I have a friend who thinks that AnnCoulter is HOT and informed.

Good Lord conservatives are misguided

"I wrote Coulter a brief letter asking her to please remove my personal info from her site. I trust that she will do so. Though perhaps I've again misplaced my trust."

The concept of "personal information" relative to
conservatives?

Two words - Valerie Plame.

Coulter is just jealous because you are W-A-Y better looking than she is!

They like to beat up on beautiful intelligent women now....First Valerie Plame and company, now you.

Great speech and keep the faith.

Doug E.

Here is Anns private email...it is going around the blogs now......

anncright@aol.com

Lydia, you threaten them, because you speak Truth. Those that are beholden to evil do everything in their power to destroy the good. Many posters here are a threat because they bring light to the darkness. The darkness cannot exist in the light. The evil ones will reap what they sow and will fight to the very end of their existance, we are witnessing their death throes. They are dying, a slow, painful death. They know not how to make their pain go away, other than to lash out. Know in your heart, but for a little bit longer and it will all be over. M4

U Go Girl Keep Speaking Truth !

Love Buffie

www.TheBuffaloParty.com

Lydia,

The inconvenience Coulter has caused you is regrettable, although it's not surprising from someone of her limited emotional and intellectual range.

You must be doing something very right because the "dogs are barking" as Joe Kennedy used to say.

Solidarity.

Merifour:

How right you are.... pathetic isnt it????

From now on, we will see what they TRULY are made of!

Lydia:
The majority of important government officials are either lying fascist murderers and or corporate sellout robots posing as freedom fighters of our Amerikan democracy. I thing you know this already or you wouldn't be submiting material at this site. 9/11 and what transpired was no accident. These people are the biggest greedy loser scumbags that only deserve to go to jail for their criminal actions. The Ying Yang of life will catch up with loudmouth losers like Ann Coulter who think they so smart distorting the truth and espouting the good Neocon word. One day maybe soon, all will see these fckers for who they are. If you plan to continue taking these self richeous scumbags head on at this time, you better be thick skinned or have some protective armor. These low life loser mentality bastards play dirty and will repeatedly use their vulgar display of power to forward the "Bushit agenda." Have no fear, Brad Bloggers will support you.

"Sophmoronic", eh? "...a scintilla of comparative brain matter"? Pretty impressive - not.

This is funny considering the writer's embarrassing pretensions and Coulter's pre-pubescent snip as a reply. (It certainly wasn't an answer.)

I checked out Ann's website. It's not conservative; it's not liberal...It's just an obnoxious rant to get attention, like a drunk who's been in a bar all afternoon. Anyone who think it designates brain matter (well, it's some kind of brain matter, I guess) has a screw loose.

Good to see you on Brad Blog, Lydia. Morality and intelligence will prevail over loudmouth bullying. (But you know that!)

By the way, you are far more beautiful physically than Coulter, but if Ann looked like a goddess and you were a plain Jane, you would still be more beautiful. Ms Coulter can't win that one.

... writer's embarrassing pretensions... Of course, I am referring to the silly person who sent Lydia an email. (Just in case that wasn't clear.)

Today's right wing supporters never admit blame, they can't accept criticism, they refuse to take responsibility for their actions or to be held accountable for their mistakes. But they seem to have no problem lashing out at their detractors or apparently anyone just wishing to gain clarity on previous actions or comments.

Leaking confidential and/or private information seems to be the despicable modus operandi of these people. How sad. It seems to underscore just how low these people will stoop to get what they want or to hurt their opponents. While I'm not a religious person at all, I suspect that Jesus Christ, were he alive today, would be sick that these people besmirch his name and his ideals by calling themselves Christians. Unfortunately, they probably wouldn't care. How very sad.

http://www.drewlbucket.blogspot.com

Arry said I checked out Ann's website. It's not conservative; it's not liberal...It's just an obnoxious rant to get attention, like a drunk who's been in a bar all afternoon.

You couldn't be any more right. It seems that all Ann Coulter cares about is selling books and staying in the spotlight. She has no message, no agenda, just personal ambition and selfishness. Just watch - if the left gains power over the next year or two in our government, Coulter will be a liberal before you can blink. The only explanation I can think of for her conservative stances (which aren't even conservative most of the time, they're just in-line with the Republican leadership) is bandwagoning.

"It seems that all Ann Coulter cares about is selling books and staying in the spotlight."

Yes I can see how writing articles about her and writing books about her is going to keep her out of the spotlight.

Good ole democrats. Lydia betrayed Stafford Jones and mis reported information given to her to support her anti Coulter agenda. Then, she writes Ann Coulter an email, and then turns around and writes an incredibly LONG BORING piece on her.

Ann's just showing who has the power here. Count the words that liberals have yapped on and on about her on here (including Lydia's endless blather) to the amount of time and words that Ann has written about it(in fact all she did was copy and paste an email that was written to her...so technically it was Ann's property) and compare the response.

Conservatives...for the most part are laughing at Cornell. Liberals are the ones going nuts.

Ann has ALL OF YOU eating out of her hand. She's laughing as we speak.

Prove me wrong, and don't answer this if I am wrong about the power Ann has to make you go nuts.

#15 - LiberalsWearingThemselvesOut,

I'm pretty much a conservative, and I am not laughing at Cornell. Most people who actually think that Coulter is somewhat intelligent are the ones that are simple or stupid enough to buy 30 second video or sound clips as explanations to incredibly complex issues (unfortunately, the majority of the U.S. population). Coulter uses a mix of oversimplification (an art first perfected by Rush) and emotion to captivate an audience that doesn't know any better and is either too dumb or too intellectually lazy to try to understand complex political issues that our government faces. Most people who understand the complexities of these issues listen to Coulter and see her for what she is, abrasive, arrogant, and egotistical.

I am typically more conservative on issues because of my values (of personal responsibility and having to work hard to be successful, along with the being able to keep what I earned), and not because I was convinced by 30 second sound bytes of Ann Coulter's thoughts on the issues. She further perpetuates the conservative/liberal dichotomy in which both sides think they know the one best way to solve a problem, which they most definitely don't. I am not eating out of Ann's hand, and I have to ask, why are you?

Like it or not LiberalsWearing, Coulter is not a conservative. She's a totally fake plastic neocon.

No real conservatives believe a thing she says or follow the hate talk.

And like it or not, hate speech needs to be curtailed everywhere especially when it calls for the public imprisonment of everyone in camps, or aborting black babies to reduce crime rates.

All started by rabid right-wing zealots no less. That is hate speech, and regardless of where it comes from, has to be regulated so that it doesn't create wars and endless propaganda ala Iraq.

Doug E.

That said, if Coulter would simmer down the Joseph Stalin bravado and come back to earth along with Norm Chromsky, it would be a good time to watch them debate.

If Coulter and Chromsky could debate Iraq intelligently and use all the facts, americans would stand up and listen, and get alot out of it....which could lead to winding down this whole mis-adventure and all the real traitors once and for all.

An open debate forum on MSNBC or somewhere could do this coverage the best and provide instead of flame throwing jargon.....interesting facts and analysis of the problems here.

Doug E.

"hate speech needs to be curtailed everywhere"

That's a crock! Liberal strategists such as Franken have tried everything to prove her a hate monger.

What new are we possibly going to hear this time?

"intellectually lazy to try to understand complex political issues"

Most political issues would not be as complexed as they are if liberals would stop ignoring the simple answers.

"Most people who actually think that Coulter is somewhat intelligent are the ones that are simple or stupid enough to buy 30 second video or sound clips as explanations to incredibly complex issues"

Which complex issue? Can you name one?

And what 30 second video? Coulter has 4 books filled with pages and pages of facts and arguments to liberal babble. She has written thousands of columns. She graduated an Ivy League school.

Whether or not you disagree with her, you cannot erase the fact that she's incredibly bright and has pushed your buttons.

I'm not eating out of Ann's hands. Be it Ann, Our President, Condi Rice, etc....It's fun to watch liberals go nuts, as they always do, to ANY conservative argument or comment.

This is really a total glorification of Coulter. In a year Lydia will be a thing of the past - something I am sure she's used to - and Coulter will be on her 5th NY Time bestseller, and will have another 52 weekly syndicated columns under her belt. She will be paid handsomly for speeches and instead of Lydia or Brad, it will be some other ranter trying to do what they failed at, as they are now trying to do what the liberal big wigs have failed at for the last 3 years.

This is a realist idea. Not to insult, not to win, not to lose. But what are we going to hear that we haven't heard already?

Quit wearing yourselves out. You have elections to worry about and new strategies to create.

She is and has been a hate speech advocate which is the real problem. She publically endorsed having all democrats or those she disagrees with rounded up into camps, and whether such a thing is a fantasy, a ploy, or her trying to lash out it nonetheless is wrong and considered hate speech.

Al Franken has been doing this type of thing also except he will admit that it is satire, anything to get the audience all lathered up.

The way Coulter does it you could swear she was the general in some insane army. And that's not even counting where she crosses the line and goes too far, by adding people's personal information everywhere.

If Coulter wants to debate anyone, she must prove that she can stick to the facts and ideas there to supplement her argument. Not bandy around open insults, or call for open torture of everyone who thinks her ideas are worthless.

Such a thing is the opposite of what God or any christians ever stated. It is obvious what side she threw her meat under.

Doug E.

Ha ha --- #19 said, Most political issues would not be as complexed as they are if liberals would stop ignoring the simple answers. Adolf Hitler couldn't have said it better.

From a non-liberal, non-conservative, non-Democrat; my opinion is that Coulter and the like will go the way of Father Coughlin, her hero Joe McCarthy, and other power-drunk hate-mongerers on a binge - people will get tired of their act and they will wither away to nothing. A few crappy books and current celebrity mean nothing.

Nittany Lion, #16

I never received a response from you re: this comment. Just a reminder.

Doug E, #20

When Paul Wolfowitz wrote his little school paper on invading the middle east I bet it was regarded as fantasy too. Twenty years later it doesn't seem so amusing.

Lydia:

Thanks for sticking your neck out and calling Coulter's ridiculous venom for the hate speech that it is. Coulter, Oreilly, Limbaugh, Hannity are all the weakest links in the right wing propoganda machine. People are tired of them, their b.s. non-answers to real problems, and their childish emotionalism. Cool reason is on our side.

Keep up the good work.

p.s. thanks brad for all your hard work.

johnny

Trying to censor Ann Coulter on the basis of hate speech is a slippery slope. A polemic on any political topic can be called "hate speech," and anyone accused of it can point to a political opponent who uses similar verbiage. Hate speech can always be defended as satirical billingsgate.

Let her rant, I say. She's already been caught in som many lies, self-contradictions, and silly exaggerations, e.g., "I'm not a fan of the First Amendment" (even though it protects her) that intelligent people no longer listen to her. If Bush's poll numbers were going up, it might be cause for worry...but Ann Coulter is swimming against the tide right now.

