More Evidence of the PC-Driven Clinton Justice Department
The Clintonistas allowed young Islamic male terrorists into our country for two years before 9/11 due to the “political backlash” of profiling and/or making illegal immigration harder….. They stood by while these young Islamic males trained at flight schools…… Clinton golfed while Osama was in the sites of American missles, but Clinton blinked…..
And now this!
Raul Castro: Cocaine Connection? – ABC News (h/t: Instapundit)
Federal prosecutors in Miami were prepared to indict Raul Castro as the head of a major cocaine smuggling conspiracy in 1993, but the Clinton Administration Justice Department overruled them, current and former Justice Department officials tell ABC News.
“It was a major investigation involving numerous witnesses that was killed at the highest levels in Washington,” said a former Justice Department official with direct knowledge of the case.
So apparently, it was okay to seize a Cuban child at gunpoint and force him back to a 
Communist-run nation, but it wasn’t okay to press on with charges against the Dictator For Life’s Brother…. who now runs Cuba on behalf of Fidel.
Maybe Sandy Berger was on the Cuban payroll at the time? The Clinton Era Mistakes are so numerous that future Presidents will have to dig out our nation for years to come.
Simply mindboggling.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
104 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thanks for saying something about this. Though I am not sure whose payroll the Clintonistas were on. They were selling pardons and regulatory favors for cash (Marc Rich, Hillary’s brother and others). They were taking bribes, ahem political contributions, from China. And so on.
Comment by anon — August 14, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - August 14, 2006
And are we supposed to be surprised about this revelation? For the previous administration, such shenanigans were “business as usual.”
And people want Shrillary to run in ’08? Ye gods. Talk about being stuck on stupid…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 14, 2006 @ 3:19 pm - August 14, 2006
So, those weren’t national state secrets SandyStuffYourPantsBerger was pounding into his shorts at the National Archives. They were ZigZag rolling papers left over from the last Clinton staff meeting! Viva Castro. Viva Clinton.
Just when we needed a good reminder of the scandal ridden, corrupt, incompetent Administration of Slick Willy and Borin’AlGore… pop, the world press provides it.
I wonder if Hillary is thinking about killing off this ABC newsreporter for running this story like she did Vince Foster?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 14, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - August 14, 2006
#3 – Now, now, MMatt…there’s no proof at all that Hill & Bill offed Vince Foster and dumped the body in Fort Marcie Park.
However:
A) Vince Foster worked in the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas along with Hitlery and the two of them spent “considerable time” together, which infuriated Bill.
B) Hitlery had hired Vince as her divorce lawyer when she threatened to separate from Bill – they later made up after he won a second non-consecutive term as Arkansas governor.
C) On the day of Vince’s “suicide,” his secretary reported that he left the office, grabbed his coat and said “I’ll be back later.” Not “goodbye and farewell, cruel world.” Does that fit the pattern of a potential suicide victim?
D) The White House waited 48 hours after the discovery of Vince’s death before saying anything to the press and to the public…right after Bill & Hill went through his office at the White House and removed most of the papers there. Surprisingly enough, many of them were never found again. Some were found in the personal living quarters of the WH…right along with those FBI files on select Congressmen.
In other words, RUN, ABC REPORTER, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 14, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - August 14, 2006
Peter, I agree they probably cleaned up Vince Foster’s papers for 48 hours, but it’s a leap to think that means they killed him.
Telling the secretary “I’ll be back later” does fit the pattern of a suicide. They’re notorious for living in quiet despair – not telling people what they’re feeling.
Comment by Calarato — August 14, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - August 14, 2006
#5 – Of course, Cal. I was merely taking some alleged “conspiracy theories” and using them to illustrate an absurd conclusion. Sort of like the “9/11-was-an-inside-job” argument.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 14, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - August 14, 2006
I am going to paste a prior comment here:
Ahh,
The classic rant of the right:
When the facts are in the way,
When reality looks to real,
When the chips are down,
And when all else fails…..Blame Clinton!
And the right dares to say the Left is full of hatred?
Mention a Clintonite and watch hypocrisy ensue
Comment by keogh — August 14, 2006 @ 6:06 pm - August 14, 2006
#6 – Ah, I get it. Sorry for being slow off the mark!
You’re right – it is a spot-on imitation of our leftist friends!
Comment by Calarato — August 14, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - August 14, 2006
so, we’re still blaming someone who ain’t been in the white house since January of ’01? tsk, tsk, tsk….
And as far as Elian Gonzalez: you advocate keeping chrildren away from their parents? I’m no fan of Castro; I know people who’ve grown up there and were lucky enough to get away from the Castro indoctrination camps that all cubans are subjected to as children. But seriously, you want to keep a father away from his son?
Of course, if we’re soooooo concerned about bringing Democracy and regime change, why haven’t we done so in Cuba? Guess oil from the mid-east is more important than cigars.
Comment by Kevin — August 14, 2006 @ 6:58 pm - August 14, 2006
Well, gee, Kevin…I thought it took a VILLAGE to raise a child? Unless, of course, it’s a refugee from a totalitarian dictatorship and you are the junior senator from NY…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 14, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - August 14, 2006
Zing!
Another Clinton Shot!
What’s their kid doing?
Or is it just disagreement?
Why can’t that go both ways?
Comment by keogh — August 14, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - August 14, 2006
This revelation is something. All administrations have to make informed judgements about such things. Weigh the consequences vs the benefits of blowing the whistle on the dictators right hand man. My main problem with the previous administration is what did they really accomplish in 8 years? So many real and large problems and challenges were simply kicked down the road. 8 years in this day and age we’re realizing, is an eternity. Americans were led to believe that the world was void of challenges. With the exception of whether you could take a day off to get your sick pet to the vet. Clinton gave us the family leave act. Wasted time.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 14, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - August 14, 2006
let’s see we’ve got lester, raj or Ian depending on the moment, keogh, monty and a few others from the GayLeft singularly helping lower case letters replace therapeutic self-assessments regarding low esteem… how ever did we get so lucky?
keogh pens at #7… “when all else fails…..Blame Clinton! And the right dares to say the Left is full of hatred? Mention a Clintonite and watch hypocrisy ensue”.
keogh, with the little K, read carefully: the difference is that Peter and I were engaged in outrageous parody. Your friends and you actaully believe the DailyKos TalkingPoints you throw out –loaded with BushHatred.
Sort of something you may want to keep in mind during debate class in high school.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 14, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - August 14, 2006
Kevin writes: “Guess oil from the mid-east is more important than cigars.”
Right, Kevin. It’s all about oil. Always is; always will be with GOPers and BushCo. You guys can stick to MyDD talking points even as gas prices approach $3.50/gal and make your argument utterly ridiculous to even the most simple minds on the street. I wish you had that much loyalty to the troops or the security of your neighbors.
It’s all about oil. Where are the WMDs? John F “I wouldn’t have done that” Kerry should be president. They stole the 2000 election. Global warming is real. OJ was innocent. Truman was a great president. Carter was… well, you guys haven’t been able to restore that one yet because as he lives, he proves he was a disaster with each stolen breath.
