Billboard From Official Tea Party In Iowa Compares Obama, Hitler
Tweet
[ad#Google Adsense]
A billboard created by an Iowa tea party group comparing President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin is being condemned by other tea party activists.
The North Iowa Tea Party began displaying the sign in Mason City last week.
The sign includes photos of Obama, Nazi leader Hitler and communist leader Lenin with the statement: ‘Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive.’
North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson says the sign highlights what the group argues is Obama’s support for socialism. He says the pictures might be overwhelming the intended message.
282 Responses to “Billboard From Official Tea Party In Iowa Compares Obama, Hitler”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
This from a liberal who was part of a movement that routinely compared President Bush to Hitler.
That’s ridiculous, Jay. Hitler was elected.
“‘Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive.’”
Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levine et al.
Socialists put Alan Simpson on deficit commissions and keep Ben Bernanke as fed chairman
So, what does that mean, Jay? Is is okay to compare a democratically elected president to Hitler, or isn’t it?
“his from a liberal who was part of a movement that routinely compared President Bush to Hitler.”
On billboards? In official party mailers? Or that one time someone sent in a tasteless video to MoveOn?
Except none of our official orgs did so. And no, MoveOn didn’t.
It takes some serious chutzpah, or something anyway, to claim Hitler comparisons are the sole domain of the right. Just, wow.
Cute strawman there, Buzz.
Is it okay to compare a democratically elected president to Hitler, or isn’t it?
After 8 years of calling the democratically elected President of this country, whose name was George W Bush , Bushitler, I would say, “No, it is not.”
Now, I ask you, von Ebers: Was it okay to compare a democratically elected president to Hitler for eight years, or wasn’t it?
This is not about “two wrongs don’t make a right”; hence, the fact that the DNC didn’t do it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Where is the Tea Party a registered party? Even if they were, the real point is that when you lower the bar, the bar stays lowered.
Sure they did. ANSWER and other anti-war organizations sponsored anti-war protests and people there proudly compared Bush to Hitler.
Dave, I’m merely doing what Oliver does all the time. Rather than address the substance of what is being said, it’s easier just to say, “Yeah. This from somebody that _________.”
Nobody builds men of straw like Oliver.
We really gotta stop these people this November.
And yes, liberals do call presidents Hitler. I can’t remember an actual state party paying for a billboard about it though.
Shorter Frank: Because it wasn’t ok for people on the Left to compare Bush to Hitler, it’s perfectly acceptable for the GOP to say that Obama is Hitler.
except for you, jay. you’re pretty damn good at it. so is government out of my medicare frank lasalle.
you know of course that answer is not the left but that doesn’t stop you from pretending it is.
We really gotta stop these people this November.
Better start rowing harder, Patrick. The trend is definitely not your friend right now.
Whatever Merl. I’m the only one I’ve ever seen that gets accused of using a strawman argument for attempting to steer the argument back to the actual issue.
I love how the left excuses their own by saying, “Well, we didn’t have a billboard. Sure, we had thousands of people carrying signs comparing Bush to Hitler and saying he should be killed but no billboards!”
I look forward to Fox news and the msm condemning this billboard for it’s odious message the way they did Moveon when it had an entry in that commercial contest it held that compared Bush to Hitler. You know. The one Moveon had nothing to do with but got blamed for anyway.
Yessir. I suuuuure do look forward to that.
My point is: No, it wasn’t right to call Bush Hitler. As bad as he was — and I think he was one of the worst presidents we ever had — the comparison cheapens what Hitler really did. Bush was incompetent and weak; but he wasn’t pure evil and he obviously wasn’t capable of committing genocide. By the same token, comparing Obama to Hitler (or Stalin) is at least as offensive. Seems like we should be able to agree to that much.
And when, exactly, did Oliver call Bush Hitler? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, um, “Never” …
When it comes to being rude, crude and socially unacceptable, there really isn’t any difference between the hysterical Right and the hysterical Left…
Anyone who calls attention to the hysteria of one side while ignoring the hysteria of the other side is doing a disservice to the American people.
Michale32086
Dave,
And when, exactly, did Oliver call Bush Hitler? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, um, “Never” …
Did Oliver ever castigate anyone from the Left who DID compare Bush to Hitler??
“I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, um, “Never” …”
It works both ways, ya know….
Michale32086
Hey Jay, I once knew a dude named Jay who hung around with a bunch of transgendered trombone players, one of whom had been brought up on charges of exposing himself to minors.
I guess my point is, STAY OUT OF OUR COMMENT BOARDS, YOU CROSS-DRESSING HORN-PLAYING PERVERT!!!!
You know, cause i drew a connection between you and someone vaguely like you who did something stupid? Man are you a deviant freak. Trombone? Seriously, Jay. Don’t deny it, either. I knew a bunch of guys named Jay who did messed up stuff.
The more you deny it, the more you expose yourself as a carnival of wackness. Big wierdo.
ANSWER and other anti-war organizations sponsored anti-war protests and people there proudly compared Bush to Hitler.
And ANSWER and “other anti-war organizations” are the leadership of the Democrat Party. Everyone knows that!
The Dick Armey resorted to comparing Obama to Hitler after only three months into his presidency over such we’re-all-gonna-die-afropocalypse matters such as healthcare reform and gubnit’ spending. It took dirty hippies at least 3 years, a war based on lies, torture and domestic surveillance before they started referring to Bush as Der Fuhrer.
Totally unfair.
‘Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive.’
Yeah, well, they’re right about that part, anyway – righter than they know.
Let us run through our Hitler checklist shall we:
Bush
Rightwing X
Torture X
War of Agression X
Sorry that posted before it was done
Let us run through our Hitler checklist shall we:
Bush
Rightwing X
Torture X
War of Agression X
Orwellian big lie X
Genocide O
Nope not quite Hitler
Obama
No checks at all
not even remotely comparable to hitler.
elspi,
The only CHECK that is relevant with regards to Bush is this:
ZERO terrorist attacks on US Proper post 9/11…
You’re welcome.
Michale32086
The Tea Party is a political party, am I right? One closely affiliated with the GOP (at least there has been many reports of well-known Republicans looking to incorporate them). At the very least, the two share political ideology.
So please, tell me of the time when elected Democrats led rallies that compared Bush to Hitler. Tell me of the time a prominent left-leaning political party who the Democrats were just dying to absorb protested Bush roughly nine months into his presidency and compared him to Hitler. Tell me about how this group was covered by the mainstream media…oops, I mean “liberal” media, who called them the “New Left,” and said they were a game-changer. Show me the prominent Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen who who bent over backwards to get this supposed, sprang-up-overnight, totally grassroots, left-leaning party’s approval.
It won’t happen, because such a group never existed. There was never a liberal version of the Tea Party during Bush’s presidency. Bush was not attacked day and night from radio and TV by prominent media personalities and left-leaning advocates in his first two years.
As far as substance, there seems to be a rift on this particular tactic: the local Iowa Tea Party sees little wrong with the billboard while the National Tea Party Patriots opposes the comparison that’s being made. So the question that should be posed is not “Why is Oliver doing A but not B?” but rather, “Are all these groups who are using the Tea Party name truly part of the real Tea Party, are they using the Tea Party name to mask their hatred for Obama, or both?”
“ZERO terrorist attacks on US Proper post 9/11″
Well, minus that 9/11 whoopsie, being safe from terrorism was actually due to my Magic Terrorist-Repelling Rock. I can say this with exactly as much evidence as Michale32086 has.
The sad thing is the history is all wrong. The idiots who did this don’t know anything about European History, not a shock.
Hitler HATED the Communists and no one with more than a thumbnail’s understanding of Poly Sci 101 would characterize Hitler’s government as Socialist. It was a FASCIST government where the government and the major corporations worked hand in hand.
This isn’t even difficult nor is it bringing into account the ludicrous idea that Obama has followed policies vaguely connected with either leader, though his Civil Rights ones have a lot to be desired (not being Bush ain’t enough).
Ever the black and white thinker, Jay lumps liberals into the same box as the civil libertarians who led the Bush = Hitler mantra.
Pryme,
The Tea Party is a political party, am I right?
You are not right.
The “Tea Party” is, at best, a loose association of like-minded individuals.
Why would you think they are an official Political Party??
Because the hysterical Left says so???
So please, tell me of the time when elected Democrats led rallies that compared Bush to Hitler.
You’re kidding, right???
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+compared+to+hitler&aq=0&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=Bush+compared+to+hit&gs_rfai=C0RBPotM8TI69CJXcygT21fS5BQAAAKoEBU_QmD2e&fp=36ec6be010d257f
To deny that the Left compared Bush to Hitler ad nasuem is to live in a fantasy world…
Michale32086
Paul_D
Well, minus that 9/11 whoopsie, being safe from terrorism was actually due to my Magic Terrorist-Repelling Rock. I can say this with exactly as much evidence as Michale32086 has.
Well, you can SAY it…
But, unless you have personal experience to back it up, it’s nothing but felgercarb..
I, on the other hand, have almost two decades in the CT field..
And I can assure you that the 6+ years of no terrorist attacks on US proper under the Bush administration wasn’t an accident… It was thru perseverance and sheer will of our intelligence services…
Once again.. You’re welcome…
Now, compare that to the utter incompetence of the Obama administration in preventing terrorist attacks..
Attacks that didn’t go off, SOLELY because of the sheer incompetence of the terrorists themselves…
In short… Obama’s “success” at preventing terrorist attacks has only come about because they terrorists themselves were morons…
You can bet that such idiocy won’t last much longer and Obama will preside over a terrorist attack that will rival 9/11…
Remember, you heard it hear first…
Michale32086
“You can bet that such idiocy won’t last much longer and Obama will preside over a terrorist attack that will rival 9/11…”
Wouldn’t someone with “almost two decades in the CT field” do something about that now?
Michale32086,
When those who affiliate with the Tea Party run for office, what do they run as? Just curious, because word was some Tea Partiers felt betrayed by some of Scott Brown’s decisions, and he was labeled as their first salvo early on.
Oh, and your link was to pictures, not stories about elected Democrats leading rallies. But you’re right about left-leaning protesters making those Hitler posters (Oh no, I agreed with you! Maybe it’s a trick!). What I’m saying (again) is the movers and shakers in the Democratic Party had not.
Here’s a little secret: the Democrats fear the GOP’s base more than their own. The GOP’s base are not afraid to raise holy hell to have their voices heard and their message repeated, and the GOP tends to listen to them fairly often (except on abortion, guess they’re still working on that). The Democrat’s base gets some lip service, but you’re not going to see a TV special on the Rising of The Left anytime soon, and seriously, the Republicans don’t have anything resembling the Democrats “Blue Dogs.”
And I can assure you that the 6+ years of no terrorist attacks on US proper under the Bush administration wasn’t an accident…
You’d also think that someone with “almost two decades in the CT field” would have heard of Richard Reid.
Paul_D,
I appreciate your confidence, but I am retired…
And, as recent history clearly shows, the Obama administration has very little need for REAL CT professionals..
They seem to think that their political appointees are doing just such a slam-bang job..
There will come a time… very soon.. when they will realize how wrong they are….
Michale32086
One of your official politicians did. Remember that?
elspi,
Did Obama close Gitmo?
Did Obama withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Seems your side needs a few check marks, if that’s the scoresheet you’re running with.
And I can assure you that…
Anonymous wingnut troll can assure me. How reassuring.
Except when he didn’t. Sad.
And I can assure you that the 6+ years of no terrorist attacks on US proper under the Bush administration wasn’t an accident
Unfortunately, Bush was president for eight years.
When those who affiliate with the Tea Party run for office, what do they run as?
I honestly don’t know..
Many probably SAY they are the “Tea Party” candidate… But they can “say” that they are the Vulcan candidate… Doesn’t mean that the Vulcan Party is a true Political Party..
There really isn’t any “Tea Party” Political Party.. As far as I know, to be an actual Political Party, there are a bunch of hoops that need to be jumped thru…
Unless something has changed radically in the last couple weeks, there is no official “Tea Party”…
Oh, and your link was to pictures, not stories about elected Democrats leading rallies. But you’re right about left-leaning protesters making those Hitler posters (Oh no, I agreed with you! Maybe it’s a trick!). What I’m saying (again) is the movers and shakers in the Democratic Party had not.
Here’s a little secret: the Democrats fear the GOP’s base more than their own.
Here’s another little secret.. I completely agree with you…
If there is one thing that the GOP has over the DP is that the GOP knows how to keep it’s members in line… With the DP, it’s like herding cats..
That is why I am thankful that I am an NPA… I am beholden to no political party nor political ideology…
Michale32086
My link was to a GOOGLE listing, of which a few pictures were part of that…
But hay… Let me get more specific for you…
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Democrats+bush+compared+to+hitler&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=36ec6be010d257f
Over 2 million links that show how Democrats compared Bush to Hitler…
Oliver,
Unfortunately, Bush was president for eight years.
Clinton bears as much responsibility for 9/11 as Bush does, if not more..
The simple fact is on 11 Sep 01 at approx 0830 local, the CT Field for the United States intelligence irrevocably changed..
It was the end of innocence for the United States…
Michale32086
Indeed,
Anonymous wingnut troll can assure me. How reassuring.
And you have nothing but childish and immature name-calling..
Why do you even bother??
Michale32086
I am beholden to no political party nor political ideology…
Maybe you’ll be able to answer this question from a clear perspective then?
Conservatives preach that more personal responsibility and higher moral principles will efficiently take the place of much of current government. Yet, conservative leaders have demonstrated throughout this decade that they themselves have no more personal responsibility or moral principles than their big government liberal rivals. Your thoughts?
Why do you even bother??
Why do you? You’re all talk. In blog comments. That’s the fucking point. You didn’t get that? Jeezus you are fucking stupid.
