I think it enlightening to view two sides of a debate… when the other side actually has something debatable. TV can whine and biatch and prevaricate/obfusciate/lie all he wants, but it does make his points any more true. I won’t bother to go thru TVs numbered points because I think they are beneath petty and drifting deep into sad and deluded. I am not scoring points, I am responding directly to right wing moonbat crazy BS and using the facts and information available to me to draw conclusions based on this info. My conclusion is that TV isn’t interested in changing his mind or admitting errors/mistakes/lies (this sounds just like the preznit btw). My opinions are my own, but the facts do not support your opinions/beliefs, yet you seem incapable of changing course/opinion/rejoining reality.
As to your “original reason” for visiting this site: the election was over a year ago, sorry if popping your lies now made some difference to your vote back then (I thought time travel wasn’t possible?) You plagarized word for word (and lied about it) from a book that swiftboats the winter soldiers, yet you wanted to vote for Kerry… sorry but I am going to use my noodle and call that yet another lie.
I do find it fascinating that in each of TV’s numbered grievances, the fault is always someone else’s (in this case I am the source of all evil). As an independent voter, I find your blinkered partisanship abhorrent and antithetical to American values (imho). It will be interesting to see how much of the billions of lost Iraq money (besides the KBR and halliburton cash) comes back to swiftboat Dem/Ind candidates in ’06 and ’08.
TV, my picture of you alone in front of the computer on Christmas eve pounding out yet another partisan message of anger, divisiveness and hate is sad beyond words. But it is the truth, sad and deluded tho you may be. I don’t hate dumbya, I just hate where he/you/your ilk are taking our country, I hate his bass ackwards policies, stupidity, greed and corruption.
January 1st, 2006 at 12:26 pm
enkidu, I’m leaning toward the belief that you don’t simply, intentionally, twist words and meanings, but are lacking intellectual comprehension.
I said that in making my decision of Bush vs. Kerry I contacted the HQ of both parties, then made the appropriate decision based on the obvious character of those who responded – and that those character analyses are confirmed regularly.
Enkidu responds, “Sorry if popping your lies now made some difference to your vote back then (I thought time travel wasn’t possible?).” Sorry, but I never even inferred that today’s argument affected my vote in the past election. I question your intelligence and your comprehension skills. As long as we’re playing disassociation games, My mother had a red sweater once.
In like fashion, and typically, the entire argument of the WMD listing was based on my contention that Saddam was in possession of UN-banned WMD materials – and that contention has never been debated. Instead, conversational disassociation games are played by enkidu. Lacking a viable argument, he dismisses the contention, choosing to defer to an unrelated discussion about the physical state of the illegal, existing materials. “My mother had a red sweater once” would have been an equally viable argument.
I’ve never seen “Christmas Eve” mentioned in a meaningful way without capitalization of both words. Christmas evening occurred after sunset on December 25th. Christmas Eve was the day before Christmas. Perhaps the message of Christ should have been recognized even before the family arrived – or perhaps it should be acknowledged that His message was delivered centuries prior to the following “debate” rhetoric:
“You and your cabal of half-truth neo-con chest thumping, flag draping, bloody shirt waving fucktards are making my children’s future more dangerous. To quote your hero Darth Cheney ‘go fuck yourself!’”
But enkidu charges that I don’t recognize the message of Christ. Of course, Christ’s message was not applicable at 10:57 pm on November 4th, but only after sundown on the evening before Christmas, eh? Yeah, I know; I responded to that immaturity inappropriately, so I’m at fault.
I’ve always found it funny that I’m criticized for “flag draping” by those who are offended when their own patriotism is questioned. The only flag I’ve ever “draped” was the one I placed on my father’s casket – proudly.
This “sad, pitiable creature” celebrated the birth of Christ with family on Friday evening, December 29th – family tradition, with members congregating from several states. On Christmas Eve, December 24th, I had already celebrated the birth of Christ in local nursing homes, prior to my posting. My family’s timetable didn’t fit that of the enkidu family, but was certainly no less sincere and reverent.
btw, numerous references have been made to my labeling of enkidu as “evil,” but I can find the use of that term in none of my posts.
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:38 am
blah blah blah
And I stand by this statement 100%
“You and your cabal of half-truth neo-con chest thumping, flag draping, bloody shirt waving fucktards are making my children’s future more dangerous. To quote your hero Darth Cheney ‘go fuck yourself!’”
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Ah, Christmas Eve is over! Back to the real enkidu and his mature responses.
January 2nd, 2006 at 5:35 pm
no sir, you are the sad old partisan tool pounding out hate filled diatribes on Christmas eve.
I stand by my statement that you quoted. Go fuck yourself is putting it politely (after all, if Dick Cheney can scream it on the Senate floor after Patrick Leahy reamed him a new one on the Halliburton no-bid corruption, then it must be fair game for polite political discussion).
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Your politeness is overwhelming. Save it for your family during the next celebration of the message of Christ.
Sincerely,
The sad old partisan tool.
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:04 am
I never claimed to be polite, to not swear, to be more noble or whatever the heck seems to bug you so much… but I do stand by that statement and you are a sad, sick, twisted partisan tool spewing hateful smegma on Xmas eve. Why should I be polite to a troll that isn’t polite? Why should I ‘debate’ easily debunked nonsense? Your bogus claims about WMDs were bullshit. Fuck you. Fuck your horse. Fuck your stupid fucking fucked up foriegn policy and the fucked up Iraq war.
Hey btw where is that Osama Bin Forgotten fella? Or have you and your fauxnewz knuckledraggers convinced yourselves that Saddam planned 9/11?
Last year a stat came out that 20% of Americans believe the sun goes around the Earth. Most reasonable people called these folks “idiots”, preznut pusch calls em “his base.” You, sir fucktard, are a 20%er.
Oh and Happy New Year!
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:34 pm
And now for something completely different… a man with three buttocks.
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Wow, such intellectual prowess, straight from the gospel according to enkidu. Preach on, bro, I love it – great material.
I concede. You win the vulgarity contest, hands down; I’ve been properly slapped with a limp wrist. Best wishes to your family.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Hey, just repeating the immortal words of vice-fuhrer Cheney on the Senate floor (‘course you won’t ‘believe’ that your heroic *five deferment chickenhawk* misleader would utter such “vulgarity” but alas for you, the truth will out)
I would say to look it up on google, but the internets is full of lies right?
And your oh-so-polite back and forth is so enlightening.
And is this a new leaf your turning over? Talking nice about my family instead of the stupid and childish insults that are more typical of your hate filled rantings? Gosh maybe I did do some good reminding you not to be such a tool this holiday season. Baby Jesus says good job enk!
I have had some fun puncturing your pathetic talking points and nonsense (hey make sure you bring up your mom’s sweater, that really showed me eh?) But when all you can do is try (hahahaha!) to insult me (puhlease), the ‘game’ grows stale. Please bring up some Dim-o-crat lies and corruption and try to make actual factual sense instead of just spewing hate.
And next time you blather on about reading comprehension please visit the lies.com manifesto – maybe you can school jbc about using such vulgar language. Bullshit is bullshit and you are full of it.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Again, thanks. I’d like to respond, but the rambling nature of the post defies comprehension. Do you proof-read before posting?
I don’t have to insult you – you do that quite well without my input.
From: The proud partisan tool (whatever that is).
January 5th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Welcome to George Bush’s America.
January 6th, 2006 at 11:51 am
careful mr treehumper, itz spelt “Ahmerka”
;-)
wouldn’t want the NSA forwarding your mail to Gitmo
permanent-like
this president makes Dan Quayle look like a brilliant elder statesman.
nixon – brain = bush