What I don't understand is why Lou Dobbs aka dipwad has her on his show. As bad as he is, I didn't think he was - that - bad.
Larn summit new evry day..... I guess.

p.s. Keep up the good work. I've got a new question for the IQ test I am creating. 'If you know of Ann Coulter, which of the following words characterize your feelings/thoughts about her?
a) adore
b) like
c) don't care
d) detest
e) puke

'a' and 'b' put you below 70.....

I am glad that Lydia Cornell is part of the "6 or 7" instead of Ann Coulter. I like sanity.

Thats interesting. You make a blog saying how bad it is to post personal info in the site, then your readers post personal info and call a persons house and you all are fine with that.

HYPOCRITS???????

C'mon y'all, arguing with Coulter or anyone who believes anything Coulter writes is like arguing with people who believe Elvis is alive and working at a donut shop in New Jersey. There is no logic. Don't waste your time

Don't wrestle with pigs, you'll only get dirty, and the pig likes it.

For Dr. RW: Why does Lou Dobbs have Ann Coulter on his show?

For the same reason that professional wrestling matches always have a good guy and a bad guy. The more outrageous the bad guy is, the more the crowd gets in a lather. If the bad guy wins the match (it's usually set up that way), the "rematch" draws an even bigger and more hostile crowd.

CNN is a business. They charge advertisers a fee based on size-of-audience. Lou Dobbs has Ann Coulter on because she evokes extremes of emotion, pro and con. The intelligence of the audience is counter-intuitive to CNN's purposes, because the same people who know Ann is a twit are folks who don't fall for the advertisers' claims, anyway. What CNN seeks is the same crowd that goes to wrestling matches...young, emotional, not very bright, and willing to believe that changing deodorants will result in a date with Paris Hilton.

#28

Ricky your stupidity is overwhelming. How is brad a hypocrite? He himself did not post the personal information as ann herself did. Should we blame brad for all the stupid comments you post or should we place the blame solely on you? Yes the personal information should indeed be removed but still place the blame where it belongs.

Off topic, but Laura Bush is on MSNBC, defending "the President's" speech this morning and his strategies for victory, AND showing off the White House Christmas decorations...gag me with a spoon!

I had never heard of coulter before BB and Bill Maher. Most of what I know has been learned here at Bradlog. Reading some past threads here and seeing what she is has convinced me that she is a merely a tool, (distraction) being used by the Neo's as they do, and is getting as much attention from me as a slug in my yard. Whatever, it is not ruining my day. M4 (who believes something very big is on the horizen and 'it' is not favoring bushco)

I am personally appalled at bloggers who refuse to provide some sort of contact information in their articles and posts. However, what Coulter did is just as distasteful. I give out my office phone numbers and e-mail address, but withhold personal information for obvious reasons. For someone else to provide that information is disgusting. I am a self-avowed right-winger and enjoy Coulter's biting sarcasm. but what she did is inexcusable.

Ann Coulter is a nasty hag.

Hey, I wasn't rude to her. I just was curious if the number was real and I happened to be up in the middle of the night on the internet when I came across the numbers. Funny though, she sounded nice even though I woke her up from a dead sleep. (if indeed the number is real) Maybe she is just a liberal plant to make the conservatives seem really ridiculous. Yep, that has to be it. Nobody can be that stupid. Either that or she has just come up with a brilliant strategy to sell her marginally readable works of fiction to the small minded hate/war mongering crowd.

You loons, Ann Coulter lived in Washington DC the same year "High Crimes and Misdeameanors" was written and hated it. It was the same period of time she dated Bob Guccione Jr. She described the experience as hellish and complained "there were no men to date [in D.C.]".

From there she moved to NYC and rumor has it fled NYC to Florida once the smoking ban was put into effect by Mayor Bloomberg.

She still spends most of her time in NYC though due to many TV appearances and whatnot.

Hey Lydia !

Keep the faith because there are way more people that support you than they are that hate you.
BTW it makes me laugh when people like the first idiot makes hateful statements on one hand and claim to be a christian on the other.

{ed note: Address, Phone numbers suggested to be Ann Coulter's remove}

The first number is disconnected.
The second number is that of a female. I called and asked for Susan in the middle of the night. I actually regretted doing this; typical of a bleeding heart liberal like me to feel bad for waking up whoever said "You're calling my home". I hope it wasn't some nice D.C. lady just trying to get some sleep before her work day. Here's to hoping it was Ann and that it was her wake up call. (I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

Coulter's defender (please pick one name and stick w/ it as per the rules here, thanks!) said:

"Whether or not you disagree with her, you cannot erase the fact that she's incredibly bright and has pushed your buttons."

Pushing buttons and being incredibly bright are neither mutually exclusive, nor any sort of defense for the indefensable. There have been tremendous zealots throughout time who are both bright and push buttons (see Stalin, McCarthy, Hitler, Father Coughlin, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Limbaugh, Morton Downey Jr., Cheney, Mussolini, et al)

"This is a realist idea. Not to insult, not to win, not to lose. But what are we going to hear that we haven't heard already?"

Um...the truth?

Have a nice day!

For Kevin Mark Smith: My e-mail address is rmills6126@eathlink.net. My website is robertlockwoodmills.tripod.com. I encourage all bloggers of whatever political persuasion to provide their information publicly.

earthlink.net, not eathlink.net. Sorry, RLM

Ann Coulter is an irelevant comedienne. Wingnuts view lots of violence and temper tantrums as reminiscent of their emotional childhoods, particularly since they've never grown out of them.

Kevin, I just provided my email address. You can click it and see for yourself. My blog is public and easily searched on Yahoo you can find any of those places...

Bye for now.

Doug E.

Brad said that we are going to get "the truth" now.

LOL. I guess this means he's calling Al Franken a liar, Alan Colmes, Michael Moore, Katrina VandenHeuvel, all of them?

Now before you get angry, let me remind you I asked: "what are you going to hear that we haven't heard already?"

Your response leads one to believe that the attempts of other liberals were not true and that your project was going to be "the one" to do it.

All I can say is good luck.

Also,

McCarthy wasn't guilty, you are preaching a half century year old myth.

Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths.

Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths.

Limbaugh (as Coulter) is a political commentator that hasn't killed anyone.

Amazing! This is slander, and you guys cry when Ann comes back and gets a bigger reaction.

Good job!

I'm mAnn Coulter is jealous of you . According to many records mAnn Coulter was born in 1960 which would make her 45 almost 46 .

The she/man has had more than just a sex change
done ! but it doesn't cover up the adams apple or the evil demons that live inside it's soul !

What a useless human being mAnn Coulter is ! but is it Human ? > shaking Head

I feel even more sorry for the losers who worship the Demonic troll !

"Liberals" rants sound suspiciously similar to Ann's. Go put on your George-Rocks PJ's sweetheart and sweet "Liberals-Be-Damned" dreams!

Brad read post #45

Read it well. This is your blog, and the case against Ann Coulter includes deep thinking like this.

Don't you think it'd be better to get this stuff off of here, before your book comes out, and people associate you with the same mindset?

Hi TROLLSARECLUELESS (or should that be USELESS?)

Um, see there are only a couple of easy rules here...don't flame (I'm sad about that, but oh well, there's a purpose), um...don't post under multiple names (you've broken that one - at least (P)Ricky can follow this.) Anyway, the point is that we've got a little bit of First Amendment happening here. I know, I know, it's an unfamiliar concept to you - and neocons in general, that's why you think it's OK to scrap "general comments" that don't fit your narrow perspective of what *should* be posted here. That's what makes this blog so interesting - that we eventually, by random occurrence (such as this), end up with some real dialog. I mean, I'm responding to your post with some reason and rationality because I don't agree with you - but I'm also defending your right to say something I don't agree with. You may not respond in kind, but for a brief exchange, fleeting as it may be, there was an honest dialog. Well, I was honest anyway, maybe you're just trying to get a rise...

Neocon blogs/message boards are so boring precisely because they disallow opposing voices. What are they afraid of? If they were fir min their convictions, wouldn't they welcome those opposition voices, if just so they could shoot them down (logically, rationally, that is)? Or are the neocons fully aware that they are possessed of neither logic nor rationale, and risk full exposure (blech that was a nasty mental picture) if they allow dissent on their sites. Brad could pull all "trollish" posts , but why? Much as I despise your opinions, I believe in your right to them, and I welcome the opportunity to either point out your foolishness...or to simply sit back and watch you make an idiot out of yourself. Both are satisfying to me.

Recognize that "liberals" and "non-thinkers" fundamentally differ in this regard. And please, by all means, continue to post...

Mr. Redneck - what bile has Lydia Cornell spewed? Please provide quotes.

Sorry - I didn't catch it - you already did provide quotes in your link, Mr. redneck, but you're REALLY stretching to suggest Lydia Cornell spewed bile.

I guess the truth hurts.

Meanwhile, Brad, let me note--

"(see Stalin, McCarthy, Hitler, Father Coughlin, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Limbaugh, Morton Downey Jr., Cheney, Mussolini, et al)"

Is this kind of pulp the sort of material we're going to see in your upcoming book? Because if I want to see anyone who objects to socialism compared to fascists and communists I can watch another anarchist riot, and see some cool explosions while I'm at it.

Meanwhile, if you insist upon bringing Reductio Ad Hitlerum into the argument, I would be absolutely delighted to give a quick rundown of Nazi and Communist party platform and let the public see which side of the aisle they most closely compare to.....

NOW NOW I can't believe anyone with a half a brain is

the least bit surprised at ann coulters vindictiveness

Remember she is just following the conservative M.O.

I hope ann coulter gets untreatable cervical & clitoral

Cancer and dies a long slow death undignified death.

Redneck - Flaming Coulter is OK. Encouraged even Flaming other posters, sadly, is not. Although it happens.

Libs...Redneck --- I didn't see where Brad said all the people he listed were alike and were equally evil. ("...zealots who were bright and push buttons...") Seems to me this is one more weird overreaction and the usual illogical, knee-jerk distraction by folks who can't defend their positions in a reasonable manner.

Jumping the gun and saying Brad (or any opponent) didn't say it in the manner you would prefer is not an argument. (But it's what the right does consistently. Too bad.)

Yes, I think it would be an excellent idea to compare fascist and Stalinist methods of governance with the current corporatist rule as well as with the democratic tradition in America.

It would also be useful to compare the methods and outlook of McCarthy, Coughlin, Rove to see how closely they coincide with Constitutional law and with authoritarian (Stalinist, fascist) methods of coercion. Please go for it.

Arby talk about a Clintonian answer LOL.

Outlooks do not equal action.

If we are going to stop someone based on their "outlook" it has to be established that the chances are - more than likely - that the alleged "outlook" is going to result in the same slaughtering as Hitler and Stalin.

All sorts of liberal "dissenters" could be compared to Nazi's as well. Based on their power to be loud and senseless, the Nazis were able to dissent from America's values of keeping Jews alive.

Liberals make these comparrisons all the time, and on the left, there are many...Al Franken...Michael Moore...Dick Durbin...who compare the right and supporters of war as "Nazis". Why is this hate speech more or less important than Ann Coulter's.

Also, where is the line between "debate" and "hate"?