Timmy,
It has been my experience that the political critter, whether conservative or progressive will preach what sounds good, but then will turn around and do whatever is necessary to further their own personal agenda, whatever it may be…
I have always stated and I stand by it.. There really isn’t any difference between the Right and the Left..
Oh sure, they spout noble sounding ideologies and theory, but when it comes down to it, they serve their own personal greed and ambition..
“Your good and your evil use the same tactics to acheive the same goals.”
-Yarnek, STAR TREK, The Savage Curtain
So it is with the Right and the Left. The only way to tell them apart is with a program….
In other words, I completely agree with you with what you say about the Right… I simply maintain that it also holds true for the Left…
Indeed,
I am here to share viewpoints and learn something of a different viewpoint..
You seem to be here just to attack differing viewpoints…
To each their own, I ‘spose….
Michale32086
It was Bush who, after attacking Clinton for being “obsessed with terrorism”, proceeded to do nothing whatsoever to prevent 9/11, even after being warned that bin Laden intended to have his people start hijacking airliners. Funny how Michale somehow keeps managing to forget that, innit?
Clinton bears as much responsibility for 9/11 as Bush does, if not more..
Oh fucking please. Did Clinton get a memo titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” and just shrugged it off?
Prodigal,
Funny how Michale somehow keeps managing to forget that, innit?
I guess you must have missed it when I said that Bush DOES share some responsibility for 9/11…
But the 9/11 plan was far advanced.. Even if Bush had done everything necessary, IN HINDSIGHT, to get Bin Laden, it’s likely that 9/11 still would have gone off…
This is the estimation of the REAL professionals in the field…
But, by all means… Continue your senseless partisan fantasies….
I’ll be around to show you how wrong you are…
Michale32086
Reagan bears as much responsibility for 9/11 as Bush does, if not more… What with the 3 billion in arms to the Afghan jihadist and helping Bin Laden gain standing, power and influence in the Arab world as the great anti-commie, Russian slaying rebel leader. Any thoughts Michele?
This is the estimation of the REAL professionals in the field…
And that would be who exactly, you? An all-caps kind of professional?
You’re new here, but already such a predictable bore.
Oh fucking please. Did Clinton get a memo titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” and just shrugged it off?
Oh fucking please, right back atcha…
Do you know HOW many “memos” like that are received DAILY???
Do you!?
No, I don’t imagine you do…
Sure, it’s easy… IN HINDSIGHT… to connect the dots…
Even if Bush did have “A Conf” intel of 9/11, any steps taken to prevent it would have had the Left howling to the high heavens..
Ya know… Like they did in the years AFTER 9/11???
Let’s face it…
Ya’all like to piss and moan about so called intelligence failures…
But you piss and moan EVEN MORE about the intelligence successes…
Let me ask you…
What’s more important to you.. Your own personal privacy or preventing a terrorist attack that would kill thousands..
Judging from your post, I would wager you care more for the former rather than the latter….
Michale32086
Clinton tried to destroy bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Bush did nothing whatsoever about either until 9/12. The only partisan fantasies here are those of the people who are trying to excuse Bush’s inaction.
gocart,
The fact that you blame GOP presidents without acknowledging the very real contribution that Democrat presidents gave to this issue shows me clearly what you are all about.
Everything Democrats do is good.. Everything Republicans do is bad…
That about sums you up…
So droll…. So predictable… So very wrong…
Michale32086
So it is with the Right and the Left. The only way to tell them apart is with a program….
Not sure what you mean by that. I use temperamental and life’s accomplishment studies.
How does one check and balance concentrations of power?
Timmy,
How does one check and balance concentrations of power?
One only has to look at the mess this country is in…
Michale32086
That would be “wag the dog” Prodigal and so doesn’t count. Also, Bush thought that the anti-terroism report and Its recommendations that Clinton left on W’s desk when he left office might contain Lewinsky cum stains so he ignored them even though they may have prevented 9/11 also.
Michele has better projection abilities than an IMAX theater. Surprisingly, no rebuttal of my Reagan comment from Michele.
Gocart,
Do me one favor.. Please…
Don’t refer to the field as “anti-terrorism”. It is really grating to those in the field…
It’s like referring to fans of Star Trek as “Trekkies” instead of “Trekkers” yet, a thousand-fold more ingratiating and serious…
“Anti-Terrorism” is what you see on TV and in movies…
Counter-Terrorism is what happens in real life…
Just a minor pet peeve of mine…
Michale32086
One only has to look at the mess this country is in…
I challenge the “conservatives” here all the time hoping for nuggets of information that might lead to deeper understanding, but only get mindless tribalistic mantras.
Do you have anything of substance worth repeating? Or are you just here dumping cynicism?
Gocart,
“Do me one favor.. Please…
Don’t refer to the field as “anti-terrorism”. It is really grating to those in the field…”
Fair enough Michele. I am still thankfull you are no longer in the feild though. Thank God the adults are in charge now.
Feild = field
Thankfull = thankful
Spelling fail doesn’t = logic fail.
ZERO terrorist attacks on US Proper post 9/11…
Anthrax.
Richard Reid.
LA Airport.
We could throw in people who shoot up churches where liberals might be, but we know that the right doesn’t consider that to be an act of terrorism.
Ditto Timmy. They are interchangable. I propose that a simple computer program be written to take over all troll duties. This will afford them greater time to masturbate in their mom’s basement and less reason to annoy us. A win win if there ever was one if you ask me. This is true of our Michele also except perhaps the masturbtion part, not that there would be anything wrong with it if it were true and I only point this out because I am open minded and pro-femenist. Whatever floats your boat Michele.
Timmy,
I challenge the “conservatives” here all the time hoping for nuggets of information that might lead to deeper understanding, but only get mindless tribalistic mantras.
Your problem is, you only challenge conservatives…
Whereas, with me, I don’t buy into EITHER Party ideology… Therefore, I can challenge BOTH….
Because you only challenge one side of the issue, that shows me you are beholden to the other side…
I have no such restrictions placed on me…
Gocart,
Spelling lames…. How droll……
Ol’Froth,
It’s accepted within the CT field that the Anthrax attacks were part and parcel of the 9/11 attacks…
The subsequent others you mentioned were simply throw into the mix. Amateurs who really weren’t expected to succeed, but rather to foster an illusion…
Michale32086
Whereas, with me, I don’t buy into EITHER Party ideology… Therefore, I can challenge BOTH….
Bwahahahahahahaha! Good one!
I have no such restrictions placed on me…
Another zinger!
OK, game’s over. Who is this? Who’s the pretend wingnut?
But you piss and moan EVEN MORE about the intelligence successes…
Such as what? Examples please? Have I pissed and moaned once about thwarting a pending terror attack? You really think ‘teh left’ is going to be upset at a security success that would prevent the deaths of US citizens? Man, your fucking dumber and more craven than I could have thought but thanks for revealing that here in such a short time span. What’s it like to live with such stupid caricatures of those evil libruls in your little head there? Is this Glen Beck your channeling or something? “Teh librulz hate this country, duhhhhhhh”
What’s more important to you.. Your own personal privacy or preventing a terrorist attack that would kill thousands..
Judging from your post, I would wager you care more for the former rather than the latter….
Yeah, you’re right. I’d rather my country retain the freedoms that we have and have another terror attack than to turn us into some permanent surveillance state. The goddamn chickenshit right wingers are the first ones in line to beg for their daddy figure to ‘keep us safe oh I am so scared daddy no matter the costs, but please keep me safe oh I am so scared! What is the terror color code today, oh dear!” You’re only interested in results, not the process.
I thought your side was all about personal freedom and liberty and less govt intrusion into their boring whitebread suburban lives…until you shit your pants and run upstairs and hide under the bed when ever someone goes “Boo Terrorism!” then you want your daddy figure to protect you and tell you a sweet bedtime story to soothe your fears of the unknown. Yes, the terror threat is real, but goddamn if I am willing to see my country turned into a police state to provide some feeble illusion of being safe. There is no safety. The govt cannot keep you safe. Risk is a part of everyday life. Even if that does mean more possible deaths, we cannot abandon our freedoms and who we are(I cannot believe I am saying this to a so-called conservative…how fucking funny is that?!).
So why don’t we just let the police state spy on everyone all the time, right? Since you just never know who is the bad guy, best to assume we’re all bad guys, right?
Cowards. And boo hoo to your delicate sensibilities if you cannot take an insult hurled at you, you pansy. Comes with the territory. If you cannot hack it, then get lost. Really. No one here will miss you. Don’t overestimate your sense of worth here, sparky.
Burn,
I was going to expend some effort to address each and every one of your points…
But this little tidbit pretty much showed me what you are all about..
I thought your side was all about personal freedom and liberty
I have no “side” save the side that is the United States Of America.
I am a registered NPA. For those of lesser intelligence, that means NO POLITICAL AFFILIATION..
I have seen first hand what happens when “sides” run this country into the ground..
Democrat or Republican.. It makes no difference..
So, by all means.. Go on and on about “your side” and “their side”… It all amounts to the same thing..
Joe Q Public getting screwed over and over again..
As far as not being able to take an insult.. Far from it…
The kind of insults I have been trained to take come with far more consequences than YOU could ever muster…
My simple point is that, this is a forum for sharing different ideas and view points..
Read the BanterWire proclamation, if you can handle the big words…
The simple fact is, you see this as a place to bully and attack people who think differently than you do…
And that is a shame…
Feel free to make personal attacks to your heart’s content..
It won’t change the fact that you are WAY out of your depth here….
And with that, I sign off to spend the evening with my lovely wife…
Hasta….
Michale32086
And with that, I sign off to spend the evening with my lovely wife…
You know, if you got one of those air compressors, it would save a lot more time than a bike pump you are currently using.
The kind of insults I have been trained to take come with far more consequences than YOU could ever muster…
Sounds like something out of “The Men Who Stare at Goats”
It’s accepted within the CT field that the Anthrax attacks were part and parcel of the 9/11 attacks…
Really? It’s accepted within the “CT Field” that the anthrax attacks were part and parcel of the 9-11 attacks?
That would be news to the FBI and the postal service:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-nsd-166.html
“Gocart,
Spelling lames…. How droll……”
I am not sure what you mean by that comment Michele. I noticed a couple of misspellings after I posted and because I suspected that you might harp on that fact instead of addressing my point, a common wingnut tactic, I made a correction. My intent was to preempt possible obfuscation on your part. That is all. Call it counter-trollism if you wish. Do you care to respond to the substance of any of my comments or are you a coward?
Because you only challenge one side of the issue, that shows me you are beholden to the other side…
How do you know I don’t challenge others elsewhere? I’m already beginning to peg you as an “independent” dissembler.
Lets see what you know. I know a professional in the CT field for the last two decades. They were able to tell me that one form of terrorism is of chief concern to the experts, far above and beyond other forms. Prove yourself worthy of reading again and repeat to me that form.
I have no such restrictions placed on me…
You’re a sociopath?
My simple point is that, this is a forum for sharing different ideas and view points..
Wrong, jerky, this is Oliver’s blog. He has unmoderated comments to give losers like Dennis a reason to live.
Read the BanterWire proclamation, if you can handle the big words…
What the hell is that, is that like the Prime Directive or something?
The simple fact is, you see this as a place to bully and attack people who think differently than you do…
Now you’re the victim? Oh please, grow a pair for once. As far as I can recall, you and I have never had direct exchanges. Is this a sockpuppet or something?
“The kind of insults I have been trained to take come with far more consequences than YOU could ever muster…”
Shorter Michele: “You’ll have to waterboard me before I’ll give any of you guys an honest answer.”
The subsequent others you mentioned were simply throw into the mix. Amateurs who really weren’t expected to succeed, but rather to foster an illusion…
So Richard Reid was am amateur “thrown into the mix” but Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Faisal Shahzad were crack terrorists?
For those of lesser intelligence, we call people make such claims “complete tools.”
Michale, you stated ZERO terror attacks in the US proper since 9/11. I gave you three examples, and I’ve never heard that the Anthrax attacks were “part and parcel” of 9/11. I am just bloody sick and tired of that whole zero attacks meme when it just isn’t true, explaining them away as “amatuers” or lumping them together is just silly. 9/11 succeded for one reason, and one reason only. Air passengers were conditioned not to resist hijackings. It wasn’t a security failure, it was a mindset failure. That’s changed, see “shoe bomber” “underwear bomber,” and “Flight 93.” Anyone pulling a knife or gun on a plane today, or setting parts of their clothing aflame, might kill some people, but he and his friends are going to get their asses kicked.
I call bullshit on Michele ever being a CT expert.
Don’t refer to the field as “anti-terrorism”. It is really grating to those in the field…
Really? Then why did these guys make it part of their company name?
You know diddly.
The kind of insults I have been trained to take
Did you pay for that training? You shoulda come to us first.
Why do you hate America?
And the quality of troll around here takes another dip. At least Frank and SFC B never quoted Star Wars to make a point, as far as I can remember. This one seems to be burning out pretty quickly though.
Lookee what I just found
http://michale1.typepad.com/blog/
http://profile.typepad.com/michale1
Wow, that certainly is a lovely…garden.
I am sorry Michale32086 for refering to you as Michele. I misread your name. Apparantly you are a guy. My bad. I admit when I am wrong. To think I almost called you a disingenious cunt when I should have said you were a disingenious prick who lacked balls.
I think he tucked tail and ran though. Sadly, he may never read my apology.
Raised bed, and it seems based on Uncle Mel Bartholomew’s Square Foot Gardening.
Burn, Lovely? That is very gracious of him don’t you think?
Sweet peppers, indeed gocart!
If Clinton was responsible for 9/11, then Obama can take credit for winning World War II.
See how that little game works out, dipshit Republicans?
Lookee what I just found.–Burn
You’re a lowlife and an asshole, Burn.
A complete asshole.
Burn, Lovely? That is very gracious of him don’t you think?
Why would you say that? Don’t be a douche.
