PeterDavid.net

So...how many full viewings of the Lord of the Rings trilogy does this add up to?

PAD wrote:
"barring premature departure such as impeachment or being tried for war crimes,"

Dream on.

"So as the bad news continues, check in every so often to remind yourself that, like any bad meal, this too shall pass."

What bad news? The only thing that I hope passes is the lunatic Left's constant complaining -- it's like they're hopelessly drunk on sour grapes 24/7. One of these days they'll have to sober up to the fact that they're nothing but a bunch of whiney losers. Bush won. Deal with it.

What bad news?

I dunno, http://tinyurl.com/qip1 would be a start.

Looks to me that the clock is Peter's way of "dealing" with it, and a pretty interesting one at that. :-)

How do you know you've made a point in the ridiculous environment that constitutes political discussion these days? You're told to just shut up or deal with it. That's the Fox News/O'Reilly style euphemism for "We don't have an actual refutation, so we'll act like a petulant child." (and the radical right started it with their pillorying of Clinton based on simply repeating the same allegations over and over and over even when they HAD been refuted)

Let the Freedom Clock ring!

I was reading in a magazine the other day where this guy was complaining about Jon Stewart and how he is so liberal and said he should be more like O'Reilly, who is "fair and balanced." It really amazes me that people actually think O'Reilly or the Fox News Channel for that matter is fair and balanced. Just like Stewart swings the left, O'Reilly obviously swings to the right.

Hence the "Freedom Clock," which is either at the side of the page or at the bottom, depending upon your browser. The Freedom Clock will be ticking down the days, hours, minutes and seconds until this country is finally free of George W. Bush...barring premature departure such as impeachment or being tried for war crimes, or an extended stay should some bright Republicans try to repeal Section one of the 22nd Amendment (which I doubt they'd do since it would free up Clinton to run again, and they won't want to risk that.)

Hey, maybe you'll get really lucky and some sick bastard will assasinate him for you.

Really, PAD, don't you think you guys are overdoing the "I really hate Bush" thing just a bit? And it seems the repealing of the 22nd Amendment was a Democratic idea so Clinton could run again.

BTW , how's that movement to eliminate the electoral college progressing? Not that it would have helped this time anyway.

1"The only thing that I hope passes is the lunatic Left's constant complaining -- it's like they're hopelessly drunk on sour grapes 24/7. One of these days they'll have to sober up to the fact that they're nothing but a bunch of whiney losers. Bush won. Deal with it."

Oh, that's hilarious. There was nothing, NOTHING, more pathetic than the right's incessant bitching and crabbing and hissy fits during the Clinton years. Why? because they lost and couldn't handle it. And as a result of not being able to "deal with it", they sunk M-M-MILLIONs of our tax dollars to invesitage a blowjob.

But go ahead. Keep telling us that we're a bunch a whiny losers her on the left. And I will be more than happy to remind you of the true home of hysteria, poor sportsmanship and sore losers.

PAD - like the way you think man.

Mark

Alas, we shall never outlive the harm that has been done to this country by Bush and his corrupt companions.

Bush would be so much better a president if he'd just shut his mouth. That and wear a paper bag over his face when he is in public.

Sitting in the center, I can honestly say Bush doesn't bother me nearly as much as he does some of you. To put this in perspective, let me offer the following analogy: If Bush were a hangover, he wouldn't bother me as much as explosive diarrhea (Sp?).

Let's face it, if 9/11 had never happened, he'd be the Gerald Ford of his generation.

Damn, PAD, is there no end to your cruelty? I mean look at that thing--1458 days, 1 hour, 56 minutes and 47 seconds as I type this. I can't imagine being a happy liberal, ready to read some stimulating blogging over my coffee and then, pow!, there it is, another reminder that I have 1458 days, 1 hour, 56 minutes and 47 seconds left to endure a presidency I can't stand. That's a long freaking time! If you're gonna do this you should at least wait until the last year when the number is small enough that it doesn't make sensitive progressives want to go hang themselves from the ceiling with a frayed extension cord.

I only hope the Age of Man doesn't pass with it.

Oh, that's hilarious. There was nothing, NOTHING, more pathetic than the right's incessant bitching and crabbing and hissy fits during the Clinton years.

For those of you who bothered to watch or listen, I can remember Rush Limbaugh's "America Held Hostage" opening to his radio and TV shows during the Clinton years. Of course, he ended it when the Republicans retook the house after something like 40 years of Democratic control. Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for you), that does not look likely to happen in the next 4 years (but stranger things have been known to happen).

For those of us who like Bush, PAD's clock does serve another use. It is a countdown of the days of Freedom we have left until Hillary becomes President! Because even now there is a conspiracy at the highest (and lowest) levels to make her the next commander in chief. You doubt me? Guess you missed her use of "God" a dozen times in a speech that partially embraced Bush's Faith Based Intitiatives program.

Thanks for the clock. I will relish the time we have left. :-)

Iowa Jim

"It is a countdown of the days of Freedom we have left until Hillary becomes President!"

Yep. The deepest, darkest fear of Dittoheads through the land.

This is more entertaining than a Stephen Colbert report on The Daily Show.

Mark

What bad news? The only thing that I hope passes is the lunatic Left's constant complaining -- it's like they're hopelessly drunk on sour grapes 24/7. One of these days they'll have to sober up to the fact that they're nothing but a bunch of whiney losers. Bush won. Deal with it.

Of course, you assume that he would've won if it wasn't riding on the coattails of his first term--something that's pretty much impossible to prove either way.

Sorry EClark, but the first time there were calls to repeal the 22nd Amendment was back around 1986 or so, in order that Ronald Reagan might be able to run for a 3rd term. (Fortunately for all concerned, Reagan had the sense to distance himself from that travesty of Constitutional meddling. Although, the Republicans demanded that every county in the entire country honor Reagan with some sort of monument as part of their Congressional takeover in the mid 1990s. Too bad Reagan wouldn't reject that wasted ego-boo.)
It should be well remembered that it was a Republican Congress which managed to pass the 22nd Amendment as their method of revenge against FDR since their guy lost to Truman in 1948. (Of course, Truman was partially exempted from the terms of the Amendment and could have run for a second full term had he so chosen. Whether he could have run beyond that seems a bit less clear.)

Sitting in the center, I can honestly say Bush doesn't bother me nearly as much as he does some of you.

Yeah!! Bush is only eroding America's international standing irreparably, provoking an entire new generation of terrorists, and blithely allowing hundreds of our soldiers die to protect us from non-existant WMDs. But you guys... you guys are blogging! Which is more bothersome, hmmm??

I don't think he is overdoing it at all. There are millions of us out here that feel the exact same way he does. We not only despise George W Bush but we are holding our breath everyday hoping that he doesn't plunge this country into total despair in the next 4 years.

The only question from my husband and I....where can we get the clock to post on our blog???

Thanks PAD for having the guts to say it...and for those of you who want the "left" to shut up....you better get some ear plugs.

Tam

Mr. Leisner,

I think you misread Jim's statement. he isn't saying that what bloggers are doing is more bothersome than what Bush is doing. he is saying that what Bush is doing is more bothersome to THEM than it is to HIM.

Read it again: "Bush doesn't bother me nearly as much as he does some of you"

Not to be confused with "Bush doesn't bother me as much as some of you do", which seems to be how you read it.

Another case SOLVED by Mr English Language Answer Person Dude!

Is there a way we can point to the clock from our own web pages? That would be neat... A whole web full of Freedom Clocks...

This is the one clock I *won't* set for SNOOZE!

"One of these days they'll have to sober up to the fact that they're nothing but a bunch of whiney losers. Bush won. Deal with it."

Ah, the snot-nosed right wing, despisers of free speech, who show up on boards where liberal views are espoused for one reason and one reason only: To try and get those with alternate views to shut up.

I am dealing with it, Sparky. That's what the Freedom Clock is for. Meanwhile right wingers, drunk on power, might want to consider a simple fact: The pendulum WILL swing in the other direction. Fortunately enough, when it does, I won't be going around to conservative websites, getting snotty in the faces of the hosts and telling them to shut up. Just not how I operate.

PAD

Hey, maybe you'll get really lucky and some sick bastard will assasinate him for you."

Screw you. Seriously. You and the horse you rode in on. How dare you. How DARE you. How DARE YOU, you unspeakable prick, that you would attribute that sort of thought to me. I despise Bush and everything he stands for, but he's a human being with a wife and two children and I would NEVER wish something like that on him. That is the single most vile thing I have ever heard out of your cyber mouth, and you can go staight to hell. So help me God, if the next words out of your mouth are not an explicit apology for that remark, then you will be cordially invited to stay the hell out of this board.

PAD

I guess I'm one of those silly people who believe that people's political views consist of more than just extreme right and extreme left. I think that most Americans are generally somewhere in the middle, just more to one side than the other. For every extreme leftist crying out for Bush to be tried for war crimes, there's some ignorant right wing idiot who tends to confuse patriotism with religion. I just think that its the extremist who tend to be loudest.

PAD- LOVE your work, just don't agree with your politics :)

eclark1849: Hey, maybe you'll get really lucky and some sick bastard
Luigi Novi: Yeah, because we all SO want Dick Cheney to become the next President. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"It is a countdown of the days of Freedom we have left until Hillary becomes President!"

Precisely.

Remember, people, we're so desperate to get rid of Shrub that we're losing sight of the fact that we could wind up with worse.

Look at Canada. We were desperate to get rid of Prime Minister Lyin' Brian Mulroney, figuring we couldn't possibly do as badly the next time out. Unfortunately ... 8-(

Time to start working on getting someone in place who CAN win, and who would also be palatable. 'Billary' ain't it.

"It is a countdown of the days of Freedom we have left until Hillary becomes President!"

Precisely.

Remember, people, we're so desperate to get rid of Shrub that we're losing sight of the fact that we could wind up with worse.

Look at Canada. We were desperate to get rid of Prime Minister Lyin' Brian Mulroney, figuring we couldn't possibly do as badly the next time out. Unfortunately ... 8-(

Time to start working on getting someone in place who CAN win, and who would also be palatable. 'Billary' only meets half those criteria.

What's nice is that after 4 more years of Bush, the Far Right will have become so discredited that they'll lose bigtime. It's happend before,
remember the '94 Congressional elections and Newt
Gingrich's Contract For (On!) America? They went down in flames then, and it's sure to happen again.
Look at the Democrats out there, besides Hillary,
John Edwards is still there, and Barack Obama, both young exciting guys and even the Republicans
for 2008 Arnold, Rudy, McCain are moderates who keep their distance from Bush and his wingnuts.

I'm just astonished that 2000 years of Western civilisation takes us to Bush, the man who thought he could be "misunderestimated" and that people from Greece were "Greecians". Although one of my personal favourites is "of course it's a budget, it's got a lot of numbers in it." Is that really the calibre of person you want as your President?

