Please support this
holiday season!

Tuesday Frivolity

[ Posted Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 – 15:10 UTC ]

Today's hodgepodge is mostly frivolous stuff that I just couldn't resist. There are one or two non-frivolous stories as well, but there seemed to be an embarrassment of riches in the wacky news today. So without further ado, and with a new box of "Herb Caen brand" three-dots to use up, here we go...


... The "name game" is hotting up on the presidential trail.

First was a minor flap over the use of "Hillary" instead of "Clinton" (some feminists protested that using her first name rather than her last, as with the other candidates, was degrading). This evaporated when Hillary pointed out that it was fine with her, and in fact was all over her campaign materials that way.

Next was the right-wing's usage of Obama's full legal name (Barack Hussein Obama) in an attempt to smear him. Nobody but the far right has picked up on this, though, so it's become a non-issue as well.

But now there is a dawning battle on the usage of "Freddie" on Fred Thompson's Wikipedia entry. Although largely confined to the discussion page for the article, it is also being reported in the Washington Post this morning, so we'll see where it goes from here. Democrats are vulnerable on the "adult versus boyhood" name front as well, though, since Edwards' full legal name is "Johnny Reid Edwards." Personally, I think the American public would be more accepting of a Johnny (we've already had a Jimmy) in the White House than a Freddie, but maybe that's just one man's opinion.

Hey, I warned you these were going to be frivolous.


... I kind of agreed earlier this year that it was bad politically for Democrats to refuse to debate on Fox, because if you can't face tough questions from a hostile media, how can you face the much tougher responsibilities of being president?

But it seems the leading GOP candidates don't want to debate in front of anybody. First they blew off a debate broadcast in (dubbed) Spanish hugely important to the Hispanic community, then they ignored a debate at a traditionally black Baltimore college. Both of these, it should be pointed out, spell long-term doom for the Republican Party's voter base, but they don't seem to care. Both of these, though, fit into the same category as Fox News for Democrats: what the candidates felt was a hostile forum. And the fact of the no-shows at both got fairly decent coverage in the media (online at least).

But here's a stunner -- the "Values Voter Debate" was held in Florida this Monday night, and Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain couldn't fit it into their schedules. Isn't this supposed to be the party's "base" -- the Christian right? So why on Earth would the four frontrunners in the campaign blow them off? Tim Grieve at Salon has a great rundown of why -- complete with questions that were asked to empty podiums (podia?).


... There's another kerfluffle burning up the internets currently on a kid who was tasered asking Senator John Kerry a question, but I refuse to get involved in the whole tempest in a teapot because Kerry's not running for president (as far as I know).


... Speaking of tempests in teapots, we're into the second week of airheads blathering on television about the little ad that could from Five years from now, nobody's even going to remember this incident, but you wouldn't know that from watching television today.

Here's something I think we can all agree on, whether you loved the ad, thought it went a bit too far, couldn't care less, thought it was an unjustified personal attack, or think that everyone who has ever donated to MoveOn ought to be exiled to Canada immediately:

The ad was effective. And if it hadn't been so "edgy" it wouldn't have been as effective.

MoveOn spent under $100,000 to run the ad once, and what they got was millions and millions of dollars of free publicity. In the advertising world, that's known as a success. Whether the right or left "wins" the argument about the ad's appropriateness, it certainly got people talking.


... This is a non-frivolous item, but one that furthers a conversation I began in a previous column (8/28/07) about what sorts of weapons we're ultimately planning to sell the Iraq armed forces. There is an article in Salon today about weapons sales to Iraq, but you have to read between the lines. The only specifics the article gives are all small arms (up to heavy machine guns). Not a word about helicopters, tanks, or any other heavier hardware. Is anyone even thinking about this in Washington?


... Returning to frivolity, Alan Keyes has entered the race for the Republican nomination for president. Now, if he got elected through some cataclysm, I would begin booking a one-way ticket to anywhere else on Earth for the duration of his term, but I have to give credit where credit is due -- he was the only candidate game enough to get into Michael Moore's mosh pit.

Seriously, though, if you looked up "Alan Keyes candidacy" in the dictionary, you'd find the definition of frivolity.


... News from Robeline, Louisiana -- cops are stealing snacks from the local convenience store. Mysteriously, in the entire story, not once is the word "donut" used, either in the affirmative ("donuts were taken") or the negative ("strangely, the donuts remained untouched"). What sorts of shoddy standards are they teaching in journalism school these days, that allows for such substandard reporting?!? Inquiring minds want to know.


... Also on the snack beat (so to speak) the Department of Justice has been caught buying all kinds of ritzy snacks for its employees. From the AP story: "More than $13,000 was spent on cookies and brownies for 1,542 people who attended a four-day 'Weed and Seed' conference in August 2005, according to the audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine."

Wait a minute... what the heck is a "Weed and Seed" conference? Were Woody Harrelson, Snoop Dogg, or Willie Nelson present? See previous comment about inquiring minds.

As Jay Leno remarked last night (he was actually referring to a new pizza style -- covered in Oreo cookies): "Just how strong IS the marijuana being grown in this country today?"


