home

Monday Open Thread

I'm swamped by work today, so here's an open thread.

Check out Big Tent's article in The Guardian on the netroots (a form of which was originally published here on TalkLeft)

There are some new diaries up as well:

< Jeanine Pirro Accused of Withholding Evidence in Murder Trial | Police and Soldiers Arrested for Looting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah, we only torch (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jondee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    things when we dont like the results of other countries elections.

    Thats a good one jondee..... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:51:03 PM EST
    Besides, we don't riot over something as trivial as a faux-choice election...we riot over important stuff like pro and collegiate sports.

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:17:26 PM EST
      our sporting events are like sunday School compared to big soccer matches in many other countries.

      In any event, I can see that humor is lost on this crowd.

    Parent

    Hooliganism.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:24:40 AM EST
    ya got me there...good point.

    Parent
    Monday tunes for wartime (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon May 07, 2007 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    PJ Harvey doing her best Patti Smyth (tho she'd loathe the comparison) in a little happy ditty called "Taut".

    On British TV performing "Shame".

    And, okay, here's proof I'm as big a catchy top-40 sap as any dark, brooding f*ck on the planet: I love OMC'S one hit wonder tune, "How Bizarre".

    Getting Rich (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    No wonder these guys are soooooo interested in the maintaining long war on terror: It pays.
    When Tenet hit the talk-show circuit last week to defend his stewardship of the CIA and his role in the run-up to the war, he did not mention that he is a director and advisor to four corporations that earn millions of dollars in revenue from contracts with U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense. Nor is it ever mentioned in his book. But according to public records, Tenet has received at least $2.3 million from those corporations in stock and other compensation. Meanwhile, one of the CIA's largest contractors gave Tenet access to a highly secured room where he could work on classified material for his book.

    and in the interests of National Security:

    Four days before Tenet's book was published, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence decided not to release the results of a yearlong study of intelligence contracting, because disclosure of the figure, a DNI official told the New York Times, could damage national security.

    link via War & Piece

    How did "netroots" come to (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon May 07, 2007 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    encompass only the left?  What are LGF, FP, etc. called then?  Don't answer that!

    William Safire's take on this is on Wiki. First (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:31:54 PM EST
    come, first served, I gather.

    Parent
    Another argument (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    For more of the same. cc to Talex.

    Only (none / 0) (#6)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    730 cars torched in France post-election.

    Not big numbers like last year.    

    Well... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:28:54 PM EST
      perhaps others might view it differently, but I find it a sign of our superior polity that we merely send in the attack lawyers after a highly divisive election.

    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:37:09 PM EST
    Better to burn a few cars (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:46:28 PM EST
    than to incinerate innocent Iraqis. Talk to me about political superiority when the French death toll hits a half a million. While our lawyers collected their fees, people were and continue to be killed. Very superior. Hardly effective. Unless you are a war profiteer.

    Typical hypocritical French bashing.

    You know (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:20:05 PM EST
      in addition to going through 5 republics and a couple of monarchies since our founding, the French have been involved in a number of wars and brutally enforced colonial rule on non-white societies. Not much success since Napoleon's early days but hardly a pacifist bunch.

    Parent
    Oh. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:12:02 PM EST
    Well. Hmmm. Someone else has been brutal.

    That definitely excuses incinerating innocent Iraqis.

    Deus ex rectum.

    Parent

    In fact.. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:42:45 PM EST
      just about EVERYONE has been brutal throughout recorded history and undoubtedly before. The ahistorical perspective here with so many completely oblivious to the realities of the human condition and the inane belief all evil started with Bush is ridiculous.

    Parent
    Well then (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:51:58 PM EST
    you and bush are excused. But only if you think you should be, and with the understanding that only you are excusing the two of you. Everyone else intends to hold you both accountable.

    Sign here:____

    Happy now?

    Parent

    Edger - What will you do? (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:42:07 AM EST
    What are you gonna do when Bush leaves office?

    Have you started working through the porcess of finding another politican to hate?

    I mean you can keep on hating, but don't you really need someone who is active on a day to day basis??

    As Brother Dave Gardner said:

    What will the preachers do if the devil is saved?


    Parent
    Jim? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:59:02 AM EST
    I'm curious. Why do you always wear that duck suit and great big neon bullseye on your back when you come here?

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:47:17 PM EST
    I'll take my chances.

    Now. What will you do?

