My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading

Answers

« Report: Al-Qaeda Strength Safely Back to Clintonian Levels | Main | Hillary to Grow Back Monobrow for Gay Debates »

Comments

irish

"just found it amusing that all those things apply so neatly to her and her past behavior here" -- stoorat

"All those things" most certainly did/do NOT apply to me. Post your evidence, Stoorat, and let me have a look at it.

"You should really stop before making these sorts of comments and see if there really IS any evidence to support saying it."

YOU should try doing that Stooey. Now post your evidence of me doing "all those things".

I have just posted evidence of FannySpray lying. I've posted evidence of her accusing me, not of some childish misbehaviour, but of DOWNRIGHT CRIMIMAL BEHAVIOUR, with no foundation whatsoever. AND I posted evidence of Aha calling me a filthy liar and hypocrite when in fact the evidence was 100% to the contrary.

Now put up or shut up. Post the evidence, or shut up about me. I'm carrying on with my break.

irish

"Now you're trying to pretend that you're just a poor, misunderstood person, who really just wants to be our friend"-- FannySpray

Get this Fanny: I'm not a poor misunderstood anything. And I wouldn't want you as a friend if I was marooned with you on a desert island. In fact, it would be my worst possible nightmare. You can go to hell in a handcart.

irish

And Stooey,

I'll be back only *if/when* you have posted the relevant evidence of "all those things". I've had a bellyful of this dump. More than enough for two lifetimes.

Yeah, right.
irish claims it is leaving, but then comes back saying it will leave when and if it so desires. But under another name until it gets outed. I still don't buy the kb bullshit, especially when irish
says that it KNEW I didn't understand what projection meant, and only kb was making the accusation, then comes back saying others were posting under it's name?

Liar liar pants on fire
Hang them from a telephone wire.
And if you read this and respond, by your own words, you are a liar.

stoorat

irish wrote: And Stooey,

I'll be back only *if/when* you have posted the relevant evidence of "all those things". I've had a bellyful of this dump. More than enough for two lifetimes.

Posted by: irish | August 17, 2007 at 12:35 PM

I, for one, don't personally care anymore whether or not you come back...but when you do come back without my having posted the evidence (since, as you claim, that would be absolutely, totally, completely impossible, what with there not being any and all), will we be allowed to call you a liar? Because you will come back, of that there's no doubt. Nevertheless, I'll get right on to drudging through your 2 years of posting here to cull all of the hundreds of examples of your use of ad hominem, ators, unsubstantiated accusations, et. al. just so that Janny and others can flay me for giving you an excuse to return. My tendencies towards OCD aren't nearly strong enough to keep an archive of everything silly you do here, but I will go ahead and save the above quote, to remind you of your promise not to return until I've posted the "evidence."

For what it's worth, there have been many people who posted here at BB with disagreeing points of view, and they were treated with respect since they didn't come in here with both barrells a-blazin', ready to spill the blood of the unbelievers in the name of harmony and love. Not all liberals are like you, though it does appear that mainstream liberalism is, or are at the very least, extremely well represented as being such. Gotta love all that tolerance smashin' ya in the face.

kb

howdidthisketchupgetintomybuttcrack said:

"Yeah, right. irish claims it is leaving"

Why on earth would you want her to leave? Oh, I see, she's not a cheerleader, she's rational, logical, and honest. Yeah, I can see why you'd probably hope for her to leave. Anyway, she pretty much said she's tired of you folks nonsense and that you're not really7 worthy of her time, which, I'd imagine, is probably 100% correct. You should be down on your knees thanking her for staying here this long. But you folks are an unappreicative lot. Anyway, she gave stoo the choice the opportunity to present the evidence to support his assertions and said she wouldn't be back until he did. Well, I'd say the intelligent thing to do would be to present the evidence. Now I know how you folks despise evidence and much prefer to keep things wallowing around in the realm of empty opinion, but some folks aren't really satisfied with simply hearing what sounds like a bunch of bellowing, whining, drunk, spoiled rotten little kids whine the opinions they learned from a Jerry Springer.

"but then comes back saying it will leave when and if it so desires."

Yes, and what would be wrong with this?

"But under another name until it gets outed."

I thought she had already dealt with issue and presented the evidence to support her position? I don't recall you presenting any evidence for much of anything. Some good detective you'd make. The police station gets word that someone has just killed 22 people at a football stadium with a chainsaw, so Detective Buttcrack runs outside and into the Victoria's Secret for Geriatric Women, grabs the first 87 year old lady he sees, takes her back to the police station and claims to have found the killer. When asked for the evidence he simply ignores the question and asks for someone to turn Benny Hinn up louder on the tube. When asked again, he simply says because he said she was quilty. When asked for the evidence again, he attacked the people who were asking him because they should just take him at his word. When asked again, he just started talking about his knitting circle and how the dues were too high and that it was a communist conspiracy. Sorry, buttcrack, and other fellow lemmings, but this is pretty much how it is talking to you. Oh, and I HAVE provided the evidence to support this repeatedly.

"I still don't buy the kb bullshit"

And here is yet ANOTHER example. "Buy" what "bullshit"? You have yet to demonstrate that anything I've said was bullshit not to buy. THIS comes first. You have yet to demonstrate that you have undestood any of my "bullshit", so you're not even in any position TO disagee/buy. You're simply reacting from your gut instinct and the predictable kneejerk reaction which usually follows. Of course this TOO supports my thesis regarding your indoctrination. You aren't even interested in trying to understand anything other than what you already think. Hence my reason for accurately referring to you as a cheerleader. It's rthe same with your few little drooling bouts when you've mentioned Chomsky and lied about your familiarity with him as I've already pretty much demonstrated was also false. You read a few sentences, disagree, think you know the subject, think you know Chomsky, and PING!!! Now you think you know the sugbject and can determine whether or not to "buy" something. Sorry, bootlicker, but you haven'T even taken the first step towards demonstrating that you're even worthy to be speaking here at all. I mean, sure you can make a few grunts and farts, thanks to the left fighting for your freedom of speech, and against people like you, you can do this. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that you're providing any sort of service in terms of educating anyone, much less yourself. You're not. You folks remind me of some drunk who stumbles by in the train slobbering and talking to himself about the stockmarket, how he screwed Bay 'The Bitch' Buchanan once during the Republican convention, and how god was going to bring Elvis to Denny's at 4 a.m. and he needed to get there as soon as possible. Then, as irish and I sit there watching you stumble by and shift in our seats a little so as not to get your drool on us, we just shake our heads, feel a little sorry for you, and wonder how something so pathetic could have evolved in the land of the free and the home of the brave and fat. But it was not all bad as we were pretty sure that you'd probably jump in front of the L(ogic)train, with your last thought being "Oops! Wonder how many tax dollars cleaning the train is gonna' use up? I screwed up! Everyone will think I'm a tax and spend liberal! I'm going to heeeeeell"!(splat)

"especially when irish says that it KNEW I didn't understand what projection meant"

Oh, she said that, too? Yes, well, you don't, or at leastthere's no evidence to demonstrate that you do, nor have you apllied it here as we both have to you and your statements.

