War Against Rational Thought Continues
- I got rid of it. Not worth the trouble. Uncut talked sense into me*
What? An Anti-Terror Lib?
Here's some food for thought for you America hating, military hating, free speech hating, granola eating, tin foil cap wearing leftists out there:
Time for you guys to start taking terror seriously if you want to win elections!
Time for you guys to start taking terror seriously if you want to win elections!
CNN: Stacking Polls Is An Art Form
Here's the CNN link from their front page:
"Poll: Most doubt Bush has plan for Iraq victory"
Yet...hidden in the text is this gem:
"The poll conducted Wednesday does not directly reflect how Americans are reacting to Bush's speech, because only 10 percent of the 606 adult Americans polled had seen it live and two-thirds had not even heard or read news coverage about it."
Oh, okay, okay CNN....you put this on your front page and you readily admit a majority of the people polled hadn't seen or heard anything about Bush's speech. How then can you say this is an accurate result? How can you put this on your front page?
But but but but JASON there isn't any media bias! Our media is owned by BushCo, for reallyz mang!
I really should start a company that manufactures quality tin foil hats. I would be on a far away island drinking rum runners right now had I thought of it a year ago. Maybe if I can pull this off I'll invite @ajay to come along so he can help me score some chix. =D
"Poll: Most doubt Bush has plan for Iraq victory"
Yet...hidden in the text is this gem:
"The poll conducted Wednesday does not directly reflect how Americans are reacting to Bush's speech, because only 10 percent of the 606 adult Americans polled had seen it live and two-thirds had not even heard or read news coverage about it."
Oh, okay, okay CNN....you put this on your front page and you readily admit a majority of the people polled hadn't seen or heard anything about Bush's speech. How then can you say this is an accurate result? How can you put this on your front page?
But but but but JASON there isn't any media bias! Our media is owned by BushCo, for reallyz mang!
I really should start a company that manufactures quality tin foil hats. I would be on a far away island drinking rum runners right now had I thought of it a year ago. Maybe if I can pull this off I'll invite @ajay to come along so he can help me score some chix. =D
Lieberman Speaks - Media Ignores Him
Since our media ignores any positive reports from Iraq (But but but we SWEAR it isn't biased!! Really!!!! *puts on tinfoil cap*) I thought I would provide Lieberman's speech for you.
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.
In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.
None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.
The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.
Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.
The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.
These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.
In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.
None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.
The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.
Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.
The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.
These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.
I'll Add Some Context
Since @ajay refused to acknowledge what I wrote, instead going for the bait and switch. Feel free to look if you are reading and are interested.
Essentially your silence says this:
No, @jason, I refuse to live by the standards I set for you. Do what I say, not what I do. No, I refuse to challenge my own political ideas and no I am not interested in reading the same subject from multiple points of view before coming to my conclusions. No, I am never skeptical of any point of view that lambastes the right - no matter what they say it has to be true! Yes, you are absolutely correct that I am only interested in pointing at the right and staying silent about my own side. I refuse to be anything but a pointy-headed partisan like Hannity and Rush.
How could such a brilliant analytical mind stoop to this when it comes to politics? All I'm asking for is an equal effort, and for you to be as honest as you want me to be. Don't ask me to do the things you refuse to do. I'm trying to reach out my hand here.
Jason
PS - The "Niman is a mosquito, here are the real issues!" argument refuses to acknowledge press accountability, which is the real topic here. Try to stay on topic. We have plenty of time to discuss Halliburton and anything else you desire, but for now try and explain why the media shouldn't be accountable for what they say, and why it isn't a problem that pretty much every media outlet breathes lies or half-truths to the American public on a regular basis. Try and explain to me why Paul Krugman can get away with reprehensible lies about the presidential recount and numerous other topics, and is never forced by his bosses to issue a correction. Instead of reporting facts, it's become favorable to tell a story. Don't tell me this shit isn't nearly as important as "war profiteering". I'm not buying it.
"Niman got some bunk info from someone, liked what he heard, and started telling people the 12 tribes are white supremacists. He didn't need or want anything other than what he agreed with. He wrote an entire article making his case. He is peddling his opinion as if it is fact, and people are going to read the article thinking it is fact. If you were to ask Niman if what he wrote was opinion or fact, what do you think he would say? The "this is just an opinion piece" argument shrivels up as a result.
