Maybe Mr. Cox mistook that episode of Arrested Development for a genuine news broadcast
Of course those bunkers full of WMD turned out to be (spoilered for those who have not seen and due to TMI ewwwwishness)
a close up picture of David Cross’ shorn scrotum
Should we tell him? 
Now mind you, I didn’t say that they were honest.
I’ve studied Rumsfeld et all. This is a piece of cake:
“We continue to discover biological and chemical weapons and facilities
to make them inside Iraq.”
Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject
To carry forward; persist in:
To notice or learn, especially by making an effort
Something created to serve a particular function
Veep Dick along with another or others persist in noticing (through effort) biological and chemical weapons and thingies to make them inside Iraq
I’ve not kept up with the news in my great disconnection, so I can’t supply ready answers to these merely somewhat relevant questions.
I suppose that someone will come along shortly and fill us in.
Actually, more than once pre-Gulf War items were discovered. I guess you missed out on the triumphalism.
They are not-lying. There’s a difference of some degrees.
These are simplifications of the facts. “None” is such an absolute word. If you were perhaps to qualify it some more it would be more accurate.
Remember, they’re not liars, they are not-liars.
If you really believe that this is the only reason that elucidator, and leftists in general, hate George Bush, then you’re a complete idiot. The fumbled speech constitutes something to laugh at, but Bush’s policies constitute something to cry about and get angry about, and that’s what luci was doing in the OP. You can go on believing that only you and a few other libertarians dislike Bush for the right reasons, but it doesn’t make it so.
My, such eloquence(especially the bit about the trees). And “Liberal” floats above it all–dismayed, but untouched. How exalted are you?
Where is this infinite wisdom coming from, Lib ? Ah, me–if only, if only, Washington and the hoi polloi (those confounded red and blue states) would sit at your feet. listen and learn.
Sorry to get off topic–but the overweening arrogance here is gagging me.
Shame about America, really. Such a good attempt and so horribly misguided.
there are’t enough eye rolls…
IMO, there is no high road here–and it’s past time the Dems were fighting fire with fire. I loathe character smears etc–mud slinging is useless, but if it is all you are faced with-you must defend yourself. Kerry did not do so (or do so effectively) in the last campaign. I did not hear any Rep during the campaign express the desire to discuss issues–I heard sound bites, saw negative images, and since I live in IL, was ignored by the GOP. Fine by me, personally, but it demonstrates a cynicism(on the part of the GOP) that is frightening.
As to these threads: I refuse to become a Dem apologist. Again, the conservatives here are trying to set a tone and agenda. I believe my values are both Christian and honorable. I also believe that the Dem platform is closer to the values espoused by the Founding Fathers. If anything, IMO, the neo-cons are the traitors to the America I was reared in.
The whole Rep wide eyed disbelief re: the hatred of Bush is soooo disingenous. You (and I do mean Reps) set out to destroy a good President(um for those not clued in-that would be Clinton). And you dug and hit paydirt. Funny, how all Bush’s records etc are locked in his Daddy’s library–an unlevel playing field, dontcha think? (and this is just one example). The admin does not let hostile reporters/journalists even ASK questions–no, it plants fake journalists in it’s (few and rare) press conferences so as to further its agenda.
I could go on–but why? It’s there for all to see. To me, those who defend such practices are as bad as those who tortured the “detainees” in Abu Graib.
I am reminded (almost daily) of that famous quote: “have you no sense of decency, sir?” (sorry, don’t know quote verbatim).
I think that it’s in the interest of the electorate to keep the pols at each others throats. The press should be in there scrapping with them. What’s happened here is that the press has been taken out of the fray via the Liberal Media[sup]TM[/sup] meme and this has left just the pols vs the electorate. the electorate has so many other things to worry about- the actual day-to-day business of the country- that we’ve gotten creamed. the politicians are run amuck and one side is killing the other. If we can’t keep these guys so busy fighting each other then they’ll fleece us all.
So, I’m in favor of setting out to destroy presidents, representatives, senators, mayors etc. It serves the interests of the sovereign electorate. I say get 'em all. Our system of government is adversarial one. It’s Us of th eelectorate vs the politicians. We had the Press on our side. But, their efforts have been relatively undermined with a great deal of success by the politicans.
I say screw 'em all.
No, I don’t think that about all Democrats anymore than Luc thinks every Republican is divorced from reality. I’m talking in the same sort of reified generalities that he is. Al Gore is one example of a Democrat who knows the score.