... I saved the best two for the end.

Someone is attempting to sell Belgium on eBay. You just can't make this stuff up. From the ad: "For Sale: Belgium, a Kingdom in three parts... free premium: the king and his courts (costs not included)." The ad also noted the kingdom was secondhand, but it did offer free delivery.

Sadly, eBay has yanked the ad already.


... And a Nebraska State Senator is suing God. That's not a typo. The good senator filed a lawsuit against the almighty to prove... um... some point or another... about frivolous lawsuits. From an AP report in a local paper:

Saying that God has caused "fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes," Nebraska's longest-serving state senator says he is suing the Almighty to make a legal point.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha filed a lawsuit against God in Douglas County District Court last week, saying that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

He's seeking a permanent injunction against God.

The AP seems to be the only ones reporting this bizarre story. I couldn't find a word of original reporting about it from any local Nebraska papers, although USA Today has a great photo of him shot at an angle to make him appear as a medieval Madonna, halo and all. My prediction is the story will grow much bigger after Bill O'Reilly gets his mitts on it. After all, Chambers is a Democrat.


... Finally, to send you on your way with a smile, let's all celebrate the 25th birthday of the text-based smiley face!



-- Chris Weigant


29 Comments on “Tuesday Frivolity”

  1. [1] 
    Michael Gass wrote:


    ahhhh... where to start? Why not the top?

    Values Voters.

    Gee... can we GUESS why? Bush is toxic. The GOP "base" is toxic. The "fanatical right" is now toxic. Moderate conservatives are pissed. Independents have gone Democrat by a margin of 2 to 1. Of COURSE the GOP candidates are avoiding the very plague that helped sink the GOP.

    Florida kid tasered.

    Nothing to see here. Law enforcement asks. They then tell. They then escort. They then escort physically. If that fails... well... the kid should have just left. He didn't. He fought the cops and lost. Standard SOP and no abuse.

    You want to see abuse, watch some of the anti-war demonstration videos. THAT is abuse. ad.

    You know how I feel. The time is past to call out the military leadership for abandoning our troops for their "blots" and political hackery. C. Rice called hers a "stain". Jeeee... zussss.

    Suing God.

    Now THAT is original! I guess if God doesn't show up in court... he doesn't exist and the religious right are merely fanatics????? (LMAO!!!)

    Here is a "not so frivolous" item:

    U.S. arm sales in Iraq is up. Unfortunately, they can't find or account for most of the weapons and body armor given to the Iraqi's.

    My question is this; Glocks are understandable... but... where did the U.S. find 110,000 AK-47's to issue???? Don't we manufacture M-16's?

    Questions that make you go "hmmmmmmmmm"...

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michael Gass -

    On the AK-47 issue...

    Petraeus already lost 110,000 weapons, don't forget:

    And I also wondered the same thing about why we're giving Soviet-deisgned arms to the Iraqis (in a comment at the bottom).

    But, because of the birthday celebration, all my comments to this article must end with:

    :-) I better say something frivolous. How about: "What? No comment on the donuts?!?" Heh heh. Couldn't help myself there.



  3. [3] 
    Michael Gass wrote:


    Cops don't eat donuts anymore...


  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    >You want to see abuse, watch some
    >of the anti-war demonstration videos.

    Newsflash for ya..

    The kid WAS anti-war...

    But I agree with you... The cops acted correctly. You obey the lawful orders of police officers or you go down..

    It's THAT simple..


  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is another link on the SUING GOD story..

    Ya gotta wonder what kind of settlement could be had! :D


  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Wow, Michael and Michale agreeing!

    See, I knew it would be more fun not to take a stance either way on that story...

    Michale -

    Thanks for that link. It gives more (amusing) details than the AP story. I'm really looking for an online text version of the actual lawsuit filed, but haven't been able to find it yet...

    To all - thanks for posting!



  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    That would be a good place to start.. :D I'll see if I can dig it up...


  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, Mitt Romney raised a good point about the Democratic Presidential Candidates and their fear of crossing over that disgusting ad...

    These Dem Candidates aspire to be the Commander In Chief....

    How can they expect to actually LEAD the armed forces of the United States if they won't stand up for the armed forces of the United States..

    I think that such an argument will hold great sway with John Q Public...


  9. [9] 
    CDub wrote:

    I think generals can probably defend themeselves.

    All this 'shock and awe' over a newspaper ad is just the posturing of politicians.

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hey Michale (and anyone else with military experience) -

    I've got a question for you. Is your response to the ad because you think (1) they have no right to criticize a General in uniform, (2) the criticism was wrong, and therefore despicable, (3) the language used was extreme and therefore deserves condemnation on that fact alone, or (4) the fact that their criticism was so "public" and in-your-face, or even (5) some other reason which I haven't thought of?

    I'm not provoking you, I'm honestly asking.

    Because there's a followup question to that. And that is, can you honestly say that while in uniform you either (1) never criticized any high brass for any reason, or (2) were never present when any General or other brass were criticized by, say, a Sgt.?

    And was the language used extra-polite, or was it (perhaps) even saltier than "General Betray Us"?