Kevin, if you think it was all about oil, why do we support Israel? Why are we in Iraq? Why Afghanistan? Why not let that part of the world fall in intracountry fratricides?
Yeah, it’s ALL about the oil, Kevin. How silly.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 14, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - August 14, 2006
Still talking about Clinton… Because there isn’t much else going on in the world.
I think it would have been great if they just gave you Elian–you could rename hime ElianPatriot and blog about him while you raised him. Then we might hear less about Bill Clinton this, Clinton that.
Comment by sean — August 14, 2006 @ 10:08 pm - August 14, 2006
I recently came across this article at the Houston Voice Dot Com. The title of the article is : “Ann Coulter and Mel Gibson are just the latest examples of our society’s tolerance of hate speech in public debate.”
The URL is
http://www.houstonvoice.com/2006/8-11/view/opinion/intolerance.cfm
My question is this:
In the article it states:
“In an interview with Ann Coulter, author of “Godless: The Religion of Liberals,” on the July 27 edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball” with host Chris Matthews, Coulter called former Vice President Al Gore “a fag” and hinted that Bill Clinton might be gay.”
Is this true; or is this more left wing propaganda from the Left Wing Gay Press.
Thanks,
Jay Gay USA Nationalist
Comment by jaygayusanationalist — August 14, 2006 @ 10:09 pm - August 14, 2006
Thank God you brought up immigration again, since you have this anti-immigration/Santorum ad running large on your blog. Just how much do y’all love Santorum here? What makes Santorum appealing to a “Patriot”? What makes Santourm appealing to a “Gay”? What makes Santorum appealing to someone on the “West” coast? Or, for that matter, what makes Santorum so appealing for people who don’t even live in his state?
Comment by sean — August 14, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - August 14, 2006
#16. Google it. Google isn’t Left Wing…YET. (But it will be soon…)
Comment by sean — August 14, 2006 @ 10:16 pm - August 14, 2006
hmmm….and not one word about the thin as paper, fragile cease fire, brokered in part by the UN that went into effect today. Who knows how long it will last, but maybe it will go a teensy bit longer if that moron in the White House will shut his big mouth. Would have thought he would have learned from his “mission accomplished” or “bring it on” statements to not call a game too early, but you can’t teach a moron new tricks. Lord give us strength.
Comment by Kevin — August 14, 2006 @ 10:59 pm - August 14, 2006
Matt,
Where you alive in the 90′s?
Do you honestly believe that the liberal’s rabble rouseing is even close to the vile puke that has been written/spoken/thought about Clinton?
Come on…
And you know its funny, we are in the Midst of a drastic decline in American Power, possibly the greatest in the history of the country, and all you guys can do is make jokes about Clinton.
Who’s out of ideas now…
Comment by keogh — August 15, 2006 @ 12:35 am - August 15, 2006
I’m sure there’s a perfectly logical explanation for this being downplayed. Perhaps Clinton found out that a significant quantity of Raul’s cocaine had found its way up a certain former President’s son’s nose and he wanted to spare the country that embarrassment of having that information exposed.
Comment by Ian — August 15, 2006 @ 1:37 am - August 15, 2006
#9 Concerning Elian… probably he should have been returned to his father, though I doubt it was quite that simple. Taking him from the home he was in by gun-point was, however, beyond stupid.
Comment by Synova — August 15, 2006 @ 2:12 am - August 15, 2006
Who knows how long it will last, but maybe it will go a teensy bit longer if that moron in the White House will shut his big mouth. Would have thought he would have learned from his “mission accomplished” or “bring it on” statements to not call a game too early, but you can’t teach a moron new tricks.
I doubt the United States is going to break the ceasefire, and the Israelis certainly haven’t, despite the fact that it hasn’t stopped the rockets from being flung at them.
But who will? The Left’s darling, poor little Hizbollah. In fact, they already have, given that they’re still firing rockets into Israel, but of course, who gets the blame from rabid Democrat terrorist supporters like Kevin? Bush.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2006 @ 3:21 am - August 15, 2006
23: Read my post a little closer. Hezbollah needs to be defeated. Let’s just not give them an immediate reason (ie the idiot in charge opening his mouth) to have them start firing again.
Comment by Kevin — August 15, 2006 @ 6:13 am - August 15, 2006
Ian (or raj with an upper case letter day) writes: “I’m sure there’s a perfectly logical explanation for this (Clinton axes drug indictment of Raul Castro) being downplayed.”
I’m surprised you would a) care for ANY logical explanation, b) agree that the Clinton Administration protected known drug dealers, and c) can’t fathom or discern the real reason: the MSM still love Slick Willy and all his sleazy cohorts… except any cohort with BigHair or who live in a trailer park or think CheezWhiz is one of the major food groups.
Hillary herself exempted, of course.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 15, 2006 @ 8:28 am - August 15, 2006
23: Read my post a little closer. Hezbollah needs to be defeated. Let’s just not give them an immediate reason (ie the idiot in charge opening his mouth) to have them start firing again.
Let’s show the double standard of the leftist Democrat here.
According to Dems, this is hate speech that justifies Hizbollah breaking a ceasefire.
On the other hand, they go blind and deaf when this is said.
Personally, I think that if puppet Democrats like Kevin will justify breaking a ceasefire over Bush’s words, they should justify it over Syria’s, Iran’s, and Hizbollah’s.
But again, that would be assuming that puppet Democrats like Kevin aren’t anti-Bush and anti-American hypocrites.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - August 15, 2006
From NDT’s first link:
“Bush said Hezbollah and its supporters in Iran and Syria were responsible for the 34-day war, and called that conflict ‘part of a broader struggle between freedom and terror.’”
Excellent point, and very glad Bush said it.
And note that Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and al Qaeda certainly see it the same way. Oh, they use different terminology – they would say it’s a struggle, not between freedom and terror, but between Islam and infidels. And they would say the infidels started it, by being infidels – (e.g., that Israel started it by existing). But they certainly acknowledge the basic conflict. They take it deadly serious, and have every intention of pursuing it to our deaths (or total submission).
“Iran has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel,” [Bush went on to say]. “We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks.”
Another truth.
And if Hezbollah starts firing again: that means THEY are breaking the ceasefire. By their own choice and actions. Indeed, only a double-standard gay leftie could get it wrong and claim that Bush’s words would have provoked Hezbollah.
Because there is a further double standard here, NDT. Recall for a moment what gay activists have to say about gay bashings.
The bashers sometimes attempt a defense where they claim they were provoked by the victims – by words, taunts, unwanted glances or sexual advances.
The gay activists (and hopefully, the victims) quite rightly point out how that is bull; how, even if the bashers’ story were true, no words or taunts or glances or advances from the victims could ever justify the bashers’ responding with physical violence. Period.
The gay activists are correct in saying that (and I’m one of the ones who has said it).
