Wingnut Scum Blames America for Violence in Iran

Atlas Shrugs: IRAN: DAY 12 OF THE REVOLUTION - How could Obama do nothing? "Blood everywhere" "militia with axe chopping ppl like meat" "militia beating one woman with baton on ground - she had no defense nothing - sure that she is dead"

Pamela Gellar (and all your mindless, neocon cohorts who can't help but turn a tyrannical Iranian crackdown on their own people into a nakedly partisan referendum on a US administration for whom you did not vote),


Fuck you.


sincerely,

Sane America

---------

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." - Robert F. Kennedy

Video from the Fire Dave rally

I thought I was done with this story, but the woman in yellow so offended me with her ugly, vicious mind, I couldn't let it pass unchallenged... A person like that ought not to be seen or heard in public (& I really hope that wherever she works, she isn't.)...



Wow.

Among the more alarming lines of attack -- particularly given that the rally was held because Letterman supposedly made a joke about Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Willow -- was that Letterman's son Harry was born out of wedlock (he recently wed Regina Lasko after dating for over a decade).

"Should we talk about his son?" one protester asked Green. "I believe his son was born out of wedlock. I believe there's a term for that."

"Is someone making jokes about his child?" asked another. "Especially, you know, when he had a daughter out of wedlock himself" (he didn't; 5-year-old Harry is his only child).

"How dare he?" asked yet a third, the most offensive of all. "When he has a bastard son, and a slut for a wife" (Letterman's wife Lasko has kept a notoriously low profile).

It should be noted that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Bristol gave birth to baby Tripp (out-of-wedlock) in December and broke up with the baby's father, Levi Johnston, in March. -- "Fire David Letterman" Protest Becomes Hatefest, Draws More Media Than Protesters

Where was FoxNews?

"According to TVeyes.com, Fox News last night during primetime (8-11 p.m.) mentioned the words "Holocaust" and "van Brunn" a grand total of three times. For the entire night."

"Falafel" O'Reilly managed to find more to say about gay penguins and duck sex than this shooting...

While both CNN & MSNBC led with the story at 8:01 pm, FoxNews pretended it didn't happen. It was like their own little holocaust (museum) denial, right before the eyes of their numerous elderly viewers...

Either they just didn't care, or they intentionally downplayed the story for reasons that are unclear...

Pretty friggin' odd, though, especially given all that baseless whining about how CNN supposedly didn't cover the recruiter shooting (which they did, of course.)

Anyway... I'm just putting it out there. Speculate at will.

Others talking:
Fox News Boycott: Fox News Limits Reporting on Holocaust Museum Shooting
Fox News downplays the Holocaust Museum killing | Media Matters for America

Maybe we ought to read that Homeland Security report again...

Rightwing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

And just to be clear... This is what they said about veterans:
-----

Disgruntled Military Veterans

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.

— A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

— The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

It doesn't say that veterans are terrorists. It says that right wing extremist groups target returning vets, and that a small number of those vets do become extremists. It is the military training that makes the small number of extremist vets more of an issue to DHS than the small number of extremist accountants or extremist small business owners, not their service.

The wingnut paranoia about this report--and the spineless reaction to it by those career security people, and moreso their political counterparts--was nonsense the first time, but would be unforgivable now, given recent events. If the mainstream right cannot admit that there are extremists and nutjobs lingering at the edges of their ideology, so be it. But that does not mean that those political and career security personnel who take oaths and pay to keep we Americans safe should cover their eyes and ears to rightwing extremism because some of our friends on the right are sensitive to the implications of rightwing violence. Their issues of identity and place should not deter us from defending this country from domestic terrorists, right or left.

Right wing nut Kathy Shaidle tries to link holocaust museum shooter to left wing

See UPDATE, below

Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 "truther" who hated "neo-cons", Bush, McCain

Of course, Kathy & those citing her conveniently ignore his "creepy freeper" posts on the conservative site Free Republic, espousing the same "Obama is not a US citizen" birther nonsense as more than a few Republican/conservative loudmouths, talking heads, bloggers, and other assorted nutballs.

Does being a Freeper (or a birther, or a truther, or a hater of Bush, & Obama, & neocons, &/or all folks "not like you") make one a domestic terrorist? of course not. Crazy, perhaps, but not a terrorist. Anyone, right or left, who tries to tell you that a whole political/social/ethnic/religious/??? group is responsible for the actions of one of their nuttiest members is a lying weasel with snake oil to sell. Don't buy into their crap.

Like it or not, James W. von Brunn considered himself a part of the right wing, which is why he posted to Free Republic. From what I can tell, he was far from the typical freeper, but Freeperland is one of the places he supported, whether or not they supported him. (& until I see otherwise, I believe that his fellow freepers did not support anything more than his "birtherisms," & probably knew nothing of the rest...) Kathy Shaidle and those on the far right selling her "von Brunn as left winger nonsense" are just trying to protect themselves from the same guilt by association they so readily offer others. As so often happens with these types, there is nothing behind their baseless accusations, wild speculation, and childish name calling but more of the same empty words...

