Thursday’s Mini-Report

Here’s a little tidbit that didn’t make our news that is worth reading because it is another step closer to Shrub going to war in Iran. US House of Representatives passes bill charging Ahmadinejad with genocide I would like to point out Kucinich’s efforts to read into the record that Ahmadinejad’s speech was actually that Israel’s government should be changed by democratic means. Funny how the media keeps distorting that fact. I don’t want to see Israel attacked either, but this will just make Shrub’s next war easier. Maybe some serious negotiations would be a nice change. Who am I kidding, not from Shrub’s administration. What I see is a race to get Shrub out of office before his next war and right now Shrub is winning. By Shrub’s definition, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor could have been justified one way or another too. I wonder how those surviving WW II vets would feel about that.

Sorry, Let me correct my own post, it should read, “US House passes resolution urging UN to charge Ahmadinejad”. It doesn’t pay to answer the phone at the same time as typing.

Swan – the date rape drug? The people who support Bush also support possession of date rape drug?

Okay – granted that I’m usually confused by, well everything, what’s the joke. I’m always there to hear any sarcasm/snark about the Cheney/Bush admin…but I’m missing the joke. Not that I don’t want a joke to be there…just missing it.

Yeah, I’m saying that people who support Bush are more likely to be misogynists- examples are Bill O’Reilly, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and there are many more. You don’t catch prominent liberals doing stuff like that so much. I think all liberals recognize the difference. The joke is that I’m exagerrating for comic effect, because probably whatever percent of the population supports Bush isn’t really in possession of overwhelmingly that much of the drug that’s destined to be used as roofies, by however you’d measure that. I’m sure you probably actually got the joke, and everyone else got it, and that your comment is just a bad-faith effort by a Republican to try to distort my comment, but whatever. It just hurt your side more by prompting me to illustrate the sad state of thing in response.

Swan – um, no. I didn’t get it. First – thank you for your first part of your response; yet I was confused, and “sob” am crushed/annoyed by the criticism.

Not everyone is up on every term / slang phrase out there.

I had to look up the term “roofie” on Google and while got a large # of hits on the date rape drug – since I wasn’t quite sure that this is what you meant and the last post of the day by Steve are open-threaded; I figured I would ask away. In case your use of the word had a different intent and I was missing entirely what you were saying.

I came back here to the site to see if you had replied; and at first was quite pleased/relieved that you answered. Started reading your reply. Again, thank you – clears up my confusion, then I read that you devolved into, while not an attack – no, no, yes…an attack, not what I had expected of dialogue on this site.

Granted, in the months\years past, I have not posted comments here the high # of times as the excellent Haik, Bubba, Former Dan, and yes, yourself; not a total complete lurker – okay, maybe my comments can be counted in the “ones and ones” (under sduffysmith or sduffys) – but man, please don’t think of me as a closet republican.

Again, I was confused – therefore I asked. In my question to you, nowhere did I mean to distort what you were writing.

Respectfully,
Steven
A recovered Catholic, former Carmelite novice, who took his double major SocialWork/Theology and for last 16 years been a software engineer, homosexual, loving uncle that supports his older sister and her two lovely kids, Emma and William

PS – hey! I hope this site is not becoming like DailyKos; where comments seem to be attacked more and more if you’re not a frequent poster. Grin.

PSS – any Kos readers – that was just a jibe on DailyKos; I love that site and read daily; much to work’s chagrin – even hourly.

Alright, sduffys, we all know what side you’re on. Get a real job, that has some honor.

Open thread-

My brother tells me that they’re coming out w/ a new Star Trek movie, produced by the producers of Lost. This is a little discouraging, not because I don’t want more imaginative scifi-mystery stuff in the MSM, like Lost, which I do- but because Lost struck me as conservative TV, which is why I didn’t watch it. Unfortunately, after 300, Knocked Up, the Patriot, Apocalypto, The Passion of the Christ, etc., ad infinitum- oh yeah, and all the Law and Order and CSI series- I don’t look at too much mainstream entertainment with the hope that I’m not getting something right-wing ideological. Even the sitcoms seem different and carrying a message.

Lost seemed to have messages/symbolism carrying a right-wing message- example: the relationship between the character Locke and the little black boy he befriends seems to be a message to white people that “You’ve been civilized a lot longer than black people have been civilized so you can beat them easily at the game of life, and should shake off your chains and don’t let them push you around.” This will make the most sense to people familiar with literary criticism and political science, but here it goes: Locke is old and the boy is young; white European history/civilization/technology is old and those of many non-white peoples are relatively young or undeveloped. Locke’s name is that of John Locke, a founding political philosopher of modern western civilization that conservatives often identify with or like to claim as their own. I think that’s a misreading of Locke, and Locke would be a liberal today and appreciate a lot of the scholarship (Marxist critique, etc.) that came after him, but that’s beside the point. Locke is a wily, mysteriously threatening character, which would seem to give white people, if they identify with him, confidence to compete against other people. He plays a game of chess against the little boy, where Locke takes the white pieces and the boy takes the black. Locke is crippled, but he mysteriously gains his ability to walk again, seeming to parallel a popular racist them of a rejuvenation of a long stagnant or under-motivated white race.

This coupled with a lot of other apparently conservative themes I thought I noticed turned me off to the show, for exampel the fascination with torture.

I hear the Trekkies are speculating that the new movie is going to be a prequel to the original series, or a retcon. I hope that these people are not going to try to claim the whole Star Trek universe as their own and make the original mission of the U.S.S. Enterprise set in a context analogous to the War on Terror or a context that puts a quasi-neocon spin on the oringal rationale for its mission.