But, when it comes to the matter Hezbollah or other terrorist criminals initiating violence against Israel or the U.S.: whoops, suddenly it’s all forgotten. Suddenly, it’s legitimate to blame and attack President Bush for supposedly ‘provoking’ Hezbollah – with mere WORDS.
Hezbollah’s choice and agency and responsibility, as the INITIATOR OF VIOLENCE, is suddenly minimized. “Blame America first” – “Blame Bush first”.
Comment by Calarato — August 15, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - August 15, 2006
#26: “According to Dems, this is hate speech that justifies Hizbollah breaking a ceasefire.”
Nah, it’s just stupid speech but it’s what we’ve grown accustomed to whenever Bush opens his trap. Now where is your cite wherein Dems claim that what Bush said “is hate speech that justifies Hizbollah breaking a ceasefire?” Now I realize you’re in the habit of flinging wild accusations without any backup but I’d really like to see a cite for this whopper. Mind you, I’m not holding my breath since you STILL haven’t provided a cite for your ludicrous claim about Lamont in an earlier thread.
Comment by Ian — August 15, 2006 @ 1:08 pm - August 15, 2006
P.S. My point being: Gays, in particular, should know better.
Leftie gay activist types ought to know, better than anybody else, that the violent were ‘going to do what they were going to do’ and mere words can’t & don’t provoke them.
Comment by Calarato — August 15, 2006 @ 1:08 pm - August 15, 2006
Ian (must be another upper letter day for GayLeft apologists) writes: “Now I realize you’re (NDXXX) in the habit of flinging wild accusations without any backup but I’d really like to see a cite for this whopper.”
While NDXXX is quite able to handle gnats on his own, let me take a swat at answering you, Ian, in your best sockpuppet raj voice:
(clearing throat) “It’s not important for anyone to provide citable proof at a source beyond repute, if you doubt my bloviation, you must provide proof that they NEVER SAID what I attribute to them.”
That raj, he is a crack-up on the debate floor. So, Ian… provide us with verifiable citations from irreputable sources that none of the cut&run Democrats sadi those things about your and my President, George Bush.
If you can’t prove that they never said it… then you’re wrong and you must admit your errors, submit to the truth and repeat at a public venue in a bright, energized voice: “Bush in 2008, Bush in 2008″.
See how silly some of the nonsense you drag out can be, Ian?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 15, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - August 15, 2006
Well done, Michigan-Matt; in addition, here is the following:
23: Read my post a little closer. Hezbollah needs to be defeated. Let’s just not give them an immediate reason (ie the idiot in charge opening his mouth) to have them start firing again.
Comment by Kevin — August 15, 2006 @ 6:13 am – August 15, 2006
And in addition to that:
hmmm….and not one word about the thin as paper, fragile cease fire, brokered in part by the UN that went into effect today. Who knows how long it will last, but maybe it will go a teensy bit longer if that moron in the White House will shut his big mouth. Would have thought he would have learned from his “mission accomplished” or “bring it on” statements to not call a game too early, but you can’t teach a moron new tricks. Lord give us strength.
Comment by Kevin — August 14, 2006 @ 10:59 pm – August 14, 2006
Therefore, I’ve gone above and beyond by RajIan standards; not only have I let you go without providing citation that the Democrats never said such a thing, I’ve provided you actual quotes of a known Democrat and leftist.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2006 @ 3:37 pm - August 15, 2006
#30 & 31 – Fellow conservatives, I tip my hat to you two. Very well-put and very apt.
Oh, and BTW to assorted lower-case self-absorbed haters, here is food for thought:
1. It’s funny how you think Cuban snow went up W’s nose, when it was alleged all through the 1990s that Slick Willie was a drug abuser. If you don’t believe me, then why didn’t Der Schlickmeister ever release his medical records? Our 43rd president has done so. And consistently. As for Billie Boy, he claims that his records were “lost” in a convenient fire.
2. As far as criticism of the past presidential administration goes, I can’t wait for some demoncRAT to be elected to the presidency and try to pin the blame on the Bush administration. Of course, the Drive-By Media will probably give them a pass as they are wont to do. Let’s not forget that 9/11 was being planned prior to 2000, when you-know-who was in office…
3. Since when are we in the midsts of a “drastic decline in American power,” as the 401(k) plan pointed out (that’s a pun on “keogh” to you lefties who are also economically challenged). Please provide the facts.
And while we’re on the subject, to whom can the blame be ascribed FOR this supposed decline in USA power? Here are a few quotes for you:
“Today we killed the Patriot Act.” (Sen Min Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, in December 2005)
“Five years after 9-11, our country is not as safe as it needs to be or should be. Americans deserve real security, not just leaders who talk tough but fail to deliver.” (Sen Mark Pryor, D-AR, August 2006)
“Five years after 9-11, it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win.” (Sen Teddy “The Swimmer” Kennedy, D-MA, August 2006)
Are all these people implying Bush’s foreign policy has given the terrorists grounds to attack us? Well, how about these senators joining the rallying cry against the terrorists instead of against President Bush?
These people are either inexcusably clueless about the nature of the terrorists and the gravity and scope of the threat they pose, or they are aware and choose to lend them moral support anyway.
I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 15, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - August 15, 2006
Since there isn’t much to be said on-topic and the thread has basically wandered off…
Here is a military graduation speech that is not to be missed:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/15/lt-col-randolph-c-white-a-great-american/
I think it applies to many I’ve seen in this forum.
Comment by Calarato — August 15, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - August 15, 2006
I saw this speech too. VERY moving and it made my day.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 15, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - August 15, 2006
Actually, it’s GOOD to see Bill Clinton mess up within a VERTICAL POSITION for a change!
Comment by Jeffrey Williams — August 15, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - August 15, 2006
#30: Since your whole premise is wrong i.e. I am not raj, your argument is inapplicable. Plus, your repeated insults have not gone unnoticed. You cannot be unaware of the rules Bruce imposed so I must assume you have so little respect for the hosts of this blog that you feel entitled to ignore their repeated requests for civility.
#31: Two points: First you claimed “Dems” now it’s just one person who may or may not be a Dem. Quite a backtrack. Second you claim “hate speech” when actually no such thing was either said nor implied at least by any “cite” you have so far provided.
Comment by Ian — August 15, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - August 15, 2006
You cannot be unaware of the rules Bruce imposed so I must assume you have so little respect for the hosts of this blog that you feel entitled to ignore their repeated requests for civility.
Two problems with that statement:
1) You have been as much, if not more, uncivil
2) You are ignoring the very clear statement that GP made directly to you on who determines uncivility — and related to your previous attempt to complain about that topic.
Thus, it can be clearly demonstrated, with citation, that your concern for “not showing respect” is hypocritical. You yourself are ignoring the clear warning you were given specifically and, by your own logic, are thus not showing our blog hosts the due respect you are criticizing others for allegedly not showing them.
First you claimed “Dems” now it’s just one person who may or may not be a Dem. Quite a backtrack. Second you claim “hate speech” when actually no such thing was either said nor implied at least by any “cite” you have so far provided.