    Or, since it's not entirely fair for me to put you on the spot like that, let me rephrase it. Do you think members of the military in uniform, while off duty (in a bull session, or playing cards, for instance), have the right to criticize their superior officers? Not insubordination or anything like that, just blowing off steam with peers.

    Now, you can make a case for "that's different, they're in uniform, therefore they have earned the right to make such criticism." I don't agree with this stance, but I can certainly respect that others may see this viewpoint as valid. Or you can say "That's different, it's not on the pages of the New York Times, for pete's sake."

    But, at root, isn't it still the free public exercise of First Amendment rights by both parties? I guess what I'm asking is -- even if the ad is condemnable for whatever reason, as you argue, you still DO agree that they had the right to do it, don't you?

    Like I said, I'm really not trying to bait you here, I would just be interested in your answers on the bigger picture here.


  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    No problem whatsoever..

    I don't believe that it's wrong, per se, to criticize men in uniform.

    My beef is more with WHO criticizes and HOW the criticism is made..

    In this regard, the military is like a family. It's perfectly OK for a sibling to criticize another sibling or even a parent. But let an outsider do it and, all of the sudden, you see a united family.. is about as outside the military "family" as is possible to be and still be on the same planet..

    So, as you say, those who wear the uniform have earned the right to criticize. Those who don't, haven't..

    But, hay.. In this world, criticism will come from a lot of different sources.. That's a fact of life and so we deal with it.. But this was not legit criticism.

    "General, you incompetent shit, you should have deployed 500,000 troops instead of only 100,000"

    THAT is legitimate criticism. Granted, with a lil bit of childish name calling, but that can easily be written off to the heat of the moment..

    "General, you are a tratior and a liar" is NOT legitimate criticism. It's a personal attack on the man himself and not his actions. Of course, this pre-supposes that the general in question is NOT a traitor and a liar..

    In short, it is much like Internet Postings.. Attack the message and not the messenger... In the Petraeus/ case, it is "attack the General's actions, not the General." ignored that oh so vital piece of wisdom and now they (and the Democrats) are paying the political price for their arrogance..

    >you still DO agree that they had
    >the right to do it, don't you?

    Legally?? Yes...

    Ethically?? Maybe..

    Morally?? No way in hell..

    Everyone has the "right" to criticize public figures in the most mean, heinous and disgusting ways imaginable...

    "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right. .."

    But the point is with this ad is that, just as MoveOn had the right to do it, EVERY AMERICAN has the right, no the OBLIGATION, to condemn it.. Especially if said American wants to actually LEAD those men and women..

    When the men and women of the US Armed forces see one of their own unfairly dragged thru the mud they remember...

    What the Democrat Pres Candidates forgot was that those men and women of the US Armed forces are also voters..

    And they will remember who stood up against this unfair, partisan and completely bogus attack and who did not..

    So, the short answers to your questions are:

    1. If you haven't worn the uniform you do not have the prerogative to criticize..

    2. If you do criticize, make sure the criticism is fair, accurate and objective. MoveOn's criticism failed on all those points..

    3. If a criticism is not fair, accurate and objective, then it is the duty of the leadership to condemn the criticism. ESPECIALLY if said leadership wants to be THE Leader one day..

    People like Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Biden et al have just proven beyond ANY doubt that they are afraid of

    And, do you want running this country??

    That is how the GOP will paint this whole incident.. Between the FNC DEBATE Issue and this issue, the GOP will be able to categorically "PROVE" that the Dem Pres candidates are owned by

    And Joe Q Public will eat it up...

    The BEST thing that could do for the Democratic Party is disband..


  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me amend a part, because it gave the wrong impression..

    >So, as you say, those who wear the
    >uniform have earned the right to
    >criticize. Those who don't, haven't..

    What I had MEANT to say was that, as you acknowledge, those who are wear the uniform have the right to criticize while those who haven't, don't.. I did not mean to imply that you agree with that notion, since you flat out stated that you didn't..

    Sorry about that...


  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    You simply HAVE to admire the machinations that went into such a PR blitz...

    If you are a Democratic Party presidential candidate and you DON'T condemn MoveOn.Org's despicable ad, then you pay the price during the General Election where it is the centrist, JOE Q Public who decides the election... And Mr and Mrs Public do NOT like their military leaders trashed in such a dishonorable manner...

    If you DO condemn the despicable ad, you piss off your Democratic Party base and probably won't MAKE it to the general election...

    I am guessing that TPTB at MoveOn.Org actually work for the Republicans... Because they just handed the GOP a gift that keeps on giving...


  14. [14] 
    CDub wrote:

    I think civilians have the right to criticize, or praise as they see fit, the US military. If you have a voice and a message, and you live in a country where you're free to express yourself, then you have the right to do so.

    Especially in America, since the military works for the people, is paid by the people, and the consequences of their actions will accrue to the people. There's nothing un-American about voicing your opinion, for or against any member of the military.

    I read the Move-On ad, and at their website, they post the text of the ad with links to all the claims they cite. At no point do they actually call Petraeus "Betray Us", but they make the suggestion that after examining the facts, you might choose to call him that, and then they lay out their case. They clearly find his credibility lacking, and they don't try to disguise that.