How about instead of worrying how much time Bush has left, we the people focus on Congress and the Senate and try to get organized enough to make sure President Bush doesn't abuse the power given to him by the Electoral process? Despite what many may think, a President is not a King. Our representatives have enough power to help guide this country whether we believe in our President's idea or not.

How about we get involved in the process and help pick a candidate for the next presidential election who will serve and represent this country well? No offence, but the only message I got from Kerry is that he would do the same as President Bush, only better. Voting for him would not be a Vote for Kerry and his ideals, but a vote against Bush. Sorry folks, it’s hard to vote for someone when we aren’t sure what he stands for.

This little clock is cute, but its no different than Limbaugh’s "America held captive day whatever" in that the only thing it does is help to divide this country more. Like Limbaugh, its hard to take what Peter says serious since apart from helping us get more divided, it does nothing to make sure we get the best leader for America.

Well aside from pushing an agenda that totally sickens me (from No Child Left behind to Preemptive war) my original reason for disliking Bush was that he was a drunk until his forties and I remember a time when that bit of info being public knowledge would preclude you from being elected dogcatcher let alone president (twice!).
But I guess my standards are just too high.

Well, I guess I wont be coming back here. It really is too bad that this site has turned into little more than PAD's crying and moaning.

I thank God everyday for our president and even when Clinton was in office I prayed everyday for him and the choices he had to make. It is a real shame that there are people who wont grow up and move on.

"they sunk M-M-MILLIONs of our tax dollars to invesitage a blowjob. "

it was lying under oath as President, which some people also called perjury.

"It is a countdown of the days of Freedom we have left..."

amen

but i believe the popular Rudy Gulianni will run on 2008 so we may have 4 more years of freedom left after GW :-)

joe v.

Bush fans just don't get it. It's not about a difference of opinion that we liberals do not like Bush. Had say McCain won, I guarantee you would not see the same sort of reaction. It's just that a large number of liberals see Bush as being Evil, with a capital E. We view him as a warmonger, an oppressor of liberties, and a selfish elitist. That's why we are so upset about him being in power.

Yeah, it's kind of scary when vocal political opposition is now considered "whining." I wonder how many times someone told Patrick Henry to stop whining.

Hey, maybe you'll get really lucky and some sick bastard will assasinate him for you."

Screw you. Seriously. You and the horse you rode in on. How dare you. How DARE you. How DARE YOU, you unspeakable prick, that you would attribute that sort of thought to me. I despise Bush and everything he stands for, but he's a human being with a wife and two children and I would NEVER wish something like that on him. That is the single most vile thing I have ever heard out of your cyber mouth, and you can go staight to hell. So help me God, if the next words out of your mouth are not an explicit apology for that remark, then you will be cordially invited to stay the hell out of this board.

PAD

wow. You insult the President Of The United States then you blast someone for posting this? Too bad the FBI doesn't take a serious interest in these statements that are posted here.

You go out of your way to rag on the right every chance you get but when a poster speaks their minds you go crazy on them?? Go figure. If you are all so disgruntled then do us all a favor stop making money from the US, a country that makes people like Peter David famous and go see if you can pull this sh*t in France or another country? But of course the Left feels they can say and do whatever they want against a President...

What's nice is that after 4 more years of Bush, the Far Right will have become so discredited that they'll lose bigtime. It's happend before, remember the '94 Congressional elections and Newt Gingrich's Contract For (On!) America? They went down in flames then, and it's sure to happen again.

The House Republicans went down in flames? Really? When? Last I checked they'd won six consecutive Congressional elections.

It's a Jewish freedom clock? Wow, I didn't realize that. So, when it counts down the Jews will be free...?

Someone named Poe wrote: wow. You insult the President Of The United States then you blast someone for posting this? Too bad the FBI doesn't take a serious interest in these statements that are posted here.

Number one, I think the FBI is a little too busy dealing with real terrorists and criminals to worry about what a novelist puts on his weblog in between "coming attractions" postings. Number two (and much more imporantly), there is a brobdingnagian difference between PAD's often-stated wish that Bush would go away, on the one hand, and the wish for a presidential assassination that was semi-attributed to him. PAD's right, it was an unfair cheap shot that badly mischaracterized any and all of the statments PAD has made on this blog; he's been a virulent, not a violent, opponent of Bush, and I don't think it's really fair to criticize PAD for blowing up at eclark.

"Remember, people, we're so desperate to get rid of Shrub that we're losing sight of the fact that we could wind up with worse"

I really have no idea how we could end up worse than we are now. Thousands of soldiers are dying in a needless war, most of the world hates us, our debt is the largest it's ever been, more people are out of work now then when he took office. Unless the next President sets off some nukes, we can only go up.

"Bush fans just don't get it. It's not about a difference of opinion that we liberals do not like Bush. Had say McCain won."

Exactly. I definitely lean towards the left but if it had been McCain vs Gore, I think I probably would have voted for McCain. He at least has a head on his shoulder.

I think I know why the Dems are so upset. They had a very solid chance to get GWB out of office and the person they chose to run against him blew it. I have been a life long conservative but am also pragmatic enough to know that GWB is far from the ideal American President. I mean we have a president that is inarticulate, has one of the lowest approval ratings in a long time and seems to have a limited thought range. This was a classic chance for the Dems to take the White House and yet they could not pull it off. Hence all the anger and venom. Personally I am disgusted that in this great nation the best we had to put into the contest for President were GWB and Kerry - If this is the best we have, we, as a country, may as well pack it in. Let us all hope that in 3+ years that people from both sides will step up and show us what this country is really about. If that does not happen we are all in trouble.

"wow. You insult the President Of The United States then you blast someone for posting this? Too bad the FBI doesn't take a serious interest in these statements that are posted here.

You go out of your way to rag on the right every chance you get but when a poster speaks their minds you go crazy on them??"

Since you apparently don't understand, I will make it clear.

There's lines you don't cross. Since this is my website, I get to say what those lines are. And one of those lines is that, as much as I criticize Bush, I wouldn't wish death on him of any kind, much less something as horrific as assassination. Insinuating that I would take pleasure in such an event or consider that to be some sort of lucky break is a vile and vomitous tactic, and I will make that abundantly clear in no uncertain terms.

As for going "out of my way," there's something else you're clearly not grasping: This is my blog, and it's not "out of my way." This IS my way. This is where I come to talk about what's on my mind. The ones going out of their way are the conservatives who surface on the website of someone whose opinions they clearly despise purely to bitch at them. If you don't like my way, there's the highway.

PAD

wow. You insult the President Of The United States then you blast someone for posting this? Too bad the FBI doesn't take a serious interest in these statements that are posted here.

Well, I'm sure if they did, the person who said that said PAD might get lucky and someone would kill the President would be under investigation at the least.

You don't get it do you? Saying you don't like Bush and don't think he's a good president is one thing, wanting him dead or assasinated is another.

Bush, with all his faults, is still human. You know, he's got a family and I'm sure he's got some good points somewhere...and to say something like that, well, its just STUPID, imo.

PAD doesn't want the guy dead. God, you have to be stupid to think that. I don't blame PAD for getting mad at the guy for saying that. In fact, I'm glad he did!

Oh ya..cause its great to say that PAD wants the President dead. ya, thats going to win points with PAD and everybody....

PAD didn't get upset with the guy for 'speaking his mind'. He got upset with the guy cause the guy was saying that PAD wanted the President dead. And that PAD would think it would be great if the President was assaniated.

PAD would be a really bad person, imo, if he thought any of that.

Wanting a person to be out of a job is very different then wanting them dead!

I think a few people need a reality check.

There's a big difference in speaking your mind and trying to read other peoples minds.

God. What country do you live in exactly? May I ask. Because you CAN'T be an American. If you are, then I'm ashamed for us.

Cause you know, in the America, *I* live in, there's something called FREE SPEECH. In the America I live in, people CAN say anything they like about the President. And they have every right to make a dollar.

A person's personal opinion is just that, their OPINION. In America, we have a right to say what we want.

We don't have the right to DO anything we want to the President. And I'm pretty sure mostly everybody here knows THAT (expect for the guy who said that the PAD wants the President dead, of course), but we can SAY anything that we want about him.

As for this idiot stuff about PAD and people who don't like Bush leaving America, god, you know it would be a worthless country for us if everybody agreed with everybody here. You know, if we were a country of mindless drones who didn't think for ourselves, just went along with whatever the mass thought. Never spoke our mind.

Then what would have our founding fathers have fought for? NOTHING. It would have been worthless.

What makes America different from say France or any other country, is that in America, people can voice their opinons and they can still have a job (unless, of course, the opinion they voice is saying something bad about their boss. then they might not have a job. lol).

I think PAD is a great writer. And I agree with his political opinions. That said, he never lets his opinions take over his writing. Like any good author, he's able to write stories that speak to everybody, no matter what their opinon. Personally, I think its best to separte the personal opinions of the writer and the writer's work. I mean, if I didn't, I'd never ever read anything on John Byrne's again. He's a real jerk, imo. But sometimes he writes or draws (or both) a good book.

Even if I didn't agree with PAD, I'd still like his work. He's a good writer.

DF2506
" That all said, if they did let Bush run again, I think I might move to another country. I hear Canada's nice."

Lighten up, everyone. This is hardly a new type of clock. Remember the "America Held Hostage" bit that Limbaugh did in 1993-1994? Same type of thing. I seem to recall a few Clinton countdowns as well. It's hardly an insult to the Presidency.

This blog and others like it on here, just proves onething to every lurker who reads this rubbish: a 'Leftwing Fanatic' is nothing more than a bunch of whiny, obnotious, chidren, crying at their mother's knee because they didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.

Instead of focusing on more important things they sit back hating a President for four more years. Petty at best. Then they wonder why they lost the Election?

The pettiness and the bitterness that PAD spews in his entries is worse than I've ever read on any other Liberal blog and that says a lot.

I can't begin to imagine the amount of enery wasted on hating someone over an election. You people are gonna waste four more years of hating GWB? And for what? I don't get it and never will. It's over, your side lost, live with it.

It's so sad to see people counting down every last second until the next election. Talk about no life.

Hey! Freedom ain't ringin for me cuz all I get is something that says "This requires a Java-enabled browser."

Dammit, how do I see this ever so controversal clock that doesn't require switching to a new browser?

Poe wrote
"I can't begin to imagine the amount of enery wasted on hating someone over an election. You people are gonna waste four more years of hating GWB? And for what? I don't get it and never will. It's over, your side lost, live with it.

It's so sad to see people counting down every last second until the next election. Talk about no life."

You know what, insert the initials WJC in there and that's what we were saying to you 8 years ago after all your crying and moaning.