Maybe you're right. Maybe he isn't lying. Maybe he didn't already have his opinion in his head before he tried making a case for it. Maybe he just got BS information. Apparently that passes as a legitimate argument nowadays. We are seeing it more and more.
Don't think that just because I don't talk about Fox News that I don't have an opinion about them. There are 120239879834798 people talking about Fox News, and zero talking about the alternative press, who get a free pass from everyone. You tell me to be skeptical about what I read, but are you skeptical about what you read from the alternatives or from any information source? I'm sure the answer is yes but I've never asked. I want to make sure that you are willing to be as honest as you want me to be.
I'm willing to "set the example" but I feel like I am completely alone in that sentiment. I feel like people just want ME to point the finger at the right so they can tell me how correct they are, while they stay silent. Nobody wants to point the finger at the people who represent their political "side". As of yet I am the only person on e-strip who is willing to do this. Will you join me? =)
Yes I know Fox News reporting is skewed to the right, everyone knows that. They are the only TV news outlet in the USA that reports this way. There isn't any reporting from any media outlet that isn't skewed. They do report facts, but not the same facts and not in the same context. Hannity and O'Reilly and Rush and the rest - no I do not think everything that comes out of their mouth is fact. I am not so far to the right as a Hannity or a Rush.
Ultimately I want truth, and truth does not come from a single source. It comes from reading a broad spectrum of pieces. I feel like I'm the only person on e-strip who does that as well. I feel like I'm the only one who is willing to challenge his/her ideas and to grow. I'll never be a partisan."
Essentially your silence says this:
No, @jason, I refuse to live by the standards I set for you. Do what I say, not what I do. No, I refuse to challenge my own political ideas and no I am not interested in reading the same subject from multiple points of view before coming to my conclusions. No, I am never skeptical of any point of view that lambastes the right - no matter what they say it has to be true! Yes, you are absolutely correct that I am only interested in pointing at the right and staying silent about my own side. I refuse to be anything but a pointy-headed partisan like Hannity and Rush.
How could such a brilliant analytical mind stoop to this when it comes to politics? All I'm asking for is an equal effort, and for you to be as honest as you want me to be. Don't ask me to do the things you refuse to do. I'm trying to reach out my hand here.
Jason
PS - The "Niman is a mosquito, here are the real issues!" argument refuses to acknowledge press accountability, which is the real topic here. Try to stay on topic. We have plenty of time to discuss Halliburton and anything else you desire, but for now try and explain why the media shouldn't be accountable for what they say, and why it isn't a problem that pretty much every media outlet breathes lies or half-truths to the American public on a regular basis. Try and explain to me why Paul Krugman can get away with reprehensible lies about the presidential recount and numerous other topics, and is never forced by his bosses to issue a correction. Instead of reporting facts, it's become favorable to tell a story. Don't tell me this shit isn't nearly as important as "war profiteering". I'm not buying it.
"Niman got some bunk info from someone, liked what he heard, and started telling people the 12 tribes are white supremacists. He didn't need or want anything other than what he agreed with. He wrote an entire article making his case. He is peddling his opinion as if it is fact, and people are going to read the article thinking it is fact. If you were to ask Niman if what he wrote was opinion or fact, what do you think he would say? The "this is just an opinion piece" argument shrivels up as a result.
Maybe you're right. Maybe he isn't lying. Maybe he didn't already have his opinion in his head before he tried making a case for it. Maybe he just got BS information. Apparently that passes as a legitimate argument nowadays. We are seeing it more and more.
Don't think that just because I don't talk about Fox News that I don't have an opinion about them. There are 120239879834798 people talking about Fox News, and zero talking about the alternative press, who get a free pass from everyone. You tell me to be skeptical about what I read, but are you skeptical about what you read from the alternatives or from any information source? I'm sure the answer is yes but I've never asked. I want to make sure that you are willing to be as honest as you want me to be.
