PDA

View Full Version : 9-11: There are some sick puppies out there


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
09-14-2007, 02:07 AM
I was watching Steven Colbert and came across this:

To save America, we need another 9/11 (http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809_Stu_Bykofsky___To_save_America__we_need_another_9_11.html)

ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America.
What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

Bykofsky also helpfully added some useful targets for al Qaeda to consider:

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.

Colbert rightfully suggested that Bykofsky was being too modest: that his patriotism meant that he was important enough to include his own house, on the list.

It IS interesting, tho: that suddenly we are hearing about supposed al Qaeda plots against the US. Reality, or more variants of color-coded alerts, designed to distract us from the Petraeus dog-n-pony show? Time will tell...

My total response is in the title of the thread. whoah. Amazing that this guy even gets airtime.

You can watch an interview with this guy, here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKaza_kaBtg)

Michael Varin
09-14-2007, 03:25 AM
Definitely sick, but this is how elitists think. The masses need to be motivated to accomplish great things. They know what's best for us, even if they have to trick us, and even if some of us have to die.

From the article:
Turn back to 9/11.

Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.

We knew who the enemy was then.

We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.

People love to compare 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. The part most of them leave out is that our gov't let both attacks happen, so we would be supportive of the over-seas aggressions. This is 100% fact about Pearl Harbor, and certainly appears to be the case with 9/11.

What the hell ever happened to the original American approach to foreign policy?

http://www.liberty1.org/farewell.htm

Taliesin
09-14-2007, 03:52 AM
Isn't the official US view now that you need to invade Iran's oil firelds to establish security in Iraq. Wasn't that the evidence Gen Petraeus gave. ( I wonder who he has a job lined up with)

Mark Freeman
09-14-2007, 06:20 AM
What the hell ever happened to the original American approach to foreign policy?

http://www.liberty1.org/farewell.htm

Hi Michael,

On reading GW's excellent essay, I was stuck by the thought that your current president would probably have trouble reading the article out loud, let alone thinking up something as erudite and intelligent. e.g. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

I'm sure there are some out there that will object to the term 'liberal intercourse', simply because it contains the word 'liberal' which to some sectors of society has become almost demonic, that and the fact that 'liberal intercourse' sounds slightly perverse.;)

regards,

Mark

Hogan
09-14-2007, 07:57 AM
...
My total response is in the title of the thread. whoah. Amazing that this guy even gets airtime....

Don't you love free speech??

Hogan
09-14-2007, 08:02 AM
Isn't the official US view now that you need to invade Iran's oil firelds to establish security in Iraq. Wasn't that the evidence Gen Petraeus gave. ( I wonder who he has a job lined up with)

Iran is later on the invasion list - 1st is Cuba to take over the 1950's chevy market (we have to protect the rich & their classic cars, you know), THEN it's Iran, but only after the Skull & Bones give their approval (they are still working on Cuba)...

dps
09-14-2007, 08:47 AM
It IS interesting, tho: that suddenly we are hearing about supposed al Qaeda plots against the US. Reality, or more variants of color-coded alerts, designed to distract us from the Petraeus dog-n-pony show? Time will tell...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ_Fc6jmIUI

David

Neil Mick
09-14-2007, 05:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ_Fc6jmIUI

David

Oh, goody: yet ANOTHER complex issue presented in a simple, glitzy comic-book cum CGI-format (and we CAN'T forget the dramatic MUSIC! What's a videogame-style war without a good marching musical accompaniment!)

THIS program will assuredly prevent us from making the same mistakes we made in 2003, for sure! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Neil Mick
09-14-2007, 06:00 PM
Don't you love free speech??

free speech does not = mass media saturation. I'd say this guy had far MORE than his allotted 15 minutes...

Neil Mick
09-16-2007, 10:10 PM
But what I'd like to know from our Conservative brethren out there is: what's YOUR take on Bykofsky's views? Is he cuckoo for cocoa puffs; or do his words resonate?

Hogan
09-17-2007, 08:45 AM
free speech does not = mass media saturation....

Sure it does.

Hogan
09-17-2007, 08:54 AM
But what I'd like to know from our Conservative brethren out there is: what's YOUR take on Bykofsky's views? Is he cuckoo for cocoa puffs; or do his words resonate?

I think you are missing his subtle point in his article. He states that the attention spans of americans are short & that we only like short wars & that we are only united in the very short aftermath of something happening.

He sounds kind of sick & tired of how us americans are nowadays - disunited, short attention spans, etc...

He writes:"What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing? A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is."

"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years.

That's not the American way.[/B]

In Iraq, we don't believe our military is being beaten on the battleground. It's more that there is no formal "battleground." There is the drip of daily casualties and victory is not around the corner. Americans are impatient. We like fast food and fast war."

"America likes wars shorter than the World Series."

Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.

We knew who the enemy was then.

We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.

"Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working, if we are "safer" now, whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls, whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams," whether those plotting alleged attacks on Fort Dix or Kennedy airport are serious threats or amateur bumblers. We bicker over the trees while the forest is ablaze.

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater."

"What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that."

He sounds disappointed in how quickly we become disunited compared to past wars such as WWII, how quickly we want things done & how we have no patience. He is not seriously hoping for another attack & anyone who believes so is someone not to be taken seriously.

David Orange
09-17-2007, 11:54 AM
I think you are missing his subtle point in his article. He states that the attention spans of americans are short & that we only like short wars & that we are only united in the very short aftermath of something happening.

That does seem to be his point, but it's not entirely accurate. First, we were not "united" before 9/11. The country was still seething about the election of 2000 and GW had no credibility, taking a month-long vacation from doing nothing.

Second, we had already been heavily divided for years since the Republican hit-job on Clinton and the attempted impeachment.

Third, although we were strongly united after 9/11, Bush quickly destroyed that by pointing to Iraq as the enemy. I will admit that he was able to fool over half of Americans into believing that Saddam had something to do with it. It's a shame that about a third of Americans still think Saddam was involved long after any primate should have recognized that he had nothing to do with it at all.

But the steady loss of support for the war has nothing to do with short attention spans or lack of patience with the war itself: Americans have witnessed the proof that there were never any weapons of mass destruction, they have witnessed the years of shifting "reasons" Bush has given for the war all proven BS, they have witnessed the soldiers being denied suitable armor and strategy. Most Americans came to the realization a couple of years ago that Bush is a bumbling nincompoop who has mismanaged the war for every goal except the enrichment of Cheney's pals at Haliburton, and they are sick and tired of the waste of life now and the indebtedness Bush is piling onto our children and grandchildren for something that has only weakened our country.

There is no value in being united for the wrong reason.

And at this point, I'm doubtful that even another 9/11 would "unite" us because few would put it past Bush at this point to have engineered the whole thing to boost his own approval rating.

He sounds disappointed in how quickly we become disunited compared to past wars such as WWII, how quickly we want things done & how we have no patience.

With this much time, WWII was over and we had beaten Germany, Italy and Japan in battles that literally spanned the globe. Under Bush, we have been tied down for four years in one country, fighting people who wear rags and sandals and make their most effective weapons from unexploded artillery shells.THAT is what people are tired of and there's not much disunity about it. MOST Americans--the VAST majority--want us OUT of Iraq.

And it is true that we have lost patience at having an idiot hold our best people hostage for the sake of his own ego and his concern that history view him as a brilliant man. The only way he will be considered anything but a total moron is if "history" mistakenly assesses "Curious George" instead of "Idiot George." The monkey's record is brilliant in comparison.

He is not seriously hoping for another attack & anyone who believes so is someone not to be taken seriously.

I will agree with you on that.

Best to you.

David

Hogan
09-17-2007, 12:19 PM
That does seem to be his point, but it's not entirely accurate. First, we were not "united" before 9/11. The country was still seething about the election of 2000 and GW had no credibility, taking a month-long vacation from doing nothing.
He didn't say we were united before 9/11, he said 9/11 united us....

David Orange
09-17-2007, 12:38 PM
He didn't say we were united before 9/11, he said 9/11 united us....

But he did say our "short attention spans" and "lack of patience" are what broke that unity and that is not true. It was watching GW Bush waste everything but his own profits (and Cheney's) that destroyed that unity and wasted Americans' patience with his claims to be serving the greater American good.

Mike Sigman
09-17-2007, 01:47 PM
He didn't say we were united before 9/11, he said 9/11 united us....If I recall correctly, the "unite" was for about 5 days before some liberals began publicly proclaiming (with no repudiation from other liberals, IIRC) that:

1. The attacks were caused by US policy overseas
2. We should not retaliate but should "open a dialogue" with the Islamists.
or
3. George Bush was part of a conspiracy that deliberately exploded the WTC towers in order gain power, yada, yada, yada.

So a 5-day "united" wasn't much. We were only a week into the Afghanistan military campaign before the NYTimes was proclaiming it a "quagmire like Vietnam".

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman
09-17-2007, 01:51 PM
It was watching GW Bush waste everything but his own profits (and Cheney's) that destroyed that unity See my previous quote. The "unity" after the WTC bombing only lasted 5 days. And every day thereafter, liberals were more and more open about their basic position against America. The same media, for instance, that showed every photo of the Abu Ghraid mini-scandal, day after day (47 days in a row for the NYTimes), refused to show pictures of dying or mutilated Americans in the WTC attack because it "might arouse bad feelings against innocent Muslims". Please. Notice that the discussion right here is not about the sick Muslims but more about spewed Bush Derangement Syndrome.

FWIW

Mike

Neil Mick
09-17-2007, 02:07 PM
Sure it does.

No, sorry, it doesn't. In effect, mass media saturation equates to the opposite of free speech, since it pushes out other views, in its rush to give the loudest voice to those with the most lucre.

Neil Mick
09-17-2007, 02:19 PM
I think you are missing his subtle point in his article. He states that the attention spans of americans are short & that we only like short wars & that we are only united in the very short aftermath of something happening.

He sounds disappointed in how quickly we become disunited compared to past wars such as WWII, how quickly we want things done & how we have no patience. He is not seriously hoping for another attack & anyone who believes so is someone not to be taken seriously.

Thank you for your take on this.

And every day thereafter, liberals were more and more open about their basic position against America.

This is why it's so hard to take your posts seriously. This one hits the reality-wall on several levels:

1. Liberals are anti-American. This saw got tired in 2003.

2. The implication is that Liberals are some sort of "united front." You make this implication often in your previous posts, here (not unsurprising, coming from a man who doesn't seem to realize that the Nazi's WEREN'T actually "Socialists," but...).

The same media, for instance, that showed every photo of the Abu Ghraid mini-scandal, day after day (47 days in a row for the NYTimes),

The "same media" also showed the twin towers falling, over and over. The same media also gave the drumbeat for war at the time, and the same media overwhelmingly allowed Conservative pundits and generals to appear nonstop to tout the war, with almost NO "equal time" for the anti-war pundits.

refused to show pictures of dying or mutilated Americans in the WTC attack because it "might arouse bad feelings against innocent Muslims

Of course, you seem to convieniently forget the 80,000 Muslims deported and detained in the post-9/11 climate, with almost no reporting on their plight, then or now. In fact, there are a LOT of anti-Muslim aspects to the MSM absent from your rant, above.

Big surprise.

Please. Notice that the discussion right here is not about the sick Muslims but more about spewed Bush Derangement Syndrome.