Honestly, the impression I get from the Durbin video is not Durbin calling our soldiers Nazis; it sounds more like he’s saying (based on other parts of that speech left out of the video) that what was going on at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib was more akin to what the Nazis would have done rather than what the US military would be comfortable being associated with.
He was presenting it and saying “Is this how we want to present ourselves?” rather than “The troops are Nazis.”
http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=295393
“Bushitler” is funny, I don’t care who ya are – Larry
Johnny’s exactly right about Durbin’s speech. I’ve never called one of my kids an idiot, nor would I ever. But I have said, “Son, you’re acting like an idiot.” Big, big difference.
As one who has studied the Holocaust, I can tell you the remaining Holocaust survivors are quick to point out the similarities between the emergence of the Nazi party in the post-WWI environment and today’s conservative movement in the United States. It appears the Tea Party has become the personification of the Timothy McVeigh Wing of the Republican Party.
You’re a lowlife and an asshole, Burn.
A complete asshole.
Coming from you, that’s a compliment I will treasure in my heart for days and weeks to come. Glad I could be of service to you, fair Dennis. Anything else I can do for you, sweetie? You need a hug or perhaps some ice cream? Dunno about you, but in this hot summer weather, nothing makes things better than some ice cream.
I followed Michale’s Google link and found 5,270,000 hits for the phrase “bush compared to hitler.” Interestingly, I found 5,360,000 hits for “obama compared to hitler.” So roughly an equal number of Hitler comparisons for a president who was in office eight years and a president who’s been in office for two.
Comparing Obama to Hitler is, among other detestable things, saying that over half of the American population supports or would have supported Hitler.
Way to keep expanding your base, Teabaggers/Republicans. Have fun never electing another president from your party, ever.
I put ice cream on Dennis’ wife, who told me that he is Hitler.
A Realdoll can talk?
It’s time for Lets use the “Fourteen Warning signs of Fascism” to determine who is more like Hitler – Bush or Obama? (Remember, everybody’s guilty of some sin. I’m just giving points to the one/side guilty of the most sin.)
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
According to conservatives themselves, Obama is anti-american. Score one for Bush.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. Through propaganda, human rights abuses marginalizes or demonizes those being targeted.
“Muslims are evil” – Bush up by two.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause to divert attention from other problems, to shift blame and to channel frustration.
“Democrats and liberals are to blame for failures in Iraq”, and “Obama is to blame for failures in Afghanistan”. Bush by three.
4. The supremacy of the military and avid militarism, taking up a disproportionate share of national resources.
Bush and the neocons up by four.
5. Domestic spying. Secret surveillance of and gathering dossiers on its own citizens.
Bush started, but Obama has maintained it somewhat. I’ll call it even. Bush still up by four.
6. A controlled mass media.
Since Limbaugh and Foxnews friends still cry so much about a liberal media, I’ll call this even. Bush still up by four.
7. Obsession with national security which is under direct control of the ruling elite.
According to the “independants” here, Bush was more NS obsessed than Obama, who was elected by a much wider margin. Bush up by five.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Regimes attach themselves to the predominant religion and portray themselves defenders of that religion.
Bush up by six.
9. Power of corporations protected – close relationship between the economic elite and the political elite.
Bush up by seven.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
Bush up by eight.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals, academic freedom and the arts.
Bush up by nine.
12. Trumped-up fear, hatred, or criminal charges against political opponents of the regime.
“Dhimmicrats!” Bush up by ten.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Bush up by eleven.
14. Fraudulent elections.
No conclusive evidence either way. Bush wins by eleven.
My Conclusion: If Obama is Hitler, then Bush was Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Eichmann, Eva and Blondi all rolled into one.
A Realdoll can talk?
While Dennis was locked in the bathroom blogging all night like always, me and the homies were downstairs with bucket of Neapolitan, Dennis’ wife, and his favorite “Realdoll” doing the wild thing.
I’d quibble w/ No. 2 Tea partiers are racist. Obama 1 Bush 2
No. 3 “It’s Bush’s fault”. “The last Eight years”, “ I inherited the defict” Obama 2 Bush 3
No. 4, BO has more troops in Afghanistan than Bush did BO 3 Bush 3
Agree on No. 5 BO 4 GW 4
No. 6, not even close. “Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” Anita Dunn. BO 5 GW 4
Agree on 7, BO probably isn’t that concerned w national security BO 5 GW 5
No.8 Neither portrayed themselves as defender of a religion BO 5 GW5
No. 9 Tie BO 6 GW 6
10 OK BO 6 GW 7, Unions are a communist idea, so BO=6 parts fascist and 1 part commie
11 Neither BO 6+1 GW 7
12 Both BO 7+1 GW 8
13 Both BO 8+1 GW 9
14 Acorn. BO wins this BO 9+1 GW 9
Rofl. Acting like the Bush years didn’t happen? Check. Elevating an obscure group (the “North Iowa Tea Party”?) of people to be representative of everything you don’t like? Check. Getting the vapors at seeing the sort of behavior he happily engaged in when Bush was prez? Check. (I can’t find your golden oldie “when conservatives stop acting like Nazis, we’ll stop calling them Nazis” quote Oliver – did you send it down the memory hole?)
If there was a gold medal for intellectually dishonest hackery, you’d win it Oliver. More please!
Barry, you’re a dumbass.
I’d quibble w/ No. 2 Tea partiers are racist. Obama 1 Bush 2
What human rights violations are you referring to by bringing up this example?
No.8 Neither portrayed themselves as defender of a religion
Ha!
BO=6 parts fascist and 1 part commie
What?
14 Acorn. BO wins this BO 9+1 GW 9
ACORN? Really, you’re bringing this one out, huh? You automatically lose on this comment alone.
And my disregard for the remainder of your commentary is not an expression of agreement with you. It’s a statement that you’re not worth that much of my time.
I’d quibble w/ No. 2 Tea partiers are racist. Obama 1 Bush 2
What human rights violations are you referring to by bringing up this example?
Here’s a few instances
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pro-obama-thug-viciously-attacks-anti-bailout-protester.html
What is it about ACOPRN that frightened the right so much?
Here l thought that they were into freedom and giving people their rights yet they went out of their way to destroy through falsehoods an organisation which helped the poor practice their democratic given right to vote for who they wanted to.
If these people are so “pro-american” why do that?
ACOPRN?!?!?!?!?!
Urgh.
7am on my way to work and typing fast do not a sensible commentator make.
It’s the fraud.
http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html
Barry sez:
I’d quibble w/ No. 2 Tea partiers are racist.
But has any liberal rationalized the killing, maiming, dislocation… of tens of thousands of tea partiers, as a necessary evil?
No. 3 “It’s Bush’s fault”. “The last Eight years”, “ I inherited the defict”
Fact: Obama interited a crap economy.
Fact: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Fact: Much of the deficit really is Bush’s fault, due to his top bracket tax cuts and his Iraq.
Debatable: Democratic leaders were for Afghanistan and Iraq yet Bush did nothing while they were being called traitors by his supporters.
No. 4, BO has more troops in Afghanistan than Bush did
Obama is no neocon. But he has no choice but to finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is pulling troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, not increasing the troop count going overseas. He nixed the dysfunctional F-22. He’s reducing nukes.
No. 6, not even close.
Non-argument based on BS.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910190025
No.8 Neither portrayed themselves as defender of a religion
Then why did so many fundies unequivocally back Bush? Accuse Obama of being Muslim?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
No. 9 Tie BO 6 GW 6
Baloney. Virtually every conservative I’ve ever talked to believes that liberals hate corporations. Obama’s lobbying and financial reform? The BP “shakedown”?
11 Neither BO 6+1 GW 7
Bush’s supporters are notorious for blaming the evils of “postmodernism” (whatever the hell that is) on academia. Stem cell research. Find me one international poll which praises Bush’s intelligence over Obamas.
14 Acorn.
Acorn is the Soros of wingnuttia. Their relatively miniscule funding / unproven financial resources cannot justify the incredible power they’ve been given by the nuts. What about the Koch brothers? The Coors Family? Rupert Murdoch? Scaife? Florida? Diebold? The Catholic church?
I’ve skimmed over this because it’s getting late.
[...] Via Oliver Willis [...]
gocart,
I am not sure what you mean by that comment Michele.
First off, the name is Michale, not Michele.
Secondly…
Spelling Lame is a process whereby someone who doesn’t have any logical or rational rebuttal to a point will try to distract by pointing to nonsensical issues.
In other words, when confronted by a superior intellectual force, the floundering debater will nit-pick at spelling errors in hopes of covering their complete ineptitude in actually refuting the point.
See also… Grammar Lame.
We seem to got off on a huge tangent here so I would like to try and drag the subject back to the original commentary.
It’s pure hypocrisy to point out the Hitler comparisons committed by the hysterical Right and yet, give tacit approval (by silence) of the Hitler comparisons that were committed by the hysterical Left..
Does anyone dispute this??
Michale32086
Fact: Much of the deficit really is Bush’s fault, due to his top bracket tax cuts and his Iraq.
Fact: In 2007, the deficit was only$161 billion, 1/10th of what it is today.
Fact: In 2007, the top bracket tax cuts were in effect.
Fact: In 2007, we were in Iraq.
Fact: Your “fact” is unsupported by reality.
If you refer back to the CBO’s numbers, you’ll see that, despite the Bush tax cuts, revenues to the Treasury INCREASED. i.e. “trickle down” works. And that the deficit (at least at that time) was entirely due to the rate of growth in spending.
First off, Farris — OR SHOULD I SAY, FERRIS!!! LIKE THE WHEEL!!! THE WHEEL OF INJUSTICE!!!! — no one should be referring to anyone as Hitler-esque, on the right or the left, and since I’m NPA — that’s Non-Punk-Ass, for those of you too STUPID to read acronymically — I think that this billboard is as bad as any left wing nut who made the same comparison to Bush. I think this because I’m into fairness, and because I’m not a 3rd grader with a ‘He Hit Me First’ mentality. That’s why we NPA’s find this billboard offensive, and why we find it as hard to take the TP seriously as we do left wing nutjobs.
Nah, I’m just kidding. This is Henry. Michale32086 doesn’t feel that way at all. He’s going to go with ‘But you STARTED IT!!!!’.
“trickle down” works
A magical fairy told him so.
If by “magical fairy”, you mean “the Congressional Budget Office”, then yeah.
Fact: Iraq wasn’t included in the calculation of the deficit at that time.
Fact: Revenue to the treasury has increased virtually every year in modern history. Except during the Bush years, where the 2007 income was 10% LESS than 2001. As shown by the very document you linked. Thanks for making it so easy to prove you wrong!
Fact: Whether government revenues increased or not has nothing to do with the concept of “trickle down” economics. Trickle down means that increased wealth of the rich filters down to all segments of society. Real income has decreased for the median American. I would provide a link, but I’ll wait for you to provide a link “debunking” it. I’m sure that link will prove my point.
Fact: You’re a moron. Link any of your posts to prove.
And now the impersonations begin… Why am I not surprised?
I could not possibly have a better validation of my position than to see the lengths that real net trolls will go….
Thank you for your concession of the intellectual superiority of my argument.
Michale32086
No, trickle down doesn’t work.
The US went from running a surplus to running a deficit because of the Bush tax cuts, the wars, and Medicare Plan D. Oh, and the table that SaveFarris points to somehow doesn’t account for the war spending which was not included in the deficit figures.
See…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
scroll down to “recent additions to the public debt”.
Notice that the US added $459.5 billion to the debt in 2007, and a massive $1017.0 billion (i.e. $1.017 trillion) in 2008. Obama was inaugurated in 2009 and inherited this mess.
Anybody who says “trickle down works” is an innumerate flying in the face of decades of evidence to the opposite. Our economy really cannot afford to be run by people in the sway of this ridiculous dogma.
And no, liberals were not “constantly” comparing Bush to Hitler. Just, you know, in 2003 when Bush was lying to the country to justify the invasion of a foreign nation that had done nothing to us. Seemed like an apt comparison at the time.
Just what has Obama done to justify the comparison?
(Watch the brains explode.)
Kind of funny how the same people who claim that lower taxes increase revenue are the same ones that want to shrink government. If you want to shrink government, don’t you want to decrease revenues?
Whispers,
And no, liberals were not “constantly” comparing Bush to Hitler. Just, you know, in 2003
At least we agree that liberals WERE comparing Bush to Hitler. About as much as the hysterical Right does today.
when Bush was lying to the country to justify the invasion of a foreign nation that had done nothing to us.
Several commissions, all bi-partisan, concluded that Bush did not lie about anything.
Now, if you consider being wrong as “lying” then yes, Bush “lied” an awful lot.. But not as much as Obama has “lied”…
Seemed like an apt comparison at the time.
So, in your opinion, when someone lies, that makes them as evil as Hitler, eh??
Or, is it more accurate to say that only when anyone from the RIGHT lies, that makes them as evil as Hitler???
Pure political bigotry, at it’s “finest”…
Michale32086
Except during the Bush years, where the 2007 income was 10% LESS than 2001.
2001 revenues: 1.9914 Trillion
2007 revenues: 2.5682 Trillion
32% GROWTH over 6 years
It’s pure hypocrisy to point out the Hitler comparisons committed by the hysterical Right and yet, give tacit approval (by silence) of the Hitler comparisons that were committed by the hysterical Left..
To which Hitler comparisons by “the hysterical Left” do you refer? Who was giving tacit approval of these? Examples please? As I remember it (if you need a cite, be happy to find one), Fox “News” and other big media outlets got the vapors that an anonymous entry in an open video contest at a liberal website compared Bush to Hitler (the liberal website, MoveOn, removed the video in short order. By the way, how’s MoveOn score on the Iraq Invasion? Were they correct that the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded? How’d that work out anyway? Were “both sides” wrong?). Unless you have a better example, I’m calling bullshit on your comparing a massive billboard ad sponsored by party leaders to an anonymous video on an open internet contest (which was quickly removed). Yes, “both sides” do it. In this case, one side is worse.