The line is that serious debaters don't say that the best way to talk to people is with a baseball bat. This kind of idiocy is the Coultergeist's M.O. The problem with her is that she gets national media airtime. Not the same as a blog, where people can post pretty much whatever they please, and the relative anonymity of the internet promotes the freedom of uninhibited speech that would not be permissible on the grounds of basic decency on the public airwaves. This, on a blog there is a wide range of opinion, and people express there opinions with profanity (or not), with frivolity (or not), backed up by fact (or not)...

I, personally, as someone with a Political Science degree, who has studied the rise of totalitarian regimes (not just fascist - totalitarian encompasses many economic themes) see a very strong parallel between what is happening in America with the media, corporate influence, wealth and poverty, nationalism, and a whole slew of other things - between this and the rise of the Nazis. It's not an idle comparison, and it's not spewing hate.

When we look back at the people in Germany in the mid-1930's, we often wonder "Why didn't they do anything to stop their government?" There are myriad reasons for their inaction - but speaking for myself, I try to learn from other people's mistakes. And that is why I oppose the Bush administration (and corporatism in general.) The right-wing is always talking about freedom and democracy - I think that we have very different ideas about what freedom and democracy are. And don't confuse capitalism with democracy - they are not the same. One is an economic system, one is a political system. It's this lack of broad and historical analysis that permits the right-wing to come to simple black-and-white answers to complex problems - but it's also calculated to be that way, because in the end we really do have a plutocracy in every sense of the word. Those who have the money make the rules, and they certainly don't make the rules to benefit the majority - unless the majority actually stands up for themselves and demands it.

You should read Al Franken's new book. With an open mind, of course.

SoulRebel, are you sure that Flaming is against the rules? According to this and this and this and this and this and this and this, flaming is most definitely allowed--maybe it depends on your political persuasion. (and my apologies for the "ands". I do know better, but it helps space out the links.)

Meanwhile, Ms. Cornell's claim that she cares about Jesus' Golden Rule is something that I've already show down here, with her own words. Nor, as noted here and here, do her political allies on the Lenonist side of the aisle.

For her to spew such bile, and then attempt to portray herself as a courageous young woman just trying to be nice to everyone while for some reason all the evil people have chose her to hate today, is an insult to our intelligence. Not so much, however, to those of use who actually recognize it as an insult, as opposed to those of who who cheer her on like sorority-students shaking their fists and shouting "that's right--the suffrage has got to stop!"

Thanks for your post, Soul Rebel. I totally agree with you that the parallels between what's happening here under the bu$h admin. and 1930s Germany and Soviet Russia are chilling, but I don't expect any of the rabid Republicans posting here to admit it. They give total allegience to their Party.

We should always put what's good for the country before allegience to a political party. I see this kind of consideration from non-Republicans, but not the rank & file Republicans of today.

This is the most frustrating aspect of trying to carry on discourse with the Republicans I know - for instance, the die-hard Republicans in my own family who have screwed themselves in so tight with their Party they are unable to see that their arguments are based solely on popular right-wing rhetoric rather than facts.

Welcome to the Gulag.

Daniel Froomkin has written an excellent article that details the further alienation of all American Citizens who disagree with the bu$h administration. You can read it HERE.

[snip] What does it say about the president of the United States that he won't go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he'll only speak to captive audiences?

President Bush's safety zone these days doesn't appear to extend very far beyond military bases, other federal installations and Republican fundraisers.

Tomorrow, Bush gives a speech on the war on terror --- at the United States Naval Academy. Then he attends a reception for Republican party donors.

Today, he visits a U.S. Border Patrol office, then attends a Republican fundraising lunch.

Yesterday, he spoke at an Air Force base and a Republican fundraiser.

... When was the last time that Bush spoke in a forum open to citizens who are representative of the diverse array of views in the country? Certainly not since last October's presidential debates, and not often before then, either.

The White House advance team has long been sensitive to the potency of imagery in presidential events, going to great lengths to stage dramatic backdrops for Bush's appearances. In particular, they have used uniformed, on-duty military audiences many times before to underscore his case for war.

During last year's campaign, White House advance teams began screening audiences at Bush events to insure that only supporters were allowed in. After the election, that policy gave way to a new, "invitation only" approach, in which tickets to so-called public events were distributed largely by Republican and business groups. Now Bush is in phase three, where almost everyone he appears before is either on the federal payroll or a Republican donor.

I've written a lot about Bush's bubble before. In particular, I've wondered if Bush suffers from being so sheltered from dissent, and I've raised the question of whether taxpayers should be funding presidential events to which the public is never welcome. [snip] **MORE**

So --- yes, trolls --- there is a great deal of unrest from non-Republicans as well there should be. When more than half the country is alienated by force from having a voice in government (which should be "by the People for the People") there will be an emotional outcry. Again, as well there should be.

It must be insanity that keeps people from being able to see the utter fiscal irresponsibility of this illegitimate administration and the fact that our country is on the brink of becoming a third world country. The bu$h admin. is absolutely using the elitist rhetoric which was used by the Nazi regime to manipulate the citizens of Germany. Some of us know this. Obviously others are too far gone to be able to see it.

Thanks to all the intelligent folks here at BradBlog for keeping at it. Every day I wake up and say my prayers thanking God that I'm not a rank and file Republican.

COMMENT #56 [link]
...LiberalsAreClueless said on 12/1/2005

"McCarthy wasn't guilty, you are preaching a half century year old myth.

Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths.

Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths.

Limbaugh (as Coulter) is a political commentator that hasn't killed anyone"
___________________________________
McCarthy wasn't guilty of what? Being a human being?

Public speakers have influence and power. Their words car in fact kill, if they influence others to do so.

In America it is a crime to commit murder.

But it is also a crime to coerce, directly incite or otherwise manipulate another to do so. So saying Coulter and others have not killed, well,,,they have not perhaps killed directly (although I would not put it past Limburger).

That being said, I do not think we should attempt to stifle anyone’s speech, regardless of what they are saying, as long as it does not DIRECTLY lead to actions that may harm others.

In other words, if I say something, that makes you think, 'hey, I want to kill someone', and then they go and do it, then THEY decided to do it. Not me.

On the other hand, if I decide to post your unpublished home phone number on my website, which was provided to me with no verbal or written consent to post it publicly, where I know the viewers of my site are hostile to this person whose number I just posted, then I have directly acted in a way that has placed that persons physical well being in danger.

And that CAN be considered a crime.

And it certainly is a civil matter.

Why, because her statement is written with the apparent intent to incite riot, and incite those specific physical attacks on a specific person. And I could easily see a Jury finding her liable for damages and even guilty of inciting violence and sending her off to jail.

I know she is just trying to push buttons, and she probably does not mean half of what she says, she’s just trying to buffalo the dems. But when she posts someone’s unlisted number on the Internet, on a site where she knows those hostile to the person whose number she is posting frequents, she is acting in pre-meditated fashion, and with clear malicious intent. In other words, she is acting in a criminal fashion.

As it’s been said before, “my right to swing ends, where your nose begins”
:plain:

Kira, the title of the piece inplies that death turns the woman on. Just how far apart are you planning to set the two different standards, here?

And as for the truth hurting.... How would you know?

"I, personally... see a very strong parallel between what is happening in America with the media, corporate influence, wealth and poverty, nationalism, and a whole slew of other things - between this and the rise of the Nazis. It's not an idle comparison, and it's not spewing hate."
Considering there weren't corporations back then, Germany didn't have a slew of protestors calling for soldiers to shoot their officers (quick! Were these protestors liberal or conservative!?), and the media didn't hate Hitler beyond all reason (anybody remember Memo-Gate? Just one incident in a long, long list.), it's most definitely an idle comparison. Or, at least as idle as name-calling gets.

I've always found it amusing that most people consider comparing your opponent to Hitler as an indication that you don't have a leg to stand on and refuse to admit it--it's our cue to laugh, in other words--yet for liberals it's the only bullet in the gun.

It's even more amusing in consideration of the fact that any reasonably close look at Nazism (or, worse, Communism) reveals that it's platform leans a lot closer to one side of the aisle to the other. And it ain't my side.

Redneck,

When you say Germany didn't have corporations in the 1930's you are quibbling over semantics, and it's a lame argument. Germany was heavily industrialized and those industries had powerful and wealthy lobbies, and the business owners profted mightily from the Nazi war machine - so my initial comparison holds.

If you really think that the media hate Bush, then you are drowning in delusion. For one, the media are only as liberal as their corporate ownership. Second, you need to distinguish between editorializing and news. They are very different. There are editorials from a diverse array of media outlets that are both pro- and con- the Bush administration. You see a con- editorial and you say "Damn liberal media". We see the way the media is constricted in the actual telling of the news, and the words "liberal media" become a complete joke. Once again, the rest of the world sees our "free" society as what it is - corrupt and propagandized. And I'm not talking about the Mexicans crossing the border to come and pick fruit for a dollar an hour - yes, life here may be better, but that's a whole different story, and entirely irrelevant. How many Danes are clamoring to immigrate? Swedes? Spaniards? New Zealanders? Not bloody many, mate.

I suppose that the only way liberals could really "prove" their point is to step off the radar, let shit take its course, and then point the finger afterwards and say "told ya" as the rest of you wonder where your civil rights went. But you don't have to worry too much about people like me holding you up. I've already got my ticket out come summer. Enjoy.

Oh, one more thing - your arguments in general don't hold any water. Tell me how the liberal platform is akin to Nazism or Communism. And just by your inclusion of the "or worse", as if you understood communism (not the Soviet, mind you - real unadulterated Marxism) tells me that you are entirely useless to debate.

Clueless # 56 - You're still clueless. Why can't you stay on the subject? Brad was speaking of zealots who were bright and push buttons. Didn't I mention that? Now, are you saying that the list does not consist of "zealots who were bright and pushed buttons"? Or is it just sooo important to get across your self-evident point that Ann Coulter (e.g) is not as bad as Stalin?

I mean, if we want to get anywhere there has to be some kind of continuity of discussion. Talking about something else, you're just talking to yourself. However, if you'd like to add to Brad's list, I'm sure that would be helpful. Or get a little specific on why, maybe, some on the list are not zealots. Then we could really discuss something.

By the way, please don't pull that worn-out "Clintonian" toy on me. If "Clintonian" means staying on the subject, I guess I'll defer to your fantasy, but I think Clinton was a disaster for the nation, setting the stage for current acute national degradation. Play your games with someone else.

Wow, I have never seen BB host so many from the other side. I can certainly see the fear coming through their posts. They are afraid, very afraid. Are we approaching zero point...oh my. Their world is crashing and they don't know what to do but come here and post endless tirades. M4

# 61 re: #60 --- You're right, but Germany certainly did have corporations in the 1930's and they were partners in the developing and maintaining the fascist structure of the Third Reich.