UPDATE: 6/11/09

So, I was rereading Shaidle's piece just now, and actually followed some of her links.

At one point she says

"As even some "progressives" such as the influential Adbusters magazine publically admit, "neoconservative" is often used as a derogatory code word for "Jews"."

My question is WHERE?

Follow the link for yourself, and see if you can quote the line(s) where Adbuster admits that neoconservative" is often used as a derogatory code word for "Jews". Good luck.

Kathy Shaidle. Not just a rightwing nutjob, but a lying rightwing nutjob.

The latest on the Biden hoax: It's the "Whitey Tape" all over again

The truth is coming out, and just like some previous political hoaxes, it's biting folks in the ass.

Tommy Christopher at Political Machine gets to the heart of the matter, saying: There is No "Ashley Biden Cocaine Tape":

"There are glaringly obvious reasons to believe this thing is a fake. There are clear reasons why this story should never have been reported, and once it had been, why the only appropriate response would be to point that out.

But the fact that has been buried in all of these stories is that the tape, or at least an authenticatable original, does not exist. What does exist cannot be described as an "Ashley Biden" tape of any kind. That should have been the end of it, at least for the New York Post, the only one of the 3 bidders pretending to have journalistic standards"

Of course, that isn't what's happening... Those initially pushing it are either sticking by their guns, or pretending their evil twin, Skippy was the one who made that blog post excoriating Ashley, the VP, and/or all Dems with this story over the weekend.

Meanwhile, here are the facts about this story, from Tommy Christopher's blog post linked above:

* The video shooter's (hereafter referred to as "Deuche Bagilow") attorney told the NY Post that he destroyed the original. He didn't just tape over it with a Jerry Springer episode, he drilled a hole in the camera's hard drive and threw it into a lake. This claim defies credibility. Why would you destroy the original of something you had made a copy of? Well, you might claim to have done that if you didn't want anyone to ask to see the original.
That fact alone ends this. There is absolutely no way to authenticate the tape, so there was no point in having these outlets watch it. Still, let's look at the rest of it.

* Deuche Bagilow also claims he tried to sell another Ashley Biden tape in August, during the heat of the Presidential race, but could find no takers. Either that tape was as convincing as "Nailin' Paylin," or this was a lie designed to give the sellers a fallback reason to accept a lower bid.

* Deuche's lawyers claimed to have turned down a $250,000 offer. Given the preceding claim, this seems unlikely.

* Deuche's lawyers lied to the Post, telling them the subject of the video was aware of the camera. Deuche's former lawyer now cites this as one of the reasons he quit.

* All 3 "firsthand" accounts of viewing the tape bizarrely contradict each other. The Radar reporter said the subject used a rolled-up dollar bill to snort the white powder, while the Post claimed it was a "red straw." The Enquirer reported being there, but then only quoted Radar's reporter, giving no account of their own.

Radar reported the tape as being from a hidden camera, while the Post reported that Deuche's lawyers told them that the subject acknowleges the camera on a different part of the tape.

Radar reported the subject as "clearly resembling" Biden, while the Post said she "appeared to resemble" Biden. The Enquirer wouldn't make any characterization.

* None of the outlets that saw the tape were willing to bid on it, yet happily exploited it despite this.

* Deuche's lawyers claimed that Ashley Biden was under Secret Service protection, but had her dad call them off because they were blocking her driveway.

* Finally, here's a fun fact: Deuche's lawyer was once involved in a lawsuit over the rules of kickball. Seriously.

But this is my favorite part. As I hoped for yesterday, the ass who started this could face jail time himself, because he bought the cocaine, placed the hidden camera, and tried to entrap his "friend." It was all a set-up. Fuck him. Fuck his spiritual sister, Ashley Todd, and fuck Larry Johnson, "No Quarter," and those Republicans and "PUMA"s, all of whom lied, lied, lied in the name of political partisanship. May they all get what they deserve.

Dirtbag Media, Dirtbag Bloggers

Anyone who uses the child of a politician to attack that politician is a dirtbag.

There are no excuses.

Those who are dirtbags know who they are (and we do, too).

If muttering unproven allegations and rumors that may or not ever prove true is all you have, you're just not needed. (And kids, it's a question of class, not of political persuasion. There are dirtbags of this sort all along the political spectrum.)

So instead of talking about the dirtbags, let's highlight the folks showing a little class.

Hot Air - Just leave it alone: Ed Morrissey has the right idea, but predictably, most of those commenting on his post do not.

Politicians kids SHOULD be left off limits, even in this case | Fire Andrea Mitchell!: As unpleasant as this person appears to be, s/he's right, this time.