And Peter H. gladly provided additional citation.
Furthermore, by the rules of Raj citation, you must provide evidence that Democrats never said any such thing in order to refute the charge — unless you wish to specifically say that Raj is wrong.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2006 @ 4:49 pm - August 15, 2006
Bruce, of course you’re absolutley correct about the Clinton Administration doing the cake walk on busting a drug smuggling Cuban leader.
It still irks me that the Clinton Administration didn’t heed the warnings from outgoing President Bush 41 when he told Bill Clinton on Inauguration Day 1993 that Osama bin Laden was training terrorists in Afghanistan, that Osama had a sophisticated network of cells and funding already in place, that Osama was capable of a massive terrorist attack against the US and other Free World countries, and that the attack might include flying fuel laden jets into major skyscrapers or national monuments.
I can’t believe that Bill Clinton’s only response to this high level, super secret briefing was… “Hey, is that cute chick over near the fruit bowl available?”
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 15, 2006 @ 5:03 pm - August 15, 2006
And in case the above isn’t damning enough, there’s this bit of history:
In 1999 – just seven years ago this week – 11 terrorists dedicated to the violent pursuit of Puerto Rican independence walked out of prison thanks to a clemency grant by President Clinton. This was the infamous FALN terrorist gang that had run rampant in NYC in the 1970s and 1980s.
When the House Judiciary Committee wished to investigate the pardons, President Clinton cited (SURPRISE!) executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.
But his Attorney General Janet Reno did speak about the clemency of terrorists:
The Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN, 16 of whose members were pardoned by President Clinton in August, posed an “ongoing threat” to national security, according to a September 1999 report by Attorney General Janet Reno.
Only weeks after Clinton’s controversial pardons, a Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan released under Reno’s name said that the pending release of FALN members would heighten the risk of domestic terrorism.
But what the heck — Hillary and Al Gore needed the Hispanic votes for their respective 2000 races.
Still need proof, lower-case-letter users? Here you go:
An internal White House memorandum reveals that releasing the FALN terrorists was seen as a way to aid Vice President Gore’s campaign for President. “The VP’s Puerto Rican position would be helped,” wrote the President’s advisor on the matter (House Report 106-488).
But former Clinton advisor Dick Morris claims, “Anyone who doesn’t believe the timing, and likely the substance, of [President Clinton's] decision was linked to [the First Lady's] courtship of New York’s large Puerto Rican vote is too naive for politics.”
But probably not too naive to be a GayLeftLib, for that matter.
And THIS is why we do not trust the RATS on national security.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 15, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - August 15, 2006
#37: “You have been as much, if not more, uncivil”
Since Bruce made his request? Really? Then please provide a cite so I can apologize to the person wronged.
“You are ignoring the very clear statement that GP made directly to you on who determines uncivility ”
Not at all. I have never claimed that GP is not the final arbiter of civility. My comment was to Matt who continues to fling insults and simply meant as a friendly reminder that at some point he might just stray over the line.
“by the rules of Raj citation, you must provide evidence that Democrats never said any such thing in order to refute the charge — unless you wish to specifically say that Raj is wrong.”
I don’t recall raj ever claiming someone had to prove such a negative but if he did then he is wrong because you can’t prove a negative.
It is your perogative to refuse to provide cites for your claims but to continue to do so only weakens whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Comment by Ian — August 15, 2006 @ 5:30 pm - August 15, 2006
31: “A known democrat” I just love that criminal sound you give that phrase…
“But what the heck — Hillary and Al Gore needed the Hispanic votes for their respective 2000 races.” Well, you got democrats on that one….Bush easily trotted his cutesy boy, very hispanice looking nephew to do that for his campaign. I just love all the attacks on political tactics…as if either political party is superior when it comes to tactics.
Comment by Kevin — August 15, 2006 @ 6:07 pm - August 15, 2006
Not at all. I have never claimed that GP is not the final arbiter of civility.
Let me quote specifically what GP said:
Once again, I suggest that these new rules do not give you the authority to heighten your personal sensitivities here, nor to create rule violations for rule violations sake.
In short, the quote not only made it clear that GP was the final arbiter, but also that you had no authority to run around claiming that such-and-such was a rule violation or creating them out of thin air.
Hence, you yourself by deliberately obfuscating and being deceitful about GP’s statement, are by your own standards, being uncivil.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - August 15, 2006
#42 and earlier -
rajIan, give it up already. You lack the basics of credibility, moral stature and track record in this place that would be needed for you launch criticisms of others on civility. Deal with it.
Comment by Calarato — August 15, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - August 15, 2006
Geez, Kevin, sounds like you wanted that cutesy Hispanic Bush boy (incidentally, his NAME is George Prescott Bush) all to yourself.
And incidentally, what does that have to do with anything? Or are you assuming that Latinos are too stupid to vote for anyone who isn’t pandering?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Go way in the back and sit down now.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 15, 2006 @ 7:15 pm - August 15, 2006
Oh – And as long as this thread is off topic – or I’m off topic, at least -
Saddam did have chemical WMD, folks, which Russian Special Forces moved out to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003.
I mean, quite apart from the other Iraqi WMD remnants whose existence they declassified earlier this year.
Comment by Calarato — August 15, 2006 @ 7:25 pm - August 15, 2006
Question for the Bush haters. If a Dem liberal ever gets elected to the Presidency, are conservatives free to be as anti administration as you have been these past 5 years? I repeat, the ppl that wish America harm are no doubt encouraged when they see half the country and half the Congress fight the elected executive every step of the way in this fight. As noted above…the past 2 yrs…most liberals are against the Patriot Act, SWIFT, and against survelience of phone calls to a terrorist. Some of these were employed by the Brits and Americans to save 2500 innocents last week. These same liberals who now say Rummy didn’t send enough troops early on to Iraq voted to gut the military pre Bush. Many brave and hard working men and women have worked tirelessly to prevent another 9/11. I don’t know anyone who thought we’d go this long without another massive attack. God Bless America.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 15, 2006 @ 9:25 pm - August 15, 2006
#43: “You lack the basics of credibility, moral stature blah, blah, blah”
Speaking of moral stature, I wonder how many of you conservatives plan to vote for the racist, George Allen, for President:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009422.php
I must say that some of your GOP leaders maintain a paper thin veneer over their bigotry.
Comment by Ian — August 15, 2006 @ 9:50 pm - August 15, 2006
#46: “If a Dem liberal ever gets elected to the Presidency, are conservatives free to be as anti administration as you have been these past 5 years?”
Considering how you conservatives wailed and moaned for the eight years of the Clinton Presidency, we’ve just begun to get even. Heck, we haven’t even begun impeachment proceedings yet. Nor the subsequent war crimes trials for Bushco. But I hereby give you permission to be as vile and nasty as you care to be should a Dem be elected president in 2008. It’ll remind the American people exactly why they booted the GOP and its enablers out of power.
Comment by Ian — August 15, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - August 15, 2006
Gene,
Of course republicans can be critical of a dem.