So? its your blog Peter? And?! You post your spew about GWB to get reactions and when someone gives you a reaction that you dont like you go off on them and threaten to ban them? It's being petty at best. You come across as hating GWB so when some posts about killing thePresident to satisfy you as a joke, you get bent out of shape? Sounds more like PMS to me. Lefties have one thing in common, they all like to agree with each other, disagree and you're an outcast. You dish it out but you can't take itin return, you blowup at others if they so much as give you any backlash, nice way to run a blog.

Well, this thread got hot...

"Had say McCain won, I guarantee you would not see the same sort of reaction."

If McCain runs, as I hope he will, we may get to put that to the test. I'm not sure you're right. I think that if the Democrats had run a more positive campaign they could have won but they just couldn't help themselves. The George Soros/MoveOn.org wing is acendant and it may take more than a few election cycles for mainstream Democrats to rise up and tell them to take a hike.

"Meanwhile right wingers, drunk on power, might want to consider a simple fact: The pendulum WILL swing in the other direction."

I think I mentioned something to this effect on election day, when some of my fellow conservatives were crowing. Besides being bad form, it will inevitably come back to bite you in the ass. Liberals are not helping make that day come any sooner but it will happen. I'm making a list of some of the stuff I see my liberal friends doing now and I intend to make sure I do none of them when that sad day comes.

"wow. You insult the President Of The United States then you blast someone for posting this? Too bad the FBI doesn't take a serious interest in these statements that are posted here.'

There are those who would celebrate the death of the President. PAD isn't one of them and should not be portryed as such. And please don't imply that it is illegal to insult the president. It isn't. You can disagree with the sentiment or think it low class or whatever but the FBI has no reason to be interested.

"It pisses me off to no end that you people can sit on your fat, lazy asses and make crude remarks about a President the way you do and get away with it."

Uh, as opposed to what? Get whacked by hit squads? You mean if we ever elect another clown like Clinton I'm gonna have to keep my big yap shut? No thanks.

"Thank God I'm a proud member of
The Libertarian Party."

yeah, well, right now I'm guessing they aren't quite as proud about it.

"I really have no idea how we could end up worse than we are now"

Well, here's an easy way to imagine it: take whatever it is you don't like about now and double it. Like, if you are bothered by 1,500 US dead imagine 3,000. Or 30,000. See? It's easy.

"This was a classic chance for the Dems to take the White House and yet they could not pull it off. Hence all the anger and venom"

Right on, Nick. Good call.

It's on the news that Johnny Carson just died. Now that's depressing.

It's so sad to see people counting down every last second until the next election. Talk about no life."

No,what's sad is people so bereft of life that they feel a need to show up on the sites of people they clearly despise just to bitch at them.

Oh, and I will be continuing to delete all your posts that contain racial epithets, as your earlier ones did. I let this one go, but watch it or get gone.

PAD

"Dammit, how do I see this ever so controversal clock that doesn't require switching to a new browser?"

Switch to firefox from mozilla. Safer than the others anyway.

Hey Poe, ok, we GET it. You've made your point. Try something else. You aren't convincing anyone not already convinced and probably turning off more than a few. There are lots of purely political sites that would love your input.

You people are gonna waste four more years of hating GWB? And for what? I don't get it and never will. It's over, your side lost, live with it.

Ok, so the options include:

A) bitching about Bush and his policies.

B) Taking the kool-aid and happily going along with whatever Bush does.

Seriously, think about that for a moment. Which one of those options sounds better?

Hey Poe, ok, we GET it. You've made your point. Try something else. You aren't convincing anyone not already convinced and probably turning off more than a few. There are lots of purely political sites that would love your input.

He's not gonna stop until he stops getting attention by doing it. That's all forum trolls crave, and 'Poe' certainly fits the criteria to a 'T'.

(And poor Edgar Allen must be spinning up in Baltimore right about now, with you choosing him for your Nom De Net...)

On brighter news, Bill, let me just say how refreshing it is in today's America to find someone who can talk to people he disagrees with politically without spewing acidic venom. It's sad that political 'discourse' in this country has come to the point that I find it remarkable enough to comment on, but here we are....

Not everyone is going to pat you on the back everytime you post your spew PAD except your blind leftwing followers. I respect you as a writer and will continue to do so. But, if you can't be adult enough and, if you dont want people's reactions then turn off your comments and forget about it.

Your entitled to your opinions and so aren't we. If you don't want different opinions, just the onesided ones where everyone agrees with you then you better state so on your blog somewhere that this is a 'Leftwing Blog only' no other opinions are allowed to be posted here just mine and my followers and those hate GWB. That should make fans feel welcome.

"Your entitled to your opinions and so aren't we."

Your slip is showing, Dr Freud.

Lurkers beware: if you're on the Right don't bother posting here. It's a waste of time. Oh and incase you haven't noticed I dont respond to Lefties. So, continue to insult me even when I'm gone it's the onlything a ;efty knows how to do. Just shows how petty this blog really is. You got my reactions & I got yours.

Goodbye, good luck.
No need to ban me.
I won't be returning.

Go, and never darken our towels again.

So? its your blog Peter? And?! You post your spew about GWB to get reactions and when someone gives you a reaction that you dont like you go off on them and threaten to ban them? It's being petty at best. You come across as hating GWB so when some posts about killing thePresident to satisfy you as a joke, you get bent out of shape? Sounds more like PMS to me. Lefties have one thing in common, they all like to agree with each other, disagree and you're an outcast. You dish it out but you can't take itin return, you blowup at others if they so much as give you any backlash, nice way to run a blog.

Poe, you lack even the basic skills to write decent English; you expect anyone to take you seriously?

PAD, try not to get too upset over these redundant fools. Their shameful, hateful comments combined with their lack of cognition render their opinions about as worthwhile as toenail clippings.

ah...thanks peter, you've warmed up what was otherwise a cold, blustery, snowy waste of a weekend!

"Your entitled to your opinions and so aren't we."

When did GWB start posting here?

entry: Posted by Poe at January 23, 2005 05:32 PM

I think someone needs a nap. He's getting cranky.

Poe: So? its your blog Peter? And?! You post your spew about GWB to get reactions and when someone gives you a reaction that you dont like you go off on them and threaten to ban them? It's being petty at best. You come across as hating GWB so when some posts about killing thePresident to satisfy you as a joke, you get bent out of shape? Sounds more like PMS to me. Lefties have one thing in common, they all like to agree with each other, disagree and you're an outcast. You dish it out but you can't take itin return, you blowup at others if they so much as give you any backlash, nice way to run a blog.

You see nothing wrong with something suggesting PAD wants a man dead? Doesn't reflect well on you.

Screw you. Seriously. You and the horse you rode in on. How dare you. How DARE you. How DARE YOU, you unspeakable prick, that you would attribute that sort of thought to me. I despise Bush and everything he stands for, but he's a human being with a wife and two children and I would NEVER wish something like that on him. That is the single most vile thing I have ever heard out of your cyber mouth, and you can go staight to hell. So help me God, if the next words out of your mouth are not an explicit apology for that remark, then you will be cordially invited to stay the hell out of this board.
PAD

Considering that you haven't really had anything to say to me for months now it really won't hurt much if you don't respond to my posts anymore, PAD.

Do I think that you, personally want anything to happen to the President, nah. I think you're a bigger man than that. and no I didn't mean to personally indicate that you would be happy if something did.

That's about as close to an apology as you're going to get from me, so take it or leave it. I will not however, back down from what I said (except for suggesting that you personally might be happy) because I have no doubt at all in my mind that many on the left would happily throw a party for someone who would
at least try. And yeah, that probably includes a few lefties on this blog who honestly believe they'd be doing the world a favor if they take him out. Same atttitude that some on the right have when they think that killing an abortion doctor is okay because they're saving lives.

Why do I think this? Because I hear and see people on the left like Cynthia McKinney, and Michael Moore who make insinuations that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and let it happen just so he could attack Iraq and claim their oil so he can make his oil buddies even richer and he doesn't even care how many soldiers have to die.

And even you, PAD, have said things like "Bush is in it for the oil", and calling the inauguration a "national day of mourning". So yeah, I said it with the thought that some sick bastard might try and pull a John Hinckley. But no, I don't think you'd be for it any more than Jody Foster was rooting for someone to pop Reagan.

I think that if the Democrats had run a more positive campaign they could have won but they just couldn't help themselves. The George Soros/MoveOn.org wing is acendant and it may take more than a few election cycles for mainstream Democrats to rise up and tell them to take a hike.

I read something recently that commented on the fact that the Dems ran TOO positive of a campaign, and that the sh*t slinging from the neocons is what won this election.

That the Dems needed to sink lower and sling right back to win.

I mean, what was the damnable Swift Boat Vets garbage if not sh*t slinging with a national audience?

Lurkers beware: if you're on the Right don't bother posting here. It's a waste of time.

Dude, it has nothing to do with the fact that you're on the right and everything to do with the fact that you're just acting like a friggin douchebag.

That and you seem unable to use your keyboard properly.

You know what's awesome? Punctuation.

According to the Freedom Clock, it's only 1457 days, 15 hours and change until Arthur Penn becomes President. Huzzah!

(Hillary who?)

Gene Hall: …and even the Republicans for 2008 Arnold, Rudy, McCain are moderates…
Luigi Novi: Arnold is not a candidate for the Presidency.

James Tichy: Well, I guess I wont be coming back here. It really is too bad that this site has turned into little more than PAD's crying and moaning.
Luigi Novi: It’s his blog, James. What do you think a blog is for, if not expressing one’s personal feelings? Peter makes political entries once in a while, compared to the entries for his work, sports, etc., and because of this it’s “turned” into him expressing himself? It was that from the beginning!

Joe V: it was lying under oath as President, which some people also called perjury.
Luigi Novi: Bullshit. The Republicans went after Clinton from the moment he step foot in Washington, looking for anything and everything they could to discredit him, even using an Independent Counsel to investigate an old land deal, despite the fact that the Independent Counsel law is for crimes committed by the President while in office, and not before. This was LONG before anyone ever heard of Lewinsky, and it was most CERTAINLY about a bj. Saying it was about lying would imply that the Republicans actually care about honesty, which is bunk. They’re all the same brand of politicians, and are no more honest than Clinton. And this ignores the fact that perjury is the most ignored and non-prosecuted crime that there is, and only refers to lies that are relevant to the topic of the investigation, which a bj most certainly is not to the issue of Whitewater.

Brian: Bush fans just don't get it. It's not about a difference of opinion that we liberals do not like Bush. Had say McCain won, I guarantee you would not see the same sort of reaction. It's just that a large number of liberals see Bush as being Evil, with a capital E. We view him as a warmonger, an oppressor of liberties, and a selfish elitist. That's why we are so upset about him being in power.
Luigi Novi: Exactly. Hell, I’d vote for McCain, Giuliani, or Christie Todd Whitman.