I'm willing to "set the example" but I feel like I am completely alone in that sentiment. I feel like people just want ME to point the finger at the right so they can tell me how correct they are, while they stay silent. Nobody wants to point the finger at the people who represent their political "side". As of yet I am the only person on e-strip who is willing to do this. Will you join me? =)
Yes I know Fox News reporting is skewed to the right, everyone knows that. They are the only TV news outlet in the USA that reports this way. There isn't any reporting from any media outlet that isn't skewed. They do report facts, but not the same facts and not in the same context. Hannity and O'Reilly and Rush and the rest - no I do not think everything that comes out of their mouth is fact. I am not so far to the right as a Hannity or a Rush.
Ultimately I want truth, and truth does not come from a single source. It comes from reading a broad spectrum of pieces. I feel like I'm the only person on e-strip who does that as well. I feel like I'm the only one who is willing to challenge his/her ideas and to grow. I'll never be a partisan."
Why Bush Is Unimpeachable
From HuffingtonPost:
"The News article is anonymously sourced but we know it's 100 percent true because the White House won't deny that Bush is a traitor."
Some people just can't be helped. I've said for a long time that for some people, "truth" means "whatever the left writes that goes against the right, regardless of lack of proof or any kind of logic." Hey hey hey guess what?!?! I have a 25 inch cock! That's right, 25 thick motherfucking inches! Over two feet of monstrous pleasure for the ladies (sorry dudes)! Is it true? Hell yes it is true, because I say so and no I don't have to prove myself, I just have to believe it! So goes the media in October 2005.
My take? If someone is at fault, AND IF THEY ARE PROVEN IN A COURT TO BE GUILTY (this is very important to remember, in the US legal system people are innocent until proven guilty - I suppose this exposes a mortal flaw in our legal system too, eh lefties) then they should pay the consequences. I'm not going to be one of those assholes (they are all over the left and the right) who completely ignore anything my side does while hypocritically going after the other side. I have no use for people like that - they are intellectual toddlers. I want clean government and it's not good enough for only one party to be clean. Indictments are what (in part) helped the Republicans to take Congress. Mr. White Lie Bush and Mr. Sexual Assault Artist Clinton (not to mention his husband...err wife) should both be jailbirds as far as I'm concerned (yeah, I think that if it were possible for a US president to be accountable for crimes, they both very well could end up in prison as charges could actually be brought against them and successfully argued).
Jason
"The News article is anonymously sourced but we know it's 100 percent true because the White House won't deny that Bush is a traitor."
Some people just can't be helped. I've said for a long time that for some people, "truth" means "whatever the left writes that goes against the right, regardless of lack of proof or any kind of logic." Hey hey hey guess what?!?! I have a 25 inch cock! That's right, 25 thick motherfucking inches! Over two feet of monstrous pleasure for the ladies (sorry dudes)! Is it true? Hell yes it is true, because I say so and no I don't have to prove myself, I just have to believe it! So goes the media in October 2005.
My take? If someone is at fault, AND IF THEY ARE PROVEN IN A COURT TO BE GUILTY (this is very important to remember, in the US legal system people are innocent until proven guilty - I suppose this exposes a mortal flaw in our legal system too, eh lefties) then they should pay the consequences. I'm not going to be one of those assholes (they are all over the left and the right) who completely ignore anything my side does while hypocritically going after the other side. I have no use for people like that - they are intellectual toddlers. I want clean government and it's not good enough for only one party to be clean. Indictments are what (in part) helped the Republicans to take Congress. Mr. White Lie Bush and Mr. Sexual Assault Artist Clinton (not to mention his husband...err wife) should both be jailbirds as far as I'm concerned (yeah, I think that if it were possible for a US president to be accountable for crimes, they both very well could end up in prison as charges could actually be brought against them and successfully argued).
Jason
Petty Bullshit
I was in a conversation today with various people, and a post from one of them shocked the hell out of me:
"The south wont vote for a Yankee but theyll take our money. Watching bushs speech it looks like he's gonna ask me and my people in the north to rebuild an area of the country that disrespects my area and wont even vote for a guy if he's from here. Screw em. I vote no. Maybe some other time."
After being called petty, he responds:
"Petty is why they wont vote for Yankees. My post is more of a vengeful post. Get it reicht"
I'm stopping it here for a minute to note how if you disagree with him he will bring up the Nazi card. Typical liberal debate strategy.