Why not? Its America. (Look at how you all you foamed at the mouth over Clinton)
If a Democratic president waged war so incompetently as Bush has waged Iraq II than for all means criticize away.
The real question is this:
Why are you Righties so insecure of bush bashing?
Does it ring too true for you?
Do you have a hard time seeing your messiah prove all too fallible?
Comment by keogh — August 16, 2006 @ 12:15 am - August 16, 2006
I think that the problem with BOTH Bush and Clinton administrations is that they are more run by IDEOLOGIES than by actual real people. Clinton, in his liberal views about immigration, let America’s front door wide open for ANYBODY to come here and terrorize people. Both Bush presidents have been so LENIENT on Saudia Arabia, and other Muslim countries that have such horrid human rights records, for cheap oil prices to keep our economic indicators running high and taxes low. BOTH sides of the political aisle in Washington have a lot to answer for…
We need to stop electing political “yes-men” to public office and start electing REAL men to the job…Real men that will look at this nation’s problems and actually THINK of how to fix them, instead of letting political action committees and special interests groups come into the Oval Office and say, “This what you need to do about THIS…”
Comment by Jeffrey Williams — August 16, 2006 @ 12:40 am - August 16, 2006
#49: I think you have to understand keogh that the GOP is about to enter meltdown mode. An obviously rattled George Felix Allen twice let his racism bubble to the surface in public. After the Trent Lott fiasco, this should put an end to Allen’s Presidential aspirations if not his re-election to the Senate. But as things get increasingly bleak for the GOP, I think we’re bound to see more of such vileness break through the thin veneer of respectability so many GOP leaders have cultivated over the years. They simply won’t be able to help themselves and the results will not be pretty.
Comment by Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 12:42 am - August 16, 2006
#50: “Clinton, in his liberal views about immigration, let America’s front door wide open for ANYBODY to come here and terrorize people.”
Can you provide some actual evidence for this claim?
Comment by Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 12:44 am - August 16, 2006
#45 cont -
I’ve been catching up on some Iraq stuff, which is why I’m posting it off-off-topic now. I know some people will be interested.
Remember Michael Scheuer? Big 2004 critic over Iraq (though also a critic of Clinton and of Richard Clarke). Went around on TV saying there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and WMD, blah blah blah. It turns out that in his 2002 book, he believed and said the precise opposite. He approvingly gave pages on bin Laden’s WMD research collaborations with Saddam.
The information in this interview is amazing on many topics. The “Butcher of Basra”, who defected in 1991, says he kept some military and (Iraqi) scientific contacts throughout the 90s and 00s. Saddam’s Soviet and Russian connections… Saddam’s (highly limited) U.S. connections… Saddam’s bin Ladin connections… Saddam’s Libya connections… criticism of the U.S. war effort… All I can say is, read the whole thing!
Stephen Hayes’ articles on Iraq give powerful documentation and evidence for Saddam’s many connections to al Qaeda, other terrorists, WMD, etc. Hitchens recently referred to them as “unrebutted”. Go here and just enter ‘hayes’ as Author, ‘iraq’ as Text. Read any of the 80+ articles that come up. A recent summary of some (not all) of the material may be found here, from Thomas Joscelyn.
Remember “BUSH LIED!!!(tm)” and “the 16 words”? Bush had claimed, quite correctly, that Saddam SOUGHT to buy uranium from Africa. But lefties warped it into a supposed canard, after some Niger embassy employees tried to forge a contract between Niger and Saddam and sell it to French and U.S. intelligence. Much of that story (including the Niger employee names) is given here.
The above article’s conclusions are not all correct. For instance, the French were probably a good deal more ‘evil’ in promoting the forgery (so they could later torpedo the U.S., helping Saddam) than the article reveals. But still, the article supplies key information to demolish the Left’s silly “BUSH LIED!!!(tm)” crap. Incidentally, these excerpts from the Butler report make clear that Saddam SOUGHT uranium from Congo as well as Niger.
Think Iraq wasn’t involved in the 9-11 attacks – just because the 9-11 Commision said so? Click here for why you could think twice. There was a lot of stuff that the 9-11 Commission simply missed (or blanked out). But even if Saddam still wasn’t involved in 9-11 at all: The point remains, that Saddam was planning some kind of terrorist attacks on American interests, making the Iraq war “an integral part of the war on terror, not a distraction”.
Enough for now!
Comment by Calarato — August 16, 2006 @ 1:26 am - August 16, 2006
But as things get increasingly bleak for the GOP, I think we’re bound to see more of such vileness break through the thin veneer of respectability so many GOP leaders have cultivated over the years. They simply won’t be able to help themselves and the results will not be pretty.
Of course, one should always keep in mind what Democrats like Ian and Keogh consider “respectable” from their candidates, as well as their tendency to criticize black conservatives like Condi Rice and Colin Powell as “house slaves”, “Oreos”, “Sambos”, and “acting white”.
Actually, what we’re seeing happen is the desperate racism of people like Keogh and Ian, who see black Americans only as pawns to be manipulated and kept in a subservient position. They are threatened by black Americans like Condi Rice in positions of power, and that’s why they set loose their hordes to denigrate them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2006 @ 4:19 am - August 16, 2006
#54: “Democrats like Ian and Keogh …[have the] tendency to criticize black conservatives like Condi Rice and Colin Powell as “house slaves”, “Oreos”, “Sambos”, and “acting white”.
No cite? Oh that’s right, you don’t do cites. But I do and George Felix Allen’s vile racist attack on an individual in public is on video. He and his campaign may spin and twist and bob about what he said but it’s there for all to see and hear. Other evidence point to him being a racist in years gone by but now we have the smoking gun that it’s there today just under the surface. This is a leader of your party and a likely – until now – leading contender for the Presidency in 2008. Unfortunately, I suspect his overt racism appeals to far too many in today’s GOP. Hopefully, enough voters in Virginia will be disgusted by George Felix Allen’s racism and elect Jim Webb to replace him in the Senate.
Comment by Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 10:00 am - August 16, 2006
Ian #52 asks: “Can you provide some actual evidence for this claim?”
The claim is “Clinton, in his liberal views about immigration, let America’s front door wide open for ANYBODY to come here and terrorize people”
While I don’t believe Clinton left the front door open for terrorists, he sure made it easier for them to enter and stay –just read a few key sections in the 9-11 Commission Report.
Of course, Ian, you could do a Google search on the phrase “9-11 Twin Towers Pentagon Clinton Slept” and you’ll have the only example or answer you should need.
To use a raj/Ian ploy, I could say “Prove to me that no one said this claim isn’t false”. But then, using that kind of approach would be nonsense. Except for you. And the raj and the other lowercased GayLefties.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 16, 2006 @ 10:22 am - August 16, 2006
Ahhh NDT,
Your comments are so untimely…Look at how Condi has been set upon by the rightists who are furious over her handling of Israel vs Hezbollah. Bush isn’t listening to her, Cheney isn’t paying attention. It seems like she is just shouting in an empty cave. In short, she has been marginalized. Maybe those good ol boys don’t like a strong black woman?
