Saturday, May 23, 2009

He's Got Some Nerve!

I just saw on Yahoo! that, in his weekly radio and internet speech, the Anointed One called on Americans to honor our veterans this Memorial Day. Of course, there's nothing wrong with honoring our troops, vets and active duty personnel alike. We conservatives do that by nature. And there's nothing really wrong with a left-wing loon like the Big O asking Americans to honor the troops. There is something really wrong with Obama claiming in his speech that we have too often failed "as a nation" to give our military sons and daughters their full respect. Oh, I take MUCH umbrage with that!

Americans have never failed to respect our vets; liberal Americans have failed to respect our vets. It is liberals who spit on our troops. It is liberals who call our troops baby killers. It is liberals who want military recruiters to get out of town. It is liberals who vote to cut off funds for our troops in the field. It is liberals who make movies portraying our troops as a bunch of raping, murdering thugs. It is liberals who hang our troops in effigy at their "anti-war" demonstrations. It is liberal Americans who do these things.

If Obama really cared about vets and the truth, he would've used his speech to censure his fellow leftists for their decades long animosity against America's armed forces. Instead, the Chosen One sought to give cover to his ideological brothers by portraying their moral failure as a moral failure of the entire nation. He's got some nerve!

65 comments:

Jane said...

You've got some nerve SA for spreading your lies and exaggerations to feed your brainless followers. My god, anyone can combat this ridiculous post by just entering reality. Whoever can make themselves believe this is a lunatic. You take examples from very tiny minorites whom are amplified by Fox news, Ol' Rushy, etc. and you have the nerve to believe it.

You are a disgrace, you live in some sort of polarized limbo. Your message is so simplistically clear, Conservatives are the only true Americans, and Liberals are the invaders who want to destroy America. It's times like these that I am so very thankful that the Republican party is destroying itself, hopefully you mindless rabble will dissipate and be gone from America's political world forever. So much damage has been done by your non-thinking, blind patriotic mentality already.

Tom said...

Jane must have overdosed on the Kool-Aid...

Liberals are Americans too, they're just not as tolerant as they would like us to believe. Thus, the name-calling and insults.

Instead, why not post a rebuttal instead of mindless ranting? Hmmmm?

Jane said...

Tom,

I'm not insulting anyone, it is bindingly clear how ridiculous this post is. On the other hand you are attempting to insult me(emphasis on attempting), but you fall short with your overused conservative cliches.

Rebuttals don't work Tommy, SA is as stubborn as an ox and will interpret something anyway she wants for the sake of argument.

She attaches certain radical behavior to the word "liberal" as if they are responsible when it is only select minorities. I could do the same in reverse its hardly fair. Why don't you guys use your own minds instead of letting your Fox overlords think for you? Its really tragic how sheeplike republicans have become.

JMK said...

"You've got some nerve SA for spreading your lies...it is bindingly clear how ridiculous this post is." (Jane)
<
<
Now that's not at all true.

Seane-Anna DID, in fact, say, "Americans have never failed to respect our vets; liberal Americans have failed to respect our vets. It is liberals who spit on our troops. It is liberals who call our troops baby killers. It is liberals who want military recruiters to get out of town. It is liberals who vote to cut off funds for our troops in the field. It is liberals who make movies portraying our troops as a bunch of raping, murdering thugs..." and ALL of that is unquestionably true.

It WAS Liberal Americans who assailed and spit on America's troops after the Vietnam war. It was Liberals (in San Fran) that have sought to throw Military recruiters out of that city, and it is liberals (in both the news and entertainment media) who've deliberately and erroneously portrayed American troops as "rapists, murderers and terrorists."

That much IS undeniable.

What more moderate liberals (like yourself?) should do is to throw their more far-Left brethren under the proverbial bus and attack those anti-American scumbags, rather than focusing on those they consider overly "pro-American scumbags", like Limbaugh and others.

After all, what's at all wrong with being "overly pro-American and pro-Capitalist???

I believe the answer to that is, "Nothing's wrong with that," right?

Jane said...

JMK,

you are the most convincing and tolerable I have come across on this website so far but there are still points you make that I would like to counter.

"Seane-Anna DID, in fact, say, "Americans have never failed to respect our vets; liberal Americans have failed to respect our vets. It is liberals who spit on our troops. It is liberals who call our troops baby killers. It is liberals who want military recruiters to get out of town. It is liberals who vote to cut off funds for our troops in the field. It is liberals who make movies portraying our troops as a bunch of raping, murdering thugs..." and ALL of that is unquestionably true."

Like I said she attaches the word "liberal" to certain minorites who hapen to be left wing. That vast majority of liberals do not agree with this behavior, the VAST majority. The way she labels all liberals like that is unacceptable and is to the core, a lie.

"It WAS Liberal Americans who assailed and spit on America's troops after the Vietnam war. It was Liberals (in San Fran) that have sought to throw Military recruiters out of that city, and it is liberals (in both the news and entertainment media) who've deliberately and erroneously portrayed American troops as "rapists, murderers and terrorists."

Again, minorities in the left wing, they hold no power, and likening all liberals or left leaning people to them is like a said, a disgrace. The sheer nerve of her portraying Obama as a troop hating, America-destroying cretin. I'm sorry but its ridiculous. Most people on this site live for these unimaginative stereotypes and SA gets away with it.

Jane said...

"After all, what's at all wrong with being "overly pro-American and pro-Capitalist???"

there is a lot wrong with this. Capitalism has its flaws and blindingly trusting it AND everything America does abroad and at home will lead to trouble. Being overly pro-American leaves no room for argument or doubt or of being critical, because lets face it, you aren't being Pro-American, you are being Pro-Republican and you'll hate whatever the democrats do and defend whatever the republicans do.

As well, being overly Pro-American breeds overly Anti-American sentiment abroad, and Americans can't be arrogant enough to think that the world does not matter because we need the support of many countries and people to function the way we do.

I'm not saying patriotism is a bad thing, it certainly is a good thing to be proud of the country you are a part of and to voice your opinion in its decision, you get into touble when your patriotism becomes blinding.

Roadhouse said...

Jane,
I wasn't aware that sitting Congessmen, Presidents, world famous directors, mass media outlets, college professors, and all manner of liberal government lacky were such a "select minority". Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Your not dealing with typical bloggers here. We put in our time and do the work. We can and will cite names, dates, and quotes by self proclaimed liberal luminaries anytime you like (there's no shortage). We're not impressed by the standard, cliche' retorts you seem to be so fond of using so far.
If you're going to debate any one of us, you're going to have to come to the table with more than comments about FOX News and insults about people you niether know or understand. This is not our first rodeo.

Seanne Anna hasn't written anything that isn't true in this article. If she had, you would have been able to point it out by now, but you haven't.

Seane-Anna said...

Jane, you ignorant slut! (I get to use that SNL line again!)

I'm spreading lies? Are you saying that all the anti-American things I said liberals did really didn't happen? That's the only way you can legitimately call me a liar. Otherwise you're just lashing out in hate.

Or maybe you're just schizo, because you first call me a liar then you say that the things I said liberals did were done only by "select minorities". So which is it, Jane? Did the things I wrote about happen or not? And who are these "select minorities" you want me to believe in?

Are they the Berkeley, CA city councilmen who passed an ordinance calling military recruiters "unwelcome and uninvited intruders"?

Are they the '60's "peace" protestors who spit on our troops?

Are they the Hollyweird actors, directors, etc., who deny the terrorist threat and portray are soldiers as ruthless killers?

Are they the journalists who expose our secret tactics against the terrorists while trying to revive the psycho vet stereotype?

I could go on, but you get my drift. Who are these "select minorties", Jane? And why are you far more apoplectic about me exposing the actions of those "select minorities" than you are about the actions themselves? Hmmmmm?

I think this is simply a tactic of the Left. JM used it when I left comments on his blog. When confronted with liberal anti-Americanism, attack the person who exposes it rather than the anti-Americanism itself. That tells me there's more going on here than just a few over-the-top antics by "select minorities".

And Jane, where did you get the idea that the people who diss our troops are just "tiny minorities"?