    Parent

    Shoot ducks. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:04:09 PM EST
    breaking! true story! (none / 0) (#17)
    by skippybkroo on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:38:27 PM EST
    Nope, no need to worry... everybody (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:57:49 AM EST
    loves us...

    The six suspects arrested Monday night will face terror conspiracy charges. Three of the men are brothers, all believed to be Islamic radicals. Authorities have told Newschannel 4 that some of the men were born in Albania and the former Yugoslavia. Investigators said most of the suspects have spent several years here in the U.S.


    You mean (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:42:42 AM EST
    invading Iraq and killing a million people didn't stop them?

    Huh. Go figure.

    Parent

    So, ummm... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    Was it just the execution of the Iraq invasion and occupation that was incompetent?

    Or was the whole idea of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive invasions justified with lies incompetent?

    Obviously the Incompetency Defense is a little shaky and probably won't win an acquittal.

     Now what?

    Parent

    But maybe something was learned after all. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    This one is being handled with the criminal justice system, instead of creating another Debacle by invading some some unrelated country.

    Maybe Bush doesn't know about this case yet?

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:42:29 PM EST
    I also understand they are illegal aliens.

    That's like a double double.

    Parent

    Sounds like you've had a few too many doubles. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:10:11 PM EST
    Josh Marshall Reminds us (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:43:05 AM EST
    That crying wolf is not going to help poll ratings:

    You've probably seen the reports out this morning of six New Jersey men ("Islamic radicals")arrested for plotting to attack Fort Dix. We'll have to see how this one pans out. But it's worth remembering that we're coming up on the one year anniversary of the raid on the headquarters of the 'Seeds of David' terror cult in Liberty City Florida.

    It's always hard for me to see how these aren't as serious as they appear. But there is a record.

    TPM

    Parent

    But, but (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    9/11!!! 9/11!!! 9/11!!!

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:56:42 PM EST
    Greg Reinert, a Justice Department spokesman in Camden, described the six as "Islamic radicals . . . who were involved in a plot to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey."

    Now you can make excuses for 6...

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    And it's always easy to see a Leftie making excuses....

    Parent
    No Excuses (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by squeaky on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    For incompetency. I was simply pointing out that the odds are against the 'terrorists' being a credible threat given the US track record to date.

    Since you have discounted homegrown terrorism as not existing, the odds are even worse.

    Parent

    Link for above (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:59:39 AM EST
    Edger and Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:19:48 AM EST
    Edger, what Deconstructionist is saying to you is basically what I have been saying.

    Explain what you would do to stop the terrorists.

    Your failure to not explain and your continual attacks is hurting the Demos. And if you can't get elected, you can't do anything.

    I am an ex-Demo. People such as you ran me away in '68. I tried to come back, and did vote for Carter, but he managed to make me ashamed of that.

    I am an Independent. I am a Social Liberal. Maybe a better tag would be "Old Line Liberal."

    And I think we have some problems that need to be solved. Health care, drug law reform, minority rights, etc. And the Repubs aren't going to do that.

    But if the Demos are just "I hate Bushers" and "I don't believe we have a terrorist problem," I'll vote for the Repub. Who, I hope, will be Rudy because he is closer to me than anyone else on the social issues. (And yes, he isn't perfect. But few things are.)

    Your turn, edger.


    Still Waiting... (none / 0) (#36)
    by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    Edger, I'd still like to see you address this:


    So Edger - perhaps you could try and explain the Islamic violence in southern Thailand?  Thailand is not engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other part of the middle east.  There's been escalating terrorism in the south for years, and after a coup brought to power a new government that has tried to engage the terrorists, the violence has gotten worse.

    This is a fairly clear-cut case of Islamic radicals attempting to impose their will.  So why does that even exist?  How is the West, or colonialism, or any of the other bugbears you like to bring up involved?  

    So far I've seen some excellent bobbing and weaving, name calling (etc), but nothing that resembles an answer.  Why is there Islamic terrorism in Thailand?

    first, i would accept (none / 0) (#37)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:22:29 PM EST
     That we can't "stop it." It's just a word but the "war" moniker misleads. This is not an enemy we can conquer and control; we can't dictate a surrender and we can't negotiate a truce or a cease fire. At a certain level it will be with us until there is a PROFOUND change in human understanding that is not going to evolve from armed conflict and which i have no reason to believe is not many many generations in the future if at all attainable.