To clarify. (Hmmm, maybe change username to eclair? Nah, too French…)
My “real” Pit question more reflected the reporter who covered the event, as she noted that the participants didn’t bat an eye when told in tones of triumph that the “blame America first” crowd was in panic and disarray now that WMD had been found and confirmed, news that would be, to most of us, well, news.
I wouldn’t have been as surprised to find the speaker parroting the new! improved! party line, to witless, that the invasion was solely motivated by an armed Boy Scout intent on bringing democracy and freedom to those who sit in darkness. That would be expected.
But to put forth such Bushwah as quoted; that’s quite another kettle of piranha, is it not? Did the participants already believe such to be true, as reported to them by…whom? Or did they simply accept as fact information that stands in stark relief to previous “fact”? Without so much as a “huh?” or a “whaaaaa…?” or even a “WTF”? Certainly, no cries of “Cite!” rang out. Too much to expect, I know, but still…
So I guess my question is unanswerable, as to whether they thought so when they arrived, thought so the instant they were “advised”, or didn’t think so, now or ever, and simply kept their loyal mouths shut.
Holy cow! :eek:
Nevermind the WMDs. What got me from your article was this passage.
Damn. Just plain damn.
lib, I just want to be absolutely clear on something. I hate George W. Bush because of his policies. Specifically, he lied (or, more accurately, bullshitted) to start an unneccesary war at a time when the United States has real enemies who are being ignored and empowered by our distraction. Thousands upon thousands of people are dead because of him who would not otherwise be dead, and Osama bin Laden lives on because he makes a good boogeyman to scare us into giving up our precious freedom. Mine is not–repeat, is not–an irrational hatred.
You know what? This might be a good time for Democrats to court Libertarians and libertarian leaning Republicans. Just point them to Al Gore’s speech, and tell them that Bush is a tyrant. Assure them that you won’t further curtail their economic liberties and will join them in the restoration of civil liberties. You might establish a whole new base.
In fact, I’ve sort of noticed that Hillary is doing this already. She’s altogether abandoned the “we will take your property” speeches, and she’s reaching out to all sorts of people, from pro-life to pro-war. She has the right idea, I think. (Of course, when the wealth redistribution talk starts up again, you’ll lose the libertarians. But like Janis Joplin said, “Get it while you can.”)
Well, given all this, i have some questions.
First, why haven’t more libertarians themselves realised that the Republicans seem to have abandoned them on every front. I mean, time was that the Republicans at least offered some semblance of trying to adhere to their free market rhetoric. But now, apart from some tax cuts, the Republicans’ economic policies, with their ongoing pork-barreling and fiscal irresponsibility, should be enough to turn off any libertarian. I was under the impression that, for a libertarian, stealing your money to give it to corporations in no-bid contracts is just as bad as stealing your money to give it to welfare recipients. Sure, the Democrats are probably never going to make a libertarian completely happy on economic issues, but the Republicans don’t seem to be doing much better on this score. Admittedly, though, the Democrats have also been doing a god-awful job of defending civil liberties over the past few years.
My second question is somewhat hypothetical, and also includes an observation. I’m wondering, given a choice between a party that curtails economic liberties and promotes civil liberties, and a party that promotes economic liberties and curtails civil liberties, which you would choose? Now, i realize that the issues aren’t usually quite that cut-and-dried, but it has always seemed to me that whenever a choice along those lines is available, libertarians tend to go for the money rather than the civil liberties.
Of course, it’s entirely possible that real libertarians don’t do this. In principle, most true libertarians i’ve spoken to tend to insist that liberty is indivisible, and that any curtailment of liberty is to be opposed. It’s possible that the “libertarians” who always vote Republican are really Republicans who pretend to have a libertarian leaning so that people won’t recognise them for the civil authoritarians that they are.
This is pure. Unadulterated. Horse. Shit.
NO ONE thinks nothing is wrong with Michael Moore. Or at least, almost no one. Go read any of the various Moore-bashing-and-defending threads. Out of any 10 posts, you’ll see 2 that are vitriolioc anti-Moore, 2 that are mild anti-moore, 5 or 6 that are saying “well, I enjoyed the movie, and agree with some of his viewpoints, but have reservations X Y and Z” and 0 or 1 that are in any way pure pro-Moore. And yet, two threads later, someone like Shodan or Brutus will rant on about how we liberals all think that Michael Moore is the second coming of Christ and how we all believe everything he ever says. Blah blah blah. But it just ain’t true.