When I was in Special Forces, we frequently called bullshit on phony baloney bullshit artists who made puffed up claims anonymously on the Internets about being in CT or having a “superior intellectual force” without any tangible evidence to back it up. Others have called you out thus far. And thus far, you have shown exactly dick for evidence to dispute them (see Anthrax and “Anti-terrorism” for two examples in this thread).
Unregardless, your pre-adolescent “I’m neutral” fair and balanced schtick isn’t cutting it. Unless and until you can prove otherwise, I’m joining the others here in calling you out.
Good day, sir!
Ah! I was looking at page 2 where it said revenues as a percentage of gdp. That being said, revenues AFTER the tax cuts for the rich didn’t get up to 2000 levels until 2005. Thanks again for proving my point! By your omissions I see you’ve conceded my other points as well.
Indeed. Red State Trike Force is not a “CT” organization. It’s a very UN “CT” organization if you get my drift.
Indeed,
To which Hitler comparisons by “the hysterical Left” do you refer?
Yer kidding, right??
http://www.google.com/webhp?cplp=1279115378417#hl=en&source=hp&q=democrats+compare+bush+to+hitler&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=Democrats+Compare+Bus&gs_rfai=CEo-ERcE9TJGJLJXggwTsg8mDBQAAAKoEBU_Q4T7T&fp=35aa1529a77169e1
or having a “superior intellectual force” without any tangible evidence to back it up
The mere fact that, rather than attack my arguments, posters in here make personal attacks and use ridiculous impersonations and sockpuppets is sufficient tangible evidence.
At least to those who are truly objective…
Which apparently leaves you out..
Unregardless, your pre-adolescent “I’m neutral” fair and balanced schtick isn’t cutting it. Unless and until you can prove otherwise, I’m joining the others here in calling you out.
The responses to my post is sufficient proof.. Not to you, of course, because it is not proof you are looking for. You simply want to attack people who think differently than you do..
The evidence of this is in each and every one of your comments.
Have a great day…
Michale32086
“ZERO terrorist attacks on US Proper post 9/11…”
Well, other than those ANTHRAX letters. Did the great Bush ever find the people who sent them?
revenues AFTER the tax cuts for the rich didn’t get up to 2000 levels until 2005.
“Tax cuts for the rich” weren’t fully implemented until 2003. So that’s your baseline. And as you can see from the link, revenue increased Every. Single. Year. from that point on.
The drop in revenues in 2001-2002 were due to the Tech Bubble bursting and the 9/11 recession: it had NOTHING to do with the tax cuts.
Fact: Iraq wasn’t included in the calculation of the deficit at that time.
Fact: Iraq only cost us about $115 billion a year. Even if you add that in, Obama’s deficits still DWARF Bush’s.
Ok, ferris, since you are logically consistant and all, the 2009 AND 2010 deficits can’t be blamed on Obama since the stimulus hasn’t been FULLY implemented yet. The 2009 deficit in fact is because of the Bush TARP bailout. Since you’re logically consistant right?
The mere fact that, rather than attack my arguments, posters in here make personal attacks and use ridiculous impersonations and sockpuppets is sufficient tangible evidence.
Now that there is rock solid logic. You say something, someone says something else, ergo: tangible evidence. QED. Ipso facto. Is that what you gleaned from your stint on the Harvard Debating Squad? Starfleet Academy? Mensa?
You simply want to attack people who think differently than you do..
Only if they’re incorrect…or full of shit…
You’d have a smidge more credibility if you came with more than boiler-plate right wing talking points (e.g., NewsBusters linxx). Explain to me, with your superior intellect, how any of the blanket examples in the Google search you “cite” are comparable to this example here. Are the sources credible? Why or why not? Feel free to use any and all aspects of your superior intellect. Go on.
You got called out on Anthrax and “Anti-Terrorism” and even your “CT” cred (and, tangentially, the Iraq Invasion). Me and my Navy Seal buddies think you’re full of shit. Prove me wrong.
Stay Fair and Balanced.
‘The trend is definitely not your friend right now.’
Right; Palin’s a shoe in.
This is so disgusting; sure they were individuals labeling Bush as Hitleresque, but there sure as Hell weren’t political parties paying for giant advertisements making such claims, and the likes of Jay and Dennis damn well know that.
Enlightened,
Ok, ferris, since you are logically consistant and all, the 2009 AND 2010 deficits can’t be blamed on Obama since the stimulus hasn’t been FULLY implemented yet.
That is not entirely accurate..
We are actually at the tail end of the Stimulus. Which is why there has been such a drop in the approval rating of Obama in particular and Democrats in general..
The stimulus is petering out and we’re worse off than we were before, despite Obama’s claims that we would be BETTER off..
Wait… Did Obama “lie”???
Indeed,
Now that there is rock solid logic. You say something, someone says something else, ergo: tangible evidence.
I didn’t think I would have to spell it out for you. But, apparently I do..
When I make a point using logic and facts and the only response to that point is immature and eliminationist personal attacks, that is “tangible” evidence that my argument is the correct one..
Me and my Navy Seal buddies think you’re full of shit. Prove me wrong.
Easy..
A few posts up, you claimed you were Special Forces.. NOW you claim you were a Navy Seal….
I know for a fact that a REAL Seal wouldn’t be caught dead being referred to as your run-o-the-mill SF Op. If you ran into a Seal at a bar or something and referred to him as “Special Forces” you would find yourself quickly on your ass..
My bona-fides are WELL established…
Apparently, now so are yours..
Michale32086
jrfunkenstein,
This is so disgusting; sure they were individuals labeling Bush as Hitleresque, but there sure as Hell weren’t political parties paying for giant advertisements making such claims, and the likes of Jay and Dennis damn well know that.
Apparently, the facts say differently.
http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html
Michale32086
No, it’s entirely accurate. The stimulus has not been FULLY implemented.
I don’t see any political parties on that list, other than the World Socialist Party, who only made comparisons on their website. Are you sure you’re not a sockpuppet for ferris? His links don’t say what he claims either.
“And now the impersonations begin… Why am I not surprised?”
Ah, because everyone hates you all the time, so you’re used to this sort of thing?
Besides, my impersonation was completely unbelievable — in it, you stated that both the left and the right were behaving badly in these Hitler comparisons. In real life, you’ve done nothing but screech about Move On and talk about the budget, because, you know HITLER ALSO HAD A BUDGET or something.
Don’t worry. Nobody bought that I was you.
Enlightened,
No, it’s entirely accurate. The stimulus has not been FULLY implemented.
And that last 5% or so is going to make ALL the difference, right??
I don’t see any political parties on that list,
As has already been established, the “Tea Party” is also not a Political Party.
Ergo, the comparison is not valid…
Suffice it to say that there was much much more of the hysterical Left comparing Bush to Hitler than there has been from the hysterical Right comparing Obama to Hitler.
Would you like to move on to JOKER comparisons??
Michale32086
So you were responding to a post that said that no political parties sponsored billboards comparing Bush to Hitler and you posted a link that showed…no political parties sponsoring billboards comparing Bush to Hitler.
Your point?
I’ve just about had it with “independents” claiming to be impartial but ALWAYS siding with the extreme right. You’re one of the more boring ones.
I expect swift rebuke of this sign from the GOP today.
Enlightened,
How exactly have I sided with the “extreme right”??
All I have said is that there was ample comparison of Bush to Hitler during the Bush years from the hysterical LEFT…
This being factual, it seems to me a tad hypocritical for the Left to complain about Obama being compared to Hitler.
How does that equate “siding with the extreme right”??
Michale32086
Maybe you need to read your own posts and how you responded to them. I already attempted to explain. You bore me. Goodbye.
Enlightened,
Your concession is appreciated.
Have a great day..
Michale32086
6+ years of no terrorist attacks on US proper under the Bush administration
1) 18 Sep 2001: anthrax-laced letters mailed to West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, and New York City, New York
2) 9 Oct 2001: anthrax-laced letters mailed to Washington, DC
3) 22 Dec 2001: British citizen prevented from igniting shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami
4) 8 May 2002: U.S. citizen arrested for seeking to use dirty bomb in US
5) 4 Jul 2002: Egyptian gunman kills two Israelis, injures four at the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles International Airport
6) 5 Sep 2002: owner of Italian restaurant shot in robbery by Beltway snipers
etc etc etc
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html
Not to mention the 20,487 terrorist incidents from the day of invading Iraq to Bush’s last day in office, resulting in 132,169 deaths.
Source: https://wits.nctc.gov/
This “no terrorist attacks after 9/11″ thing is one of the most ridiculous myths and absurd on its face as it gives Bush a mulligan for hands-down the worst terrorist attack in this nation’s history.
Class dismissed.
“The Dick Armey resorted to comparing Obama to Hitler after only three months into his presidency”
but they started the bin Laden, Stalin, witch doctor, etc. comparisons as soon as it looked like he was going to win the primary.
Mickale, you’ve sided with the extreme right by continuously spouting far-right talking points, and either ignoring or excusing what Bush did while trying to shift blame for everything onto either Clinton or Obama.
That makes your pretensions of neutrality questionable at best.
Prodigal,
Sorry, you are in error..
I simply responded when those from the Left tried to blame Bush for EVERYTHING. I merely pointed out, correctly, that Clinton does share the blame, perhaps even more so.
No attempt was made to excuse Bush’s actions..
That makes your pretensions of neutrality questionable at best.
Hardly… It’s merely because with this particular subject matter, the Right IS correct regarding CT issues and the like.
Now, if you want to discuss Gay Marriage or DADT or Religious Fanaticism, I will slam the Right incessantly and praise the actions of the Left in this regard.
With a few exceptions, I would be willing to wager that I am more liberal than you are..
Michale32086
That makes your pretensions of neutrality questionable at best.
Fair and balanced. He learned that at Teh Superior Intellect Debating and Logic Academy. Unregardless, take it from me and my Army Ranger posse (our bona fides are WELL established on the Internets), I can assure you that it was after his “Identifying and Understanding Subtle Mockery in Blog Comments” seminar.
Probably want to ask the civilians that died during the Shock and Awe terrorism campaign early on in the Iraq War about that.
Hardly… It’s merely because with this particular subject matter, the Right IS correct regarding CT issues and the like.
Like the awesome Iraq Invasion. Or anything William Kristol has ever said.
You’re a fraud and a buffoon.
You’re a fraud and a buffoon.
Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response to my posts and must therefore resort to childish and immature personal attacks.
Your concession of my intellectual superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant.
Michale32086
2001 revenues: 1.9914 Trillion
2007 revenues: 2.5682 Trillion
32% GROWTH over 6 years
Lovely. More wingnut “math”.
First of all, anyone who has a functioning brain knows to focus on ON-BUDGET revenues, since total numbers include Social Security revenues – which have nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. They also know how to adjust for economic growth, inflation, and population – using % of GDP usually does the trick.
Clinton’s last fiscal year was 2001, and in that year, on-budget revenues were 14.5% of GDP. That was down from 15.7% the prior fiscal year.
Here’s the percentages for FY2002-2009 (Bush’s budget years). They are all significantly lower than what he inherited.:
12.7
11.5
11.5
12.7
13.6
13.9
12.9
10.2
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01z2.xls
I love this billboard. It instantly killed any credibility the “North Iowa Tea Party” may have had. Brilliant! It reminds me of the Judean People’s Front Crack Suicide Squad:
That showed ‘em!
Shorter McHale: “How dare you point out that I’m lying about being a partisan hack for the GOP?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_12E1EN6fs
Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response to my posts
Perhaps you missed this part:
and must therefore resort to childish and immature personal attacks.
Calling out a fraud and a buffoon for what s/he is, is neither childish nor immature. Pretending to be “fair and balanced” and invoking “Gotcha” smiley faces, however…
Also, too: …
Fact: In 2007, the deficit was only$161 billion, 1/10th of what it is today.
No, that’s the total number, not the on-budget number. It also excludes the “supplemental” expenditures on the wars.
During FY2007 (10/1/06-9/30/07), the national debt went from:
$8,506,973,899,215.23
to
$9,007,653,372,262.48
That’s an increase in debt of $501 billion, or more than 3 times the deficit you claim.
The AVERAGE increase in debt during Bush’s 8 calendar years in office was $613 billion, leaving Obama a steaming pile of $1.44 TRILLION in added debt during just his final 12 months in office.
By comparison, Clinton added less than $1 billion to the national debt his final calendar year in office.
I am shocked (shocked!) at the wingnuts giving aid and comfort to the enemy by disrespecting our CINC during wartime! Such America haters! I expect they will march themselves in for proper waterboarding and pretzelchoking immediately.
Prodigal,
The more you make personal attacks, the more you show everyone how so very wrong you are about everything.
By all means.. Continue..
I could not possibly have better confirmation that my position is the correct one than to you have go hog-wild and spew totally baseless and unfounded personal attacks…
Thank you for your concession…
Michale32086
Just to chime in here for a second. The idea that ANSWER is some sort of “part of the organized left” is pretty hilarious stuff. They hate liberals every bit as much as they hate conservatives.
They’re basically “NPA’s” as some self-important douche-bag put it up-thread. Meanwhile, the actual political concerns of tea-baggers are in every way identical to those of movement conservatives.
Given your complete lack of response to Indeed’s demonstration of how much of a lie your claim that there were no terror attacks was, MiCale, the only logical response to your current false claims that your opinions contain any substance greater than a gnat’s fart is derisive laughter.
Once again…
Thank you for your concession.
Michale32086
So you finally concede that your claim that there were no terror attacks after 9/11 was a lie? There may be hope for you yet.
we’re worse off than we were before
* 600,000 private sector jobs added in the past 6 months
* Dow up 25% since Obama took office
* Dollar much stronger
* Spending lower than Bush’s last year
* Depression averted
All this despite the stimulus being weak and watered-down with 1/2 of it going to Republican-demanded tax cuts.