    Also the notion that the military remembers when one of their own are unfairly dragged through the mud, that may be true, but one of the first lessons of basic training is that you'll be dragged through the mud unfairly any time of the day or night at the whim of your superiors, and you'll learn to love it, and keep your mouth shut. The notion of fairness is a matter of opinion, and on-duty soldiers are not in a free speech zone, so it's unlikely that you'll hear many soldiers agreeing with Move-On, but that doesn't mean that soldiers don't think for themselves. The 'boots on the ground' in Iraq are much more likely to be aware whether Petraeus is full of s**t, and the fact that deaths and violence are up across the board suggests that they're likely ready to Move-On.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually ironic..

    Back in 1989 I was a frequent contributor on a political oriented BBS (for all you youngins that's the Web without all the bells and whistles) and this very issue of "experience" cropped up..

    Towhit, how can you trust the opinion of someone who has never been there??

    And the example I gave then is still relevant today..

    If you have someone who is totally and completely ignorant of computers, why would you POSSIBLY listen to their opinions about the technical aspects of actions by Bill Gates???

    >is that you'll be dragged through
    >the mud unfairly any time of the day
    >or night at the whim of your superiors,
    >and you'll learn to love it, and keep
    >your mouth shut.

    Which has NOTHING to do with being dragged thru the mud or having your superiors dragged thru the mud by a 2-bit hack political anti-USA orgainaization that doesn't have the first clue about what the military is all about..

    You can bet that those voters who ARE in the military will remember come ballot time, that the Dem Pres Candidates allowed their General to be unfairly and improperly dragged thru the mud and these candidates did not voice an iota of protest..

    The is NO DOUBT in anyone's mind that this will hurt the chances of Clinton, Obama, etc etc to be elected President.

    The only issue is how much it will hurt them..

    Personally, I think it will hurt them a lot..


  16. [16] 
    CDub wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    It's actually ironic..

    Towhit, how can you trust the opinion of someone who has never been there??

    Because an opinion is just an opinion. You don't have to trust them, just understand them.

    If you have someone who is totally and completely ignorant of computers, why would you POSSIBLY listen to their opinions about the technical aspects of actions by Bill Gates???

    Because you choose to be thoughtful, and willing to find value in the most unexpected places.

    Which has NOTHING to do with being dragged thru the mud or having your superiors dragged thru the mud by a 2-bit hack political anti-USA orgainaization that doesn't have the first clue about what the military is all about..

    It is YOUR opinion that Move-On is a 2 bit hack anti-USA organization, but that doesn't make it the only possible opinion. Since you're not a member, can your opinion be trusted? Listened to? Of course, but that doesn't make your opinion the only possible opinion.

    You can bet that those voters who ARE in the military will remember come ballot time, that the Dem Pres Candidates allowed their General to be unfairly and improperly dragged thru the mud and these candidates did not voice an iota of protest..

    That doesn't matter to me. They are not responsible for the acts of their supporters any more than republicans are responsible for the acts of Abramoff (well, most of them anyway). I count on those voters in the military remembering the Petraeus report and the odors it caused.

    The is NO DOUBT in anyone's mind that this will hurt the chances of Clinton, Obama, etc etc to be elected President.
    The only issue is how much it will hurt them..
    Personally, I think it will hurt them a lot..

    Your opinion duly noted.

  17. [17] 
    benskull wrote:

    I was at the anti war march in dc on the 15th. I noticed that those protesting us, and for the war, or peace through strength, called us traitors and said that we don't support the troops. I wondered to myself where this reasoning comes from. Considering that we were there demanding the safe return of our troops from an utter disaster of political making. We want them home with their families. That to me seems to be more supportive than wanting to keep them there. Calling, whose demands are the same, anti USA is ridiculous. They want the return of these troops to safety, from a war surrounded by lies. That to me is more patriotic than wanting to keep them there. Where is your outrage towards the administration that has lied to us? The outrage towards the administration that said "Mission Accomplished" several years ago? The administration, that instead of avenging the atrocities at the trade centers, lied to the public and diverted our attention to Iraq, while the true criminals are still out there? That to me is betrayal. Moveon was just asking the question, "will he betray us?" I beleive they were asking whether he will show his allegiance to Bush, his commander in cheif, or the american people, whom the majority don't support the occupation of Iraq, the people he serves, or the soldiers who are in the trenches of a worsening situation, those he leads. Obviously his allegiance was to Bush. I have a hard time believing the charts, that conveniently only show progress in the last several weeks, which are too recent for other to polls to show. Polls that show a consistant rise in violence since the surge. If you watch foriegn media at all, a very different story is being told. In my opinion, Bush is the betrayer. Being a firefighter, I find it disgusting that trillions are being spent in Iraq, in the "War on Terror" when the terrorists responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians and other firefighters and police are still at large. Granted some have been caught, but when our soldiers were closest to Osama, the request for more rangers was denied. That is betrayal. Granted there are political concerns with Afghanistan, but obviously diplomacy was not a concern in Iraq. And as far as the effects on the Dem candidates, that is unfortunate. I find it a complete and total waste of taxpayers money, that our government officials are bickering over the condemnation of a newspaper add. There are MANY problems much greater that need tending to. It is outrageous that this is an issue. Freedom of speech. Period.