…hmm…..
Comment by keogh — August 16, 2006 @ 10:48 am - August 16, 2006
#57: Isn’t it interesting how even George Will is fed up with the incompetent foreign policy of this Administration http://tinyurl.com/ezch6 I suppose he will soon be attacked as a deranged leftist moonbat. LOL! It’s the Cult of Bush, I tell you!
Comment by Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 11:11 am - August 16, 2006
No cite? Oh that’s right, you don’t do cites.
Funny, that post has a cite into it that shows clearly how Democrat Ned Lamont’s campaign is using racist portrayals and material.
But since I’m in a good mood, let’s see…..“house slave”, “Uncle Tom”, “Aunt Jemima”, also supported by Representative John Conyers……..“Sambo” and “oreo”, supported by Kweisi Mfume and the NAACP……and blacks, who according to leftists are all Democrats, mocking black children who succeed academically for “acting white”.
As I said before, your claims of “racism” should be taken with the full knowledge that you don’t consider any of what these Democrats have done to be in the least derogatory or racist.
And as for George Allen’s statement, I think this says it all about the Democrats involved:
Asked what macaca means, Mukherjee said: “What it means, I don’t know. But it’s going to cause him some grief.”
So, in short, they don’t even know what it means, but they’re going to take offense to it. Meanwhile, I’m sure they, like you, know full well what “Sambo” and blackface representations mean, but clap and cheer for these tactics.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - August 16, 2006
Ianrajsybilsockpuppetlester401(k)plan, just go back and read my factual, cited, completely true post at #39 to answer your oft-asked question about proof of what is true – that the Clinton regime let terrorists walk and let anyone into the country without proper screening.
Match, set, game. Goodbye.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 16, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - August 16, 2006
Look at how Condi has been set upon by the rightists who are furious over her handling of Israel vs Hezbollah.
Really? Citations, please. After all, if Ian is going to insist on them and claim that anyone who doesn’t provide them is lying, I think it’s only fair that you do the same.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - August 16, 2006
I hate this cite crap.
I don’t have time for it.
Go to google’s home page. Tpye in “Rice Israel Cheney”
Comment by keogh — August 16, 2006 @ 1:49 pm - August 16, 2006
Looks like 401(k) plan just got off the “rajiansybilsockpuppet citation reservation.”
Does that mean that citations are no longer needed? Please advise.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 16, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - August 16, 2006
Ian at #36 writes: “Since your whole premise is wrong i.e. I am not raj, your argument is inapplicable. Plus, your repeated insults have not gone unnoticed.”
I’m looking for the repeated insults, Ian; guess what, I can’t find anything that isn’t a fact. Are the simple presentation of facts to the GayLeft now considered insults? Like in that classic HowieDean line of “How dare you insult me with the facts” when his Chief of Staff argued the Chairman was wrong about Dean’s 700 Club ploy.
Right, Ian. How dare we insult you with the facts.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 16, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - August 16, 2006
Ian (#32) – 9/11/2001 is the only citation needed in order to back up the lax immigration and enforcement polices of the Clinton Administration.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 16, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - August 16, 2006
I would love to stop the citeing.
Disputeing a fact is one thing, disputeing a fact ONLY because it is not cited is another.
Comment by keogh — August 16, 2006 @ 5:04 pm - August 16, 2006
#64: “I’m looking for the repeated insults, Ian; guess what, I can’t find anything that isn’t a fact.”
See your post #30 wherein you call me a gnat and a sockpuppet. The latter is a frequent refrain from you and others. None of them are factual.
Comment by Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 5:05 pm - August 16, 2006
Are you sure its not factual?
It might be possible to both.
Ian, as you probally know, when logic fails them they result to name calling.
I was even called an Anti Semite!
And I don’t even know Mel Gibson.
Comment by keogh — August 16, 2006 @ 8:27 pm - August 16, 2006
#68: keogh, the reason I expect cites is because of the wild claims and statements made and presented as facts by some who comment here. Typically, there is nothing whatsoever to back up the “facts.” It’s a defining characteristic of the right wing noise machine and the reality-based community has to call them on it. It’s also a problem with the MSM but we are making progress as in this example http://tinyurl.com/pa9l2 where a CNN Headline News anchor tried to get away with a phony smear of Ned Lamont. The blogosphere called him on it and got an apology. This election the lies and smears will not go unanswered and we will go on the offensive not with smears but with the truth as in the video where the racist George Felix Allen shows the world his true nature.
Comment by Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 8:49 pm - August 16, 2006
#46 Gene in Pennsylvania — August 15, 2006 @ 9:25 pm – August 15, 2006
If a Dem liberal ever gets elected to the Presidency, are conservatives free to be as anti administration as you have been these past 5 years?
Apparently you were in cold storage during 1993-2001. You aren’t seriously going to contend that conservatives were not bashing the Clinton malAdministration during his malAdminstration, are you?
These same liberals who now say Rummy didn’t send enough troops early on to Iraq voted to gut the military pre Bush.
Bullescheiss (let Matty translate for you, but it generally translates to “BS”). The military that Bush sent into Afghanistan was the military that Clinton left him with. And the military that Bush sent into Iraq was largely the military that Clinton left him with. I didn’t hear Bush complain about the state of the US military when he went into his foreign adventures. Did you?
BTW, if you did, cite chapter and verse. I know full well that ideologues, such as those that populate this place, oftentimes make up things as they go along.
Comment by raj — August 16, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - August 16, 2006
#53 Calarato — August 16, 2006 @ 1:26 am – August 16, 2006
That’s sweet. Don’t you people ever cite to anything other than weblogs that re-inforce your positions? Apparently not, and more later.
Comment by raj — August 16, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - August 16, 2006
#55 Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 10:00 am – August 16, 2006
Unfortunately, I suspect his (George Allen’s) overt racism appeals to far too many in today’s GOP.
I’m sorry to disabuse you of that, but that is definitely incorrect. Allen’s racism is little more than an expresion of the tribalism that infects American politics. It also infects politics elsewhere–such as in Iraq–but it definitely infects American politics. Although Americans would like to deny it.
Allen’s reference to “Macaca” was obviously a reference to “macaque,” a species of monkey. In other words, Allen was calling the fellow of Indian descent a monkey.
Nice Republican, no? I suspect that, next he’ll be singing “They’re Coming To Take Me Away” to the mentally disabled.
Comment by raj — August 16, 2006 @ 10:00 pm - August 16, 2006
On the subject matter of the post
So apparently, it was okay to seize a Cuban child at gunpoint and force him back to a Communist-run nation, but it wasn’t okay to press on with charges against the Dictator For Life’s Brother…. who now runs Cuba on behalf of Fidel.
This post is funny as hell. Why funny? Because the poster obviously either (i) has no inkling as to the legal issues involved, or (ii) has no inkling as to the ramifications of the legal issues involved. I’ve gone into detail on this on other sites, and I’m not really interested in pursuing the matter here, but it has become obvious that the proprietors here are not really interested in the rule of law and niether are they interested in fam’ly values.