"and only kb was making the accusation"

What's wrong with observing one person(me) causing someone else to make an ass out of themself(you), by demonstrating that you were projecting. And then when you tried it it didn't work because you don't how, when, or anything else to apply it, and then her observing that you didn't know what it meant? I'd say that pretty much anyone who is familiar with the concept, and who has been watching your inbred attempts at using the concept, would easily recognize the same thing, and make the same statement as irish. Or if they were honest they would.

"then comes back saying others were posting under it's name?"

You folks are really hung up on this thing, aren't you? This is little more than an example of someone doing something you have done yourselves and then trying to pretend as if the other person is solely responsible for starting it. This same lying ass nonsense has been tried against me here as well when a few of you droolers act as if all was well until I came here, when, in fact, it wasn't. A simple 10 second look at the top of the post up there will support my assertion. I simply came in saying that it looked like a few folks needed some ass whippin', which I then proceeded to do with excoriatedbuttcyst, who was little more than a fifth grade bully trying to pass himself off as a sixth grader. I told him I'd do away with him, and I did. He's retreated to another thread where he feels safe. I can make his weak ass run from there, too, if anyone wants to watch. Just let me know.

"Liar liar pants on fire Hang them from a telephone wire."

Now we know who Bush's speech write is.

"And if you read this and respond, by your own words, you are a liar."

Why would she be a liar? Oh, I see, you mean that you would have, in fact, NOT presented the evidence she asked for so as to return. And for you, her not returning is much more important than the fact that you or any of your lemmings can't provide evidence. Yes, well, that demonstraes something itself. Your preference for hoping to silence someone is greater than your desire to try and be honest by presenting evidence. Pretty much the standard position of the totalitarian fascist.

MichaelMoore.

Each and every time someone has posted that disagrees with you or your idol, your response is highly predictable. You obliviate for about 1000 words, accuse them of being dumbasses, say they haven't read any of Chomsky's works, tell them you are so bad and mean. Guess what? You are Pavlov's dog and they have taught you well. Every time they ring the gong, you come out. When will you learn? This isn't about winning a debate or who is right or wrong, but about manipulating you.

This is a satire site.

JannyMae

Oh, isn't irish cute? Left in a huff again. **yawn**

No, Stoorat, when the troll called irish returns, you will not be able to call it a liar, because, you see, according to irish, "you can't 'lie' about the future."

However, irish has made this solemn vow not to return about a dozen times by now, and in my world, when you make a vow and break it, that's called, "dishonesty."

And when you criticize others for doing exactly what you have done, that's called, "hypocrisy."

And when you won't admit what you have done in the past, that's called, "denial."

And when you keep saying you won't do something, and then you do it, again, and again, that's called an, "obsession."

What I find the most irritating about the troll called irish, is the challenge to dredge something up that was said by irish. With the umpteen pseudonyms the sickening little troll has used, how is it even possible to sort out which of the socks are actually irish?

That's obviously one of the reasons for the troll's deception.

Hey, if kb keeps posting on this thread, I bet we can get the post count to four digits!

Have a great weekend, folks!

Oh yeah...I remember that. irish telling us she was leaving and then coming back under a different sock. Got outed and was told that even though she/it had sworn to never come back, said that she/it didn't lie, as returning was a future event, not to be based what she/it had said in the past. So, we know irish lied, doesn't keep promises and is so terribly existential. It lives for today, but don't hold it to anything it said or did in the past because it doesn't matter. However, that same
denial of past events doesn't stop she/it from declaiming that the US is gonna bomb someone somewhere else, based on past events, aka 'hitory.'

Oh, and the media has been proven to lie, but that doesn't change irish's perception.

kb

wisheshewasashonestasmichaelmoore said:

"Each and every time someone has posted that disagrees with you or your idol, your response is highly predictable."

That's odd as no one has predicted anything so far. Nice try, but ain't gonna' work. Coming in after the facts and tryin gto spin it as if you folks were just a few steps ahead all along is rather weak and is frankly something I'd expect to hear on right-wingnut talk radio or FOX "News". It's funny that you mention this as I make my predictions public here shortly after I arrived only to enjoy having most everyone of them fulfilled as we've gone along. Sorry, but your opening comment here is like a second graders projection. Try again. ANd if you want to be taken more seriously present evidence with your drool.

"You obliviate for about 1000 words"

Don't know what you mean.
obliviate
n. charm which modifies one's memory
v. modify or erase portions of a person's memory

Neither of these apply to what I've been doing at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. You'll have to try and use a different, or perhaps even accurate, term.

"accuse them of being dumbasses"

It's not an accusation any more than it's an accusation to call a rock a rock.

"say they haven't read any of Chomsky's works"

Uhhh...Was this an issue of some sort? Of course they haven't. Stool admitted it. And the few other lingering liars, like buttcrack, are pretending as if they have. Not a single peep of evidence demonstrating they anyone has so far. Perhaps you could be the first. Well, what books of Chomsky's have you read?

"tell them you are so bad and mean."

Where did I tell them this? I don't NEED to tell them this as the evidence speaks for itself. Sort of like I don't really need to prance around bragging because I can kick my 9 year old son's ass in basketball. This is something more reserved for the weak right who on some level are aware, sort of, that they are weak and so overcompensate by acting like excoriatedbuttcyst, and most of the rest of the fools did when I arrived.

"Guess what?"

Uhh....Who?

"You are Pavlov's dog and they have taught you well."

Oh, they have most definitiely taught me well. That's why I'm here. I'm getting more and more data every day which I'm most definitely learning from. It's sort of how I got an A in Abnormal Psych. class.

"Every time they ring the gong, you come out."

Don't know what you're referring to. Clear as the usual right-wing mud. Oh, I get it! This IS the gong you're doing now, you sly....uhhh....drooler.

"When will you learn?"

I'm learning every day. You should probably start trying at some point in your miserable life. Read any Chomsky lately?

"This isn't about winning a debate or who is right or wrong"

Never said it was. In fact, it pretty much can'T be because you folks haven't given any indocation yet that you know what these things entail. Like, in a debate, if two people or groups were going to debate the worls of someone, say Chomsky, both sides would make some sort of effort to familiarize themselves with the subject so that they'd even know where to begin to debate. You folks haven't even taken the first step to doing this. Not only that, quite often you folks brag and actually seem proud of NOT doing this, as if this makes you tough or something. It doesn't. And debate doesn't mean a few drooling inbreds go shopping the anti-Chomsky sites for dis-information in order to fulfill their preconceived notiions and fairy tales. Sorry, but most any high school student would know better than to think they could get by with this.