  18. [18] 
    benskull wrote:

    Oh, and moveon sent out an email asking supporters of their organization if they should back any of the Dem candidates due to their lack of outrage at the Iraq occupation and there lack of following through with the 'promise' of the midterm elections to end the war. Or whether they should back an independant candidate. Its sad that independant candidates don't have a chance. Nader was a smart person, with good ideas. Don't know many others. I wish Gore would run again myself. He had vision, cared about the environment we are destroying. The one Bush is committed to destroying further through his refusal to pay attention to Kyoto, and I believe Gore could clean up alot of this mess, and has more experience than Obama, and more diplomacy than Clinton. Oh and the fact that Bush continues to deny a chance for better health care, to me, is betrayal as well. Especially the failure to provide good healthcare to the volunteers at 9/11. Disgusting. Nonetheless, moveon does not claim allegience to the Dems.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:


    >I wondered to myself where this reasoning
    >comes from. Considering that we were there
    >demanding the safe return of our troops
    >from an utter disaster of political making.

    The reasoning is simple..

    Most from the Left want to bring home the troops in defeat and surrender...

    It's as I indicated in another comment. EVERY American wants to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home.

    The difference is that the Left wants to quit in defeat and run home scared leaving behind a killing field and a safe haven for Al Qaeda and new territory for Iran...

    The Right wants to end in victory and leave behind a stable Iraq that will, in turn, stabilize the entire region..

    >Calling, whose demands
    >are the same, anti USA is ridiculous.

    Is it?? Considering those are the SAME demands that the enemies of the USA, including Al Qaeda and Iran, want, why is it so ridiculous?? If the Left is wanting the same thing in Iraq that Al Qaeda wants, well... I would call that pretty much Anti USA...

    >The outrage towards the administration that
    >said "Mission Accomplished" several years ago?

    Because that particular mission WAS accomplished. Saddam was out of power...

    Why should anyone show outrage at that??

    For the record, it was the sailors of the Lexington (??) that put up the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner, not the President..

    >lied to the public

    This is why I have a problem with all the hate-mongering and Bush-bashing rhetoric..

    No one in the Administration lied. Three different commissions (Two US Bi-Partisan Commissions and one British Commission) made the determination that while mistakes were made, no one in the US Administration lied.. So, please. Stop perpetuating that line of BS propaganda.. That poor horse is dead and gone. Let it rest in peace..

    >Moveon was just asking the question,
    >"will he betray us?"

    Oh puuullleeeeesee... I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night..

    That ad was nothing but a character assassination hit piece. No more, no less.. Even the NY Times is quoted as saying it violated their AD Policy against ATTACK ADs...

    So, do not try and feed us that line of bull, that the MoveOn ad was anything but a vicious, unfair and utterly contemptible attack ad.. That is all it was, pure and simple...

    >Polls that show a consistant rise in violence
    >since the surge

    Polls are shit and are useless to gauge anything but the biases of the poll takers..

    If you want to talk polls, let's discuss the latest Zogby poll that places Bush's popularity almost 3 times as high as the Democrat Controlled Congress..

    You sure you want to talk about polls???

    >but when our soldiers were closest
    >to Osama, the request for more rangers
    >was denied. That is betrayal.

    Here again, the hateful rhetoric takes the place of calm and rational discourse..

    It was not "betrayal".. It was a tactical mistake made for political reasons..

    Your "betrayal" is nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight..

    >Freedom of speech. Period.

    Tell that to HuffingtonPost... I got banned from there SIMPLY because of my political views.. Which, ironically enough, with one exception, are more liberal than anyone there, including Arianna herself..

    >Freedom of speech. Period.

    Tell that to Taylor Marsh. She made wild-assed claims about Bush and I ask her to back those up with some facts. She censored my comments. When I asked her in a private email why, she POSTED that private email and used it to ridicule me.

    Please do not give me that tired old line about how the Left is the last bastion of "FREEDOM OF SPEECH".. Because, when push comes to shove, the Left is just as capable as censoring people that they don't agree with to hell and back...

    >Freedom of speech. Period.

    Tell that to the soldier that wanted to speak at the KOS Convention and set the record straight about all the lies that the Left are perpetuating about Iraq..
    He was not so kindly escorted from the convention by Left goons...

    Where is your vaunted "Freedom of speech. Period." in those instances???

    Oh please do not get me started on Gore.. He is a snake oil salesman of the highest caliber.. Human Caused Global Warming is nothing but a money-making myth that Gore et al perpetuates and makes MILLIONS a year off of...

    Every "fact" that "proved" HCGW that Gore and his disciples have come up with has been exposed for the lies by REAL scientists..

    "Polar Bears Eating Their Own" is proof of HCGW....

    "Greenland Glaciers Melting" is proof of HCGW....

    "Mt Killamanjaroo's Snows Melting" is proof of HCGW....

    And so on and so on and so on...

