Back to previous post: Conventional unwisdom on publishing

Go to Making Light's front page.

Forward to next post: Bestsellers, okaysellers, and slippery figurative language

Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)

October 20, 2006

Stupid Pro-Bush Ad
Posted by Jim Macdonald at 08:18 PM * 80 comments

New from our good friends at the Republican National Committee, the Ticking Bin Laden ad! To keep us worried about terrorism the GOP has decided to remind us that after five years, two wars, billiions of dollars and thousands of lives — they still haven’t caught the SOB.

Currently you can see the ad on the RNC’s web page (warning: you may have to wade through some Bushista BS to find it). It features pictures of Osama, the guy of whom George Bush said, “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.” That was before Bush said,”I am truly not that concerned about him.” So we’re either flipped or flopped now. (It’s hard to keep track.)

You can tell it’s election season because the RePubs are hauling Osama out of the closet like an old Herman Munster costume. They’re hitting the road, knocking on people’s doors and yelling “Boo!” in hopes of getting their bags filled with electorial candy.

Georgie needs something, because he can’t run on competence. Or family values. Or anything else. But he still has his old family friend Osama. That’s why we’re being treated again to all these scary pictures of Osama bin Forgotten. Yeah, yeah. We get it Georgie. Osama made you tear up the Bill of Rights. It wasn’t your fault! The only thing we have to fear is lack-of-fear itself!

If y’all want to see exactly how stupid the ad is, here’s how to find it: Go to GOP.com. You should see a large graphic in lurid orange and black (to keep with the Trick or Treat theme, perhaps) labeled “These are the stakes” and a button that says “Watch the New Ad.” So watch it. Try not to laugh out loud. Then shed a tear. These guys are so desperate it’s almost hard not to feel a bit sympathetic.

I hear the RePubs are planning to actually run this ad (at the cost of who knows how much loot) this Sunday during the national news. If you happen to see it then, giggling and pointing is appropriate. If anyone asks you what’s so funny, you can explain that Bush shut down the CIA office that was looking for bin Laden.

In keeping with the spirit of fun, here’s an old Soviet joke. Update it as you will:

“Comrade Rabinowich, why weren’t you at the last Party meeting?”

“If someone had told me it was the last one I would have brought the whole family!”

Comments on Stupid Pro-Bush Ad:
#1 ::: Sean Bosker ::: (view all by) ::: October 20, 2006, 08:34 PM:

Oh god. The ticking time bomb, the beating heart. It's not even a pro-Bush ad, since Bush himself is such a liability, it's just a Bin Laden ad. Scareporn.

#2 ::: Linkmeister ::: (view all by) ::: October 20, 2006, 08:46 PM:

I'll try to find out where I read this, but somebody discovered that (at least for now) it's only scheduled for 5 airings overall, including one on Fox on Sunday (during an NFL game, maybe?). If that's the case they're hunting for free media coverage, which they've done before.

#3 ::: Linkmeister ::: (view all by) ::: October 20, 2006, 08:54 PM:

Bingo. Read all about it at Kos.

From a DSCC email:

The RNC is very proud of its new web video highlighting the Bush administration's failure to catch bin Laden and has decided to broadcast the video on national cable stations this weekend.

Since the RNC declined to provide specific details about the scope of its media buy, we checked and found that - as we suspected - it's a phantom buy.

According to publicly available information, the RNC is spending a paltry $20,000 on national cable, meaning that the ad will appear less than five times on Sunday and Monday. In fact, the paid ad will air just once on FOX News.
#4 ::: MadHattr ::: (view all by) ::: October 20, 2006, 08:55 PM:

How exactly is this a GOP ad? It has a clear message of "We didn't catch Bin Laden, maybe someone else can".

#5 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 20, 2006, 10:04 PM:

Shorter GOP ad:

"Oh Ghod! Oh, no! Terrorists! Help! Help! Help! Run very fast! We're scared! Aieeeee!"

#6 ::: Kip W ::: (view all by) ::: October 20, 2006, 10:05 PM:

Yeah, I saw that earlier today. Starts out silent. I guess that's so you'll turn up your TV and they can blast you. Be afwaid! Be vewwy vewwy afwaid! We're utter failures, but the Democrats might be worse!


(Herman Munster, isn't it?)

#7 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 20, 2006, 11:00 PM:

Here's how CNN (which is where I heard about it -- I don't make a habit of reading the Gooper website) was reporting this:

GOP terrorism ad sparks Democratic furor

I suppose you could call it "furor" if "furor" is defined as "snickering."

The Democratic National Committee issued a statement saying the new Republican ad was an attempt to distract voters from GOP failures.

"Once again we see that the GOP will truly do and say anything regardless of whether or not it's true, they are so desperate to hold onto power," Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney said in a statement. "Clearly Republicans are so afraid of their abysmal record they can't offer one example of what they've done to keep America safe."

Republicans contend otherwise and say the ad "underscores the high stakes America faces in the global war on terror by using the words of the terrorists themselves as they describe their intention towards the United States," according to a statement.

#8 ::: Andrew Cory ::: (view all by) ::: October 20, 2006, 11:26 PM:

I guess the GOP knows full well that only the Democrats can protect us the terrorists. That's why they're taking out this new ad pointing out the Republican Party's half-decade of policy failure...

#9 ::: Lizzy L ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 12:51 AM:

Kind of Republicans to remind us all that instead of going after Bin Laden with everything we have, Bush decided to invade Iraq, which hadn't attacked us, etc.

Every time Republicans mention "the terrorists," Democrats should be reminding the entire electorate that Bin Laden is still out there, and that George's Excellent Adventure in Iraq has only served to make more people mad at us, which hasn't made us any safer.

Am I the only one still worrying about "an October surprise"?

#10 ::: Woodyeofalb ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 01:12 AM:

I heard from a father of a man positioned in some Army group doing global computer surveillance that the explanation for BL's "freedom" is that his movements give the US "entry" wherever he apparently "appears." He's supposedly dying and isn't considered (by this source...)very dangerous. Just an inverse of rendering....

#11 ::: Charlie Stross ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 06:18 AM:

As a further datum, a friend of mine commented on a mailing list I'm on that he'd just caught the Rush Limbaugh show on his daily commute, and was gobsmacked to hear Rush denouncing Bush for being insufficiently conservative.

Stick a fork in him: he's done.

#12 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 08:39 AM:

You want my private opinion? Osama is dead, and we know it. That's why the bin Laden office was disestablished -- it's a waste of time looking for a dead guy.

But Bush will be hauling the corpse out every October to try to panic everyone into voting for the RePubs.

A vote for a Republican is a vote for torture.

#13 ::: Tom S. ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 09:31 AM:

Speaking of stupid Republican ads, have you heard this radio ad from the National Black Republican Association yet?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicalads/152/

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.
The Republicans freed the Slaves.
The Democrats founded the KKK.
Etc.