FWIW

Mike

("FWIW," which isn't very much), considering that you've got all the the Islamophobia you care to stomach, in this thread, here. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13237)

Mike Sigman
09-17-2007, 02:37 PM
1. Liberals are anti-American. This saw got tired in 2003. Just to grab one handy example out of many that are in the public record: Osama Bin Laden came out in favor of Democrats in the Kerry/Bush election, after the 2006 election (via proxy), and just a few days ago. In each speech, he used the US liberals' talking points as a basis for his talks. The mainstream media went quiet about that support from Osama each time. Take a look back during the last week and notice the thundering silence. Osama wants to destroy the U.S.... if liberals aren't basically anti-American, why do you think he appeals to them each time? Why does Chavez appeal to liberals for support? Why did/does Castro appeal to liberals for support. Why do Islamic terrorists work so hard to feed information through the liberal press? This is rather like the London Times' comments about the BBC bias.... this stuff is too well-known to waste time arguing; the truth speaks for itself. 2. The implication is that Liberals are some sort of "united front." You make this implication often in your previous posts, here (not unsurprising, coming from a man who doesn't seem to realize that the Nazi's WEREN'T actually "Socialists," but...). Take a look at the very decisive unpatriotic comments by MoveOn.org about "General Betray Us", the leader of the American military in time of war when troops lives are endangered. How many of your "ununited" liberal presidential candidates publicly deplored and distanced themselves from this kind of unpatriotic silliness? Not a united front? Close enough, if other liberals don't repudiate it.

Notice, BTW, in another under-reported happening, Dennis Kucinich went to Syria and made anti-US statements. Why the quiet coverage and no harsh condemnation from liberals? Liberals tend to like to hear anti-US statements. Like your own.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

The "same media" also showed the twin towers falling, over and over. The same media also gave the drumbeat for war at the time, and the same media overwhelmingly allowed Conservative pundits and generals to appear nonstop to tout the war, with almost NO "equal time" for the anti-war pundits.

Of course, you seem to convieniently forget the 80,000 Muslims deported and detained in the post-9/11 climate, with almost no reporting on their plight, then or now. In fact, there are a LOT of anti-Muslim aspects to the MSM absent from your rant, above.

Big surprise.

("FWIW," which isn't very much), considering that you've got all the the Islamophobia you care to stomach, in this thread, here. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13237)[/QUOTE]

Neil Mick
09-17-2007, 02:56 PM
Here come the strawmen!

1. Strawman #1: That anything OBL states has anything to do with the attitudes of Liberals in America.

Just to grab one handy example out of many that are in the public record: Osama Bin Laden came out in favor of Democrats in the Kerry/Bush election, after the 2006 election (via proxy), and just a few days ago. In each speech, he used the US liberals' talking points as a basis for his talks. The mainstream media went quiet about that support from Osama each time.

I seriously doubt that they were "quiet," but I seriously doubt just about anything you claim about the MSM.

Take a look back during the last week and notice the thundering silence. Osama wants to destroy the U.S.... if liberals aren't basically anti-American, why do you think he appeals to them each time?

Is this some sort of trick question? Hello?

When Castro was sick, who did we appeal to? Who did Condi appeal to, when she went on TV? Anti-Castro elements in Cuba.
Does this mean that anti-Castro Cubans are anti-Cuban?

I wouldn't walk around Miami with that sign around my neck, if I were you... :crazy:

And, who did GB1 appeal to, to rise up against Hussein in '91? That's right...the Shia. So, I suppose by your logic, the Shia are anti-Iraq.

Another (strawman) bites the dust! :dead:

Why does Chavez appeal to liberals for support? Why did/does Castro appeal to liberals for support.

Strawman #2: The prosiac idea that if you use the same terminology as a political faction, then that faction MUST be on your side.

But, here's where your comparison falls down. Castro and Chavez are simply not comparable to OBL. Did Castro/Chavez plot the 9-11 caper? (No...but I wouldn't put it past you to claim that they did).

Why do Islamic terrorists work so hard to feed information through the liberal press?

Strawman #3: If a media outlet prints a story, then they must somehow be in league with their sources.

This is rather like the London Times' comments about the BBC bias....

Strawman #4: Unproven (or proven to be false) claims by Mike are as good as the truth, and can be quoted as if they are fact. This creates a circular "echo chamber," similar in effect to Judith Miller's reports, and how Cheney used Miller's article to verify his own claim, on the Sunday talk-shows.

this stuff is too well-known to waste time arguing; the truth speaks for itself.

Strawman #4a: Dismiss divergent views as petty, or time-wasting.

Take a look at the very decisive unpatriotic comments by MoveOn.org about "General Betray Us", the leader of the American military in time of war when troops lives are endangered.

Strawman #5: Critiques of the Iraq war and the Administration's talking points are tantamount to anti-Americanism.

How many of your "ununited" liberal presidential candidates publicly deplored and distanced themselves from this kind of unpatriotic silliness? Not a united front? Close enough, if other liberals don't repudiate it.

Strawman #6: Liberals present a united front.

In reality, of course: Liberals are all over the map.

Notice, BTW, in another under-reported happening, Dennis Kucinich went to Syria and made

(unlinked, unquoted)

anti-US statements.

(leading to...)

Strawman #7: Spin statements from a Liberal candidate without actually quoting him.

Why the quiet coverage and no harsh condemnation from liberals? Liberals tend to like to hear anti-US statements. Like your own.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Strawman #8: Insert usual ad hominem, here.

Hogan
09-17-2007, 03:03 PM
But he did say our "short attention spans" and "lack of patience" are what broke that unity and that is not true. It was watching GW Bush waste everything but his own profits (and Cheney's) that destroyed that unity and wasted Americans' patience with his claims to be serving the greater American good.

Ummm, okay...

Hogan
09-17-2007, 03:05 PM
No, sorry, it doesn't. In effect, mass media saturation equates to the opposite of free speech, since it pushes out other views, in its rush to give the loudest voice to those with the most lucre.

So, you favor equal time? Isn't that a restriction on free speech?

Neil Mick
09-17-2007, 03:07 PM
So, you favor equal time? Isn't that a restriction on free speech?

Yes, if I understand what you mean, I favor equal time. But, why do you think it a restriction on free speech?

David Orange
09-17-2007, 03:42 PM
If I recall correctly, the "unite" was for about 5 days...

Yeah, well at least the "liberals" weren't smirking while they were talking about the dead.

2. We should not retaliate but should "open a dialogue" with the Islamists.

It wouldn't have been stupider than attacking a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks. We should have attacked Belgium if that was how we were going to do it. We could have beaten Belgium very easily and ignored all this tragic failure--and we would be just as close to achieving our goals!

3. George Bush was part of a conspiracy that deliberately exploded the WTC towers in order gain power...

Yeah, wellll....he was the one smirking and smiling as he talked about the dead. He's gained more from it than anyone but Haliburton and Osama Bin Laden.

Only thing is, he's about to go down in ignominy, while Haliburton will at least keep their ill-gotten profits and Al Quaeda will be more popular than ever in the muslim world....

So a 5-day "united" wasn't much. We were only a week into the Afghanistan military campaign before the NYTimes was proclaiming it a "quagmire like Vietnam".

But a "quagmire like Viet Nam" is good now, don't you see.

Too bad Bush didn't have the "patience" and "attention span" to concentrate there, where real enemy was....I mean, where Osama Bin Laden IS but moved most of the troops to a quagmire that didn't even have any relevance....

What a disaster George Bush has been for this nation!

David

Hogan
09-17-2007, 04:13 PM
Yes, if I understand what you mean, I favor equal time. But, why do you think it a restriction on free speech?

Because you would be denying my ability to, for lack of a better term, dominate. There are some people here, for example, that would say you talk too much, you dominate, you yell & try to shout out other views. If Jun said, "Okay Neil, only two posts a day to give others a chance", wouldn't you say, 'hey wait a minute'? If I believe in free speech, I would have to accept your behavior.

David Orange
09-17-2007, 04:42 PM
See my previous quote. The "unity" after the WTC bombing only lasted 5 days. And every day thereafter, liberals were more and more open about their basic position against America.

That's a pretty meaningless statement. You mean "some people, whom you choose to call 'liberals'" were saying things against America? Mostly, I remember everyone being really pissed and believing OBL was behind it. Not that there wasn't some suspicion against Bush since his family and the bin Ladens go waaaayyyyy back in the moneymaking game and Bush's daddy gave OBL his training in moving men, arms and money invisibly around the globe. And Bush let OBL's family get out on the first jet after the grounding was lifted.....

Stil, the predominant sentiment was anger against muslims in general and OBL in particular.

I do remember talking to one black guy in a coffee shop who saw the headline on my newspaper and commented something about how the white people knew how it felt, now. I told him, "Hey, man, plenty of black people were in those towers." He nodded and said, "Yeah, they were." Only the most extreme (1/2 of 1% of people I encountered) were like you describe. Maybe it's where you live.....where your head is....Uranus, huh?

The same media, for instance, that showed every photo of the Abu Ghraid mini-scandal, day after day (47 days in a row for the NYTimes), refused to show pictures of dying or mutilated Americans in the WTC attack because it "might arouse bad feelings against innocent Muslims".

First, "every" photo of the Abu Graihb incidents has not yet been released. They only showed the tamer stuff. There's much worse than that. Like they didn't show the pictures of the guard homosexually raping the adolescent boy or some other stuff like that. But let's go with your bent and say they showed "bunches" of Abu Graihb photos day after day. Your point, being that they didn't show the dying and mutilated Americans from the WTC...."because 'it might arouse bad feelings against innocent muslims'."

But was that really why they didn't show those pictures? I mean, when do they ever run pictures of dying, mutilated people? The Abu Graihb pictures were not that extreme. Did they "say" they weren't showing those bloody pictures to avoid inflaming people against muslims? Maybe they had some respect for the dead, wounded, dying and their families, not to show pictures of them like that. Maybe they had some decency restrictions. I don't recall reading that they weren't showing them to avoid making people mad at the muslims.

Please. Notice that the discussion right here is not about the sick Muslims but more about spewed Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is one of the most pressing problems the world faces today. It has ruined the image and the actual integrity of our country. At least now no one should ever ask again "how" the Germans allowed Hitler to take over their country. Bush shows how insidious the takeover of a sociopath can be.

David

Mike Sigman
09-17-2007, 05:27 PM
Yeah, well at least the "liberals" weren't smirking while they were talking about the dead. [[snip]][[snip]]
Yeah, wellll....he was the one smirking and smiling as he talked about the dead. He's gained more from it than anyone but Haliburton and Osama Bin Laden.

[[snip]]
What a disaster George Bush has been for this nation!

DavidSteady, Grommit..... steady!!!!

Ruff!!! Woooooooooohooooooooooooo!

David Orange
09-17-2007, 07:43 PM
Just to grab one handy example out of many that are in the public record: Osama Bin Laden came out in favor of Democrats in the Kerry/Bush election, after the 2006 election (via proxy), and just a few days ago.

Did he? Or did Karl Rove say he did? Or did Karl pay him to say it?

In each speech, he used the US liberals' talking points as a basis for his talks.

Since when is "embrace Islam" a US liberals' talking point?

Osama wants to destroy the U.S.... if liberals aren't basically anti-American, why do you think he appeals to them each time?

It's not that they're anti-US. They're anti-KKK, anti-John Birch, anti-George Bush.

Take a look at the very decisive unpatriotic comments by MoveOn.org about "General Betray Us", the leader of the American military in time of war when troops lives are endangered. How many of your "ununited" liberal presidential candidates publicly deplored and distanced themselves from this kind of unpatriotic silliness? Not a united front? Close enough, if other liberals don't repudiate it.