Jane, Tom is right. You've overdosed on the Kool-Aid. You talk about blind patriotism, but you are so blinded by your hatred of conservatives that you couldn't see the nose on your face if a conservative told you it was there.
The truth you're so desperate to deny is that the treasonous things I wrote about are FAR more likely to be done by those who are left of center than right of center. Don't blame me for pointing that out.

And yes, I WILL criticize your Golden Boy. You're the one who said that criticism was the only way to be a good citizen. Well, get ready for me to be a VERY good citizen!

Skunkfeathers said...

As usual, Seane-Anna, spot-on. As usual, "Jane", absymally ignorant and wrong.

Jane said...

"Or maybe you're just schizo, because you first call me a liar then you say that the things I said liberals did were done only by "select minorities". So which is it, Jane? Did the things I wrote about happen or not? And who are these "select minorities" you want me to believe in?"

I think I may take the liberty to officially call you stupid. I've tried to avoid but I can't do that any longer. You are stupid, I said you group all left wing democrats as these America hating extremists when in reality it is only a small percentage hint hint the select minorities.

"I wasn't aware that sitting Congessmen, Presidents, world famous directors, mass media outlets, college professors, and all manner of liberal government lacky were such a "select minority". Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Your not dealing with typical bloggers here. We put in our time and do the work. We can and will cite names, dates, and quotes by self proclaimed liberal luminaries anytime you like (there's no shortage). We're not impressed by the standard, cliche' retorts you seem to be so fond of using so far."

Aren't you a riot, yes you highly intelligent conservative bloggers no everything. It is a massive liberal conspiracy to be anti-American, I'm anti-American, Obama is anti-American, Biden is anti-American, Clinton is anti-American. Well, at least by the "non-typical" conservative bloggers' standards.

It's really tragic that you cannot use your brains.

Jane said...

"As usual, Seane-Anna, spot-on. As usual, "Jane", absymally ignorant and wrong."

As usual Skunky doesn't think, the sheeple mentality playing through. The amount of disrespect for people I have who look at such blatantly false information and say things like "spot on". It makes me want to vomit.

Skunkfeathers said...

I make Jane want to vomit? Good ;) If her own stupid analogies and illogic doesn't get it done, I'm happy to provide, until she divorces Moron.org and grows a working brain.

Happy Memorial Day to Seane-Anna and the rest of her "conservative echo chambans" LOL. For you, Jane, a vomit bag. Use or wear it.

Jane said...

Oh goodness, I missed the vomit bag and puked all over Skunky, don't worry everybody it makes him look and smell MUCH better ;)

Seane-Anna said...

YOU are the riot, Jane! A typical, Orwellian leftie who's outraged--outraged I tell you!--when thinking people draw the obvious conclusions from your words and deeds. And, yes, you're schizo to boot.

You STILL don't seem to know if I'm telling the truth or not. First you accuse me of "spreading lies"; then you say that what I wrote about was done by "select minorities"; and THEN you tell Skunky that I've written "blatantly false information". So which is it, girlie? Am I a liar or not?

And please stop with the "tiny minority" stuff. It's quite unimpressive that that's the only excuse you have for the anti-Americanism that resides so comfortably on your side of the political aisle.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If the anti-American deeds I wrote about REALLY offended you, Jane, you'd not only harshly condemn them, but you'd also do some serious political soul searching to find out why such deeds are done almost exclusively by the left. Instead, you lash out at me for having the audacity to expose them. And that tells me something, Jane.

It tells me that, contrary to what JMK charitably believes, domestic anti-Americanism is NOT limited to a "far-left fringe". The only thing limited to said fringe are over-the-top, anti-US actions. The sentiments behind those actions, however, are shared by most left of center people. Hence, the deafening silence from "mainstream" liberals over the actions of the "fringe". You, Jane, are exhibit A.

I've just about run out of things to say to you, Jane. Sigh. But keep coming around. Your partisan rantings are quite hilarious and make for great reading. And to think you think you're disrupting my blog. That's even more hilarious! LMAO!!!! Ciao, chickie!

Jane said...

Sa,

Let me make this clear for your tiny brain, hopefully your stupid agressive argumentative self will finally understand.

You are lying, and spreading fasle information HOW SO? because you say liberals, ALL liberals by their very nature hate the troops, america etc etc. when in reality it is only small percentages of the left wing. FILTHY STINKIN' LIAR. clear enough for ya?

Seane-Anna said...

"FILTHY, STINKIN, LIAR"

Oh, Skunky is gonna have soooooooo much fun with that one!

Skunkfeathers said...

LMAO...yup, Seane-Anna. Jane gets up, looks in a mirror, and practices her "Filthy Stinkin LIAR!" for an hour every morning, 'til she looks like Bela Pelosi, and sounds like...uh..Jane ;)

I agree, SA...Jane is a riot. Possessed of Keith Olbermoron talking points, and with the intellect of a door knob, but funny in her pathetic liberal little way.

And besides, what's not to like about someone I make sick? I tell ya, it jus' don' git any better than this h'yar. Hurl, baby, hurl. That's a good Jane. Bring up some more ;)

Jane said...

Is that all you two could come up with? You know I'm right so you crawl up into your conservative shell and base your retorts soley on insults. Most moronic of the morons you two are, and truly pathetic to boot :)

Roadhouse said...

Jane said:
"Aren't you a riot, yes you highly intelligent conservative bloggers no everything. It is a massive liberal conspiracy to be anti-American, I'm anti-American, Obama is anti-American, Biden is anti-American, Clinton is anti-American. Well, at least by the "non-typical" conservative bloggers' standards."

This is your rebuttle? Someone is putting words in my mouth (that would be you Jane). But if the shoe fits...
It will be left to history to decide if Obama, Biden, or Clinton actually turn out to be "anti-American". In the meantime though, their policies are not in the best interest of America. And it's not a "conspiracy". Liberalism is an intitutionalized culural phenomenon made popular by flowery speeches, class warfare, and people who put political correctness and good intentions over common sense and the lessons of history.

Jane also said:
"Is that all you two could come up with? You know I'm right so you crawl up into your conservative shell and base your retorts soley on insults. Most moronic of the morons you two are, and truly pathetic to boot :)"

Do I really need to explain the double standard/hypocrisy in this comment? Read over your own comments and you will see that 95% of them are nothing more than insults used as distractions from your lack of reasonable counter-points.

If you have an opposing point to any of my assertions, please make it. As a conservative, Christian, white, male, truck driver, I can assure you that you will not have an insult for me that I haven't already heard 1000 times. Don't waste your time with them.

elwoodin said...

Jane, I doubt that you have any sense of reality in your body, just like Obama has no sense of what he is doing to this country. You are both fools that are doing nothing but hurting this country immensely. You ought to be so proud.

elwoodin said...

And it is like Roadhouse said....we are not just regular run of the mill bloggers here. We do our work. We look and search for the truth, even when you liberals do everything you can to hide it from us. We see through your petty lies and petty institutions of non learning and find out just what the truth really is. And it isn't what you say it is. The truth is something that really happens Jane....not something that someone like you makes up to fit an agenda

Jane said...

Roadhouse says "In the meantime though, their policies are not in the best interest of America."

That is a stretch from what SA is saying, and fyi this is an opinion. I believe conservative policies aren't in America's best interests. Doesn't mean I'm going around talking about Anti-Americans.

Nice try roadie

Jane said...

"And it is like Roadhouse said....we are not just regular run of the mill bloggers here. We do our work. We look and search for the truth, even when you liberals do everything you can to hide it from us."

Who says stuff like this? What world are you living in? 1) you ARE just the run of the mill bloggers, you AREN'T very intelligent at least by what I have seen, no decent comebacks have been made.you conservative fruit loops must live in a magical world where mediocrity is above average. The truth is being concealed to you by SA, who propagates these falsehoods. This post is absolutely ridiculous, there is no hidden conservative all knowingness behind life. Wake up and see reality.

Jane said...

"Jane, I doubt that you have any sense of reality in your body, just like Obama has no sense of what he is doing to this country. You are both fools that are doing nothing but hurting this country immensely. You ought to be so proud."

This comment is as run of the mill as they get, sorry just plain ordinary here, keep trying ;)

Jane said...