All historically factual (damned Dixiecrats), but totally unrepresentative of the real positions of either party today. Reverend King is doubtless spinning in his grave.

#14 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 11:00 AM:

Osama is dead, and we know it.

In the great game of Thing that being an American citizen has become, that is not too outrageous a possibility.

Hm, actually, its more like a game of Mafia/Werewolves, because the Bush administration is Mafia and the Terrorists are Werewolves. And all the citizens are stuck in between.

#15 ::: Madeline Kelly ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 11:13 AM:

Happily for me, when I tried to watch the advert just now all I got was a blank white screen and the pleasing sound of a ticking clock followed by a few heart beats. Powerful stuff indeed.

#16 ::: Larry ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 11:24 AM:

George Bush said, ?The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.?

Phony quote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918437/posts

#17 ::: cd ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 11:56 AM:

Oh, yeah, the Free Republic, that most non-partisan of websites.

#18 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 01:19 PM:

The Republicans' chances are fadin',
So again they trot out Bin Ladin;
It isn't so much
That they're out of touch
As that we've all seen Death and the Maiden.

#19 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 01:57 PM:

Let's see:

Representative Ron Kind (Wisconsin 3rd District) thinks "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden" is real.

PBS thinks that "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him" is a real quote, and gives a date for it: 9/13/01.

It's true that those exact words aren't currently posted at whitehouse.gov.

I do find this from 17 September:

Q Do you want bin Laden dead?

THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive."

Q Do you see this being long-term? You were saying it's long-term, do you see an end, at all?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that this is a long-term battle, war. There will be battles. But this is long-term. After all, our mission is not just Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda organization. Our mission is to battle terrorism and to join with freedom loving people.

We are putting together a coalition that is a coalition dedicated to declaring to the world we will do what it takes to find the terrorists, to rout them out and to hold them accountable. And the United States is proud to lead the coalition.

Q Are you saying you want him dead or alive, sir? Can I interpret --

THE PRESIDENT: I just remember, all I'm doing is remembering when I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the old west, a wanted poster. It said: "Wanted, Dead or Alive." All I want and America wants him brought to justice. That's what we want.

In that same press conference he references some other remarks he'd made "last week":

All I can tell you is that Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect, and the people who house him, encourage him, provide food, comfort or money are on notice. Last Tuesday -- last week, I spoke clearly about our nation's policy. And that is, we're going to find those who -- those evil-doers, those barbaric people who attacked our country and we're going to hold them accountable, and we're going to hold the people who house them accountable; the people who think they can provide them safe havens will be held accountable; the people who feed them will be held accountable.

"Last Tuesday" there would have been September 11.

Here's what Georgie said on September 11 (after he finished reading My Pet Goat) at that school down in Florida:

I have spoken to the Vice President, to the Governor of New York, to the Director of the FBI, and have ordered that the full resources of the federal government go to help the victims and their families, and to conduct a full-scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act.

Here is what Bush said on 13 September in regard to bin Laden (per whitehouse.gov):

Q Mr. President, how confident are you that Osama bin Laden is behind these attacks? Do you know what his whereabouts are? And, secondly, what kind of support are you looking for from Congress, in terms of your willingness to act?

THE PRESIDENT: We are -- we will not discuss intelligence matters, how we gather intelligence and what we know -- about anybody. When our government acts, you'll be informed.

Secondly, I am -- we had a great meeting yesterday here in the Cabinet Room with leadership of the House and the Senate. I was touched by their response, their encouragement and their willingness to work together. And I would be very pleased to see a strong resolution come out of Congress supporting the administration and what we intend to do, and we're working closely with Congress.

Secondly, progress is being made on a supplemental. I thought that was very swift action and I'm most appreciative, again, of Senator Daschle and Representative Gephardt, as well as my Republican colleagues, for really showing solidarity again and uniting the nation. Now is the time for the country to be united.

You know, through the tears of sadness I see an opportunity. Make no mistake about it, this nation is sad. But we're also tough and resolute. And now is an opportunity to do generations a favor, by coming together and whipping terrorism; hunting it down, finding it and holding them accountable. The nation must understand, this is now the focus of my administration. We will very much engage in domestic policy, of course. I look forward to working with Congress on a variety of issues.

But now that war has been declared on us, we will lead the world to victory, to victory.


"... hunt down and to find those folks..."

"Wanted, Dead or Alive."

"...we're going to find those who -- those evil-doers, those barbaric people who attacked our country and we're going to hold them accountable..."

"...now is an opportunity to do generations a favor, by coming together and whipping terrorism; hunting it down, finding it and holding them accountable. The nation must understand, this is now the focus of my administration."

Great job on hunting down, finding, and holding Osama accountable, Georgie. Focus of your administration, eh?

Next time you run an ad try to point up your successes.

#20 ::: Edward Oleander ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 04:43 PM:

Next time you run an ad try to point up your successes.

Be the shortest damn politcal ad in history...

#21 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 04:45 PM:

someone should make a spin on a world war 2 poster, put bin laden in Hitler's place and turn al quada into an army of nazi look alikes. Then throw in all the propaganda stuff you can think of. And at the very bottom, put "Vote Republican".

I don't recall a WW2 poster ever playing partisan politics. Maybe something like this would show just how slimy this Bin-Laden-For-Republicans campaign really is.

#22 ::: Raven ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 05:00 PM:

James:   On the doubts about "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"

As you know, whitehouse.gov transcripts get "scrubbed" of embarrassing remarks like Ari Fleischer's "watch what you say" — so I went to the Wayback Machine's archive copies of whitehouse.gov, looking under Sept. 13, 14, and 15, 2001, figuring those would be unscrubbed. I didn't find this quote.

Next I went to Google Groups, since that allows a date range to be specified. The first occurrence of this quote I found was on April 5, 2002 — pointing to an original date of September 13, 2001 — with no source cited — and it's on alt.impeach.bush, given as contradicting Bush's "I don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

The late date, originating location, and perfect contradiction (using the same key words "important" and "priority") have me suspecting this was indeed not a genuine quote, though it may originally have been intended as a paraphrase rather than a "phony quote" (as has happened with other famous invented "quotes").   I think Ron Kind and PBS may have fallen for it because it was so widely distributed without being explicitly denied by the White House.

Wayback Machine archives of whitehouse.gov:
     September 13, 2001
     September 14, 2001
     September 15, 2001

Google Groups search (date range can be modified).

#23 ::: albatross ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 05:10 PM:

I guess I just don't understand the reasoning here. Clearly the Republicans are very good at getting elected--this seems like the one thing the current administration really knows how to do. Do they must have some good reasons for running ads focusing on Bush and the Republicans' handling of the war on terror.