Er.....because Petraeus lets Bush use him like a hand puppet...how is it unpatriotic to point that out? Petraeus handed us bs wrapped in baloney and expects us to eat it. Petraeus served George Bush and Haliburton very well, but he did betray the US.

Notice, BTW, in another under-reported happening, Dennis Kucinich went to Syria and made anti-US statements. Why the quiet coverage and no harsh condemnation from liberals?

I read about that. So what do you mean under-reported? You want to talk about biased reporting, why did all the major news outlets proclaim "Bush Announces Troop Withdrawals" when the truth is, he announced he isn't taking a single man or single mother out of harm's way until the end of this year, when he's considering withdrawing 5,000, and that he "might,"--"IF" conditons on the ground "permit"--he might take out a few more nearly a year from now? That's not "announcing troop withdrawals": it's telling the American people, "Screw you, I won't take anybody anywhere until I'm damned good and ready and you will still have over 100,000 American sons and daughters and mothers and fathers serving George Bush's hairy behind when George Bush leaves the sputum-soiled White House."

And the "liberal" media headlines it, "Bush Announces Troop Withdrawals".

David

David Orange
09-17-2007, 07:48 PM
In each speech, {OBL] used the US liberals' talking points as a basis for his talks.

Many liberals may not realize it, but I'm sure you do and simply don't want to admit it: there's nothing the Islamists hate more than "LIBERALISM". They hate progressiveness. They want to live in the ancient, cruel, eye-for-an-eye past, like you.

David

David Orange
09-17-2007, 07:55 PM
Steady, Grommit..... steady!!!!

Ruff!!! Woooooooooohooooooooooooo!

Heh! Yeah...the, uh...heh! The, uh...enemies of...freedom....heh! The enemies of freedom will...heh-heh! The enemies of freedom will feel the righteous wrath (he-he-he!) of the Amurrikin peeple...heh!
--Smirky the Chimp

Mike Sigman
09-17-2007, 08:06 PM
Er.....because Petraeus lets Bush use him like a hand puppet...how is it unpatriotic to point that out? Well, there you have it, straight from one of Santa Cruz's typical representatives. ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
09-17-2007, 08:09 PM
Many liberals may not realize it, but I'm sure you do and simply don't want to admit it: there's nothing the Islamists hate more than "LIBERALISM". They hate progressiveness. They want to live in the ancient, cruel, eye-for-an-eye past, like you.Look it up, David.... starting with Joe Stalin, they call them "useful idiots". There are interviews, etc., showing how one of the main aims is to get the liberal community on their side and by gum they do.

Of course, liberals deny they are "useful idiots", even when Osama Bin Laden comes on TV and announces the entire liberal spectrum of talking-points as his own, including "global warming". Anybody with sense might go, "Duhhhhhh.... am I being used?". Notice I specified "with sense".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
09-17-2007, 08:35 PM
Look it up, David.... starting with Joe Stalin, they call them "useful idiots". There are interviews, etc., showing how one of the main aims is to get the liberal community on their side and by gum they do.

Strange, isn't it, how this time around it was Bush using the religious right in just that way. He must have watched Jimmy Swaggart and said (smirked) to himself, "Heh! Why, I could be running the world if I got those big-money hate-mongers and little-money scared old grannies to believe in me!"

And lo and behold: now the right-wingers are the useful idiots.

The more things change, huh?

Of course, liberals deny they are "useful idiots", even when Osama Bin Laden comes on TV and announces the entire liberal spectrum of talking-points as his own, including "global warming".

I did hear a little about global warming, but not much else I'd consider "liberal". "Embrace Islam" was the thrust of it all, so....

Anybody with sense might go, "Duhhhhhh.... am I being used?". Notice I specified "with sense".

Yeah, well, anyone with "sense" would have known that a vote for George Bush was a vote for ruin and devastation, but a lot of people voted for him TWICE. What does that tell you?

And worse, a lot of the "liberals" that opposed him the first time around VOTED for him the second time, so that he actually won the second election! And what did they get? Debt for themselves, their children and their grandchildren, an obscenely huge handout for Haliburton/Cheney, death for their sons and daughters in the military and a war that Bush intends never to end.

Talk about useful idiots....

No offense, of course, since you voted for him twice....

David

David Orange
09-17-2007, 08:56 PM
Of course, liberals deny they are "useful idiots", even when Osama Bin Laden comes on TV and announces the entire liberal spectrum of talking-points as his own, including "global warming". Anybody with sense might go, "Duhhhhhh.... am I being used?".

The more I think about it, though, you prove me right. Osama is playing to the liberals, but it's really the Bush family that he has always been close to. Bush's daddy trained him, Bush let his family escape the US right after 9/11, Bush has let him go into hiding--far from "smoking him out and bringing him to justice," as Bush said he would do. And the Bush and bin Laden families have those long, old ties through the commonality of big, deep wealth.

Foolish, indeed, the liberal who believed that Osama was out for his good.

But the bigger fool is the "conservative" who thinks George Bush is doing anything for America.

David

Mike Sigman
09-17-2007, 09:04 PM
Strange, isn't it, how this time around it was Bush using the religious right in just that way. He must have watched Jimmy Swaggart and said (smirked) to himself, "Heh! Why, I could be running the world if I got those big-money hate-mongers and little-money scared old grannies to believe in me!"

And lo and behold: now the right-wingers are the useful idiots. Lessee if I've got this right, David.... to you being on the same side as George W. Bush and being a "right-winger" is the equivalent of being an Islamic terrorist and on the side of Osama Bin Laden. That's essentially what you've just said. Have we got it right? Yeah, well, anyone with "sense" would have known that a vote for George Bush was a vote for ruin and devastation, but a lot of people voted for him TWICE. What does that tell you? I didn't realize they voted for Bush twice. It's been shown that a lot of people undoubtedly voted for Kerry twice and very much *all* the convictions for voter fraud have been against Democrats, ACORN, etc.And worse, a lot of the "liberals" that opposed him the first time around VOTED for him the second time, so that he actually won the second election! And what did they get? Debt for themselves, their children and their grandchildren, an obscenely huge handout for Haliburton/Cheney, death for their sons and daughters in the military and a war that Bush intends never to end.

Talk about useful idiots....

No offense, of course, since you voted for him twice....
Actually, I didn't vote for either Kerry or Bush. However, being a VN vet, I spotted right away that Kerry was a phony and I thought Bush was a joke.

However, all that aside, I need to point out that you'd probably enjoy working with alcoholics, David.... your arguments remind me very much of that constant tap-dance they do, always sort of log-rolling on reality.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
09-18-2007, 04:27 AM
Because you would be denying my ability to, for lack of a better term, dominate.

I'm sorry..but free speech has nothing to do with enhancing one's ability to "dominate."

But, just when I thought you were actually discussing this like an adult, that's when the reality of ad hominem's set in...

There are some people here, for example, that would say you talk too much, you dominate, you yell & try to shout out other views.

Not really sure where you feel the opening to discuss my style in the midst of (what I thought was) a reasonable, adult discussion about free speech.

Sorry that you feel differently.

If Jun said, "Okay Neil, only two posts a day to give others a chance", wouldn't you say, 'hey wait a minute'? If I believe in free speech, I would have to accept your behavior.

But, since we weren't really talking about my behavior, but instead free speech...shall we say that your comment is...misplaced?

Out of line?

No, I guess you aren't interested in an adult discussion, at all. A pity. :(

(Psst! An open, moderated forum does not = free speech! Hello?)

But, were I sitting across someone I thought was listening...I'd say that I think of free speech as a "Commons."

Consider the Commons: an open-area, owned by no one and everyone. In earlier times, it was open fields, used for group shepherding or growing crops, which was shared by the community.

In England the "Enclosure Movement" meant the end of the Commons, as huge areas were fenced off and cut up. No longer could anyone just come in and use the open space.

IMO, free speech is like a Commons. When you consider that this principle applies to all levels of human communication technology (ie, radio, the internet, print media), that's quite a swath. Equating money with the ability to "buy" free speech is a perversion of the Commons.

The airwaves (TV, radio) are ours, We the People. Corporations would like you to think otherwise: but in actuality, they lease their airspace from us.

When Big Media controls the airwaves with one monolithic voice: everyone suffers. Free speech is like a big Commons area that can be personally (ie, yelling fire in a theatre) abused, or economically (ie, corporations gobbling up newspapers and gutting their news bureaus) abused.

The costs of this systemic gutting of free speech are easy to document.

Hogan
09-18-2007, 08:17 AM
I'm sorry..but free speech has nothing to do with enhancing one's ability to "dominate."

But, just when I thought you were actually discussing this like an adult, that's when the reality of ad hominem's set in...

Not really sure where you feel the opening to discuss my style in the midst of (what I thought was) a reasonable, adult discussion about free speech.

Sorry that you feel differently.

But, since we weren't really talking about my behavior, but instead free speech...shall we say that your comment is...misplaced?

Out of line?

No, I guess you aren't interested in an adult discussion, at all. A pity. :(

(Psst! An open, moderated forum does not = free speech! Hello?)

But, were I sitting across someone I thought was listening...I'd say that I think of free speech as a "Commons."

Consider the Commons: an open-area, owned by no one and everyone. In earlier times, it was open fields, used for group shepherding or growing crops, which was shared by the community.

In England the "Enclosure Movement" meant the end of the Commons, as huge areas were fenced off and cut up. No longer could anyone just come in and use the open space.

IMO, free speech is like a Commons. When you consider that this principle applies to all levels of human communication technology (ie, radio, the internet, print media), that's quite a swath. Equating money with the ability to "buy" free speech is a perversion of the Commons.

The airwaves (TV, radio) are ours, We the People. Corporations would like you to think otherwise: but in actuality, they lease their airspace from us.

When Big Media controls the airwaves with one monolithic voice: everyone suffers. Free speech is like a big Commons area that can be personally (ie, yelling fire in a theatre) abused, or economically (ie, corporations gobbling up newspapers and gutting their news bureaus) abused.

The costs of this systemic gutting of free speech are easy to document.

"Free speech" = anything you want to say. Sorry you don't feel that way. Not surprising, but sorry, nontheless.

Mark Freeman
09-18-2007, 09:54 AM
However, being a VN vet, I spotted right away that Kerry was a phony and I thought Bush was a joke.

A bit anti American of you Mike? Whenever anyone has voiced this opinion in the past you have given them short shrift, is it ok because you balanced it out by including the other guy as well, so as not to be seen having any 'bias' ( or is that only for the other thread ?;)

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 10:32 AM
A bit anti American of you Mike? Not really. Notice the qualifier "I thought", as opposed to the assertions you, as an outsider, make. Notice that my comments are measured, sporadic, and not constantly only against one side, BTW. Yours, Neil's, David's, etc., tend to consistently be against American issues and partisanly focused. Not the same thing, Mark, so your argument is a bit shallow.

Kerry is a proven phoney... he's had to change his original stories; contrast that with "Bush lied", which, every time you try to pin someone down to what the exact "lie" is, it turns out to be an opinion of what a lie is and not fact. If you stated "in my opinion, Bush is...." and gave some occasional supporting material other than fanaticism, I actually would listen to your reasoning, consider it, and so forth. As it is, your assertions tend to be simply anti-American because that's pretty much your schtick.... but very trendy, of course, so I'm sure you revel in the peer-admiration.

Best.