"And it isn't what you say it is. The truth is something that really happens Jane....not something that someone like you makes up to fit an agenda"

Does it get any more hilarious than this? How absurd! Coming from a republican, a party steeped in corruption and anti-democracy, a party that stood by as its loose hinges laid destruction of our country in the past eight years. How did this "really happening" truth elude you for so long buddy? You are a joke if there ever was one. NEXT

Skunkfeathers said...

LOL..while Jane lives in a foul morass of liberal denial -- not unlike living in the liberal-controlled and liberal-bankrupted Califorlornia or other well-documented liberal fiscal cesspools in the US -- the world goes on. She can blame conservatives for the state of the Union at this point -- she's probably never lived up to her own responsibility for anything, which is liberal SOP -- though it's her Pelosi/Reid-led minions who've been screwing the pooch since '06, and her current champion of Saul Alinsky/Bill Ayers/Jeremiah Wright marxist ideology who's run the deficient in his short tenure to record levels even Dubya couldn't have conceived of. Universal dilution to eventual hellth care, cap & trade (aka, tax and wreck), the very unconstitutional intrusion of government into the private sector, cuts to the military and money to the terrorists (which, of course, doesn't rile Jane at all; she'll lie and deny that money to Gaza is money to the needy and deserving terrorists who have been unfairly treated by Israel and us, just by the empty logic she has followed since crawling out of the morass of anonymity), and other huge tax increases, to fuel double-digit inflation ala Jimmy Carter. That will be Jane's ideological, udopian legacy.

Barry will have a "bailout" for everyone BUT the taxpayers, and in the end, his name will be apt, as he will "barry" us in debt, cripple our economy, and undermine our national defense, all accomplishments of Jimmy Carter.

Jane will, of course, revel in this, because she is a textbook liberal of the lowest order -- her own words herein are proof beyond all reasoned doubt -- but eh. I'll live down to Jane's expectations here, and venture to guess that Jane is a textbook liberal in more than just her empty, vacuous words: she's probably white trailer trash, a fright outside of barlight, and has no life outside of her hate for all things civilized, decent and well-mannered.

Now, Jane, that I have lowered myself to your level, we can engage in conversation that fits your bill. Next.

Seane-Anna said...

Jane, I will take on one part of your rant: "[Republicans] laid destruction of [that should be "to"] our country the past eight years]. I'm really glad you said that Jane, because it shows just how dishonest, UNfair-minded, and disconnected from reality you truly are. You really are a vacuous libtard who thinks that hysterical hyperbole equals truth. Republicans destroyed America for eight years? Please!

If, after eight years of Bush's presidency, America looked like Zimbabwe--1000% inflation, collapsing food production, unchecked spread of AIDS, and opposition politicians jailed by the ruling party--then you'd be right, Jane. But, after eight years of Bush, America looks NOTHING like that! Jane, can you grasp reality at all?

Yes, we have a bad economy right now, but the blame for that belongs to many people, including all those supposedly innocent and victimized consumers who freely bought things they knew they couldn't afford. Then, in 2006 the Democrats gained control of Congress and it's Congress, not the Chief Executive, that controls the nation's purse strings, Jane. So, for three years your kind has been in charge of economic policy. The buck stops with the Dems as well as the Republicans.

The truth, Jane, is that Bush's presidency was somewhat of a mixed bag, like all presidencies actually. Fair-minded people--that doesn't include you, Jane--will acknowledge Bush's accomplishments and failures alike, and will give him credit where credit is due.

For example, Bush had a Cabinet as diverse as Clinton's. You liberals worship diversity. Why don't you give Bush credit for it, then? He appointed Alberto Gonzalez as the nation's first Hispanic attorney general. He appointed the first Black woman, Condoleeza Rice, to be Secretary of State, the most senior position in the Cabinet. Also, home ownership by Blacks reached its highest level in America's history under Bush. How about a little applause, Jane? I mean, since you consider yourself so racially sensitive.

And then there's the prescription drug initiative, which Bush signed into law against the wishes of many conservatives, if memory serves. His detractors have been proven wrong on this as something like 80% of senior citizens report satisfaction with the program.

Bush's greatest accomplishment is the one you liberals hate him the most for: successfully protecting this nation from terrorism. We haven't been attacked since 9/11 because Bush was the first president to treat terrorism as a war and not a law enforcement problem. He kept us safe, and for that you liberals will never forgive him.

I could go on but I won't because I know it won't do any good with you, Jane. I'll be waiting for your usual partisan, nonsensical, and Orwellian response. Until then, have a blessed Memorial Day, Jane.

Jane said...

"Jane, I will take on one part of your rant: "[Republicans] laid destruction of [that should be "to"] our country the past eight years]. I'm really glad you said that Jane, because it shows just how dishonest, UNfair-minded, and disconnected from reality you truly are. You really are a vacuous libtard who thinks that hysterical hyperbole equals truth. Republicans destroyed America for eight years? Please!

If, after eight years of Bush's presidency, America looked like Zimbabwe--1000% inflation, collapsing food production, unchecked spread of AIDS, and opposition politicians jailed by the ruling party--then you'd be right, Jane. But, after eight years of Bush, America looks NOTHING like that! Jane, can you grasp reality at all?"

Really grasping at straws here aren't we SA? Since Bush didn't make the US look like the 3rd world he gets a passing grade. Your expectations for republicans aren't all that high ;)

Jane said...

Skunky,

your absolutely right, California one of the richest states in the union is an example of liberal disaster. All this shows is the far reaching implications of the recession and the republican "governator's" failure to respond adequately.

But lets look at how conservatives strongholds are doing. Are we to look to them for guidance in this crisis? States with some of the highest unemployment in the country? States with some of the highest crime rates and poverty? Top it off with the lowest incomes, broken education systems, most uninsured, least amount of people getting healthcare, they truly are beacons of succesful ideology. What conservative fairy land do you live in?

But by all means keep playing by yoru stereotypes, its doing you wonders.

Seane-Anna said...

"Since Bush didn't make the US look like the 3rd world he gets a passing grade." Uh, yeah!

Jane, YOU made a dishonest, hyperbolic, typically liberal accusation against Bush, claiming he "laid destruction" to America. Destruction is a loaded word. It means something. I brought up Zimbabwe to show you what a TRULY destructive president does to his country. Of course, it went over your head. As did some of Bush's successes that I mentioned. Jane, you are just committed to a Bush-is-the-devil party line, no matter what the facts actually are. Dealing with you isn't fun anymore. It's sad. Now I know the meaning of that slogan, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".

Jane said...

"Jane, YOU made a dishonest, hyperbolic, typically liberal accusation against Bush, claiming he "laid destruction" to America. Destruction is a loaded word. It means something. I brought up Zimbabwe to show you what a TRULY destructive president does to his country. Of course, it went over your head. As did some of Bush's successes that I mentioned. Jane, you are just committed to a Bush-is-the-devil party line, no matter what the facts actually are. Dealing with you isn't fun anymore. It's sad. Now I know the meaning of that slogan, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste"."

You are quite an arrogant fool, only some 20% of Americans thought he did a good job, are you one of them. Whatever good things Bush has done pale in comparison to the horrible things he's done....and no I don't think Bush is evil just greedy, corrupt, fascist, and above all else stupid. Do you stand for democracy SA? Because if you did you would not have stood for him stealing the election in 2000 and the whole Florida debacle. Under Bush the world, especially Europe, lost most of its trust in the US, does this mean nothing to you?

Why are you so hell bent on beign rebellious, it paints you immediately as an ass with no common sense. Common sense is all that is needed in knowing the knowledge that Bush was a terrible president. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, so why after knowing this did you let yourse slip away?

Jane said...

"Jane, YOU made a dishonest, hyperbolic, typically liberal accusation against Bush, claiming he "laid destruction" to America."

Nope, the US being a western civilized nation, by these standards and what he did, he certainly laid destruction. But if you want to go by 3rd world standards for the sake of argument, go ahead, but realize I'm not taking the bait.

Skunkfeathers said...