But Bush's record here is awful. Katrina demonstrated what kind of resources the federal government had available in the event of a huge terrorist attack, say a stolen nuke going off in a big city. It was a nasty joke. Iraq and Afghanistan daily look more like twin disasters. North Korea, a genuinely evil country run by a genuine nut, has openly gone nuclear.

Perhaps this is some sort of psychological thing. Tyler Cowan proposed the theory awhile back that when people get more scared of outside threats, they tend to vote Republican. I guess Karl Rove thinks the same way. Maybe he's even right.

But it's just a little hard to believe. Running on your record just has to be easier if you have something other than a string of disasters on your record....

#24 ::: Raven ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 05:11 PM:

The "Note" above the "Post a comment" space says: "Comments containing more than seven URLs will be held for approval."

I submitted a comment with five URLs (all relevant, and I hope useful)... and it's held for approval.   What gives?

It would be easy enough to "dodge" the automated guardian by posting URLs in separate comments — but I'm not trying to "dodge" anything; I obeyed the stated limit.   If that isn't the real limit, (1) why not? (2) what is?

#25 ::: Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 06:07 PM:

Lesee: MLK Jr. Never had any party affiliation.

The Republicans freed the slaves: ok, we can grant that one, it was, roughly, 150 years ago, what have they done for the oppressed lately?

The KKK was founded by Democrats... sort. It was founded by disaffected rebels (traitors, if you like) who had lost a war. At the time the members (somewhat anonymous, for reasons having to do with being terrorists), may not have had their right to vote returned, so party affiliation is sort of vague.

Given that they weren't going to vote for Republicans, because those were the politicians who ran the war which cost their cause it's ability to keep slaves, that they supported Dems, is a bit of a red herring.

And who belongs to the KKK now?

The add is a farrago of lies, half-truths, misdirection and bamboozlement.

On the upside, it also plays on the belief that afro-americans are dopes, who will believe any sort of hornswoggle peddled on television, without any reference to personal experience, critical thinking or personal interest.

All in all, the add is less likely to affect blacks, than it is ignorant whites.

#26 ::: Linkmeister ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 07:07 PM:

"the add is less likely to affect blacks, than it is ignorant whites.

I think the latter is the principal target, actually. Appeal to the nativist roots.

#27 ::: BigHank53 ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 07:57 PM:

re: comment #20

Oh, Bush has plenty of political successes to put in an ad. It's just that none of them are the sort of things that will make actual voters go out and vote for Republicans.

Exxon/Mobil is worth a trillion dollars more than they were in 2000.

#28 ::: Lowell Gilbert ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 09:34 PM:

See, what I don't get (and if James D. MacDonald can't explain it to me, maybe nobody can) is why this isn't (more or less) exactly the advertisement that the Democrats are running.

#29 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 09:38 PM:

#23 I submitted a comment with five URLs (all relevant, and I hope useful)... and it's held for approval. What gives?

What gives is that new MT software recently got installed and we're still trying to figure out the bugs and the workarounds.

Used to be that special characters worked just fine -- when you pasted in some text with curly quotes they printed like you'd expect. Now, if you want to use special characters you have to use the HTML equivalents. So we're still in a transitional form.

I'd thought that we'd gotten the seven-URL problem figured out, but apparently not. Mayb seven works okay, but no one told the silly thing that five is also good. Dunno.

Give us time.

#30 ::: Marilee ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 09:43 PM:

I saw Brian Williams discuss this ad on Friday's 7pm news. He did it with a straight face even as he was saying the GOP had just put it out for media notice. He mentioned something that I haven't seen here and darn it, they don't have it on msnbc.com. He said the last line on the commercial is the same line as was on the daisy/bomb commercial. I'm on dialup, so I'll let someone with broadband look that up.

#32 ::: Scott Taylor ::: (view all by) ::: October 21, 2006, 10:34 PM:

Direct link for those so interested.

This would be yellow journalism at its finest - if the GOP were a newspaper. As it is, it's just stupid.

I'd have more sympathy for their position if the Republican party had done anything at all to actually make America safer.

Meh. Rates a 1/10 from me - it's not even amusing. it's just dumb.

#33 ::: albatross ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 12:11 AM:

Re: #24:

"On the upside, it also plays on the belief that afro-americans are dopes, who will believe any sort of hornswoggle peddled on television, without any reference to personal experience, critical thinking or personal interest."

Isn't this pretty much the assumption underlying all political ads? Or are the political ads where you are discussions of important issues and principled stands? Around here, they're black and red pictures of one candidate with scary music in the background and obvious smears attributed to some hack or another, or occasionally some moderately entertaining response ads by Steele. (I'd probably vote for him on general principle, if only it wouldn't risk giving Bush and the Republicans two more years of consolidated power.)

What's worse is, the people running those ads know their audience and their business. Smarmy attack ads like the "Swift boat veterans for truth" stuff from the 2004 election actually seem to work. That doesn't say anything good about voters.

Historically, the Republicans were much friendlier to civil rights for blacks than the Democrats. This was the same kind of high principle as most politics--the Republicans weren't getting many votes in the South anyway, so it didn't cost them much. When the vote equation changed, so did some of that calculation, though it's not like the Republicans propose anything remotely like Jim Crow laws now. And it seems to me that 90+% of accusations of racism in politics are complete crap, intended to smear people rather than deal with anything substantive.

#34 ::: albatross ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 12:22 AM:

Re: #25:

[About the Republicans as historical Civil Rights supporters ad:]

Linkmeister said:

"I think the latter is the principal target, actually. Appeal to the nativist roots."

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. The nativist roots are supremely uninterested in whether the Republicans were historically backers of civil rights. My guess: the Republicans are running several blacks for office, and are trying to make it easier for both blacks and whites who care about civil rights for blacks to vote for those candidates.

#35 ::: Raven ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 12:40 AM:

Okay, giving up on waiting for the version with links (submitted after #19) to appear. Posting linkless:

Re #19, James D. Macdonald:   On the doubts about "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"

As you know, whitehouse.gov transcripts get "scrubbed" of embarrassing remarks like Ari Fleischer's "watch what you say" — so I went to the Wayback Machine's archive copies of whitehouse.gov, looking under Sept. 13, 14, and 15, 2001, figuring those would be unscrubbed. I didn't find this quote.

Next I went to Google Groups, since that allows a date range to be specified. The first occurrence of this quote I found was on April 5, 2002 — pointing to an original date of September 13, 2001 — with no source cited — and it's on alt.impeach.bush, given as contradicting Bush's "I don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

The late date, originating location, and perfect contradiction (using the same key words "important" and "priority") have me suspecting this was indeed not a genuine quote, though it may originally have been intended as a paraphrase rather than a "phony quote" (as has happened with other famous invented "quotes").   I think Ron Kind and PBS may have fallen for it because it was so widely distributed without being explicitly denied by the White House.