"but about manipulating you."

And boy you folks sure have manipulated me. I mean, you've uhh....hmm....and..uhhh.....well.....That's about it. But of you have some evidence somewhere I'd be happy to look at it.

"This is a satire site."

And? Couldn't get much funnier than watching you folks babble every day and pretend you're serious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fannybray

"Oh, isn't irish cute?"

If she's anything like her bitch-slappings of you, yes, she's probably damn cute. **yawn**

"Left in a huff again. **yawn**"

She's probably just a little flustered at seeing grown-ups such as yourself lie and lie and lie. It gets a little old.

"No, Stoorat, when the troll called irish returns"

I have seen no evidence of ger being a "troll". Actually, almost the only time I've ever seen this term used it's been by someone who was getting their asses kicked and who didn't like what they were hearing. THIS is NOT what a troll is. Personally, I'd call compusive liars who do little more than take up space by cheerleading blind pseudo-patriotic babble and never providing evidence to support any of their asinine assertions as trolls. And, yes, that would be you and the rest of your cheerleading brownshirts.

"you will not be able to call it a liar, because, you see, according to irish, "you can't 'lie' about the future.""

I'd have to see the context for the statement. I know all too well how right-wing liars pick things out of context as if they were at a over-sized underwear sale at Wal-Mart. That being said, a lie would seem to imply lying about something which has already happened. We don't usually say "I didn't steal the candy bar tomorrow." for a reason. You might be able to make a guess about the future which turns out to be wrong, or lie about something which hasn't happened yet. Like you could tell your friend that the game tomorrow was at a different stadium just to piss them off, but that too still doesn't really qualify. Or I could say that I think at least one of you folks from the right is going to say something intelligent in the future, and then when it doesn't happen, well, that too isn't a lie. I was just predictably wrong inthat case. Care giving us an example, fanny?

"However, irish has made this solemn vow not to return about a dozen times by now"

Perhaps she's just thinking aloud what she really thinks she should be doing, and is sort of pondering aloud that there's probably really know use talking to rocks forever.

"and in my world, when you make a vow and break it, that's called, "dishonesty.""

Oh, you mean like YOU did? Once again, rather than being concerned about her saying she wasn't going to return until one of you, perhaps stoo, responded with evidence, you should be MUCH more worried about providing the evidence. But given that you folks have such a poor record in this arena, it's quite understandable that you'd rather her leave than try and prove her wrong. This is the second to the last refuge of the scoundrel.

"And when you criticize others for doing exactly what you have done, that's called, "hypocrisy.""

If you do something to me 50 times, and I say that it's bad. And then I do it to you once, and you start whining about it. I think the statistically insignificant number which would lead to a charge of hypocrisy could be overlooked.

"And when you won't admit what you have done in the past, that's called, "denial.""

What's funny is that ever since I've been here the only person doing any of these things that I've seen has been you folks. Did all of this take place before I arrived or something? Hasn't even been a hint of it since I've been here. Not from her anyway.

"And when you keep saying you won't do something, and then you do it, again, and again, that's called an, "obsession.""

You mean like when YOU said you weren't coming back and I told you you were? And here you are again, and you can't drop it? And you keep on and keep on going like you are here without providing any evidence for anything, like you are here? You mean, THAT kind of obsession?

"What I find the most irritating about the troll called irish"

Still no evidence of her being a troll. What'S your obsession about calling her this?

"is the challenge to dredge something up that was said by irish."

Well, it'sprobably a bteer idea to deal with it as it's happening like I do so that this isn't becessary, or at least less necessary.

"With the umpteen pseudonyms the sickening little troll has used, how is it even possible to sort out which of the socks are actually irish?"

I must have missed all of this, but even if she had used a dozen other names, did you suck as much trying to respond to them as you do now? I CAN imagine though that you'd be happy that there's only one irish to kick your ass, as having a dozen of her doing it would be about 12 times more embarrassing. Perhaps THIS is your obsession with this issue.

"That's obviously one of the reasons for the troll's deception."

You know, you folks keep using terms like "troll", "obsession", etc...and yet you provide little or no evidence to support anything you say. Is it that you don't want to, or that you can't? I mean, true, you ARE going to lose no matter which of these you choose, but at least we can be clear about which one. I mean, I'd hate of have sat here all this time thinking you were simply a dumbass because you weren't able to, when, in fact, you were just a lazy ass too lazy to do it.

"Hey, if kb keeps posting on this thread, I bet we can get the post count to four digits!"

And if you keep responding to kb this is most definitely a possibility. Were you saying this would be a bad thing? Read any Chomsky lately?

"Have a great weekend, folks!"

You, too. Hey, why don't you stop by the bookstore and pick up a Chomsky book while you're out? You DO know what a bookstore is, don't you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jizzfilledbuttcrack said:

"Oh yeah...I remember that. irish telling us she was leaving and then coming back under a different sock."

Yes, you folks keep saying this, but I haven't seen any evidence for it. But if she did, why do you think she would do so? Because you pulverized her so much that she just had to change names? I hardly think so. And you still haven't answered my question as to how this would help or harm any arguments. I mean, if I came back using 20 different names then there would just be 20 more folks demonstrating you folks to be dumbasses.

"Got outed and was told that even though she/it had sworn to never come back"

You guys are REALLY hung up on this coming back thing, huh? Of course if fanny does it it's not an issue, but of a member of the rational half does it it becomes a big issue. Unfortunately for you there's a great difference. If fanny comes and goes nothing is lost or gained as there's not much content anyway. If irish goes there's most definitely going to be a loss of rational, logical, and honest discourse. But you folks aren'T really interested in this anyway. I've offered dozens of links which could potentially be the basis of starting some sort of dialog, and as of this sentence you folks haven't touched any of them. Why? Is your purpose for being here to piss and moan about folks who aren't cheerleaders like yourself? What point do you have for being here? If you aren't going to discuss issues, then it would appear that you're doing little more than taking up space, or perhaps trolling. You make no arguments. You provide no evidence. You lie as naturally as breathing. I really don't see your point for being here.

"said that she/it didn't lie"

When a batch of pathological liars start accusing someone else of lying I'm afraid that it just doesn't hold too much weight. See, this is what happens when YOU lie and are called on it so many times. It usually returns to bite you on the ass. And my guess would be that your asses probably have very little meat left.

"as returning was a future event, not to be based what she/it had said in the past."

Evidence?

"So, we know irish lied, doesn't keep promises and is so terribly existential."

Yes, you folks SAY you "KNOW" a lot of things. Unfortunately, you rarely provide evidence to support any of these things which you just "know". It's sort of like how you folks just "know" that MSM is somehow "liberal" when it is nothing of the sort. You just "know" because, well, everyone "knows", or at least everyone like you "knows". Sorry, everyone "knew" that the sun went around the world at one point, too. They were wrong. You are wrong.