Yawp...we conservatives are bad ones, Jane. You've told us, alright. You've used lots of words and have said nothing but how miserable you are with your life, hating America to such an extent that you lay blame for all things you can't stand on someone else, because your liberal ideology has no room for looking in the mirror and saying "I was wrong, I'm responsible for my actions, and I need to get off my fat ass, pull myself up by my bootstraps and work hard to make a better life for myself, 'cuz no one's gonna hand me anything, I have to work for anything good I want to have and achive in life".

You're happy to criticise others, and ignore your own messed up horizon.

But I guess that's understandable. Since you love stereotyping so much -- you've done it as much as you've brought it up, back three posts ago when you called Seane Anna a liar and a racist, words you love without seeing you in their meaning, and you are deeply mired there -- you come across to me as a liberal Andrea Dworkin type: an ugly exterior, an ugly interior, an ugly ideological outlook, and the only way you can find any joy in life at all is to spread your misery liberally (see what I just did there?), since in your twisted liberal mindset, anyone having fun or having something that they've worked for and you haven't, just isn't fair.

Yawp...I reckon you're one of those barlight, Cuervo ten-shot sex kittens (and I might be being kind here), who has no life of her own, so you can spend hours trying to sound like you know a thing or two, when you've demonstrated with no reasoned doubt, you know a thing or two about liberal talking points, and hatred, and little else. And yes, you are filled with hate: internally, you hate yourself, so externally, you project that hate.

Your arguments have been hyperbole, emotional, irrational, illogical, baseless and the kind of thing I expect from a dumbed-down education failure.

You'll continue them, I'm sure, because you have nothing else to offer intellectually, rationally or common sensically; and less to offer as anything other than cheap (blogs are, after all, free) entertainment, even with the most forgiving barlighting and copious quantities of Crown Royal.

It pleases me that I've met you via this means, Jane; no amount of barlighting and libation will make it better in any other venue.

Have you vomited yet? Since you claim I make you thus -- and eventually, you're going to say something truthful herein -- purge away.

Seane-Anna, thank you for inviting Jane to provide us the past few days with this very amusing entertainment.

Skunkfeathers said...

Yeah, Jane, I know I wasn't very courteous. After all, you've stereotyped me as a mean-spirited conservative. I can live with that. I'm flexible. Even while being raised to be self-sufficient, self-responsible and self-accountable (those are real concepts, Jane, look 'em up; just don't try to find them in liberal ideology, where they are rank heresy), I was raised to be respectful, kind and courteous with the female of the species.

But since you've lied more than a cheap whore in 'Vegas, I'm not entirely convinced that you are a female; you're certainly not a cultured, intelligent and well-mannered one. That possibility you buried with your past three posts worth of dysenteric diatribes.

But if you write to your heroine, Bela Pelosi, I'm sure you can get her to put me on the Fairness Doctrine list for shipping off to some gulag that you and your inflatable Bill Ayers sex toy would love to send people like me to. I'm sure they'd do that for you, Jane/James.

Skunkfeathers said...

Seane-Anna: sorry ;) got carried away with those last two comments. But if I truly make Jane sick, I might as well make the heaves substantive and worthwhile. It's the least I can do.

Jane said...

Skunky,

you're very imaginative but it ends there. Insults can only get you so far. All your posts are filled with the same thing, telling me how I use talking points, I'm a riot, etc etc. insult after insult. If you find that is the only way to combat my points, that's fine, it shows me that you have no logical response to the questions posed. So by all means continue your insults, but keep in mind it shows that YOU not me are filled with hate. You counter everything I have posted with hate, conservatives by their very nature close-minded and ignorant, you are no different, mask it whatever way you like.

Jane said...

"Yeah, Jane, I know I wasn't very courteous. After all, you've stereotyped me as a mean-spirited conservative."

And you've proved with your last comment.

"I'm flexible. Even while being raised to be self-sufficient, self-responsible and self-accountable (those are real concepts, Jane, look 'em up; just don't try to find them in liberal ideology, where they are rank heresy), I was raised to be respectful, kind and courteous with the female of the species."

Once again, NOT reality, if you are trying to tell me this is the average conservative. The average conservative is too lazy to use their brains so they let others do it for them, their preacher/priest, their favorite shock jock on the radio, the overlords of Fox news, etc. They buy into all the myths about America, and the cold hard truth is they are predominantly white, low classed, religious zealots, rednecks without a care for culture, I'm sure you see the picture..top it off with failed a failed ideology that only stays a float because it has convinced millions of brainless people it is "pro-America".

"But since you've lied more than a cheap whore in 'Vegas, I'm not entirely convinced that you are a female; you're certainly not a cultured, intelligent and well-mannered one. That possibility you buried with your past three posts worth of dysenteric diatribes."

The sad part is, its all in your mind, who am but a person that has made a few comments on a conservative echo chamber? I am nothing to you, you don't know me, and all the accusations you make against me is your own head and the thoughts implanted their about the average conservative....and everything I have done is no worse than any conservative here has done, but you are blind to that and you just don't give a damn.

What it all boils down to is what I have to say pisses you off, because if it was truly "orwellian", "liberal talking points", "garbage" etc etc you wouldn't give a damn and you certainly wouldn't post such hateful comments to tell me so. You know that I am the majority in this country now and that you and your failed political party are stuck in a tiny corner with its head up its ass, and this angers you to know end so you've put it in word and directed it at me. Glad I could get under your skin so easily, and I hope that you may confront your own problems and maybe find the solutions. In all seriousness good luck.

JMK said...

"Like I said she attaches the word "liberal" to certain minorites who hapen to be left wing. That vast majority of liberals do not agree with this behavior, the VAST majority. The way she labels all liberals like that is unacceptable and is to the core, a lie." (Jane)
<
<
There is certainly a LOT of ideological bigotry on both sides.

The Left, yes, particularly the far-lef, which includes the Moore-Gore-Soros axis has indulged in eight years of relentless, many would say, unjustified hatred against the Right.

There are many Conservatives engaging in the same thing today.

I won't speak for Seane-Anna, but I believe that she means "far-Left" (those of the Olberman, Gore, Soros, Daily Kos) type, when she says "Liberal".

As far as those far-left, America-haters "having no power", I certainly disagree with that.

Keith Olbermann a hate-filled, far-Left loon has "no power"?

Al Gore, another far-Left loon and virulently anti-Capitalist, anti-freedom career politician, has "no power"?

George Soros, the D-Kos folks, the Huff-Po folks and politicians like Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and other far-Left career pols have "no power"?

I'd beg to differ.

Perhaps you don't see the likes of Olbermann, Gore, Soros, Pelosi, Kucinich, Conyers and Dave Brock (of Media Matters), among others, aren't all that extreme nor at all anti-American....but the reality is that they are both extreme and all have taken some anti-American stances.

I oppose the current ODS as much as I opposed the BDS of the past eight years....and G W Bush was a VERY pro-big government (Keynesian) Republican, every bit as Keynesian as Nixon and his Dad (George HW Bush). G W Bysh spent MORE (even adj for inflation) on reckles social spending than LBJ did!

G W Bush signed onto one of the most costly and far-reaching pieces of financial regulation (Sarbannes-Oxley) and he nearly doubled the National Debt over his eight year tenure, although the servicing of that debt remained around 5% of GDP through Bush's tenure.

Bush set the groundwork for much of the Keynesianism we see today...although what we see today is really hyper-Keynesianism.While I agree with your opposition to the "portraying of Obama as a troop hating, America-destroying cretin," he has not been anything like that.

In FACT, Obama has greatly disappointed the far-Left.

He's supported the NSA Surveillance program WITH the Telecom immunities, he's upped the usage of RENDITION, opposed the release of the additional "torture photos", reversed his earlier decision on the Military Tribunals and UPPED Military action in Afghanistan.

He has hardly been "anti-war, or anti-military.

His administration has, however changed some of the tactics and procedures in the war on terrorism (WoT) and that has sparked a legitimate debate between those, like myself, who support Dick Cheney's view and those who support the view annunciated by Barack Obama recently.

While I have opposed the ODS that some on the Right seem to reflexively engage in, I DO believe that much of what the likes of SA say about the far-Left is fairly accurate...the far-Left in America has served as "an enemy within".

Seane-Anna said...