#36 ::: Paula Lieberman ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 01:22 AM:

The Republicrap Slime Bucket Brigade are out and about in Massachusetts, with smear promo literature about Deval Patrick implying he's a devil.

Support the troops, oust Bush and the rest of the Republican Hegemony.

#37 ::: Paula Lieberman ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 01:24 AM:

Uncle Tom

#38 ::: Paula LIeberman ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 01:37 AM:

The Republican Party has not been seen as advocate for civil rights for rather more than thirty years--around 1976 or so my boss was a darkskinned lietenant colonel from West Virginia, whose family had Republican affiliation going back to when Lincoln was President and Virginia split in two--but by 1976, most darkskinned US citizens had politically affiliated as Democrats, not Republicans, putting my boss' family out of step in that respect.

I reiterate, from months ago, that Sen Jeffords of Vermont, bred and born a Republican with a clear political family lineage going back to before the Civil War, divorced himself from the Republican Party announcing that he had not left the party of Lincoln, the Republican Party had left him and left behind the values it had been founded with. And since the Republican Party had abandoned those values and principles, he was quitting the Republican Party.

#39 ::: Paula Lieberman ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 01:51 AM:

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: Profiles in Courage

George Walker Bush: Profiles in the Spoils System

(Mongolian Emperor politics--reward your friends, reward people who join you, burn out the cities and all the books/through the books in the river of any and all detractors. On second though, the Mongols were competent at ruling and running military campaigns and getting taken over territory up and running with peace in the streets and virgins able to walk the roads from one end of the empire to the other unmolested... that;'s hardly the case in today;'s Iraq!)

George Walker Bush: Profiles in Corruption
George Walker Bush: Profiles in Appointing Maleficents.
George Walker Bush: Profiles in Willful Ignorance
George Walker Bush: Profiles in Incompetence
George Walker Bush: Profiles in Cowardice
George Walker Bush: Profiles in Criminally Negligent Homicide (thousands of cases on 9/11, tens of thousands in Iraq)
George Walker Bush: Profiles in War Crimes
George Walker Bush: Profiles in Directing Torture
George Walker Bush: Profiles in abrograting the Constutition of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights
George Walker Bush: Profiles in Oathbreaking ("uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America....")
George Walker Bush: Profiles in Narcissism
George Walker Bush: Profiles in Hubris

#40 ::: Eddie Cochrane ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 07:00 AM:

Re. #29
The line the RNC ad repeats from LBJ's Daisy ad is "These are the stakes."

#41 ::: Paul A. ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 10:35 AM:

James D. Macdonald @ #28:
Used to be that special characters worked just fine -- when you pasted in some text with curly quotes they printed like you'd expect. Now, if you want to use special characters you have to use the HTML equivalents.

I notice that the pages are rendered in XHTML now, and I suspect that this has some bearing on the situation. (But I could be wrong - especially if it was also XHTML before.)

#42 ::: Kip W ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 12:34 PM:

Stick a fork in him: he's done. (Charlie Stross @11)

Yeah, but they're not going to run him again anyway. Look for some Republican maverick of great integrity to convince the mob that he's the Real anti-Bush, and that the appease-o-crats can't be trusted to defend us. John Mc-something, the magic 8-ball says. You know, some guy who always gets his picture taken boldly disagreeing with Bush just before he goes and votes with him. "Yes, mistakes were made, but I am a new broom who will sweep clean... (did I say that right, Karl?)"

#43 ::: albatross ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 02:33 PM:

Maybe I'm being optimistic here, but I think after Bush leaves office, it may be some time before the Republicans get the same kind of pwoer they've had. We're probably going to declare victory and go home from Iraq in the next year or so, and the next president will certainly do that, since he/she won't be invested so heavily in the current policies. I don't care how clever the Roves of the Republican party are, it's just not possible to spin that as victory. In fact, I think they'll have big problems with this because the rhetoric they've used against Democrats to energize their own base is going to come back to haunt them. Defeatacrats, right? Cut and run. Fight them in Baghdad or fight them in Peoria? The white house can change course on Iraq, but its rhetoric is going to be coming back at it from the right of its own party. You can see that starting already.

That said, I predict that the vast new powers of the president as claimed by Bush won't be repudiated by the next, very likely Democratic, inhabitant of the white house.

#44 ::: Raven ::: (view all by) ::: October 22, 2006, 03:10 PM:

Re #42, albatross:   ...I predict that the vast new powers of the president as claimed by Bush won't be repudiated by the next, very likely Democratic, inhabitant of the white house.

As long as she uses them to declare Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al., "enemy combatants", and puts them through "alternative interrogation" without habeas corpus until outrage from the Right over this tyrannical denial of rights and liberties finally forces the the Torture Bill to be overturned.   (Likewise the warrantless wiretapping, and every other Unitary Executive Empowerment bill back to and including the Patriot Act.)   After that, we should be safe for another generation from this führerprinzip frenzy.

#45 ::: Dolloch ::: (view all by) ::: October 23, 2006, 12:49 AM:

Scare tactics from the GOP? Nawwww...

I'm from Troy, OH - county seat to Miami county whose suspiscious vote tallies (550 votes, 450 voter signatures) were in the NYTimes a while back. On a whim, I tried to follow up and see what had become of the scandal. It led me to an article on the OH GOP website.

Yes, they are actually trying to say that Sherrod Brown is making America vulnerable to a North Korean nuclear assault by voting against adding to our nuclear arsenal. Y'know, the one that is the largest on the planet.

I'm told my Grandpa worked on the wiring for the Titan missles, the ICBMs that could reach, say, North Korea. He did that in the 50's. We've had the tech for 50 years. Those Titans went obsolete and were replaced by much better ICBMs.

The GOP isn't lying through their teeth anymore. They're lying via semaphore and flaregun.

#46 ::: Stephan Brun ::: (view all by) ::: October 23, 2006, 05:33 AM:

#28, JDM: can't help with url-limits, but special characters work fine if one changes the encoding of the page from iso-8859-1 to utf-8 (Firefox/Win). XHTML is utf-8 by default, which suggested to me that something was changing it. I had a look at the source, and there is a meta tag in the document head that reads like this:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

Remove this, and special characters should work again.

#47 ::: Paula Lieberman ::: (view all by) ::: October 23, 2006, 10:11 AM:

The reason for Big Warheads on US ICBMs tended to be "high circular error probability" -- if you couldn't exactly hit the target, bigger bombs had a bigger "radius of destruction." The better you are at precisely hitting the target, the less boom and fewer booms you need to apply to actually probably hit the target (precision guided munitions cost a lot more individually, but did a lot more intentional damage, that dozens of "stupid bombs" --and did a lot less "collateral damage").

There is so much utter BS about those Police State Party postures I haven't got a clue where to begin the debunking...