"It lives for today, but don't hold it to anything it said or did in the past because it doesn't matter."

Well, that's what any good existentialist would do. What's done is done. If you think it shouldn't be repeated, you know, like if you guys decide to stop lying yourselves at some point, or learn that empty baseless opinion doesn't really hold up to much unless you offer evidence to support it, then you must change it NOW. And no matter when you do start, whether it be later today, tomorrow, or next year, at THAT time it will be NOW again. You should start worrying a little more about your own pathology before whining about someone else. This is the same childish, whiny-ass stuff you folks always do when someone, you know, an honest person, points out some of the bad aspects of the U.S. "Well, it may not be perfect here, but it's better than there." and other such dumbass remarks and "reasoning".

"However, that same denial of past events doesn't stop she/it from declaiming that the US is gonna bomb someone somewhere else, based on past events, aka 'hitory.'"

Some things are so evident that one doesn't really need to claim anything. The sun will probably rise in the east and set in the west, and the U.S. will probably start bombing folks again somewhere. Not much difference here. Always looking for a new enemy. Gotta keep oyr economy working via the pentagon system somehow, and peace is hardly an option. It's quite difficult to get people to think they need to be spending billions of dollars on fighter jets when there's no enemy. Nope, gotta' have them gooood and scared, always. The Iranians, the North Koreans, Fiji, just about anyone will do. And it's VERY easy to get the lemming class, that would be YOU, buttcrack, to support and encourage the fear. You folks dwell in it
day in and day out. I have lived overseas long enough now to see just how bad it really is, too. ALmost every time I return to the states and am engaged in some coversation about my travel, very often the first issue which arises is that of fear; "Aren't you afraid?" I've been to that "communist China" place 4 times, and have never even seen a police officer, much less seeing them cracking down on people for not waving a little red Mao book at all times. I DID, however, see severqal Louis Vuitton shops, Toy R Us, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and several other things which sort of ruined the picture, but which some of them have fallen for via the deceit of advertizing. Nope, I'm MUCH more afraid walking to a convenince store in just about any U.S. city than I am walking around at 3 a.m. downtown in just about any Asian city I've been to. Nothing much to compare. Most countries are rational enough not to allow for the population to have guns, so there is much less problem. Duhh.....

"Oh, and the media has been proven to lie, but that doesn't change irish's perception."

Actually, the media DO lie quite often, but it's usually by leaving out something. This by far mostly happens against the left though. One of the biggest fairy tales of the past half century has been the campaign to try and show the media as being "liberal" of some sort, even though most all evidence points in the exact opposite direction. You'll even hear idiots trying to claim that because more reporters call themselves liberal, that therefore the media and what they report is liberal. THIS demonstrates the sort of naivete we're dealing with here, irish. They don't think for a second about the company being a huge corporation which is linked to MANY other things, owned
by big business from top to bottom, etc...Care for some more data:

The Myth of the Liberal Media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

"William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.""
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

One Stop Shopping here:
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/2002/Media_Bias.html

Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

the Myth of the Red and the Blue America
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html

"Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of ‘liberal bias’ in the media were part of ‘a strategy’ (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ‘If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is “work the refs.” Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.’”

“Bill Kristol, perhaps the most honest and intelligent conservative in Washington (excluding, of course, that funny, friendly, charming McCain fellow). ‘The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes,’ Kristol said recently on CNN. If Chris missed that one, he might have come across a similar admission by Kristol offered up in the spring of 1995. ‘I admit it,’ Kristol told The New Yorker. ‘The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.’”

“‘The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive,’ [Patrick] Buchanan acknowledged in March 1996. He added: ‘I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked.’”

“A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.”

“[T]here was a discrepancy in the frequency of labeling, but not in the way [Bernard] Goldberg [author of Bias] -- or for that matter, I -- assumed. On the contrary, the average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does. The press describes [Barney] Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes [Dick] Armey as a conservative. It labels [Barbara] Boxer almost twice as often as it labels [Trent] Lott, and labels [Paul] Wellstone more often than [Jesse] Helms.”

“When the Freedom Forum studied the relationship between the Washington news media and Congress, the press foundation tossed in what it considered a throwaway question to the reporters: How had they voted in 1992?…
“Of the 130 respondents, 89 percent said they had voted for Bill Clinton. Only seven percent had supported George Bush…
“To try to clear up this mystery, we contacted Kenneth Dautrich of the Roper Center, the polling firm that handled the Freedom Forum's data…
“The Freedom Forum survey gave much greater weight to the voting choices of reporters from small publications who have next to no influence in the nation's capital. These work-a-day reporters rarely, if ever, appear on TV and their stories concentrate on the hum-drum actions of local members of Congress, not on national affairs.
“It may be interesting that a large percentage of modestly paid reporters from small- to mid-sized dailies favored Clinton over Bush. But there is little evidence that those presidential preferences translated into soft media treatment of Clinton or into especially tough handling of Bush or the GOP congressional majority.”


"The findings include:
“ · On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
“ · Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
“ · The minority of journalists who do not identify with the ‘center’ are more likely to identify with the ‘right’ when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the ‘left’ when it comes to social issues.”
David Croteau, Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Sociology and Anthropology
http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm
((There are many more items here for those wishing to learn about the real world instead of the fairy tale one which has been created for you))

Fist of Etiquette

I call dibs on the thousandth comment!

That's odd as no one has predicted anything so far. jizzymouth spewed

Liar. I predicted that you would come back, like you just did and bloviate.

kb

"I call dibs on the thousandth comment!"

Go for it! Is there a prize? Perhaps a poster of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limpdick, William 'Smug Ass' Buckley Jr., and a few others sitting in the corners of their classrooms in diapers, sucking their thumbs, and trying to scream out "The answer is six!" when the teacher asked the class what 3+43 was. I might even go for the prize then.

kb

buttcrack said:

"I predicted that you would come back, like you just did and bloviate."

First, where did you predict it? Second, you have given no evidence to support "bloviating". So, it would appear little more than gas from your end (Get it? Gas from your end?)yet again. Care to discuss the nonexistent liberal media, Chomsky, or any of the other dozens of items I've offered, or were you just going to sit there and whine like most lazy ass right-wingnuts? You folks really ARE lazy, you know. Which articles of Chomsky's did you say you had read, and which books have you read, but don't own? I'm still waiting. Or perhaps the reason you keep on with these irrelevant items is so as not to have to leave these lists which, in fact, don't exist. THAT couldn't be it, huh? How many times have you now responded without touching a subject would you imagine? I meabn, I have the numbers as this is exactly what I'm doing here, but do you?