Skunky, no need to apologize for the long comments. I appreciate your support, my brother in arms! And Jane DESERVES to get it with both barrels, so keep on shootin'. You haven't missed yet!

"...you've lied more than a cheap whore in Vegas." Priceless!

JMK said...

"There is a lot wrong with this. Capitalism has its flaws and blindingly trusting it AND everything America does abroad and at home will lead to trouble." (Jane)
<
<
Well, I'd agree that "Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for every other possible economic system."

Capitalism or "the market-based economy" is simply economic Liberty or "freedom".

Liberty (human freedom) is inherently unequal and "unfair", at least when "fair" is defined as "relative equality between individuals".

That's both its strength and weakness.

Those who decry economic inequality fail to realize that such inequality is a hallmark of the most productive, advanced and healthy economies.
<
<
<
<
"Being overly pro-American leaves no room for argument or doubt or of being critical, because lets face it, you aren't being Pro-American, you are being Pro-Republican and you'll hate whatever the democrats do and defend whatever the republicans do." (Jane)
<
<
Republicans do tend to make a virtue out of patriotism.

I really don't see anything wrong with that. More Democrats should do the same....most Conservative (Blue Dog Dems) do just that.

Individual morality is non-transferable to organizations (like governments and corporations) and when we, as individuals, try to anthropomorhize such organizations, we impose a morality on them that is inconsistent with the realities of those entities.

For that reason, YES, both government and corporate entities have to be scrutinized and their powers continually reined in.

Democrats seem to have no problem with government's excesses, while many Republicans appear to have little problem with Corporate excesses.

The reality is often quite different. While most career pols in BOTH Parties support the continual growth of government, they also both all too often have very little problem with Corporate excesses, as BOTH Parties continually court Corporate support.
<
<
<
<
"As well, being overly Pro-American breeds overly Anti-American sentiment abroad, and Americans can't be arrogant enough to think that the world does not matter because we need the support of many countries and people to function the way we do." (Jane)
<
<
For better or worse, we DO live in a world very hostile to human freedom and the American experiment.

Even most of Western Europe disdains the level of individualism and economic Liberty that has been the hallmark of America throughout its existence.

The vast majority of the world (most of Asia, nearly all of sub-Saharan Africa and nearly all of the Arab-Muslim world) are open;ly hostile to what we in America term "freedom and democracy".

For that reason, Americans really cannot worry about what the world thinks of us.

Jefferson, Franklin et al were hundreds of years ahead of the reast of today's modern world, over two hundred years.
<
<
<
<
"I'm not saying patriotism is a bad thing, it certainly is a good thing to be proud of the country you are a part of and to voice your opinion in its decision, you get into touble when your patriotism becomes blinding." (Jane)
<
<
Jane, few if any Conservatives blanketly labeled all those who opposed the military WoT "anti-American".

Far from it.

Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul and many leading Libertarians (Jacob Hornberger and Justin Raimondo, among others) ALL made very detailed arguments AGAINST the military WoT...and none of those were called "anti-American".

Do you know who was?

Those who called America "The world's greatest terrorist", those who likened the Bush administration (which responded to the worst attack EVER on American soil) to the Third Reich, etc.

Those sentiments ARE indeed anti-American. There's no other way to define them.

Seane-Anna said...

Jane, I brought up Zimbabwe not because it's a Third World country but because I wanted to illustrate what it REALLY means for a leader to destroy a nation. Before Robert Mugabe took power in 1980 through the barrel of a gun Zimbabwe, then known as Rhodesia, was one of the most advanced countries in Africa, second only to South Africa. Now, 29 years later, Zimbabwe is a basket case with political repression, mind boggling inflation, rampant disease, and starving people. That really is what it means to destroy a nation, Jane, whether it be a Third World nation or a First World one. Do you get it NOW?

And now to your opinion of Bush. Yes, you DO think the man is evil. You wouldn't call someone a fascist if you didn't think he was evil. Or do you not know what "fascist" means?

You claim that Bush's accomplishments pale in comparison to his failures. Oh, really? Would you say that if he had been a liberal Democratic president? Of course not! If Bush had been a liberal Democrat his prescription drug initiative and the increased home ownership among Blacks would be hailed as great achievements by you and every other liberal. You know they would.

You claim that Bush caused the world to hate us. Oh, please! The bombing of the USS Cole; the bombing of our embassies in East Africa; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the first WTC bombing; the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; the hijacking of the Achille Lauro; the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon; the Iran hostage crisis and, finally, the assassination of RFK by Sirhan Sirhan ALL happened BEFORE Bush became president. How do you explain these acts of anti-American terrorism, Jane, if the world adored America before Bush came along?

Anti-Americanism has been alive and well for decades, maybe even centuries. That's unfortunate, but true. The people who hate us do so for their own demented reasons. Bush did NOT cause the hatred and Obama won't miraculously make it go away. Sorry, Jane, but that's the way of the real world where you should try living sometime.

It's also in the real world where your majority isn't quite what it seems. While it's true that only 21% of Americans identify as Republicans, twice as many Americans identify as conservative rather than liberal. That's a good thing but I'm not a believer in blind majoritarianism. Being in the majority doesn't necessarily mean you're right. There was a time in our history when the majority of Americans believed that women shouldn't vote and that slavery was ok. That wasn't right no matter how many people believed it. So don't get cocky about your current majority status, Jane. It's not quite what you think and it can change on a dime.

Now it's time for me to go to bed. I'll be back, though. Just like the Terminator. Muuuuuaaaaahhh!

Skunkfeathers said...

It'd be hard to beat the superb parsing and analysis provided by JMK of Jane's pithy and very subcommontary; but I will add one thing: saying that Bush in 8 years put the US comparable to a Third World country is but one more undeniable demonstration of Jane's abysmal waste of her educational opportunities in this great country of ours, and her inability to separate truth from delusion.

And you can get under my skin if you wish to try, Jane; an anti-biotic shot will cure it ;)

Jane said...

JMK,

I appreciate your non-hateful way of responding you can teach much to Skunk and SA, but I stand by what I said, I appreciate your response.

SA,

As always, stupid. Trying to have a debate with you is like having a debate with a door knob. But when one has no sense to speak of, such as yourself, they try there hardest to annoy the other as much as they can, and I'm afraid you are winning. Your goldfish sized brain is spitting out the same rhetoric as you've puked out in all of your other posts. I have tried my best to get through my own opinion but your only response is insult and hate.

Skunky,

Same for you, except your hate is much more black hearted whereas SA comes off as a drunk tramp.

Jane said...

"It'd be hard to beat the superb parsing and analysis provided by JMK of Jane's pithy and very subcommontary; but I will add one thing: saying that Bush in 8 years put the US comparable to a Third World country is but one more undeniable demonstration of Jane's abysmal waste of her educational opportunities in this great country of ours, and her inability to separate truth from delusion."

Thank goodness I never compared the US to a 3rd world country than.

A little advice buddy, read before you write. You won't make so many irrelevant comments ;)

JMK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JMK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JMK said...

A BIG part of the problem Jane is that both sides can be contentious and impolite.

You say you have a problem with "mean-spirited conservatives", but your own comments here are as vituperative and mean-spirited as anyone else's.

You are passionate about your beliefs, so are Seane-Anna, Skunkfeathers, Roady, Tom and others, as is their right, as much as it is your own.

BOTH sides think the other is wrong, and worse yet, both sides tend to ascribe the very worst motives to those with whom they disagree....that's human nature and a real part of the human condition.

BUT, if you're looking to reach those with whom you disagree and try to show why your own ideas are better, or at least have merit, then dealing with insults is probably not the best way to go about that.

Look at some of your own responses;
<
"You are a disgrace, you live in some sort of polarized limbo."
<
"I think I may take the liberty to officially call you stupid."
<
"It's really tragic that you cannot use your brains."