Mike

Mark Freeman
09-18-2007, 10:56 AM
Not really. Notice the qualifier "I thought", as opposed to the assertions you, as an outsider, make. Notice that my comments are measured, sporadic, and not constantly only against one side, BTW. Yours, Neil's, David's, etc., tend to consistently be against American issues and partisanly focused. Not the same thing, Mark, so your argument is a bit shallow.

No argument Mike I was just having a smile at your expense, particularly when I read the bolded sentence above. ;)
My comments are not consistently against american issues, admittedly they may be partisan, but not consistently against.
Like you I thought Bush was a joke and so far nothing that he has done has dissuaded me from that opinion.


Kerry is a proven phoney... he's had to change his original stories; contrast that with "Bush lied", which, every time you try to pin someone down to what the exact "lie" is, it turns out to be an opinion of what a lie is and not fact. If you stated "in my opinion, Bush is...." and gave some occasional supporting material other than fanaticism, I actually would listen to your reasoning, consider it, and so forth. As it is, your assertions tend to be simply anti-American because that's pretty much your schtick.... but very trendy, of course, so I'm sure you revel in the peer-admiration.


Only one more time, I am not anti American, I just tend to have the opinion that the Bush and his administration has been a very poor one for both the US and the wider world.

Call me a commie pinko liberal for holding that view, but I'm pretty sure if I hunted around hard enough I could find some supporting material to back that opinion up.....Now where should I start looking?:D

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 11:16 AM
Call me a commie pinko liberal for holding that view, but I'm pretty sure if I hunted around hard enough I could find some supporting material to back that opinion up.....Now where should I start looking?:D
I actually think most people with too-partisan views hold those views *mainly* because of the peer support (notice how many people in Aikido are quite liberal and are often called the "Birkenstock Martial Art", for example) AND they've been shaped by the media.

I'm always bemused by how arch-conservatives share word-for-word so many of the same talking points, but the arch-liberals do the same thing even more so. Since liberals dominate the media, academia, and Hollywood, it's not really surprising how similar they all tend to sound. You could find "support" with the agreeable buzzwords on the BBC and the selective facts they publish (while holding back on the ones unfavorable to their views), couldn't you?

Insofar as finding fault with Bush, have you ever studied what absolutely stupid errors were made time after time by the allies in World War II? If the current BBC and British academia had anything to do with WWII, that war would still be either continuing or you would be speaking German by now. You came very close to destruction because of the liberal partisans, the same people who now dominate once again. You guys never learn to spank the misbehavers, do you? ;)

Anyone can fault-find, Mark, and the liberals have done nothing but that... a point that a number of Russian/communist agents have pointed out as being an actual strategy used against the West. Notice how all of the big demonstrations in the US and Europe are supported and funded by communist groups, BTW? You're just part of a strategy of manipulation. "Support"?... really just selective facts to support an already held view, I'd bet.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Freeman
09-18-2007, 01:02 PM
Insofar as finding fault with Bush, have you ever studied what absolutely stupid errors were made time after time by the allies in World War II? If the current BBC and British academia had anything to do with WWII, that war would still be either continuing or you would be speaking German by now. You came very close to destruction because of the liberal partisans, the same people who now dominate once again. You guys never learn to spank the misbehavers, do you? ;)

As you so bluntly put it Mike, anyone can find fault cant they? Continually pointing out the errors that the Brits made pre WWII does not in any way let Bush and his administration off the hook.:p

Anyone can fault-find, Mark, and the liberals have done nothing but that... a point that a number of Russian/communist agents have pointed out as being an actual strategy used against the West. Notice how all of the big demonstrations in the US and Europe are supported and funded by communist groups, BTW? You're just part of a strategy of manipulation. "Support"?... really just selective facts to support an already held view, I'd bet.

As far as I'm aware the number of communists in the UK wouldn't fill a pub offering free beer. Or maybe I've been so manipulated by the BBC that I just fail to see the little buggers under my bed:D
Which communist group do you know, that funded the Anti Iraq Invasion rally in London?
I don't see any elected Communists in any constituancy in GB. I do see members of the BNP holding office, though. They are about as right wing as we have in our politics. There is no group of eqivalent extremity on the left. Maybe it's because we are a 'liberal democracy' that this is the case? I can't speak for the US, but last time I was there, the communists didn't have much of a power base, either.

I am unlikely to convince you of anything in these discussions. You seem to know more about the country I live in, than I do. Where should I be getting my unbias/unfilterd news from? The BBC for all it's faults is an excellent programme maker, not all, but enough for me to know that, as a TV station, it could be argued, is not bettered anywhere else. The quality of its reporting from major areas of conflict has been on the whole very good, with some excellent reporters putting themselves in harms way. Raggi Omar's regular reports from the early day's of the invasion were superb, his integrity is not doubted by anyone in this country. The quality of its sports coverage is brilliant, If you are going to watch the olympics or any other major event, you have hours of the action, without being interupted by some schmuck trying to convince you that this overpriced pill will cure your ills:yuck:

I'll quite happily pay my licence fee as long as they keep churning out worthwhile viewing. As for some of the issues of trust between them and the UK population, these are being addressed openly and honestly by the current heads. They have lost some trust recently, but this is more due to the fact that some of the recent scandals about dodgy phone ins, particularly when something as well loved as Children in Need was shown to be affected. Political bias is little mentioned here. You'd think that if it was that big I'd be seeing more of it on the independant channels.

I'm not sure who you are trying to reach with your views on the Beeb, Mike. There are only a few Brits who take part in the disscusions on these OD threads, and one of those just dropped in long enough to realise that we rarely mention aikido here.

Vivre le Beeb, Vivre la television!:D

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 01:31 PM
As far as I'm aware the number of communists in the UK wouldn't fill a pub offering free beer. Or maybe I've been so manipulated by the BBC that I just fail to see the little buggers under my bed:D
Which communist group do you know, that funded the Anti Iraq Invasion rally in London?
I don't see any elected Communists in any constituancy in GB. I do see members of the BNP holding office, though. They are about as right wing as we have in our politics. There is no group of eqivalent extremity on the left. Maybe it's because we are a 'liberal democracy' that this is the case? I can't speak for the US, but last time I was there, the communists didn't have much of a power base, either. OK, let's make a small wager, then. The last few years in the US there have been a number of large (or attemptedly large) "anti-war" demonstrations, including one this last weekend in D.C., that were largely funded and organized by "International ANSWER".... which is a communist front-group when you look it up. Would you like to bet that there wasn't similar organization and funding in organized Brit demonstrations? It would be interesting to research and I'm willing to bet that one or more communist groups is involved in the UK, also. By the way, if it's true, wouldn't it be fair to expect the BBC to report it, as a side-issue to the discussion? The BBC for all it's faults is an excellent programme maker, not all, but enough for me to know that, as a TV station, it could be argued, is not bettered anywhere else. The quality of its reporting from major areas of conflict has been on the whole very good, with some excellent reporters putting themselves in harms way. Raggi Omar's regular reports from the early day's of the invasion were superb, his integrity is not doubted by anyone in this country. The quality of its sports coverage is brilliant, If you are going to watch the olympics or any other major event, you have hours of the action, without being interupted by some schmuck trying to convince you that this overpriced pill will cure your ills:yuck:

I'll quite happily pay my licence fee as long as they keep churning out worthwhile viewing. As for some of the issues of trust between them and the UK population, these are being addressed openly and honestly by the current heads. Yes, all this is pretty rhetorical, though, Mark.... the question was whether the BBC should be presenting biased reporting. I suspect that I'm correct in surmising that your approach is "I don't care if the BBC gives a partisan view as long as it's partisan in my favor". That's the entire point I was making in the BBC thread. Political bias is little mentioned here. Really? Then the columns I've referenced from the Telegraph, The Times, and other sources were not really there? I was reading illusions?

As I understand it, BTW, we seem to have gone from "there is no bias in the BBC" to "OK, there may be some bias but it's trivial". Sort of like being "only slightly pregnant". ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Freeman
09-18-2007, 02:20 PM
OK, let's make a small wager, then. The last few years in the US there have been a number of large (or attemptedly large) "anti-war" demonstrations, including one this last weekend in D.C., that were largely funded and organized by "International ANSWER".... which is a communist front-group when you look it up. Would you like to bet that there wasn't similar organization and funding in organized Brit demonstrations? It would be interesting to research and I'm willing to bet that one or more communist groups is involved in the UK, also. By the way, if it's true, wouldn't it be fair to expect the BBC to report it, as a side-issue to the discussion?

I tried to look up the group you mention, and on Google's UK search, there is no mention of them until the extreme bottom of page 3! hardly a group with alot of clout, and even then it was as a mention from the artistsagainstthewar.org. You give them too much credence. The vast majority of the people on the march were ordinary working folk who paid their own way there, and marched through the streets to make there view know.
Of course there were the serial/professional(?) demonstrators, they will be at any anti establishment bash, they've got to spend their dole money somewhere.
I'm mean what the hell did these generous communists spend all their money on? It costs the price of a text message to tell all your friends that there is a demo on a particular day. If I were you I'd keep my money in my pocket or spend it on something frivolous, rather than betting on something that is going to be difficult to prove.
All I see is a mish mash of fringe anti groups war/racism/animal cruelty/globalisation/fairtrade all coming together or not depending on the cause. None of them seem to be preaching communism. Why would the communists be throwing away their hard earned(?) bucks on groups that do not espouse their cause.:confused: Who is funding them anyway, Castro?:D

regards,

Mark
p.s. Watching Channel 4 News;)

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 03:11 PM
I'm mean what the hell did these generous communists spend all their money on? It costs the price of a text message to tell all your friends that there is a demo on a particular day. Well, it's all about propaganda. Get it in the news. Let the news only cover the idea that "great throngs of people are against this war" over and over. Never cover or mention that great throngs that support the country's efforts. The idea is to make the US lose by weighting the news/propaganda/appearances against the US's military and political goals. It's simply another facet of conflict, but it's one which the US and western nations tend not to do. The North Vietnamese were effectively famous using the news and demonstrations tactics and they bragged about it after the war, saying they would have lost except for the efforts of people like Jane Fonda, John Kerry, and their ilk.

As you say, it's no great expenditure.... but it whittles away at a country's resolve if the "anti-war" crowd can make the most noise and the press (like the BBC) are colluding (consciously or not). This is why Stalin referred to the "useful idiots" on the Left.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

David Orange
09-18-2007, 03:33 PM
Lessee if I've got this right, David.... to you being on the same side as George W. Bush and being a "right-winger" is the equivalent of being an Islamic terrorist and on the side of Osama Bin Laden. That's essentially what you've just said. Have we got it right?

Pretty much. Both want to control other people and how they live their lives. Both sides would blow you up as soon as look at you.

However, being a VN vet, I spotted right away that Kerry was a phony and I thought Bush was a joke.

Yet, you think this "joke" man has the sense to lead us in war? Despite the fact that we're simply bogged down in a quagmire, our best people being picked off by ones and threes by snipers and roadside bombs, 3700 dead, some 30,000 "wounded", many of them having lost legs, arms, faces, many, many having irreversible brain damage, many having suffered relatively minor injuries that then turned major because of the pefunctory care they received on the cheap, courtesy of the Bush Administration?

Looks like you, of all people, would recognize a FUBAR situation and call for withdrawal on account of an idiot deceived the nation into letting him have the power to attack his personal enemy.

However, all that aside, I need to point out that you'd probably enjoy working with alcoholics, David.... your arguments remind me very much of that constant tap-dance they do, always sort of log-rolling on reality.

That's why I always reply to your messages, Mike. Keep comin' back!!!!