Projection in your post again, as usual. The media is not centrist and has reported more lies than they have the truth. And the way they vote doesn't mean that their
reporting is centrist or objective. If anything it shows that the media reports or spins to their desires; else why have Tipper Gore tell the country if they were depressed after the general election to seek help? Of course, being the media and Chomsky whore that you are, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the butt.
You bend over, grab your ankles and say 'Thank you, may I have another?' when you
get buggered by MSNBC and other online media. I am also laughing at your idiotic
'lack of social interaction by overuse of the internet' when you are so guilty of
it yourself. Projection by you? Definately.

You are such a moron, no wonder your students are going to be bitterly disillusioned.
As to irish, she/it is a jerk, always has been and always will be.

I predicted it in no less than three posts.
Reading is fundamental...or in your case, just mental.

Especially the one you quoted regarding my prediction! You are so freakin' blind, deaf
and dumb.

kb

embarrassinglysqueakybuttcrack deposited:

"Projection in your post again, as usual."

Opening line a lie again, as usual. There hasn't been a single instance where "projection" has been demonstrated from your side. You are simply saying that it has happened. This means nothing. You have no evidence, THAT'S what'S "as usual". And you don't seem to understand what the concept entails, but then again that about cover the rest of everything you say as well. Perhaps your evidence is below.(My breath is NOT being held)

"The media is not centrist and has reported more lies than they have the truth."

Evidence? That being asked for, I may agree to an extent, but it is usually either towards the right, or overly apologetic to state power. The left is rarely heard from at all. Just ask most any lefty and they'll tell you. Do you not think that we would be unaware if our positions were on day after day? I most definitely WISH we had even 20%. Unfortunately, it's much less than this. But then again, that's only demonstrated by most all evidence, and most lefties saying their positions are never there at all.

"And the way they vote doesn't mean that their
reporting is centrist or objective."

I agree 100%, and that's exactly what most of the data I just sent you demonstrates. It also says that it wouldn't matter one iota if every reporter was a member of some Maoist communist club, what they vote and think has about as much to do with what ends up on the tube or in the papers as what the factory worker thinks ends up in the decision making process of the company he works for. Zero. That this would even be a question demonstrates a great indoctrination on your part. Do you actually think that these huge corporations are going to allow their journalists andf reporters run around reporting onthis which would be counter to their own interests? You can't possibly be THAT naive. That being said, there must be at leastthe appearance of some sort of range of debate, or resistance to or slight deviation from the status quo of that which power decides. It gives the illusion that there's some range of debate between "left" and "right", as in the comic strips of "Crossfire". THIS is what folks are trained to think is the range of debate. THIS range is about 20%, or less, of what could be a much fuller range. That you are unaware of this speaks volumes, as well as supporting several theses as well. Thanks!

"If anything it shows that the media reports or spins to their desires"

Yes, and these are by far towards the right. Not even close.

"else why have Tipper Gore tell the country if they were depressed after the general election to seek help?"

You're calling Tipper Gore a lefty? AHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahaHAHAHAHahahahaha.....THAT'S funny. And you probably thought Clinton was a lefty, too, huh? THAT'S just as funny.

"Of course, being the media and Chomsky whore that you are"

I'M a media "whore" because I think they do a relatively lousy job of reporting, and rarely touch upon any of the positions from the left? And you're in no position to mention Chomsky's name because you know nothing about him, so we can just flush that one now. I DO hope it gets better. That being said, if you have a reference who knows more about the media than Chomsky please give me their name. And make sure that their books are used in as many universities as his books are.

"you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the butt."

And he had the nerve to say that I was projecting in his opening line. AHAHAHAHahahahahaha!!!! You were correct about this being a satire site. You're just playing the dumbass now, right? I mean, you ARE just kidding now, right? You're being sarcastic, right? For your sake I sure as hell hope so. It would be rather sad to think there were actually people this clueless. But then again, all of that evidence you've provided, you know, which demonstrates mine to be false is just ao overwhelming, how could I compete? I mean, YOU said it. It's YOUR opinion. And your opinion IS the evidence, as usual. Sorry, it may be evidence in your head, but that's about it. Read any Chomsky lately. You still haven't given me the names of the articles or books, as I've pointed out many times now. Do you know how many? I do. I'm waiting until the number is about as high as it can go and then I'm planning to slap your dumb ass with it. Many other things as well.

"You bend over, grab your ankles and say 'Thank you, may I have another?' when you
get buggered by MSNBC and other online media."

This is not evidence of a liberal media either. MSNBC is only slightly better than the others and still far to the right. But as I've already said, there is NO media which is 100% right-wing, yet anyway, FOX is getting closer, as there must be at least some sort of pretense to make it look like their being objective and giving some sort of balanced view when they're not, and as most all studies demonstrate.

"I am also laughing at your idiotic
'lack of social interaction by overuse of the internet' when you are so guilty of
it yourself."

Don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you could quit laughing at something which is probably not funny anyway and deal with some issue. Did you wish to put your complaint down again and in English this time?

"Projection by you? Definately."

You have provided no evidence to support this yet again. You have simply said something is there. I'm not intereted(Actually this is not true. I AM interested, but for other reasons)in your simple-ass opinion based on you gas level on any given day. This means squat. If you think there is something there, then you must demonstrate that it's there. Well, where is it? It's just there, like Big Foot again?

"You are such a moron"

And you have done exactly zero to demonstrate this. On theother hand, you HAVE demonstrated that you are(your projection incidentally)by making charges and providing no evidence to support them. ANd that you don't even understand this concept IS my evidence that it is YOU, drooler, who are the moron, or mormon, or some other equally as pathetic thing.

"no wonder your students are going to be bitterly disillusioned."

Oh, quite the contrary. They're most definitely happily illusioned. Just imagine. 600 students a week watching F 9/11, Bowling, Super-Size Me, The Corporation, Manufacturing Consent, etc.....while your little inbreds are debating if Paris Hilton is bisexual or carries a gun. Yes, life is good. I even get paid to show these films and make students think. Not a bad job, eh?

"As to irish, she/it is a jerk, always has been and always will be."

And your evidence for this is exactly where? What's great is that every time you do this, it is being recorded by some of the students. So, in fact, YOU are teaching them as much as I. I almost feel bad about not giving you any money for your assistance. Butthen again after the rat's are used in experiments they're usually fed to snakes. Well, there we have it. We have come to the end of the comment and none of the evidence I asked for was presented. The articles he has supposedly read weren't presented. The books he doesn'T own but has read weren't listed. The evidence demonstrating that I was a moron wasn't presented. None of the links I left to support my thesis were touched. Nothing. Basically, you're entire comment was empty of any content. You have just taken up space here, you projecting troll. Come back when you have something to offer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~crack continues:

"I predicted it in no less than three posts.
Reading is fundamental...or in your case, just mental."