You Republicans have a lot of nerve complaining about the cleanup of your messes. And save me your claim that you’re “independent” – that’s a tired O’Reilly move that no one buys.
Michale32086
Personal attacks?
Your dodging of reasonable questions put up to you is becoming annoying. You haven’t offered a single wit of wisdom beyond what’s already been said on the internets a million times already. You put up a lot of verbage without anything to say beyond “hysterical left” = “hysterical right”. For the last time, do you have anything at all to say that is worth repeating?
I’d advise you start offering substance around here or you’ll become another Bozo the Clown knockdown toy.
here’s the deal: it was ok to compare hitler to bush because there were some very obvious parallels. he used a national emergency to drum up support for an unprovoked invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the national emergency. there’s also the emotional retribution of both wars, with bush saying it was to make right the mistakes of his father and hitler attempting to make right the mistakes of those who fought and lost WWI.
comparing obama to hitler is a little bit harder to do. i can’t see much in hitler’s background that points to him wanting to reform the financial regulatory system to the benefit of small banks, or to attempt to provide better health care to the poor.
So you finally concede that your claim that there were no terror attacks after 9/11 was a lie?
No, I stand behind that claim..
Regardless of what the general public was told, the Anthrax attack was part and parcel to the 9/11 attacks.
Even if this wasn’t the case, they were close enough time-frame wise to be considered part of the same attack..
However, if you want to believe the official story, that it was the work of a deranged american scientist, then it would not qualify as a terrorist attack under the accepted definition. The motivations for Dr Irvin appear to be varied, but none are tied to the definition of terrorism.
So, my original statement stands as factual.
You’re not very good at this, are you?
Michale32086
‘”You’re a fraud and a buffoon.”
Your concession of my intellectual superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant.’
I get it now!!! He’s rubber, you’re glue!!! Whatever you say, etc. All week I’ve been trying to figure out how he’s got time to write 2000 word crazies during the workday, but I get it now: it’s summer. As in, ‘Schooooooool’s out for summer’. Michale’s Navy doesn’t just *act* like a third grader, he *is* a third grader!!!
Did I get it, Michelin Man? What do I win? More importantly, would you like to play Yu Gi Oh, and, if not, can I play with your trucks?
Your original claim has been repeatedly proven to be a lie, but thank you for your tacit admission that nothing you ever write, either here or elsewhere, will ever deserve to be taken seriously.
Your original claim has been repeatedly proven to be a lie, but thank you for your tacit admission that nothing you ever write, either here or elsewhere, will ever deserve to be taken seriously.
TRANSLATION:
I have no rational or logical response to your point so, as usual, I will simply make a childish and immature personal attack.
You really aren’t very good at this, eh??
Michale32086
Let’s stop feeding this troll. He’s not nearly as entertaining as the other ones around here. Stupid smiley faces abounding amongst his asinine drivel… seriously the guy should be ignored.
the Anthrax attack was part and parcel to the 9/11 attacks
Ridiculous.
they were close enough time-frame wise to be considered part of the same attack
Ridiculous.
it would not qualify as a terrorist attack under the accepted definition
Ridiculous.
mambo,
Let’s stop feeding this troll. He’s not nearly as entertaining as the other ones around here. Stupid smiley faces abounding amongst his asinine drivel… seriously the guy should be ignored.
To paraphrase Morpheus…
“Quit trying to ignore me and ignore me!!”
Michale32086
The 2009 deficit in fact is because of the Bush TARP bailout. Since you’re logically consistant right?
Only if Obama didn’t vote for it. Oops…
I’m sure there are some good people out there, but things like this make me think, “F*** the flyover states.” I know I’m missing out on a lot by not driving cross-country to see the wonderful patchwork that is America, but I don’t feel any need to find out what I have in common with these fellow Americans. I hated what Bush was doing to our country, but I didn’t think he was Hitler or Satan. I grew up hearing my mother tell me that Reagan was an “a*hole” and she was angry, but it was nothing like this.
I think Hillary and her supporters were right. America is not ready for a black President. America doesn’t deserve President Obama. A thoughtful, moderate, educated man with a non-Western name…who the hell does he think he is doing ANYTHING in the White House…
Even if this wasn’t the case, they were close enough time-frame wise to be considered part of the same attack..
YUP!!! Even if they were executed by totally different people for totally different reasons without any logistical, operational or ideological connection whatsoever: They’re the same attack because they happened around the same time.
What a brilliant basis for a counter terrorism strategy: Everything that happens within the same month is connected!
You don’t consider attacks on US Embassies to be terrorist attacks?
It’s merely because with this particular subject matter, the Right IS correct regarding CT issues and the like.
Would you care to actually explain why?
Fafaroo,
Would you care to actually explain why?
Gladly…
Because by and large, the Left is more concerned with the rights of the individual. They very foundation of Left-Think is that the individual’s rights supercede all other considerations.
Such a mind-set is completely anathema to the mindset necessary for national security..
It all can be summed up by a quote:
“No country has ever been saved by good men. Because good men will not go to the lengths that may be necessary.”
-Horace Walpole
Now, this isn’t to say that someone from the Right is ALWAYS the best for national security work and someone from the Left simply cannot do the job..
The Right as epitomized by the Bush/Iraq mess, can make some real humdinger mistakes when it comes to keeping this country secure.
And Obama has shown that he CAN have a decent pair when it comes to national security… Which is why I voted for him.
But, by and large, the idea the the Right is better suited to National Security and the Left is better suited to a Domestic Agenda is a valid concept.
Hope this answers your question…
Michale32086
Hope this answers your question…
Pretty much. Anyone who believes that the interests of the state take precedence over the rights of the individual is a fascist.
Thanks for being so upfront and honest about it!
It’s so refreshing.
Anyone who believes that the interests of the state take precedence over the rights of the individual is a fascist.
Really?
I guess that means you must believe that all Democrats who had a hand in CrapCare must be fascists….
But that’s another debate for another time..
I invite you to go see UNTHINKABLE. I think it is out by now…
I always find it fascinating that there are people in this world who actually believe that their own personal rights are more important than the lives of hundreds or maybe thousands of innocent people.
The magnitude of the selfishness and self-centeredness never ceases to amaze me.
Michale32086
But that’s another debate for another time..
And totally unrelated!
I invite you to go see UNTHINKABLE. I think it is out by now…
So after decades of CT experience your entire defense for granting the state the power to trample over the rights of individuals enshrined in the Constitution of the very country you claim to love and want to protect–including the power to spy on, torture, detain and execute people–rests on the plot of a Samuel L. Jackson movie?
That pretty much ends it for you as a reasonable troll and places you squarely in the “complete moron” category but then you added this:
And it always amazes me how fast conservatives are willing to shred the founding rights and principles of this country because they’re afraid of being killed in a terrorist attack, the odds of which are so low as to be almost negligible.
You would strip every American citizen of the rights granted them in the Constitution in order to protect yourself from something that will, odds are, never actually happen to you, or them.
Let’s try closing the tags better this time:
By that “logic”, the fact that Joe Wilson was a cosponsor of H.R. 1424 makes the 2009 deficit all his fault.
Bush wasn’t compared to Hitler, except for one party submitting a video to MoveOn, and fascists freaked out. Bush was a lousy president, and is an awful human being supported by the most hateful, racist, and tribal elements of US society.
Jonah Goldberg compared vegetarians to Hitler because Hitler was a vegetarian, and he’s one of the smart ones!
Equivalency is a stupid argument to get into with authoritarians; they can’t grasp complexity or nuance, and can’t accept facts that don’t comply with their ideology (global warming, tax cuts don’t increase revenues, black people can be president too).
Don’t feed the trolls, it only encourages them.
fafaroo,
I simply mention the movie as a window into the type of concept I am trying to illustrate for you.
But you being the close-minded person you are, you won’t accept anything but your own narrow view of the world..
You would strip every American citizen of the rights granted them in the Constitution in order to protect yourself from something that will, odds are, never actually happen to you, or them.
And people like you would give terrorists every possible way to ensure that that said something WILL happen.
I realize that, in your rose-colored world, everyone is all nice and friendly and no one ever hurts or takes advantage of anyone..
But, the rest of us have to live in the real world. The real world where bad things DO happen and bad people DO exist…
The difference between you and me is that I and people like me want to bury those bad people in the deepest darkest hole imaginable.
You and people like you, on the other hand, what to invite them over for tea…
It is people like me that have been keeping people like you safe to enjoy the freedoms to piss all over anything you don’t like….
You’re welcome….
Michale32086
CT? What does CT mean? There is no way to effectively argue with MichaleXXXX. His beliefs are not based on facts, and are his religion. Nobody can refute religious beliefs. Do like I do when the Jeebus people come around. Tell them you’re busy and to get the f**k off your property. MichaleXXXX has gotten himself posted here for nearly one-fourth of the exchanges. Isn’t that enough? It is a lot like when your drunk uncle gets a good rant going at the Thanksgiving dinner, and your aunt can’t control him. What a joke.
What is the form of terrorism of chief concern to the experts, far above and beyond other forms?
Timmy,
Depends on which “experts” you are referring to…
Do you want the opinions of the political “experts”??
Or the opinion of the REAL experts.. The grunts out in the field??
Michale32086
I totally agree. And that’s why I support sensible gun control laws and healthcare reform. Glad to see you’re of a similar mind on those.
Quaker,
I totally agree. And that’s why I support sensible gun control laws and healthcare reform. Glad to see you’re of a similar mind on those.
I am nearly certain you meant that sarcastically, but here’s a surprise for you.
I honestly and sincerely agree with you.
I fully support “sensible” gun control laws. Where we will probably differ is what constitutes “sensible”…
I also fully and completely support healthcare reform… But this CrapCare we have now ain’t healthy, it doesn’t care and it is NOTHING like reform..
Michale32086
Wrong, jerky, this is Oliver’s blog. He has unmoderated comments to give losers like Dennis a reason to live.
That’s odd. All of my comments say they’re awaiting moderation.
First time commenting here, so it’s a bit confusing.
Michael 32086: You are wrong about the absence of terrorist attacks post 9/11: you apparently have forgotten about the anthrax hysteria, mail in Washington DC subjected to radiation to kill the anthrax, etc. That was terrorism and helped the Cheney administration trump up the fake case for attacking Iraq. Remember Powell’s speech, those chemical trailers, and the little vial. It was all of a piece, designed to terrorize the American people, and it worked. Sorry you have such a short memory. Better cut back on the Jack Daniels.
You would strip every American citizen of the rights granted them in the Constitution in order to protect yourself from something that will, odds are, never actually happen to you, or them.
“… logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
-Captain Spock, STAR TREK II, The Wrath Of Kahn
Michale32086
Reality,
That’s odd. All of my comments say they’re awaiting moderation.
First time commenting here, so it’s a bit confusing.
Some Blogs will hold the first couple comments of a new user for moderation. Once those are cleared, comments usually appear immediately.
I don’t know if Oliver does that here, but it sounds like it might be the case.
Michale32086
Are you fucking kidding me?
You’ve just proposed that the state has the right to suspend Constitutional liberties and basic human rights and your supporting arguments come from Hollywood movies?
You’re a complete fucking moron.
Are you fucking kidding me?
He’s not.
You’ve just proposed that the state has the right to suspend Constitutional liberties and basic human rights and your supporting arguments come from Hollywood movies?
They do.
You’re a complete fucking moron.
He is.
These types of trolls are fascinating because you can tell they are doing it simply because it give them a chance lie to others in safety.
The Lie itself thrilling to them.
You’re a complete fucking moron.
Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to childish and immature name-calling.
Your concession of my intellectual superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant.
And, just for the record, it is not me (or Captain Spock) who is proposing that the state has the right to suspend Constitutional liberties…
The US Constitution itself says that the state has the right to suspend Constitutional liberties..
You’re dismissed…
Michale32086
But you being the close-minded person you are, you won’t accept anything but your own narrow view of the world..
No, moron. I don’t accept fantasy scenarios starring Samuel L. Jackson and Leonard Nimoy as convincing reasons for the state to suspend my Constitutional rights because you piss yourself whenever think about 9-11.
We are not talking about “inviting terrorists over for tea.”
You have stated that you believe the best policy for dealing with terrorists is to suspend the Constitutional rights of US citizens.
The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not based on the “needs of the many out weiging the needs of the few.”
They are founded in the opposite: That the rights of the few need to be protected from the tyranny of the many.
It is this principle and those rights, that we are defending here. They are what keep us from becoming a dictatorship and a police state.
You’ve just advocated demolishing the Bill of Rights based on a Spock quote.
You’re a moron.
The US Constitution itself says that the state has the right to suspend Constitutional liberties..
Cite it.
I fully support “sensible” gun control laws. Where we will probably differ is what constitutes “sensible”…
And now we get down to it, don’t we.
The most common tactic in these debates is the purpoted agreement followed by a rather key qualifier: what is ‘sensible’. It almost makes you sound reasonable.
To the rest of the world, the U.S. healtcare system is deplorable. Prior to the recent bill, it was considered simply corrupt. Your gun have caused the U.S. to leads the world’s richest nations in gun deaths.
So let’s dispense with your reasonable persona and get down to brass tacks: what rights are you willing to give up for the security of your country?
owlbear,
These types of trolls are fascinating because you can tell they are doing it simply because it give them a chance lie to others in safety.
Do you even know what the definition of a Net Troll is???
Apparently you don’t…
Throwing around terms that you are clueless about simply puts your ignorance on display…
Don’t be ashamed…
“There is no dishonor in not knowing everything.”
-Subcommander T’al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident
Michale32086
Cite it.