Arry,

Is that technically correct (about corporations)? I didn't know if this Redneck character was trying to blur the lines between what existed then (IG Farben, Krups, VW, etc) as corporations, and what exists now as a legal corporate charter. I know the corporate entity has morphed over the years. As I said, it really is just semantics and an entirely invalid distinction (if one even exists) on the Redneck's part. SR

Redneck, read the book "The Arms of Krupp". Germany's industrial corporate barons bankrolled Hitler. The firm still exists as Thyssen-Krupp, two corporate formerly family firms that merged after WWII.

Joseph McCarthy wasn't on trial for anything, and thus nobody claimed him "guilty".

However, the declassificaion of the Venona Project in 1995 sheds an interesting light on Sen. McCarthy's exploits.

Back in WWII, we were, to put it bluntly, frightened that there may be another Hitler-Stalin alliance. An alliance like that would allow Hitler to concentrate his firepower on his western front and just may have meant the takeover of Europe by Nazi troops, who would undoubtedly have used Europe as a springboard to the rest of the world.

With this in mind, the Army Special Services Division began working to break the Soviet code. The Soviets used an "unbreakable" code--we broke it. And among the things we found were thousands of messages going back and forth between the Soviet Union and their spies here in the USA.

Rosenberg? Guilty.
Judith what's-her-name? (the one caught handing classified files to a KGB agent) Guilty
Harry Dexter White, who had a heart attack shortly after being questioned by McCarthy's committee? Soviet spy.
Lawrence Duggan, who fell out of a high window shortly after being questioned (there wasn't a note, but it was almost certainly suicide)? Soviet spy.

McCarthy is accused of accusing anyone liberal of being a communist spy. While we now know that wouldn't have been such a bad idea, the truth is that he already knew exactly who these people were.

(#67) "the truth is that he already knew exactly who these people were" Did he? How 'bout we add a few more names to your list:

Aaron Copland - not a spy
Elia Kazan - not a spy
Arthur Miller - not a spy
David Bohm - not a spy
Paul Sweezy - not a spy
Waldo Salt - not a spy
John Hubley - not a spy
Lillian Hellman - not a spy .... and the list goes on...

(#58) Kira - I couldn't agree with you more. The absence of dissent within and around this administration is troubling. And while we're on the subject of the Nazi regime, here's a disturbing quote concerning government and dissent:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

Soul Rebel --- I entirely agree with you (as usual).

The German Aktiengesellschaft is a corporation, must be registered as a corporation; shares traded, and so on. It's a corporation, and some of the most powerful ones developed in Germany before and after WWI. (I'm sure you know many were also involved deeply in U.S. affairs and vice versa.)

The military/corporate/government entity was one of the most authoritarian and violent political structures in history, and anyone would be a fool to disregard the lessons of history and turn a blind eye to its consolidation in this country.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945 "

A Perfect Quote! Now, just replace the word "State" with the word "Party" and you get a major Plank for the next Democratic National Convention!! After all, it was called for by one of your own right here .

Did anyone else answer Kira's "when did she (Lydia) spew bile" question? I submit "... so I suspect she belongs to the Antichrist trinity or the Taliban sect of Christianity." Maybe not quite as potent as Dick Durbin declaring our troops are acting like Nazis, but Bile nonetheless.

I love the typical leftist responses when they become offended: spam , hate , . and harrassment . Just like a bumper sticker I recently saw that said "A person of Diversity and Tolerance keyed my car".

I noticed that Lydia's blog page is now "broken" and all the awesome conservative responses (over 100 earlier today) are all "lost"??!? Isn't that what Goebbels was meaning when he spoke of repressing dissent? I guess there is nothing more embarassing than leftists being intellectually humiliated on a leftist website.

I suggest the Right are not the ones "Drowning in Delusion", but I doubt my comments wil sway anyone here...

Hmmm, my hotlinks didn't work?! Sorry for the confusion, I'll look them up and post them shortly.

Timarko--I provided several of Ms. Cornell's quotes--that one among them. She said I was "REALLY stretching". I asked her how far apart she planned to set the standards, and have yet to recieve an answer.

" I can certainly see the fear coming through their posts. They are afraid, very afraid. Are we approaching zero point...oh my. Their world is crashing and they don't know what to do but come here and post endless tirades."
--Sorry if I interrupted your slandering of opponents and Reductio ad Hitlerum. Oh, yes, we're afraid--quite literally, because if you people have your way, this great nation of ours will be cast down.

"If you really think that the media hate Bush, then you are drowning in delusion. For one, the media are only as liberal as their corporate ownership."
--Do you have access to Lexis-Nexis? If so, try a few simple searches for me, could you? Look up "Ultra-right wing" "ultra conservative" and "extreme conservative" and write down how many articles you get. Then try the same with "ultra-left wing", ultra-liberal", and "extreme liberal" and compare the numbers.

Then try the same trick with "Matthew Shepard" and then "Jeff Curley" and "Jesse Dirkhising". Then try "James Byrd" with "Ken Tillery".

Or, you could try reading a newspaper. To claim that the media is not liberal must require deliberate blindness.

" Second, you need to distinguish between editorializing and news."
--My bad, Memo-gate was an aditorial?
The New York Times article claiming that the US Attorney's office broke off an investigation when the DC Snipers were about to confess was an editorial?
--The Times article by Charlie LeDuff deliberately misquoting Lt. Commander Mike Beidler was an editorial?

" You see a con- editorial and you say "Damn liberal media"."
--No, we see news that may benefit conservatives being hidden while reports to the contrary--often false--make the front page. Then we look at a con- editorial and say "oh, I guess that explains it"

" And I'm not talking about the Mexicans crossing the border to come and pick fruit for a dollar an hour - yes, life here may be better, but that's a whole different story, and entirely irrelevant. How many Danes are clamoring to immigrate? Swedes? Spaniards? New Zealanders? Not bloody many, mate."
--Actually, the illegal immigrants where I'm at make $10 an hour, but when nations who ask "how high" when a terrorist group says "jump" tell us they dont' like us, I don't worry too much.

" suppose that the only way liberals could really "prove" their point is to step off the radar, let shit take its course, and then point the finger afterwards and say "told ya" as the rest of you wonder where your civil rights went."
--Kind of like what happened when California was under Democrat rule for a few decades?

" I've already got my ticket out come summer. Enjoy"--Can you take Alec Baldwin with you? Every election he threatens to leave, and every election he stays.

"but it's also calculated to be that way, because in the end we really do have a plutocracy in every sense of the word. Those who have the money make the rules, and they certainly don't make the rules to benefit the majority - unless the majority actually stands up for themselves and demands it."
--This always makes me wonder--if the folks who have the money make all the rules in their favor, then how come the top 20% of the population pays about 90% or taxes? You'd think that all those evil capitalists would fix that part first, wouldn't you?
And while liberals complain about the folks with money, I never see them name Hanoi Jane, or Ted Turner, or Barbra Streisland, or Micheal Moore, or George Soros (extra note--Soros makes his fortune betting against the dollar on the international market.... The guy who makes his living betting against America supports liberalism. Go figure....).

"Oh, one more thing - your arguments in general don't hold any water. Tell me how the liberal platform is akin to Nazism or Communism. And just by your inclusion of the "or worse", as if you understood communism (not the Soviet, mind you - real unadulterated Marxism) tells me that you are entirely useless to debate."
--First, the "or worse" section.
Nazis--13 million of their own citizens murdered. Nasty folks.
Communists. 35 million of their own citizens murdered in the USSR. 64 million in China. 1 million in Tibet. 1 to 3 million (out of a population of 7 million) in Cambodia. Plus a few hundred thousand each in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Laos, Guatemala, and pretty near every other nation they concquered.
The Nazis were indeed flat-out evil. The Communists make them look like pikers.

As for how the liberal platform is akin to Nazism--or worse, Communism...
--loss of citizen's right to their own property
--hatred of religion in general, Judaism and Christianity in particular
--expansion of government size and power
--hatred of the concept of marriage (Marx was particularly in contempt of the institution, and Lenin's goal was to make sexual intercourse as casual as "drinking a glass of water")
--government control of the economy.

My argument in general was that your comparison of your opponents to Nazis is not only a contemptible attempt to change the subject, but one which you should not have attempted, under the "glass houses" concept.

My apologies, however, regarding corporations--I thought the concept had arisen later than the period of Nazi Germany.

"Aaron Copland - not a spy"
Very good! One small problem. McCarthy didn't accuse Aaron Copland of being a spy. He was accused of being a communist, for those who want to see Mr. Copland try and work around his involvement with various Communist groups..

"Elia Kazan - not a spy"
Very good! Except, again, McCarthy didn't accuse Elia Kazan of being a spy. In fact, Elia Kazan appeared before the House Unamerican Activities Committee--Senator McCarthy didn't have anything to do with him.

"Arthur Miller - not a spy"
Same thing. Note the word "House" in "House UnAmerican Activities Committee", and the word "Senator" in "Senator Joseph McCarthy".

"David Bohm - not a spy"
You guesed it.

And the list does indeed go on, and on, and on, from people investigated who weren't Communists (you have an investigation to find out these things, after all) to people investigated who were Communists to people investigated who were Soviet spies; I simply don't have another half-hour to go looking for them instead of sleeping. We've still only managed to decode a fraction of the Venona cables, so of course McCarthy didn't wait until the 60's to hold an investigation. Those charged with being Soviet spies, on the other hand, were a different matter.

By all means, add a few names to the list. But the list is of people McCarthy accused of being Soviet spies, not the modern definition of McCarthyism, meaning "anyone who frowned at a liberal between 1930 and 1970."

TX first: You are reduced to "I know you are but what am I?" Elementary "tattletale" type chants with no basis in fact. So you have a bumpersticker slogan. So what? It means nothing. That's all you have - words that sound pretty and clever, but mean nothing. It's childish and unsubstantiated. As far as Lydia's blog, I haven't been there so I don't know about missing posts from dissenters. i will say this, though - dissenting posts are routinely removed from right-wing blogs. And quickly, too, as if they had people working them whose job it is specifically to squash counterpoint. Notice that we don't do that here. Nor would I want to - as I've said before, the more you talk, the more ignorant you sound. So no, your posts won't sway anyone of any intelligence.

Redneck - Calling someone Hitleresque - or the right-wing in general Hitleresque - is not slander. It is a comparison based on a historical precedent. It doesn't mean that someone has done the things that Hitler did - but that there is a prevailing attitude about the interpretation of events that is a parallel. For example - when the Coultergeist says that liberals shoudl be talked to with a baseball bat, that is a very "brownshirt" mentality.

You think that the number of hits on Lexis-Nexis counts as some representation of any media bias. Please. That's about the worst argument you've made. For one, the majority of the population doesn not get their information from the internet, they still get it from TV and the news. Web items don't necessarily have any validity, on either side of the political fence.

You say that I am "deliberately blind" - I believe the same of you. So this gets us nowhere. You see what you want. I see what I want. I do my best to give the media the benefit of the doubt on neutrality as much as I can, but my fundamental beliefs on society and government distort my interpretations, as I'm sure they do yours. That's the real disagreement here - it is philosophical, and neither of us are likely to be changed by the other's arguments. We each feel that the other is wrongheaded. I'm OK with that.