I don't see the evidence. Where is it? Saying you predicted it means squat. Where is it? What is it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Especially the one you quoted regarding my prediction! You are so freakin' blind, deaf
and dumb."

Still haven't provided a line of evidence. Where is it?
Do you even know what you are talking about anymore? For your own sake you should REALLY quit talking, go ask a lefty to hold your hand in the library or a bookstore and lead you to something to read which may stimulate even one of the three brain cells you have. I don't have hard evidence that you only have three brain cells, but am getting closer as the evidence keeps pouring in.

I don't have to do anything to demonstrate that you are a moron. You do so well on your own. In the words of Sting, 'every post you make.' We all see you. You are predictable. Same old tired tosh.


No, dumbass, I never called Tipper Gore a lefty. I called the MEDIA biased. Once again, you demonstrate your inability to read and draw correct correlations. The media
were ecstatic over Clinton being elected, and when the general mood of the country was
supposedly 'assessed' by the same libtard media as being depressed, Tipper Gore was shown in some kind of reporterette blurb, urging people to seek help and meds, if necessary. I would say the media was correct in assessing the depressed state of most people, because all through the Clinton Reign of Error I heard many many people state that they did not vote for him. The bias and subtle message was: 'Get over it and take drugs to cope.' What a perfect message from a baby boomer dope smoking idiot,
especially one who was impeached for lying.

Instance of media lies? How about the Newsweek story of the flushing of the Koran at Gitmo? People died over that...Newsweek 'regrets the error.' Or the bullshit being
published now in TNR...the Scott Beauchamp crap?

Don't get me started on the NYT or the spin that goes on regarding Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or other leftard media darlings.

I will mention Chomsky as much and as often as I want, catamite.

kb

buttcrackerslime said:

"I don't have to do anything to demonstrate that you are a moron."

No do you. Nor have you. Nor can you. That's the point. You don't have to 'prove' anything. You simplyhave to say it.

"You do so well on your own."

Well, YOU sure as hell can'T prove anything, so I probably WILL have to do thework for you. But then again the left is used to doing most of the work.

"In the words of Sting, 'every post you make.'"

You have no business quoting someone of Stings caliber. Stick to ABBA.

"We all see you."

Great! Then at least ONE of your lemming right-wing friend should have no problem providing that evidence which is mysteriously absent from every one of your comments. Have you not noticed? I've only pointed it out, well, in most every one of your comments. Perhaps an elementary reding class? Or a class in honesty, even more difficult for you I'd imagine.

"You are predictable. Same old tired tosh."

Well, I sure as hell hope so. I HAVE kept asking for evidence in almost every one of my comments, that's for sure. And I HAVE repeatedly pointed out your lies, projections, denials, etc...in just about every comment I've made. Yes, it IS getting rather tiring. So,I'd say that if you wish to see a change, then get off your lazy right-wing ass and provide the evidence I keep asking for and which you keep running from because it doesn't exist. That, or start trying to be minimally honest. Yes, I know it's difficult after so many years of pathological lying, depending on other liars for your data, and voting into office even worse liars, to even be able to recognize what honesty actually means, but I'd think you'd get tired of this and grow out of it at some point. Now, about those Chomsky articles and books...Which ones were they?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~droolingbuttcrack said:

"No, dumbass, I never called Tipper Gore a lefty."

Great! At least you have the one brain cell it takes to notice THIS much.

"I called the MEDIA biased."

Yeah, me too. Towards the right. Not even an issue.

"Once again, you demonstrate your inability to read and draw correct correlations."

I drew the exact correct correlations, inbred.

"The media were ecstatic over Clinton being elected"

Yes, and the media are huge corporations and not the least bit liberal. Business was ecstatic over Clinton's victory as well. Said he was the best president business had ever had, repeatedly in fact. This supports what I've been saying even more. You're acting as if the media being happy over Clinton's victory is some sort of demonstration of their being liberal. Now THAT'S funny. They were ecstatic precisely because he WASN'T liberal at all. IT was theperfect candidate. Someone who said he was VERY slightly to the left, when in reality he is a moderate Republican, and yet most of his policies did nothing but make business cream their drawers.

"and when the general mood of the country was
supposedly 'assessed' by the same libtard media as being depressed"

What media are you talking about? There is no liberal media, or at least none that you're aware of. Have you not read a single link I've left you, or does your indoctrination not permit it. This has already been dealt with. You folks just don't want to hear ANYTHING which clashes with your fairy tales do you? Even when it comes from the right, as I have also posted. Did you not read anything, inbred? Just sort of can't compute, huh, with all that "Everyone knows the media are liberal" fairy tale so far up your indoctrnated butt that you can'T see the facts even when they're staring you in the face.

"Tipper Gore was shown in some kind of reporterette blurb, urging people to seek help and meds, if necessary."

Sounds like a communist to me.

"I would say the media was correct in assessing the depressed state of most people"

Then YOU, too, should be asking for more prozac.

"because all through the Clinton Reign of Error"

Youmean the errors which business thought made him the best president ever? Those errors? Sort of odd that even the right-wing business press ALL loved Clinton, but your smelly little drooling right-wing propagandists didn't even teach you these basics.

"I heard many many people state that they did not vote for him."

Nor should they have. He was too conservative. Nor will I vote for Hillary for the same reason.

"The bias and subtle message was: 'Get over it and take drugs to cope.'"

Yeah, and every good right-winger knows that all it takes to cope is good hard work. Ask Rush. He probably agrees with her. That being said, and given the display of right-wing lunacy and ignorance here, you folks taking the drugs, and we rational folks coping with you seems like the perfect balance. Perhaps the drugs will open your minds to some slight bit of rationality, and then we can slip some education in when you're not expecting it. You know, like a communist trying to infiltrate your children's ideas though rock music or something.

"What a perfect message from a baby boomer dope smoking idiot"

Given that he was one of the most intelligent presidents, not that I liked him all that much, but he WAS intelligent, infinitely more so than either Bush or Reagan the war criminal, I'd say that more presidents should be required to smoke pot. Ahhh..How times have changed:

"In 1619 the Virginia Assembly passed legislation requiring every farmer to grow hemp. Hemp was allowed to be exchanged as legal tender in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland.
Domestic production flourished until after the Civil War, when imports and other domestic materials replaced hemp for many purposes. In the late nineteenth century, marijuana became a popular ingredient in many medicinal products and was sold openly in public pharmacies."

"Beginning with the hemp farming of George Washington, author traces the fascinating story of our nation's love-hate relationship with the resilient weed we know as marijuana."
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj005.htm

And then there's..........