I say fine, no problem but now that you need us pardon me if I don't just jump up and throw money at them.
My response?
Nobody is obligated to vote for anyone from any particular region of the US. The argument is null and void. Clinton was a redneck, Carter was a redneck....it matters less where the person is from than who the person is and what they stand for. This "You won't vote for my guy so I refuse to help you" is some of the worst, petty political BS I've ever heard.
And if you want to know why nobody wanted anyone from Ohio, think back to Kucinich's idea to get rid of the Department of Defense and replace it with a Department of Peace. Yes! Get rid of the military! What a brilliant idea, especially now! He was and is a fringe leftist. Bring some better candidates to the table, jeez.
(After that I noted how Kucinich's idea to abolish the military and replace it with a "Department of Peace" was directly out of Howard Zinn's playbook from the short book Terrorism and War. Therefore it isn't surprising nobody would touch him with a ten foot pole)
But the bottom line is, Jesus Fucking Christ people - who cares what part of the country they are from! How can anyone be this petty!! I could slap the yellow off of that asshole's teeth.
Jason
"The south wont vote for a Yankee but theyll take our money. Watching bushs speech it looks like he's gonna ask me and my people in the north to rebuild an area of the country that disrespects my area and wont even vote for a guy if he's from here. Screw em. I vote no. Maybe some other time."
After being called petty, he responds:
"Petty is why they wont vote for Yankees. My post is more of a vengeful post. Get it reicht"
I'm stopping it here for a minute to note how if you disagree with him he will bring up the Nazi card. Typical liberal debate strategy.
I say fine, no problem but now that you need us pardon me if I don't just jump up and throw money at them.
My response?
Nobody is obligated to vote for anyone from any particular region of the US. The argument is null and void. Clinton was a redneck, Carter was a redneck....it matters less where the person is from than who the person is and what they stand for. This "You won't vote for my guy so I refuse to help you" is some of the worst, petty political BS I've ever heard.
And if you want to know why nobody wanted anyone from Ohio, think back to Kucinich's idea to get rid of the Department of Defense and replace it with a Department of Peace. Yes! Get rid of the military! What a brilliant idea, especially now! He was and is a fringe leftist. Bring some better candidates to the table, jeez.
(After that I noted how Kucinich's idea to abolish the military and replace it with a "Department of Peace" was directly out of Howard Zinn's playbook from the short book Terrorism and War. Therefore it isn't surprising nobody would touch him with a ten foot pole)
But the bottom line is, Jesus Fucking Christ people - who cares what part of the country they are from! How can anyone be this petty!! I could slap the yellow off of that asshole's teeth.
Jason
Lafayette Square Assholes Part 2
@paul - I haven't had the opportunity to respond, but I will now. Actually I had no idea you had responded until a couple of days ago when I was looking at some back journal entries. At any rate I owe you a response.
If I gave the impression that I have a problem with people protesting, I want to fix that impression right now. Protest is responsible, in part, for socioeconomic changes that benefit us all today. I have no problem with anybody taking their issue to the streets. I can disagree with them, I can tell you why I think they're mistaken - but in no way does that mean I have a problem with the fact they are protesting. There is a difference, and I hope we all can appreciate this, between disagreeing with people and saying that they shouldn't be allowed to protest. Now that I think about it, the first sentence I wrote before perfectly articulated this point (albeit in a more blunt manner). I'm really not sure how else I can say it.
I didn't approach it from this angle, but yes I know that politicians mix issues all the time. Although from my perspective most people are sort of by-the-issues, politicians can't be only about one or two issues - in order to get elected they have to be knowledgable about issues all across the spectrum, and they have to speak on those issues. This is part of what politicians do. I wasn't arguing that politicians shouldn't do this. To me there is a difference between being a politician, and having to speak on these issues, and participating in a protest, where the premise is based on only one topic.