    Human Caused Global Warming is a political issue. Nothing more..

    >Nonetheless, moveon does not claim
    >allegience to the Dems.

    Yer right.. MoveOn's only allegiance is to those DEMOCRATS who will toe their own twisted Anti-American line... If you are a Democrat who actually has the best interests of this country in mind, you will be treated as nastily as any Republican is treated..

    MoveOn's philosophy is "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY"...

    Now, how is such an attitude in keeping with the ideals of liberalism???

    Answer.. It's not....


  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:


    But I do agree with you on one point..

    I too, would love to see Al Gore put in his hat and run for President..

    Because then he would be FORCED to do what he promised he would do over a year ago..

    That is to debate Human Caused Global Warming..

    That is why you will not see Al Gore run for any kind of office, unless it is un-opposed..

    As Mr Gore, he is free to ignore his promise to debate and is free to continue spouting his fear-mongering lies and is free to continue to make millions a year in speaking fees and off people being duped in to buying "carbon credits" which have been PROVEN to be nothing but a fraud. People are buying thin air...

    But, as CANDIDATE Gore, he would be forced to debate the issue and we all know what the result of THAT debate would be... Many lesser debates have been done and all showed HCGW for the money making myth that it is...

    So I join you, benskull, in urging Al Gore to run for President. It will serve the purpose to finally expose the Human Cause Global Warming myth for what it is.. A sham and a lie..

    Granted, it will also destroy the Democratic Party as a viable alternative to the GOP for years to come, but hay.... You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs...


  21. [21] 
    benskull wrote:

    Boy, I'm impressed. You seriously believe that global warming is a sham? Or should I say human caused global warming. REAL scientists? YOu mean the few that were hired by oil companies to discredit it? Any respectable scientific communities in the world have acknowledged the truth of global warming for 20 years. I'm sorry you believe that stuff. And I'm sorry you believe this administration is shrouded in honesty. Hopefully our long awaited "victory" in Iraq will be differing point from Viet Nam, that happened to have similar charts that were contradicted by most other polls. And as far as stable Iraq, what you mean is and Iraq that we control, whose oil is still controlled by Haliburton. I'll find some links for you to check out. You should read some Chomsky too. I'm sure you'll bash him in the reply, but he is extremely intelligent, straightforward, and cites every statement he makes, and the source. It really is pretty clear, the goals of this administration and many preceeding ones, and their effects on foriegn relations, and they are difinately not straight forward, nor in the interest of the vast majority of Americans. If only they would realize that. I work with someone that over and over says Democrats are pu**y's because they don't want to go to war. That stems from Republican propaganda. Look at history, they've gone to war too. Its not a fear of war, its the avoiding of this senseless, expensive war thats created more problems than good. And they predicted that from the beginning. We have many enemies now. We can claim that they are crazy and evil, but if one stepped back and realized that maybe our interference in their freedom for decades created that hatred, maybe a different solution, one that will last is present. If china becomes the world superpower down the road, and invades the US and says, you will have a democracy, that we control, and we will also control your resources for many years, I think that we would all hate them for it. We would be driven into poverty because they would be enjoying our profits, and if we elected a leader of our choice and they came in and removed that leader for one that was more controllable, we would hate them more, and hopefully band together to defend our brothers and sisters. If we had never involved ourselves in the politics of the arab states i don't believe they would have any problems with us. They don't announce their hatred of Iceland, or Mexico. They are western democratic nations. Oh well. its been fun. You should check out the 9/11 comission by the way. Lots of issues in there that have not been addressed.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am glad I perused the "next page" and caught this.. I hope you do also so that you can respond..

    For the record, I firmly believe in the idea that there is climate change. Anyone would be a fool to deny this. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that the climate is changing...

    Just as there is scientific evidence that proves that the climate has ALWAYS been changing...

    Where the controversy comes is the CAUSE of the climate change.. Gore and his disciples swear up and down that it is humankind that is causing the changes.. Yet the scientific evidence shows otherwise... The EXACT same changes we see today have already occurred tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago..

    Now, the Gore sycophants would have us believe that tens of hundreds of thousands of years ago, there was a NATURAL cause of that climate change.. But TODAY.... Today, those changes are caused by humankind... Get that?? Exact same changes, yet two completely and diametrically opposed causes...

    >YOu mean the few that were hired
    >by oil companies to discredit it

    Actually, this is a common (and completely inaccurate ) accusation thrown out there. HUNDREDS of scientists who initially signed off on the HCGW theory (part of the VAST "consensus" that Gore et al espouse) have recanted or changed their opinions, based on the study of current scientific evidence. There was even a series of articles done, initially to ridicule the "deniers", yet the articles ended up showing how right the "deniers" are and how political the HCGW disciples are..

    >Any respectable scientific communities
    >in the world have acknowledged the truth
    >of global warming for 20 years.

    Actually, 20 years ago, the "scientific" (IE Political) community swore up and down that the Earth was COOLING!! Good thing they didn't start trying to warm things up back then, eh???

    >And I'm sorry you believe this
    >administration is shrouded in honesty.