"Thomas Jefferson and George Washington often corresponded about the virtues of smoking hemp and are said to have traded parcels of it as gestures of friendship." Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society and consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, included the following U.S. presidents as cannabis users: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, ZacharyTaylor, and Franklin Pierce.
THE CONSTITUTION IS WRITTEN ON HEMP PAPER!!
"Early letters from our founding fathers often refer to the pleasures of hemp smoking", said Dr. Burke. There are even references to it in the Congressional Record. cannabis never became a commercial industry because the plant was too easy to grow.
George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson all cultivated pot on their plantations. George Washington is said to have preferred a good pipe full of "the leaves of hemp" to any alcoholic drink.
James Madison once remarked that had it not been for hemp, he would not have had the insights he had in the work of creating a new and democratic nation."

There! More evidence of some of them damn pot smoking anti-Americans.

"American Founding Father Franklin Pearce wrote wrote in his journal that smoking the "flowers of the hemp plant was the only good thing about the Mexican American War." George Washington who wrote several books about Cannabis cultivation and was especially interested in the different strains Cannabis Indica vs Sativa (indian hemp vs common hemp)."

The founding father, a pot head? No! Really? Well, uhh...he's...he's...anti-American anyway!

"From a 1796 letter to Franklin Pierce " What was done with the seed saved from the India hemp last summer? It ought, all of it, to have been sown again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raised but to have disseminated the seed to others, as it is more valuable than common hemp."
http://www.cyclesurfer.com/Articles/TerrorDrugs.htm

"especially one who was impeached for lying."

And was that ever the crime. Lying for getting a hummer which was no one elses business anyway. You folks are such idiots you don't even know what his real crimes were. This was the least of the Clinton crimes, but as usual, the tabloid distraction kept you distracted.

"Instance of media lies?"

Why do you keep acting as if I think the media don't lie? I never said they didn't, though it's not nearly as much as you probably think they do. It's what they leave out which gives their slant overwhelmingly to the right. Sometimes they do just flat out lie though.

"How about the Newsweek story of the flushing of the Koran at Gitmo?"

Not even an issue to be discussing. Not worthy of being reported, though I'd imagine that there are FAR worse things happening than this. This is a distraction issue, dumbass. You shuld be MUCH more concerned about what right the U.S. has to keeping anyone anywhere without counsel, having secret detention camps around, etc....THESE are the REAL issues. We already know that war crimes committed by the U.S. have taken place, so these should be your concern, and not some small time story.

"People died over that...Newsweek 'regrets the error.'"

Newsweek is completly right-wing. Why are you telling me this? You think Newsweek is "liberal"? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa.........I think Bush's illegal war crime invasion of Iraq has killed thousands of more time people than anything Newsweek could even try to conjure up. But for the indoctrinated dupes like you who are infatuated with the tabloid stories, and aren't even aware of the real stories, as the media rarely discuss them i.e., evidence of there being NO liberal media spokes people on any of the networks, you wouldn't know.

"Or the bullshit being published now in TNR...the Scott Beauchamp crap?"

Don't know what you're referring to. Be more specific.

"Don't get me started on the NYT"

Why would I? The New York Times is one of Chomsky's favorite targets for pointing out their lies.

"or the spin that goes on regarding Barack Obama"

You DO mean bythe right, yes? Like the right-wingnuts who are trying to make him out to be a latent al Qaeda member or something. We lefties upon hearing that he would become a candidate, especially because he's black, were just waiting for the venom to start flowing from the right cesspool Political propagandists. And it did like clockwork. He's a little too consevrative for me also, but at least he didn'T vote for the war and was intelligent enough NOT to be duped by the lies fromt he right as were several dumbass democrats. Dennis didn't support it either, so these two will get my vote.

"Hillary Clinton or other leftard media darlings."

Hillary isn't left, nor are the media who support her.
Sorry, drooler, but you're soooo far off to the right that if you're actually seeing someone like Hillary as even left of center you need to have your political compass readjusted.

"I will mention Chomsky as much and as often as I want, catamite."

You mean, not at all? And as I predicted, you took one of the only options possible. Now that you have taken THIS path, thinking it the lesser of the damning paths, all of which will make you look like an idiot and liar, I will now make you look like an idiot and liar anyway. Which articles and books of Chomsky's did you say you had read? I mean, you DID say you had read him, yes? And you HAVE implied several times you know something about him, yes? And you HAVE told us that youhad read his books and articles, yes? Well, share your extensive knowledge of the subject and tell us which ones you've read, liar.

yeah, it's more important for Clinton to show that he can't keep his promises to his wife, let alone to the country. There's a thing called integrity, asshole. It means doing what is right even and especially when no one is looking. Interesting that you call Reagan a warmonger when it was Clinton who dragged into Kosovo.

Bugger off.

kb

cavernousbuttcrack drooled:

"yeah, it's more important for Clinton to show that he can't keep his promises to his wife"

This isn'T an issue for anyone but him. Not your business. Not my business. Not anyone elses business but his. THIS, drooler, was a demonstration of a deperate and always willing to sink to new depths attack from the don't have enough in the way of intellectual ammo so must resort to this sort of strategy. His promises to his wife are about as much your business as your taking a dump schedule. You folks are embarrassing for even trying to make this an issue. The entire world was "shocked and awed" by the sheer ignorance that anyone would even think about making someones personal life be an issue when it's not.

"let alone to the country."

His promises to his wife are exactly ZERO of your business. If he made promises to his country which he didn't keep, then you have grounds for a complaint, as most lefties do of the Republican Clinton. Here, drooler(below), is a typical lefties view of Clinton. What's odd is that you seem to be completely oblivious to this fact. I mean, with all that liberal media around one would have thought that you would have known this inside and out. But you think Clinton WAS a lefty commenting on the CD "Old Wine, New Bottles":

"Near the beginning of this brilliant discussion, Chomsky says "The only thing true about the North American Free Trade agreement [NAFTA] is that it has something to do with North America." This jest, which had the tone of an aside, could aptly be understood as the thesis for his discussion.
Chomsky walks his audience through the corporate forces that pushed for NAFTA, how the Clinton administration became uncompromising about its ratification in spite of its unpopularity with the American people, how the agreement hurts developing countries and American workers, and how Clinton's subservience to corporate interests belied the myth about Clinton and his so-called "New Vision" for the USA. Instead the "instruments of repression" flourished under Clinton as thousands of police officers were added, more prisons were built, chain gangs increased and as laws were changed to increase mandatory sentences to prison. In short, while the corporate sector received more freedom and less accountability, ordinary people received less freedom and more accountability under Clinton.
As usual, Chomsky provides overwhelming evidence for his case. I am glad I purchased this CD."