Article One, Section 9
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
There is also the imposition of Martial Law that is fully in keeping with the US Constitution. Martial Law, as I am sure you are aware, involves the suspension of civil liberties by the State.
Martial Law has been declared many times in the history of the United States.
During the war of 1812, General Andrew Jackson imposed martial law within his encampment at New Orleans, which he had recently liberated. Martial law was also imposed in a four mile radius around the camp. When word came of the end of the war, Jackson maintained martial law, contending that he had not gotten official word of the peace. A judge demanded habeas corpus for a man arrested for sedition. Rather than comply with the writ, Jackson had the judge arrested. After the civil authority was restored, the judge fined Jackson $1000, which he paid, and for which the Congress later reimbursed Jackson.
In 1892, at Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, rebellious mine workers blew up a mill and shot at strike-breaking workers. The explosion leveled a four-story building and killed one person. Mine owners asked the governor to declare martial law, which he did. At the same time, a request was made for federal troops to back guardsmen. Over 600 people were arrested. The list was whittled down to two dozen ring leaders who were tried in civil court. While in prison, the mine workers formed a new union, the Western Federation of Miners.
In 1914, imposition of martial law climaxed the so-called Coal Field Wars in Colorado. Dating back decades, the conflicts came to a head in Ludlow in 1913. The Colorado National Guard was called in to quell the strikers. For a time, the peace was kept, but it is reported that the make-up of the Guard stationed at the mines began to shift from impartial normal troops to companies of loyal mine guards. Clashes increased and the proclamation of martial law was made by the governor. President Wilson sent in federal troops, eventually ending the violence.
In 1934, California Governor Frank Merriam placed the docks of San Francisco under martial law, citing “riots and tumult” resulting from a dock worker’s strike. The Governor threatened to place the entire city under martial law. The National Guard was called in to open the docks, and a city-wide institution of martial law was averted when goods began to flow. The guardsmen were empowered to make arrests and to then try detainees or turn them over to the civil courts.
Martial law and San Francisco were no strangers – following the earthquake of 1906, the troops stationed in the Presidio were pressed into service. Guards were posted throughout the city, and all dynamite was confiscated. The dynamite was used to destroy buildings in the path of fires, to prevent the fires from spreading. Troops were ordered to shoot looters. Though there was never an official declaration of martial law, the event is often cited as such. However, at all times it appears the troops took their orders indirectly from the civil authority.
Though not a state at the time, Hawaii was placed under martial law in 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Many of the residents of Hawaii were, and are, of Asian descent, and the loyalty of these people was called into question. After the war, the federal judge for the islands condemned the conduct of martial law, saying, “Gov. Poindexter declared lawfully martial law but the Army went beyond the governor and set up that which was lawful only in conquered enemy territory namely, military government which is not bound by the Constitution. And they … threw the Constitution into the discard and set up a military dictatorship.”
On 8/26/2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was placed under martial law after widespread flooding rendered civil authority ineffective. The state of Louisiana does not have an actual legal construct called “martial law,” but instead something quite like it: a state of public health emergency. The state of emergency allowed the governor can suspend laws, order evacuations, and limit the sales of items such as alcohol and firearms. The governor’s order limited the state of emergency, to end on 9/25/2005, “unless terminated sooner.”
I am surprised that you don’t know any of this…
Michale32086
You’ve just advocated demolishing the Bill of Rights based on a Spock quote … oh right, I forgot, and a hyperinflated sense of yourself:
And an asshole like you with a gun who believes that Spcok has granted him the right to take away my Constitutional rights is more dangerous to this country than a terrorist with a nuclear weapon.
America can survive a nuclear attack.
America will and cannot survive as America if we ignore the Constitution or strip people of their Constitutional rights.
That’s what you don’t get.
Our armed forces do not swear an oath to me and protecting my life or your life. They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and protecting it.
The army does not ensure my freedom. The ideals in that document do and many different kinds of people doing many different kinds of things protect those freedoms beyond soldiers. I’m talking about lawyers, teachers, journalists, yes, politicians, activists etc. etc. etc.
You’re welcome? You’re a fascist, dude. Go fuck yourself.
Mouse,
So let’s dispense with your reasonable persona
It is not a persona…
I *AM* a reasonable person. Unlike a lot of the others in here who just illogically and irrationally attack everyone they disagree with, I am actually here for rational, mature and adult debate…
I was talking Gun Laws and HealthCare with Quaker. Since you chose to interject yourself into that discussion, let’s dispense with those issues first, before moving on to others..
What do YOU consider to be “sensible” gun control laws??
To the rest of the world, the U.S. healtcare system is deplorable.
And why should I care what the “rest of the world” thinks??? Especially when one considers all the horror stories coming out of “model” HealthCare countries like Canada or the UK..
Do you live your life according to what the “rest of the world” thinks???
Michale32086
Pathological liars really are they only people capable of calling you inferior as they whine about how your are victimizing them.
Fascinating.
Owlbear,
Pathological liars really are they only people capable of calling you inferior as they whine about how your are victimizing them.
I see.. So you have changed your attack from calling me a troll to calling me a pathological liar…
And, of course, I assume you have evidence to support this personal attack, right??
Michale32086
Why would you assume you are the one being called a pathological liar?
This is too rich. He keeps quoting Star Wars as if it doesn’t make him look like an ass. What ingenious insights will come next?
owlbear,
Aren’t you a little old to be playing such childish games??
I’ll take this latest evasion as a “NO”. You don’t have any evidence to back up your accusation of “liar” (pathological or otherwise) any more than you had evidence that I was a troll.
When you are ready to discuss things in an adult manner, I’ll be here..
Michale32086
So I am a ‘Child’ attacking you?
Michael Over Here
He keeps quoting Star Wars as if it doesn’t make him look like an ass. What ingenious insights will come next?
You’re kidding, right???
Star Wars??? Seriously???
Owlbear,
No, I said you are playing childish games.
Michale32086
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Figured. Please note the very specific instances spelled out in which habeas corpus may be suspended. This actually places a LIMIT on Congressional power. It is not, in anyway whatsoever, considered an actual enhancement of Congressional power.
There is a wide body of legal and court cases supporting this as a limit on Congressional power and limiting that power further.
Certainly you’ve heard of Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)? Right?
In that case, the Supreme Court further limited Congress’ ability to suspend habeas corpus ordering that it could not be suspended where civilian courts were still operational.
So we’re talking about the war on terror, which is neither a rebellion, an invasion and during which all civil courts have remained operational.
So reference to Article One, Section 9 is completely irrelevant to any discussion of how to fight terrorism.
It also needs to be spelled out to you that suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus does not suspend other rights clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights such as the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
And as far as martial law is concerned, martial law same thing.
The state doesn’t get to detain you indefinitely without trial, torture you, execute you etc. under martial law.
Martial law in the United States does not suspend any of these basic protections.
In short, the powers you claim are in the Constitution are not “powers” as such but actually limitations placed on Congress based on protecting the rights of individual citizens.
What you’re talking about–suspending all individual rights in the interest of national security–is not martial law, it’s lawlessness, only the lawlessness of the military and the police operating with disregard to the judiciary and the Constitution.
fafaroo,
You’re a fascist, dude. Go fuck yourself.
So, you only care about the individual’s rights of those individuals that agree with you…
So who actually is the fascist here???
Nice ta have you out of the closet…
Michale32086
Where is your evidence that I was attacking you?
Owlbear1,
Where is your evidence that I was attacking you?
These types of trolls are fascinating because you can tell they are doing it simply because it give them a chance lie to others in safety.
Do you deny you posted this?
Do you deny you were referring to me?
A simple yes or no will suffice…
Fafaroo,
Please note the very specific instances spelled out in which habeas corpus may be suspended.
Please note that were wasn’t any discussion of instances, specific or otherwise..
I stated that, within the US Constitution, there are provisions for the suspension of liberties.
You asked me to cite it.
I did…
Don’t try and change the argument just because you got your ass handed to you…
Michale32086
So, you only care about the individual’s rights of those individuals that agree with you…
Yes, Michale32086, By arguing that the state must respect individual Constitutional and human rights for everyone, I am saying that my rights are more important than yours.
You’re an idiot.
Well, it’s been real and it’s been fun ladies and gents…
But I am off to spend some quality time with my lovely wife as I do every day at this time..
I’ll catch up with all the new personal attacks in the morning…
Have a happy…
Michale32086
But I am off to spend some quality time with my lovely wife as I do every day at this time..
‘Lovely’ is a term open to debate.
“These types of trolls are fascinating because you can tell they are doing it simply because it give them a chance lie to others in safety.”
==
Do you deny you posted this?
+
Yes, I posted that.
Do you deny you were referring to me?
+
I was referring to a specific type of troll. You’re the one who assumed I was referring to you.
A simple yes or no will suffice…
+
Not really…
But I am off to spend some quality time with my lovely wife as I do every day at this time.
Yes, of course…
Uh, Michale32086, you wrote:
As I pointed out, suspending the writ of habeas coprus does not suspend all of an individuals Constitutional rights.
The Constitution does not have any provision for the suspension of the prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment, for instance.
So no, Michale32086, your specific statement was not correct.
‘Lovely’ is a term open to debate.
Why would you write that unless you were an asshole?
Mickale wishes you could meet his girlfriend.
His girlfriend who lives in Canada.
No, it’s not okay to compare a democratically elected president to Hitler, but it’s closer to okay to compare a judicially appointed one to him.
Well, it’s been real and it’s been fun ladies and gents…
“I’m a doctor, not an psychologist.”
But I am off to spend some quality time with my lovely wife as I do every day at this time..
My dear girl, I’m a doctor. When I peek, it is in the line of duty.
I’ll catch up with all the new personal attacks in the morning…
I will not peddle flesh! I’m a physician.
Have a happy…
I’m not a magician, Spock, just an old country doctor.
liberals compared Bush to Hitler because he started an illegal, aggressive war in Iraq; ordered people to be abducted and tortured; and violated criminal law to surveil American citizens without a warrant.
Conservatives compare Obama to Hitler because he advocates universal health care and fair taxation.
You’re right, left and right are just as deranged.
Burn,
‘Lovely’ is a term open to debate.
Nice… Bet it makes you feel like such a macho man to attack another man’s wife, eh??
Owlbear1,
“There you go again…
-Ronald Reagan
Let me know when you are ready for some mature and adult discussions, instead of your childish games.
Indeed,
Why would you write that unless you were an asshole?
Thank you.
Russell60
No, it’s not okay to compare a democratically elected president to Hitler, but it’s closer to okay to compare a judicially appointed one to him.
Are you STILL trying to beat that dead horse??
Seriously???
Timmy,
I love it!! Kudos!!
Michale32086
liberals compared Bush to Hitler because he started an illegal, aggressive war in Iraq; ordered people to be abducted and tortured; and violated criminal law to surveil American citizens without a warrant.
You are so wrong, so often, it’s hard to know where to begin…
he started an illegal, aggressive war in Iraq;
The war in Iraq was fully authorized by Congress. Therefore, by definition, it can’t be “illegal”.
ordered people to be abducted and tortured;
A-Not people. Terrorists..
and
B-Such acts were, once again, fully authorized by Congress..
and violated criminal law to surveil American citizens without a warrant.
Once again, acts that were fully authorized by Congress…
Nixon once said, “If the President does it, it’s not illegal.”
We know, of course, that this is a complete self-serving fallacy.
However, if Congress authorizes it and the President does it, then (again) by definition, it is not illegal.
You have a problem with what Bush did??
Talk to your Democrats who authorized it all…
Michale32086
Burn,
‘Lovely’ is a term open to debate.
Nice… Bet it makes you feel like such a macho man to attack another man’s wife, eh??
It makes me feel almost as manly and macho as getting sued by DirecTV for copyright infringement.
Re: “a war authorized by Congress = not illegal” – sorry, Congressional approval does not mean something is not illegal. If Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion (a power specifically forbidden it by the Constitution), and the President acted in accordance with that law, it would still be an illegal action.
Re: Congress authorized illegal wiretappings
FISA is clear; it’s the sole legal basis for executive spying. Bush violated FISA. Bush broke the law.
This – this is so incredibly stupid it deserves to be quoted again:
A-I suppose they were terrorist gerbils! Or geese – I never did trust geese. Terrorist kangaroos, maybe?
B-No; the capture of people in war was authorized, this is true. The capture of people far from any “battlefield” was not. That was kidnapping, plain and simple, And torture was not authorized. Had it been, it still would not have made it legal, since we’d still be bound by our treaty obligations not to torture, leaving it still illegal, unless we withdrew from the treaty.
“It makes me feel almost as manly and macho as getting sued by DirecTV for copyright infringement.”
??
does not mean something is not illegal. If Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion (a power specifically forbidden it by the Constitution), and the President acted in accordance with that law, it would still be an illegal action.
That is a very simplistic approach to a totally different question.
If Congress actually had the imputes to establish a state religion, then of course, the US Constitution would have to be changed. Assuming that the US Constitution was amended, and then Congress established a religion, it would, in fact, be legal..
Congress gave Bush the authorization. Bush ran with it. If Congress felt that Bush had gone too far, then Congress should have revoked the given authorization.
Congress didn’t and here we are.
FISA is clear; it’s the sole legal basis for executive spying. Bush violated FISA. Bush broke the law.
The AUMFs superseded FISA. So you are wrong there as well..
A-I suppose they were terrorist gerbils! Or geese – I never did trust geese. Terrorist kangaroos, maybe?
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you trying to say that terrorists aren’t bad?? That they are on par with gerbils and kangaroos???
B-No; the capture of people in war was authorized, this is true. The capture of people far from any “battlefield” was not. That was kidnapping, plain and simple, And torture was not authorized. Had it been, it still would not have made it legal, since we’d still be bound by our treaty obligations not to torture, leaving it still illegal, unless we withdrew from the treaty.