Is Ashley Biden's alleged cocaine video a smear or scam? | The Dish Rag | Los Angeles Times: This gossip reporter is asking the right questions, both about privacy in general, and about this tape in particular, which has quickly risen on wingnut blogs, and is now unravelling faster than another recent story pushed by the wingnut media/blogesphere. Anybody remember our friend Ashley Todd, the "backward B girl"? Same rush to sell it to the gullible minions, same growing inconsistencies coming to light... I hope that the clown promoting this can and will be prosecuted, should it turn out to be another right-wing hoax with intent to do harm. (Anybody else think he may have a McCain bumper-sticker on his car, just like miss Todd?)

Much as I hate to have to admit it, Rupert Murdoch deserves credit for not purchasing and running with the increasingly bogus looking story.

Joe Biden's Daughter Isn't Fair Game - Political Machine - Politics Blog, Opinion and Analysis - AOL News: Article good, comments bad. (Nothin' like situational ethics... Either it's ok when it happens to Palin's kids and Biden's kids, or it's wrong when it happens to Palin's kids and Biden's kids. If you bitched before, you shouldn't be applauding now... ...but many are...)

((And yes, I suppose I could've been a better person and spoken up for Palin's kids, rather than just ignoring those stories, but there is a difference between doing harm and doing nothing. I have nothing against those on the right ignoring this story, either. My saying nothing about the Bristol, Trig, Bush twins, or Nicole stories doesn't mean I cannot offer kudos to those who speak up against such behavior toward the kids of politicians, or disappointment and disgust for those who choose to propagate stories that do little but hurt people who never asked to be in the partisan spotlight. Perhaps next time, I will be among those who speaks up when it is a Republican wife or kid being slimed by leftwing dirtbags. Contrary to what the commenters to some of these sites seem to think, ethics are not made of rubber. You cannot bend them to fit the situation.))

I'll update as more facts (or reporters / blogs deserving of praise) come to my attention.

Tired of the stupidity

Is it too much to ask that we (and they, themselves) give our representatives--and the American people--enough time to read all the bills that come before them in final form before the votes, and then to hold them accountable for having done so?

Every representative who votes on a bill they haven't read is a moron, and if there's one thing we need, it's fewer damned morons in elected office.


Read The Bill from Sunlight Foundation on Vimeo.

Is 72 hours enough? I don't know, but it is better than nothing... Imagine if every bill had to be given to the House/Senate clerk in final form, and posted online for the American people and the news media to read for at least 72 hours before voting could begin on them, and that every change restarted the 72 hour clock... Think of all the foolish bullshit that we might've avoided over the years...

This thing Dodd snuck out of the bailout bill is (or should be) a friggin' crime, but while I'm pissed at Dodd, I have no sympathy for all the people from both parties claiming they had no idea it was changed... They are assholes all, and if they can't be bothered to read the friggin' laws before passing them, they have no business being in congress... (Perhaps we need to raise the taxes on their salaries to 90% or so, until they actually do their jobs.)

We need more sunshine all over the legislative process. I'd ultimately like to see bills posted online, with names attached to every earmark or other change to every bill, updated within 24 hours of every change (on 3/15/09 @ 7:45 AM Senator Dodd struck the following line from S:177 "... ..." and replaced it with "... ...". The following 6 senators/conferees agreed to the change "... ..."; the following 4 were opposed "... ..."). I realize that may be a pipe dream since, no matter which party is in charge, secrecy and "It wasn't me" is the name of the game... ...but at the very least, we should never again hear the words "I didn't know that was in the bill I voted for/against. I didn't read the bill." That cannot be too much to ask...

Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer: The Extended Interview

Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart went toe-to-toe last night. But you didn't see everything. Much of the interview had to be cut for time. But this is the internet, where all we have is time. So, here now, is the complete interview.

Follow the links and watch the whole thing. Perhaps it's his outsider "non-reporter" status, but Jon Stewart gets to the heart of issues more thoroughly than most "real" news reporters. He's not Tim Russert, but sometimes I wonder whether, in terms of confronting hypocrisy anyway, he isn't the closest thing we have we have right now. "Roll the tape."

Memeorandum has links to the 3 part series of videos, and to many other posted reports and opinions.



read more | digg story

The History of America's Inaugural Prayers - WSJ.com

With a h/t to that guy @ his blog (he gets unbelievably touchy when anyone makes mention of the same piece of internet that he did over at his place. -- And this time, I actually did see it there, first), I offer The History of America's Inaugural Prayers, by Steve Waldman.

I'll post the opening paragraphs, but I urge everyone to read the whole thing:

In 1949, the year of Harry S. Truman's inauguration ceremony, America was a much less tolerant and diverse place. It would be another decade before Americans would be comfortable electing a Catholic president. Jews were still excluded from the upper echelons of government and business. The levers of power were held by Protestants, who made up the vast majority of the population.

But there on the podium with Harry Truman, to deliver prayers, were a Protestant minister, a Catholic priest and a rabbi.

Flash forward to 2001. America is a much more diverse nation. Protestants make up barely half the population. We've had a Catholic president and numerous Catholic Supreme Court justices. Jewish politicians and businessmen have risen to the highest levels of government and finance, and increasingly Islam is being treated as a mainstream American religion.