Protests shouldn't be this way - if someone is protesting war, or abortion, or trade policy the message shouldn't become diluted by the obligations people have to other organizations which have nothing to do with the topic being protested. I'm not talking about people tagging along, of course this happens during most every protest, I'm talking about non-related organizations who employ active participation in something that has nothing to do with their area of interest, donating funds, paying for people to arrive on-site, building up the camp site, so on and so forth. Although many of these people care more about anything else than Sheehan's kid, they are smart and recognize that the opportunity for exposure couldn't get any better - they know how many cameras are there and they want to make sure they get some face time. The exposure they get, and the voice they get is the reward for the money and time they spend on a protest that is about anything but their own area of interest. When people told her she was being taken advantage of, Sheehan went out of her way to make sure that people knew she was supportive of these other organizations' efforts. What conclusion can someone come to other than the movement is not about the war - it is about the broader leftist ideology? If you can imagine the NRA building a protest site and flying people to an abortion rally, and the abortion protesters saying "Hey we welcome the NRA" you will understand the point I'm trying to make about the left mixing all of their eggs in the same basket. To me any protest is much more effective when everyone is focused on the same thing.
The only reason I bring Sheehan's name up, or the protest in Crawford is because all of these satellite protests are allegedly modeled after the one in Crawford. If that is really true then I should expect the very same things out of the Lafayette protest that I saw in Crawford - a "war" protest which is actually less about war than about peddling the broader ideology of the left. To be fair to the Lafayette protesters, I was not able to get there to see it, so I cannot say for certain that it is how the whole thing went down. If someone was there or can tell me about it, I would happily retract my statement when it comes to that protest. I would love to be able to say that here, in Buffalo, we are smarter than to do what has been done in Crawford.
None of this explains why I call these protesters assholes. I do not get pissed off by anything that I've written about so far in this post. What gets me really upset is when they incinuate that their message is carried by all military families. They go ahead and put up crosses for people whose families may diametrically oppose everything the protest is about. They get on the microphone and say they represent the military families. They drag MY FAMILY and many others into their protest when we want nothing to do with it. This is why they are such assholes. To make matters worse, Sheehan goes on camera and BELITTLES AND INSULTS other military families who don't see eye to eye with her. These other families will never ever be able to get in front of a microphone or a camera and plead their case, becase the mainstream press is not interested in peddling anything other than what the Sheehan movement says.
Thank you for your compliments, but I'm really not interested in going and changing peoples' minds about what they are protesting. Some, not all of the protesters have family members serving and I would have no right to tell them how they should feel when it comes to their family. This immediately makes me better than the movement. If anything all I would say to them is that they shouldn't mislead people about who they are representing, and they shouldn't go on the attack against other military families who don't agree - they will never have the opportunity to respond on the same scale. I'm not a violent person, and I am against violence against women, but when I heard Sheehan talk like that I wanted to knock her out. Who the fuck are YOU to start belittling and insulting people who have gone through the very same tragedy? People come to different conclusions for different reasons, and as far as the movement is concerned people should either come to their conclusion or be insulted, forced or shamed into agreeing with them. To me, even if I am against the war in Iraq I am honest enough to look at what they do and say, and come to a conclusion that it is not appropriate for that kind of shit to go on - ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO SEE THEIR WAY.
Hopefully this clarifies how I feel about the subject.
Jason
Edit: I forgot to address this - @paul you bring up an interesting point about Yugoslavia and Clinton. I never saw such an outpouring against Clinton when he unilaterally attacked, or citizens perished, so on and so forth. In addition his bullshit, mamby-pamby way of handling Mogadishu cost lives, yet the anti-war left seemingly did not blink an eye. Why is this? If I'm wrong about this please tell me but it seems to me that it is only because Bush is in office that people care about this stuff.
If I gave the impression that I have a problem with people protesting, I want to fix that impression right now. Protest is responsible, in part, for socioeconomic changes that benefit us all today. I have no problem with anybody taking their issue to the streets. I can disagree with them, I can tell you why I think they're mistaken - but in no way does that mean I have a problem with the fact they are protesting. There is a difference, and I hope we all can appreciate this, between disagreeing with people and saying that they shouldn't be allowed to protest. Now that I think about it, the first sentence I wrote before perfectly articulated this point (albeit in a more blunt manner). I'm really not sure how else I can say it.
I didn't approach it from this angle, but yes I know that politicians mix issues all the time. Although from my perspective most people are sort of by-the-issues, politicians can't be only about one or two issues - in order to get elected they have to be knowledgable about issues all across the spectrum, and they have to speak on those issues. This is part of what politicians do. I wasn't arguing that politicians shouldn't do this. To me there is a difference between being a politician, and having to speak on these issues, and participating in a protest, where the premise is based on only one topic.