<
"The amount of disrespect for people I have who look at such blatantly false information and say things like "spot on". It makes me want to vomit."
<
"Let me make this clear for your tiny brain, hopefully your stupid agressive argumentative self will finally understand."
<
"Most moronic of the morons you two are, and truly pathetic to boot :)"
<
"...if you are trying to tell me this is the average conservative. The average conservative is too lazy to use their brains so they let others do it for them, their preacher/priest, their favorite shock jock on the radio, the overlords of Fox news, etc. They buy into all the myths about America, and the cold hard truth is they are predominantly white, low classed, religious zealots, rednecks without a care for culture, I'm sure you see the picture..top it off with failed a failed ideology that only stays a float because it has convinced millions of brainless people it is "pro-America"."
<
"You are lying, and spreading fasle information HOW SO? because you say liberals, ALL liberals by their very nature hate the troops, america etc etc. when in reality it is only small percentages of the left wing. FILTHY STINKIN' LIAR."
<
<
I know you've taken some shots too, BUT that is hardly the best way to come across when YOU are trying to reach those with whom you disagree, although I don't know if that's really your intention or not....I'm just assuming that it is.

As I said, I believe that when Seane-Anna says "Liberal" she means what you and I (and others) would call "the far-Left".

Mike Moore, Al Gore, George Soros, Keith Olbermann, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, David Brock and other far-Left have come to dominate the Democratic Party and today, for better or worse, represent the face of the American Left.

Apparently too few (more moderate) Liberals have had enough of a problem with those ghouls to have distanced themselves from them...and that is to their everlasting discredit.

So, Seane-Anna's using "Liberal" instead of "far-Left" can certainly be excused, given the control that the Moore-Gore-Soros axis has over modern American Liberalism.

JMK said...

Jane, I'm aware that you take issue with Seane-Anna and others constantly demonizing Barack Obama.

I have as well.

I've said Conservatives must be very specific in their criticisms and save their most vituperative criticisms for the most vital issues and ultimately, given the results of the last election, they must let Liberalism/Keynesianism fail before things are going to change.

The last time we had a Keynesian Republican (Nixon) and G W Bush's biggest flaw was that he was a BIG government Keynesian, followed by a very Keynesian Democratic administration (Carter) we wound up with "the REAL worst U.S. economy since the Great Depression" - a 23% prime lending rate, a staggering 22 point Misery Index and STAGFLATION (double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates)...a real economic calamity.

I have said, "Bush Derangement Syndrome, Obama Derangement Syndrome and Rush Derangement Syndrome are all part of a singular and similar pathological approach to ideology, one that vilifies the other side as “evil” merely because of their views..."...That’s why Conservatives, who’ve rightly railed against the staggering amount of BDS over the past eight years and RDS over the past two decades, MUST avoid the temptations of ODS."Barack Obama’s genius has laid in being able to advance a Left-wing agenda under the banner of Moderation. He is politically astute and has surrounded himself with a gifted inner circle – Rahm Emanuel, his Chief-of-Staff is a consummate politician."Seane-Anna has stongly disagreed with that view.

I don't take that disagreement to be insulting at all. It's an honest disagreement, but one thing I'm certain of is that by responding in anger and with insults will only harden the positions of those I disagree with.

Jane said...

"A BIG part of the problem Jane is that both sides can be contentious and impolite."

Yes, I am certainly guilty of that and not proud that I sunk that low but when you are angry emotions tend to get the best of you. Throughout life you live and you learn, and I certainly will but I stand by the core statements made.

JMK said...

Your core disagreement here seems to be Seane-Anna's use of the term "Liberal" when chronicling the long list of the abuses and calumny of the far-Left.

As I said, that can certainly be overlooked, given that the extremists, the Moore-Gore-Soros-MSNBC axis has dominated the Liberal-wing of the Democratic Party in recent years and have become the face of the American Left.

It's easy for any of us to get overcome by our emotions when talking about principles we care deeply about.

Hopefully, you and Seane-Anna would agree that protecting America from further attack is far more vital than treating captured terrorist jihadists as we would any American accused of a crime.

For one thing, enemy combatants (spies, mercenaries and others who "fight out of uniform") are routinely killed NOT captured, when encountered on the battlefield, and that's by ALL nations - the French and british do that as well. The Iraqis did that to our own contractors in Fallujah.

I personally supported the slaughter of John ("Taliban Johnny") Walker-Lindt when he was captured after the death of a CIA agent in a raid on a Taliban outpost.

At the moment Walker-Lindt took up arms against the USA, he relinquished his American citizenship and fighting for a group that wore no uniforms, made him, what they were - "enemy combatants", as defined by the Geneva Protocols.

He SHOULD'VE been killed right there....no loss to the U.S., no violation of any major laws or principles.

Jane said...

"As I said, that can certainly be overlooked, given that the extremists, the Moore-Gore-Soros-MSNBC axis has dominated the Liberal-wing of the Democratic Party in recent years and have become the face of the American Left."

The only one of those that I would attribute to Anti-American behaviour would be Moore, if that. What has Gore and MSNBC done to be anti-American? You may not like their opinions but thye aren't anti-American.

"Hopefully, you and Seane-Anna would agree that protecting America from further attack is far more vital than treating captured terrorist jihadists as we would any American accused of a crime."

America takes priorty, her security and her ideals. That is what the debate on waterboarding was about for me. When you treat detainees, no matter if they are the scum of the Earth, they shouldn't be treated inhumanely, it's against our ideals and will only cripple us in the end, keep in mind that not all detainees in Guantanamo are terrorists and not all those that are waterboarded are terrorists.

JMK said...

"The only one of those that I would attribute to Anti-American behaviour would be Moore, if that. What has Gore and MSNBC done to be anti-American? You may not like their opinions but thye aren't anti-American." (Jane)
<
<
That's an interesting view Jane, but actually MSNBC (especially Olbermann, Madow and some others) is one of the worst offenders.

They've actually rooted AGAINST the U.S. in both wars....they rooted AGAINST "the surge" and did their best to downplay its effectiveness.

AlGore also supported the jihadists, comparing them to America's Minutemen while he visited the Palestinian territories.

George Soros is a commmited socialist....and socialism (predicated on the eradication of private property) is by its very nature anti-American.

Our Constitution is predicated on PRIVATE PROPERTY rights!

The NY Times and MSNBC are two of the most vile Corporate media outlets in existence.

MSNBC is a propaganda mouthpiece for its holding company, GE, which profited off both wars, has pushed for nationalized healthcare in hopes of glomming the bulk of the government's medical records business and has supported a nebulous "green jobs initiative" hoping to garner the bulk of the profits from those as well. MSNBC serves as a shill for GE's interests, which are "a melding of government and business" at this time.

This is often a part of the problem of communication, between Left and Right....we both define "extremist" very differently, as we define so many other things differently as well.

JMK said...

"America takes priorty, her security and her ideals. That is what the debate on waterboarding was about for me. When you treat detainees, no matter if they are the scum of the Earth, they shouldn't be treated inhumanely, it's against our ideals and will only cripple us in the end..." (Jane)
<
<
You have it right with the very first phrase, "America takes priorty, her security..."We routinely keep American citizens who are suspects of violent felonies up for long hours (72 to 96 hours), they are subject to implied threats, like being put in a cell with a much larger, sex-obsessed inmate and to "misdirection" and outright lies - "Your buddy just gave you up. He's saying you were the one with the gun. So why are you defending a guy who threw you under the bus? Because that's what your silence is doing."

Why is that "inhumane" for captured "enemy combatants" that DON'T have any POW standing, according to the Geneva Protocols.
<
<
<
<
"...keep in mind that not all detainees in Guantanamo are terrorists and not all those that are waterboarded are terrorists." (Jane)
<
<
Jane that is absolutely UNTRUE!

ALL of those at Gitmo were captured on the Afghanistan battlefields.

Moreover only THREE detainees (ALL of them confirmed terrorists) were waterboarded.
.
.
"For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials..
"As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director..
"The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States..
"A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked."Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl..
"KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case..
"ABC News first reported on waterboarding in November 2005 as part of a George Polk Award-winning series of reports on the agency and its practices. In that report, CIA sources outlined for ABC News a list of harsh interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration in a "Presidential Finding," which authorized the use of the techniques on a narrow range of "high-value" targets.".
.
ABC News
November 02, 2007
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html#
.
.
That's ABC News Jane.

No one to date has ever refuted that story....because it's the truth.

Jane said...