Memo-gate. There are many theories about the origination of that memo. One is that it was bad journalism. One is that the memo was created by a right-wing group to deliberately cast a liberal, and thus faulty, bias on the media. We may never know which is the truth. Based on the historical tactics of operatives like Karl Rove, however, I know where my suspicions lie. Dan Rather, however, did publicly apologize for the story. When has a Republican talking head ever apologized for their factual transgressions (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.)? The Faux machine routinely misquotes or takes bits of speech out of context. The thing is, I think it's bad for anyone to deliberately misrepresent. If a Democrat does it (and I am not a Democrat) then they should be taken to task. I don't see the same sentiment in my opposition.

I have to run...I'll finish this later.

Redneck (#72) Aren't you splitting hairs here to prove your point? McCarthy's work included a whole lot more than identifying Soviet spies. His efforts involved coercing ALL Communist Party members into naming names of all people who were members of the Communist party, not just people who were suspected of being spies. As a result many were blacklisted and financially devastated.

I guess you could say this was needed in order to complete his investigation thoroughly (if you want to completely disregard the 1st amendment). Kind of similar to the support for locking up suspects at Gitmo and throwing away the key, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

A parallel to McCarthy's efforts today would be to round up all Muslims in this country and accuse them of being Muslims. Then we'll coerce them to name all the other Muslims they know. After all, our final goal of finding potential terrorists should trump their first admendment rights.

The argument here, is not whether McCarthy's efforts were successful. Indeed, he was successful in identifying spies. The question is, how much of the "soul" of America are we willing to abandon in order to accomplish defense of our country? If we have to give up our freedoms as Americans in order to get the "bad guy", is that what we should do? Regardless of how badly I want them to get these evil bastards, I cannot stomach the thought that we would give up our basic American values in order to do it. In the end, the terrorists win because they have created the oppression that they desire right here. The question is not what we're willing to do, the question is: who are we willing to become?

"Calling someone Hitleresque - or the right-wing in general Hitleresque - is not slander. It is a comparison based on a historical precedent."
--which is why a joke about a baseball bat is "very "brownshirt" mentality"? Last I heard, Hitler gassed the Jews, he didn't have them beaten to death with baseball bats. And yet, you still have to use the Reductio ad Hitlerum, thus destroying any credibility the former statement may have had.

"You think that the number of hits on Lexis-Nexis counts as some representation of any media bias. Please. That's about the worst argument you've made. For one, the majority of the population doesn not get their information from the internet, they still get it from TV and the news. Web items don't necessarily have any validity, on either side of the political fence"
Once you find out what Lexis-Nexis is (and if you think it has something to do with "Web items", then no, you don't know), you'll understand.

"Memo-gate. There are many theories about the origination of that memo. One is that it was bad journalism. One is that the memo was created by a right-wing group to deliberately cast a liberal, and thus faulty, bias on the media."
Who got a liberal in Texas to lie about it and claim he'd found the memo? And these conservatives hypnotized Rather and CBS so that they ran it despite their own analysts saying it was probably fake.

And yes, Rather apologized--and was ditched anyway, to cover Mary Mapes' behind. She has yet to apologize, and in fact still defends her decision. Not, considering Rather's history of bias, that I have much sympathy for Danny.

"The Faux machine routinely misquotes or takes bits of speech out of context."
Such as? Come now, I didn't see Memo-gate coming out of FOX news.....

"Aren't you splitting hairs here to prove your point?"
--No, I don't. Paid agents of Moscow are not the same as members of the Communist Party.

" McCarthy's work included a whole lot more than identifying Soviet spies."
See?

"His efforts involved coercing ALL Communist Party members into naming names of all people who were members of the Communist party, not just people who were suspected of being spies. As a result many were blacklisted and financially devastated."
Again, if you're speaking of the "Hollywood Ten", that was the House UnAmerican Activities Committee--which investigated the American Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and a whole lot of other groups. And if people wouldn't hire the people for being Communists back then, all I can do is note how far downhill our country has gone since. On the one hand, they're supporting a regime that made the Nazis look like pikers, but on the other, they may have had to fire the maid, or run off to Europe to get their porn published. Forgive me if I forego the sackcloth and ashes.

McCarthy's problem, on the other hand, was simply whether these people should be working for the government. We were in a war with Communists, and he figured that maybe it wasn't such a great idea to have Communist sympathizers handling sensitive information.

"I guess you could say this was needed in order to complete his investigation thoroughly (if you want to completely disregard the 1st amendment)."
Because asking "are you a Communist? No, you don't have to answer" violates the First Amendment?

" Kind of similar to the support for locking up suspects at Gitmo and throwing away the key, regardless of their guilt or innocence"
--To which my response is the same as it always is. If you don't think captured terrorists should be kept in Cuba, send the US Military your address.

"A parallel to McCarthy's efforts today would be to round up all Muslims in this country and accuse them of being Muslims. Then we'll coerce them to name all the other Muslims they know. After all, our final goal of finding potential terrorists should trump their first admendment rights."
Again, knowing whether or not they're Muslim is not a violation of their First Amendment rights. In fact, the major problem with liberalism at the moment is just this habit of inventing rights that were never in the Constitution. Meanwhile, it wouldn't be such a bad idea--it's not the Baptists, buddhists, or disciples of the mahareshi maheshi yogi trying to light off dirty bombs, blow up their shoes, and shoot Jews at the airport.

" The question is, how much of the "soul" of America are we willing to abandon in order to accomplish defense of our country? If we have to give up our freedoms as Americans in order to get the "bad guy", is that what we should do?"
None. That's the beauty of it. "Are you a Communist--and if you are, maybe we shouldn't be hiring you as we go to war with our enemies" is not a Stalinist purge. Even the spies McCarthy caught were just an added bonus.

Redneck (#75)
"The question is, how much of the soul of America are we willing to abandon in order to accomplish defense of our country?" This question was meant more in the present tense as it relates to the war on terrorism rather than McCarthyism. In your view, defense of our country against an enemy (be it Communists in the past or terrorists in the present) gives our government the right to take away a person's livelihood because they they submit to a certain political (or religious) view. I disagree completely.

"In fact, the major problem with liberalism at the moment is just this habit of inventing rights that were never in the Constitution." I think you are talking in simplistic stereotypes here. "Liberalism" may represent to you a wide array of views be they political, financial, or economic.

Here's what I believe: I believe that the government should be "for the people". What was dangerous about McCarthyism in the past, and is dangerous about our government now, is that our own government can use national defense as the reason for taking away our basic and inherent rights as American citizens. I disagreed with detention of Japanese citizens after Pearl Harbor. I disagreed with McCarthy. And I disagree with indefinite detentions of "alleged terrorists" without a right to a fair trial.

Our rights include the ability to maintain a religious or political belief without persecution. Our rights include right to a fair trial. When you take those away, no matter what the reason, you do more harm to this country than any enemy combatant could.

Anyway, Redneck, I don't think that we will ever see eye to eye on this issue. But I do appreciate the opportunity for frank and respectful discussion here.

Hehe - you do tickle me with your comments, Mr. Redneck!

My understanding of Lexis-Nexis (and no, I have never used it) is that it is a journal/article/information database among other things. My point about referencing a number of hits for searches on ultra-right wing vs. ultra-liberal is that the mention of these in an article is no basis for any judgment on bias in the media. I don't know is L-N checks for text within articles, or only title references, but either way I still don't see that it is pertinent. Maybe I'm wrong about L-N, but as I said, by my understanding...

I was going to continue my previous leave-off tonight, but as I indicated there really is a futility if there exists some attempt to "show each other the light" or simply to point our how stupid we think the other is. But I want to echo some of SunnyD's sentiment about the purpose of government, and it really boils down to a very simple code, in fact it was the very first written idea about goverment, stated it the Code of Hammurabi around 1700 BC.

It said that "the first purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful." I think that's a pretty good foundation for governmental philosophy. That's why I don't mind paying my taxes. I don't like goverment waste any more than the next guy, but I recognize that things get a lot worse if we don't attempt to take care of each other. My household income is a little over $100K. The government takes a chunk of it, but I get by on the rest. I live comfortably and can pay my bills. I drive a 15 year old car, and I'll drive it until it stops - I don't feel the need for a new one. I'm not interesting in owning a house (had one, sold it - life is easier). My wife and I don't buy jewelry - don't need it. Don't invest in the stock market - dont have that kind of disposable income to risk. All of these things that make up the "capitalist American dream" I don't need, and don't want. And when I move to Europe this summer, I'll end up paying more taxes. But I'll appreciate the general societal philosphy that I am helping take care of my neighbor and the less fortunate. There are so many things about what this cutthroat country has come that are just...a drag.

I believe that it is the endgame of capitalism to divide and conquer. It may not be part of the text, but it is certainly part of the subtext, and many people don't read between those lines. Concentrated power and wealth ultimately lead to suppression of individual rights. It always has.

" In your view, defense of our country against an enemy (be it Communists in the past or terrorists in the present) gives our government the right to take away a person's livelihood because they they submit to a certain political (or religious) view."
--Incorrect; but nice guess, I suppose. In my view, defense of our country (be it Communists in the past or Terrorists in the present) does not obligate our government to employ those who sympathize with the opposition. Do you believe members of Al-Qaeda should be employed in sensitive government positions? I don't mean that as a jab, as a suggestion that you would, or as "satire". Seriously, do you believe that the government would be amiss in firing someone from the code room of the Pentagon, or the Secretary of State's staff, if it was discovered that they are or were a member of Al-Qaeda? That was McCarthy's goal via Communism.

" I think you are talking in simplistic stereotypes here. "Liberalism" may represent to you a wide array of views be they political, financial, or economic."
--This is why I said "the major" rather than "the only"

"What was dangerous about McCarthyism in the past, and is dangerous about our government now, is that our own government can use national defense as the reason for taking away our basic and inherent rights as American citizens."
American citizens have a right for the government to grant them a job?

McCarthy's goal wasn't to have his "victims" executed--although, as we know from Venona, quite a few of them should have been. He didn't even want them imprisoned for being Communist (amusingly enough, it was Democrats who tried to pass legislation outlawing the Communist Party USA). He just didn't want them handling classified information.

Lexis-Nexis is a database of news articles; every major and a whole lot of minor newspapers have every article logged going back for decades--and yeah, it does check for text as well as titles. And going back for decades, you'll note a major disparance in those terms. Tell me--again, not as sarcasm--what do you think those numbers mean, then? Which name do you recognize among the three--Matthew Shepard, Jeffrey Curley, or Jesse Dirkhising? And why do you think only one name made the newspapers? Which name have you heard, James Byrd or Ken Tillery? And again, why?

"But I'll appreciate the general societal philosphy that I am helping take care of my neighbor and the less fortunate."
--You can't do that here? Hell, with no jewelry, an old car, and no investing at all, you should have a fairly easy time helping take care of your neighbors and the less fortunate. Despite what my political philosophies may lead others to believe, I do at least a little of that, from volunteering at organizations that give out food to helping out neighbors who need a hand to a mission trip to Peru to help drill a well and build a church. (amusingly enough, "crony of the rich" that I am, I have far less money than you do.) Helping people is cool, and it's why whenever it hits the fan around the world, money pours in from America--not just the government, but thousands of private organizations all over the country.