Yet at that inauguration, of George W. Bush, there were two clergymen, both Protestants, and they both preached with enthusiastically Christian language. Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell prayed in "the name that's above all other names, Jesus the Christ." And Rev. Franklin Graham asked the American people to "acknowledge You alone as our Lord, our Savior and our Redeemer. We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit."

In fact, if one looks at the roster of clergy and the prayers they gave over the past 70 years, it appears that America has actually become less inclusive and pluralistic over time.

From there Mr Waldman goes on to discuss the history of elected officials and religion, and traces the changes that got us from:

- no invocation of religion at Presidential swearing-in ceremonies,

- to several celebrants on the podeum, representing the major religions in America (the "religious-diversity" model, 1937 - 1985),

- to one celebrant, who took care to recognize that we were a country of many faiths, and offered words that were inclusive of as many people as possible (the "America's pastor" model, 1989, 1993),

- to the latest, "Protestant only" model, where diversity is not taken into account, and the prayers speak of Jesus as Lord of us all, without regard for those who might be personally or religiously offended by such statements (Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus...)

Mr Waldman believes that unlike the prior two models (or the period with no religious invocation at all), this current way of doing things offends the spirit, if not the actual words, of our Constitution, as it "giv[es] clear preference to Christianity by having only clergy who pray in Christ's name."

After some discussion of where some atheists stand on these prayers (hint: they're opposed), and more about religious expression by our earliest Presidents, Mr Waldman concludes the essay with the following:

As Messrs. Warren and Lowery take the inaugural stage next week, they'll be trying to achieve two different missions. They are Christian ministers and need to stay true to their faith. But they are the only clergy on the podium and therefore must represent all Americans. If they can't restore the proper balance that existed before 2001, then their prayers will -- and should -- increase the drumbeat to get rid of inaugural prayers entirely.

Before anyone decides that Mr Waldman is just another crazy nihilist or atheist (while these terms may be interchangeable in some circles, they in fact have different meanings), please read his bio:

Steven Waldman is editor in chief and co-founder of Beliefnet.com, and author of "Founding Faith: Providence, Politics and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America." There is an archive of inaugural prayers since 1937 on his Beliefnet blog.

While I would personally prefer to see Presidents go back to either the "religious diversity" or "America's pastor" models discussed in the article, I believe that ultimately, it is the President's day, and I can "overlook" the use of celebrant[s] from his own faith, and messages that reflect his own beliefs, rather than the whole country's.

Contrary to many, on both sides of the political spectrum aparently, I wouldn't want to lose the inaugural invocation &/or benediction based on what naysayers in the public have to say about a particular President-elect's choices of celebrant or prayer. Who they choose & what is said tells us something about the leaders they intend to be, of course, and I have no problem with anyone expressing their opinion of either, but those decisions should ultimately be the President's, rather than ours...

If there ever comes a time when we go back to having no religious invocation, I want it to be because the President-elect in question wanted it that way, and not because a whiney public didn't approve of his chosen celebrant(s), or the message they planned on offering.

I believe the inauguration is the President's day, more in keeping with a wedding than a government function. In both cases, we're invited to attend the ceremony, but we don't get to pick the preacher or the vows... ...though we are free to express our opinions & otherwise kibitz amongst ourselves about both.

Gay Butt-licking titillates Rightwing Blogosphere

TRUTH 101 said...

No offense to the guys I generally side with, but gang, this is hilarious. When will we ever see a University Professor do a post about gang buttlicking in a hotel conference room. And even add pictures. For a long time I thought I would hate it if one of my kids was stuck in a classroom with this stuck up blowhard. (Nothing tawdry meant by the word "blowhard" Don.) But now I see him for the fun loving guy he is. Bottoms up Professor!

January 15, 2009 8:14 PM

Truth ain't just whistlin' Dixie...

All across Right Blogistan, clear-eyed, moral, tradition-loving conservatives are posting photos and descriptions of gay sex acts, after this one single website--Americans for Truth (about homosexuality)--alleged that an organization was promoting a "pig sex" event for homosexual "leather boys," (if you don't know about "pig sex" or "leather boys," you'll have to use the google, or ask one of the Cons listed below.) taking place at a DC hotel the weekend of the inauguration. That's right, there might be gay sex taking place in Washington while Barrack Obama is in the same city!!! As Steve Doocy would say, "this. is. HUGE!!!" at least if one is to go by the reaction of some on the winged-N-nutty side the blogosphere.

Just a smattering of the Cons seemingly gettin' a happy from having an excuse to be licentious, and share it with their closest wingnut friends:

(As I said, all of these blogs take their cues from the same one unsubstantiated story on the same one website, and seem to enjoy the naughtiness of posting the pix & descriptions of this shocking behavior. These people need lives... or perhaps sex partners who ain't named "righty" or "lefty".)