Protests shouldn't be this way - if someone is protesting war, or abortion, or trade policy the message shouldn't become diluted by the obligations people have to other organizations which have nothing to do with the topic being protested. I'm not talking about people tagging along, of course this happens during most every protest, I'm talking about non-related organizations who employ active participation in something that has nothing to do with their area of interest, donating funds, paying for people to arrive on-site, building up the camp site, so on and so forth. Although many of these people care more about anything else than Sheehan's kid, they are smart and recognize that the opportunity for exposure couldn't get any better - they know how many cameras are there and they want to make sure they get some face time. The exposure they get, and the voice they get is the reward for the money and time they spend on a protest that is about anything but their own area of interest. When people told her she was being taken advantage of, Sheehan went out of her way to make sure that people knew she was supportive of these other organizations' efforts. What conclusion can someone come to other than the movement is not about the war - it is about the broader leftist ideology? If you can imagine the NRA building a protest site and flying people to an abortion rally, and the abortion protesters saying "Hey we welcome the NRA" you will understand the point I'm trying to make about the left mixing all of their eggs in the same basket. To me any protest is much more effective when everyone is focused on the same thing.
The only reason I bring Sheehan's name up, or the protest in Crawford is because all of these satellite protests are allegedly modeled after the one in Crawford. If that is really true then I should expect the very same things out of the Lafayette protest that I saw in Crawford - a "war" protest which is actually less about war than about peddling the broader ideology of the left. To be fair to the Lafayette protesters, I was not able to get there to see it, so I cannot say for certain that it is how the whole thing went down. If someone was there or can tell me about it, I would happily retract my statement when it comes to that protest. I would love to be able to say that here, in Buffalo, we are smarter than to do what has been done in Crawford.
None of this explains why I call these protesters assholes. I do not get pissed off by anything that I've written about so far in this post. What gets me really upset is when they incinuate that their message is carried by all military families. They go ahead and put up crosses for people whose families may diametrically oppose everything the protest is about. They get on the microphone and say they represent the military families. They drag MY FAMILY and many others into their protest when we want nothing to do with it. This is why they are such assholes. To make matters worse, Sheehan goes on camera and BELITTLES AND INSULTS other military families who don't see eye to eye with her. These other families will never ever be able to get in front of a microphone or a camera and plead their case, becase the mainstream press is not interested in peddling anything other than what the Sheehan movement says.
Thank you for your compliments, but I'm really not interested in going and changing peoples' minds about what they are protesting. Some, not all of the protesters have family members serving and I would have no right to tell them how they should feel when it comes to their family. This immediately makes me better than the movement. If anything all I would say to them is that they shouldn't mislead people about who they are representing, and they shouldn't go on the attack against other military families who don't agree - they will never have the opportunity to respond on the same scale. I'm not a violent person, and I am against violence against women, but when I heard Sheehan talk like that I wanted to knock her out. Who the fuck are YOU to start belittling and insulting people who have gone through the very same tragedy? People come to different conclusions for different reasons, and as far as the movement is concerned people should either come to their conclusion or be insulted, forced or shamed into agreeing with them. To me, even if I am against the war in Iraq I am honest enough to look at what they do and say, and come to a conclusion that it is not appropriate for that kind of shit to go on - ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO SEE THEIR WAY.
Hopefully this clarifies how I feel about the subject.
Jason
Edit: I forgot to address this - @paul you bring up an interesting point about Yugoslavia and Clinton. I never saw such an outpouring against Clinton when he unilaterally attacked, or citizens perished, so on and so forth. In addition his bullshit, mamby-pamby way of handling Mogadishu cost lives, yet the anti-war left seemingly did not blink an eye. Why is this? If I'm wrong about this please tell me but it seems to me that it is only because Bush is in office that people care about this stuff.
Assholes at Lafayette Square
I do not oppose someone else expressing themselves. If someone wants to park their chubby asses in protest, that is fine. But there are a couple things about this phenomenon that really bother me to the core, and I want to share those things with you all.