My problem is when the government steals money from me (and yes, it's stolen. If you don't pay it, they sent men with guns to come take it; and that the money is sometimes necessary doesn't change that fact. I wish more politicians (including Bush, who has yet to veto a spending bill) would take note of the fact that their projects, vote-buys, and programs are paid for with stolen money.) and decides to be charitable with it. Not only is it hypocritical to the point of near-blasphemy, but it's incredibly wasteful.

"I believe that it is the endgame of capitalism to divide and conquer. It may not be part of the text, but it is certainly part of the subtext, and many people don't read between those lines."
This is why more lifesaving procedures and medicines come from America than anywhere else in the world? Or why us eeeeevil capitalists are the ones feeding half the world? Or why the most capitalist nations in the world just happen to also be the freeest?

As an observer from Australia just wanted to share my views on the myriad of responses i've read on this site.

What I have noticed in the mainstream media here is that it is decidely conservative; lacking in intelligent or critical commentary and very pro-Bush.

I make it a personal mission to watch docos and shows made without funding from the main capitalist funded programs which have a tendency to only show right wing fundamentalist christians who espouse zero tolerance to intelligent debate. I have seen docos showing what some political opponents say about anyone (even renegade Republicans) who dare to raise any questions about Iraq, the war on terror or 9/11.

O;Reilly is seriously a nut, I mean the man has no journalistic intent and shuts down or boots off anyone who he doesn't agree with and then labels them as being unpatriotic or terrorist sympathisers. The notion that the only good citizen is one who blindly accepts whatever their government or media tells them is just ridiculous. The other objection I have is that the average person does not have their own tv show to slander anyone they don't agree with or start a campaign to discredit them.

I see scary parallels with the way certain media outlets here and in the U.S seem to 'out' dissenters private information, knowing that it can and probably will be used by people who have hatred and an intent to do verbal/mental harm. Here we have 'muslim extremists' on trial, within the first 24 hours we were shown their houses, their families and friends on every major news show. And it also seems the word 'alleged' is used very sparingly as if a trial is not even needed.

Anyone who thinks the media or journalists have little effect on the everyday thoughts of people are really kidding themselves. Most Australians here have only the Rupert Murdoch view of Bush and the Republican party.

It's a fine line between free speech, civil liberties and inciting hate. Curtailing the right to express opinions is a dangerous thing, but comments from someone who has a national audience that her political 'opponent' that they should be spoken to with a baseball bat is distateful and should be recognised for what it is. The problem I find is that most people around me here don't have the intelligence or integrity to question people who make ill-founded or stupid statements because they look at well educated people as having some base to make these comments to begin with! Just think of how many people you know who really question things..... it's far easier to accept what the mass media tells you than to look further.

Final thought for the night... in reply to redneck on one aspect, the majority of people absorb their information from television and the main capitalist funded organisations which have been well documented to have a pro-bush slant.... (many of the ceo's have millions of dollars given to funding to the actual Republican party hence how objective can they be???)

Sorry just looking/reading Ms Coulter's website and getting very annoyed with her rhetoric.

She is so very hypocritical and misguided it's not funny. She bags Cindy Sheehan for appearing on tv shows and airing her views calling her a michael moore wannabe, yet has no apparent problems appearing on various television shows to espouse her own views. I guess in her words it's only the dissenting voice of public which makes them insinuate they want to 'make public policy for the nation.' Hmmm, me thinks the idea of making a grieving mother appear like a raving lunatic who has no idea what she's talking about really discredits her beliefs or abilities...

Do i take this as only people who share her right wing view have the right to influence viewers with their opinions or that grieving mothers should just shut up quietly and not question politics??

I'm sure she is a well educated woman but slagging off your political opponent every week strikes me as a waste of time, i have yet to read a single article of hers which offers real debate on iraq apart from calling people who think western countries should not be there as 'filthy traitors'. This mentality is just dangerous, the 'us and them' feeling i'm seeing repeated more and more. I thought democracy entailed diverse opinions not curtailing the right to express them.

And plugging on heartstrings reeking of sentimentality by continually saying 'attacks on our soil on 9/11' is just tiresome. Yes, the world knows that chapter which is still contentious as to intelligence and reason. I also find it neglectful on her part to state that only 2000 american soldiers have lost their lives so the invasion is both valid but successful.

Dare i suggest that she has not included the thousands of injured troops who have come back and received little to no help or compensation or the actual citizens in Iraq, their casualties are rarely reported in the media. She has an utter lack of depth to her discourse which does her education no justice.

I see she makes mention of women's lives in Iraq as being free and more liberal. Give me a break.... feminism has been long been an underground movement by some of the bravest women imaginable in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan for years without any western intervention or involvement.... lol. Simply looking at numbers of people voting doesn't mean a nation has been set free. Would be nice if the world's problems were as simplistic as she suggests but alas they are not.

Just as a side note, I'm not a democrat or republican supporter. I tend to observe with curious interest both here in oz and in the U.S.

Ginny, thanks for checking in at BB. Good to hear a view from someone in another Country. Proof that others are following what is happening in the U.S. of A. M4 (who is sorry that the U.S. is using Australia for a bombing range)

" in reply to redneck on one aspect, the majority of people absorb their information from television and the main capitalist funded organisations which have been well documented to have a pro-bush slant...."
Ma'am, I'd have to ask you as well to tell me which of those names you recognize. To claim that the New York Times, or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, or CBS, NBC, and ABC have a "pro-bush slant" goes beyond false and well into the ream of ridiculous.

"She bags Cindy Sheehan for appearing on tv shows and airing her views calling her a michael moore wannabe, yet has no apparent problems appearing on various television shows to espouse her own views."
--I read everything Ann Coulter writes, and I have yet to see her "bag" Sheehan for appearing on TV shows and airing her views. She's bagged Sheehan for being a professional mourner, for using her son's coffin as a pulpit, and for being a Micheal Moore wannabe (my favorite Sheehan quote: "I take responsibility partly for my son's death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just... ...I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for...."").

"Do i take this as only people who share her right wing view have the right to influence viewers with their opinions"
--I'm sorry, I missed the part where she said that Sheehan doesn't have the right to speak. Can you show me where it's at?

" that grieving mothers should just shut up quietly and not question politics??"
--This part too. What she did claim is that being a grieving mother doesn't give anyone more weight than others--I remember her specifically asking if Sheehan's status as professional mourner means that only a conservative mother who lost a son in Iraq can argue with her, and asking if this would mean that a mother who lost two sons would therefore trump both of them.

"And plugging on heartstrings reeking of sentimentality by continually saying 'attacks on our soil on 9/11' is just tiresome."
--To you, perhaps. Myself, I agree with Ann: If you can "get over" that, you weren't angry to begin with.

"Dare i suggest that she has not included the thousands of injured troops who have come back and received little to no help or compensation"
--Having been in the Army, I know this claim to be untrue.

" or the actual citizens in Iraq, their casualties are rarely reported in the media."
--I've seen quite a few reports of civilian casualties in the media. What I haven't seen much is reports of the progress in Iraq. How long do you think it'll be, for example, before/if you see Senator Lieberman's report in the headlines?

"I see she makes mention of women's lives in Iraq as being free and more liberal. Give me a break..."
--On this, I will grant no breaks. Women can vote in Iraq, they don't get hauled off to the rape-rooms, and they, as well as men, have rights and freedoms which they never had under Sodom.

" feminism has been long been an underground movement by some of the bravest women imaginable in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan for years without any western intervention or involvement.... lol."
And you can see how well it's been working over there beforehand. To claim that we did nothing for women's rights in either nation is plain and simply ridiculous, and that being able to vote is anot a fundamental right even moreso.

Hi Redneck, glad to provoke thoughtful debate... now i get to respond..lol.

Let's get one thing clear, to insinuate that I don't care or am not angry about terrorist attacks is low. I am angry about many, many things that include innocent civilians dying at the expense of terrorists including Bali, 9/11, Spain, London but I am also angry about the amount of civilians killed In Iraq....... so for you to state i must not be angry is crap. Look, I am able to question aspects of 9/11 without being labelled as uncaring or traitorous.

And since when does you being in the army give you a monopoly on information hmmmm? I have seen many, many shows about returned veterans from the first Gulf War episode suffering from 'gulf war syndrome' in which more than 100,000 soldiers are suffering from use of depleted uranium which levels are still toxic in Iraq and western armies just leave without cleaning up. You tell me how much coverage is shown about the hospitals and the cancer-abnormality rate in Iraq.... it's an ugly picture which doesn't make nice viewing. Some of the nobel prize winning scientists who are taking levels are living in hiding because of death threats. But I digress..... I believe Sen Murtha also stated less than two weeks ago about the lack of treatment available to injured Serviceman. I have also been to websites available to returned/current serviceman to assist in claims, and the consensus is that they are not being assisted accordingly.

As for the comments about Ann Coulter, yes I spent quite a few hours reading her 'satire', which as another blogger has made the point many of her admirers and supporters do not actually call her a 'satirist' but a political commentator. She and you imply that Cindy Sheehan is using her son as a platform for her views. Since when is that not done.... families get angry over what they see as mindless or preventative deaths all the time and lobby for change! I don't see her or you having a go at other mourners in the community pushing for legislation or is that because she is questioning the government of the day? by the way the comment on her son's coffin being a professional pulpit is offensive.

I have not got enough time to answer your mis-thoughts on women's liberation in Iraq or Afghanistan but will leave this for you to think about, women in Afghanistan are now subjected to more rapes, murder and violence since 'we' liberated them as the new rulers (which consist of mainly tribal war lords) have little to no more respect than the previous regime. Visit some feminist websites to back up what i have said to see how well the liberation has served women.

"Let's get one thing clear, to insinuate that I don't care or am not angry about terrorist attacks is low. I am angry about many, many things that include innocent civilians dying at the expense of terrorists including Bali, 9/11, Spain, London but I am also angry about the amount of civilians killed In Iraq....... so for you to state i must not be angry is crap"
--Which is why bringing up 9/11 is "tiresome" for you?

"And since when does you being in the army give you a monopoly on information hmmmm?"
--It doesn't. I guess that proves me wrong, so I'll never again claim that I have a monopoly on infor... Oh, crap, I didn't. Well, just in case, I'll make sure to remember never to do that in the future. What I am saying is that I've been in the military and seen firsthand how the situation stands.

" I have seen many, many shows about returned veterans from the first Gulf War episode suffering from 'gulf war syndrome' in which more than 100,000 soldiers are suffering from use of depleted uranium which levels are still toxic in Iraq and western armies just leave without cleaning up."
--That's because the Depleted Uranium controversy is a hoax. In fact, I've dealt with this subject already, here. In short, if there was any weight to the idea that Depleted Uranium caused health issues, the majority of people who served in the Armed Forces at all, be it wartime or not, as well as the National Guard, dozens of different plants, trucking companies, and people living next to the huge stockpiles of DU munitions and armor at every military post would be birthing two-headed children by now.