      Our goal has to be to limit the ability of our enmeies to harm us to the extent possible without adopting reactive measures that destroy our civil liberties in the process. The balance there is one about which reasonable people can and do disagree but I don't advocate the extremes of establishing a "security state" or of blithely didmissing the consequences of doing nothing to combat terrorism.

      Absolutely we need to use our power to restrict the movement of men, money and materiel used to support terrorism. (That includes the facilitation by the Saudis, Pakistanis and others with whom we have chosen to align and are playing both sides.) We do need to gather intelligence and infiltrate suspected terrorist organizations here and abroad. However, when it comes to domestic espionage we need strong oversight and REAL checks on the ability of the government to invade personal privacy.

       We also need to be willing and able to use force to capture and yes, kill when necessary to eliminate people who will harm us otherwise. Of course, that is not advocating just capturing killing people out of fear or animosity.

      One big problem is repairing the damage bush has done to the effort to control and reduce terrorism by undermining the support for appropriate response both domestically and internationally. He has created a level of distrust that does in fact-- even if it shouldn't in many  cases-- allow people to propagandize that nothing we do is on the level. that's one (of many reasons) the next President needs to be free of any taint of association with Bush.

      The threat is very real and if left unchecked, the Islamic world will reach a critical mass where we find ourselves in WWIII and that is an outcome no one should want. Better a prolonged low-intensity struggle that we can never "win" than an all out conflict that will have only losers.

       It borders on insanity not to accept the reality that there are HUGE numbers of people who are attracted to the theocratic ideology of militant Global Islam and that there are people ready and willing (but not currently able) to unify and  lead them on a quest to destroy us. They tell us so and they act consistently with what they say. We must, if you think we have anything worth preserving do what we can to prevent the consolidation of power within the Islamic world in the hands of those bent on our destruction. I simply see NO reason to think it could not happen if we allow those who want it act without our vigilant resistance.

       

    Decon (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:43:04 PM EST
    Edger has declined to join us, which certainly is no surprise.

    As for us...

    I think we had a lot of common ground after the USS Cole and before 9/11.

    I think we are past the point of taking what is, essentially, a proactive defensive position. (If that makes sense.)

    I believe that we must:

    1. Stablizie Iraq. If that takes 10 years, so be it.

    2. Convince Iran that if they continue to develop nukes they will not like the results. Right now, with the radical Left controlling the Democratic Party we are in no position to convince anybody anything.

    3. If you control Iran you will control Syria, Lebannon and Palestine.

    If anyone can tell me why we are giving Hamas $59,000,000 I would appreciate it.

    Parent
    That #2 is pretty cryptic (none / 0) (#39)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 02:06:21 PM EST
     There's a lot Iran won't like ranging from marginally tougher economic sanctions to nuclear annihalation. Care to be more specific?

      Also, do you agree with the part about the next President being free of any taint of association with Bush? In case you find that cryptic, i meant it needs to be a Democrat.

     

    Not to jump in (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 09, 2007 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    as I do just that...

    I agree that the next pres will almost assuredly be a Dem, but do you really think, in the big picture, having no "taint of Bush" (funny phrase if you think about it) will make a significant difference?

    I will readily admit that human nature loves having someone new to deal with when the one you're dealing with now pisses you off.

    But many in the world think (rightly or wrongly) that the US is a big bully - militarily, economically, culturally, etc. - and have done so for a good long time. I was first exposed to it in 1980, I assume it existed previously, and it certainly hasn't gone away since.

    imo, in the broad view, all those who have a grudge against the US will in the long run continue to do so no matter what party's in the WH.

    Parent

    Perhaps, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peaches on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    Sarc,

    Do you think Clinton's appeal in Europe and other countries around the world lead to those with grudges holding smaller grudges? or perhaps, not holding grudges at all.

    I'm not sure that the world was a more peaceful place under Clinton than Bush, or if having a President with Worldwide appeal is better for negotiating treaties and agreements, but certainly Bush is much more disliked around the world than Clinton was. Don't you agree?


    Parent

    Good question (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    and one I was trying to avoid because I had no good answer to it, but I will try.

    Sure, Clinton was often able to ease the "pain" of his using US power around the world to benefit the US much better than GW does, but that doesn't change the fact that he very much used the power of US around the world to benefit the US. (Not that I'm complaining)

    Point is, the US will use its power - it literally can't help not to - whether the current Pres is good at sugar-coating it or not.