"That's an interesting view Jane, but actually MSNBC (especially Olbermann, Madow and some others) is one of the worst offenders."

Hmmm, I find you to hold the interesting view, I enjoy both Maddow and Olbermann.

"George Soros is a commmited socialist....and socialism (predicated on the eradication of private property) is by its very nature anti-American."

That is conservative fear politics, there are aspects of socialism that are good, and there are aspects of socialism are bad, but just because someone may be a supporter of socialism doesn't make them anti-American.

"MSNBC is a propaganda mouthpiece for its holding company, GE, which profited off both wars, has pushed for nationalized healthcare in hopes of glomming the bulk of the government's medical records business and has supported a nebulous "green jobs initiative" hoping to garner the bulk of the profits from those as well. MSNBC serves as a shill for GE's interests, which are "a melding of government and business" at this time."

Proof of this? Besides, all news corps are corrupt, which is why I use several different news sources from all over the world to get different viewpoints. I believe what you stated is just puffed up conservative opinion in order to make Fox and co. look good, if you give me actual proof I will concede this point.

Here is a documentary about Murdoch and Fox news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WGq8qZ4Jfs&feature=PlayList&p=A6FC800D209B1D11&index=0&playnext=1

this is part 1 of 9, just click to the right for the other parts.



"Jane that is absolutely UNTRUE!

ALL of those at Gitmo were captured on the Afghanistan battlefields"

Again I would like proof that not all those detained were terrorists. All came from battlefields...meaning? The cities, towns, villages, etc. Her is an article in the Washington Post of a French-Algerian who spent years in Guantanamo, he was innocent. His case is mirrored many times over.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502263.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR

Did this man come from a battlefield? Was he a terrorist?

Now concerning the ABC article,
here is a similar article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/05/india.terrorism

This is all they are admitting to, and they twist their words and make it awful hard to follow. Such as this:

"Hayden told the committee that fewer than 100 people had been held in the CIA's terrorism detention and interrogation programme, with less than one-third subjected to "coercive" techniques."

And it isn't just waterboarding, it is all the scandal concerning the CIA: abuse, torture, etc.

And I acknowledge that it isn't just the US that is doing so, the UK's M15 is dealing with their own torture scandal.

Seane-Anna said...

JMK, you're a saint! Trying to reach Bonehead with reason is a truly supernatural task; you've earned your wings! Unfortunately, you're tragically wasting your efforts. Bonehead is a lost cause.

The jig was up when she claimed that not all of the waterboarded detainees were terrorists. WTF?!?! That was Bonehead's HTM: Helen Thomas Moment, from Helen "so-called terrorists" Thomas. With that one sentence, Bonehead destroyed what ever credibility she had left as a rational human being. She exposed herself as the far-left loon I always suspected she was.

JMK, don't believe Bonehead when she says she'll concede your point if you show her proof. NOTHING you show her will be proof if it contradicts the constructed, leftist reality she resides in. That's what I've learned after weeks of dealing with this woman. She is a certifed, left-wing LOON.

JMK, if you still have hope and wish to keep on trying to reach Bonehead, be my guest. Who knows? You might stimulate that one independent synapse she still has in her brain. Me? I'm done. Well, MAYBE, if Bonehead writes something that tops her HTM, I might respond, but until then I officially give this "prize" to you. Enjoy. Or shudders.

JMK said...

"Hmmm, I find you to hold the interesting view, I enjoy both Maddow and Olbermann." (Jane)
<
<
That's not surprising, given your views, but BOTH Olbermann and Maddow are, to be kind, "far-Left loons."
<
<
"...there are aspects of socialism that are good, and there are aspects of socialism are bad, but just because someone may be a supporter of socialism doesn't make them anti-American." (Jane)
<
<
Note, I DIDN'T say "those who believe in socialism are anti-American," I said SOCIALISM itself is anti-American...and it is.

We are wed to the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution.

Even IF it could be proven that we could have utopia on earth if we simply gave up private property rights, America was Founded on that principle and we are beholden to it.

But have no fear, there IS no possibility of any utopia on earth. Moreover, private property rights and economic LIBERTY are the fount of prosperity.

That's one of the greatest things about freedom, it's completely incompatible with equality. More freedom breeds more inequity, and an ever greater disparity in wealth, because that's the natural outcome of the most productive amassing more wealth, the more they produce.

What's astounding to me is that there are still people so naive as to believe demonstrably untrue things like, "The more wealth the rich glom, the less there is for everyone else."

As a matter of fact, Keith Olbermann is one of the dolts who professes to believe exactly THAT!

Well, in fact, wealth is fluid. There is no fixed economic pie, or set amount of wealth in the world, which is why "the Malthusian school of economics," which positied precisely that, has been relegated to the dust-bin of history.

In FACT, productive people, who create new businesses and bring new products to market, CREATE wealth....not currency (currnecy isn't even a leading form of wealth) but REAL WEALTH.

Wealth is constantly expanding and contracting. Wealth is fluid not static and the more the most productive produce, the more wealth there is in circulation.
<
<
Rupert Murdoch runs a media conglomerate. He's in no other business.

When companies like Westinghouse (which owned CBS) and GE which owns NBC and its affiliates own media outlets, THAT very act is a corruption.

JMK said...

"This is all they are admitting to, and they twist their words and make it awful hard to follow....And it isn't just waterboarding, it is all the scandal concerning the CIA: abuse, torture, etc." (Jane)
<
<
The same article rightly explains these other "coercive techniques":
<
According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:<
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.2. The Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.4. Longtime Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.<
<
NONE of those are "torture."

Torture is "the inflicting of extreme pain AND permanent disability upon a subject".

Now, me personally, I DON'T oppose real torture...at least in extreme cases.

I had an uncle who'd been a NYC Cop. He was a big bear of a man and I only knew him as a very large but very kind, easy going, quiet man.

He died just after I got into HS. After he died, I learned he had a unique job with the Police Dept back in his day. Whenever a thug would shoot at or wound a cop (or worse) they'd bring that guy into an interrogation room with my uncle.

He was a towering figure, made all the more imposing by his barrel chest and his huge arms and legs.

His M.O. was to say nothing, then get up and wrap four telephone books around the suspect's head and duct tape them to the guy's skull.

All the time ignoring the guy's cries of "What are you doing?"

Then he'd pace around for a few minutes, then suddenly grab a baseball bat he'd have in a corner and begin teeing off on the phone books.

After just a few seconds, in almost every case, the suspect would tell them EVERYTHING he did....often, even things he did as a kid.

For extreme cases, such tactics work.

Does a guy who shot at a cop deserve all that?

To me....yeah, I mean, why not?

Does a terrorist scumbag like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri deserve any better treatment? (Those ARE the ONLY THREE subjects that there's any documentation were waterboarded.)

I'd say, if anything, they deserve WORSE.

As I said, "enemy combatants" (which means ANYONE fighting WITHOUT a uniform) can be killed on sight in any war zone, according to the Geneva Protocols....France and Britain both do that....our own Special Forces do not take prisoners and the enemy does not either, as the civilian contractors killed in Fallujah demonstrate.

Roadhouse said...

Jane said:
"That is a stretch from what SA is saying, and fyi this is an opinion. I believe conservative policies aren't in America's best interests. Doesn't mean I'm going around talking about Anti-Americans."

"Anti-American" is as "anti-American" does.

Anti-American policies:
1. abortion (see Bill of Rights)
2. government control of private industry or business (tyranny, socialism)
3. subserviance to the U.N. (treason)
4. income redistribution via bailouts and massive government intervention and spending (socialism)
5. universal health care (socialism)
6. no regard for the constitution in judicial appointments, rather "diversity", "empathy" and "personal story" (tyranny and/or treason).
7. giving constitutional rights to terrorists who have never been American citizens (treason)
8. refusal to control/end illegal immigration (dereliction of duty)
9. excessively taxation of those who provide our jobs and products. (tyanny)
10. anchoring America to the man-made global warming hysteria and resulting "cap and trade" and/or Kyoto idiocy (malfeasance, treason).

These are not beliefs or opinions. They are things that are actually happening as we speak and are going to result in less freedom and liberty for everyone...even you.

Jane said...