#48 ::: Chris Slighly ::: (view all by) ::: October 26, 2006, 10:54 AM:

Is this the room where everybody makes fun of George Bush? Is it still cool to make up little stories about Georgey and Bin-Laden running around saying humorus things so mildly sarcastic? I think Stephen Colbert called, yeah, he wants his his blog space back or something. Zing.

Anywho, excellent nickname for Republicans. Repubs? and you are a Dem, I suppose? Alot of what I call cleverness is going on with the nickname thing I think. At least Rush Limbaugh has the decency to come up with a remotely clever nickname for the opposing party - Clintnoids I believe is the proper term. I hope someone writes a hilarious response about Rush Limbaugh - maybe something about how he is always wrong, and how he's fat, and overdoses on pain killers, and has a stupid radio show, and how you've never listened to the radio broadcast before. Or maybe, before you respond you should watch the colbert show with Jim McDonald in order to gather, research, and hypothesis your next vain attempt to somehow recreate the show via web blog.

But yeah I'm slightly a republican I think. Does that mean I have to automatically love Bush ( I could be referring to the band, the shrub, the beer I often find myself drinking, the president, or even an even more humane Bush if you know what I meant. Wink, wink, say no more)? And yes I know, Democrats don't like bush either. That must be why they're always traveling with disposable razors. Kidding. Who doesn't travel around with disposable razors these days?.........yeah, that was my razor joke.

My biggest pet peave is listening to people bitch about the President ? My saddest memory was finding out pet peaves, were in-factt not pets at all. I think I'm voting either Libertarian or green party though. You know, just mix things up a little. The Green Party does have Joe Lieberman. Just when I was starting to think theirs finally a Democrat even the republicans can relate to the Clintoniods somehow thought that a candidate who looks like horse would bring home a W. Sadly W, brought home a W because he is apparantly a cowboy president.

I mean come on its not the civil war era here. You can't look like Abraham lincoln did and get away with it anymore. Nixon tried it. He didn't get away with it. You might want to try the Kennedy approach again. Until then candidates dumber and uglier than bush need not apply. But come on, seriously, what do people think Of Joe Lieberman for president? To put it like Kurt Vonnegut: Thanks to Tv and the convienence of tv you can be only two types of human: Democrat or Republican. I think its scary how right he is. Why vote for Joe Lieberman? WHy vote for someone you like better than all the other candidates if you know he is going to lose? Because he can win if he gets enough points. its al about points here people. Just a big game is all. Its like playing super smashbrother and only playing with kirby and pekachu right now. *know offense to these characters as registered trademarks of the nintendo enterprise. But we should try hanging out more. Republicans And Democrats. Hey maybe if we get Ted Nugent to be be a vegetarian, Deliberately not wake up Green Day even if November does end, reinstall Rage Against The Machine as America's rebellious kick ass rebel call than we might have ourselves a ball game again. But mildly sarcastic bush jokes are pretty funny too. I don't think they ripped off nirvana. i prefer dead baby jokes too I guess. And I am joking just incase some of you don't find black humor something other than ammuzing.

Sorry this is long. I'm sorry. I guess I just like this sight.

#49 ::: Chris Slighly ::: (view all by) ::: October 26, 2006, 11:04 AM:

*I meant do find blakc humor something other than amuzing In that third to the last sentence there. I always have to mess things up. can probably just go back and edit my comment now that I think about it. Now I'm typing to myself. Must stop. can't. will. wont't.........error. I'll stop now.

#50 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: October 26, 2006, 11:09 AM:

Why am I not surprised that Chris@48 comes from a .edu domain? I would despair of our institutions of higher learning if I didn't know that most real education occurs outwith them.

Chris, you might consider a spell checker, although it won't protect you from homophones (sight/site). I don't think that either better grammar or more carefully chosen cultural references would help the clarity of your ideas, but they might assist us in finding them to discuss.

Shorter version: what's your point in making this post?

#51 ::: JESR ::: (view all by) ::: October 26, 2006, 11:52 AM:

Hey maybe if we get Ted Nugent to be be a vegetarian, Deliberately not wake up Green Day even if November does end, reinstall Rage Against The Machine as America's rebellious kick ass rebel call than we might have ourselves a ball game again.

Jesus, even I have more shame than to let a sentence like that pass the preview...

#52 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: October 26, 2006, 12:30 PM:

Apologies for the correct spelling throughout, but I was rushed for time:

Is this the room where everyone but me
Can think beyond the headlines on Fox news?
Do I alone (lukewarmly) follow B?
Does no one share my adolescent views?
How dare you take against my hero Rush
When he insults you folks? He is so bright!
I hear his show and get a heady rush
Just knowing all of us are in the right.
(I'm not sure how, because I haven't read
Much history, nor traveled very far.)
I'll quote musicians, not the boring dead,
And make some jokes...a true comedic star!
If this is long and incoherent in your eyes
I won't truncate. I do apologise.

#53 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: October 26, 2006, 02:06 PM:

Sligh(t)ly Annoyed

I'm sorry if I've got here rather late,
And thus don't understand the, ahem, culture,
I am a denizen of Grand Valley State
A real American, a 100 per cent pure.
You liberals for some reason need coherence,
But really all you're saying is bullshit;
Your signal seems to be getting interference
And that Rush Limbaugh really is a wit.
If you dislike the president it must be pique,
You folks here are entirely lacking nous;
Ignore the fact that he's made the country weak,
Or that he thinks his is the royal house.
I'll keep saying this, I will go on and on,
The longer I write the more I'll feel I've won.

#54 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: October 26, 2006, 02:07 PM:

Sligh(t)ly Annoyed

I'm sorry if I've got here rather late,
And thus don't understand the, ahem, culture,
I am a denizen of Grand Valley State
A real American, a 100 per cent pure.
You liberals for some reason need coherence,
But really all you're saying is bullshit;
Your signal seems to be getting interference
And that Rush Limbaugh really is a wit.
If you dislike the president it must be pique,
You folks here are entirely lacking nous;
Ignore the fact that he's made the country weak,
Or that he thinks his is the royal house.
I'll keep saying this, I will go on and on,
The longer I write the more I'll feel I've won.

#55 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: October 26, 2006, 02:08 PM:

Sligh(t)ly Annoyed

I'm sorry if I've got here rather late,
And thus don't understand the, ahem, culture,
I am a denizen of Grand Valley State
A real American, a 100 per cent pure.
You liberals for some reason need coherence,
But really all you're saying is bullshit;
Your signal seems to be getting interference
And that Rush Limbaugh really is a wit.
If you dislike the president it must be pique,
You folks here are entirely lacking nous;
Ignore the fact that he's made the country weak,
Or that he thinks his is the royal house.
I'll keep saying this, I will go on and on,
The longer I write the more I'll feel I've won.