American Power: Gay Activists Plan Obama Inaugural Celebrations

‘Pig sex’ orgy set for inaugural week - Say Anything: Reader Blogs

Inaugural Pig Sex - Giovanni’s World

Facta, Non Verba "Deeds, Not Words" Conservative Blog: Homosexuals Plan "Pig Sex" Orgy for Obama Inauguration to Celebrate the 'Election' of the Most Pro-Gay President Ever

Homosexuals To Celebrate Obama’s Inaguration With Sex Orgy - Aphiemi’s Weblog

And perhaps my favorite (Don't get jealous, Donald):

Big lick news: Sick, Sick, Sick!! Doubetree hotel in Washinton DC is allowing a "Pig party" in thier conference rooms as gay men "cheer" Obama's inauguation

(Great... An outfit called "Big Lick News" is going to explain why rimming is sick... Anyone else find that as funny as I do? And for extra Doocy-HUGE bonus laughs, check out the picture of the guy--perhaps ol' "Big Lick," himself--wearing the "Rimming... It's the shit" tee-shirt. Yikes!)

Protect Marriage. Prohibit Divorce.

If the reasons for prohibiting gay marriage are sound, why don't they apply to divorce, as well?

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

That petition link is Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce And if you haven't already seen the fabulous Prop-8 musical, you've really been missing something... (Like my new buddy Ben, I'm dedicating the video below to [that guy] & his growing collection of sycophants, theocrats, & especially his sycophantic theocrats.)

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

An Endlessly Angry Enemy of Americans

In a screed called America's Enemies Within, a guy sez:

"This post is inspired by two angry anti-American commenters at this blog, commenters who have called me a 'hater' and 'terrorist' because of their inability to rebut the opinions I have expressed: Ben Sutherland and James Casper."

First off, I don't understand why the guy insists on using unrelated posts and off-topic links in his replies. The post below to which he originally linked (or Ben's, for that matter) have nothing to do with the topic about which he's whining. Does he not realize it, or does he simply not give a shit?

Second (after reading the whole of his piece & Snooper's), I don't know who I feel more sorry for; Snooper (who served his country at least, but returned with such hatred for his fellow citizens), or this guy, who appears to come by it all naturally, and without any similar sacrifice.

Neither Ben or I are anti-American. We both love our country, and speak to it's values and our own, generally without much in the way of belittling others, including those who disagree with us. In fact, Ben & I don't even come from the same political side ourselves--he a Libertarian, and me a Green--but we do see this blogger the same way... A pompous blowhard who'd rather puff up with "righteous indignation" at everyone & everything he deems an enemy (many of whom are his fellow citizens, rather than the "real" terrorists--which is a charge he tosses at others pretty often, but obviously fails to recognize in himself...) One becomes anti-American (or a "nihilist," or a "Stalinist," or a "socialist," "radical" "extremist" or... or...) simply by disagreeing with the guy or showing him up. Folks can decide for themselves whether I've done so (there are many exchanges between this blogger & I, both on my blog and his) but I will say that Ben pegged him down like a howling polecat in his very first comment, and the guy has seemingly never recovered from the slight, as evidenced by his post denouncing us.

The guy all about the propaganda... And as others have pointed out, he's been getting meaner & more spiteful to those among his fellow Americans who don't share his political or social views since his man McCain (as well as many other hopefuls in his party) lost the election. It's fine to be angry and to flail his arms at the sky damning everyone for not believing as he believes if that's what he wants. But he'll have to learn to forgive the rest of us (both left & right, apparently) for seeing such screeds as the unbalanced nonsense that they are and daring to say so.

52/48: It's possible, but it ain't easy...

UPDATE: Here via Professor Douglas' link? Please look up. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------


Senator John McCain:

"I urge all Americans ... I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited."

President Elect Obama:

"Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."

The offer: from52to48withlove :: zefrank.com

The reply, from a few of my wingnut reads: This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here: 48 to 52 (For real joy, read the comments...)

Flopping Aces: From the Desk of a 48er to the 52’s: (Again, comments)


MidnightBlue: 48 to 52 - With All Our Love:

"To every left wing moonbat who visited my blog over the past 4 years to spit your poison and is now demanding we unite behind Obama: Go F*** yourselves.

You taught us a very important lesson over the past eight years and I intend to repay the favor."

Mike's America | Homepage | 11.10.08 - 9:16 pm | #
-----------------------------------------

Wonder if that means we can expect ol' Mikey to come a-callin'? (Naah... That'd mean he'd have to leave the protective bubble of his own echo chamber... The chances of Mike ever leaving his own private America & coming out into the real world are pretty slim...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reply from zefrank:

angry:

"'Go f* yourself, kiss my a*, etc... I will treat you with the same respect that you have shown me'

Understood. This is the cycle that has to be broken."

It can be... We can disagree without being disagreeable about it... But it's going to take time & folks on all sides actively workin' at it.

This is the spirit around which Wingnuts & Moonbats was created. Now, I admit it hasn't always worked out that way, and some of my posts have been less than respectful of the other point of view (including this one, in some ways. I want to be feeling all kumbayah, but I can't say as I do...). But still, I know that it is possible to get along without giving in or giving up...