Poe: wow. You insult the President Of The United States then you blast someone for posting this?
Luigi Novi: Peter didn’t accuse Bush of wanting people to be assassinated.

Poe: Too bad the FBI doesn't take a serious interest in these statements that are posted here.
Luigi Novi: Given that blasting the President is not illegal, but a part of that itty bitty thing we call Freedom of Speech, why would they?

Poe: You go out of your way to rag on the right every chance you get but when a poster speaks their minds you go crazy on them??
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about ragging. We’re talking about attributing to him the notion that he’d want Bush to be assassinated. Stop confusing two different things.

Poe: Go figure. If you are all so disgruntled then do us all a favor stop making money from the US, a country that makes people like Peter David famous and go see if you can pull this sh*t in France or another country? But of course the Left feels they can say and do whatever they want against a President...
Luigi Novi: The U.S. didn’t make Peter famous, nor did he make money from the U.S. He did that himself with his work.

Poe: Instead of focusing on more important things they sit back hating a President for four more years. Petty at best. Then they wonder why they lost the Election?
Luigi Novi: Curious. Did you feel the same way about the Republicans when Clinton was in office?

Poe: The pettiness and the bitterness that PAD spews in his entries is worse than I've ever read on any other Liberal blog and that says a lot.
Luigi Novi: It’s only “pettiness and bitterness” when it’s Dems/libs talking about Bush. When it’s Repubs and Clinton, then it’s okay.

Poe: It's so sad to see people counting down every last second until the next election. Talk about no life.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, because when you consider his novels, his comics, his Starpoint Academy, his column, his wife, his kids, his bowling, his interest in plays, making an occasional blog entry really strikes you as someone who doesn’t have a life, right?

Poe: So? its your blog Peter? And?! You post your spew about GWB to get reactions and when someone gives you a reaction that you dont like you go off on them and threaten to ban them? It's being petty at best. You come across as hating GWB so when some posts about killing the President to satisfy you as a joke, you get bent out of shape? Sounds more like PMS to me.
Luigi Novi: Where do you get this bullshit reasoning from? Posting thing to get reactions? It’s what a blog’s for, isn’t it? And how do you know he says what he does merely to “get reactions,” and not because it’s what he sincerely feels? And EClark’s comment was a joke? Really? How do you know this? What in the entry indicated it was a joke? Was there a smiley in it? Was there any irony or cleverness in its delivery?

Poe: Lefties have one thing in common, they all like to agree with each other, disagree and you're an outcast. You dish it out but you can't take itin return, you blowup at others if they so much as give you any backlash, nice way to run a blog.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, because twisting the truth of what was said and accusing a guy of PMS is so mature, right? You’re problem isn’t Peter. It’s that you’re a bigot and a condescending hypocrite who mischaracterizes what other people say, who doesn’t know how to discuss with intellectual honesty, and who thinks free expression should be illegal.

Poe: Lurkers beware: if you're on the Right don't bother posting here. It's a waste of time. Oh and incase you haven't noticed I dont respond to Lefties. So, continue to insult me even when I'm gone it's the onlything a ;efty knows how to do.
Luigi Novi: There’s no need to insult you. Pointing out how your statements are false or internally inconsistent, and how you seem to stonewall when people refute them is quite sufficient.

eclark1849: That's about as close to an apology as you're going to get from me, so take it or leave it. I will not however, back down from what I said (except for suggesting that you personally might be happy) because I have no doubt at all in my mind that many on the left would happily throw a party for someone who would
at least try.
Luigi Novi: So now you can read Peter’s mind, and tell him what he would feel in a given situation, even though he already stated that he would not feel this way? And your only argument for this is that others might feel this way? Since “some on the right” are racists, does this mean I can accuse you of this?

eclark1849:: Why do I think this? Because I hear and see people on the left like Cynthia McKinney, and Michael Moore who make insinuations that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and let it happen just so he could attack Iraq and claim their oil so he can make his oil buddies even richer and he doesn't even care how many soldiers have to die.
Luigi Novi: Again, because McKinney and Moore say dumb things means that ALL liberals agree with them? What, does everyone on the left speak with one mind any more than everyone on the right? Does it not occur to you that liberals are as diverse and individual in their opinions as any other group? Or do you not recall Peter making it clear quite some time ago that he did not believe those accusations about Bush knowing about 9/11 in advance?

"it was lying under oath as President, which some people also called perjury."

Thank You, my thoughts exactly . If Bill had gotten up there and said.

"Yeah, she gave me a knob job, and it was a god damn good one. Hillary never could suck cock."

However that is not what happened, instead he chose to lie about it.

Man, can't we all just get along? I mean, obviously not, but someone should ask the question. From all the posts I'm reading here, the argument seems to be who whines more when they lose - the Democrats or Republicans? Frankly, it seems that whoever wins, then We the People are the ones who are losing. We are supposed to be a nation that embraces diversity and individualism, while still maintaining unity, and this apparant contradiction has finally taken its toll on our national identity. We have become so fixated on what is "moral" or "right", that we have lost sight of who anyone is as a person - we don't see anyone as a person anymore, only as a set of political beliefs, and I truly believe that lessens us. We should be better at this level than the mudslinging that I've been reading here tonight. We should be better ourselves, and demanding better of our leaders, regardless of party affiliation. I mean, did people who voted Republican really want us in Iraq (or anywhere else our troops are getting killed). And did Democratic voters truly believe that Kerry would have rode in and solved anything? These are the things that I ponder when I'm not being a psycho fanboy, and I'd really like to get some honest feedback on this.

I can't believe some of you are still bashing Clinton. In your own right-wing words: He was President for 8 years, get over it. And he was darn good at his job. He did not start a war with faulty intelligence, he did not raise the deficit and the trade deficits so high our great grandkids will be paying them off, he did not propose legislation for education without fully funding it, he did not propose legislation to give the environment over to corporate control, he did not blur the seperation between church and state....
Everything Bush has done in office has turned out wrong. And you righties are still bashing Clinton?

Adam Neace,
No one I know thought Kerry would completely fix the mess Bush left him. We thought he would have fixed a lot and worked on the rest. Now we get to look forward to sinking deeper into the mess. Now Social Security and Medicaid are on the chopping block, and he's showing signs of wanting to use military action in Iran. Even thought the military is stretched thin as it is. We on the left want our country back and thought Kerry would give it to us. I've said before on this blog that Kerry would have been a good presitdent. With all the things he needed to accomplish to fix the problems left by this administration, I don't think he would have been a great president.

Freedom Clock?

I'm surprised anyone thinks this lame gimmick is any less silly than, say, Freedom Fries.

As a matter of fact, I find it supremely ironic that some of the people here who wailed long and loud about the Freedom Fries campaign are apparently pumping their fists in the air with delight over the Freedom Clock.

R:

>Freedom Clock?

>I'm surprised anyone thinks this lame gimmick is any less silly than, say, Freedom Fries.

>As a matter of fact, I find it supremely ironic that some of the people here who wailed long and loud about the Freedom Fries campaign are apparently pumping their fists in the air with delight over the Freedom Clock.

I've not bought into the freedom clock campaign but wanted to respond to your statement. I don't see the irony. The first was a ridiculous movement to actually change the name of a food that was not named by the nation that the slight of said change was inteded for and was an incredible generalization about the character of an entire nation, while the latter is a statement against a specific administration and its policies. How is this ironic?

Fred

Peter, I love you man. "Freedome Clock" That is great. Period. It deserves a golden no prize.

I'm surprised anyone thinks this lame gimmick is any less silly than, say, Freedom Fries.

As a matter of fact, I find it supremely ironic that some of the people here who wailed long and loud about the Freedom Fries campaign are apparently pumping their fists in the air with delight over the Freedom Clock.

First of all - that's not irony.

second of all - the Freedom Clock is different from Freedom Fries because Freedom Fries had the hint of racism attached to it. Or super intense and insane nationalism, at least.

>>"it was lying under oath as President, which some people also called perjury."

>Thank You, my thoughts exactly . If Bill had gotten up there and said.

>"Yeah, she gave me a knob job, and it was a god damn good one. Hillary never could suck cock."

>However that is not what happened, instead he chose to lie about it.

See, whereas Bush will be shielded so that he will never have to go in front of a Grand Jury, and thus not have the chance to lie under oath.

And this is a good thing for him, because the minute he opens his mouth in front of a Grand Jury, his impeachment will have begun...

Personally, I feel that perhaps rather than speaking of the Presidents' characters,we should look at the state of the country at their respective halfway points.

I don't feel that in 1996, Americans, or at least some of them, were this pessimstic, and this depressed about the next four years, when Clinton won, as people seem to be now. However, rather than saying anything about liberals, leftists, etc., and their ability to "deal with it," I feel like this speaks greater volumes about where the country had been, and where it was headed then.
Yes, he was a Democrat, but the country seemed to be in a relatively sound state, and was handed to Bush that way at the end of his term.

Honestly, I hope Bush can pull us out of the hole he's apparently dug us into...however, as the man that got us into this mess, I'm worried. 9/11 changed a lot of things, but beginning with Iraq, I saw a lot of mistakes made that have led to more deaths than we should have seen. I don't have a lot of respect for him as President, but I don't like being told that I love my country less because of that.

Luigi Novi: So now you can read Peter’s mind, and tell him what he would feel in a given situation, even though he already stated that he would not feel this way? And your only argument for this is that others might feel this way? Since “some on the right” are racists, does this mean I can accuse you of this?

I don't believe I ever said or implied that I was reading anyone's mind. In fact, I specifically said, that I had no doubt in my mind that that many on the left would throw a party. That was a statement of something that I believe, so how is that a form of "mind reading"?

and btw, I specifically excluded Peter from my example because he had already said how he felt. I have no reason to believe him any more than I do to doubt him except that I think he's been "mostly" straight with me in the past.

You can call me a racist is it floats your boat. It wouldn't be the first time someone's called me that, and since I don't really give a damn what you think, knock yourself out.

Luigi Novi: Again, because McKinney and Moore say dumb things means that ALL liberals agree with them? What, does everyone on the left speak with one mind any more than everyone on the right? Does it not occur to you that liberals are as diverse and individual in their opinions as any other group? Or do you not recall Peter making it clear quite some time ago that he did not believe those accusations about Bush knowing about 9/11 in advance?

I never said that Peter believes that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks, never implied it. i limited myself quite clearly to speaking of people "like" Cynthia McKinney and Michael Moore.

Do I think that PAD implies that Bush doesn't care about soldier's getting killed? Sure did. Why? Just read his entry entitled "Bush's List", or his belief that Bush started this war for the oil. Hell, he seems to think that Bush should be tried for war crimes.