#56 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: October 26, 2006, 04:20 PM:

Chris Slighly, yes, most of us here hate Dubya (some are too busy hating Howard or Blair). We hate him because

  • He's a Northeastern blueblood snob pretending to be a Texas GoodOleBoy.
  • He got where he is by family connections, not by any merit of his own. Part of the evidence for this is his utter lack of merit.
  • He advocates locking people up in prison and throwing away the key for doing things he's done himself.
  • He appoints incompetent losers for critical posts, just because they're loyal to him. Examples include
    • Donald Rumsfeld, who utterly ignored the advice of experienced military commanders, resulting in the botched invasion of Iraq and the bloodbath that has already resulted.
    • Michael Brown, who ignored the post-Katrina situation in NOLA, resulting in untold deaths.
  • He is racist, sexist, classist, and homophobic.
  • He ignored warnings about Al Qaeda, apparently so that the attacks of 9/11 could go ahead as planned, giving him an excuse for exactly the kind of asinine changes he's since been making. (I blame him personally for the deaths of my coworkers in the World Trade Center.)
  • He has no respect for international law.
  • He is an oathbreaker (his oath of office, in which he swore that he would protect the Constitution of the United States; he has kept this oath only if you read 'protect' to mean "undermine, destroy, or frustrate the intent of").
  • Under the guise of "protecting" the American people, he has undermined our rights and protections, and changed us from a beacon of hope for freedom to a symbol of imperialism and aggressive war.
  • He botched the negotiations with North Korea, resulting in their becoming a nuclear power.
I could go on. I want him to spend the rest of his life in prison. Why? Because I'm against the death penalty. In my heart I think he should be kept awake and standing until he dies.

#57 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 27, 2006, 11:25 PM:

Hi there, Chris Slighly. No, we aren't laughing with you.

#58 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 12:21 AM:

Chris, next time, could you at least try to say something that is either (1) funny or (2) informative? All you've got so far was boring and boring. A whole lot of reading and absolutely no payoff. Rather a let down after slogging through all that.

#59 ::: Chris Slighly ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 05:49 AM:

Excuse my language and immaturity and inability to spell, but you're all a bunch of fuck heads. If I was really that unfunny, uninformative, and uneducated than why has every post since my last post been about me? Why not just ignore me? Why make fun of Rush Limbaugh when I already said you would? Why stoop to my level? I get it James D. Macdonald - you're laughing at me - not with me. Congradulations, you just won a free autograph of nothing.

The only response I can respect at this point is Xopher's because he/she is backing up his/her point with valid reasoning. As for Greg London: your first sentence seems to be a question. Yes, I am funny - and informative. Example: "Geg London is a really creative piece of twat finkle who is let down everytime he slogs off to blog entries on the world wide web."

And my response for abi.... You're right, all great writers know how to spell and have great grammar. Why don't you read Dickens, Twain, Vonnegut, Lewis and see if they follow generic writing principles. I apologize if I say "they went over their" instead of "they went of there." But I gues that is why you have little clever phrazes like "youare a assdumb." And your right Abi, I dont think that better grammar or more carefully chosen cultural references would have helped me either. I judge most books on grammar and cultural references myself. Content, really has nothimg to do with it.

As for the poetic responses:

Your all just pussy whipped by the left wing
hate on Bush because he torutures criminals of war
ignore the fact that Sadam has raped women on the street, nailed jews to a cross

Somehow a conspiracy - Bush let 9/11 happen
where is your proof, tell me where did this happenen?
The fact is we haven't been attacked since
Whether you like him or want to burry him
count your blessings
Count them quick


I'm not saying I'm 100% bush either
He can't talk, and he seems to lie alot too
But what President hasn't
Tell me who, Tell me who

And yeah its really funny
Repuclicans watch Fox news
Let me know when you get some new material

As for Rush Limbaugh
no one has said anything except:
"How dare you take against my hero Rush
When he insults you folks? He is so bright!
I hear his show and get a heady rush"

What does this mean?
Not Anything, except
When Abi listens to the show
She gets a heady Rush

Cool. Abi. I'm Glad you can rhyme Rush with Rush
Hats off to the intellectual brigade
Where intelligence comes from conformity and writing ability from knowlede of grammar and lack of spelling error. But then again I do go to Grand Valley, I'm young, and I'm a student. Hey, whoever made fun of where I go to school - you're a genuis. Shirade end of the. (Ha, ha. It's supposed to be end of the shirade for all you uneducated people out there).

PS: James, I'm laughing at your stupid, fucking unoriginal response. And Abi, I love you. I think your really cute. really I do. I'll consider spell checker if you consider making out with me.

#60 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 07:52 AM:

Chris,

The mockery comes because your post was like a piñata - everyone saw something to take a bash at. Still, I give you high marks for coming back to post more, because it also read like a drive-by.

In the faint hope that you might actually be interested in discussing anything, can I make a few points?

First of all, this is a writing site. One of the first principles of writing is that you should consider your audience when you write. If you want this particular audience to read your prose and take the points in it seriously, that means correct spelling and reasonably correct grammar. (You don't have to worry about whether you've split infinitives or used the subjunctive properly, but basic English grammar is a requirement.)

What if I decided to post in Dutch, or Latin*, and still expected people here to get through my style to reach my substance? Most of the people here would ignore the post, because I hadn't done my part in the effort of communication. So why should they do theirs? What your prose style said to the people reading it here was "I don't care enough about what I'm saying to consider how to say it effectively." We reacted accordingly. There are communities where your prose style may fly, but this simply isn't one of them. Like I said, consider your audience.

As for rhyming Rush with rush, I did say I was in a (sorry) rush when I wrote that sonnet. You can see that I first noted your comment about an hour and a half before I posted it. So I'll tell you what: why don't you write a better sonnet in an hour and a half, making sure that it all rhymes and scans (iambic pentameter will do, and don't sweat the caesurae). I'll spot you the two small children I had running about at the time, four work-related phone calls totalling half an hour, and the time I spent assisting my five year old with the "giant hand" bit in Super Mario Smash Brothers.

As for the content of your comment, I'd be interested in a more reasoned explanation of why you support Bush. I think you perceive him as strong, and keeping the US safe from terrorism. I would disagree - I think it's as likely that the terrorists haven't struck back in the US because (a) they're striking other targets as well, such as Bali, Madrid and London, and (b) why should they when the US is destroying its own essence?

Much of this community is deeply concerned by the erosion of liberties in the name of security. For instance: the administration hasn't tried most of the people it's tortured, so how do we know they're terrorists? The principle of "innocent unless proven guilty" is one of the things that makes the West what it is, that differentiates us from, say Saddam Hussein. We see that thrown out the window, both in the President's actions and in the popular discourse, and we are concerned. Aren't you?

(I'm sure others, including but not limited to Xopher, will be willing to continue the discussion. I have other things I need to tend to now.)

* Actually, in this crowd, I'd find my Latin grammar subject to correction, but that's peripheral to my point.