    To make up an example, say there's someone in Canada who's livelihood depends on selling his wheat crop. If the US subsidizes its wheat farmers and/or charges a tariff to Canadian wheat farmers such that the market price is so low that this farmer can't make a living, he'll have a grudge against the US whether or not he personally thinks its current Pres is a mensch or not.

    So my answer to your question is that I think it really is a matter of degree - US being disliked vs. US being more disliked..

    In my question I was trying to get away from a discussion of degrees and wanted to know if, in the big picture, in the main, in general, will a Dem in the WH make a significant difference to much of the world?

    I'm not so sure it will, as you might have guessed.

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    Hmmm

    Refresh my memory.. what worthwhile treaty did Clinton do...

    N Korea? No

    Israel Palestine? No...

    Clinton was liked because he was a Democrat.

    The European Greens/Socialists/Left Over Communists have not forgiven Reagan for his plain speak about the Soviets.

    Plus, you have the results of 40 years of bias spewing out of the Universities, etc. in Europe with almost no local opposition.

    Parent

    jim (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peaches on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:56:07 PM EST
    He was in a discussion with N Korea and one with both sides in the Israeli/Palestine conflict. His results were not stellar, but I think most people would agree that both of these issues/situations have deteriorated under George W. Bush. Now, you may argue that this has nothing to do with Bush being disliked, but rather outside influences such as 9/11 or even that Clinton's negotiations actually made matters worse for Bush.

    There still is no disputing Clinton popularity over Bush. The question is if this popularity benefited the US. Like Sarc, I am not sure. I think Clinton still represented the power of the US that the rest of the world finds threatening and despises. However, I believe his goodwill with other nations can be to our (and the Worlds) advantage if used wisely.

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:49:57 PM EST
    I hate to say it, but I believe we will have another attack on US soil. That will get everyone focusd to the point that we will have a slim chance of convincing Iran to change its ways.

    If that doesn't work, we must go in. We simply can not have nukes in the hands of this mad man.

    Neither can Israel.

    BTW - I do not think it is a given that the Demos can win in 2008. Neither of their front runners can sustain a lead.

    Parent

    We are almost certain (none / 0) (#46)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    at some point to have another attack on our soil.

      Whether it is prior to Iran developing nuclear weapons or of a large enough to magnitude to sway public opinion is far from certain.

      On the other hand, if we have REALLY good evidence presented by somone with no taint of association with Bush that Iran is on the brink of developing weapons capability, I don't think public opinion would need any swaying to support an operation to destroy their processing and manufacturing facilities.

       

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    I really don't believe that the general public will hold the position you think they will when Bush has been out of office say, 10 minutes, and the MSM quits attacking him.

    At that point, if a Demo has been elected, they will be expecting everything to be peaceful and wonderful because that is what they are being told now. Bring the troops home and all will be great. Of course this is nonsense, but that's the package the Demos will have sold. How do I know this? Look at what is being demanded by BTD, plus the position of Edger, Squeaky, et al... the Demo base that they must have to win.

    The new Pres will be in a box. I call it the Carter Box. Half of the box is selfmade because of an incorrect view of the world. The other made by the terrorists who are smarter than the Demo leaders.

    So, when the terrorists announce they "have" nukes, the Demo Pres will be frozen in place, as Carter was. There is no explanation that he/she can make that will explain away their terrible mistake and no one is going to believe anything.

    And you have just elected Repub Prezs into the foreseeable futue.

    Now, if a Repub is elected, he might be able to call up Iran and say something like.

    "Knock it off or we will come. And don't think politics is going to help you becuase look... I was elected even though the Demos wanted to surrender.."

    That might work.

    If it doesn't, then there will have to be a CONUS attack.

    Parent

    do you really assume... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:09:40 AM EST
    "At that point, if a Demo has been elected, they will be expecting everything to be peaceful and wonderful because that is what they are being told now. Bring the troops home and all will be great"

      Do you really think "the general public" believes that or will believe it? I don't think even most of the people here believe it and this is hardly representative of the "general public." One of the problems with people who are politically active is that so often assume the "general public" is a bunch of fools and its just a matter of who can dupe them better. the losers whine that the winners tricked the voters and the winners all too often believe they won because of their cleverness.