David

David Orange
09-18-2007, 03:37 PM
Yours, Neil's, David's, etc., tend to consistently be against American issues and partisanly focused. Not the same thing, Mark, so your argument is a bit shallow.

Shallow is when you can't tell the difference between "anti-american" and "anti-having-an-idiot-in-the-White-House-have-the-power-to-destroy-our-entire-military-and-burden-future-generations-with-debt-for-his-own-personal-egotistic-reasons."

David

David Orange
09-18-2007, 03:39 PM
Kerry is a proven phoney... he's had to change his original stories...

Bush is a proven phony and liar. He's had to change his original claims and rationale for the war time after time. He's just tap-dancing until his term is over so he won't have to say he "lost" the war and can tell himself it was the fellow that followed him. The war was as lost as it ever will be the day Bush made his speech in front of that Mission Accomplished banner.

David

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 04:05 PM
Looks like you, of all people, would recognize a FUBAR situation and call for withdrawal on account of an idiot deceived the nation into letting him have the power to attack his personal enemy.
What I recognize is not that; I tend to recognize that the Russians and the Chinese and Islamists and others are all right in their old phrase about the "Decadent West". We have gotten so soft and had it so easy so long that now we've raised a generation of too-many theorists who are simply like the rich-man's grandson... too spoiled to be able to keep the family fortune, so they just give it away. Like I said when the 9/11 bombing happened... it'll take more than that before many liberals realize that the world is for real and not just theory, peace and love role-playing, etc..

FWIW

Mike

Neil Mick
09-18-2007, 04:07 PM
"Free speech" = anything you want to say.

Nope, sorry, this statement is incomplete.

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

And your definition of free speech is wrong on its face. Freedom to "Say anything you want to say," could well be interpreted as the right to yell "fire" in a theatre, whenever the spirit moves.

Sorry you don't feel that way. Not surprising, but sorry, nontheless.

I'm beginning to believe that you're incapable of carrying on an adult conversation, free of insult or ad hominem. Come on, John: prove me wrong.

David Orange
09-18-2007, 04:16 PM
Well, it's all about propaganda. Get it in the news. Let the news only cover the idea that "great throngs of people are against this war" over and over.

MMmm....how about we just let the election of November, 2006 prove that great throngs of people are against the war? Face it, Mike: America hates George Bush. WE hate being "ruled" by a hateful little daddy's boy idiot.

David

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 05:55 PM
WE hate being "ruled" by a hateful little daddy's boy idiot.OK, Gollum.... since it's you. Found your "Precious", yet?

Cady Goldfield
09-18-2007, 06:00 PM
No, if he were Gollum, he'd have said "We HATES..." ;)
Nevertheless, David is right -- a whooole lot of Americans don't like having a brain-damaged (from 40 years of alcoholism) Alfred E. Neuman incarnate ruling our land, or having his Vice Henchman revel in the plunders of wartime profiteering for his pals at Haliburton, for that matter.

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 06:11 PM
a whooole lot of Americans don't like having a brain-damaged (from 40 years of alcoholism) I'm sorry.... do you have some sort of corroboration that Bush is brain-damaged that would support the assertion? Alfred E. Neuman incarnate ruling our land, or having his Vice Henchman revel in the plunders of wartime profiteering for his pals at Haliburton, for that matter.Do you have some sort of demonstrably true inside information, Cady, or is this simply the parrottings of the super-tribe you give your allegiance too? ;) Isn't it odd how Clinton gave the same sorts of no-bid contracts to Halliburton during an also non-sanctioned-by-the-UN civil war where we invaded a country... and there wasn't a murmur from your super-tribe? Ah well, tribal allegiances are thicker than water. :cool:

Best.

Mike

Cady Goldfield
09-18-2007, 06:14 PM
I did have access to expert information concerning the brain damage. But that's my little secret.
I note you did not dispute my Alfred E. Neuman reference. ;)

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 08:17 PM
I did have access to expert information concerning the brain damage. About George Bush, whom you indicated had brain damage? I dunno.... there's just a point where I think the personal remarks about someone's looks, their abilities and faculties, etc., tend to go to far into the absurd and insulting. It's safe, for example, to say that "Kerry is a liar" because he had to change some of his assertions in the light of the Swift Boat guys sources and witnesses. But I can't see coming out and saying that Kerry has brain damage, is a child-molester, or whatever. I realize that it's trendy to do the Saturday Night Live style of in-your-face school-boy humour, but there probably needs to be limits, IMO.

Best.

Mike Sigman

Cady Goldfield
09-18-2007, 08:46 PM
No, brain damage is a physical condition that is what it is. Pointing it out is not the same thing as "outing" someone who chooses his or her behavior, such as being a liar, adulterer or a child abuser.

Brain damage from alcohol affects a person's ability to properly function in a complex job such the presidency, and I'd consider it to be a legitimate concern.

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 09:09 PM
Brain damage from alcohol affects a person's ability to properly function in a complex job such the presidency, and I'd consider it to be a legitimate concern.So you don't really know if Bush has brain damage or to what extent he was, if any, ever an alcoholic? You're using something like "the common liberal rumour mill" for this? This was all conjecture about a person stated as fact? :confused:

Mike

David Orange
09-18-2007, 09:12 PM
As I understand it, BTW, we seem to have gone from "there is no bias in the BBC" to "OK, there may be some bias but it's trivial". Sort of like being "only slightly pregnant". ;)

Yeah...as compared to ALL the major US news outlets, parroting Bush's sales pitch with NO real critical consideration. Bush announces that he's keeping troop levels the same until the end of the year, when he might withdraw 5000, then the same until next summer, when he "might" draw it down to where it was before the escalation (IF conditions on the ground permit) and all major US news outlets say "Bush Announces Troop Withdrawals."

Kinda makes the BBC look "fair and balanced."

David

David Orange
09-18-2007, 09:16 PM
Like I said when the 9/11 bombing happened... it'll take more than that before many liberals realize that the world is for real and not just theory, peace and love role-playing, etc..

And the alternative is....what are you saying? That we should just pick someone out and attack them for what a bunch of Saudi Arabians did? We attack Iraq?????????

That was stupid as Homer Simpson's monkey, George, wasn't it?

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11????

No, they didn't.

So why are we wasting the lives of our best men and grinding our military to the breaking point refereeing a civil war that wouldn't exist if Bush hadn't screwed the pooch?

As I said: it's FUBAR.

David

David Orange
09-18-2007, 09:18 PM
OK, Gollum.... since it's you. Found your "Precious", yet?

Oh, yes, Mike...BUSH is my precious, destroyer of men's souls.....

David Orange
09-18-2007, 09:37 PM
I'm sorry.... do you have some sort of corroboration that Bush is brain-damaged that would support the assertion?

Eeeehhhhhhh??????

Try "Mission Accomplished," to begin with. Then throw in a little "Bring it on!" then add a little, "is our children being educated," and "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...we won't be fooled again."

http://valandil87.tripod.com/stupid_bush.jpg

"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." —at the President's Economic Forum in Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden. They're the neutral one. They don't have an army." —during a Dec. 2002 Oval Office meeting with Rep. Tom Lantos, as reported by the New York Times

"I'm the master of low expectations." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right." —Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

"We need to counter the shockwave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates." —Washington, D.C. Oct. 4, 2001

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet….I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." —President George W. Bush, after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

and seven months later:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"But all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me." —summing up his first year in office, three months after the 9/11 attacks, Washington, D.C., Dec. 20, 2001

"I try to go for longer runs, but it's tough around here at the White House on the outdoor track. It's sad that I can't run longer. It's one of the saddest things about the presidency." —interview with "Runners World," Aug. 2002

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." —speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

And last but not least:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Do you have some sort of demonstrably true inside information, Cady, or is this simply the parrottings of the super-tribe you give your allegiance too?

Mike, if it's raining outside, do you refuse to say "It's raining" because some liberal has already said it? When something is simply true, you're likely to find many, many people saying it.

Isn't it odd how Clinton gave the same sorts of no-bid contracts to Halliburton during an also non-sanctioned-by-the-UN civil war where we invaded a country... and there wasn't a murmur from your super-tribe?

And how long did that go on? How many American lives were sacrificed to that cause? Was there a little thing called a reason for that war (a "reason" being something directly involving that particular nation and not because some other nation did something)?

Whole different story.

But again, Bush is a proven idiot. So why bother defending his idiotic bumblings?

David

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 09:40 PM
Yeah...as compared to ALL the major US news outlets, parroting Bush's sales pitch with NO real critical consideration. Bush announces that he's keeping troop levels the same until the end of the year, when he might withdraw 5000, then the same until next summer, when he "might" draw it down to where it was before the escalation (IF conditions on the ground permit) and all major US news outlets say "Bush Announces Troop Withdrawals." I know, I know, David. But then it's because Bush is secretly riding around in Black Helicopters with the Jews and taking over the world. It's a strange, strange world you live in.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
09-18-2007, 09:42 PM
So you don't really know if Bush has brain damage or to what extent he was, if any, ever an alcoholic?

It's part of Bush's own history and his own party's narrative of him--how he was a flat-out drunk "until he was forty," when Jesus supposedly "changed his heart," and he became a good person, became Governor of Texas, presided mockingly over the executions of about 150 human beings, then became President and started one of the most ill-advised wars in human history.

His own people admit that he was a hard-core drunk until he was forty. He never made a success of any business venture--except that he always got "his" out of it, even as the venture itself went under and everyone else involved took losses. It's the same thing with this war. The soldiers lose, their families lose, your children and mine will pay for it and Bush will live the rest of his life with Secret Service protection. He's good at covering his own tail, but at heavy cost to everyone around him.

David

David Orange
09-18-2007, 09:44 PM
I know, I know, David. But then it's because Bush is secretly riding around in Black Helicopters with the Jews and taking over the world. It's a strange, strange world you live in.

I notice you couldn't contradict a word of what I said. So you just log-roll around on that strange Uranus reality, don't you?

Like I said, "Keep coming back!"

David

Cady Goldfield
09-18-2007, 09:47 PM
Eeeehhhhhhh??????

Try "Mission Accomplished," to begin with. Then throw in a little "Bring it on!" then add a little, "is our children being educated," and "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...we won't be fooled again."

http://valandil87.tripod.com/stupid_bush.jpg



Bush's alcoholism isn't a secret, but hey - at least he allegedly quit on his own:
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm

Then, there're videos, tapes and quotes aplenty:
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismsdrinking.html#DRINKING

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 09:51 PM
Mike Sigman wrote:
So you don't really know if Bush has brain damage or to what extent he was, if any, ever an alcoholic?

It's part of Bush's own history and his own party's narrative of him--how he was a flat-out drunk "until he was forty," when Jesus supposedly "changed his heart," and he became a good person, became Governor of Texas, presided mockingly over the executions of about 150 human beings, then became President and started one of the most ill-advised wars in human history.You guys are some of the most vicious character assassins I've ever read. Imagine some conservative nut talking about how Hillary is a proven lesbian, yada, yada, yada. See what a fruitcake they'd look like? Not to mention a rather mean, vicious person? Did I say "fruitcake"?