#61 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 08:43 AM:

Chris:

Two bits of advice:

Don't post angry, and don't post drunk.

I'd advise you not to post stupid, but I don't think you can help yourself. You're proving that the only folks who still support Bush are borderline illiterates incapable of rational thought.

No, I'm not going to answer your points because you don't have any. I don't care what responses you do or don't respect because I don't respect you. You can go away now, little boy.

#62 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 10:41 AM:

Chris, I'm a guy. A gay one, and a Wiccan priest. I'm sure you can figure out the derivation of my posting name (hint: we have something in common).

Everyone, I think we should cut Chris a little more slack...since he's turned out not to be a driveby. (Also on the grounds of youth: he's still learning, and perhaps he'll listen to us and change his views, but only if we're reasonably courteous.)

Chris, I've been respectful and polite, and I also think you could benefit from a spellchecker. Hear me out: when you misspell a lot of words, it's too easy for people to attack you for that, rather than listen to what you have to say. Also, it increases the effort we have to put in to read you (it took me several seconds to figure out that 'shirade' was intended to be 'charade'). <joke>Now you can consider making out with ME!</joke> You may not judge based on grammar and spelling, but if it's bad enough, you never get to the content.

Just take a few deep breaths and see if you have any points to make. Try making them without saying 'you people' or any similar phrase (that's considered rude here).

I'd like to support Abi's other point that the pile-on was partly due to assuming you were a drive-by (which is a person who posts something insulting and is never heard from again). Right-whingers do that here on a frequent basis. We practice our slicing and dicing on them.

#63 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 11:29 AM:

How nice, Mr Slighly, that you should return,
To show your superior wit, it seems you yearn.


Chris Slighly is, it seems, somewhat annoyed
that anyone would disagree with his wise words,
his return here shows he is not yet cloyed
but wants to bait these odd and liberal birds.
He's not too smart, but thinks that he is bright
because he's learned at least how to spell 'fuck',
believes that being a jackass is his right
and that with him our collective minds are struck.
He doesn't have a fact here to present,
he hasn't the least idea of how to speak,
but takes it as his right now to resent
those who have learned a bit before this week.
But what I want to say, that is far worse
He hasn't the least idea about writing verse.

#64 ::: Nancy C ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 01:04 PM:

Blank verse is the curse of the would-be poet.
The lines above, I believe, do show it.

#65 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 01:26 PM:

I'm with Xopher on this one.

Don't call this fledgling to a strict account.
He has not glided in the wider world,
Nor even left his nest, and no amount
Of flapping of his wings, so new-unfurled,
Can really substitute for honest flight.
He doesn't understand the atmosphere,
The updrafts and the currents, but he might
Become a thinker and a writer here.
He has a lot to learn of content, yes,
But also that opponents may respect
Each other, disagreeing none the less,
(A thought on which some others could reflect.)
Let's tolerate his rudeness for the nonce:
Remember that we all were callow once.

#66 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 01:39 PM:

No, abi, no respect for those who are trying to tear down America, those who approve of torture, those who send thousands to senseless deaths. No respect. No respect for the looters, for the warmongers, for their willing dupes. No respect for the shouting pundits, for the racists, for the cowards. They had their chance. Now ... no respect. Not now, not ever.

#67 ::: Raven ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 01:53 PM:

When I, finally, this past week, saw Superman Returns (which is "dedicated with love to Christopher Reeve and Dana Reeve"), I had tears running down my face several times, and at not particularly sad parts of the movie.   The makers clearly went all out (as they'd declared) to make a sequel to the 1978 Superman, and Brandon Routh himself seems to be channeling Chris Reeve, reproducing his performance to the point that you could squint and almost forget it isn't Reeve himself.   Considering how much Chris Reeve was loved and is missed, I think this was a right choice by the makers, and the film deserves to be called a labor of love.

Now I come to this site, and see various people posting impromptu topical sonnets as replies. ... ... Do I have to explain why tears are running down my face now?

#68 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 01:56 PM:

James,

I disagree with about 50% of your comment (respectfully, of course). Two reasons:

First off, I find it inconceivable that every single person who votes Republican, say, or thinks Bush is a pretty good fella, is actually trying to tear down America. Many of them share our ends, but don't see how their destructive are the means they support. Torture is a good example. Not everyone has had the benefit of listening to Terry Karney's blunt expertise on the subject. If all you hear is the ticking bomb scenario and the frat analogies, it doesn't sound so bad. It's the garbage in/garbage out cycle applied to the civic discourse.

The second reason I maintain that respect is important is that civility is a more effective means of persuasion than calling people names. Barring the Balkanization of the USA (or unimaginable violence), we're going to have to live with one another for a long, long time. America be a more effective and more livable place if we could decide things by consensus, and all this name-calling isn't exactly furthering that aim.

I say the same thing about Republican extremists that I say about all extremists (including terrorists): erode the support from the moderates, and the lunatic fringe will be reduced to carrying placards on street corners. But you can't erode that support except by talking and listening, and that requires civility and respect.

You can teach a racist to understand that other races are people too. You can bolster a coward's courage and wise up a dupe. But you have to get them to listen first.

#69 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 02:15 PM:

Abi, I think that everyone who can listen already has. I think that the willing dupes -- the largest class of Bushites -- should be paid with the coin they bring.

#70 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 03:00 PM:

James,

So we agree in principle (sheep this way, goats that way). I just think there are still some sheep out there and you don't.

On the off chance that I'm right and you're wrong, I think I'll continue to respect my opponents while I disagree with their views. If it's proven that their crimes are capital crimes, chew'd, swallow'd and digested, that's another matter. But even then, overt disrespect damages the discourse - and me - more than I'm comfortable with.

#71 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 03:19 PM:

Maybe there are some sheep still out there, but if they come on like bush-league Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs I don't see any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. They get labeled 'goat' and into the hopper they go.

Republicans need to approach respectfully and humbly if they want me to listen to them from now on. They've had their turn. That time is past. They've been proved fools a thousand times over. They get nothing but scorn.

#72 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 03:31 PM:

James,

If we wait for people to approach humbly, they won't. They'll hold fast to positions proven wrong until death. It's human nature.

I live pretty close to Northern Ireland, and I've seen it written in bombs and blood. Any concession that includes an admission of defeat is rejected. Any concession that can be spun as a victory goes down better.

Expecting anything different is like expecting the populace of the invaded country to greet us with flowers. Ain't gonna happen, and plans contingent upon it will fail.

#73 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 04:36 PM:

Yes, I am funny - and informative. Example: "Geg London is a really creative piece of twat finkle who is let down everytime he slogs off to blog entries on the world wide web."