       Actually, the average person is probably a lot more capable of recognizing the obscene magnitude of BS excreted by both sides-- they just don't get so emotional about it and unlike the activists they ARE emotinally and intellectually capable of employing some sense of balance. the real dupes are the extemists on both sides who dupe themselves.

      I think the "general public" has passed the point of no return as far as trust in Bush goes, but I don't think  any great numbers are disposed to believe the Democrats represeent anything but a change to what we can only hope will be a marginally better government.

       Employing BTD, Edger and Squeaky as representative of even a majority sentiment within the Democratic Party let alone the general public is either an absurdly lame rhetorical device intended to discredit Democrats generally or a sign you are really paranoid.

      I don't attempt to claim that 10 percenters to the Far Far Right represent the Republican Party and you shouldn't try to do it with the Democrats because it isn't true. Extremists are extemists politicians in both parties pay them a small amount of lip service  because even the relatively small number of extremist votes can tip the scales  if things are tight. That doesn't mean that anyone will actually govern in accordance with their "demands" or that anyone actually finds them persuasive other than each other.

     

    Parent

    Fishing, Jim? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    Edger has declined to join us, which certainly is no surprise.

    All your attempts at justifying the unjustifiable are predicated on the vain hope of people first stipulating (without noticing) that preemptive aggression, i.e. "war on terror", i.e. hegemonic imperialist expansion, is an unarguable premise.

    It isn't.

    IOW, they are the same type of non-reasoning that says the Iraq debacle, an occupation and rape/pillage of a country which you misleadingly call a war, is failing because of incompetence, or because of protest against it.

    Nobody is buying anymore. But you knew that. Except the peasants:

    The American peasant cannot protect his country as he believes he is doing because by his indifference, ignorance and credulity he cannot differentiate truth from falsehood.

    Better luck next time.

    Oh, and why do you do this to yourself, anyway?

    edger (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:35:14 PM EST
    Thanks for dropping by and proving my point. You have nothing to say except for insults:

    Because you don't want a debate, even assuming if you could.

    First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    And why is this?

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:24:21 AM EST
    The people you mention are "commentators."
    You surely don't think they are "news" broadcasters, do you?
    No wonder you act so confused.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]
    I don't think they are (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:36:19 AM EST
    anything remorely resembling "news" broadcasters.

    But the peasants seem to think so.

    BTW - Your use of King's defining all those who disagree with him as "peasants" is truly lovely.
    If the Repubs have a budding Rove for 2008, you are going to get to see a lot of things like that on the TV during prime time.



    Parent

    King's definition, ppj (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:27:08 PM EST
    The infallible test for identifying a peasant is whether he believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.
    Even you could have found his definition. Had you looked. But then you would have been lying had you looked. So you didn't look. Of course not. So you were putting words in his mouth, which is that same as... what, Jim?

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:20:39 PM EST
    No matter. Your snarky elitism shines through.

    Keep it up edger. There is probably a dozen Rove Jrs getting set to replay all the insults the Left Wing has thrown at the American public.

    I just hope you enjoy them the second time as much as you did the first time.

    They'll probably sound better in SurroundSound on a  HDTV equipped TV.....

    I can just see a male and female looking at a screen.... The female turns to the male and says...

    "Did I get that? This Left Wing blogger is calling us peasants......?

    And the guy says.... "Yeah. That's what he said."

    And the female says.... "And the Democrats are supported by such people? Well.... I'm glad we found out before the election..."

    and fade to black

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:38:34 PM EST
    I imagine they'll get that desperate. But they'll still have you to help them.

    Parent
    Edger - Glad you like it! (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:13:48 PM EST
    How about this one? Same guy and gal looking at a screen..

    Guy turns to gal and says, "I don't understand.. I thought the Democrats and their supporters the Left Wing Blogs were protecting our right to free speech..

    Gal said... "Yeah, they were ..."

    Guy says... "Well, listen to what thus guy says:

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Chickens - home - roost

    ;-)

    Gal... "Gosh. That doesn't sound like he wants free speech to me!"

    Guy... "Me neither... I wonder if the Democrats are telling the truth on some of their other claims..."

    fade to black

    Parent

    You have to have (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:44:43 PM EST
    a commander-in-chief with more credibility with the slow-on-the-uptake American people than Mr. 30%, to carry out a "W.O.T" that runs concurrent with tax-breaks for out-sourcers and down-sizers, gutting social programs, primarily clueless health care reform, and a sociopathic disregard for the future of the environment.