" I believe Sen Murtha also stated less than two weeks ago about the lack of treatment available to injured Serviceman."
--Murtha said even more recently than that--as in yesterday--that we need to withdraw our troops because they suck. Believe it if you will.

"She and you imply that Cindy Sheehan is using her son as a platform for her views. Since when is that not done...."
--Well, in that case, Ms. Coulter didn't say anything offensive at all!

" I don't see her or you having a go at other mourners in the community pushing for legislation or is that because she is questioning the government of the day? by the way the comment on her son's coffin being a professional pulpit is offensive"
--Very likely it is. But it's true, and that's why Ms. Sheehan is deserving of contempt. She makes wild, semi-coherent rants about what an awful place the USA is and how we've been sold to the "Zionists", and then expects us to listen, not because she has anything worthwhile to say, but because her son is dead. I truly feel sorry for Casey Sheehan--the man was a hero who not only volunteered to help free the Iraqi people, but did so twice, and volunteered for the mission in which he died, knowing it would be very dangerous. Cindy Sheehan, on the other hand, is an opportunist whose hate for the United States overpowers whatever love she had for her son.

"women in Afghanistan are now subjected to more rapes, murder and violence since 'we' liberated them as the new rulers (which consist of mainly tribal war lords) have little to no more respect than the previous regime."
--Seeing as this claim certainly appears ridiculous to me, I think it's safe to say that at least in this argument it's a rather far-reaching claim. Is it possible to cite this?

"Visit some feminist websites to back up what i have said to see how well the liberation has served women."
:) Sure. Just as soon as you visit Stormfront.org to see what the Arabs are really up to. (and yes, that's sarcasm. From what I've read, the majority of racist groups in America see this war as something done for the Jews and therefore oppose it. Not to mention they're still popping hemorrhoids over Condi.)

I have had a look at Stormfront by the way, nice little white nationalist post.............

That is if you like putting down other races and offering simplistic reasons why anglo-saxons are better than everyone else.

what can I say, not my thing, particularly when the arguments come from a place of hostility and narrow mindedness instead of respect.

Ginny,

Scroll up and find the recent blog piece on Judith Miller. See what Redneck says about Muslims, and you'll find that your comments about anglo-saxons might not be far off base.

SR

Thanks SR, like your posts by the way.... always appreciate a good mind laced with humor!

Ginny,
Welcome to the blog. We need more thoughtful and enlightened comments like yours.

Thank you and PLEASE hang around for awhile.

Redneck --- why did you choose that for your moniker? It's not flattering, you know.

Kira,

Thanks for the feedback. I have enjoyed your posts also.

Am enjoying the fact I can type over 70 wpm.... lol. It has its uses.

I hope it's good to know that Australians pay a lot of attention to what's happening to the U.S - our government (the Liberal party ironically) is now generally known to be the most conservative government we've ever had with close links to the Republicans.

Mind you.... I'm not of the opinion that rushing anti-terrorism laws with just three days reading time (of a 700 page document) is a good thing to copy off the Patriot Act.

Am looking up some interesting sites about Ann Coulter, seems the woman has pissed off quite a few people, both left and right wing in her time.

Yes, Ginny. The militant, corporatist NeoCon movement is Global. It's frightening for those of us who can see what's happening.

The Patriot Act is taking our freedom and turning the US into a military state. Can't understand why these dumbass Repubs who comment here don't see it.

Ann Coulter is just a symptom of the diseased mindset.

Thanks again!

Kira

Redneck, it's obvious we are not going to convince the other of the validity of our arguments.

That said, I'm incredulous that the well known and documented use of uranium in Iraq is supposedly a 'hoax'. I can see some of your points regarding other issues but to say that the military did and has not used uranium in Iraq just ruins any shred of credibility you may have had in my mind.

Professor Doug Rokke the ex-director of the Pentagon's project using the uranium in the middle east has come out publicly stating not only was it sanctioned but used commonly and then left in a hazardous state. The United Nations issued a report in August 2002 stating the number of cases of birth defects and cancers in children in Iraq had increased dramatically. It was also noted at the time that children of Gulf War Veterans were also at much higher odds of having deformed children both in the US and in the UK (also note that there are legal cases being mounted in the UK by an ex-servicewoman who has had severe birth defects in her children).

I would just love to say your reply to this, seeing as the Pentagon and the Russian intelligence have actually confirmed the use of DU rounds... or was that a hoax also???

As to your complete ignorance on what the Afghani feminist movement is actually about, i suggest you visit their website www.rawa.org and read what the election being a 'the miracle of Afghanistan' (as termed by Republican Diane Tebelius).

Did you see anything in your media that showed that most women were not allowed to vote, and that those who did were intimidated or threatened to vote for certain candidates? Do you realise that the Northern Alliance is hated due to overwhelming number of murders and rapes of women. Did you know that there have been widespread allegations of vote rigging? RAWA - as it is known has long been out in the open proclaiming the problems Afghani women face on a daily basis and have openly stated the 'liberation' has only replaced one bad regime for another! This is not a democrat stating this, just women who actually live there. I for one do not think that politicians who visit there once or twice are able to claim that they know for one instance what it's like as an everyday existence.... let alone proclaim that a rigged election marks the start of a new miracle for a nation which is clearly struggling.

But don't believe me, have a look at Amnesty International's report, I'm sure they make a habit of exaggerating information they gather for political reasons. As for your comment about some people thinking the war was done for the jews... hmmm that doesn't seem to be the consesus of anyone i know. I seem to find most people getting more disillusioned with the conflicting information that comes out every day. Either way, it's a good thing that people look a little deeper than to just the CNN,Fox, conglomerate report.

We have a very, very funny satirical show here called CNNNN - the motto is simple 'We Report, You Believe'. Seems to me many people really view mainstream media like that.

"I'm incredulous that the well known and documented use of uranium in Iraq is supposedly a 'hoax'. I can see some of your points regarding other issues but to say that the military did and has not used uranium in Iraq just ruins any shred of credibility you may have had in my mind."
--Good thing I didn't say that, then, ain't it? What I did say was " if there was any weight to the idea that Depleted Uranium caused health issues...." which, I thought at least, rather clearly implied that the hoax involved is that Depleted Uranium is causing huge numbers of medical problems. The link I included clarifies it even more.

Many, many people handled Depleted Uranium--before and after the Gulf War, and even today. People manufacture rounds out of it, transport them, store them, test them, practice loading them, and even fire them on test ranges, without having anything to do with Iraq. They do the same (minus loading and firing) with other uses for Depleted Uranium, such as helicoper-blade counterbalances, and tank armor. Were Depleted Uranium the dangerous substance its detractors claim it to be, these people would be getting sick as well, not just those exposed to it during a certain six-month period.

Groups that are not rabidly anti-American, on the other hand, have a different story. A utopia it ain't, and there's plenty of improvement needed, but to claim that conditions are no better than under the Taliban is flatly ridiculous.

"But don't believe me, have a look at Amnesty International's report, I'm sure they make a habit of exaggerating information they gather for political reasons."
--I don't know if they'd done that regarding Afghanistan or not, but they have been known to do just that.

" As for your comment about some people thinking the war was done for the jews... hmmm that doesn't seem to be the consesus of anyone i know."
--"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel."
--"My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." (Ask her what she thinks of Micheal New!)
--"We should not let Israel/USA invade Syria or Iran."

All from professional mourner Cindy Sheehan. But the "mainstream conservative media" didn't report them because... uh... they're setting her up for a bigger fall, that's it.

"We have a very, very funny satirical show here called CNNNN - the motto is simple 'We Report, You Believe'. Seems to me many people really view mainstream media like that."
--That's how we ended up with 48% for a gigolo.

"I have had a look at Stormfront by the way, nice little white nationalist post............."
--I'm usually fairly blunt, but I thought the sarcasm was evident; to spell it out (as seems necessary), I'm saying that wingnut feminists have the same credibility (and in this case, the same goals) as wingnut racists--I thought I made it obvious enough by adding "and yes, that's sarcasm," and noting that those groups disagree with me on the war. I'll try to speak more plainly in the future. But way to race-bait, there.

"what can I say, not my thing, particularly when the arguments come from a place of hostility and narrow mindedness instead of respect."
--You mean sites like this one?

"Scroll up and find the recent blog piece on Judith Miller. See what Redneck says about Muslims, and you'll find that your comments about anglo-saxons might not be far off base"
--Thank you for proving the old adage that you know you've defeated a liberal in an argument when they start screaming "racist!" Can you call me a bigot and a homophobe too, just to make my victory complete?

"Yes, Ginny. The militant, corporatist NeoCon movement is Global. It's frightening for those of us who can see what's happening."
--You're buying into the old socialist pap about global capitalism ruling the world, and then calling other people dumbasses? Nice....

that's ms feminist wingnut to you.... lol

and as stated i don't know anyone personally who believes the war has any jewish agenda... which makes it clear that I don't know Cindy Sheehan.

and i suppose all the statistics coming out by independent medical/scienctific sites are just making up the deformities.....

by the way, i never stated you were racist, homophobe or bigoted. I may think you're misguided, but dont' put statements in my mouth which i have not actually said.

"and i suppose all the statistics coming out by independent medical/scienctific sites are just making up the deformities....."
--Because malnourishment, exposure to chemical weapons, and whatever mistreatment Sodom inflicted on his people wouldn't have anything to do with deformities--especially since only radioactive materials like Thalomide (and yes, I probably spelled that wrong) cause such problems. And expecially non-radioactive Uranium, which doesn't hurt anybody in America but loves to kill Iraqi people--hey, maybe it's conservative metal!

(and since it seems I have to clarify such things, that was a joke.)

"by the way, i never stated you were racist, homophobe or bigoted."

"I have had a look at Stormfront by the way, nice little white nationalist post............."

If you actually meant site referring to stormfront.org, rather than post--which I believe it was quite natural to assume referred to a post, and most likely the post you were responding to (i.e., mine) rather than a website--then I certainly retract the comment; although I will not apologize, seeing as the error was on your part and not mine.

Yes, Ginny, a large number of Iraq War vets are turning up with mysterious GWS symptoms. I know. I have a friend who falls into that category - Mational Guard, never deployed, never exposed to DU, but has confirmed GWS.

Here's where it comes from : Vaccines. DoD fucking around jamming our troops full of vaccines that haven't been adequately tested. I know this, because there are records that indicates that particular groups of Guardsmen who were given the same batches of experimental anthrax vaccines contracted GWS at a statistically significant rate. The government has been trying to keep the lid on this for years, but they know exactly where this mystery illness is coming from.

As a side note, there's strong evidence that the HIV virus was lab created as a DoD biological agent, and was tested on human populations through Hep B vaccines in Central Africa in the mid- to late-70s. Boy, I'll bet that opens a can for Redneck. I'll post some sources a little later, no time now.