As for Bush, yes, a lot of liberals really hate Bush. But is it because of partisanship? Are we mindless drones who get emails from moveeon.org that remind us that Bush is a Republican and four legs bad! so then we sip our mineral water, have some brie and crackers, and log onto the SDMB to write frothing screeds of substanceless Bush-hate? Or perhaps, just perhaps, we’re thinking individuals who hate Bush for REASONS, such as, gee, I dunno, the WAR that he staretd on flimsy grounds, his disrespect for civil liberties, his towering hypocricsy, and the fact that his administration is dishonest in more ways that can be comprehended?
Fine, you’re a registered independent (or libertarian). Oooh, go you! You’re snazzy and fancy and clearly far more politically astute than us. Wow, I wish I was a nonconformist like you, instead of one of the sheeple.
And now, I’m out of things to say. Perhaps I’ll contact my highers-up in the democratic party, as they are all wise and all knowing, and they will email me some more stuff to say, which I will copy and paste without really understanding it. Or perhaps I’ll email some Republican and post exactly the OPPOSITE of whatever he says, as, in my dim, fog-encrusted mind, Republicans are EVIL and WRONG about ALL THINGS!
The real problem is those swarms of Texans migrating up I-35 to Minnesota. Once they experience the cultural amenities, the winter sports (ice hockey, ice fishing, ice driving etc.) and see firsthand how superior Dayton’s is to the Galleria - next thing you know, they want to pull up the drawbridge and padlock the gates. 
You’ll be happy to know that that’s in progress. Just the other day, I cited a Cato article (libetarian think tank for those who might not know) that was a blistering attack on the Republicans. And here’s another: The Grand Old Spending Party. There are more as well. CBS first reported on the beginnings of an exodus from the Republican Party last year. And Bob Barr spoke at the LP convention, and announced that he was voting Libertarian. Plus, the Libertarian Party itself is giving Bush a fit over his domestic tyranny, with press releases like, How about ‘spreading more freedom’ in the USA?. It’s the kind of thing that savvy party powers could grab by the momentum and make use of it, I believe.
The conventional wisdom is to go for the economic freedom, and usually is based on one of two lines of reasoning: (1) if you’re broke, you can’t really enjoy the pursuit of happiness anyway, and (2) people will more likely rise up to make a change when their civil liberties are sufficiently suppressed. Unfortunately, as you point out, number (2) is beginning to be moot. Some people don’t even care anymore about freedom, and even deny that they’ve lost any. But enough is enough. The Republican are fiscally reckless now anyway, so we might as well get some of the civil liberties back if at all possible.
Good thing, too. I’ve already conceded that I over-generalized. And presently, I’m working with Mhendo to form a political bond. Have a mint julep or something.
And you know the Republicans are really into the stratosphere when the Libertarians call them crazies.
Okey doke, another elucidator anti-pubby rant.
Do we have a link? Lucy didn’t give us one. Ahhh, thank you Reeder.
Looks like some kinda liberal glurge email. Oh my this lady makes Lucy look nonpartisan.
Yadda yadda yadda. Michelle Goldberg establishes her Pubbie hating credentials. She presents the quote from Chris Cox, and then rants about how it means Republicans/Conservatives are stupid deceitful hypocrites for about 12 paragraphs or so.
Lucy solemnly proclaims the proof that the GOP is full of shit and Republicans everywhere are complicit duplitous scumbags… or something.
Do we have an actual transcript of Cox’s comments? It’s not that I don’t have great faith in Michelle Goldberg’s repertorial impartiality… Well, actually I don’t.
Chris Cox doesn’t actually speak for me. Never heard of him before. Assuming he actually said what Michelled says he said, I’d like to see the context, and if that’s it, I will think less of him. I’ll reserve judgement until we actually have proof, as if it really matters.
Goddamn. Y’all are some mighty intolerant, hateful motherfuckers to pounce on this piece of shit.
And that’s a fact, Jack. I know a small coterie of recovering Texans who currently reside here, number one reason: its about as un-Texas a place as you can get. I retain considerable affection for some elements of TX (bar-b-q…Lord, I’d kill for some decent, sloppy bar-b-q…) but every time I leave MN…I come back.
I don’t favor harsh immigration policies, merely a polite discouragement. And a few more Texans would add a dash of color to the otherwise drably Nordic gene pool. But just a dash, mind you. Wouldn’t want to overdo it.
But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong. Excuse me, but your dog is peeing on my shoes. Oh, thats all right, shoes never survive the winter anyway…
Here’s an independent transcription from someone named Radley Balko, who says he has the speech on tape. You can compare: