From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
O'Reilly's henchmen wear suits
March 3, 2005 10:45 AM
I was pretty calm about this yesterday, but now O'Reilly wants to silence me and the News Hounds.
His henchwoman is demanding I take down a LINK to his column: "Creators Syndicate demands that you immediately cease and desist from your unauthorized use of the link to Bill OReillys column on his website"
The News Hounds have every right to link to that column, and they can say whatever the hell they want about it. See the Ticketmaster ruling from 2000.
This is now, without question, intimidation.
UPDATE, 12:41PM PT: Thanks to the wonderful help of Lawrence Lessig and Jennifer Granick at Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society, I'm confident I am well within my rights to refuse to remove the link. Here's my response to Ms. Lee:
Dear Ms. Lee:
I do not intend to take the link down. Please refer future inquiries
to my attorney, Jennifer Granick. Her contact information is below.
[contact info removed]
O'Reilly's henchmen wear suits
Next Entry: Scrubbing of Boston Legal episode (03.10.2005)
Previous Entry: Boston Legal episode about Outfoxed never mentions Fox News! (03.03.2005)
Read the 86 comments.
If you are forced to mount a legal defense, I'm good for $100. I would assume there are plenty more like me who find these scare tactics repugnant.
I would also suggest coordinating with EFF. This is really the sort of thing they specialize in.
Contact information is here:
MoveOn.org may also be able to assist in some fashion.
Thu Mar 3 2005 11:43 AM
California anti-SLAPP project:
Survival guide for SLAPP victims:
EFF SLAPP information:
Thu Mar 3 2005 11:48 AM
From that SLAPP survival guide (I don't know how accurate this is):
"A good way to remain involved is to know your legal rights. Become familiar with California's "anti-SLAPP" statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. This statute does not guarantee that you will never be the target of a SLAPP. However, it presents a mechanism through which a judge can dismiss a SLAPP against you at the very outset of the suit. If the judge rules that the suit must be dismissed, the SLAPP filer is required to pay the cost of your defense, including any attorneys' fees."
Thu Mar 3 2005 11:50 AM
The other problem is that the URL you're referring to is specified to be indexed and cached by search engines. Google has a copy of it on their servers.
That site, specifically, wants other sites to link to it.
equals please link my site.
He's going to have to sue Google and Microsoft as well.
Thu Mar 3 2005 2:37 PM
That's bad. I wish they wouldn't do that sorta thing. Keep the link up.
Thu Mar 3 2005 6:34 PM
If this thing goes to court, you should countersue on the grounds that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says you can't predict both spin and location, so how the hell can there be a designated no-spin zone in the first place without voodoo or fraud?
I love you.
Thu Mar 3 2005 9:33 PM
Just a fairly irrelevant thought: his henchmen wear suits, but what about his henchwomen? Your distinction is somewhat unclear.
Go fight the rogues, Jim. Fight the bad power. They (obviously) have no right to use this type of scare strategy on you.
Fri Mar 4 2005 1:24 AM
Why would O'Reilly waste any amount of time or money on something like this? Does he have some kind of hit list? I wouldn't be surprised. He probably stays up late at night plotting revenge against anyone who has ever criticized him. What a sad existence O'Reilly's life must be.
Fri Mar 4 2005 5:44 AM
About as sad as spending your life attacking a news channel.
Fri Mar 4 2005 7:17 AM
Sure would be generous of you to send your Cease and Desist letter to chillingeffect.org, they love this type of shit.
where's my loofah?
Fri Mar 4 2005 11:58 AM
Thanks ben, that's a good idea. I just submitted the letter there.
Fri Mar 4 2005 2:17 PM
THU, MARCH 3, 2005
FNC O'REILLY 2,429,000 [VIEWERS]
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,576,000
FNC GRETA 1,364,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,316,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,265,000
CNN MARTHA SPECIAL 893,000
CNN ZAHN 688,000
CNNHN NANCY GRACE 540,000
CNN COOPER 537,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 385,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 269,000
E! MICHAEL JACKSON 237,000
MSNBC SCARBROUGH 216,000
Fri Mar 4 2005 3:36 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
This is pointless. Putting up numbers of viewers to justify crap is of no value. Watch what you wanna watch. Just be prepared to take the crap that follows.
I for one feel perfectly obliged, obligated even, to call Fox trash and people who watch it stupid. I'm sure that its a bad sweeping generalization and that i could actually post that blanket statement accross the gamut to include all American media. It's amazing how the right succeeded in crying for so long and so loud about the 'biased liberal media' when if one was to seriously step back and view it from the outside (where i have the luxury) youd note that the American media pretty much starts at center right and goes to fanatical right. REAL left wing liberal media would have consistantly hounded and blasted this sham of a president for all his errors and mistakes, but he gets carte blanche and unyielding support/sympathy from the media in the US. They are too quick to run to his aid, deflect critisism or justify the unjustifiable.
True left wing media comes from the likes of ANTIWAR.com and lewrockwell.com. It is here where you will find facts and questions that are shielded from the president as he is coddled by the traditional press/media.
And before anyone even considers trying to flame me, i'll give you an unequivacal example of what i mean. Most of you may know NJguardsman has posted on this blog before. I have had many heated exchanges with him on many levels. He is my proof. I'm sure he MUST be an avid FOX viewer, because continues to believe in the 3 major Iraq falicies that were proven untrue that over 70% of Fox viewers believed were true. (WMD found/support for Al-Quada/9-11 connection)He's probably still off in Iraq 'combing' the desert looking for the missing WMD!
HOW ON EARTH can so many people believe or be led to believe absolute BS? Then you may ask "well how'd the other networks fare?" - almost as pitiful, you had to go down to the bottom of the list where you had PBS and NPR! Starts on page 12. Read it, it's not that hard.
So im going to ask again! If there's a bloody 'left wing' agenda in the media, how come everyone swallowed this tripe? Anyone over on a REAL left wing media outlet saw right through this adminstrations BS. I can only assume either you got taken in by the 'right wing' american media, or your just a tard.
Hence i have the moral justification to call ANYONE who watches Fox as their primary 'news' source a (*&%^(*&^( dumbass! And i make no apologies for it either. Im not looking to make friends here. You may be very nice people in real life, but if your worldview is that narrow (like the current administration) you should be nowhere near any discussion of politics or policy matters.
Fri Mar 4 2005 4:38 PM
You opinion reflects that which makes a your country so unimportant in the world. The only thing your country has going for it is its proximity to the US. If Americans what to have a weak marginalized country that cant even defend itself, you'll be the first one they ask for help.
Fri Mar 4 2005 5:18 PM
I'm still unclear as to why linking to a site violates copyright and why, when any article or column is either published or posted (online or otherwise) pointing readers to it is a threat.
If anybody has a problem with either his or her own column or other people linking to it, why wouldn't he or she either password protect it or take it down?
Isn't this something to be taken up with the Corvallis Gazette Times? How DARE they pay writers only to expose their work to the general public. It makes me sick.
What an insane loop.
Fri Mar 4 2005 7:45 PM
Red S. Tater:
Hey, I'd like to thank whoever put up the rating numbers.
Can you find Professional Wrestling for me? I'm just a wonderin how those numbers stack up. I'm a real wrestlin fan.
Yours in God
Sat Mar 5 2005 2:58 PM
"You opinion reflects that which makes a your country so unimportant in the world. The only thing your country has going for it is its proximity to the US. If Americans what to have a weak marginalized country that cant even defend itself, you'll be the first one they ask for help."
Of course the US won't need our help. It has nuclear missiles built by friendly Nazi scientists and masses of wealth generated by slavery.
Unless you consider the fact that many marginalized countries taking a stand together have much more clout than one pig-headed fool of a country, your argument stands to reason.
The US is very lucky that so many poor Eastern European countries (moreso defenseless than Canada) were begging to join NATO at the outset of this Iraq war. Otherwise, the US would be facing even more of the brunt of this ill-conceived war.
Why don't you bastards send Rumsfeld to shake hands with the next bloody fascist you leave in power.
But isn't this all a bit off topic?
No one in their right mind can think US media has fair representation on the left.
For all of those who call CNN the Communist News Network, maybe you should go back to school and try to learn something.
When's the last time you've heard a socialist analysis of the US economy on CNN?
You people don't know the difference between right and left anymore.
And for the guy who I quoted in this post:
You're point of view isn't strengthened by the size of the US military's arsenal.
Just like the way Ancient Greece's relative world domination didn't justify raping little boys.
Sat Mar 5 2005 5:49 PM
This is total goon-ball. They hope they can find someone who doesn't know enough about available legal resources or without any resources so they can try their various "test-cases". Poking and prodding to find the fissures within their "enemies" strengths. In this case our strength is that the law is on our sides. They also know this, but are not limited in their "research and development" of a crack down on those who might try to hold their elected officials accountable by money or free-time.
It's the people's duty in a democracy to conduct oversight, and as the constitution recognizes this natural right must be exercised in order to sustain our vision of the maximization of government for by and of the people, the utility of the press as citizen tool was codified, and shall ultimately be upheld, I believe in the courts.
It's about the retention of power. It always is. Remember that all of these people have at their root a deep seeded and wholly unwarranted victimization complex. Its this convoluted paranoia that drives them, and in the end will beat them.
Bill really thinks hes a victim of a greater, malevolent, secular power that is bigger then him and in control. Because he feels powerless, (irrationally), hes driven by the same fuel that drives us to speak what we perceive as, truth to power. Problem is, hes wrong. Hes all turned around.
Thanks for fighting Jim. Youre in the right, and Bill's just like the "bully" from "Mean Creek", except he's not 12.
Sun Mar 6 2005 2:43 AM
What law has Bill broke? And if the answer is none, then who is playing the victim right now?
Sun Mar 6 2005 3:30 AM
You are right sir. Billy O is irrationally paranoid and seeks to protect and/or concentrate his power. We should start calling him Kim-Jung Bill O'Reilly. In fact, the IAEA may want to start monitoring KJBOR, because he may seek to acquire nukes for critical leverage (Bush would just drag his feet until KJBOR gets 'em, if history is a teacher).
Also, you said:
"...in order to sustain our vision of the maximization of government for by and of the people, the utility of the press as citizen tool was codified..."
I surely hope one would find, at least, a simple majority of Americans who feel this as true. People who feel that the free press' raison d'etra is to be critical, skeptical, and free from influence of those in power positions - whatever positions in our society they may be. This notion, imparted by our framers and realized by Woodward and Bernstein, appears to be ebbing further away year by year.
"The utility of the press" only serves its citizenry if the press is acting in the interests of the dirty, unpopular truth, no matter how many feathers may get ruffled. In stead, our press is evolving to increasingly protect profit margins and bottom lines. This should not be surprising because it is the nature of business. The "invisible wall" between the business and the journalistic sides of news organizations are either eroding or gone. We now find the business side occupying the penthouse floor, looking down on their little fiefdoms and molding their messages as they see fit, striking potentially unpopular stories in favor of sensational stories. I mean really...just what does Michael Jackson have to do with anything that I should feel passionate about in our society?
I feel compelled to invoke Gannongate here, a powder keg of an embarassment to the GOP (those in power), yet pretty much ignored wholesale by the MSM. Just imagine if it was a Democrat's administration. You wouldn't see $100 million dollars devoted to smearing/impeaching the president a la the Clinton years...it would be a bloodbath.
I don't care that Martha Stewart is free now. I want our leaders asked tough questions about war, economy, and social policy without having those asking fear loss of "access." I don't want to watch Wolf Blitzer get a boner talking about the salacious details of Martha's big bounce from prison.
News is now commentary and cable channels dispense ideological opinion/analysis like they're training dogs. Don't tell me how I should feel or what I should think...leave that to me and just report the facts (this used to be known as news reporting). This is indeed "hurting America." Leave it to the canucks to so concisely show us how deeply divided an insincere, puppet press can make us:
Really, ask anyone who is not American and they will usually cite our outrageous media structure as being the first thing they just can not believe exists in The Land Of Freedom And Liberty For All. It's putrid.
Give em hell Jim!
Sun Mar 6 2005 9:40 AM
John Doe is Poppa:
Mike from the great white said it all. I can't even begin to express my sadness at the 'new' America. Everyday I feel more and more like 9/11 was the day America died. I doubt we can ever return to the ideals and values I grew up with. I'm only 25 and had never been political. The relentless brainwashing going on now is disgusting. I don't know whats worse, The lies and BS spewing over our airwaves or the fact that a supposed 51% are buying it. How is it rational that thousands are fleeing the congo due to plague, all the new Syria and Lebannon tension, et al and yet I can't turn on the 'news' without an endless barrage of Martha and Jacko! Can you imagine if Clinton had tried this? He would have been blasted out of office long ago. I'm not saying the blame rests with the Rove admin. not entirely anyways, unfortunatly it seems after the attacks americans became content to close their eyes and let Poppa protect them. The Mass media just serves as a smokescreen in this process. O'reilly is the Jerry Springer show for talking heads, the few times I attempted to watch all I saw was him spewing his spin and cutting all his guests off with no chance for rebuttal. He's so high and mighty that he even gets off clean as a whistle from his own sexual misconduct while at the same time lambasting Kobe and others! Insanity. Is it any wonder that I now pray for a zombie apocalypse to just come and end it all?
Sun Mar 6 2005 10:36 AM
"How is it rational that thousands are fleeing the congo due to plague, all the new Syria and Lebannon tension, et al and yet I can't turn on the 'news' without an endless barrage of Martha and Jacko! Can you imagine if Clinton had tried this? He would have been blasted out of office long ago."
??? How is there ANY conection between Martha/Michael and Bush/Clinton?
Some sort of new conspiracy theory?
Sun Mar 6 2005 12:19 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
Making fun of my country because i railed against your media is the mating call of a loser.
Hey nameless retard:
Feel free to trivialize and say what you will about my country. I dont care. We just told you to go f*&% off on your pitiful, failing missle defence shield. Go ahead. Cacoon yourself in a whoefully inadaquate system than fails more often than not. Even if it did work, i got a real easy solution to defeat it. Build more nukes than you have interceptors. Your country will go broke before youd ever come close to matching other nuclear powers nuke for antinuke. Please keep Mushroom Condi at home too. We dont need her useless twat coming up here anyhow.
Your still stuck in a cold war mentallity. Any nuke going off in the US will be from one smuggled in on a cargo container that isn't inspected at a port, pulled over the border at one of the most porous unguarded border points either north or south of your country. Hell, even flown in by another hijacked jetliner. Missle defence wont address these. No nation state would risk being annihalated by the full US nuclear arsenal in retaliation so your missle shield simply defies logic. The only reason for it would be to allow for your country to further warmonger nuclear states with impunity and without fear of reprisal.
It brings me joy to no end seeing other countries of the world thumb their nose at you making you the most irrelevant entity since your proclemation of the UN being useless. Russia defies you, the EU taunts you, Canada tells you to take a hike, Iran laughs at you, N.Korea scares you, and every day, more nations pull troops out of Iraq to leave you holding the bag. But i guess a neocon like yourself must be proud of all Bush accomplished, leaving you more isolated than Osama. I bet he's still laughing harder now than when you invaded Iraq.
Nameless one... you are the sorriest tard on the planet and i take pride in pointing out your lameness. You cant even put up a name to associate your weak arguments with. In fact, why don't you join NJ in Iraq and help him look for those buried WMD... you might consider buying a bigger comb. And while your at it, call up O'Really and Shamitty let em know so they can do a patriotic expose' on the hunt for WMD. And when you guys find a bag of sugar or something, just tell him to report a huge cache of Anthrax was found. They can redact the story 3 weeks later without incident for sure. Fair and balanced... puleeaze get a brain.
Sun Mar 6 2005 7:54 PM
Sun Mar 6 2005 9:12 PM
This has been a good thread.
Sun Mar 6 2005 9:17 PM
Er... I meant the comments were interesting. Not the threats by O'Reilly's henchwoman.
I'm glad that there are a few (too few!) brave souls such as Lessig and Granick who are willing to defend our online rights. Three cheers for them and for EFF!
Sun Mar 6 2005 9:38 PM
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about pathetic hacks like O'Reilly because the majority of Americans would be smart enough to see through this guy.
His columns are unsophisticated and poorly written. And if it weren't for all those Bible thumping Southern wank yanks who take their modern translations of the Bible literally (argh), he wouldn't have the ratings to stay on the air.
You Yankees might be wise to read some Marshall McLuhan (or at least those of you who aren't well read), because he begins to address how and why networks like Fox have risen to prominence.
As for the legal battles to come, let us hope the US judiciary system stays in tact and balanced enough to try this kind of case fairly. In a case like this, I would hope this issues are cut and dry. But interpretation is another story. Who knows how a Judge will try this case. I wouldn't mind reading the applicable laws.
Does anyone mind pointing me to what statute(s) applies to this case?
Although I'm sure I could research this on my own, the closest law library doesn't exactly specialize in American law.
Sun Mar 6 2005 10:09 PM
And please pardon my poor grammar. Everyone needs an editor........and some (namely me) need an editor more than others.
Sun Mar 6 2005 10:12 PM
Tom from Madison:
O'Reilly's tactics should come as no surprise to anyone. As usual, he is doing all he can to shout down the expression of opposing views and shut-down any real debate. That behavior is antithetical to the American tradition of debating controversial issues. A "traditionalist" like O'Reilly must be aware of his own hypocracy. Apparently he just can't help himself.
The actual substance of O'Reilly's diatribe is disingenuous to the core. He claims that Buster the Bunny is "sexualizing the nations children."
At some point kids are going to become aware that there are families headed by same-sex couples. Simply informing kids of that fact is not "sexualizing children." It's simply informing them of reality--albeit for a small minority of families.
As a practical matter, children [and parents] from traditional families are going to encounter non-traditional families. If it doesn't happen on PBS, it may happen at school, at a shopping mall, or some other public place.
Apparently O'Reilly and the "traditionalists" are unwilling to allow same sex couples to be visible and accepted in society. I can understand how his world view might be threatened. After all, what would happen if kids grew up with accepting other kids whose parents were honorable, but not straight?
It would certainly be a lot harder to continue to sell the "gays are a threat" message perpetuated by so many of the right-wing pundits. The neo-con, anti-gay rights agenda needs continued fear mongering to be effective. Shame on O'Reilly for injecting his ratings-driven bullying belicosity.
Mon Mar 7 2005 8:03 AM
Canada? Never heard of it.
Mon Mar 7 2005 9:59 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
Im not surprised. Most people with an IQ of 60+ know at least one thing about Canada. Or did you have one too many strokes from filling your face with 'freedom' fries?
On top of that, your closing in on the 1,500 mark of dead boys n girls who died for a lie.
I'd like to see O'Lielly and Scammity deal with facts instead of pure loudmouthed emotionally charged drivel. But i digress, they're about as educated as you Jak, at least O'Lielly knows enough about Canada to ask losers boycott us. Guess that puts him in the 60-70 percentile in IQ.
Why dont you go educate yourself a little. And no, looking at photos in Barnyard Weekly doesn't count as reading.
Mon Mar 7 2005 11:22 AM
Do you think it's still possible to actually see this bloody cartoon?
I wonder if it is out there on the web somewhere.
Post a link if you know where I could find this cartoon.
I would like to see the cartoon before I make a final judgement on O'Reilly's response, although I do have some initial reactions.
There is no doubt that children need not be exposed to sexual subject matter (like O'Reilly's crappy "romance" novels), but does this cartoon actually go into depth on the difference between same sex companions and the "norm"?
Based on his column, I can't really get a solid understanding of what actually transpires in the cartoon apart from the fact that there are two animals of the same sex who are identified as partners.
And what the hell is O'Reilly compaining about anyway? The crap that Fox airs every day is easily two-fold more damaging to young children. Or does O'Reilly think a steady diet of boobs, violence, and info-tainment is healthy for the next generation?
This guy is ridiculous. Don't worry. O'Reilly will soon enough will be exposed as the fraud he truly is. Just think of all the wasted seed that resulted from his "romance" novels. I mean, if being gay is wrong because we aren't supposed to waste seed, then how can wanking off to a sex novel, compliments of O'Reilly, be any better.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible doesn't depict homosexuality as immoral because of bad dudes like Sodom. It's because jews weren't supposed to waste their seed. Check out any academic version of the Bible. You need not look any further than Genesis and Noah's conversations with his sons.
"Traditionalists" like O'Reilly appeal to people who don't even have a grasp on the religion they base their world view upon.
I'm sorry for all of this ranting Jim because it doesn't really relate to your legal battle. But I must say this forum has allowed me to get a lot of stuff of my chest (even if it has no impact).
Mon Mar 7 2005 12:26 PM
I know one thing about Canada, its just north of the USA.
You are one angry bitter person. A perfect fit for the liberal party. I do thank you for your concern over the American Soldiers life. Someday when your country has soldiers, I'll be just as concerned.
Mon Mar 7 2005 12:41 PM
Even if you live in a fantasy world where Fox is truly fair and balanced, and CNN is for pinkos, it's still pretty pathetic to side with the billion-dollar corporation against the lone gunman blogger.
My favorite comment so far:
"What law has Bill broke? And if the answer is none, then who is playing the victim right now?"
What law, indeed, has Bill broke. I reckon he ain't done broke no laws, but I would submit that it is the illiterate Bill-defending pseudo-patriot Fox fans who are playing the victim on this thread. Congratulations. It takes guts to side with Goliath.
Mon Mar 7 2005 1:41 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
Your a funny guy Jak, a regular comedian. And your damn right im bitter and angry. Angry about the fact that too many people blindly follow people and parties down stupid paths. Bitter because after such an atrocious record i cannot phathom how a goof like 'W' managed to win the election if it wasn't for mass brainwashing.
Your commentary is a joke, and i mean that quite litterally. Time and again i've made no bones about the fact that i am not liberal. This is the distinction fanatical righties cant comprehend. I've voted for the Progessive Conservatives 3 times provincially and PC/Reform/Canadian Alliance in all 3 federal elections i've had the privledge of voting for. I have not and dont intend to vote liberal/ndp anytime soon. Aside from universal health care, i do not ascribe to any other part of the wasteful liberal agenda up here. I agree they are too socialist and too eager to dole out taxpayer money on pet projects that make my country suffer. Having said that, their greatest claim to fame was saying no to the Iraq dillusion you bought into. And i guarentee the Canadian Alliance would have made a better showing on the federal level than they did if they weren't so gung ho on the Iraq travesty. If i was an american, id probably be a Republican. But just because id affiliate with that party does not mean i would blindly support it on issues such as Iraq. Offering blind support to anyone/party is tantamount to treason.
On the subject of troops. Your commentary is ignorant as hell and i would suggest you smarten up. I do give a damn about your troops. I believe they've been put into harms way to serve the interests of an elite few and the troops suffer for it. Sometimes it seems like im the only one who cares. If you REALLY support the troops, you should lobby for the conciencous objecters to be able to opt out, and hell, why dont you enlist and take someones place if you truley believe in the mission. How come all the talkers are not 'being all they can be'? And i take personal offence to your closing comment. We do have troops, 4 of which your gung ho air force pilots bombed to death in Afghanistan, and without so much as an inquiry and a halfassed apology. Whereas i have genuine concern, you reek of being a smartass and even your concern over you own troops rings hollow. I have precious little time to waste dealing with a troll like you.
Mon Mar 7 2005 3:09 PM
Despite the fact that the Repugnicans claim to base their movement for 'tort reform' (more accurately known as 'justice limitation') and opposition to 'frivolous lawsuits', when they are upset about anything, they are quick to threaten legal action.
A useful bit of legislation which could improve society would be to clearly define 'frivolous lawsuit', and enable victims of 'frivolous lawsuits' to sue for damages (so as to recover damages for legal expenses in defending against 'frivolous lawsuits', and also to have punitive damages levied so as to discourage future 'frivolous lawsuits').
One could then move on to defining 'frivolous legal threats' which are threats to bring fivilous lawsuits. These would also involve penalties to recover leagal costs and penalties to discourage this sort of antisocial behavior which constitutes a drag on the economy.
Mon Mar 7 2005 4:26 PM
We've been down this road before. How many people do you really think are gonna take you seriously when everybody who doesn't see your way is blind? Maybe if you stopped offending people for starters you could get somewhere with them. O'Reilly is not correct to demand a link be removed for partisan reasons. You are not right to use that as an excuse to blast everyone not like you.
Mon Mar 7 2005 10:02 PM
I had a bit of respect for you until you said you supported the Alliance Party at one point. It seems to me you are a bit misguided too.
How can you support a party that once had a leader like Stockwell Day?
The guy called Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Stupid terrorists fighting for equality in their own country. Me thinks you put the white in Great White North, Mikey.
Tue Mar 8 2005 6:41 AM
I should add that Mike is allowed to blast whoever the hell he wants.
Very few minds are changed via message board so it doesn't really matter whether or not anyone takes him seriously.
I do believe your point is moot Mr. Evil Conservative.
I should also add that our country's Parliamentary system (as much as I love it) often takes a juvenile tone whereby well-respected authority figures start heckling each other in the midst of important debates.
This isn't to say this is what is behind Mike's derogatory rants (or mine for that matter). I'm just saying it is a possiblity that we come from a slightly different school of thought. No better, no worse. (And no, a nuclear arsenal and a bunch of fighter jets doesn't make the US system of democracy any better than Canada's, Jak-ass.)
This is why we've had problems with some of our elected representatives bad mouthing Bush.
In America, this heckling and bad-mouthing happens through other channels like the Swift Boat Veterans who still have yet to be held to account for lying about Kerry on national television in the midst of an election campaign.
American statesmen may be wise to wait until the recorders and camera's are off, but it doesn't mean they don't swear, bitch, and moan behind closed doors.
Tue Mar 8 2005 7:53 AM
Those wacky democrats are free to blast whoever they want. In the past 6 months "the party in inclusion" has blasted Blacks, Latinos, and now the target of the month are homosexuals. Going back to their WASP heritage they have decided that anyone who doesn't look like a WASP needs to get back on the boat. Since looks can sometimes be deceiving they have decided that "thoughts" are to be included in this winnowing process. At the current rate of decline theyll be listed ahead of the Whig party (alphabetically) as a party that went the way of the dinosaurs in the American political landscape.
As for Canada, its biggest claim to fame is that it is a neighbor to the US, after that it is as relevant to the world stage as Sweden, Gabon or Nebraska. The sooner they get over their inferiority complex the better.
Tue Mar 8 2005 8:14 AM
As for the Swifties, NONE of their claims have been proven false, and many eventually where proven true (Christmas in Cambodia, faked third purple heart, falsified after action reports and so on), some by Kerrys own campaign people. If John Kerry wants to dispute the rest of their claims he needs to file Form 180 like he has promised to on several occasions. Problem is the release of his records may further prove the cause of the Swifties. John Kerry cant even produce an honorable discharge that doesnt reference some questions the Navy had about his service.
Tue Mar 8 2005 8:23 AM
You're right. Nobody's mind is ever changed via message board. But you're missing my point. If you ever want anybody to take your point seriously, "Friendly Nazi Scientists" and "masses of wealth generated by slavery" are not the arguments to start with. I don't intend to change anyone's mind here or anywhere; I know better. But, if you can, be reasonable in your point, you'll get a lot farther. Just ignore me if you have more fun being ridiculous, we can all stand a good laugh once in awhile.
Tue Mar 8 2005 9:27 AM
Tom from Madison:
Hey nameless fool:
you set the record for off-base irrelevancies and partisan demagoguery.. Democrats blasted:
1) Gonzales for supporting torture--not for being Latino;
2) Rice for being an incompetent [Remember 9/11?] liar--not for being Black;
3) Gannon / Guckert for being a fraud and a hypocrite--not for being homosexual.
Your Limbaugh talking points are based on the prejudice of the neo-cons, not the Democrats. Consider how many of the afore-mentioned minorities actually hold elected office as Republicans.
Before you dismiss Canada, consider: Canadians live longer than Americans; have a higher literacy rate; have a lower murder rate, have less gun crime, have lower infant mortality; and spend much less per capita on health care and drugs. It seems we have a lot we could learn from them.
Say what you will about Kerry, but don't forget he went to Viet Nam and put himself in harms way. George Bush didn't. Any further points are made by the Swift-Boaters are at best trivia and at worst blatant lies.
Tue Mar 8 2005 10:08 AM
It's called hyperbole Mr. Evil Conservative. And one can make a reasonable point using hyperbole. Shall I seek debates between the founders of your great confederation to prove my point?
Besides, the US DID enlist Nazi scientists to aid development of nuclear weapons in Virginia near the end of WW11 and some of that Southern Repulican wealth that remains today was in fact generated in part by slavery.
Oh yeah, and there are stories circulating showing that Dubya's grandfather Prescott did business (albeit undirectly) with the Nazis before that trading with the enemies act (don't know the exact name off-hand) came into effect.
You Americans are a funny lot. You may not take me seriously, but everything I've written here has truth and no one has really been held accountable for any of these crimes.
It's funny that neo-cons see fit to go ito other countries to impose justice and democracy, while people in their own country remain free at large despite complicity with some of the most heinous acts in Western history.
You want to deny American involvement with the Nazis...go ahead. You're wrong. It's a sad shame that Americans have an inability to admit when they've made a mistake. There would a hell of a lot less hatred for Americans in the world, if the US would step up and take responsiblity for disgusting crimes like Vietnam.
Kerry would have been a role model to Americans and a leader that many countries would have dealt with in a positive light. Bush is a failure, just like his Daddy and his criminal Grandpa who financed companies producing nerve gas that would eventually be tested on Jews.
I hope that you actually do research this stuff Mr. Evil Conservative. Saxon-southern mo-fos have a heck of a lot to apologize for and I think you should try to enlighten yourself a bit.
Tue Mar 8 2005 11:22 AM
Kerry did not put himself in harms way. He joined the naval reserve and was activated two years later. The NAVY put Johnny Kerry in harms way and he ran like a little girl when he found out that his swift boat wasn't a party barge. He has even admitted in interviews that when he volunteered for swift boat duty they where not an active force in Vietnam and he never imaged that he would see combat.
As for "served his country" apparently the Navy had to review his service to see if he should go home or got to prison. According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge, under the guidelines established by Jimmy Carter.
Tue Mar 8 2005 11:24 AM
Tom from Madison:
You're wrong AND irrelevant. I've heard repeatedly what you think about Kerry's service record.
How about highlighting for everybody George W Bush's illustrative military record. Feel free to mention any medals earned, heroic acts of bravery, lives saved, meritorious conduct, etc.
For extra credit, please explain how his conduct during his military service could be an inspiration to young people today.
I'd really like to see you defend Bush's military record on his own merits. I'll bet you can't do it.
Tue Mar 8 2005 12:45 PM
Go ahead and say whatever you want. I'm not in the business of defending any American former day sins. Nor do I feel it's necessary to argue as obtuse a point as the use of a Nazi scientist relating to today, however you try to make it.
I have no issue with Canada, but trying to make Americans feel bad out of what I can only assume to be envy is very, very small. Glad it's individuals and not the country. Then I might have an issue.
Oh, and John Kerry isn't fit to run Chernobyl present day, let alone a country. Thank god he's still the junior senator of an irrelevant state. Even most here would agree with me that he sucks.
Tue Mar 8 2005 1:53 PM
Tom from Madison:
what's wrong with wanting what's best for America? Why wouldn't we strive to promote our citizens' longevity, lower our infant mortality, and increase our literacy rates like they have in Canada? Why should we have to pay exhorbidant drug prices?
America is doing a piss-poor job of caring for its own people. This is a moral issue. A "Christian" president should concern himself with such things. He chooses not to.
Worse, we have a president who even refuses to base his policies in objective fact and refuses to be held accountable to mutually agreed upon standards. That's not a liberal / conservative issue. It's about power & corruption and ignoring basic democratic principles. It also nullifies his own claim to be a uniter.
It's a very sad commentary that even conservatives don't have much positive to say about their own guy.
If you're among the elite rich and don't know or don't care what's happening to the rest of the country, you should be happy with this president.
Even if you don't like Kerry, there is nothing honorable about our reverse Robin Hood President stealing from the treasury to enrich himself and his friends while plundering the environment and heaping debt upon future generations.
Tue Mar 8 2005 2:38 PM
George Bush has a less then perfect service record, but he didnt base his entire election on it either. For all the blather and blow no one (except a Kinkos in Texas) has found a shred of evidence to indicate his performance or character was lacking while serving, meanwhile Kerrys crew mates on a 10 to 1 average say they found Kerry lacking in all aspects as a leader. Nor did I insist upon inserting Ws record into this argument. As for being incorrect please point out my errors. I have documentation and research to back up everything I write, you have nothing but a high-pitched whine.
Canadas socialized medical system is collapsing under its own weight as doctors flee the government system. As for the mortality rate, raw figures do indicate that Canadians live longer by an average of two years based on the raw numbers. But one must do more then scratch the surface. The key word is DEMOGRAPHICS, please look it up. The US has a higher percentage of young people due to having a higher birth rate. When broken down by age groups Canada has a higher mortality rate in all classifications. With fewer younger people there are fewer deaths to drag Canadas overall average down. I can teach you basic math if you ask nicely.
Tue Mar 8 2005 3:06 PM
Wow, where to start...
How about with some controversy? People are already living too long, and it's part of the problem with social security. Ideally we'd figure out a way to "turn out the light" when it's time; I just watched a great aunt die over the course of two years because her medicine was just good enough to keep her suffering.
I have no comment on infant mortality, it's not something I've paid any attention to really, so if you must beat me up on something, let's make it that.
The schools were broken before W, and they'll be broken after W. Everyone's at fault: states, government, parents, and students. Sorry, fixing this one's too much to discuss here. At least W's trying something besides just throwing money.
As far as the nation caring for its own people, it's up to the nation to provide a safe environment for people to succeed in, and they're doing that job. I know you disagree what government's role is, that's fundamental, and we don't really need to spend any more time on it.
Please feel free to prove any allegation of corruption on the president's part and we can discuss it. Since I doubt you're a lawyer building a case against him, I won't be holding my breath.
You want to hear something positive about our president? How about that if he succeeds with Iraq and helps bring democracy to the middle east, he'll have been the best since Reagan ended the Soviet Union? Nah, since you want us to fail at that for partisan reasons I don't expect you to buy it. Again we'll have to agree to disagree, and I can be glad there are more of me than you.
I don't define myself as rich or out of touch. It would be a low estimate to say that 75% of the conservatives in America aren't rich either. Feel free to keep trying to peg me as a moron because I strongly support almost everything that president Bush advocates, I'll keep explaining myself, and neither of our lives will change an ounce for it. It is nice having the freedom to discuss it though, no?
Tue Mar 8 2005 3:12 PM
"You want to hear something positive about our president? How about that if he succeeds with Iraq and helps bring democracy to the middle east, he'll have been the best since Reagan ended the Soviet Union?"
Ah, the naivete of youth. So refreshing.
Tue Mar 8 2005 3:49 PM
Didn't you say you were done with me? Being so young must lend me a better memory than yours. And furthermore, what on God's (oops) green earth is so wrong with a democratic middle east? You know, hypothetically speaking, since it's happening.
Tue Mar 8 2005 3:54 PM
Did someone say "Mission Accomplished"?
Tue Mar 8 2005 6:11 PM
Answer the question. Who cares about "Mission Accomplished?" It was unwise. Answer the question: What is so wrong with a democratic middle east?
Tue Mar 8 2005 8:26 PM
How dare you mention democracy in the middle east on a liberal blog site. Dont you know that makes W look good? What the hell is wrong with you?
Wed Mar 9 2005 7:27 AM
Don't pretend to understand Canada's health system. Like the US, Canada's problems are mostly caused by a generation of baby-boomers on the cusp of retirement age without enough younger tax payers to support the system. This is why your ill-advised president wants to privatize social security.
Sensible people realize that the stock market is never a sure thing and don't want to see this generation thrown into the cold when we reach retirement age.
Because proportionally, there is no difference between whites and other races getting the coverage they need in Canada, our healthcare system is a model to democracies around the world.
Unfortunately for the United States, because black people and hispanics have statistically a hell of a lot less money than anglo-saxons, that also means a higher percentage of them don't have health insurance. Look it up. I've been working an a health care study for an American company, and although they may all be outliers, the vast majority of minorities I came across did not have health insurance.
I'm not saying the American system is entirely racist because there are also many poor white Americans that have to go into debt because they can't afford insurance. But don't you think this is bullcrap coming from a country that prides itself in its "Christian" heritage with all that "In God We Trust" poop. I don't think that sermon from the mount was inciting the rich to grind the poor, but rather, it was intended to impart the idea that we should not grind the poor.