    I have said nothing the sort... I simply have asked everyone to show me the LIES and not the wrong opinions, the misread of intelligence and the mis communications..

    If the lies are so blatant and apparent, why can the not be documented???

    The simple fact is that HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING is a political issue for the country and a HUGE money maker for Al Gore.. Who do you think owns the companies that push people to buy "carbon credits".. You guessed it... Al Gore... And those "carbon credits" have been PROVEN to be fraudulent..

    Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

    >I work with someone that over and over
    >says Democrats are pu**y's because
    >they don't want to go to war. That
    >stems from Republican propaganda.
    >Look at history, they've gone to war too.

    Yea, I think that was the Bay Of Pigs....

    >We can claim that they are crazy and evil,
    > but if one stepped back and realized that
    >maybe our interference in their freedom for
    >decades created that hatred

    Our "interference" was caused by their hatred... Not the other way around..

    >If we had never involved ourselves
    >in the politics of the arab states
    >i don't believe they would have any
    >problems with us.

    And if the Arab states did not start killing innocent people, then we would have never involved ourselves in their politics..

    But regardless, what you are referring to is ancient history and completely irrelevant..

    Are you telling me that, if a murderous band of American Indians "invaded" your town and started killing innocent people indiscriminately, you would gladly offer yourself and your family up as fodder because your great great great great great great great grand uncle came over on the Mayflower and took some Indian's land??

    Is THAT what you are telling me???

    Of course it isn't.. That would be ridiculous..

    JUST as ridiculous as it is to say that it is perfectly OK for scumbag terrorists to go around killing innocent Americans or innocent Israelis because of what happened 30 years ago.. Or 300 years ago.. Or 3000 years ago...


    That's a point that the loony Left just cannot seem to grasp...


    And anyone who claims otherwise is no better than a terrorist themselves...

    >You should check out the 9/11 comission
    >by the way. Lots of issues in there that
    >have not been addressed.

    Really!!??? The Democratic Party promised to address and pass EACH AND EVERY ONE of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations in the first 100 days of their control of Congress...

    Guess that was just another broken campaign promise...


  23. [23] 
    benskull wrote:

    For one, that depends on who the perpetrator of the terrorism is. And for two, the entire world is trying to combat global warming by reducing the human caused factor. Bush and his oil company buddies are the only ones not willing to participate. That is a joke. The rest of the WORLD sees the problems, and yes these climate changes have occured, but not so drastically, so obviously, reducing our contribution might just maybe be a good idea. I mean logically and sanely speaking.
    And as far as dems control of congress, you know why that control does not exist, fillibusters, and a weak control that still doesnt get enough votes, oh and vetos. Like the extension of healthcare to less fortunate children? I hope you don't defend that decision. Like Bush did by saying that the dems just like to spend money. What a joke, like he isn't wasting trillions in iraq. God forbid we find a few billion in cigarette taxes for under priveleged children. What irresponsible spending. Heartless dems. Who needs poor kids anyways. God forbid there is any federal connection in healthcare.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    >For one, that depends on who the
    >perpetrator of the terrorism is.


    The idea that "terrorism" is situational or dependent on anything is ludicrous..


    It's like child molestation.. There are no "degrees" of goodness in child molestation.. It's bad, pure and simple...

    Let me show you..

    "For one, that depends on who the perpetrator of the child molestation is."

    Does that sentence make any sense to you?? Of course it doesn't....


    As to HCGW..

    What if you are wrong?? 20-30 years ago, scientists swore up and down that the world was cooling.. Now, if we believe all the HCGW hype and start taking steps to cool the world and then the NATURAL CYCLE kicks in and another cooling trend begins.. But added to THAT natural cooling is the artifical cooling done by the sycophants and Gore-ites and BOOOM... We have a real un-natural Ice Age, courtesy of those who did something out of complete ignorance.

    We do NOT know enough about the natural process to start meddling with things in hopes of "fixing" them.. We may, in our stupidity, bring about the VERY catastrophe we were trying to stop..

    To give you an analogy, pretend you are in the cockpit of a 747 that is flying along at cruising altitude and speed with the entire world's population back in the passenger sections.... You are completely ignorant as to how to fly a plane this complex. Occasionally, you hit a pocket or two of turbulence.. You say to yourself, "Damn, that turbulence is a bad thing.. I better do something."

    Now, are you going to start pushing buttons and pulling levers in hopes of "doing something" to eliminate the "threat" of turbulence, which is a COMPLETELY natural process to begin with??

    I would hope you wouldn't. Because doing so has a GOOD chance of killing all of your "passengers"...

    That is the situation we face. The sycophants and Gore-ites want everyone to start pushing buttons, based on POLITICAL ideas rather than scientific ones..

    >And as far as dems control of
    >congress, you know why that control
    >does not exist, fillibusters, and
    >a weak control that still doesnt
    >get enough votes, oh and vetos.

    If this is true, then why did we bother giving control of Congress to the Democrats?? Why was all this big celebrating going on when Democrats won control of the House and Senate..

    However, even ignoring that, why do the Democrats have so much trouble furthering their agenda, yet the GOP doesn't have a BIT of problem furthering theirs. And THEY are the MINORITY Party..