Swan – please hold on. Where am I a troll? Dears gods, all I did (since I thought its permissible) was ask for clarification. You, yourself, while I was composing my initial question to you, had posted a subsequent post that announced to the readers here that you what you had originally posted was a troll. It was likely stupid of me to attempt to include humor with my question – which bombed my original question.

Can there not be dialogue without accusations?

I’m not attacking you; my signature sign-off – sometimes (to my dismay) I think I’m witty when I’m not. That’s all – not looking for any sympathy.

Swan, I thank you for your un-solicited opinion of my job and words of encouragement to seek other employment. Meanwhile, I will do what I can. Chop wood, carry water.

Steven

From Alex Jones’ prisonplanet.com:

The FBI was aware that Osama Bin Laden may have chartered one of the flights that took Bin Laden family members out of the U.S. in the days after the 9/11 attacks, yet allowed the planes to depart without even questioning them, new FBI documents reveal.

While all other air traffic had been grounded for days by the authorities they knowingly allowed the immediate family of their prime suspect behind the attacks to get into planes and fly out at Bin Laden’s own request.

The previously confidential documents (PDF link) have been obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and ongoing litigation.

The FBI documents state (on page 3 of the PDF) [emphasis added]:

ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN. THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND.

Let me get this straight. The Saudi Arabian royal family was given free passage out of the United States, on September, 19, 2001, just 8 days after the 9/11 terrorism attacks, on a plane chartered by Osama bin Laden, the internationally notorious, suspected mastermind of the attacks?

What an abhorrent breach of American national security and treasonable complicity by the leadership of the FBI.

But our big corporate government puts Iraqi national security ahead of American national security. We’re sold the lemon and forced to suck on it that the Democrats don’t have enough votes to end the “war” and defunding the “war” is politically unthinkable. We’re sold the bumper-sticker slogan made in China, “Support Our Troops,” but our corporate government ignores the will of the people to end the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq. And the war pirate-profiteers just lap this shit it up, including the Bush Laden family’s own Carlyle Group.

And now “Dick” Cheney just took a giant foul-smelling dump on the U.S. Constitution of 1789, but somehow the Democrats aren’t shouting from the highest rooftops that he should be impeached and tried for treason.

It is beyond contempt that the Democrats are failing to act. In this failure to act, they have just as much contempt for the U.S. Constitution as “Dick” does. It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Congress of the United States to act in accordance with their Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Dripping “Dick” Cheney also swore an Oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But “Dick” just told all Americans to go fuck themselves, while the Democrats issue subpeonas to get scoffed at by the brownshirts. Vice President Richard “Bruce” Cheney has broken his Oath to the Constitution and is imperiling, subverting, and usurping the U.S. Constitution of 1789. Richard “Bruce” Cheney is a traitor and should be impeached without further delay by the capitulant, complicit Democrats in Congress, to put it more bluntly.

Libra, would you just go to Hell? It’s nuts that you keep sallying out to attack me.

It’s a typical pattern I’ve observed on sites such as The Washington Monthly, where a meathead troll who purports to be a conservative makes alot of assinine and offensive comments, and then when someone stands up to it in comments, the trolls all of a sudden has a huge base of knowledge, and a lot of intelligent things to say. Even more typical, the troll’s immediate response includes some humanizing ‘details’ ‘about’ himself that would tend to make the liberal intelligent challenger feel guilty for having challenged such a nice person, if they believe it. This troll happened to claim to be a Catholic, which I am and see positively, claimed to be an ex-seminarian (I also see people of the cloth in a positive light a lot of the time) and gay (I borderline-pride myself on my acceptance of gays and support for the cause of gay rights. Also, it claimed to have two children, with names I would like (I would like children, and I am a person who is interested in the aesthetic and would probably like to pick out nice names for my kids). So this troll, that I happened to challenged, just coincidentally happened to be someone that I would feel like an ass for criticizing, if I believed it- if I hadn’t seen a bunch of trolls come back at people with endearing character traits/descriptions of themselves before. It’s so ham-handed it’s pathetic. The comment @7 was a red light, an obvious deflection of my comment (which was a sharp, provocative criticism of Republicans) that was totally unnecessary, had to be trying to miss the point, and was typical of trolling behavior I’ve had aimed at me on this site by a number of character who seem to have singled me out, and calm it down just enough so it’s not that conspicuous, I guess, to anyone but me. Anyway, the meathead troll who comes back as a person with a huge base of knowledge (happens on this site too) probably isn’t the same person. It’s just an attempt to make all you real liberals feel stupic. It’s an attempt to control you. In this age of spyware none of this stuff is unrealistic, in fact, it’s like common sense to people like the Republicans, who pull off fake middle class riots to get there way in national elections a million other similar things all the time.

We will never beat people like this unless we can get some kind of an advantage over them, which should be talking about all these tactics someplace they can’t hear, and not over the internet, so they can’t know what we know, keep thinking we’re falling for the same old tricks, and keep pointing themselves out by continuing to do the same shit over and over again. But stupid people like you make that an impossibility by being desperate to keep falling for their same shit over and over again. Please do not direct any comments to me in the future.

A common marker of a troll is to call everyone a troll.

A common marker of a flipnut is to go off on long irrelevant tirades.

We will never beat people like this unless we can get some kind of an advantage over them, which should be talking about all these tactics someplace they can’t hear, and not over the internet

Are you inviting us to your house? What is this “we” nonsense? You’re the worst any political group has to offer: Overbearing, small-minded and tedious. If you want to pick fights, may I request you do it someplace others “can’t hear, and not over the internet”?