Oh yeah, your whole age-based statistical analysis is baseless. Your math is shite. The difference between any two age gaps is under two per cent. And yes the United States had a significantly higher birth rate in 2004, but this doesn't help your analysis. You are arguing that this two percent difference in the 0-14 and 14-65 categories accounts for two years of life-expectancy. I think your math is a little more simple-minded than simple.
Wed Mar 9 2005 8:05 AM
I'm American. Don't call me jealous of what I already am. And if you're gonna call me a self-hating American, save your energy and tell me something I haven't already heard.
Wed Mar 9 2005 8:07 AM
Tom from Madison:
The health care issue isn't that complicated. Should access to health care be universal or should it depend on the deal you have with your employer and your capacity to save up an enormous sum in a "medical savings accout"?
Americans can afford to give everyone in our country decent health care. We choose not to do it. I believe that's immoral. The president apparently doesn't. Just what kind of Christian is he anyway?
Wed Mar 9 2005 11:17 AM
The system we have works for almost everybody. If insurance wasn't so expensive it would work for everybody. So, should we screw it up for almost everybody, or fix a smaller problem? Oh, and since fixing the insurance problem would involve reducing corruption, we have a nice little side benefit.
Wed Mar 9 2005 11:48 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
If you lost some respect for me.. well i cant help it. I've blasted everyone else here for blind loyalty that id be a hypocrite if i didn't myself. What i resent is the Fiberals spending thousands on partisan friends in Adscam, i resent them spending a billion+ on useless gun control for long rifles which does not help. I resent the billion dollar HR boondogle. I resent the former PM saying goverments lose money all the time, these things happen. I resent them cancelling former government contracts and paying out 500 mill in penalties. I resent the new YJOA, a shitier replacement the the YOA. I resent them buying 4 decrepid subs, spending millions trying to find replacemtent choppers, and whittling our military down to nothing.
After all that, the Alliance seemed reasonable and worth a shot. Up until Harper announced support for the Iraq war and a chummier relationship with dumbass Bush. Thats when i did what others would not. I held Harpers feet to the fire and did not vote for him. I also held the Libs feet to the fire and did not vote for them. I did not blindly follow Harper because of his party. I dont support 'parties' and i dont reward a party after a monumental gaff just because i hold many of the same ideals. You screw up, put someone else in and see what they can do.
And this is where my outrage towards people who voted for Bush comes from. Here you have a proven pathological lier, who against all odds and with the help of corparate american media which is by and far right wing no matter what righties say, managed to sell to the american people that Saddamn was a dire threat to mainland US, that he was connected to 9-11, that he had WMD at the ready, that he had ties to and working with Al-Quada. Every one of those points has been DEBUNKED. Based on that track record and landing the US in a quagmire over a LIE he routinely spewed over and over again despite all the best evidence, he should not have been re-elected. It was blind patisan hackery that allowed him to hold a second term in what will go down in history as americas saddest moment.
First off, let me reiterate from the past, what americans do domestically is there own choice and i let you deal with it in your own way. Notice ive avoided posting on any blog of Jim dealing with Social Security or Gay marriage or whatnot. These are for you to deal with, not me. My assaults have always trained around the foriegn policy matters of the US, because your foriegn policy affects the whole world, including me. Now that thats settled.
Im sorry if i group you in my broad based assault on Fox viewers, but i can't help it when my facts tell me that Fox viewers are the most consistently wrong on world events. I played it fairly because i lumped all the other typical news outlets into the shoddy range of poorly informed viewers. They all had a commonality about them. They were all American news media. To find the correct information, one had to go to foriegn news sources like the UK Guardian, the BBC or the CBC. Where you say its a bias to the left, i claim its the accuracy you assault, not the tone. If you say 2+2=4 is a left spin, more power to you. I call that substantive. If foriegn sources said that Iraq complied with UN inspectors, that there were no WMD and that Saddam disarmed, how did anyone come to any other conclusion and support the war? Simply put, misinformation. Which comes full circle to American media being overly puppets of Pentagon press releases and shills for the administration that allowed him to walk away from this debacle unscathed and with another term.
So the next time you here me railling away at Fox news and its viewers, understand its not the 'opinion' im attacking because your entitled to your own. It's the brutalization of facts, lies by ommission, and flat out chest thumping goose stepping toe in line with the current administrations lines regurgitated ad naseum. Thats not reporting. Thats lazy and against the ethics of a free press's obligation to inform the viewing public.
And thats why O'Lielly and Scammity will always be in my bombsites and all the 'collateral damage' that comes from it.
Wed Mar 9 2005 12:39 PM
Since when is asking wealthy folk to share with the poor "screwing everyone"?
Canada isn't screwed.
The last I checked, your trade deficit is not only putting the US at risk, but the whole bloody world economy.
America is going through a strange phase. It's very popular to be a fiscal conservative these days. The irony about this phase, however, is that the guy that these "fiscal conservatives" elected is possibly the least fiscally responsible president in the past fifty years (or more).
But because of networks like Fox, Americans remain in a bubble and have no sweet clue what could come of this scenario. I challenge you people to find me a legitimate economist (not a right wing columnist with a degree who has no relevant job experience), who doesn't see your ballooning trade deficit as a serious problem.
Wed Mar 9 2005 12:45 PM
Well, you're getting too abstract for my feeble republican brain to follow now. In case you hadn't noticed, America is not a socialist country. Cleaning up the Middle East costs money, and compared to some wartime events, this isn't costing that much. I'd consider Alan Greenspan to be a legitimate economist, though lately the left is mad at him too. Hard to win consistently when you're always on the wrong side of history, isn't it?
Wed Mar 9 2005 1:00 PM
Tom from Madison:
45 million uninsured Americans is unacceptable in my book. What number do you consider acceptable?
No amount of hand-waving or inuendo can save your bone-headed theory about Canadian longevity. The US lags all of Western Europe as well as Japan, and Australia in longevity. Yes, demographics do matter. Caucasian, non-Latino Americans tend to live longer than racial/ethnic minority Americans.
If you don't like to look at longevity, how about explaining Canada's lower infant mortality rate? [4.8 compared to 6.6 in the US]. Once again, European countries have much lower infant mortality.
The US has a lot of work to do to catch up to other wealthy countries. Why arent' we doing it?
Wed Mar 9 2005 1:09 PM
"45 million uninsured Americans is unacceptable in my book."
And most of the others have employer-provided health insurance, meaning that if they are laid off their health insurance will disappear too. (I think that Cobra benefits last for a year, but after that you are on your own.) A lot of people continue working into their old age, not because they need the money, but because they need the guaranteed health insurance.
What kind of health insurance is only affordable to the young and healthy or the employed? Oh right, American health insurance.
Corporations always externalize risk whenever possible. How much more risk are we individual Americans supposed to take on? When is our government going to stand up for us and force a little of that risk back onto the corporations?
Wed Mar 9 2005 3:06 PM
Few in this country seem to understand risk, so we as individuals are being forced to shoulder more of it every year. Corporations and government are able to aggregate risk. Individuals are not.
Wed Mar 9 2005 3:29 PM
(Click my name.)
Wed Mar 9 2005 3:42 PM
That's sad. And it's a reminder that we're a long way from completing our task. But contrast that with the video from the day of the election there, and you'll see that plenty has been going right too. Oh, you'll probably have to look through the news channels to find the video of Iraqis celebrating freedom, but the video does exist. Isolated incidents are what the insurgency has to hang their hat on, hoping to break the will of the US, cause at this point it's likely the only chance they stand. Go ahead and harp on everything that's wrong, I'd rather be happy that progress is slow, but ongoing.