Listen to Bush smear people personally. Listen to you smear people personally. I guess I'd rather go with Bush than you, David. Or the type of people that you'd vote for. :rolleyes:

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
09-18-2007, 10:01 PM
Bush's alcoholism isn't a secret, but hey - at least he allegedly quit on his own:
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm

Then, there're videos, tapes and quotes aplenty:
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismsdrinking.html#DRINKINGThat's pretty good, Cady. A DUI in 1976 becomes the genesis of putting together a group of unflattering episodes and pictures of a guy who is not a glib con-artist.... and calling him an alcoholic. Do you have proof that he is an alcoholic or just these very anti-Bush websites whose access to realism seems limited? Personally, I know people the have known Bush as an acquaintance for years. They say he was a heavy drinker, etc., but he hasn't done any of that for many years. He's apparently in better physical shape than any past president.... and as someone who has done a lot of marathons, etc., in my life I'd say that sort of takes the edge off any belief that he's an out-of-shape lush as you're trying to paint him.

It's a far easier story to believe that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broadrick, a Democrat volunteer, but no matter how much I believe it, I know that the proof isn't there, so I'd think very little of any conservative boffo that started publicly posting the Clinton is a known rapist. Yet you're doing the equivalent type of no-real-proof offering in a public forum. But you see my problem.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
09-19-2007, 01:12 AM
Help, help, this thread has been hijacked!!

Hello? Must everything be about George W. Bush? Let's get back to the thread topic, eh?

Bykofsky: Nutcase, or far-seeing?

Or instead, continue on with the character assassinations. :rolleyes:

Taliesin
09-19-2007, 04:05 AM
There is no charecter assasination - any reputation G Wanker B had for decency , honesty, integrity or honesty has been dead almost as long as someone else's reputation for intellegent debate. (although he'd say this proves I'm anti-American)

But yes getting back to the original thread - It is sick to wish that sort of tragedy on any community

Hogan
09-19-2007, 08:35 AM
John Hogan wrote: View Post
"Free speech" = anything you want to say.

Neil wrote:
Nope, sorry, this statement is incomplete.

Quote:
wikipedia wrote:
Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
And your definition of free speech is wrong on its face. [note - um, your definition, i.e., 'without restrcition', means the samre thing]..Freedom to "Say anything you want to say," could well be interpreted as the right to yell "fire" in a theatre, whenever the spirit moves.

Are you honestly saying that "free speech = anything you want to say" does NOT mean the same as "Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship."

Uhhh, hello, it means the SAME THING. Anything you want to say means speaking without censorship. Do you call janitors "sanitation engineers", too??

Which is it? Free speech means without restrictions (or in other words, anything you want), or being restricted? You are saying two different things in your post.

And c'mon, try to respond without accusing me of something... you can do it....

Hogan
09-19-2007, 08:39 AM
And the alternative is....what are you saying? That we should just pick someone out and attack them for what a bunch of Saudi Arabians did? We attack Iraq?????????


No, we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan, the people responsible. Wake up.


Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11????

Who said it did? Bush & Co. never said it did.

Mike Sigman
09-19-2007, 09:48 AM
There is no charecter assasination - any reputation G Wanker B had for decency , honesty, integrity or honesty has been dead almost as long as someone else's reputation for intellegent debate. (although he'd say this proves I'm anti-American)This comment is a classic example.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
09-19-2007, 10:31 AM
You guys are some of the most vicious character assassins I've ever read.

It's vicious characther assassination if you simply make claims about someone--like Rush and his cronies make claims about Hillary, like YOU make claims about Kerry. For instance, you say "Kerry is a proven liar," it's just a statement, but if I quote Bush's OWN narrative of his OWN life, the narrative his OWN party disseminates about him, backed up by quotes (and Cady posted a list of videos), you say that's "character assassination."

There's far more proof that George WAS an alcoholic and a HEAVY drug abuser for MOST of his adult life than there is "proof" that Kerry is either a "liar" or a "phoney".

Imagine some conservative nut talking about how Hillary is a proven lesbian, yada, yada, yada. See what a fruitcake they'd look like? Not to mention a rather mean, vicious person? Did I say "fruitcake"?

Yeah. They do. Screwy and vicious....BECAUSE....why? They NEVER cite any kind of proof. They just think Hillary is too forceful and about fifty times as intelligent as they are, so...she MUST be a lesbian. See, that is character assassination and viciousness. But to say that Bush was and apparently still IS a hard-core drunk and apparently seriously brain-damaged is not "character assassination" because you can prove the first by his own statements and those of his party. And you can prove the second by current videos of him addressing groups while obviously drunk.

Cady's link was very interesting:

http://mindprod.com/politics/bushism....html#DRINKING

Scroll down to the bottom and see Bush with scrapes, bruises and cuts on his face. Do you wonder how he got those? Maybe this paragraph explains it:

"Bush likes to hide out in Crawford. He has taken more holidays than any other president in history. He gets into scuffles with the brush he reputedly slashes for recreation. Bush take 3 to 5 days to come out of hiding in an emergency. He is likely bingeing on alcohol and drugs, injuring himself while stumbling around stupefied and takes days to dry out enough for a public experience. "

And do you still believe that he "passed out and fell from choking on a pretzel"? Maybe....after seven or eight shots of bourbon?

The guy was and IS a drunk.

Listen to Bush smear people personally. Listen to you smear people personally. I guess I'd rather go with Bush than you, David.

Well, that's one thing Bush has learned since he was a cheerleader frat boy: you never smear the other guy yourself. You have some behind-the-scenes dirty-tricksters to do it for you, a la Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, Karl Rove and liars of that ilk.

David

David Orange
09-19-2007, 10:41 AM
Do you have proof that he is an alcoholic or just these very anti-Bush websites whose access to realism seems limited?

Mike.....these websites are mostly nothing but documented quotes from Bush, himself, and videos of him speaking. Most people can listen to a speaker, especially in a video, and recognize if they are seriously drunk. It's clear from Bush's own words and actions that he is still drinking heavily. And like an alcoholic "log rolling on reality," he blames his fall on "choking on a pretzel...."

Right.

But what I don't get is why you insist on covering for him when I know you can see this, too. You're a grown man with military experience. You can see a drunk when he's drunk. Why do you deny this about Bush?

Personally, I know people the have known Bush as an acquaintance for years. They say he was a heavy drinker, etc., but he hasn't done any of that for many years.

Not to their knowledge, but I'll bet if they saw some of these videos, they'd have to change their opinion. Or else they are riding on that river in Egypt.....

He's apparently in better physical shape than any past president.... and as someone who has done a lot of marathons, etc., in my life I'd say that sort of takes the edge off any belief that he's an out-of-shape lush as you're trying to paint him.

No, it just means that he works out. I know a famous aikido master who used to get drunk every night and wake up with a heavy hangover. And he liked to sweat the hangover off by working out hard in the morning. Bush holes up for weeks in Crawford, then gets back to his workouts before he emerges from his spider hole.

It's a far easier story to believe that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broadrick, a Democrat volunteer, but no matter how much I believe it, I know that the proof isn't there, so I'd think very little of any conservative boffo that started publicly posting the Clinton is a known rapist.

Yet, you've made that claim, yourself....on this thread, I believe.

Still, there is PLENTY of clear evidence that George is still drinking pretty heavily at least periodically. Far more than there is of Clinton's raping anyone.

Yet you're doing the equivalent type of no-real-proof offering in a public forum. But you see my problem.

Everyone sees your problem: you simply dismiss any evidence that supports what you want to deny. Thomas the Doubter would be convinced by what you dismiss.

David

Taliesin
09-19-2007, 10:44 AM
I must admit I'm amused that one poster apparently believes G Wanker B has a reputation for, integrity, honesty or competence.

I hate to break it to this unfortunate individual - but reputation is how a person is generally regarded. It is not how you or they want them to be regarded.

And to smear a charecter there needs to be some indication of current good charecter.

David Orange
09-19-2007, 10:54 AM
No, we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan, the people responsible. Wake up.

Then why is Bin Laden still putting out videos? Why do we have about ten times as many soldiers in Iraq as we do in Afghanistan? And why is the Taliban so heavily resurgent in Afghanistan?

Sure, we "attacked" the Taliban in Afghanistan, kicked over their sandcastle, and headed right to Iraq, where we are bogged down to this day.

Who said it did? Bush & Co. never said it did.

Reported 6/18/2004:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

So that's just one reference. He's made the link hundreds of times.

David

Mike Sigman
09-19-2007, 11:05 AM
Mike.....these websites are mostly nothing but documented quotes from Bush, himself, and videos of him speaking. Most people can listen to a speaker, especially in a video, and recognize if they are seriously drunk. It's clear from Bush's own words and actions that he is still drinking heavily. And like an alcoholic "log rolling on reality," he blames his fall on "choking on a pretzel...."
So let me ask you this...... you know for a fact that these episodes are proof that Bush is an alcoholic. You don't think that your interpretation (and others with BushDerangementSyndrome) is more of a sign of your own problems/fanaticism? We can't even allow for that being a possibility?

There was a website that claimed that Al Gore was mentally ill and it showed a huge number of rather insane-sounding comments by Gore, all put together out of context. As a group, those quotes and pictures were designed to and seemed to support the idea that Gore was mentally aberrant. To me, it looked like who ever had spent the time painting such a focused picture was really the person who had mental problems, though. Frankly, I see your fixations the same way, David. You have some problems you need to deal with. Quit foaming at the mouth; get a life.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Freeman
09-19-2007, 11:57 AM
There was a website that claimed that Al Gore was mentally ill and it showed a huge number of rather insane-sounding comments by Gore,

If all insane-sounding comments by politicians proved that they have mental health issues, then it really only proves that the lunatics really have taken over the assylum;)

Tony Blair - "We are 45 minutes away from a WMD attack by Iraq" "Get the jacket boys, this one could be some trouble":D

regards,

Mark

Mark Freeman
09-19-2007, 12:00 PM
p.s. Give that man George a drink, he's looking a little piquey these days.

p.p.s Heading to a report recently seen in the UK press when another of Bush's crew bails out "Sinking ship leaves rat";)

David Orange
09-19-2007, 12:12 PM
So let me ask you this...... you know for a fact that these episodes are proof that Bush is an alcoholic.

Looks like it to me. Or is this a trick question--like just because he's "apparently drunk" (slurring words, pausing awkwardly, looking more confused and screwy than usual), does that mean he's an official "alcoholic"?

If so, the answer would have to be that alcoholics are considered to be "always" alcoholics. Most of them say that they are still alcoholics even after many years without a drink. But there are many of these videos of Bush at various events where he seems to have drunk enough to have gotten sloppy. So I'd have to say that not only is he an alcoholic, but he's an alcoholic who still drinks too often for everyone's good. And since one of the hallmarks of long-term alcoholism is....duh-duh-duh-DUHHHH!!!!!!.....brain damage....I'd say Cady's assessment is correct. He is brain-damaged and his policies reflect that. And America is tired of having such a moron in charge.

You don't think that your interpretation (and others with BushDerangementSyndrome) is more of a sign of your own problems/fanaticism? We can't even allow for that being a possibility?

First, BUSH is the one with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Second, if you look at my record in posting, I'm pretty well middle of the road. We have one guy here :hypno: who calls everything said against any Islamist "islamaphobia". I don't do that. I allow that there are some peaceful muslims and that there are extremists who want to rule the world with Islamic law. So I'm not an extremist who says all muslims are evil and I'm not an extremist who says all muslims are sweetness and light. I'm a realist who says some muslims mean to be equal with other people and some muslims mean to rule the world with Islam.

The :hypno: guy believes we are wrong to attack any muslim nation anywhere and that it all adds up to "islamaphobia". But I have said that Bush was right to invade Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attackers were trained.

So I have a record of postings that fall right in the middle way.