So, in the spirit... While I did give props to "the mission" asks: Is It possible? post a few days ago, I failed to note two more rightward leaning bloggers who showed real class, post-election.

Wordsmith, over on his blog, Sparks from the Anvil: Is it 2012 yet? :P (& x-posted at Flopping Aces. Yes, the same Flopping Aces as above.) He understood what McCain was saying, (and what zefrank is saying) & took it to heart. Kudos for him.

PatrickM, over at Sane Political Discourse: Aftermath 2008 also heard the call, and gets it. Kudos for him, too...

Neither of these guys are wimpy middle-of-the-roaders. They have ideas & ideals that are firmly on the right, and they do not intend to compromise much... Neither of them is afraid to fight back when hit, either... They can be nasty when the situation calls for it, and sometimes, they are... But they seldom if ever throw the first punch, and they don't make or take it personal, and that makes all the difference...

Maybe they'll dig the 52/48 project, or maybe they'll think it's stupid... But I have a feeling that whatever they think of it, they'll see it in the spirit in which it was offered, and not give in to the vindictiveness of their friends...

Another comment too long for Nero

UPDATE: Damn... I have to learn to have patience with blogspot... When I posted this (& then sent the link to the guy with whom I was conversing), the second half of the comment wasn't in the thread over at Nero's blog. I thought he'd deleted it... Half hour later, it's there... I was wrong to think he cut me off... (I might not've, had he not done so before). I'm sorry I accused him, and that I did all this unnecessary maneuvering to get my thoughts posted & before the person to whom they were directed... Oh well...
---------

The original post & comment thread are here and here. (I wish Nero would just grow up & let adults have in-depth conversations rather than counting words, but it is his blog, & his rules...)
-----------

You weren't talking about the current conflict.

I was talking about all conflicts, including Iraq...

You were coming off with one of these love, peace, and flowers lines.

Yeah, sorry about having ideals... Gosh fo'bid. Scurry on back to your regularly scheduled reality, and forget I said anything...

As far as Benedict XVI, he has never condemned the war in Iraq, nor has he called it unjust.

Um...

The War in Iraq - A Roman Catholic View - John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the War in Iraq: n the April 2003 issue of 30 Days, an Italian Catholic magazine, the future pope (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) made his opposition to the war known, while supporting Pope John Paul’s assessment of the justice of the war. He declared Pope John Paul’s position on the war to be “the thoughts of a man of conscience occupying the highest functions in the Catholic Church” and “the appeal of a conscience enlightened by the faith.”

Cardinal Ratzinger also argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because:

"proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained."

New Pope Benedict XVI a Strong Critic of War : After suggesting that perhaps it would be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of war Iraq:

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."

As for the death penalty, I suggest you read Humanae Vitae.

I will do so when I have time... though I think that summary of the Church's position from my last comment was pretty clear...

I am curious, though. Being a Catholic myself, I am surrounded by smug, self-righteous latte liberal Catholics who are always whining about Iraq and the death penalty, yet have no problem with using birth control -- which the Church opposes as violently as it does abortion -- or speaking of, murdering their own children. Cafeteria Catholics have no business quoting the positions of the Church, since they feel they can ignore the Church when it suits their purposes.

Yeah, but the point of my last few comments is that that kinda hypocritical thinking goes both ways... Save the unborn, so they can die in war, or be put to death at another's hand for breaking the laws of man... Life is life. If it's sacred, it's sacred.

But thanks for the "My God can beat up your God" talk... Always nice to see that humility before the Lord... (Clue... God & faith ain't clubs with which to beat your fellow man... I'm glad your God makes you feel powerful 'n' all, but being all belligerent & holier-than-thou (literally) about it don't impress me in the slightest.) We all have our own relationships with our faith, and I can assure you that you haven't got any more of a lock on the one true path than any of the rest of us, whatever you may think...

The Political Purity Ball

Creepy old man accompanies surrogate daughter to the Principal's office to defend her bad behavior (in public, anyway... Rest assured there's a woodshed back at the AZ ranch where she will undergo rigorous "retraining" to assure that such a public slip-up never happens again.)

read more | digg story

Gotcha journalism or inquisitive voter? You decide...



Even before this weekend, others had already noticed the space between Old Man & Young Chippie:

The McCain Bailout: Privatizing success, socializing failure.

When it looked like the bailout bill was going to get the votes, who was all too happy to claim the credit?

John McCain.

When the bill didn't get the votes, who deserves the blame?

Practically everyone except that wacky Maverick.

Democrats failed.
Pelosi failed.
Obama failed.

John? Not his fault. He didn't phone it in. (Except that reports say that's exactly what he did, preferring telephone calls to face-to-face meetings during his little jaunt back to Washington last week.)

For the McCain campaign, the buck stops... ...anywhere but with them. Like the failed Wall Street firms, they're only accepting credit for good news. Blame for bad news belongs to someone (anyone, & if possible, everyone) else. Profits to me, loss to everyone else.