Funny as in witty. If I want to hear people call people "poopiehead", I've got friends with three year olds. Are you old enough to sit at the grownup's table?

hate on Bush because he torutures criminals of war ignore the fact that Sadam has raped women on the street, nailed jews to a cross

Maybe you didn't get the memo from the 9-11 investigation committee that the government put together some time ago. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. So what idiot would link Americans torturing people in camp X-ray with Saddam when so many of the people there aren't even from Iraq? Do you know there were Canadians and Americans who have been tortured by the Bush machine? Do you know the Canadian Government found that Maher Arar was completely innocent and wrongly tortured by Americans via extraordinary rendition to Syria for over a year?

Please, sing us a lymric as to how funny this is.

Somehow a conspiracy - Bush let 9/11 happen where is your proof, tell me where did this happenen? The fact is we haven't been attacked since Whether you like him or want to burry him
count your blessings Count them quick

Bush authorized that we 'torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered.' See Abu Zubaydah. Count your blessings that you haven't ended up blackbagged and shipped off to Syria because you're brown skinned and non-christian.

I'm not saying I'm 100% bush either He can't talk, and he seems to lie alot too But what President hasn't Tell me who, Tell me who

You are an idiot. Tell me what president has killed Habeus Corpus? Tell me who. Tell me who. None. The founding fathers of this country are spinning in their graves at Bush's total lack of restraint on his power. Checks and balances are gone. Inalienable rights that have been with us over two centuries, gone. All because Shrub preaches fear to the people and claims the only solution is to give him more power. Bush is a despot worse than the King that our founding fathers fought.

Bush lied, but all presidents lie? What assinine argument is that? How many presidents push for an invasion of a country on completely fabricated information? How many presidents lied that much? International inspectors said Iraq had no WMDS and that Iraq was cooperating with inspections. Our own CIA had a team following up on all the intelligence around Iraq WMD's and they said there were none in the coutnry. Rumsfeld fires any General who says how many troops we'll really need to occupy Iraq and how long we'll end up being there, so that Rumsfeld can continue his lie that we can occupy Iraq with 100k troops and it should take "6 weeks to 6 months". All the generals were saying it would take several hundred thousand troops and would last years. But Bush and company made sure any general who made their estimates public was fired or sidelined.

And lo and behold, 100k troops is not enough, and estimates are that we need several hundred thousand troops, and we've been there for years, and we'll probably be there for years to come.

Oh, and not a whit or scent of WMD's. There were none.

Oh, and Iraq had no connection with 9-11.

But those are just lies, and every president lies, right? It's all the same, isn't it? You're just comparing apples and apples, right? An honest and equal comparison?

#74 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 05:12 PM:

If we wait for people to approach humbly, they won't.

Then I'll shoot them where they stand and bury them where they fall.

No mercy for the Bushites. None.

#75 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 05:15 PM:

James,


Then I'll shoot them where they stand and bury them where they fall.

How is this different than Ann Coulter saying she only talks to liberals with a baseball bat? Apart from you being right and her wrong about politics, of course...

#76 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 05:40 PM:

No different. If that's how Coulter wants to play the game, I'll play it by her rules. She and her friends and co-conspirators shouldn't be surprised when they get what they want.

Baseball bats? Sure, Ann. Any time, any place.

#77 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 05:49 PM:

I don't know, James, I'm not so comfortable with letting the bad guys write the rules of the game. How is that different than ignoring the Geneva Conventions because the terrorists do?

I'd prefer to be identifiable as a good guy by the way I do things as well as by the righteousness of my cause. I still think it's more persuasive, and it's a hell of a lot less destructive of my own character. And my nation, come to that, which matters rather a lot to me.

#78 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 06:13 PM:

We're letting those people tear down our country by being too nice to them. No, I don't actually want to beat Ann Coulter's brains out with a baseball bat. But greeting her with scorn and derision? Sure. I'm up for that.

But to the case in point: If this Chris person had come in with any kind of reaonable attitude he'd have been greeted reasonably. He didn't, he wasn't, and I'm not going to shed any tears for him. Nor is he worth my time trying to instruct. I've spent years here, on Electrolite, and on other sites trying to instruct. I've been reasonable. I've been more than reasonable. I've extended the hand of friendship to thugs and bullies, to fools and illiterates.

And what did I accomplish? A couple of weeks ago we got habeas corpus erased and torture codified into US law. We have the Vice President of the United States boosting tortures straight out of the Spanish Inquisition.

No more. There's a line, they crossed it. Mere justice demands that the RePubs get laughed at whenever they try to talk about policy, whenever they request to be allowed to continue in power, whenever they claim to be speaking truth or wisdom or stand for morality. Scorn. Derision. No assumption that if I just explain it all one more time, if I just compromise a little bit, that maybe some random Rethuglican will change. They had their chance, and their second chance, and an endless number of chances. They squandered them. Their time's run out.

And if that hurts their feelings, too fucking bad. It isn't like they're getting waterboarded, is it?

Remember: A vote for a Republican is a vote for torture.

#79 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 08:09 PM:

Yet if you can turn a Republican voter into...well, anything else, isn't that better? Chris isn't running for Congress.

#80 ::: FungiFromYuggoth ::: (view all by) ::: October 28, 2006, 08:10 PM:

I haven't been able to find the link, but I read a comment in the last week or so about teaching college students. The poster said that they generally started looking for an authority to tell them what the Truth was.

Those that moved on moved on to game playing, where all competing systems are equal. "All presidents lie therefore Bush's lies are meaningless" sounds to me like just this sort of game playing.

The next step, for those who make it, is into owning a particular system and taking responsibility for it.

Mr. Macdonald, with respect, it appears to me that you are breaking the excellent advice posted earlier in this thread: "Don't post angry". Not, needless to say, that I have any particular disagreement with you politically.

Welcome to Making Light's comment section. The moderators are Avram Grumer, Jim Macdonald, Teresa & Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and Abi Sutherland. Abi is the moderator most frequently onsite. She's also the kindest. Teresa is the theoretician. Are you feeling lucky?

If you are a spammer, your fate is in the hands of Jim Macdonald, and your foot shall slide in due time.

Comments containing more than seven URLs will be held for approval. If you want to comment on a thread that's been closed, please post to the most recent "Open Thread" discussion.

You can subscribe (via RSS) to this particular comment thread. (If this option is baffling, here's a quick introduction.)

Post a comment.
(Real e-mail addresses and URLs only, please.)

HTML Tags:
<strong>Strong</strong> = Strong
<em>Emphasized</em> = Emphasized
<a href="http://www.url.com">Linked text</a> = Linked text

Spelling reference:
Tolkien. Minuscule. Gandhi. Millennium. Delany. Embarrassment. Publishers Weekly. Occurrence. Asimov. Weird. Connoisseur. Accommodate. Hierarchy. Deity. Etiquette. Pharaoh. Teresa. Its. Macdonald. Nielsen Hayden. It's. Fluorosphere. Barack. More here.















(You must preview before posting.)

Dire legal notice
Making Light copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 by Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. All rights reserved.