    Of course, it could be the lack of trust is the result of decades of left wing bias and an insidious, carefully orchestrated, propaganda campaign "spewing out of the universities" etc.

    All that complicated (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 05:04:08 PM EST
    simplification liberals do can be confusing to these guys, I guess, jondee. ;-)

    Parent
    Thailand (none / 0) (#49)
    by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:48:46 PM EST
    Edger,

    I'm still waiting for you to explain events in Thailand.

    Don't hold your breath. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:59:25 PM EST
    You brought it up. It has nothing to do with any threads here or with anything I've brought up.

    Take a shot at answering it yourself. It's you that wants to attack, and create mountains of bodies.

    The onus is on you to justify yourself when you are trying to sell an idea or anything else, jarobster. Not on people who aren't interested in buying.

    Here's a couple of hints. No matter what you're you're trying to sell, people buy benefits. Not features. And prospects don't walk in and say here's my money, now give me whatever you feel like giving me, even if  I don't want it.

    Good luck, James. So far you've got about the same as ppj has - maybe 26-28 percent of the country. 4 years ago you had 50 percent.

    You're on a roll.

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    You brought it up. It has nothing to do with any threads here or with anything I've brought up

    Do you understand the concept of an "open thread?"

    And it has everything to do with the terrorists, because it explains, in no uncertain manner, that the concept of jihad works at all levels within the radical Moslem community.

    There is nothing that we did besides exist as a society that "created al-Qaida." That's what Thailand shows. Terrorism as a political tool is embedded.

    To stop that terrorism we must identify the cause, and like the cancer it is, we must get rid of it.

    My own theory is that the centuries old conflict between the various factions has created a situation in which there is no mutual trust, and in which anythig is allowed to be done to people outside the group. And the outsiders include other Moslem groups, but infidels more so. Here again we see that proven in the reduced rights of the "others."

    But.... all you can do is rant over US politics, and emote over Bush.

    I repeat. Bush will soon be gone.

    Terrorism will still be here.

    Parent

    I'm still (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:34:05 PM EST
    waiting for jarobster to explain the concept, Jim. Since he brought it up.

    You do understand the concept of him bringing it up, right? I thought so. But I'm not always right.

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:10:51 PM EST
    What I understand is open threads and debates.

    Join the western civilization world, edger. The USSR is out of business.

    Parent

    Well, yes - it is. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:10:02 PM EST
    And we both know what always happens in the end to corrupt regimes run by revolting psychotics.

    Parent
    "This crowd" (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Wed May 09, 2007 at 05:06:11 PM EST
    Excuse me if I suspect some deep seated insecurity in those who feel compelled to crow about "our superiority" in this or that..Does that mean I disagree that the U.S excells at some things? No.

    Edger... (none / 0) (#53)
    by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    Th epoint of bringing up Thailand is simple: There's a jihad going on in the south there, but the left narrative says that's impossible: the West isn't involved, the US doesn't have troops there, the new government is trying to engage the jihadists.

    So it does, in fact, relate closely to what's going on here.  You assert that a withdrawal from Iraq won't hurt anything, and your defense when backed into a corner is to cite polls (there's leadership).  I'm pointing to Thailand as a counter-example of your worldview.  Go ahead; try to explain Thailand's jihad problem.  

    You're making the claim. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:13:27 PM EST
    Back it up.

    Did you not read my last post, or just not comprehend it?

    Parent

    jarober - You're right but... (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:55:02 PM EST
    It's useless.

    He knows nothing beyond what he reads about the ME, and will insult you everytime you mention the rest of the world.

    Parent

    Try this (none / 0) (#61)
    by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:36:41 PM EST
    Try Googling "Thailand jihad deaths"

    Then, please try and explain why there's a jihad going on there, given your "it's all Bush's fault" theory.

    Go ahead. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:44:30 PM EST
    It's your theory (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:49:27 PM EST
    that what you claim is my theory is my theory. And since that is the case the onus is on you to support your theory. The practical, much less the theory, behind this, is not really that complicated, James. I'm not sure why you are having such difficulties with it. Perhaps I expect too much of you?

    Parent
    Still No Answer (none / 0) (#64)
    by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:28:25 PM EST
    I'd still like to see you explain Thailand's problems with Islamic radicals.

    I guess I was right after all. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:46:49 PM EST