Wed Mar 9 2005 4:35 PM
(Click my name.)
Wed Mar 9 2005 8:25 PM
Reference previous statement.
Thu Mar 10 2005 12:07 AM
If you really call what is happening in Iraq now progress, then you have problems.
Instead of learning the lesson that Israel has about attrition warfare, the US has delved into a deeply divided country assuming that "democracy" by the gun will create everlasting peace and goodwill between opposing factions. Unlike Israel, the US will eventually have to leave the region.
They find new bodies every day in Iraq and their new found democratic system is shaky at best. When the US pulls out and something drastic happens as a result, will you admit your folly Mr. Evil? Do you think Dubya will eat his hat and apologize to the world?
I should add that your president's brutal policies are widely thought to be creating more extremists in the world. Attitudes toward the US are at an all-time low. Mr. Evil, Mr. Evil, Mr. Evil.
Do you really think you can drop a bunch of bombs in the middle-east, occupy the country, impose elections from your own pre-conceived formula and expect peace and democracy?
Thu Mar 10 2005 6:57 AM
Joey, why don't you just come out and say "It's Vietnam all over again". For some reason democrats just can't help themselves from constantly pointing out the war they started and lost. Every conflict since then has been "another Vietnam", but hasn't.
Perhaps we should have the UN more involved in Iraq, then it would be the resounding success that Kosovo is. You know, everyone lives in refugee camps, starving, while UN soldiers rape women and children, all with no end in sight. Thats a great model to follow.
Thu Mar 10 2005 7:36 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
Don't forget that this 'democracy' will inevitably lead to a style of government very similar to Iran. And this newly democratically elected government will tell the US to pull out ALL troops and remove ALL bases. This democratically elected government will tell your contractors to piss off and recoup any oil revenues to Iraqi coffers, not Haliburton and Co. This democratically elected govenment is going to give you a huge middle finger at the end of it all and youd better be prepared to sit there and take it. You supposedly went to war to give these people a voice and a choice. This will be the final nail in the coffin of lies used to justify this war if you don't listen to the democratically elected government of Iraq!
So much for the neocon vision of all people around the world adopting the American lifestyle if given the free choice.
Thu Mar 10 2005 10:05 AM
It's been nice discussing this topic.
Thu Mar 10 2005 10:11 AM
It was fun READING this topic.
I have some things to say... but I'll save them for a rainy day. Very interesting stuff here.
Thu Mar 10 2005 11:44 AM
Tom from Madison:
comparisons/contrasts with Viet Nam ARE appropo.
Killing tens of thousands of people while claiming that you're liberating them is a profoundly arrogant and immoral act. To be sure many have been spared being killed by Saddam, but many are dead now who would have been alive had we exhausted every peaceful means available.
Neo-cons and their apologists would do well to discuss US national interests separately from Iraqi national interests. The current administration deliberately confuses the two. Iraqis with relatives who have died in this "liberation" are likely more skeptical.
Fri Mar 11 2005 9:40 AM
I didn't suggest it was another Vietnam and I did not suggest that Kosovo was a success.
Vietnam was not a war of attrition whereas the situation in Iraq, whether or not your President will admit it, IS a war of attrition.
While I do think lying to the public about WMDs is a war crime, and I do think many war crimes were committed during Vietnam, I cannot put these wars in the same category.
I think Kosovo was a brutal war and could have been executed without the vast number of casualties. We probably don't even disagree about Kosovo.
These kinds of moot points often detract from the real debate and have already caused me to digress from the meaningful stream of thought this board has started.
What's worse, is that you lump me into the Democrat category when I highly doubt the Democrats would see themselves in line with even half of the views I've espoused on this website.
Republicans just wanna get the job done, whether it involves lying, cheating, or putting Democrats in the same category as radical lefties.
Democrats, on the other hand, do not enjoy the same credibility among average Americans (who for some idiotic reason relate to Georgie), and cannot use the same voyeuristic and backstabbing cheap tactics that Republicans get away with.
Now I want to quote you, Mr. No Name.
"Perhaps we should have the UN more involved in Iraq, then it would be the resounding success that Kosovo is. You know, everyone lives in refugee camps, starving, while UN soldiers rape women and children, all with no end in sight. Thats a great model to follow."
It seems to me that you are blaming the UN for war crimes committed by Milosovic's regime. Maybe you should read a book about this issue. Sure, there are UN workers who are criminal and who need to be held accountable, but the same goes for the US military. Abu what? Gua-where?
You are being wholly unreasonable. You insinuate that the UN ethnically cleansed a particular population (I doubt you know which one), and then went on to rape women in the refugee camps where they starved.
You must be joking. You wanna talk about the UN's involvement in wars and failures.
The biggest atrocity was Rwanda. When the US and various other member States were called on to join the effort to prevent genocide, your country did nothing. Many more were slaughtered in that country than those who died at the hand of Hussein. Remember that pre-amble to the UN's declaration of rights?
You wanna judge NATO...go ahead. NATO is primarily led by the US.
I have a few questions for you though.
If the US is so concerned with Saddam's crimes, why did your country allow genocide in Rwanda?
Do you think Kissinger's memorandum on strategic national interests might give an indication of the US's attitude?
Maybe oil has more to do with this war than you republicans lead on.
Don't bother telling me otherwise, because I know it's another one of your lies.
And if you try to tell me Republican's would not have allowed Rwanda, I'll remind you that ethnic cleansing continues in Sudan.
Fri Mar 11 2005 1:18 PM
Based on Tom's reasoning the liberation of Europe in WW2 was a profoundly arrogant and immoral act. Pushing the Nazis out of Western Europe costed millions in civilian lives that would not have needed to die if the allies had just recognized that it was better to leave them to their peaceful existance under Hitler. He was only killing a few hundred thousand Western Europeans a year. The allied drive through the low countries and France caused more damage then the initial conquest by the Germans.
Mike of the Great White North seems to have forgotten that the US military has (helped) install democratic governments in Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and so on. The only real failure was Vietnam, the war the democrats decided to fight without trying.
Joey needs to go back and read the news and history a little closer. Vietnam was a war on attrition with every advantage handed to the North by the US goverment. After winning every battle the US was forced to pull out due to losses.
The crimes I speak of in Kosovo are being committed on a daily basis by UN troops occupying the country. Pick up a newspaper and learn what is going on the world.
Fri Mar 11 2005 2:15 PM
Get your facts straight. Attrition warfare is gradual wearing down of the enemy. Vietnam was more like a cull. People died at rates far too high to be put in that category.
"A war of attrition is a war in which neither side has an exploitable strategic or tactical advantage, and the continuation of the war is just the slow bleeding by both sides of their strength. Thus, the war will be won by the side with greater reserves of personnel and war material, the loser eventually succumbing because they run out first."
Idiots that describe Vietnam as a war of attrition need to take a course in linguistics. While Vietnam has been described by crack-pots with this term, no one in their right mind (with an understanding of the word) could use it. A million dead Vietnamese in less than twenty years cannot be considered gradual unless you are sick and twisted. Over 50,000 Vietnamese were killed every year while 60,000 Americans died in the entire conflict. Maybe it's that you are reading historians and journalists who have no sweet clue of the definitions behind the words they use.
And as far as Kosovo is concerned, blaming a trade that's been in this region for a hell of a lot longer than UN peace keepers is unfair. People are always very quick to blame the UN in its entirety due to a few bad apples. Mass rape, ethnic cleansing, and genocide were crimes committed primarily by Milosevic's squads.