Ah well, more hypocrisy on the part of the wingers.
BTW, for the few here that might be interested in science, there was an article on point in the July issue of Scientific American. http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000CE155-1061-1493-906183414B7F0162 It relates to “confirmation bias” and the point is that ideologues, such as those who populate this site, tend to eschew the rational parts of their brains, and, instead, make use of the emotional
parts of their brains in evaluating evidence and arguments. And we know where that leads.
Comment by raj — August 16, 2006 @ 10:01 pm - August 16, 2006
This election the lies and smears will not go unanswered and we will go on the offensive not with smears but with the truth as in the video where the racist George Felix Allen shows the world his true nature.
Unless, of course, the truth involves showing the racism that Democrats like RajIan and keogh endorse, support, and perpetuate.
RajIan ironically provides an excellent example of what he cites in Scientific American; namely, that he is so desperate to smear conservatives and make racist liberals like the ones he supports look good that he makes irrational decisions — like his hypocritical attack on Allen while supporting Lamont’s blackface campaign spots, or the use of racist slurs against black Republicans.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2006 @ 10:51 pm - August 16, 2006
#72: “I’m sorry to disabuse you of that, but that is definitely incorrect.”
What, you DON’T believe that Allen’s racism appeals to many in the GOP? C’mon, this is the result of the Southern Strategy. Allen has a highly suspect past vis a vis racism. That was all poo-pooed as youthful indiscretion but in light of his recent racist comments, he clearly has only kept it under wraps. Presumably, much of the audience he was speaking to were GOP supporters and you can hear them hooting and clapping as the “macaca” slur is repeated http://tinyurl.com/j3aw3
As for the word itself, while the reference could be to the genus of monkey, macaca – not macaque, it’s pronounced differently – it is a fact that the term is used as a racist insult referring to arabs and has been adopted by American white supremacists to refer to blacks. While the latter might be Allen’s connection, I think it more likely that Allen, whose mother was French and lived in Tunisia, used it as the arab slur, basically mistaking the Indian-American for an arab.
Comment by Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 11:30 pm - August 16, 2006
Argue all you want, rajiansybilsockpuppetlester401(k)plan, but the facts remain that (a) Allen is a good 20 points ahead of his opponent and (b) on the scale of campaign rhetoric so far this year, this incident will probably be forgotten by next month because IT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING.
Case in point: Steve Mukherjee, a spokesman for the Washington chapter of the Association of Indians in America, said (and this is a direct quote from the Washington Post: “What it (a macaca) means, I don’t know. But it’s going to cause him (Allen) some grief.”
So the moral of the story is:
When in doubt about a word’s meaning, don’t look it up in the dictionary or google it; rather, become indignant and let your ignorance overpower all rational thought.
Actually, that sounds like something the lower-case people on this board do with carefree abandon.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 17, 2006 @ 12:05 am - August 17, 2006
RajIan RE:#70 Bullescheiss indeed. The military that Clinton left Bush was a shell of the military that he was left by Bush the Elder. Fortuately, our armed forces are fundamentally strong enough to resist 8 years of neglect.
RE: #55 & #75 Let’s discuss Senator Byrd (D-KKK) WV who wash a recruiter for the KKK in his youth and repeatly uttered the N word in 2001, a 60+ year track record of explicit racisim. Yet somehow the Democrat Party elected him Senate majority leader and lovingly continues to describe him as “the conscience of the Senate”. No Republican is even in the ballpark ofthe lenght and depth of racisim demonstrated the the beloved (by Democrats) Senator. Until this racisit relic is denounced at least as vociferiously as Senatir Lieberman, then any finger pointing at ANY Republican is patheticly lame and silly. In fact it’s a big load of Bullescheiss.
Ich bin ein Krankenwagenverfolger. Ich stelle und Gestank von Bullenscheiße her.
Comment by BoBo — August 17, 2006 @ 12:16 am - August 17, 2006
#76: Somehow I figured you’d be a strong supporter of that racist George Felix Allen. You didn’t disappoint. Nor did you #77.
Comment by Ian — August 17, 2006 @ 12:35 am - August 17, 2006
RajIan #78 One can assume that you are a strong supporter of the racist Robert Byrd and killer Ted Kennedy. If not, please let us know. Otherwise your silence can only be construed as sympathy for the KKK and drunken killing of young women.
Comment by BoBo — August 17, 2006 @ 12:47 am - August 17, 2006
#79 Robert Byrd has renounced his racist past and his comment about “white niggers” a few years ago was not even slur http://tinyurl.com/kndlm nor was it cast against an indivigual. Still, I wouldn’t support him for dog catcher let alone President and I’m glad he’s not my Senator. What happened with Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick more than 37 years ago was a tragedy but there is nothing to suggest the death of Mary Jo Kopechne was intentional. Still, it kept Kennedy out of the White House as it should have. In contrast, Allen’s comment WAS intentional – indeed he said it twice – and directed at a specific person in public. It shows beyond any doubt that he’s a racist at heart TODAY and should never be President. Yet all of you continue to defend this racist. Why?
Comment by Ian — August 17, 2006 @ 10:31 am - August 17, 2006
#77 BoBo — August 17, 2006 @ 12:16 am – August 17, 2006
Ich stelle und Gestank von Bullenscheiße her.
I don’t know whether you Stinkt von Bullenscheisse, but you certainly do manufacture (“herstellen”) a lot of it.
Go back to your pic-a-nic baskets at Jellystone Park.
BTW, regarding your jibe in #79, let me give you a big “yawn.” I’m not interested in dealing with illiterate jibes.
Comment by raj — August 17, 2006 @ 11:57 am - August 17, 2006
#72 Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 11:30 pm – August 16, 2006
What, you DON’T believe that Allen’s racism appeals to many in the GOP? C’mon, this is the result of the Southern Strategy.
That’s not the issue. The issue is tribalism in American politics.
I’ll give you example, from Boston politics. For a long time (late 19th, early 20th century), the mayor of Boston was a Boston Brahmin (a Brit-American). More recently, after the Brahmins lost power, the mayor was Irish-American. It was only until very recently that an Italo-American was elected mayor. Why the difference? Tribalism. The likelihood of there being a Negro mayor in Boston any time soon is between slim and none. The sad fact is that Boston is a very racist city. The not-so-sad fact, though, is that Boston is merely a relatively small center of a not-particularly-racist megalopolous.
Comment by raj — August 17, 2006 @ 11:57 am - August 17, 2006
Personally, I love it when two sock puppets go at each other over RAT talking points.
It puts the “fun” back in dysfunctional.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 17, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - August 17, 2006
#75 Ian — August 16, 2006 @ 11:30 pm – August 16, 2006
What, you DON’T believe that Allen’s racism appeals to many in the GOP? C’mon, this is the result of the Southern Strategy.
That’s not the issue. The issue is tribalism in American politics.