You may be able to listen or read the entire thing here. You might try.
http://www.rhapsody.com/noamchomsky/theclintonvisionoldwinenewbottles

The Clinton Vision
Noam Chomsky
Z Magazine, December, 1993
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199312--.htm

The Clinton Vision: Update
Noam Chomsky
Z Magazine, January 1994
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9401-clinton-update.html

Okay. That'S enough for now. Now, here is a supposed "lefty" criticizing Clinton in FAR stronger terms than anyone from the business community(primarily the right)ever dreamed of doing. Sort of can't get your mind around this one, huh? Read, for once, and respond if you think you can. So, what do we have here:
1.You don't like Clinton.
2.Chomsky doesn't care much for Clinton
3. Therefore, whether you like it or not, you DO agree with Chomsky on something, no matter how hard you try not to.

"There's a thing called integrity, asshole."

Why are you telling ME this? You're the one from the right. And look at who you voted into office. SOmeone who's entire history has nothing much at all to do with "integrity". From his drooling days in Texas, through his lying about his service, to the theft of an election, and into an illegal war based on lies. I haven'T seen one thing which he has done with much integrity, though his two-state setllement talk sounds almost promising, though will probably fall short as usual. You know, the two-state settlement which folks like Chomsky were supporting 40 years ago, but which Chomsky had pretty much given up hope that this was ever a possibility, which it might not be?

"It means doing what is right even and especially when no one is looking."

His personal relationship is NOJNE of your business. Regarding the rest of the criticism, I couldn't agree more.

"Interesting that you call Reagan a warmonger when it was Clinton who dragged into Kosovo."

No, I called Reagan a war criminal, not war monger. And this isn't even an issue up for discussion either. It's simply a fact. Here. You can start to fasmiliarize yourself with the facts here if you're brave enough:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Our_War_Criminals.html

Here's the title of the 5th link on the page:
"Clinton Is The WorId's Leading Active War Criminal"

So, if you think there is some sort of tit for tat between Reagan and Clinton, you've simply fallen for the false dichotomy which the propagandists want you to fall for. Sorry, but THIS(links above)is the position of the left. And to think you haven't been aware of it. It's the same reason why you think the media are liberal when they're not. SOrry, if the media were even slightly to the left, or even had a story or two every once in a while from the left, THIS is what you'd be hearing. Here's a small piece from a talk which you'll never listen to or read, as I'm SURE it's NOT one of those invisible articles you claimed to have read. What do you think?

Reagan-US War Against Nicaragua
"But I’ll just mention one case which is totally uncontroversial, so we might as well not argue about it, by no means the most extreme but uncontroversial. It’s uncontroversial because of the judgments of the highest international authorities the International Court of Justice, the World Court, and the UN Security Council. So this one is uncontroversial, at least among people who have some minimal concern for international law, human rights, justice and other things like that. And now I’ll leave you an exercise. You can estimate the size of that category by simply asking how often this uncontroversial case has been mentioned in the commentary of the last month. And it’s a particularly relevant one, not only because it is uncontroversial, but because it does offer a precedent as to how a law abiding state would respond to…did respond in fact to international terrorism, which is uncontroversial. And was even more extreme than the events of September 11th. I’m talking about the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua which left tens of thousands of people dead, the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery.
Nicaragua’s Response
Nicaragua did respond. They didn’t respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They responded by taking it to the World Court, presenting a case, they had no problem putting together evidence. The World Court accepted their case, ruled in their favor, ordered the…condemned what they called the “unlawful use of force,” which is another word for international terrorism, by the United States, ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay massive reparations. The United States, of course, dismissed the court judgment with total contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court henceforth. Then Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone understood. The United States vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly where there is technically no veto but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution with only the United States, Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The following year again, this time the United States could only rally Israel to the cause, so 2 votes opposed to observing international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn’t do anything lawful. It tried all the measures. They don’t work in a world that is ruled by force.
This case is uncontroversial but it’s by no means the most extreme. We gain a lot of insight into our own culture and society and what’s happening now by asking ‘how much we know about all this? How much we talk about it? How much you learn about it in school? How much it’s all over the front pages?’ And this is only the beginning. The United States responded to the World Court and the Security Council by immediately escalating the war very quickly, that was a bipartisan decision incidentally. The terms of the war were also changed. For the first time there were official orders given…official orders to the terrorist army to attack what are called “soft targets,” meaning undefended civilian targets, and to keep away from the Nicaraguan army. They were able to do that because the United States had total control of the air over Nicaragua and the mercenary army was supplied with advanced communication equipment, it wasn’t a guerilla army in the normal sense and could get instructions about the disposition of the Nicaraguan army forces so they could attack agricultural collectives, health clinics, and so on…soft targets with impunity. Those were the official orders.
What was the Reaction Here?
What was the reaction? It was known. There was a reaction to it. The policy was regarded as sensible by left liberal opinion. So Michael Kinsley who represents the left in mainstream discussion, wrote an article in which he said that we shouldn’t be too quick to criticize this policy as Human Rights Watch had just done. He said a “sensible policy” must “meet the test of cost benefit analysis” -- that is, I’m quoting now, that is the analysis of “the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end.” Democracy as the US understands the term, which is graphically illustrated in the surrounding countries. Notice that it is axiomatic that the United States, US elites, have the right to conduct the analysis and to pursue the project if it passes their tests. And it did pass their tests. It worked. When Nicaragua finally succumbed to superpower assault, commentators openly and cheerfully lauded the success of the methods that were adopted and described them accurately. So I’ll quote Time Magazine just to pick one. They lauded the success of the methods adopted: “to wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves,” with a cost to us that is “minimal,” and leaving the victims “with wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations, and ruined farms,” and thus providing the US candidate with a “winning issue”: “ending the impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua.” The New York Times had a headline saying “Americans United in Joy” at this outcome."
http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm

So, there you have it. Chomsky speaking to the left "liberal" media as well as pointing out some of the basics regarding Reagan's war criminal activities, and which were recognized by the entire planet to be. Only in the indoctrinated sectors of the U.S. was this not recognized immediately. Oh, and YOU, butt, are a part of the indoc sectors. As irish. She's an outsider who has gotten lots of flak from you droolers due to some rather accurate observations she's made regarding the U.S. Ask her what the perceptions were of the average irish citizen as Reagan's criminal war was taking place. My guess is that even the conservatives in Ireland would have been honest enough to call a spade a spade, unlike the indocs in the U.S.

"Bugger off."

Learn to read.


First of all, dickhead, when a man or woman takes public office, the first thing we see is the home life. As to whether or not it is none of my business, as a taxpayer I pay his salary so how he behaves in private is my business, especially when he gets his rocks off to a woman to whom he is not married on the people's dime. After all, isn't that what you leftard assholes are screaming about regarding Bush in regard to accountability and the law? Hmmmm?

Tit for tat between Reagan and Clinton. Nope, no comparison because Reagan is the better of the two. Clinton helped to accelerate the GWOT by letting OBL go in the Sudan when they had him...he was too busy getting a blow job.

"Learn to read"
Projection.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From