Once again, you are in error…
Read the AUMF…
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Seems pretty cute and dried to me…
Once again, if Congress felt Bush had gone off the reservation, then Congress should have revoked the AUMF.
Congress didn’t, so you are in error.
As far as not being able to torture, there is nothing in any treaty that forbids torturing scumbag terrorists for intel..
NOTHING…
isms,
??
Apparently Burns is quite the Internet Stalker..
He can’t handle getting his ass intellectually whupped over and over again, so he stalks me around the ‘Net hoping to come up with something that he can use…
I expect him to start posting personal information of my wife and kids at any moment..
Typical of someone of his obvious low mentality..
Michale32086
Michale32086:
You are aware that Congress does not have the right to abrogate our treaty obligations, right? We have to actually *withdraw* from those treaties, right?
Or are you just talking out of your ass?
You do understand that the original respondent said that they were not “people,” yes?
Or did you not bother to read for context since you had no intention of thinking critically about the situation? Yes, Bush ordered the capture and torture of *people*.
Quote where the AUMF superceded FISA – oh, wait, you can’t. You *are* talking out of your ass.
As for the AUMF granting the right to nab anyone, for any reason, and hold, and torture them, sorry – the courts *did* rule that the right to use military force included the rights to capture people who are engaged in active hostilities, as a soldier might capture an enemy soldier on the battlefield. It did not provide the capture of people, to be held without charges, in violation of US law, the Constitution, and our treaty obligations. This is why the courts later agreed that habeas corpus proceedings were necessary.
Michale32086:
I owe you an apology.
When I said “You do understand that the original respondent said that they were not ‘people,’ yes?”
I hadn’t realized that *you* were the original respondent. I assumed that you were another person coming in to discuss the issue.
Of course, that means that you didn’t realize that I was referring to *your* words, not to someone else’s, and couldn’t recognize the implications of the things that you yourself said. Nevertheless, I should have verified that you were the original respondent.
LHW,
You are aware that Congress does not have the right to abrogate our treaty obligations, right? We have to actually *withdraw* from those treaties, right?
Exactly which “treaty obligations” did Congress abrogate??
Yes, Bush ordered the capture and torture of *people*.
If you consider terrorists to be “people” then that is your choice. I just wonder how much experience you have with those “people”??
As for me, I consider them below a cockroach. Along with child molesters… A bullet to the back of the head is the best choice in dealing with either.
Quote where the AUMF superceded FISA – oh, wait, you can’t.
The AUMF authorizes “all necessary and appropriate force” to defeat Al Qaeda. It doesn’t say, “all necessary and appropriate force in keeping with previous laws or applicable statutes.”
Since the AUMF came AFTER FISA, it’s logical and rational to determine that ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FORCE means just that…
Once again, if Congress felt that Bush had gone renegade, they should have revoked the AUMF.
They didn’t and therefore, you have no legal basis for your argument. Your’s is solely an emotional argument.
Michale32086
If you consider terrorists to be “people” then that is your choice. I just wonder how much experience you have with those “people”??
As for me, I consider them below a cockroach. Along with child molesters… A bullet to the back of the head is the best choice in dealing with either.
Now where have I heard that argument before? Dehumanization. Comparison to vermin. Torture and execution without any due process (let alone torture of itself). Has that ever happened before?
Stay classy, Michale32086.
Your argument seems to consist of “Congress cannot authorize something that is illegal.”
Yet Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence (DNI), testified to the House Intelligence Committee, that the US government asserts the right to kill US citizens travelling, working or living abroad, if the government had evidence those citizens were in some manner involved with terrorist activities. Such assassinations could be carried out without providing a court any evidence that the targetted persons are in fact guilty of any terrorist or terrorist-related activities; and without providing to such person any of the constitutional guarantees to due process, right to trial, right to confront witnesses, and so forth, which they normally would enjoy if charged with offenses while in the United States.
So, while it is allegedly illegal for the US Government to engage in assassination, the Obama government not only asserts this right, but also puts it into practice in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Actions that are FULLY AUTHORIZED by the US Congress…
So, my statement that, if Congress authorizes it, it IS legal, is a true and factual statement.
Michale32086
Indeed,
Has that ever happened before?
You mean like when some in here referred to me as a “troll” and “it”??
But, hay.. If you want to accuse me of de-humanizing terrorists, then I accept that with honor…
There really isn’t nothing human about terrorists…
But, you keep thinking otherwise.. People like me will keep you safe in spite of yourself..
Stay classy, Michale32086.
Always, Indeed. Always…
Michale32086
Well, I suppose “cheery sociopath” is a new flavor around here.
So Michale, can you describe in detail you specific, personal experiences with terrorists?
LHW
I owe you an apology.
When I said “You do understand that the original respondent said that they were not ‘people,’ yes?”
I hadn’t realized that *you* were the original respondent. I assumed that you were another person coming in to discuss the issue.
Of course, that means that you didn’t realize that I was referring to *your* words, not to someone else’s, and couldn’t recognize the implications of the things that you yourself said. Nevertheless, I should have verified that you were the original respondent.
No worries.. I hadn’t caught on to that aspect of your response..
But thanx…
Michale32086
Okay. You’re either too stupid to argue with, or being deliberately dishonest.
However, I will point this much out: President Bush ordered the capture, and torture, of people who turned out to be innocent. So, even if, in your diseased mind, it’s okay to declare *anyone* to be not a human being worthy of basic human rights, he has, in fact, ordered the capture and torture of actual, honest-to-goodness people.
But they were accused of possibly being, or supporting, or maybe just looking like, terrorists – which presumably makes it okay in your horrid little world.
LHW,
Okay. You’re either too stupid to argue with, or being deliberately dishonest.
I am sincerely curious.. Which treaty are you referring to??
I know it can’t be the Geneva Conventions, because nothing in the GCs protect terrorists in any way, shape or form. As far as the GCs are concerned, terrorists are like spies. They are afforded absolutely ZERO protections.
So, what treaties are you referring to??
However, I will point this much out: President Bush ordered the capture, and torture, of people who turned out to be innocent
Yes and that is a shame..
However, your solution is akin to completely abolishing our legal justice system because it might inadvertently incarcerate an innocent person.
Mistakes happen. That is truly a sad thing to occur. But the greater mistake would be to abolish that process that has DEMONSTRABLY saved innocent American lives.
Like I said, you want a bird’s eye view of the concept, watch the new Samuel L Jackson movie, UNTHINKABLE. I watched it a couple months ago and it was so dead on ballz accurate (as far as the issue it raises) it was scary.
Michale32086
Mistakes happen. That is truly a sad thing to occur. But the greater mistake would be to abolish that process that has DEMONSTRABLY saved innocent American lives.
The ends always justify the means. Good to know. Should one continue to apply a process that has DEMONSTRABLY ended innocent Non-American lives? How about which LED to ending innocent American lives. DEMONSTRABLY.
Like I said, you want a bird’s eye view of the concept, watch the new Samuel L Jackson movie, UNTHINKABLE. I watched it a couple months ago and it was so dead on ballz accurate (as far as the issue it raises) it was scary.
What would Hollywood do?
Stay superior, Michale32086.
Indeed,
The ends always justify the means.
Not always.. But often..
In the world of CT operations, usually…
As far as ending American lives? If they were consorting with terrorists..???
san’s humanite…
What would Hollywood do?
Are you saying that NOTHING can be learned from the Arts???
If that is how you really think, I feel bad for you.
Stay superior, Michale32086.
It ain’t hard to, around here..
Michale32086
Indeed,
How about which LED to ending innocent American lives. DEMONSTRABLY.
For example???
Regardless, as I have already said. Yes, it’s sad when innocent lives are taken.
But one has to look at the lesser of two evils here.
What’s more sad??
An innocent life is taken??
Or thousands, maybe millions, of innocent lives taken??
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
-Captain Spock, STAR TREK II, The Wrath Of Kahn
Michale32086
I’m sorry, but I was not aware that Captain Spock was one of the writers to our Constitution.
Major,
A classic debating diversion.
You can’t debate the sentiment so you call into question the person who said it.
What does it matter WHO said it.
Debate the message. Not the messenger.
Regardless of all of the afore, IF Captain Spock been one of the writers of the US Constitution, you can bet it would have been a lot more logical.
Michale32086
I’m sorry, but I was not aware that Captain Spock was one of the writers to our Constitution.
I am also constrained to point out that the entire US Constitution epitomizes the concept so eloquently stated by Captain Spock.
It starts as, “We The People”….
Not “I The Person.”
Michale32086
The preamble to the Constitution – the part you’re quotng to defend the inanity of your attempts at elevating fiction to the force of law – is not the basis of any laws. The sections that follow the preamble, however, are.
And the final section of the Constitution is entirely devoted to the protection of the rights of the individual. So go make your daily trip to see your girlfriend in Canada and let the adults talk to each other again.
Prodigal,
So, you are saying that the needs of society should be sacrificed to the needs of the individual?
Wow..
There is a word for that.
It’s called ‘anarchy’.
I am sure glad I don’t live in your world.
Michale32086
Prodigal,
I also have to ask what your obsession is with girlfriends and Canada?
While I DO have a girlfriend (my lovely wife of 28 years) she is definitely not up in Canada..
I was just curious what kind of point you are trying to make with the girlfriend/Canada obsession.
Michale32086
So Michale, by your logic, you would be fine living in a police state where the cops can indefinitely detain anyone they like for any reason at all?
And you claim to support freedom, why?
Zython,
As with all things in real life, it’s a trade-off…
Do we want to invoke the Death Penalty for ALL crimes, including the likes of Jay Walking??
No, of course not.
But the converse of that is ALSO true..
Do we want to afford terrorists every convenience and comfort possible, so they can USE that to murder innocent Americans??
Once again, of course not..
Let me give you a hypothetical..
You live in a duplex. The federal government wants to tap the phone line going into the duplex. But they cannot separate your line from your neighbor’s line, a suspected terrorist.. So, they approach you and ask your permission to tap the line so that they may prevent a terrorist attack.
You say, “HELL NO!!!”…
One week later, that terrorist neighbor terrorist of yours blows himself up at the local mall, killing 100 people..
Now, the question is..
Was your personal privacy more important than those 100 people’s lives??
I know, it’s easy to pooh-pooh and ignore hypotheticals like this.
That’s because it lays bare the complete selfishness of the “individual rights uber alles” perspective.
Now, I can only speak for myself and other CT people that I have worked with. I can assure you that, to a T, none of them thought that their personal rights were worth a hundred people’s lives. Or ten people’s lives.. Or one single person’s life…
That is why they do what they do.
That is why they are what they are.
Heroes…
Michale32086
And Conservatives have the gall to call Liberals fascists. Now I’ve heard everything. At least Michale’s honest. Some of the other righties would be twisting in the verbal wind, squirming out of the admission that individual rights should be subsumed under collective rights, no, I mean, collective hysteria. Good on you Michale for plainly saying what I always believed about Conservatives – that, given the chance, they would impose a fascist state in the freest country in the world. You scare me.
Oh, I almost forgot, where’s the bible in all of this??
Why would I want to bring up a fantasy novel like the bible??
Granted, it has some good points to teach and all that…
But, personally I think it’s ridiculous to base one’s entire being on..
I get better moral guidance from Star Trek than I do from the bible.
Regardless, the problem with the hysterical Left is the same problem with the hysterical Right…
Hysterical and hypocritical bigotry…
Michale32086
You live in a duplex. The federal government wants to tap the phone line going into the duplex. But they cannot separate your line from your neighbor’s line, a suspected terrorist.. So, they approach you and ask your permission to tap the line so that they may prevent a terrorist attack.
You say, “HELL NO!!!”…
You’re making a few faulty assumptions here.
1. You’re assuming wiretapping a landline is the only way to obtain information on someone.
2. You’re assuming they would even ask my permission, or even get a warrant (they wouldn’t, since apparently Bush repealed the 4th amendment).
I know, it’s easy to pooh-pooh and ignore hypotheticals like this.
That’s because it lays bare the complete selfishness of the “individual rights uber alles” perspective.
No, it’s because said hypotheticals aren’t even remotely possible and rely on so many faulty assumptions (as listed above) that they don’t reflect the real world at all. Just like the “Ticking time bomb scenario” to justify needless torture. Or economics.
Besides, even in that scenario, the blame would lay bare on the government for being too incompetent for not acquiring a warrant, or finding another way to acquire information. What’s next, you want me to sacrifice my right to a jury so that we can convict felons more easily? Or take away my right to silence under penalty of torture to get more confessions?
You’re right in that there are sacrifices for liberty, but said liberties also hold value. And it’s not just MY liberty; it’s yours, too, as well as everyone else in this country. Likewise, I too am not exempt from harm in terrorist attacks. And as corny as it sounds, I would rather die free than live a slave.
Now, I can only speak for myself and other CT people that I have worked with.
Jesus, no wonder we couldn’t catch OBL.
As usual, you evade the point of the question by bringing up non-sequitors..
Of course, a warrant would be obtained and of course, technology would allow authorities to zero in on the one specific line.
But the POINT is, would YOU give up your personal privacy to possibly save innocent lives and stop a terrorist..
THAT is the point of the hypothetical and you can’t answer that with a simple YES or NO.
Because the only humane and decent answer (YES) goes against the grain of the Left…
Likewise, I too am not exempt from harm in terrorist attacks. And as corny as it sounds, I would rather die free than live a slave.
That is a perfectly sound decision to make.. FOR YOU…
But you have no right to make someone else die so you can “live free”.
You don’t have the right to impose YOUR values on someone who would rather give up a little privacy or a little inconvenience so that they and their loved ones can continue to live and enjoy life.
THAT is the point that the Left seems to miss time and time again..
If you want to believe “individual liberties uber alles” then more power to you. Hope that serves you well. I mean that sincerely.
But you simple cannot condemn someone who would rather live with some minor restrictions that will likely never affect them anyways, than die a horrible death..
Michale32086
As usual, you evade the point of the question by bringing up non-sequitors..
What? You don’t even know me.
But the POINT is, would YOU give up your personal privacy to possibly save innocent lives and stop a terrorist..
First of all, the point was actually that you can’t construct a hypothetical remotely grounded in reality.
Secondly, it is not my responsibility to make those kinds of decisions, it’s the governments. Why should I be forced to make these decisions on behalf the people I vote for?
Third of all, you throw in the key word “possible”. Why should I throw away my Constitutional rights on a hunch?
You don’t have the right to impose YOUR values on someone who would rather give up a little privacy or a little inconvenience so that they and their loved ones can continue to live and enjoy life.
Likewise, you have no right to impose YOUR values on me. Why should I give up my rights so that you can fall asleep a little more easily?
If you want to believe “individual liberties uber alles” then more power to you. Hope that serves you well. I mean that sincerely.
Concern troll is concerned.
But you simple cannot condemn someone who would rather live with some minor restrictions that will likely never affect them anyways, than die a horrible death..
The fact that you think that losing liberties will not affect you is at best myopic and at worst arrogant. Why do you believe only “The Other” will be harmed by that and not you?
Look, if you hate freedom that much, maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
First they came for the Jew
and Dennis did not speak out – because he was not the Jew.
Then they came for the communist
and Dennis did not speak out – because he was not the communist.
Then they came for the trade unionist
and Dennis did not speak out – because he was not the trade unionist.
Then they came to take Dennis away -
to the funny farm, where life is good with chirping birds and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs….
“I also have to ask what your obsession is with girlfriends and Canada”
No obsession; just noting that you toss out references to “[your] lovely wife” with the frequency with which overly-defensive overcompensating nerds claim to have girlfriends who live in places too far away for any of the people doubting them to ever meet.
Like this guy here, for example.
Prodigal, see my links I posted way upthread.
Zython,
What? You don’t even know me.
Why would I need to know you to say that you are avoiding the issue??
First of all, the point was actually that you can’t construct a hypothetical remotely grounded in reality.
No.. That might have been YOUR point. But it wasn’t mine.
Regardless, one doesn’t have to have a perfectly “grounded” hypothetical to address the issue.
Unless, of course, one is fearful of honestly addressing the issue.
Secondly, it is not my responsibility to make those kinds of decisions, it’s the governments. Why should I be forced to make these decisions on behalf the people I vote for?
Exactly. You can only make decisions on behalf of yourself. So, when faced with a moral dilemma (do I protect my privacy or do I assist in preventing death and destruction) you go with the selfish choice of protecting your privacy.
The hypothetical fact that the government PUT you in such a position is completely irrelevant to the decision you must make..
“He chose poorly”
-Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
Likewise, you have no right to impose YOUR values on me. Why should I give up my rights so that you can fall asleep a little more easily?
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”
THAT’s why..
Concern troll is concerned.
Ignorance of what a Net Troll really is, is ignorance.
The fact that you think that losing liberties will not affect you is at best myopic and at worst arrogant. Why do you believe only “The Other” will be harmed by that and not you?
Why do you believe that only “The Other” will be harmed by a terrorist attack and not you?
And before you start quoting odds to me, you should know that the odds of dying in a terrorist attack at the World Trade Center on 10 Sep 2001 was a LOT higher than any odds YOU can quote.
And we all know what happened the next day, right???
isms,
Your point???
Prodigal,
Because she IS lovely and I am very happy about that and her.
If you don’t like the references, don’t read them.. Jeeesh…
But with your obsession it sounds like you are a bit jealous..
Michale32086
Why do you believe that only “The Other” will be harmed by a terrorist attack and not you?
I don’t. I just know that there is always a constant risk that I could die. Not just from terrorist attacks, but from car accidents, disease, or even just falling in the shower. Unlike you, I’ve come to accept my own mortality and the risks that come with living. Do I want to die? Of course not. Is minimizing said risk a worthy goal? Sure. Is it worth spending your entire life worrying about said risks? Absolutely not.
You like quotes? Here’s one.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin Real Life
Look, Michelle, if you hate personal freedom this much, then it’s painfully clear that democracy isn’t for you. A military dictatorship would probably be more to your liking.
I am glad you brought up the Franklin quote.. Because it perfectly illustrates MY point..
What “essential” liberty have YOU given up??
Not a damn one..
Well, unless you count taking hair gel onto an aircraft..
As far as “temporary safety” goes…
The safety we have enjoyed since 9/11 is far longer than the “temporary” that Ben Franklin meant…
So, to sum up… You haven’t lost any essential liberty at all..
And the safety you have enjoyed, despite your best efforts to enable terrorists is a far FAR cry from “temporary”.
Game….
Set…….
Match………
Michale32086
What “essential” liberty have YOU given up?? Not a damn one.. Well, unless you count taking hair gel onto an aircraft..
Uh, what? We went from ‘The government can invade your privacy, arrest you, torture you and hold you forever without charge or trial” to “The government is only saying you can’t brinng hair gel on planes so what’s your bitch?” That’s not really consistent, now is it, Michale?
As for your hypothetical above:
It too is not relevant or consistent with your argument. In this hypothetical. Leaving aside it’s actual relevance to the real world, in this scenario the government explains to me the situation and gives me an option based on the specific circumstances involved. I am, in other words, given the option to make the decision as to whether I am willing to relinquish my rights.
This is not at all relevant to a situation in which the government is assuming the authority to invade my privacy without my permission at anytime that it deems the need is suitable, which is, of course, what the situation really is.
It is unconstitutional for the government to assume those rights because the Constitution does not, has as been pointed out to you, allow for the suspension of all Constitution rights, including the right against unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, free speech etc.
Might I add, that the whole point of the Constitution was to limit the influence of anyone party of others without their consent. It was not written with the idea that “the needs of the majority, out weight the needs of the few.”
To quote, Not Spock, but rather The Federalist Papers:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._10
In other words, the whole point of the Constitution, “the great object to which” the Founing Fathers were directed, was to limit the influence of the majority over the Constitutional rights granted to individuals.
The needs of the many, in other words, were to be limited if they infringed on the rights of the few.
If you want to repost your Spock quote, in response, go for it. Otherwise, maybe you should try quoting some of the real people who actual wrote and defended the Constitution at its signing.
What “essential” liberty have YOU given up??
Not a damn one..
Well, unless you count taking hair gel onto an aircraft..
Don’t mind that. I just put my toiletries in my checked luggage.
However, the real question is actually “What essential liberty are you asking me to give up?*”. Which is, of course, the right to privacy, guaranteed by the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
And the safety you have enjoyed, despite your best efforts to enable terrorists is a far FAR cry from “temporary”.
Not true. Do you honestly believe we’ll be safe forever? Do you believe that’s even possible? Sure, we probably won’t be attacked today. Or tomorrow. Or a month from now. Or even a year from now. However, nothing lasts forever, and to think you are immune from harm is, as I said before, at best myopic and at worst arrogant.
And again, you should really move to a dictatorship if you hate freedom and liberty so much.
*Note that you only need 1 ? mark. More than one doesn’t make it any more “questiony”.
Another thing about your hypothetical. If the government came to me and said, “We’d like to tap your phone line in order to gather possible infomation about your neighbor who we suspect to be a terrorist.” I would say, “Show me the evidence you have that my neighbor is a terrorist.”
If they said, “Sorry, sir, that’s classified,” I would tell them to go fuck themselves.
If they said, “Sure, here’s all our evidence” I and I felt it was compelling, I would say, “Okay, that looks good. You can tap my phone. But, if you hear me say or do anything illegal, you can’r charge me with it.”
If they said, “Well, we can’t guarantee you that. If we hear you say or do something illegal, we would have to charge you with it.”
“Okay. Go fuck yourselves.”
If they said, “Of course, while using your line to gather information against a third party, we will not be recording or gathering any of your personal private communications to possibly use against you in a court of law.”
“Great, tap away.”
Remarkably, this process is a lot like what the current process for getting a warrant is like: Law enforcement has to go in front of a judge and prove probable cause and define the limited nature of their investigation.
This is the process by which we protect individual rights against the tyranny of the government.
This is also, exactly the process that the Bush administration, and you, apparently, is “coddling terrorists” and so can be dismissed without any review by congress or the courts.
And that’s why your hypothetical is bullshit and you’re a complete idiot.
Zython,
I asked you a simple question.
What liberty have you given up?
Not in theory but in actual practice..
Not a damn one.
*Note that you only need 1 ? mark
And again with the Grammar Lame..
Why is it ya’all can’t help but post regarding totally nonsensical issues??
Give up the Grammar Police job. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Michale32086
What liberty have you given up?
Because as long is the government is only claiming the right to detain me without charge or trial, the right to torture me and the right to invade my privacy, I have no grounds for complaint.
Brilliant.
What liberty have you given up?
I haven’t “given up” a liberty, which implied volition. However, I have had my right to privacy taken away by warrantless wiretapping, which is, once again, part of the Bill of Rights. Is that satisfactory?
Here’s a simple question for you.
If you hate freedom so much, why do you remain in this country?
Zython,
If you can prove that your communications have been tapped by the government, then yes. That would show that your rights have been violated, IE taken away.
However, you will also have to show that NOTHING came of that violation. By that, I mean that no terrorist attack was prevented, no lives were lost etc etc..
In other words, if that particular liberty of yours was temporarily taken away, but it resulted in stopping a terrorist attack that would have killed thousands, hundreds or even just one innocent life/lives, I would say to you, “Suck it up and quite whining like a baby.”
If you hate freedom so much, why do you remain in this country?
I am ALL about freedom.
Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Of Anyone Who Threatens It
-US Army Slogan
The primary problem here is that you view individual freedoms as the ONLY thing that matters.
Civilized society cannot survive under such a moronic philosophy.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
-Captain Spock
Strange how you simply cannot refute the logic of that statement, eh?
The secondary problem here is that ya’all want to extend those freedoms to terrorists who would use them to murder innocent Americans.
Why do you hate your fellow Americans so much??
Michale32086
I am ALL about freedom.
Well, all about taking it away, sure.
However, you will also have to show that NOTHING came of that violation. By that, I mean that no terrorist attack was prevented, no lives were lost etc etc..
No I don’t. There’s no clause in the constitution that says “Any part of this document in null and void if there’s a chance something good can come out of it”. Not to mention the fact that it would be the government that would have to prove that SOMETHING did come out of it.
In other words, if that particular liberty of yours was temporarily taken away, but it resulted in stopping a terrorist attack that would have killed thousands, hundreds or even just one innocent life/lives, I would say to you, “Suck it up and quite whining like a baby.”
That’s just stupid. By that logic, we should ignore the 5th and 6th amendments if it means getting one more guilty person thrown behind bars. They’re called “inalienable rights” for a reason.
The primary problem here is that you view individual freedoms as the ONLY thing that matters.
Never said that.
Strange how you simply cannot refute the logic of that statement, eh?
Ok, I’ll give it a go.
By that logic, you should also support slavery. After all, black people make up only 15% of the country, so wouldn’t your “needs” supersede theirs?
The secondary problem here is that ya’all want to extend those freedoms to terrorists who would use them to murder innocent Americans.
We’ve convicted thousands of dangerous criminals without infringing their rights (including actual terrorists Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh), much less the rights of those that have nothing to do with them. What makes these guys so goddamned special? They’re still only human.
Why do you hate your fellow Americans so much??
I don’t, which is why I don’t want them to be under the oppressive thumb of psychopaths like you.
Who should we turn to for an understanding of the US Constitution and the principles that it is based on?
Captain Spock or James Madison.
Hmmm. Such a tough call.
Zython,
I’ll make this real short because obviously the full onslaught of the issue is too much for you.
Does Freedom Of Speech allow you to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, when there is no fire??
No it does not.
Why??
Because the courts have determined that, when there is a public safety issue, freedoms CAN and SHOULD be curtailed in the name of public safety..
So, there is the knock-out blow to your claim that individual freedoms should be the ONLY consideration..
Michale32086
I’ll make this real short because obviously the full onslaught of the issue is too much for you.
This seems like another example of self-delusion in order to protect the mind from being destroyed by disillusionment. Or would be if you actually had a mind to protect.
So, there is the knock-out blow to your claim that individual freedoms should be the ONLY consideration..
Ok, it has become abundantly clear that you don’t wish to argue with what I’m saying, but rather what you want me to say. Since you can’t actually debate my points without referencing movies, I’ll leave you to debate yourself, as well as “loving” your “wife”.
Speaking of movies, you should try watching A Few Good Men and The Minority Report.
Or Touch of Evil: “A policeman’s job is only easy in a police state.” — Mike Vargas (Charlton Heston)
So??
No response to how the courts have limited FREEDOM OF SPEECH due to issues of Public Safety??
That’s kewl.. I understand…
Let me state what everyone without a political agenda knows…
Unlimited personal liberty to the exclusion of all else is moronic.
Unlike claims in this thread, restriction of personal liberties due to reasons of public safety do not a fascist government make..
The courts in this country and the branches of government of this country have all recognized the FACT that sometimes personal liberties must be curtailed or even waived in the interests of public safety.
THAT is how America operates..
If you don’t like that, then perhaps America is not the place for you to be…
Go to a place in the world where you can exercise your personal liberties to your heart’s content without any interference whatsoever..
But America is not that place. America has never been that place. America will never BE that place..
These are the facts, whether you acknowledge them or not..
Speaking of movies, you should try watching A Few Good Men and The Minority Report.
A Tom Cruise fan I see.. AFGM is one of this families all time favorite movies.. Not so much TMR, but I loved it..
Now THERE is a debate topic, eh?? Can you prosecute someone for a crime they HAVEN’T committed yet, but you know they WILL commit??
Shades of THE DEAD ZONE, eh??
The book and the Christopher Walken movie. Not the USA series.
Michale32086