"The jig was up when she claimed that not all of the waterboarded detainees were terrorists."

Your poor naive soul. I was having an actual interesting debate with another human being, enjoying the absense of your ridiculous insult ridden comments. It would do both me and you good if you just stayed out of this, you're incredibly obnoxious.

JMK,

Concerning torture, I've already stated my own viewpoints on it, and I believe the CIA and Bush and his cronies to be very untruthful when it came to their "enhanced interrogation" techniques, a little view into that world was Abhu Ghraib and the abuse documented at Guantanamo, my Washington Post article.

"That's not surprising, given your views, but BOTH Olbermann and Maddow are, to be kind, "far-Left loons."

It all comes from where you stand on the political spectrum, they 100 times more truthful than what you would find on Fox News, most reporters will support a republican to whatever ends. As Bill O'Reilly said about Palin after learning she didn't know basic geography and anything about political relations, "she can be schooled in this stuff once she gets in." one little nugget of knowledge into the hypocritial self-decepting world of Bill O'Reilly.

"What's astounding to me is that there are still people so naive as to believe demonstrably untrue things like, "The more wealth the rich glom, the less there is for everyone else."

The only tie in I can think of is the corporations and big companies who rely on Republicans and their ideology. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" This is a true statement.


"(Those ARE the ONLY THREE subjects that there's any documentation were waterboarded.)"

documented being the key word.

See the whole concern for me over waterboarding, etc. is that it is a product of the slow decay and abuse done to the US justice system. Places like Guantanamo, a prison run in Cuba, and Abu Ghraib and all the CIA ghost prisons. It isn't right and it's against this country's values and morals. Did you read the article in the Washington Post? Does it not bring up concerns about the innocent people who are being abused and detained in prisons run by the US?

Jane said...

Roadie,

nothing whatsoever to say, In my "opinion" what your wrote is fabricated right wing fear politics. But this is only my "opinion".

Skunkfeathers said...

Jane, as I read your last entries, you feel the US should be morally above any kind of torture, anytime. And that would be fine, if wars were fought like a boxing match, dictated by Maquis of Queensbury rules that all combatants followed.

Alas, war isn't. War is a primal, ugly, nasty thing, from the earliest stages of Man. We haven't found a universal answer to war yet. Sure, we have some wispy notions, and some societies are more willing to adopt them than others. And that's the problem: the others who aren't so wispy-minded.

Men are still driven to compete. The reasons aren't all good and aren't all negative, but takers are always looking for givers; they're less likely to take on someone who they know not only isn't intimidated by them, but will fight them.

Civilized society helps to keep primal urges in check with rules, ethics, morality, and when needed, the justice system and prison. Civilized society keeps the more strategic threats in check with a well-trained, well-armed military.

But there are enemies who won't take on our military head-on; they'll go for our more vulnerable "soft" targets. And they know enough in the 21st Century to use propaganda, as well as terror, as their weapons.

From our own media, they know the moral and ethical gymnastics we put ourselves through to defend ourselves. They also don't have the same moral dilemma about torture and human life. Daniel Purl and Nick Burgh unwillingly proved that.

Jane, I don't like torture. I don't like the idea of torture. I don't think I have it in me to torture another person, in the manner of 'torture' as I would define it. Might my reluctance change, if I knew the person I had to get info from, knew where a nuke was planted, and would kill millions, if I didn't get the information out of him by any means at my disposal? I hope so.

After 9/11, that's where our government and our military found themselves, in order to defend us.

In a war, things are sacrificed. That's not a thing to be celebrated, but it is a reality of war. This isn't a war we want to lose. We don't want to lose a war to people like Osama bin Laden. You wouldn't like life under the Taliban or sharia law, Jane. Nor would Seane-Anna. Nor JMK. Nor I.

A former military officer from Korea wrote a helluva book 10 years later about it, and made some devastating observations that are as relevant today as when he made them 47 years ago.

He said this: "any kind of war short of jihad was, is, and will be unpopular with the people. Because such wars are fought with legions, and Americans, even when they are proud of them, do not like their legions. They do not like to serve in them, nor even allow them to be what they must. for legions have no ideological or spiritual home in the liberal society. The liberal society has no use or need for legions--as its prophets have long proclaimed. Except in this world are tigers.

If liberal, decent societies cannot discipline themselves to do what they must to sustain and support their legions to defend them against tigers, they may not have anything to offer the world. They may not last long enough".

We can't fight an enemy like Al Qaida and the Taliban with kid gloves and velvet diplomacy. They only understand the ruthless application of military power.
I don't have a better answer than this, Jane. I don't profess to be perfect or know how God will judge me for these words and my overall deeds in this life. But if this nation is to survive as a free, constitutionally representative republic in the face of this or any other enemy, sometimes, we must do things our conscience tell us isn't "us".

Skunkfeathers said...

And let me explain that last, for clarity's sake: in WWII, our conscience -- and our military doctrine -- told us that we could daylight precision bomb against German and Japanese targets, and not target civilians, and that we must morally try to avoid civilian casualties as best we could. The Germans, Japanese, and even the British, weren't so minded. Hitler was bombing British cities as, in his mind, a justified use of terror, to undermine British morale. Arthur "Bomber" Harris of the RAF Bomber Command took a similar view. Kill the workers, kill their morale to support their murderous regime.

Fact is -- and the US Military and government knew it -- even the US Eighth Air Force, when it went after targets in Germany, was killing civilians with each raid, even when the target was clearly a military target. And as German and Japanese officials moved more and more industry they could into residential areas, more civilians would die. German and Japanese officials knew it.

To bring the war to an end, the Allies had to attack the things that fed the German and Japanese war machines. And civilians were in the way. Be nice, or end the bloodiest war in human history, one the Allies didn't start?

We all know the answer to that.

So...we sacrificed an ideal during the war that we had often said we stood for; and we have said we've stood for since: we don't target civilians.

It's a nice ideal, but when the issue swings to war, it just doesn't hold up. War eats anything in its path. And sometimes, to end it, something we morally wouldn't make a target, becomes one of necessity.

Find me a war wherein civilians have been spared.

So...and I don't expect this to change your mind, but at least ponder...the US morally doesn't stand for 'torture'. True enough: we don't drive burning bamboo slivers under the fingernails of our prisoners, even when they are terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention (because they're not signatories to it, and they don't care about the Geneva Convention when they're killing civilians).

But we will use techniques to garner information, information to protect our troops, our allies, and ourselves. Whether those techniques are legitimate torture, or become an exercise in political spin to be stretched to be torture or not, isn't in my view the issue. The issue is...will an enhanced interrogation technique on a terrorist possessing potentially vital information, save dozens to millions of lives?

If the answer is yes, then I vote it is justified as a war time necessity.

Saints don't fight wars; nor do saints win them. To survive, we can't always be saints. Our enemies certainly aren't.

This doesn't diminish the good things we believe in, stand for, and offer the world. It does allow us to continue to offer much good to the world. Us defeated and destroyed by Islamofascism, we have nothing left to offer anyone.

Seane-Anna said...

Ok, Bonehead, you crossed the line. You've outdone your HTM. Just who the HELL do you think you are telling me to "just stay out of" a debate on MY OWN blog?! This just further shows what a vacuous and arrogant libtard you really are.

Earth to Bonehead: if I create a blog it's MINE. I'm in charge and I can vigorously join in any debate I choose. Of course, you can create your own blog and have all the "rights of ownership" as I have with mine. However, like a typical libtard, you'd rather just dictate to me what I can and can't do with my own property. BS to that! If anybody's staying out of anything here it's YOU, Bonehead.

Telling me what I can do on my own blog. You've got some nerve, Bonehead, just like your fantasy lover in the White House. No wonder you voted for him.

Seane-Anna said...

"poor naive soul"? I'll cop to the poor part and, yes, I have a soul, but naive? Don't think so, chickie!

You're the ditz who said that not all of the waterboarded detainess are terrorists, but I'm naive? Well, if I am naive better that than a mean spirited, reality challenged, lying, doctrinaire ideological twit like you!

Roadhouse said...

Jane,
Are you implying that one, some, or all of the things I listed aren't happening?
Can you elaborate?