On the other side, some posters think we are correct to be in Iraq. Some apparently believe that Saddam actually was connected with the 9/11 attacks and that Bush is a sober, serious, thoughtful leader, concerned with the common good for Americans, not favoring the rich but stimulating the wealth-producers to produce more wealth for the good of those less fortunate. They believe that sacrificing 3700 troops (so far), leaving 3700 families without a father (or maybe a mother) will not be harmful to those families, that the children will not grow up misguided or inspired to cruelty and one-sided retribution due to Bush's example.

So while some people think that all muslims are bad, others that all muslims are good, some that Bush is always wrong and some that Bush is always right, I know that some muslims are out to dominate the world and that just because someone hates Bush does not make them my friend.

So I would say that my interpretation of these websites (that ONLY provide documented quotes of Bush and videos of Bush, himself, speaking for himself -- he never speaks for anyone else, after all) is impartial and middle-of-the-road. And therefore, that the evidence does show that he is an unrecovered alcoholic who still gets smashed in public and probably even more smashed out there on his ranch in Texas.

Cady's link included this quote:

"Well, I don't think I had an addiction," Bush told the Washington Post for a July 1999 profile. "You know it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very addicted. . .and they required hitting bottom [to start] going to AA. I don't think that was my case."

And, of course, it was not his case because, for him, there was "no bottom." "Hitting bottom," for most people, means coming to some unavoidable point of "accountability," where they have to face the truth that they are out of control. But Bush has "always" had "tenders" in the form of a secret service detail--at least since 1980, when his father was VP and probably before that, when his daddy was head of CIA. And even long before that, when his father was powerful enough to keep him out of Vietnam by getting him to the top of the waiting list for the Texas Air National Guard. He was able simply to skip appearing for drill when he was assigned to the Alabama Guard and was later found "unfit" to fly, but there were never any repercussions for him. He walked free and clear from every debacle and so never had to face any accountability. So there was no "bottom" for him to hit. He could have lain naked in the middle of downtown Houston, foaming at the mouth, getting vomit all in his stubbly beard and overgrown hair and, as long as there were no photographs, he would still have wound up as President.

Elsewhere in the same article, he says, "I am a person who enjoys life, and for years, I enjoyed having a few drinks. But gradually, drinking began to compete with my energy," Bush wrote in his autobiography. "I'd be a step slower getting up. My daily runs seemed harder after a few too many drinks the night before."

But the running and physical conditioning were part of his life even when he saw nothing wrong with having "a few too many", so he has at least been able to maintain the appearance of physical health. It doesn't mean he's not heavily brain damaged. His ego and defiance of the American will concerning Iraq are evidence that he is heavily damaged.

There was a website that claimed that Al Gore was mentally ill and it showed a huge number of rather insane-sounding comments by Gore, all put together out of context. As a group, those quotes and pictures were designed to and seemed to support the idea that Gore was mentally aberrant. To me, it looked like who ever had spent the time painting such a focused picture was really the person who had mental problems, though.

Sounds anecdotal. Got the link?

Frankly, I see your fixations the same way, David. You have some problems you need to deal with. Quit foaming at the mouth; get a life.

Let's see...you and I are both here on a public forum commenting about some of the most important issues of the past hundred years--issues that may well destroy the United States (or at least our military) and will certainly burden our children and grandchildren with debt for the next many decades, probably brining hatred down on our nation and blood oaths of revenge against us. For everything I say (documented), you have answers (undocumented personal opinion). Yet somehow, you derive that "I"have a fixation while you do not? For me to be here is to not have a life, but for you to be here qualifies you to tell me to "get a life"?

Again, Mike: you're log-rolling on reality.

But then, again, you remind me of a fellow who used to get angry every time he saw "The Ten Warning Signs of Alcoholism" on TV. It didn't say "Ten Signs that Chuck is an Alcoholic," but he acted like it did. They say "The hit dog barks," and Chuck barked every time he saw those warning signs. Maybe you're just uncomfortable about the discussion of alcoholism???

Good luck with all that.

David

Mike Sigman
09-19-2007, 12:15 PM
Tony Blair - "We are 45 minutes away from a WMD attack by Iraq" "Get the jacket boys, this one could be some trouble":D That's pretty much proof that the "useful idiots" ploy is still working well. Notice this article (there are similar ones, BTW, that have been printed in the WSJ, Britsh papers, etc., that die without comment or investigation by the rest of the liberal media). Pacepa was the highest level KGB defector that ever came to the West:

Russia Hid Saddam's WMDs
By Ion Mihai Pacepa
Washington Times | Thursday, October 02, 2003

On March 20, Russian President Vladimir Putin denounced the U.S.-led "aggression" against Iraq as "unwarranted" and "unjustifiable." Three days later, Pravda said that an anonymous Russian "military expert" was predicting that the United States would fabricate finding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov immediately started plying the idea abroad, and it has taken hold around the world ever since.

As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction — in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit." I implemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them. We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with.

All chemical weapons were to be immediately burned or buried deep at sea. Technological documentation, however, would be preserved in microfiche buried in waterproof containers for future reconstruction. Chemical weapons, especially those produced in Third World countries, which lack sophisticated production facilities, often do not retain lethal properties after a few months on the shelf and are routinely dumped anyway. And all chemical weapons plants had a civilian cover making detection difficult, regardless of the circumstances.

The plan included an elaborate propaganda routine. Anyone accusing Moammar Gadhafi of possessing chemical weapons would be ridiculed. Lies, all lies! Come to Libya and see! Our Western left-wing organizations, like the World Peace Council, existed for sole purpose of spreading the propaganda we gave them. These very same groups bray the exact same themes to this day. We always relied on their expertise at organizing large street demonstrations in Western Europe over America's "war-mongering" whenever we wanted to distract world attention from the crimes of the vicious regimes we sponsored.

Iraq, in my view, had its own "Sarindar" plan in effect direct from Moscow. It certainly had one in the past. Nicolae Ceausescu told me so, and he heard it from Leonid Brezhnev. KGB chairman Yury Andropov, and later, Gen. Yevgeny Primakov, told me so, too. In the late 1970s, Gen. Primakov ran Saddam's weapons programs. After that, as you may recall, he was promoted to head of the Soviet foreign intelligence service in 1990, to Russia's minister of foreign affairs in 1996, and in 1998, to prime minister. What you may not know is that Primakov hates Israel and has always championed Arab radicalism. He was a personal friend of Saddam's and has repeatedly visited Baghdad after 1991, quietly helping Saddam play his game of hide-and-seek.

The Soviet bloc not only sold Saddam its WMDs, but it showed them how to make them "disappear." Russia is still at it. Primakov was in Baghdad from December until a couple of days before the war, along with a team of Russian military experts led by two of Russia's topnotch "retired"generals: Vladislav Achalov, a former deputy defense minister, and Igor Maltsev, a former air defense chief of staff. They were all there receiving honorary medals from the Iraqi defense minister. They clearly were not there to give Saddam military advice for the upcoming war—Saddam's Katyusha launchers were of World War II vintage, and his T-72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes were all obviously useless against America. "I did not fly to Baghdad to drink coffee," was what Gen. Achalov told the media afterward. They were there orchestrating Iraq's "Sarindar" plan.

The U.S. military in fact, has already found the only thing that would have been allowed to survive under the classic Soviet "Sarindar" plan to liquidate weapons arsenals in the event of defeat in war — the technological documents showing how to reproduce weapons stocks in just a few weeks.

Such a plan has undoubtedly been in place since August 1995 — when Saddam's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who ran Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological programs for 10 years, defected to Jordan. That August, UNSCOM and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors searched a chicken farm owned by Kamel's family and found more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes containing documentation dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear. Caught red-handed, Iraq at last admitted to its "extensive biological warfare program, including weaponization," issued a "Full, Final and Complete Disclosure Report" and turned over documents about the nerve agent VX and nuclear weapons.

Saddam then lured Gen. Kamel back, pretending to pardon his defection. Three days later, Kamel and over 40 relatives, including women and children, were murdered, in what the official Iraqi press described as a "spontaneous administration of tribal justice." After sending that message to his cowed, miserable people, Saddam then made a show of cooperation with UN inspection, since Kamel had just compromised all his programs, anyway. In November 1995, he issued a second "Full, Final and Complete Disclosure" as to his supposedly non-existent missile programs. That very same month, Jordan intercepted a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. UNSCOM soon fished similar missile components out of the Tigris River, again refuting Saddam's spluttering denials. In June 1996, Saddam slammed the door shut to UNSCOM's inspection of any "concealment mechanisms." On Aug. 5, 1998, halted cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA completely, and they withdrew on Dec. 16, 1998. Saddam had another four years to develop and hide his weapons of mass destruction without any annoying, prying eyes. U.N. Security Council resolutions 1115, (June 21, 1997), 1137 (Nov. 12, 1997), and 1194 (Sept. 9, 1998) were issued condemning Iraq—ineffectual words that had no effect. In 2002, under the pressure of a huge U.S. military buildup by a new U.S. administration, Saddam made yet another "Full, Final and Complete Disclosure," which was found to contain "false statements" and to constitute another "material breach" of U.N. and IAEA inspection and of paragraphs eight to 13 of resolution 687 (1991).

It was just a few days after this last "Disclosure," after a decade of intervening with the U.N. and the rest of the world on Iraq's behalf, that Gen. Primakov and his team of military experts landed in Baghdad — even though, with 200,000 U.S. troops at the border, war was imminent, and Moscow could no longer save Saddam Hussein. Gen. Primakov was undoubtedly cleaning up the loose ends of the "Sarindar" plan and assuring Saddam that Moscow would rebuild his weapons of mass destruction after the storm subsided for a good price.

Mr. Putin likes to take shots at America and wants to reassert Russia in world affairs. Why would he not take advantage of this opportunity? As minister of foreign affairs and prime minister, Gen. Primakov has authored the "multipolarity" strategy of counterbalancing American leadership by elevating Russia to great-power status in Eurasia. Between Feb. 9-12, Mr. Putin visited Germany and France to propose a three-power tactical alignment against the United States to advocate further inspections rather than war. On Feb. 21, the Russian Duma appealed to the German and French parliaments to join them on March 4-7 in Baghdad, for "preventing U.S. military aggression against Iraq." Crowds of European leftists, steeped for generations in left-wing propaganda straight out of Moscow, continue to find the line appealing.

Mr. Putin's tactics have worked. The United States won a brilliant military victory, demolishing a dictatorship without destroying the country, but it has begun losing the peace. While American troops unveiled the mass graves of Saddam's victims, anti-American forces in Western Europe and elsewhere, spewed out vitriolic attacks, accusing Washington of greed for oil and not of really caring about weapons of mass destruction, or exaggerating their risks, as if weapons of mass destruction were really nothing very much to worry about after all.

It is worth remembering that Andrei Sakharov, the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, chose to live in a Soviet gulag instead of continuing to develop the power of death. "I wanted to alert the world," Sakharov explained in 1968, "to the grave perils threatening the human race thermonuclear extinction, ecological catastrophe, famine." Even Igor Kurchatov, the KGB academician who headed the Soviet nuclear program from 1943 until his death in 1960, expressed deep qualms of conscience about helping to create weapons of mass destruction. "The rate of growth of atomic explosives is such," he warned in an article written together with several other Soviet nuclear scientists not long before he died, "that in just a few years the stockpile will be large enough to create conditions under which the existence of life on earth will be impossible."