They say "We represent the military families." No, this is absolute rubbish. You represent yourselves, your families, and your half baked politics. Just because Cindy Sheehan thinks she represents everyone, and just because the mainstream media only gives attention to those of Cindy's ilk does not mean that you indeed are representative of all military families. Next time you feel those words coming out of your mouths, just shut the hell up. It pisses off the rest of us (i.e. the vast majority of military families) when you do that.
Although the protest is supposed to be about "Bringing the Troops Home", I can't help but wonder if every Lib organization fighting any Lib cause won't take the opportunity to go down to Lafayette Square to show "solidarity" with the others, just like it has gone down in Crawford. People aren't stupid - they see it for what it is - using a dead soldier to push the broader Liberal ideology. If you're there because you want the troops home (pretending to support them, while at the same time comparing them to Nazi soldiers and basically declaring them the lowest of the low), then fine. But if you're there to tag along and start going off about Gay Rights or Abortion or anything else unrelated to bringing the troops home, you are a scumbag filthy opportunist piece of shit who needs to get their teeth kicked in. I really hope that this protest has a shred of credibility to it, unlike Crawford.
This brings me to the point where I have to talk about my desire to join a peace group. I would love to join a peace group, but the problem is you can't join one Lib group without having to support all the others - Libs bunch every little thing together under the same umbrella and attempt in vain to link them together. You can't be for peace unless you accept all of the other Liberal doctrines. If I want peace, then I'm forced to ally myself with environmentalists, pro-abortion folks, race baiters, and a slew of other types that I want no business dealing with. I don't know why it is set up in such a way, but these groups are hurting themselves by basically declaring you have to be a card carrying tin foil cap liberal before you will be welcomed. That doesn't seem quite like the way to go about getting support for your cause, especially when it affects all of us.
Jason
They say "We represent the military families." No, this is absolute rubbish. You represent yourselves, your families, and your half baked politics. Just because Cindy Sheehan thinks she represents everyone, and just because the mainstream media only gives attention to those of Cindy's ilk does not mean that you indeed are representative of all military families. Next time you feel those words coming out of your mouths, just shut the hell up. It pisses off the rest of us (i.e. the vast majority of military families) when you do that.
Although the protest is supposed to be about "Bringing the Troops Home", I can't help but wonder if every Lib organization fighting any Lib cause won't take the opportunity to go down to Lafayette Square to show "solidarity" with the others, just like it has gone down in Crawford. People aren't stupid - they see it for what it is - using a dead soldier to push the broader Liberal ideology. If you're there because you want the troops home (pretending to support them, while at the same time comparing them to Nazi soldiers and basically declaring them the lowest of the low), then fine. But if you're there to tag along and start going off about Gay Rights or Abortion or anything else unrelated to bringing the troops home, you are a scumbag filthy opportunist piece of shit who needs to get their teeth kicked in. I really hope that this protest has a shred of credibility to it, unlike Crawford.
This brings me to the point where I have to talk about my desire to join a peace group. I would love to join a peace group, but the problem is you can't join one Lib group without having to support all the others - Libs bunch every little thing together under the same umbrella and attempt in vain to link them together. You can't be for peace unless you accept all of the other Liberal doctrines. If I want peace, then I'm forced to ally myself with environmentalists, pro-abortion folks, race baiters, and a slew of other types that I want no business dealing with. I don't know why it is set up in such a way, but these groups are hurting themselves by basically declaring you have to be a card carrying tin foil cap liberal before you will be welcomed. That doesn't seem quite like the way to go about getting support for your cause, especially when it affects all of us.
Jason
Kennedy Is A Hypocrite
Yeah, Roberts better answer all of our questions! He better be open and candid with those answers too! We're going to drag you through the mud and smile! Oh, and by the way, don't bring up quotes from our past when we were advocating exactly the opposite when a Democrat nominated someone. That stuff doesn't matter! Things are different now, really!
Jason
PS - Oh yeah, if you want some entertainment go ahead and tune in to C-SPAN over the next few days. Watch Judge Roberts run laps around those Libs intillectually!
Jason
PS - Oh yeah, if you want some entertainment go ahead and tune in to C-SPAN over the next few days. Watch Judge Roberts run laps around those Libs intillectually!