    How can that be???


  25. [25] 
    benskull wrote:

    I've only read the first sentence so far, already you misunderstood me. I'm not excusing terrorism, I'm saying that all responsible for it shall be held accountable. Like for instance when the US was "extending its vision of democracy" on nicaragua, by supporting a military coup (sp)to overthrow a democratically elected govt, who simply wanted to control there own resources (oil) instead of continuing to let US profit and there people live in poverty. When the US decided to start hitting "soft" targets, to effect the economy and spread fear among those against the coup, that could be considered terrorism. And your right, nothing justifies terrorism. Even our own. The problem in the middle east, is that we really aren't fighting nations, like in WWI or II. They have to come up with a new tactic. Our current tactic is what created so much hatred. You can't punish a nation for people that show no allegiance to that nation. Sure there may be connections, so you investigate. Our current tactics will only feed the hatred. If you want to compare it to child molesters, thats fine. I'm not saying one child molester could be considered in the right. I'm saying both should be held accountable, even if one is 'elite' or family or whatever. Its the same crime no matter who perpetrates it. And should not be tolerated.
    Read that and stop getting info about global warming from Rush Limbaugh. As for the analogy, that is ridiculous. Are you saying that pollution is a good idea? There is no sanity in that. If we are harming the environment, we should stop. Period. There is no way that continuing pollution can help the earth. You do have good points in many things you say, whether I agree or not, but this is not one of them. YOur info is what you hear from those that will lose profit if we begin to enforce environmentally friendly regulations on industry etc. They create stories to confuse the public and stall.
    As for congress, it is sad. I'm not happy that there fight is weak.
    Because the pres vetos what he can, and some, not all, but enough of the repubs, fear Bush. You still haven't commented on the healthcare for kids? no comment?

  26. [26] 
    benskull wrote:

    Oh here, check this out. Just found it.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, we are agreed, then..


    And I also agree with you that ALL terrorists should be punished. But, unless you can cite me instances of the US committing terrorist acts on a knowing and ongoing basis, I am not ready to concede that the US is a terrorist nation.

    One of the users here posted some diatribe about how the US revolutionary soldiers committed terrorism in our fight for independence. When I asked for specifics, that user didn't post any..

    So, I will ask you.. You claim that the US started hitting "soft targets" in Central America. Could you post instances and examples of this?

    As to your HCGW part..

    There are MANY articles that have posited (with scientific backup) that some Global Warming would actually be GOOD for the earth. Much like how Greenland was in the middle ages.. Fertile and with many farmlands...

    I am all for stopping pollution. But how is making AL Gore a Billionaire going to help stop pollution..

    You want to know my suggestion?? Global Warming causes take in BILLIONS of dollars every year. Ostensibly for "research".. Funny how that "research" just makes people like Al Gore rich.. Anyways, my suggestion is to take those BILLIONS of dollars and create a "Hybrid Trade In" Program.. For every person who brings in a working and running gas powered car, they are given a Hybrid in trade.. Can you imagine how much pollution would be eliminated if 90% of the drivers drove hybrids??

    I guaran-fracking-tee you that THAT would do TONS more to stop pollution than lining Mr Al-I HAVE A TIN MINE AND A 33,000 SQ FT HOUSE TO HEAR-Gore...

    I am for real and tangible environmentalism.. Not the psuedo-enviros like Al Gore who preaches and preaches about the evil of carbon and then hops into his Private Jet to jet around the world, all the while counting how much money his fraudulent Carbon Credit company has made him..

    As for the Child Health Care, I am all for it.. In this issue (and every other issue, sans one), I differ with Bush and the GOP... ANYTHING that makes Health Care more affordable or free (preferably free), I am all for it...


  28. [28] 
    benskull wrote:

    Oh good about the healthcare. I wish the current admin listened to the people on that one. I wish if we could get the numbers from the public, we could veto. Yeah, I don't agree with environmentalism for massive profit, and if he really has a house that big, there is some serious hypocrisy, but it is certainly better than environmental destruction for profit. While I don't believe Al Gore is being deceptive in his cause, whether there are some flaws or not, I do see that he believes in the cause. Thats important. It is certainly something that will help the world, and keep it in good shape for my future children. And as for the Hybrid trade in program, I love it. The could recycle the old ones and put the hybrid motors in them , or just use all the parts and reuse the steel ietc. Of course the auto industry probably wouldnt get rich on this, so Im sure it would be lobbied out of washington quickly. I have a diesel vw. I love it, less emissions, @50mpg, will run for @300000miles and I can convert it to run on used cooking grease thats thrown out from restaraunts. I'll wait a bit on that though, costs a grand for the set up:) probably make up for it in a few months though. We'll see what happens with biodiesel.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, from what I have read, biodiesel is more destructive to the environment than gasoline. Not so much after the fact, but what has to be done BEFORE the fact...

    Yea, the Hybrid Trade In program has a LOT going for it..

    But it's biggest strengths is also why it won't ever be implemented..

    It's logical, it's practical and it actually DOES SOMETHING about pollution...


Comments for this article are closed.