And after it failed, who looked more presidential?
Obama spoke to the American people and appealed for calm, assuring them that there will be a solution.
McCain boarded a plane without speaking to reporters or issuing any statement.

That's some kinda leadership there, Johnny... Heck of a job...

Similar:
Think Progress � After Taking Credit For Bailout Bill, Is McCain Campaign Willing To Share Responsibility For Its Failure?

Marc Ambinder (September 29, 2008) - McCain's Share of The Blame?

Bail Out Fails,McCain Owns It

In case Nero deletes it: Democrats destroying the US?

Nero sez:

Reppy: The "one post" then "one response" rule is still in effect. If you can't be concise, let it go. No double posting. Wait 'till I respond.

Now, here's what I said at the post:

"...one of the antiwar left's most common attacks on the Iraq war is the claim that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda..."

This is true, for example:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wm...0701- pipa01.htm

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57889/

Thus, it makes no sense for Farley to argue that an absence of terrorist threat explains declining public support. Dan and D don't dispute that. They pick nits by narrowing the case down to "operational." My argument still stands, and Farley's a hack.

The whole "Bush Lied, People Died" is based on the claim of no WMD in Iraq, and no Qaeda ties to Saddam. Just ask the radical Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline/

You're a fraud to deny it.

Other than that, you're dodging the other issues. I'm not changing the subject. I've made my point, and have made a second one: You are psychologically and ideological closed-minded to anything I write.

And you're a hypocrite: "Flippin' the bird at folks with whom I disagree is a bit over the top for my taste..."

You concede these people are Democrats, then you deny that they don't want to destroy the U.S. (which doesn't have to be by force, but by undermining the conservative cultural model of the nation since the founding). As I've shown many times, and at the post, the hardline MoveOn, Palin-demonizing contingent IS the base of the Democratic Party. Brownstein says it at the link.

This debate's done. I'll continue the exchange elsewhere, but I stand by my point: You're a denialist. I mean, what does this even mean:

"If you believe that having Melanie Morgan (&/or others) agree with you means that you're right, you might wish to consider whether there's any merit to the fact that a growing number of your detractors agree as to where your faults lie..."

My posts are routinely picked up by right-wing activists AND folks in the MSM (especially RCP). The fact that I have so many detractors is evidence to me that I'm hitting close to home, and the American Power fan mail is a nice example of that.

To conclude: The Dems are the party of defeat, as Horowitz lays out. I call these folks nihilists; you don't like it, but haven't disproved my case.

I'm moving on...
Americaneocon | Homepage | 09.28.08 - 8:47 am | #

-----------
My reply:

In fact, Donnie, nowhere in either link is the argument made by anyone that "...Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda..."

GlobalSecurity.org talks about a poll regarding the beliefs of Americans on the subject of "when the US government presented evidence of links between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda to justify going to war with Iraq," it was either "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" or was "presenting evidence they knew was false" (46% and 10% respectively). Just 39% said they thought the government was "being fully truthful."

Similarly, the Alternet story discusses the words of Bush vs the words of military & foreign policy agencies & think tanks, but never once mentions Saddam Hussain, let alone whether or not he had ties to AQ of any kind.

The ThinkProgress link has one mention, at least:

APRIL 6, 2007: Pentagon report criticizes Feith’s office, finds no Iraq-al Qaeda link.

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides “all confirmed” that Hussein’s regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday. [Washington Post, 4/6/07]

Seems like the nihilists in that story are in the Pentagon, though... And again, they are not claiming NO ties whatsoever... Just nothing operational.

As for Farley, I've never even mentioned him...

Count me among those "pickin' the nits" (If by nits, you mean debunking your outlandish claim that many on the left believe Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda.) While you may (eventually) find one or two on the left saying that, it clearly isn't the widespread belief you say it is... ...and thus, the fruit of that tree is similarly debunked.

Other than that, you're dodging the other issues.

Speak up... If you specify the issue(s) you believe I'm dodging, in this post, I'll gladly reply... And, I invite you to do the same...

I'm not changing the subject.

Don, when you bring up a different post and the fact that I didn't reply to it--which is what you did--you're changing the subject. But believe as you will...

To be clear: Are you really saying that by opposing McCain Palin, those Democrats (& I assume ALL Democrats) ARE IN FACT trying to destroy America by opposing the cultural conservative model on which you believe this country was founded?
Classic. Absolutely classic.

As I'm not sure whether your declaration about being done & moving on means you will remove this comment, I'll stop here. If you really want to know what I meant about the Mel Morgan thing & your detractors, I'll post the explanation on my blog, so as not to take up any more of your precious space here...

repsac3 | Homepage | 09.28.08 - 10:15 am | #

----------

Now, to continue from where I left off...

First off, can anyone tell me why my saying ""Flippin' the bird at folks with whom I disagree is a bit over the top for my taste..." makes me a hypocrite? Is there a video somewhere of me flipping anyone off, or of defending that gesture when used against those with whom one disagrees, politically? I think not... Just more NeoCon NeroCon bluster, devoid of substance...