The Cold War was fought over the reluctance to use weapons of mass destruction, yet now this logic is something only senior citizens seem to recall. Today, even lunatic regimes like that in North Korea not only possess weapons of mass destruction, but openly offer to sell them to anyone with cash, including terrorists and their state sponsors. Is anyone paying any attention? Being inured to proliferation, however, does not reduce its danger. On the contrary, it increases it.

True or not, the point is that the WMD debate has never been seriously over. To believe that Saddam deliberately and quietly destroyed his own WMD's is the thesis behind the "there were no WMD's in Iraq". It's rather hard to believe he did that. So there is a valid question that is unresolved. But rather than say "the question is unresolved", most liberals take great delight in saying "See, we were wrong!!!!". It's interesting, this constant, "let's poop in our own nest because we must be bad" approach that so many liberals have. It reeks of some sort of psych problem.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
09-19-2007, 12:20 PM
Looks like it to me. Or is this a trick question--like just becauseSecond, if you look at my record in posting, I'm pretty well middle of the road. That reminds me..... did you look for that post of mine on "Self Perception Disorder"?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
09-19-2007, 12:36 PM
That reminds me..... did you look for that post of mine on "Self Perception Disorder"?

Again, simply ingoring all the documentation and dismissing the messenger.

But rather than referring me back to something "YOU" wrote, maybe you should read that post, yourself, since you clearly believe that you are "fair and balanced" in your views. I could agree--if we mean "fair and balanced" in the sense that Fox News uses it.

Keep comin' back, Mike.

http://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

David

David Orange
09-19-2007, 12:38 PM
It's interesting, this constant, "let's poop in our own nest because we must be bad" approach that so many liberals have. It reeks of some sort of psych problem.


Speaking of psych problems and poop in the nest, you're sitting high on the Bush, the stench reaches for miles and you keep saying, "What stench?"

Talk about "reeks"!

David

Mike Sigman
09-19-2007, 12:44 PM
Again, simply ingoring all the documentation and dismissing the messenger.
What documentation? I've asked for actual proof that Bush is an alcoholic and each time you and others present surmise and cutsie agenda-websites. You're not rational. You haven't been rational in your discussions of ki, jin/kokyu, "babies do Aikido", your politics foamings, or anything else. Documentation? All you've done is argue by assertion.

Bush is a terrible public speaker. But then, so are lots of people. Next time I catch some public speaker stumbling and stammering and tripping over their tongue, I'll have to remember to accuse them of being drunk and an alcoholic to boot.... that's essentially all you're doing with Bush. Who's the lowlife?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
09-19-2007, 01:39 PM
What documentation? I've asked for actual proof that Bush is an alcoholic and each time you and others present surmise and cutsie agenda-websites.

It's documented quotes of Bush, himself, and videos of the real Bush being more of an idiot than Will Farrel makes him look. The web sites may choose which quotes to post, the quotes and the video are "HIM", clearly drunk, stupid or both.

You're not rational. You haven't been rational in your discussions of ki, jin/kokyu, "babies do Aikido", your politics foamings, or anything else. Documentation? All you've done is argue by assertion.

He asserted....

Mike, all you're doing is co-dependent covering for an alcoholic drug abuser. Okay, for him, he gets the benefit of yet another blind-eyed supporter who lets him get away with murder. But what do you get out of constantly excusing a drunk sociopath for everything he does? You resort to personal attacks, dismissal of evidence, substitution of anecdotal evidence and sheer denial to keep from admitting the truth. The closest you have come is when you admitted that "Bush is a joke." Yet you continue to support his inane leadership and "no one" can figure out why.

Can you tell us? Do you support this mass-murdering drunk sociopath "just because liberals hate him"???? Isn't that a stupid reason? You must not have any sons or grandsons in the US military now or I can't imagine you would stand for his foolish "strategerie." You sit in the stench and decry the reek and call me irrational. It doesn't add up, Mike. Something is very, very wrong in the way you're thinking.

Bush is a terrible public speaker. But then, so are lots of people.

Especially drunks.

Next time I catch some public speaker stumbling and stammering and tripping over their tongue, I'll have to remember to accuse them of being drunk and an alcoholic to boot.... that's essentially all you're doing with Bush.

Mike, Mike, Mike. There you go again. In some of these videos, he's actually holding his glass up in salute. I'm not talking about where he says something like "is our children being educated" or "fool me twice...you...fool...me...fool me twices....we won't be fooled again." I'm talking about videos where he is obviously and clearly drunk. Why do you insist on enabling him? What do you get out of it? A tax break?????

David

Neil Mick
09-19-2007, 01:43 PM
Are you honestly saying that "free speech = anything you want to say" does NOT mean the same as "Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship."

Uhhh, hello, it means the SAME THING.

"Uhhhh, hello:" but sorry, but it doesn't. I noticed you tried to add "Without restrictions," to my definition. Nice try to re-write wikipedia, John: but you'd be much better off editing it yourself rather than here.

"without restrictions" does not = "without censorship"

Was there something I missed in my example of yelling "fire" in a threatre? This is an example of free speech without restriction (ie, saying whatever you want). HOWEVER, you can be "censored" for yelling fire in a theatre, if you attempt to use free speech as a defence in court, should you be hauled in for inciting the inevitable riot.

Anything you want to say means speaking without censorship.

Wrong.

Restriction: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/restriction)

1. a principle that limits the extent of something; "I am willing to accept certain restrictions on my movements"

Censorship (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship)

1. counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring]
2. deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: censoring]


Censorship implies an "official" or "sanctioned" ban from a given authority; while a "restriction" implies any general limitation. For example, Jun can "restrict" our comments here to the limits of his guidelines on respect; but he cannot "censor" us, as he is not some official gov't or societal agency.

Do you call janitors "sanitation engineers", too??

You might think it semantics, John; but it isn't. Look it up, the differences have legal ramifications.

try to respond without accusing me of something... you can do it....

Since this is the first post you've written free of insult...here you go! No accusations here.

Mike Sigman
09-19-2007, 02:07 PM
It's documented quotes of Bush, himself, and videos of the real Bush being more of an idiot than Will Farrel makes him look. The web sites may choose which quotes to post, the quotes and the video are "HIM", clearly drunk, stupid or both.

He asserted....

Mike, all you're doing is co-dependent covering for an alcoholic drug abuser. Okay, for him, he gets the benefit of yet another blind-eyed supporter who lets him get away with murder. But what do you get out of constantly excusing a drunk sociopath for everything he does? You resort to personal attacks, dismissal of evidence, substitution of anecdotal evidence and sheer denial to keep from admitting the truth. The closest you have come is when you admitted that "Bush is a joke." Yet you continue to support his inane leadership and "no one" can figure out why.

Can you tell us? Do you support this mass-murdering drunk sociopath "just because liberals hate him"???? Isn't that a stupid reason? You must not have any sons or grandsons in the US military now or I can't imagine you would stand for his foolish "strategerie." You sit in the stench and decry the reek and call me irrational. It doesn't add up, Mike. Something is very, very wrong in the way you're thinking.

Especially drunks.

Mike, Mike, Mike. There you go again. In some of these videos, he's actually holding his glass up in salute. I'm not talking about where he says something like "is our children being educated" or "fool me twice...you...fool...me...fool me twices....we won't be fooled again." I'm talking about videos where he is obviously and clearly drunk. Why do you insist on enabling him? What do you get out of it? A tax break?????Let me make two comments.

The slanderous and personal attacks on Bush by a small group of AikiWeb members are what's interesting, given the forum's supposed rules about "ad hominem" attacks. This has usually been my entre into discussions with Neil Mick who seems to promote villification, while at the same time boo-hooing out loud about "ad hominem" attacks. It's like the World of Bizarro. You guys need to realize how you look to any person with a modicum of reason and self-control. The speeches at the 2004 DNC nominating convention were reviewed and censored because the party became aware that many moderate and conservative Dems are turned off by the lunatic Left's penchant for character assassination. The current uproar of the "General Betray Us" sloganeering by the lunatic Left is a mark of the same thing.... it's simply gotten out of hand.

The second comment is about using techno-babble terms like "enabling" and "co-dependent", etc., in relation to alcoholics. They're a complete misuse of the terms, David. But I've had a number of encounters with bona fide alcoholics in my day and the one thing that stands out in my mind is how it is impossible to win an argument with someone who has a real addiction problem. Your arguments and Neils fall exactly into the nonsense arguments that chemically dependent people use. Mark Freeman and David Chalk, not so much... they're presenting very fixed points of view but they're not into the surreal arguments of the chemically dependent the way you and Neil appear to be, IMO. Regardless of whether my guess is right or wrong, I think you've made your personality and reasoning positions abundantly and repetitiously clear, so I'll drop the discussion. The topic header about "sick puppies" is actually pretty humorous, in your case.

Kind Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
09-19-2007, 02:15 PM
Let me make two comments.

Neil Mick who seems to promote villification, while at the same time boo-hooing out loud about "ad hominem" attacks.

It's like the World of Bizarro. You guys need to realize how you look to any person with a modicum of reason and self-control.

And YOU need to realize what the definition of "ad hominem" IS...HELLO? Did you read my other thread, "In Defence of George Bush??"

Throughout this thread, I have BARELY EVEN MENTIONED W. In fact, I find it a little annoying that ppl are hijacking this thread into an anti-Bush screed. I actually agree with you that too much time is given into personal attacks on the man.

So, unless you're going to bring in accounts of past posts, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep the discussion current and accurate (at least, involving personal comments and attacks), altho I also realize that for you, this may well be nigh impossible.

Your arguments and Neils fall exactly into the nonsense arguments that chemically dependent people use.

but they're not into the surreal arguments of the chemically dependent the way you and Neil appear to be, IMO.


Oh, RIGHT! You're so on the ball, Mike! You NEVER use ad hominems!!

And, not being in agreement with David Orange's views or tactics: I'd appreciate it if you left out the unfair comparisons lumping me and David together in the same category.

(PS In case you missed it, not reading the "Respect" guidelines the way you do, we are only asked to "Respect other Poster's." Not seeing George Bush on the member-list, I can surmise that he doesn't count. You, me, David O, and John H all do, however. Something to keep in mind, the next time you start accusing people en-mass of acting like chemical dependents...)

Mike Sigman
09-19-2007, 02:50 PM
So, unless you're going to bring in accounts of past posts, I did bring it in. I've mentioned it in the past as one of the main reasons I objected to many of your posts. You apparently now have a different view of personal characterizations, now that you've seen how freely that blade cuts in all directions, though.And, not being in agreement with David Orange's views or tactics: I'd appreciate it if you left out the unfair comparisons lumping me and David together in the same category.Sorry, I get the fanaticisms confused. Don't get me wrong, either: I'm as harsh or harsher with the fanatics in the Right Wing side of things, too...... IF I even consider that one of them is intelligent enough to argue with. Anytime someone presents one side of an issue while totally ignoring any aspects that contravenes their beliefs, they're fair game, in my book. Such a person is at heart dishonest, whether a left-wing loon or a religious fundamentalist (or "survivalist" or any extremist) of any sort. (PS In case you missed it, not reading the "Respect" guidelines the way you do, we are only asked to "Respect other Poster's." Not seeing George Bush on the member-list, I can surmise that he doesn't count. So then it's OK for me to make suggestions about your mother being an alcoholic? Or is she on the list already? :D In other words, that's a silly argument, Neil. Personal destruction is personal destruction. You're attempting to rationalize it onesidedly and you know it.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

akiy
09-19-2007, 03:02 PM
Too many personal attacks here in this thread. Thread closed.

-- Jun