I’ll give you example, from Boston politics. For a long time (late 19th, early 20th century), the mayor of Boston was a Boston Brahmin (a Brit-American). More recently, after the Brahmins lost power, the mayor was Irish-American. It was only until very recently that an Italo-American was elected mayor. Why the difference? Tribalism. The likelihood of there being a Negro mayor in Boston any time soon is between slim and none. The sad fact is that Boston is a very racist city. The not-so-sad fact, though, is that Boston is merely a relatively small center of a not-particularly-racist megalopolous.
Comment by raj — August 17, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - August 17, 2006
Allen’s comment WAS intentional – indeed he said it twice – and directed at a specific person in public. It shows beyond any doubt that he’s a racist at heart TODAY and should never be President. Yet all of you continue to defend this racist. Why?
Because, Ian, we’ve made it clear over and over and over again that you wouldn’t recognize racism if it bit you.
Furthermore, Allen, in case you didn’t know, in 2005 was the Senate co-sponsor of its formal apology for not intervening in the lynching of black Americans.
Go ahead and try to say it was for “political expediency” and that he’s still a racist — because that will kick the props out from under your theory that Robert Byrd’s behavior negates his proven, racist past as a leader of the KKK and a complete and implacable opponent of integration and rights for black Americans.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - August 17, 2006
It was the Bush Administration that showed almost no interest in terrorism until they fell asleep at the wheel on Sep 10th 2001.
Six Years of the Bush foreign policy and the result make his pro-terrorist and pro-NAMBLA polices clear.
Comment by ETJB — August 17, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - August 17, 2006
#85 Byrd has said he was sorry for being a KKK leader/recruiter, leading a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, repeatedly using the N word on national TV, etc. and you happily accept it. Yet Allen uses a word that the vast majority of Americans don’t even know and apologises yet you refuse to accept it. The only differences that I can see between Allen and Byrd are in the scale of behaivor and the fact that what Byrd has done has actually hurt many people over a long time. Allen has only hurt himself.
Same for Kennedy except he actually killed someone. But yet another pass.
These examples clearly shine a light on the source of your current “outrage”. Blind ideology. The same reason that you think the the Democrat Party is a “friend” and hate Republicans. Sorry, Rethuglicans.
#81 Sorry, I was trying to communicate with you at the level that you seem to prefer to use. I agree with you that that type of commentary is illiterate and boring. Why do you insist on continuing in this fashion?
Comment by BoBo — August 17, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - August 17, 2006
#86 – Pro-terrorist? Pro-NAMBLA, for God’s sake?
What planet are you from, anyway? You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 17, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - August 17, 2006
#85 and #87: I have already stated my opposition to Byrd. Yet neither of you won’t state your opposition to Allen. Nor will you answer why. That speaks volumes.
Comment by Ian — August 17, 2006 @ 2:56 pm - August 17, 2006
#89 OK, let me be clear. Allen said something mean and stupid and has apologised for it. I am that much of a fan of his. Don’t you think the he should get the same acceptance of his apology as that “Conscience of the Senate” has gotten?
Comment by BoBo — August 17, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - August 17, 2006
Actually, Ian, you don’t oppose Byrd.
Say that Byrd signifies that the Democratic Party is all racist, that Democratic leaders like Byrd have a thin veneer covering their racism, and that anyone who votes for Byrd or supports him in any way is a racist, and then you’ll have room to talk.
Why? Because that’s what you’re demanding we do for Allen.
Meanwhile, let’s not forget why you continue to do this — it’s a diversion from you having to confront and deal with the racism of Democrats you support.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2006 @ 3:27 pm - August 17, 2006
Understand, BoBo, that this is a waste of effort.
As we’ve already shown, Ian has a double standard and supports racism as long as Democrats are practicing it.
As you rightly pointed out, Allen apologized; Ian simply proves his hypocrisy over and over and over again by claiming that apologies exonerate even Democrats who supported lynching, firebombing, and terrorizing blacks, but never Republicans, regardless of what they did.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2006 @ 3:31 pm - August 17, 2006
And let’s not forget the time Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy once introduced new Sen Barack Obama (D-IL) as “Barack Osama – er, uh – Osama Obama…Barack Obama.”
This is a direct quote, BTW.
Where was the outcry?
Oh, yeah, that’s right – it was right around happy hour and we know how incoherent the senior senator from Taxachusetts is from that point forward…so he’s excused. Like all the other times.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 17, 2006 @ 3:50 pm - August 17, 2006
44: “And incidentally, what does that have to do with anything? Or are you assuming that Latinos are too stupid to vote for anyone who isn’t pandering?” (Notice I’m quoting you said that – not me)
Uh…no…I think it points out that politicians, no matter what their affiliation, will stoop to whatever they can to get elected.
Comment by Kevin — August 17, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - August 17, 2006
Remember Kevin, it’s the stupid voters that put them in office. The buck stops at the polling booth.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 17, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - August 17, 2006
#91: “that’s what you’re demanding we do for Allen.”
I don’t demand you do anything. No doubt you would stand behind Allen and would support him for President were he to be the GOP nominee no matter what racist crap he spews. And the GOP wonders why its support among African-Americans is so anemic.
Comment by Ian — August 17, 2006 @ 9:16 pm - August 17, 2006
Elian was not close with his father. Elian lived with his mother and her boyfriend. When there boat sank the two them gave the only floatation device to Elian and they drownded. Elain told a story about a porpoise that push his raft towards the coast. Elian real father sold his son to the communist state inexchange for a cushy lifestyle for himself and his new wife. So what was all that crap about keeping a son from his father ?
Comment by Bert — August 17, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - August 17, 2006
[Comment deleted].
Comment by sean — August 18, 2006 @ 7:23 am - August 18, 2006
I’m wondering if sean/Ian et al are as upset about Democrat Party leader Andie Young smearing Jews, Koreans, Arabs and mom&pop grocery store operators in his latest tirade?
Hmmm, GayLefties held hostage on the Democrat Plantation… can you at least utter a condemnation?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 18, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - August 18, 2006
#99: I wasn’t aware of Young’s despicable comments but thanks for bringing them to my attention and I heartily condemn them and am glad to see that Young resigned from whatever position he was in to make them. Unfortunately, bigots come in all colors and from all ethnic groups.
Comment by Ian — August 18, 2006 @ 8:53 pm - August 18, 2006
Wow, something I can agree with. My head is spinning!
Comment by BoBo — August 19, 2006 @ 10:17 am - August 19, 2006
Funny how the racist and bigoted comments when uttered by liberal demoncRATS aren’t immediatley picked up by the Drive-by Media, but the whole world comes to a screeching halt when a conservative uses a non-word in a campaign speech and everyone tries to find a racist connotation to it.
And they say the MSM isn’t biased? Here’s a dollar – go buy a clue.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 19, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - August 19, 2006
A Gay Conservative is oxymoronic – it is like the war on terrorism by the USA or American people and globalism….????
Comment by trago duro — August 21, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - August 21, 2006
Actually, the best oxymoron I have ever heard is “liberal intelligensia.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 21, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - August 21, 2006