I've shown many times, and at the post, the hardline MoveOn, Palin-demonizing contingent IS the base of the Democratic Party. Brownstein says it at the link.

Sadly, no. Here's what Brownstein actually says:

National Journal Magazine - Born Fighting, MoveOn Isn't Letting Up: "The purposes to which MoveOn applies these vast resources are more debatable. The group has become a favored target for Republicans and a source of anxiety for some Democratic centrists, who worry that it points the party too far left. On domestic issues, it fits within the Democratic mainstream. But on national security, it defines the party's left flank."

It looks to me like Brownstein is not saying what Nero claims he is... Why am I not surprised?

I mean, what does this even mean:

"If you believe that having Melanie Morgan (&/or others) agree with you means that you're right, you might wish to consider whether there's any merit to the fact that a growing number of your detractors agree as to where your faults lie..."

It means that you should be intellectually honest. If you believe having others of your ilk agree with you is some kinda proof that you are correct (which is a belief I don't happen to subscribe to, but I can easily find five examples of your suggesting that you're correct, because "X" or "Y" posted the same thing), you ought to also at minimum entertain the possibility that when several of your detractors all say the same things about your style of argumentation, they may also be correct. If numbers don't lie on the right, numbers don't lie on the left.

I'm surprised you didn't understand that, the first time...

I call these folks nihilists; you don't like it, but haven't disproved my case.

You haven't even made your case, Donnie.

Define nihilist.
Show how the definition fits some/any/all Democrats.

When you do that (if ever you do--I've been asking for over a year), we'll talk about your case. Until then, it's just you waving your arms in the air & claiming to be flying...

The Politics of Fear

New Yorker cartoon cover w/Obamas, originally uploaded by scriptingnews.

I guess I'm in the minority, Left & Right, because I see that cover as making fun of those folks who insist on stressing Obama's middle name & linking him to terrorists-- You know... Conservatives...

That the left (including Obama's campaign) is whining about this picture--& the right is celebrating it as though there is a shred of truth in it, (and as though the illustrator isn't pretty much calling the folks on the right who engage in these things idiots to their faces)--absolutely mystifies me...

The illustration is called "The Politics of Fear," people... ...& I think it hits the mark quite well. The fact that the very folks it's aimed at are the ones spreading it around most vociferously, is just icing on a very ironic cake.

At least I'm not the only one who sees it that way...

"I think the New Yorker is poking fun at the fantasies of the rabid right…

To be skewered and not even notice it takes a deft blade."

- alphie on July 13, 2008 at 7:59 PM

More here:
TheImproper.com: Barry Blitt Defends New Yorker Cover

TheImproper.com: Obama Camp Bashes 'Tasteless' New Yorker Cover

UPDATE: A blogger at Mother Jones gets to the heart of the problem with this satire not being understood by target & audience alike, and offers a possible solution.

"The current cover doesn't satirize the attacks on the Obamas so much as it merely combines them, and the real target of the supposed satire (Fox News?) is left unspoken. But here's how it could have worked: the exact same drawing, except with John and Cindy McCain in place of the Obamas."

-- The Riff: Holy Fist Bumps: New Yorker Obama Cover Features Turban, Afro, Flag Burning, bin Laden, Complete Lack of Concern for Humanity

Comments NeroCon saw fit to delete

Apparently, It's time to move on from my old friend Nero... He's deleting all my comments to his blog, without comment...

While it's certainly within his right, it doesn't make him look good...

Here are the other three of the ones I lost today...
-----------------------------------

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/lefts-fundamental-dishonesty.html

The author pretty clearly states that the passes are both legitimate & legal. Media Benjamin is a principle player in Global Exchange, isn't she? The fact that even the Secret Service & Montecello accepted these passes is strong evidence that they are legitimate.

As to whether GE is a news organization, well, no more or less so than any one of a hundred other partisan internet publications--right & left--who also have press passes... Would you deny passes to all of 'em?
repsac3 | Homepage | 07.09.08 - 8:59 am | #
-------------------

What happened to you, professor?

When did you decide to edit for ideological content?

How soon until Tim, Patrick, QDave, Faux, & the rest disappear, as well?
repsac3 | Homepage | 07.09.08 - 9:35 am | #
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/lefts-fundamental-dishonesty.html#133302
--

Creation of the phrase "fake but accurate" was in support of the Leftist agenda ...



You mean, like this one?



"I don't care if the picture was photoshopped ... I believe that Code Pink wants out troops dead,"

Seems some on the right are fond of that sentiment, as well...


repsac3 | Homepage | 07.09.08 - 10:52 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/americaneocon/8632129878781713928/?a=40512#133333
-------------------------------------

I can't say whether or not I'll keep trying, but I'll be sure to keep a record of whatever comments I make, seeing as how ol' Nero can't be trusted to even attempt to respond intelligently to comments, anymore... The delete key is so much easier, after all... (Would that he could just do the same to all the folks laughing at the whole disgraced NeoCon movement, these days...)