As for what liberals believe, I never said that Peter believes bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, but I don't recall reading anything from him that says he doesn't believe. Or for that matter from you either.

TallestFanEver wrote: "First of all - that's not irony. second of all - the Freedom Clock is different from Freedom Fries because Freedom Fries had the hint of racism attached to it. Or super intense and insane nationalism, at least."

It most certainly is ironic. You would expect people who, through a supposedly logical thought process, saw Freedom Fries as a lame gimmick, to also see the Freedom Clock as an equally lame gimmick. Instead, we have Freedom Fries critics embracing the Freedom Clock. This is an “incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected results“ -- hence, irony.

Second, to call the Freedom Fries campaign a “racist” campaign is nothing more than hyperbole and serves no purpose except to water down the true meaning of the word. Would you classify as racists all people around the world who speak badly about Americans? If so, I guess that makes Americans victims of racism -- and arguable righteous ones at that.

"Freedom Clock? I'm surprised anyone thinks this lame gimmick is any less silly than, say, Freedom Fries."

That observation would be relevant if a time clock were originally called a French Clock. As it is, no, not really relevant at all.

PAD

I love's PAD's work, and I share the majority of his politics, and I wish I could share in some of his paychecks (but that's neither here nor there). I just gotta say that this particular thread started swimming in the crazy side of the pool a while ago. I've never seen a clock do so much other than tell time.

Luigi, maybe you should've made that a separate paragraph - everyone seems to have missed it.

Folks, in order to qualify as "perjury", it has to be more than a simple untruth. The lie has to be relevant to the charge. Clinton was under investigation for a possible link to a shady land deal. Getting a blowjob from an intern had nothing to do with Whitewater.

(On the other hand, from the tale I heard, it sounds like ol' Bill was good at multitasking - he was getting a hummer, eating a pizza, and calling members of Congress to build up support for some bill or other, all at the same time! Hell, I have trouble typing and listening to Chris Rock at the same time!)

Second, to call the Freedom Fries campaign a “racist” campaign is nothing more than hyperbole and serves no purpose except to water down the true meaning of the word.

Freedom Fries differentiates between a group of people who have done nothing aside from being born in a certain country, marginalizing them to the point where they don't deserve to be acknowledged when, goddamnit, I want my fries except I don't want to say a word about the dirty rotten Frenchmen who voted down the iraq war in the UN.

Freedom Fries is discriminatory. It reduces French people where they're at a point they don't deserve to be mentioned.

There is no way Freedom Fries can be recognized as anything else except sheer batfuck nationalist lunacy.

There seemes (or seemed) to be a kind of misunderstanding earlier on this board. There's a difference between posting an opposing vewpoint, and just bitching. The problem is some people have trouble distinguishing the two, particularly when they happen to agree with whatever's being bitched about.

Example: "Bush hasn't done a such a bad job of managing the country, X is better, etc."

is substantially different from

"Liberals are all a bunch of whiny assholes who can't accept that the better man won."

Maybe once the distinction can be more easily identified, meaningful political discussion cqan take place.

Cam: However that is not what happened, instead he chose to lie about it.
Luigi Novi: That doesn’t make it perjury. Perjury requires that the lie being relevant to the issues being investigated. An extramarital blowjob doesn’t pertain to Whitewater. Clinton was wrong to answer at all, as he should’ve just told Starr that he wouldn’t. But that’s not perjury.

Adam Neace: I mean, did people who voted Republican really want us in Iraq (or anywhere else our troops are getting killed). And did Democratic voters truly believe that Kerry would have rode in and solved anything?
Luigi Novi: I don’t believe Kerry would’ve unilaterally have gone to war with Iraq, that he’s in league with Big Business and the Evangelicals the way Bush is, or that he is as contemptuous of Separation of Church and State as Bush is. Nor do I think John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani would.

eclark1849: I don't believe I ever said or implied that I was reading anyone's mind. In fact, I specifically said, that I had no doubt in my mind that that many on the left would throw a party. That was a statement of something that I believe, so how is that a form of "mind reading"?
Luigi Novi: You said that he would personally be happy.

eclark1849: You can call me a racist is it floats your boat. It wouldn't be the first time someone's called me that, and since I don't really give a damn what you think, knock yourself out.
Luigi Novi: You’re evading the point. The point was, you were characterizing Peter by how “many on the left” would behave. Using the same logic, I asked you hypothetically if that is any better than characterzing you by say, the racist rhetoric of Pat Buchanan or Strom Thurmond. Instead of answering the question, you responded with a dumb Straw Man about how I supposedly called you a racist.

eclark1849: I never said that Peter believes that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks, never implied it. i limited myself quite clearly to speaking of people "like" Cynthia McKinney and Michael Moore.
Luigi Novi: And characterizing the liberals on this blog by them. Thank you.

eclark1849: As for what liberals believe, I never said that Peter believes bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, but I don't recall reading anything from him that says he doesn't believe.
Luigi Novi: I do. He made it clear he doesn’t.

eclark1849: Or for that matter from you either.
Luigi Novi: So now you’re accusing me of this? LOL. So let me get this straight: You’re accusing me of making this accusation, but rather than providing evidence of it, you’re arguing that I haven’t provided evidence that I don’t think this?

Nice try.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the accusation.

For my part, I don’t believe that myth.

R. Maheras: It most certainly is ironic. You would expect people who, through a supposedly logical thought process, saw Freedom Fries as a lame gimmick, to also see the Freedom Clock as an equally lame gimmick. Instead, we have Freedom Fries critics embracing the Freedom Clock. This is an “incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected results“ -- hence, irony.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Irony requires the “expectation” to be a reasonable one. Changing the name of French Fries is patently STUPID, not only because it is an attack upon an entire country simply for the position of its government, but also because French Fries were invented by the Dutch. There is no irony. Peter is making a statement about his dislike for the current President. The idiot who came up with the “Freedom Fries” idea was making a blanket statement about an entire country for the position of its government on a war they thought was unjust (which may have been a combination of sincerity or ulterior motive on that government’s part).

The two situations, therefore, are nowhere near ironic. One is a personal statement by one man about one man. The other was a cafeteria policy change reflective of the administration as a whole, about an entire country as a whole, even though the name of the item in question was a misnomer. It’s only irony if you abandon all sense of scale and deliberately ignore the facts in order to make all things relative.

R. Maheras: Second, to call the Freedom Fries campaign a “racist” campaign is nothing more than hyperbole and serves no purpose except to water down the true meaning of the word. Would you classify as racists all people around the world who speak badly about Americans?
Luigi Novi: If they make blanket statements about all of them, then they’re certainly are bigoted, and nationalistic. Not, however, if they make them about its government, or one person or set of people in the country.

Jonathan: Luigi, maybe you should've made that a separate paragraph - everyone seems to have missed it.
Luigi Novi: Story of my life. :-)

Pretty funny. You know, when Clinton's Reign of Comic/Tragic Errors went on for four fffffffffffffff-ing long, long, long, long, endless 8 years, I didn't get mad or upset. Well, unless of course it was his admin burning a Waco compound, or returning a dictator to power in Haiti, or a child to brutal Communist Cuba, or his employees going to jail and so on.... Well, I made it a game. If I lost a sock, it was that damned Clinton's fault! If I missed a comic, that bastid Clinton must have it, chuckling all the way up in DC with my issue! If my team lost, that witch Hillary must have put one of her Hoodoo curses on them! Yep, Dims are just poor losers and need a lot of help, I mean, for God's sake, get over it. Putting more wood and gas on your loser bonfire only makes you bigger losers. Wow, if you didn't brainwash college kids into brain-dead parrot robots, who would be left in your party? Old geezers that got away with riverside manslaughter, sex offenders and ex-Klanmen. Hee hee hee ha, ho gawd, this is fun...

R. Maheras:

>Second, to call the Freedom Fries campaign a “racist” campaign is nothing more than hyperbole and serves no purpose except to water down the true meaning of the word.

Not true since "French" in french fries refers to the cut, not the nationality. Perhaps the freedcom fries are being liberated?

Pretty funny. You know, when Clinton's Reign of Comic/Tragic Errors went on for four fffffffffffffff-ing long, long, long, long, endless 8 years, I didn't get mad or upset. Well, unless of course it was his admin burning a Waco compound, or returning a dictator to power in Haiti, or a child to brutal Communist Cuba, or his employees going to jail and so on.... Well, I made it a game. If I lost a sock, it was that damned Clinton's fault! If I missed a comic, that bastid Clinton must have it, chuckling all the way up in DC with my issue! If my team lost, that witch Hillary must have put one of her Hoodoo curses on them! Yep, Dims are just poor losers and need a lot of help, I mean, for God's sake, get over it. Putting more wood and gas on your loser bonfire only makes you bigger losers. Wow, if you didn't brainwash college kids into brain-dead parrot robots, who would be left in your party? Old geezers that got away with riverside manslaughter, sex offenders and ex-Klanmen. Hee hee hee ha, ho gawd, this is fun...

What short memories people have. The crying was just as loud and vehement from the right during the Clinton years (and for far lesser reasons) than the outcry against Bush is now.

And its not just the left that are upset. I don't see how anyone beleives in the ideals of the Republican party can rally behind this guy based on his political beliefs. Which is why I felt forced to leave the party after being a registered republican since I was old enough to vote.

Well, unless of course it was his admin burning a Waco compound, or returning a dictator to power in Haiti, or a child to brutal Communist Cuba, or his employees going to jail and so on...

Apparently you've forgotten who put Saddam in power in the first place.

Or is it still too soon (according to Republicans) to speak ill of Reagan?

Or is it still too soon (according to Republicans) to speak ill of Reagan?

It's not if you want to go back to look at the Carter years while you're at it :)

Luigi wrote: "Wrong. Irony requires the “expectation” to be a reasonable one."

Oh no it doesn't. If someone's normal behavior is stupid, one's expectations would be for that person to continue to act stupidly. Thus, it would be ironic if a stupid person suddenly solved a vexing problem that had stumped people perceived as much smarter.

And contrary to what others here may be arguing regarding my comparison between Freedom Fries vs. the Freedom clock, the fact of the matter is, if you apolitically boil the two campaigns down to their basic essence, both are rather silly, politically motivated reactions to some perceived affront from "the other side."

If both sides refuse to work together for the next four years, all of us will end up suffering.

It's not if you want to go back to look at the Carter years while you're at it :)

I realized after I made my post that I was perhaps being too literal.

The messes in both Iraq and Iran were created by our government (along with bin Laden), but Saddam was on our side only as long as it suited us, and I'm not sure if anybody can blame him for giving us the finger once we turned our backs.

Just like we turned our backs to the Kurds after the first Gulf War.

A friend sent this to me on the day of the inaugral
As Bush II is crowned keep this quote in mind:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"President Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

Carl wrote:
[i]returning a dictator to power in Haiti[/i]

Hey, excuse me? Were you there? I was. Sure, Aristide turned out to be a worthless jerk, but that doesn't change the fact that he was Haiti's democratically elected president. Would you rather we had let the drug lord Raoul Cedras remain in power? Maybe you'd like to see pictures of the dried blood-encrusted walls and floors of the barracks that his men shot up? The bloody footprints of Aristide's men who tried to get away in the middle of the night? Hmmm?

And do you know what our inital rules of engagement were? To kill anybody wearing a military uniform that wasn't like ours. But Clinton's a wimp, right? You know why we didn't go in there guns a-blazing? Because President Carter got there first and calmed everybody down, that's why.

Man, don't talk out your ass about things you know nothing about.

Peter,

You and I disagree very often when the topic of George W. Bush comes up, but I love your work, and judging purely from what I see on this blog, I strongly suspect I'd like you as a person.

I appreciate the way your cracked down on the "assassination" comment, and I'll be glad to see you cracking down on trolling. I seem to recall that, a while back, you wrote about balancing your desire to keep things here civil with your desire to allow free speech. While I'm sorry that you need to crack down, I'd rather you do that than to let THOSE people ruin a site that I've often cited as a good liberal blog.

Honestly, a lot of the politically charged posts I read here upset me, but not always because I disagree with you. I appreciate the fact that your site exists, bringing these things to my attention so that I can examine them. Sometimes, I'm forced to conclude that the Bush team has made a mistake (sometimes, a serious mistake), and sometimes I come away thinking that I support the administration's position but understand why thinking people WOULDN'T. Either way, I think I'm always better when I encounter those who think differently from me, as long as their views are held with some degree of rationality, and not with slathering hatred.

R. Maheras: Thus, it would be ironic if a stupid person suddenly solved a vexing problem that had stumped people perceived as much smarter.

No, that's called "luck" or "surprise". Not "irony". Go ask Alanis Morrisette.

Carl: Well, unless of course it was his admin burning a Waco compound…
Luigi Novi: First of all, that was the ATF and FBI, not “his administration.” Second, while there is evidence that they started the fire, to my knowledge, it’s never been conclusive. (I could be wrong about this, so feel free to correct me on it.)

Carl: or a child to brutal Communist Cuba…
Luigi Novi: No, he returned the child to his father, his only remaining parent after his mother kidnapped the child. That his father remained in Cuba was his choice, not Clinton’s.

R. Maheras: Oh no it doesn't.
Luigi Novi: Yes it does. Irony doesn’t occur when you point to two disparate things as being analogous. To expect a critic of the Freedom Fries flap to criticize Peter’s Freedom Clock is a fallacious expectation on your part. The two are not contradictory. Period.

I know it seems things have moved past this, and it *is* a minor point to make at this time, but I do seem to excel at making minor points that de-rail conversations.

Up a ways, DF2506 said "In the America I live in, people CAN say anything they like about the President."

Which is partially true. People have that right to express their thoughts on the President. And if those thoughts lean toward threats, then 18 United States Code Section 871 says they can go to jail for up to 5 years.

Freedom of Speech doesn't cover making threats against the President, or anyone in the line of succession to the office of President.

So, I would hardly call PAD's response to eclark's attempt at a joke hardly inappropriate or over the top. PAD's maybe one of the biggest proponents of free speech I've ever seen. Suggesting that he'd like to see someone on the other side of the political spectrum permently removed is totally contrary to someone who appears to cherish and revere open political discourse.

Not that there aren't member of both liberal and conservative houses that don't feel that way. All the cons saying "we won, you lost, drink the cool aid and toe the line" fall into that trap.

I for one think our government is most effective when all interests are represented, and neither side has a controlling majority. With the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, they're starting to act like the proverbial teenager left alone for the weekend for the first time. Which may turn out to be a great, once-in-a-lifetime party, and if you're Tom Cruise, lead to an offer from an Ivy League school and a sweet train ride with Rebecca Demornay, but for most kids in real life, it just leads to a huge loss of trust when the parents get home on Sunday night, and they see how badly you managed to screw up in 2 days.

*Man, don't talk out your ass about things you know nothing about.*

And other quotes too blithering asinine to bother about. The best thing about liberal asshats is that they id themselves so fast. They are the ones that tell the rest to shut up while they button up their Brownshirts...

Oh, and another point, if these are the Liberal Defense Brigade.... welp, I would be embarrassed to have such brain-dead robots defending me PAD, I love you man, but you need to trade up...

Carl vomited: "And other quotes too blithering asinine to bother about. The best thing about liberal asshats is that they id themselves so fast. They are the ones that tell the rest to shut up while they button up their Brownshirts..."

Carl, the Kettle called, he says your name is "The Pot"... I think you know the rest, but I SEVERELY doubt it...

Now you're calling me a liberal. That's pretty funny. Ironically, it was while I was in Haiti that USA Today ran a poll to see where readers stand in the left-right, liberal-conservative spectrum. The far left was represented by Bill Clinton, the far right by Ronald Reagan. I was somewhere to the right of BushSr. So... your point?

And again, so you're saying that we should have let the murdering drug czar Raoul Cedras remain in power? That we shouldn't have reinstated the democratically elected president? Do you even know what the hell you're getting "mad or upset" about?

I'm a little confused (and I must admit it's almost always my natural state, but anyway), Powell, are you saying that the far left was represented by Clinton, or that the poll in USA Today said that the left was represented by Clinton?

I'm not the most political savvy mind in the world, but if memory serves me correctly, Clinton was much more a centerist than a far leftist (centerist for a democrat, that is). So I'm just curious who is the one saying clinton represents the far left?

Luigi wrote: "Irony doesn’t occur when you point to two disparate things as being analogous. To expect a critic of the Freedom Fries flap to criticize Peter’s Freedom Clock is a fallacious expectation on your part."

Please read my response one more time: "And contrary to what others here may be arguing regarding my comparison between Freedom Fries vs. the Freedom clock, the fact of the matter is, if you apolitically boil the two campaigns down to their basic essence, both are rather silly, politically motivated reactions to some perceived affront from "the other side."

Notice that, in my opinion, both campaigns are made of the exact same cloth, even though partisans on either side cannot (or refuse to) see it that way. I'm not a partisan, and thus, as the old saying goes, I CAN see the forest for the trees.

It was the USA Today poll. And you know, that was over ten years ago, so I could be wrong about who represented the far left in it. I didn't save the issue or anything. Maybe it was Hillary Clinton. Anyway, I tallied up somewhere between BushSr. and Reagan, nowhere even close to the left side of the scale. And now this twit calls me a liberal. Ha.

And this ignores the fact that perjury is the most ignored and non-prosecuted crime that there is, and only refers to lies that are relevant to the topic of the investigation, which a bj most certainly is not to the issue of Whitewater.

[blink]

So let me get this straight. . .

Lying under oath is not necessarily perjury. Perjury is specifically lying under oath about matters specific to the topic of investigation. (So lying under oath about commiting adultery when you are under investigation for a land scheme would no more be perjury than, say, lying about your age when you're under investigation for embezzlement.)

So, legally, Clinton never committed perjury.

So what the hell exactly was he impeached for again?

(I assume lying under oath is a crime, but a light misdemeanor at best.)

"(So lying under oath about commiting adultery when you are under investigation for a land scheme would no more be perjury than, say, lying about your age when you're under investigation for embezzlement."

Frankly I'd love to put the whole Clinton thing to bed...to coin a phrase, but anyway, if my memory serves me right, didn't his perjury occur during his testimony for the Paula Jones case? You know, the sexual harrassment case, not the crooked land deal case. So why are people pretending that he was asked about Monica during Whitewater testimony?

Wow. I just got linked here from another site to look at a Hulk cover... I've never read anything of PAD's, but I'm damn impressed with him as a human being.

Everything passes. Except the debt, perhaps. My first thoughts when I first heard George speak after his first election was the world had to survive him.

Lifetime detention with-out trial. Can any-one spell "Gulag"?

*SEVERELY?* I am wondering what that "word" means Bladestar? Perhaps you should be called Bluntstar instead? Like I said PAD, trade 'em in, perhaps you could get some new pages for the Liberal Robot Handbook...

Frankly I'd love to put the whole Clinton thing to bed...to coin a phrase, but anyway, if my memory serves me right, didn't his perjury occur during his testimony for the Paula Jones case? You know, the sexual harrassment case, not the crooked land deal case. So why are people pretending that he was asked about Monica during Whitewater testimony?

Perhaps because the actual facts wouldn't serve their own, personal political agendas? Just a thought.

Frankly I'd love to put the whole Clinton thing to bed...to coin a phrase, but anyway, if my memory serves me right, didn't his perjury occur during his testimony for the Paula Jones case? You know, the sexual harrassment case, not the crooked land deal case. So why are people pretending that he was asked about Monica during Whitewater testimony?

Yeah, you're right. In sworn affadavits Clinton (and Lewinsky for that matter) denied the affair, Linda Tripp then notified Kenneth Starr, who was the lead guy in the Whitewater case, and he then decided to go after Clinton for perjury because he couldn't get him on anything pertaining to Whitewater. I think thats the reason people get the situation confused.

Since we are on the subject of perjury has anyone read Michael Isikoff's Newsweek story about Attorney General hopeful Alberto Gonzalez lying under oath about his role in getting then Gov. Bush out of jury duty in a drunk driving case because that would have forced Bush to disclose his DUI conviction?

Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857224/site/newsweek/

Since we are on the subject of perjury has anyone read Michael Isikoff's Newsweek story about Attorney General hopeful Alberto Gonzalez lying under oath about his role in getting then Gov. Bush out of jury duty in a drunk driving case because that would have forced Bush to disclose his DUI conviction?

Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857224/site/newsweek/

I read the piece...while I'd love to be abloe to say this should require that Gonzalez be rejected (since it would leave me looking like I have a higher standard of expectations for my govornment officials than the average joe), in all honesty I don't see much there there. Gonzalez says he doesn't remember asking the judge to excuse Bush from the jury. The judge said he did. The official transcipt backs up Gonzalez but the meeting would have been off the record anyway. So while it is highly dubious that he doesn't rmember the meeting, you can't exactly call it perjury (Who knows, when Clinton testified that he couldn't recall if he'd ever been alone with Monica, maybe he was telling the truth when he said he could not recall. he's a busy guy, can't be expected to remember every little detail).

The idea that his stated reason for wanting Bush off the jury (as Governor he might be in a position to pardon the plaintif) was not the actual reason (They didn't want the DUI to come out) is likely true but both unproveable and irrelevent. A lawyer is supposed to do what's best for a client.

Now if you want to oppose Gonzalez on the grounds of his complicity with the Iraqi torture situation, be my guest.

I personally find the whole perjury thing to be an outstanding case of nitpicking. I

The torture stuff is more than enough for me to think that Gonzalez's nom should be shot down but no one seems to really give a rats ass about his condoning torture.

Derek!, perjury in general, or this case of perjury?

The reason why perjury (lieing under oath) is viewed as such a serious violation is that our justice system is dependant upon people telling the truth. Those who lie under oath before a court in a sense are threatening the credibility of the justice system. Our government is like a three legged stool, and if one of those legs fails, well, you know what happens to the 2-legged stool...

While the perjury in the Gonzalez case may be just another jab at the Bush administration, it by no means lessons the impact of reminding people of the importance of truth before a court.

For those that remember the Chris Webber (of U 0f M and NBA fame) case, he was essentially being pursued on a case of perjury, in that it was alleged that he and/or his father lied to a grand jury investigating illegal payments made to college basketball players at the Univeristy of Michigan. Webber broke no law other than allegedly lieing during his grand jurt testimony. That was enough to rile of the prosecutors into aiming the full force of the Department of Justice at him, or more likely, his father. Although I'm sure there are some who would say the fact that he's a rich black NBA superstar had something to do with it as well.

But I'm just not seeing any clear perjury on the part of Gonzalez here...what exactly is it he did, perjury-wise?

Derek!, perjury in general, or this case of perjury?

In the Gonzalez case, it just seems to me that the major issues that should preclude him from being Attorney General are being treated like no big deal when they should be the main issue. Whether he lied about getting Bush out of jury duty, while not a good thing, shouldn't be made a bigger deal than his involvement with the torture memos and his callous shirking of his duties while working for Bush in Texas.

Well, from the MSNBC article, and there's not many facts there, it appears that the perjury is stemming from the fact that Gonzalez was asked to decribe the event in detail, and he left out some pretty important ones. He makes it sound like Bush was just dismissed as part of the normal process of voir dire (creating the jury, when I want to show off my legal training). The recollections of the judge and prosecuter that day include vastly different recollection of events, including a closed door meeting and discussion in the judge's chambers.

Perjury isn't just lieing under oath, it's also leaving out facts relevant to the matter at hand, which in this case was fairly specific, to recount in detail the only appearance Gonzalez made as AG for then-governer Bush. While he technically didn't lie, he omitted relevant facts.

The sticky part is that perjury is an active crime, meaning you can't violate it if you truly don't remember facts or events.

In this case, Gonzalez doesn't come out looking well. Either he does remember those details, and he omitted them, in which case he just purjured himself in front of congress. OR, he has such a bad memory that he can't remember the one, single event where he personally represented Bush in court, and made a novel argument that a potential DUI conviction could lead to a gubanatorial pardon application, creating a potential conflict of interest between Jurer Bush and Governer Bush.

So, our new AG-to-be either lacks basic memory capacity, or is among the worst lawyers ever. Oh, or a flat our scheming liar.

As to the torture issue, I'm no longer surprised when that fails to be the bigger issue. After all, there's about 60 million people that likely are in favor of the US trodding all over the rights of those we think might be connected to terrorists, up to and including practices that are considered torture by the rest of the world.

Still, I am amazed at the arrogance this administration exhibits, in that it's one thing rolled out after another demonstrating just how much they don't care whether anyone else agree with them. They have an agenda, and they have the votes to get most if it through congress unscathed. Single-party government run amuk.

"And contrary to what others here may be arguing regarding my comparison between Freedom Fries vs. the Freedom clock, the fact of the matter is, if you apolitically boil the two campaigns down to their basic essence, both are rather silly, politically motivated reactions to some perceived affront from "the other side."

Nooo. One involves the non-sequitur changing of long-established names in childish retaliation against an ally (who helped this country in its birth throes, by the way) who considered the reasons for attacking Iraq to be dubious at best...long before the reasons were revealed to be flat-out wrong.

The other is a logical extension of an oft' repeated theme in the inauguration speech of the man who is supposed to be our leader.

In other words: one makes sense, the other doesn't, bare essence or no.

PAD

Nooo. One involves the non-sequitur changing of long-established names in childish retaliation against an ally (who helped this country in its birth throes, by the way) who considered the reasons for attacking Iraq to be dubious at best...long before the reasons were revealed to be flat-out wrong.

Two points.

1) France only helped the American colonies to get back at the British. France and it's Indian Allies were attacking the colonists during the Seven Years War (1756-1763). In fact, they are probably indirectly responsible for exacerbating the schism between the Crown and the Colonies which facilitated the American Revolution. And while the name thing is "childish" , such criticisms between France and America are hardly new. Here's a quote from AmericanRevolution.org regarding what the French officers thought of American meals:
Dinners to the officers were frequently given, and the difference in customs furnished the opportunity for some criticism. The French commissary, naturally critical in such matters, writes of a dinner given by Washington, that it was served in the American fashion and abundantly provided, but vegetables, beef, lamb, chickens, salad dressed with only vinegar, peas, pudding, and pie were all put on the table at the same time (Catholic World, xi, 797.) "They gave," he says, "on the same plate, meat, vegetables, and salad." The dinner was served in Washington's tent, and this, in part, may excuse serving many viands together; but after more than a century of development, the Americans are still inferior to the French in the judicious division of courses.

2) We know now that both France and Germany had secret dealings with Saddam in violation of the UN sanctions. Their reasons for not wanting to attack Iraq weren't dubious, they were self-serving.

PAD didn't say France's motivation for not attacking was dubious, but rather that the US' justification for attacking was dubious.

Oh, or a flat our scheming liar.

Which means he'll fit right in with this Administration.

Their reasons for not wanting to attack Iraq weren't dubious, they were self-serving.

And what makes that any different from the US attacking Iraq?

What the hell is it that makes the French and Russians the bad guys here compared to the US?
Sure, it looks like they had a fair number of contracts with Iraq that they didn't want thrown aside (thrown aside in favor of Halliburton, mind you).

But then, Cheney and Halliburton have been having their illegal dealings with Iraq and Iran for awhile too.

Yet, they're not the bad guys. Go fig.

Cheney and Halliburtan aren't the bad guys? I thought Cheney was an evil Terminator cyborg, and Halliburtan was a front for Skynet?!!

Cheney and Halliburtan aren't the bad guys?

Oh, yeah, they are to those of us that aren't deluded by the propoganda of Bush & Co.

Kingbob and Craig,

Big deal, I made a grammatical error. Sue me.
France's reasons for not attacking were self-serving.

eclark:

>Kingbob and Craig,
>Big deal, I made a grammatical error. Sue me.
France's reasons for not attacking were self-serving.

Had they been the only 2 nations initially against invasion, this statement would be much more believable. As it is, to state with certainty that they didn't attack due to self-serving interests alone is akin to stating that Bush went in soley in the interests of human rights. It just doesn't make any sense when looking at all of the known facts and keeping in mind the many we can have no clue of.

Fred

"France's reasons for not attacking were self-serving."

And the US's reasons FOR attacking were self-serving. The only difference is that France's reasons didn't result in 1300+ names landing on Bush's List, with more to come.

PAD

Rats, Fred beat me to it.

I totally agree that France had self-serving interests in maintaining Saddam's regime. Which is not to say that their decision to oppose an attack was ill-founded. Our decision to invade, put in the best of terms, was self-serving. Does that alone make us the bad guy, because we wanted to protect our own interests?

To be honest, the aggression our government expressed to France ("Freedom Fries?" What are we, 9 year old boys?) was misplaced. I mean, honestly, it basically says "France, we hate you now because you didn't want to go to war in Iraq on our holy crusade for freedom. We hate you for not wanting to kill Iraqis with us."

"I mean, honestly, it basically says "France, we hate you now because you didn't want to go to war in Iraq on our holy crusade for freedom. We hate you for not wanting to kill Iraqis with us."

One could make a persuasive argument that France's role was not limited to staying out of the fray; they actively tried to keep others out as well. I recall Chirac warning some of the Eastern European countries something to the effect that supporting the USA position could jeopardize their entry into the EU.

Of course, one could also argue that this was perfectly valid. But it was certainly more than just saying no.

PAD wrote: "Nooo. One involves the non-sequitur changing of long-established names in childish retaliation against an ally (who helped this country in its birth throes, by the way) who considered the reasons for attacking Iraq to be dubious at best...long before the reasons were revealed to be flat-out wrong. The other is a logical extension of an oft' repeated theme in the inauguration speech of the man who is supposed to be our leader. In other words: one makes sense, the other doesn't, bare essence or no."

In your opinion...

PAD wrote: "Nooo. One involves the non-sequitur changing of long-established names in childish retaliation against an ally (who helped this country in its birth throes, by the way) who considered the reasons for attacking Iraq to be dubious at best...long before the reasons were revealed to be flat-out wrong. The other is a logical extension of an oft' repeated theme in the inauguration speech of the man who is supposed to be our leader. In other words: one makes sense, the other doesn't, bare essence or no."

"In your opinion..."

No, in the Czar's opinion. Yes, of course obviously, in my opinion. I'm not nuts enough--unlike some--to believe God is whispering divine truths in my ear. In my opinion, comparing the Freedom Clock to Freedom Fries is idiotic. That has to be spelled out now, that I'm expressing opinions in my own blog?

PAD

"In your opinion..."

I think that pretty much goes without saying, which is why nobody really needs to say it.

Actually, research has shown that Peter is not giving his own opinion. It turns out that the opinion that he is giving belongs to a mysterious 87 year old individual living in Enid, Oklahoma. How Peter gets these opinions from Enid, Oklahoma is a mystery.

Yes, of course obviously, in my opinion. I'm not nuts enough--unlike some--to believe God is whispering divine truths in my ear. In my opinion, comparing the Freedom Clock to Freedom Fries is idiotic. That has to be spelled out now, that I'm expressing opinions in my own blog?

You look at the last election and ya have ta ask that?

"I'm not nuts enough--unlike some--to believe God is whispering divine truths in my ear."

Hey, wouldn't it suck if, after a long long life, you die and it turns out that, yeah, God WAS in fact whispering divine truths in your ear and you, like a total dumbass, took them as your own opinions. Boy would you look like a shmuck.

"Hey, wouldn't it suck if, after a long long life, you die and it turns out that, yeah, God WAS in fact whispering divine truths in your ear and you, like a total dumbass, took them as your own opinions. Boy would you look like a shmuck."

Why? I at least repeated them and believed them, spreading God's word with all the fervor I could muster. Me, I'd be standing by the Pearly Gates, waiting for everyone on this board who ever disagreed with me so I could tell them. They'll be the ones who look like schmucks. At least, those who make it that far will...

PAD

PAD

If it ever turns out that God has been whispering divine truths in my ear, I'm going to wonder why so many truths contradicted each other. Also, why God has such a raging libido/Id.

What I can say is that God wants PAD to write the next Sir Apropos of Nothing novel and drop everything else until it is done. You can trust me on this.

Lastly, God says that it was a shame that JMS and the show "Jeremiah" parted ways, because God really liked the Mr. Smith character. Also, Bill Mulligan is going to hell for eating everyone else's sushi. Word to the wise.

Me, I'd be standing by the Pearly Gates, waiting for everyone on this board who ever disagreed with me so I could tell them. They'll be the ones who look like schmucks. At least, those who make it that far will...

I chuckled out loud at the picture of you standing by some pearly gates with a smug expression on your face, waiting for your props....

"Why? I at least repeated them and believed them, spreading God's word with all the fervor I could muster."

Well, I was just going for the joke but I'm thinking of all the times you might come up with something you think might be a good idea but then you think "Nah, besides, it would probably interfere with that solid block of sleeping time I had planned for this weekend." and then it turns out that it was all part of The Grand Plan which, thanks to you, now has to be put off for an undetermined length of time."

I'm not saying anyone SHOULD act on this admittedly slim possibility, especially those who, like me, may often have thoughts that involve large crowds of well known people and a rocket launcher.

"Also, Bill Mulligan is going to hell for eating everyone else's sushi."

You know, it's not like I reached over and took it out of anyone's mouth, ok? It was just sitting there and could well have gone bad. In that sense, I was protesting other people from possible food poisoning. Frankly, it was the decent human thing to do and I'm pretty sure that Albert Schweitzer and Ghandi would have done the same.

You can say anything you want about me but I won't have you besmirch the good names of Ghandi and Shweitzer! Good DAY to you sir! Good day, I say!

Why is it that people want to denigrate those who hold political views opposite of them, without considering and questioning the individual politicians that fall into THEIR own Spectrum? You know, the one thier defending.

I say this because after someone gives their opinion about someone in the Democratic/Republican party and can back it up with evidence, (or at the very least give their opinion in a compelling and informed manner) someone bites back at Person one's beliefs and denigrate them as if Person 1's beliefs are totally flawed and Person 2's is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Now Peter has made statements about Bush that reflects his point of view. I am of the opposite end of the spectrum, though not by much, so this would be the part where I insult Peter's beliefs and anything about him, no?

Actually, while there are some things I disagree with Peter on, there are actually some thimngs he says that I agree with. I'd like to think that the U.s> didn't go into Iraq for the Oil, but I may be deluding myself.

I could say things about William Jefferson Clinton and say all kinds of negative things about the Democrats, but that's my right. However, I will also say things critical about my own Party if I don't like what their doing.

I don't think that Rice should have become Sec. of State because I liked Colin Powell's honesty and bucking of the trend. With Rice, I get the feeling that there will be more unsaid than said to the American public, and the international climate will get more tense as a result.

I also think that maybe it's time to leave Iraq, because it's taking too long and many young men and women are dying. I DO NOT have a problem with Young Men and Women serving thier country. However, I think that it might be time to get the hint and leave.

I'd just like if the Michael Moores of the world would tackle subjects within their own political beliefs once in a while, because total blind partisanship is such a drag.

"Irony" is being defined by one of the biggest stories in the LA metroplex currently.

Yesterday, a young man in Glendale, CA, decided to commit suicide by parking his Jeep on the train tracks near a major commuter station, and waiting for a train to hit him. Before the impact could occur, however, he reconsidered. He says he was unable to move the car, which is why he left it sitting on the track. Inevitably, a train struck the car, and stopped. Another train, a Metrolink commuter, tried to stop as well, and derailed. In the process, it struck yet a third train, which also derailed. Eleven people were killed, and over a hundred injured.

The young man is now in police custody, being charged with eleven counts of murder with special circumstances. This makes him eligible for the death penalty. Even more amusing, in the jail he is being kept on suicide watch - heaven forfend he should kill himself before the state gets their shot!

Now THAT, my friends, is irony.

Big deal, I made a grammatical error. Sue me.

I would, but I have nfc what you're talking about.

>

"Also, Bill Mulligan is going to hell for eating everyone else's sushi."

You know, it's not like I reached over and took it out of anyone's mouth, ok? It was just sitting there and could well have gone bad. In that sense, I was protesting other people from possible food poisoning. Frankly, it was the decent human thing to do and I'm pretty sure that Albert Schweitzer and Ghandi would have done the same.

>

The sad thing is, something like that was supposed to have done in the Buddha. (I'm not kidding, it was in the stories in my intro to Zen Class.)

It's not irony, it's not fate, it's not even Manischewitz, it's just...odd.

Hmph. By that argument, you are the one that is enlighted, and I'm wayyyy behind in getting my degree. Also, I shouldn't be posting after a long day of dealing with college admins. I go now.

Well, if it was greasy McDonald's french fries, I wouldn't mind, but since it was SUSHI.....

Well, let's add a more fair and balanced approach to the whole situation:

This morning I awoke to the melodious chantings of the good President in his news conference.

That's a positive comment, would you not agree?

He sounded like a total moron.

That's a negative, yet a painfully true one, would you not agree?

See? Fair and balanced.

Too bad we can't figure a way for that Freedom Clock to be advanced and have some sort of cosmic power to affect the universe so that we all advance to the point where the election is plainly in sight.

Why? Because honestly, after hearing that press conference, the thought of another four years of this fellow in charge makes me weep for mankind.

Oops....fair and balanced, right? OK, that was a negative.

I'd still love to go fishing or golfing with GW. Seems like a good ole boy to me. See? That's a positive....er....I think.......

See, I have to agree that there is no comparing PAD putting up a 'freedom' clock to the silly re-naming of 'freedom' fries. But, I will say that it is far from original, Rush Limbaugh used to countdown the days til we were free again during the Clinton reign. So pretty much PAD is like Rush.

So pretty much PAD is like Rush.

Nah. PAD doesn't have an audience of millions with which to promote is "propoganda".

The clock is counting down "freedom" from the political career of a specific party puppet. What do the fries free anyone from? Cardiovascular health?

"In your opinion..."

I think that pretty much goes without saying, which is why nobody really needs to say it.

I remember when I was innocent enough to believe that.

I've found the recent tendency to denigrate the French to be nothing short of obscene.

Yes, the Americans were basically responsible for liberating the French from the Nazis - or perhaps more accurately from saving them from being liberated by the Soviets.

But that hardly justifies scorning them for failing to support every American policy that might adversely affect them. That's not just the way the world works; it's not in France's national interest, or any other country for that matter, to become an American puppet state.

In a way, the genuinely heroic American role in the liberation of France could easily be seen as simply the repayment of a very old debt.

The American War of Independence could not have been won without the support of foreign volunteers like Lafayette, without French supplies in the first two years of the war, without the threat to Britain's flank that France posed after France declared war on Britain in 1778, and without the crucial involvement of French manpower, money, and military expertise at the Battle of Yorktown, the War of Independence's decisive encounter.

Rochambeau devised the strategy that led to that battle, which was fought according to his tactics. Further, he arranged for the French fleet to be there, so that in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. What's more he had subsidised the entire American presence there by lending money to Washington.

It's not good enough to say that the French government only sent Rochambeau there to get at the British, or that from the French point of view it was merely payback for the loss of Canada. Governments, as a rule, act primarily from self-interest.

The Statue of Liberty is a reminder of how, thanks to the courage and idealism of men like Lafayette, 'Humanity has won its battle. Liberty now has a country.'

Perhaps 'Liberty Fries' would have been an acceptable compromise?

Maybe, in a rush of anti-French sentiment, the statue will be duplicated and replaced, sending the original back, or it'll be renamed to "Statue of Freedom" or something. Come to think of it, that sounds like a name Bush would give it (attempting to use "freedom" in EVERY possible situation to gain support, wether the situation calls for it or not).

Herr Bush LOVES Frreedom for all! *

* except gays, books, muslims, foreign governments, non-catholics, democrats, protestors, and the poor

But don't you see? The French dared to express an opinion different than that of our 'President', and chose to act in their own national interest instead of ours. Clearly they must be Evil Incarnate!

Democracy can bring peace to the Middle East
(Filed: 29/01/2005)

Democracy is a rare and fragile plant in the Arab world. Yet by
tomorrow night, two such exercises will have taken place within the
space of three weeks. The first was on January 9, when the
Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip elected Mahmoud Abbas as
their president. The second, to choose a national assembly in Iraq
which will draft a constitution, began yesterday among expatriates in
14 countries, including Britain, and will conclude on Sunday.

By championing democracy as a factor for peace, George W Bush has
maintained pressure on those who otherwise might soon have reverted
to authoritarian ways. In the Palestinians' case, his policy shows
signs of bearing fruit. Mr Abbas has deployed security forces in Gaza
to prevent rocket attacks on Israel. His prime minister, Ahmed Qurei,
has issued a ban on weapons in the Strip and the West Bank town of
Jericho. The Israeli army has responded by suspending "offensive
operations" in Gaza. Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, has expressed
himself very satisfied with Mr Abbas's steps to end the four-year
intifada. His foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, has said that Israel's
response to Palestinian attacks will be "totally different" to what
they were under Yasser Arafat, if it is felt that his successor is
making a real effort for peace. Add to these indications of detente
the imminence of a visit by Condoleezza Rice, the new American
Secretary of State, and at last there seems a serious chance of
embarking on the "road map" to a permanent settlement, drawn up by
America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations in 2003.

With Iraq, the outlook is much murkier. In four of the 18 provinces,
where 40 per cent of the population live, the Americans have
identified violence as a major threat to voter turnout. They are
Baghdad; Anbar, which includes Ramadi and Fallujah; Salahadin, which
includes Samarra and Baquba; and Nineveh, whose capital, Mosul, is
the second largest Iraqi town. Terrorists have vowed "to wash the
streets of Baghdad with the voters' blood" and have described polling
stations as "centres of atheism and vice". Against this must be set
the eagerness of the Shia, who make up 60 per cent of the population,
to end decades of Sunni domination and, to a lesser extent, of the
Kurds to entrench the autonomy they have enjoyed since 1991. And even
if the participation of the Sunnis is low, this will not prevent
their taking part in the drafting of the constitution, or indeed
filling ministerial portfolios. "Ultimately, this whole thing comes
down not to electoral politics, but to backroom politics" was how one
American commentator put it.

This, then, is a highly unusual election. But it offers the chance of
self-representation to a people subjected for decades to totalitarian
rule. Therein may lie the key to peace.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?
xml=/opinion/2005/01/29/dl2901.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/29/ixopinio
n.html