I have not disputed the horrible offences that have been committed by UN troop (and have read about this issue already), but the same bloody offences happened in Vietnam and in Japan and were committed by Americans.
You can't imply that the UN is systemically supporting the exploitation of women and children. This trade is a problem for eastern europeans and many western european nations keep the problem alive and well (without the help of the UN thank you very much). It seems like you think that the UN is entirely responsible for this problem. Maybe you should try to read the paper (or BBC online) with a bit more of a critical eye. Do you think this article may be sensationalizing the issue by picking a bad guy (the UN) and simplifying the issue?
On the issue of Vietnam:
One of your fair and democratic federal court judges recently ruled against Vietnamese claimants arguing that Agent Orange (a herbicide) wasn't a poison. That is precisely what a herbicide is. This case provides a frightening look into the workings of the American system of justice. Judges who think like SpongeBob and redefine words should be kicked off the bench. Frightening.
Fri Mar 11 2005 7:58 PM
And Vietnam was the only "real" failure....
Give me a break SpongeBob.
I can't believe you actually think that.
Sun Mar 13 2005 9:43 PM
"A war of attrition is a war in which neither side has an exploitable strategic or tactical advantage, and the continuation of the war is just the slow bleeding by both sides of their strength. Thus, the war will be won by the side with greater reserves of personnel and war material, the loser eventually succumbing because they run out first."
Your defination forgets one important factor in a war of attrition, the WILLINGNESS of a combatant to sustain losses, the Vietnamese leaders were much more willing then the US to expend men and capital.
attrition: a wearing down to weaken or destroy; "a war of attrition"
The Vietnamese (with the help of people like John Kerry) destroyed American's will to fight the war.
The UN's official position isn't to exploit women and children, but it is the position of the forces that have placed in the field. It's going on in every significant UN "relief" effort from Kosovo to East Timor, to the Congo to Cambodia. Go to google and type "UN sex abuse" and you'll get 928,000 hits, hardly isolated.
Please point to "other" failures.
Mon Mar 14 2005 8:01 AM
The above is mine.
Mon Mar 14 2005 8:02 AM
Let's start with Cambodia.
You think pulling out and leaving Pol Pot was a good idea?
Supporting the Khmer Rouge is shifty at best.
I would love to hear a well-reasoned argument explaining why leaving a vile dictator, who decided to erase the country's culture and history, is a success and not a failure.
If you would prefer me to list them all (US failrues) at once, I can, but I think a case by case basis would allow for a better debate.
You'll probably lose interest by the time I get 25 per cent of the way, but listing them one by one will prevent the use of platitudes and generalizations.
And once again, you continue to generalize the UN as a whole, based on crimes committed by individuals.
If you provide me with one iota of evidence that the UN is systemically supporting the rape of the very victims they are trying to help, then I'll submit to your reasoning.
Otherwise, please stop telling me things I already know. I know UN officers have committed rape around the world. So have Americans. America has prisoners who are 14 years old and systemically supports the abuse of prisoners who may be innocent. In fact, the US sent an innocent Canadian to the Middle East, where he was tortured brutally. When they realized he was the wrong guy, they sent him home without an explanation.
It doesn't move this discussion any further to argue that the US or the UN should abstain from any international intervention based on these failures. This line of reasoning weakens any chance of meaningful discourse. The UN has problems and so does the US. Unfortunately, you seem to be saying that unilateralism is the only choice because some UN officers have commmitted rape. This is faulty logic.
Mon Mar 14 2005 12:03 PM
I look at what Usa is doing from a far distance (overseas).
I select listen to both democrats and republicans.
There are overwhelming EVIDENCE showing that Bush and his followers are commiting atrocious crimes against everyone not included in his clique.
He is screwing his own people, sending them to die for lies and cheating them out of their hard earned money. Just so that he makes an extra buck or two.
No propaganda! E V I D E N C E!!!
And then 51% of the votes are still given to that guy...
What the f*ck is wrong with you people who voted for Bush?
You are certainly not rich and powerful so why vote for a guy that ensures that your rights will be erased and your money will disappear?
And I do not care for any other party or candidate or whatever, im just looking from a totally non partisan point of view.
If one guys stands in front of me promising to take my money, erase all my rights, invade country after country, f*ck up the environment and so on.. why vote for him?
why? WHY WHY WHYYYY?
Tue Mar 15 2005 3:17 AM
I guess you couldn't dispute the Cambodia issue. Not a surprize. Can't debate the Prescott/Nazi link either, can you.
That's why people like you need to learn more before the next election. If you debate without actually using specific cases or issues, I can't imagine how any educated human being would respect your perspective. You need to re-examine why you believe what you do (that the US is infalliable) and try to justify it with a rational analysis of the facts.
The last election can be explained in relatively simple terms. The result was caused by ignorant people who believed the hype from the right (through news/info-tainment networks like Fox).
But now the religious extremists need to be taken out of office so the mindless media brainwash can go back to its neo-liberal agenda rather than justifying racist war crimes. Although it's not the ideal alternative, it is the lesser of two evils.
I cannot except crooked democracy. I would do anything (within reason and the law), to help take Bush and his administration out of office. These people (Bush family and co.) used their money grubbing corporate connections (not to mention some shady friends in their family's past) to infiltrate high society and eventually the White House.
Democracy in the United States is failing miserably. The money grubbers are being elected by Christians who should be condemning the very candidates they support. The legitimacy of this administration will be determined by history, and unless we, the people (non war-mongering people), fight back against this corrupt government, they'll be writing the history books through their puppet media outlets.
It's not just Fox. It's the war machine. We as Americans need to admit our mistakes and move on from this criminal form of enterprise.
Why is it that Rumsfeld can get away with shaking hands with Saddam in the same general time period the bastard was using American-made chemicals on Kurds?
Why has Bush's family's past not been put in the limelight? Why hasn't Fox done an expose (pardon the lack of French accents on my keyboard) on the Union Banking Corporation and it's friendly connections with Nazis? Wouldn't it be great to put that question to Fox executive on camera (as if they'd let you past their PR minions of Satan)?
This country is run by high society schmucks who know more about trivia than they do humanity. The problem is that they expose the simpletons (peasants like me) to a form of historical narrative that suits their goals and objectives. And through this narrative they believe that a free press requires that a media outlet be owned by domineering right wing barons.
That leads us back to O'Reilly and the filth spewing forth from his mouth and why it is allowed to influence America.
I'm glad that you referred me to the BBC article. At least society's less enlightened (that's you Sponge Bob) have SOME sense of journalistic integrity.
Tue Mar 22 2005 10:28 PM
This cracks me up. I've met people that were offended by other peoples focus and energy, combative spirit (meaning not accepting the normal fluff responses or delivering set up type puff-ball questions). But you take the cake. Personally, I don't like this attitude either...from people that have their facts wrong, twist the facts in presenting them to others or just plain lie.....but O'Reilly is usually dead-on, and when he's not, he has a point....and usually correct facts.
Surely there are POSITIVE changes you could work on isn't there?
Thu Sep 1 2005 8:29 PM
I am very disappointed in O'Reilly. It's time this gets stopped. I too am facing a SLAPP suit in Orlando FL which has already cost me everything I have in legal fees and we can't even get a hearing. When is it going to stop?
Read about my case at http://www.mworlando.wordpress.com/
My website is http://www.MWOrlando.com
Email me at MWOrlando@gmail.com
I want to get involved and "I'm mad as Hell and won't take it anymore!"
Sun Jun 17 2007 10:42 PM