"As to you stating that thalidomide poisoning has caused the deformities"
--*sigh* Here we go again. If you'd looked it up, you'd realize that Thalomide isn't a radioactive substance at all. Thalomide was a sleep aid that caused thousands of birth defects--in other words, many things other than radioactivity. Nowhere did I say, at all, that Thalomide, which was used for a short time in the 1960's and very quickly taken off the market, was responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. Didn't you say something earlier about... what was it... "dont' put statements in my mouth which i have not actually said."

" Or are you about to say that the 100,000 plus ex gulf war veterans are suffering from 'mysterious poisoning' also??"
--I don't know what caused GWS. Neither do you. What I am "about to say" is that were Depleted Uranium responsible for it, millions of people in the US and the UK would have been suffering it many years ago. Or are you about to say the stuff's perfectly safe in two continents but radioactive on a third?

"On another point, the majority of Afghani women cannot read or write, the literacy rate is estimated to be less than 10% (due to both Taliban regime and the current Northern Alliance outlawing education, opportunities or basic civil rights for women)."
--Except that the current Northern Alliance didn't outlaw education, opportunities, or basic civil rights for women.

"So, to label the women there who are fighting a very dangerous fight as 'feminist wingnuts' and label them as having the same agenda as racists is just fucking ridiculous."
--The problem is that I'm not speaking of the women out there fighting a very dangrous fight. I'm speaking of the women claiming that life was better under the Taliban and using the fight for women's rights as an excuse to bash their rescuers. Women who actually give a damn about women's rights, on the other hand, have my respect and support.

"On another topic.... what is your position on what Ann Coulter has done in relation to publishing private info?"
--I don't know why she did it. Ms. Cornell's piece was pretty mediocre as far as slander goes, so if she was seeking revenge it'd be safe to assume she'd go after folks like Al Franken, who didn't put much more effort into their slander but reached a much wider audience. I'd venture a guess that you'll see something about it come next Thursday.

{ed note: SPAM deleted}

I was referring to the posts made on the website, if i had thought you racist I'm pretty direct and would have said 'Redneck, you're a racist.'

As to you stating that thalidomide poisoning has caused the deformities - the doctors and professors around the world have found unacceptably high levels of uranium levels in the liver and urine, both in Iraqi civilians and US and UK returned servicemen. Or are you about to say that the 100,000 plus ex gulf war veterans are suffering from 'mysterious poisoning' also?? I am asserting that there are many thousands of people in more than just one country affected by this vile pollution.

There are and will continue to be more and more cases sadly of deformed children born to people, and until more legal action is taken you won't see it mentioned on primetime. Again... visit the links - google it and see how much information supports what I am saying.

On another point, the majority of Afghani women cannot read or write, the literacy rate is estimated to be less than 10% (due to both Taliban regime and the current Northern Alliance outlawing education, opportunities or basic civil rights for women). So, to label the women there who are fighting a very dangerous fight as 'feminist wingnuts' and label them as having the same agenda as racists is just fucking ridiculous. It's more likely that the only women educated enough to set up their own resistance to the constant beatings and attacks on personal liberties are just trying to improve the average woman's life. If supporting their cause makes me a feminist buying into their agenda, I gladly agree! At least their motives are clear and ethical.

On another topic.... what is your position on what Ann Coulter has done in relation to publishing private info? Forgive me if i have not seen a previous post, but couldn't see what your take on the situation was.

Just watched a really doco on the impact of Leo Strauss' philosophies on today's neo-cons.

Can other bloggers share info on the many CIA intelligence projects in late 1970's impacted on the Soviet Union policies brought in by the Reagan administration.

Makes you think about the impact one person's philosophies can do to shape a nation.

Soul Rebel, thanks for the interesting post - i'll have to find some more info. on the vaccine aspect. I do recall a few years ago some Australian soldiers refused a vaccine as side-effects were becoming clearly abundant. Not sure if the vaccine was for the threat of anthrax or something else. Will have to look into it.

I think this is Ann Coulter's info:

2829 CONNECTICUT AVE NW
WASHINGTON, DC (202) 462-0750 or (202) 328-8773

I really don't think anybody is interested in the Coultergeist's personal info. Her publicist, her offices, any people who may contract to work with her (perhaps the idiot universities who hire her for speaking engagements) - all of that is fair game for expression of disapproval of her message and her tactics. But there's no point in stooping to her level (and breaking the law in doing so.)

Ginny:

"Afghani feminists and women in general have never stated life under the Taliban was a better regime."
--" RAWA - as it is known has long been out in the open proclaiming the problems Afghani women face on a daily basis and have openly stated the 'liberation' has only replaced one bad regime for another!"
Ahh--equally bad, then--a claim just as ridiculous.

"They do however have a point in criticizing 'western help' when news reports and politicians state that our involvement has made their life so much better."
--Which might be because it has. I'm not claiming it's perfect over there, or it's a direct copy of the US where women are even allowed to do things they shouldn't be allowed to do, but the idea that it hasn't improved since the Taliban's tenure is nonsense.

"As a side note, there's strong evidence that the HIV virus was lab created as a DoD biological agent, and was tested on human populations through Hep B vaccines in Central Africa in the mid- to late-70s. Boy, I'll bet that opens a can for Redneck."
--I've heard already--in fact, more than a decade ago--that it was invented by the WHO and introduced as a measure of popuation control. I think both conspiracies are equally bupkis. Besides that, AIDS is a crappy biological weapon. Someone who contracts HIV won't, in most cases, be affected by it until long after the war's already won or lost--and since, sad to say, prostitution is still alive and well in wartime, a sexually-transmitted biological agent is very lightly to get right back to your own troops.

"I asked you for your opinion on what Ann Coulter did, not your reason why she may have done it. Do you find it abhorent or not?"
--And like I said, I don't have all the information.

Mike, you're wasting your time. Ann Coulter pointed out as far back as 1999 that she leaves her answering machine on and screens calls constantly, so any harassment you send her way is just going to be more money in a capitalist phone-company's pocket.

I hate to post such a long item, but I have this in a Word document, not online. I have a friend who is ex-CIA and does all sorts of under the radar research on subversion issues. I figured this is worth looking at, even if you don't think it is credble (I do, of course, or I wouldn't post it.)

The AIDS virus: Made in the USA?

Comments of Dr. Robert Strecker and Dr. Alan Cantwell

Dr. Strecker has also traced some of the research and researchers at Ft. Dietrick/NCI to a group of Japanese scientists captured at WW II's end and
given amnesty in exchange for information on racial and ethnic bio-weaponry, their research dating back to 1930. What's more, expatriated Russian scientists were brought in to help as well.
In July 29, 1969, only days after the Department of Defense (DOD) asked for $10 million from Congress to fund the development of a "synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired . . ." Dr MacArthur stated the
following, and the $10 million appropriation was granted.

"Within the next 5 to 10 years. it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects
from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon
which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease." http://onlinejournal.com...05Mazza/102605mazza.html

In 1969, in actual testimony before the Church Commitee, the Department of Defense requested $10 million to produce organisms that would selectively, basically destroy the immune system, and be refractory to it's effects. They were funded. In 1972, writing in Vol. 47, bulliten of the World Health Organization, is a request by members of that group to "make a virus that would selectively destroy the t-cell system". That group of people writing in federation proceedings in the same year, said, " we would test theses agents that we make by putting them in our vaccines, and see what kinds of effects they have".

In the mid-1970's the World Health Organization (WHO) began a massive innoculation program in central Africa, in a well- publicized effort to
erradicate smallpox.

In the late '70's, gay men in New York City, and then in San Francisco, and Los angeles, were recruted to test a newly developed vaccine against one of the most serious of sexually transmitted diseases, Hepatitis B.

As the decade of the 1980's began, a strange new disease was being reported in Central Africa, and amung previously healthy, gay white men in
Mnahattan. The AIDS virus was discovered by a french woman working in Montenier's lab, by the name of Francoise Barre'.

Dr. W. Schmugner, a Polish physician educated in Russia, who came to America where he became head of the New York City Blood Bank. He established guidelines for a Hepatitis B vaccine study, in which only "promiscuous males," ages 20 to 40 were included in the study, managing to somehow single out only gays.

What do all these events have in common? We explain it by the appearence of a select virus in a distinct group; i.e., young white, male homosexuals from Manhattan between the ages on 20 and 40, who otherwise (were) healthy and promiscuous in 1978; and then subsequently, in San Francisco and Los Angeles in 1980, in the same groups. It (AIDS) appeared in the exact same epidemiological groups as was conducted for the Hepititis B study. If the
Hepititis B vaccine study had been conducted in Miami and Atlanta. and St. Louis or Denver, you would say, "well, there's no correlation".

In 1978, more than a thousand "promiscuous homosexual" males were the victims of this "experimental" Hepatitis B vaccination, sponsored by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Since the vaccine was not produced from human tissue culture, it's impossible to have an accidental contamination. In plain language, the AIDS
virus was intentionally laced into the Hep B vaccine. By 1981, the CDC claimed that only 6 percent of the Hep B vaccine recipients were infected with AIDS. In 1984, the truth was outed: the number was 64 percent. That's right, 64 percent. Not surprisingly, these Hep B vaccines studies are now under lock and key at the No Justice Department in Washington, DC. And no
one can see them. No, no, no, not you, not you, not you.

Dr. Strecker, one of the original and foremost authorities on the AIDS virus, found that the virus creation was conducted under the leadership of
Dr. Robert Gallo. Dr. Gallo and his team created the AIDS virus by combining the bovine (cattle) leukemia virus. http://onlinejournal.com...05Mazza/102605mazza.html

Dr. Alan Cantwell: Back in the 70's, it is common knowledge amongst virologists, that they were taking viruses from one animal, putting it into
another, then taking theses viruses and putting them into human tissue cells, in culture. And they were literally producing all kinds of viruses,
some of which, obviously, were deadly to the immune system. And other viruses, that they KNEW if those viruses ever got out it would be horrible because there was absolutely no antidote to theses things.

Dr. Strecker : The AIDS virus consists of genes that are related to two known retro-virusres of animals. One is a virus named Bovine-Leukemia,
another is a virus named Visna. Now we didn't tell theworld that, the AIDS experts told the world that. We merely read what they wrote. They were
either lying, or they were telling the truth, for the moment we will consider they were telling the truth, because I believe they were. We looked
at AIDS, and we looked at Bovine- Leukemia virus, and we looked at visna. And so we ask a very simple question- can you take Bovine-Leukemia virus,and Visna, and cross them together and make an AIDS like agent? now virtually every so- called AIDS in the world says "No that is not possible", but of course, that is a clear cut lie. All anyone need do is go to a medical library. What would you call a virus - if you combined Bovine And Visna together- what would you call it? Well, we were simple-minded people, Bovine-Visna, and Visna-Bovine, and we put in a Med-line search and said: tell us all articles written from 1950-1989, or whatever date you choose, on a virus names Bovine- Visna. And- BAM - out come articles on a virus which is described to be identical to AIDS. It has the same unique, reletively unique, morphology, in other words, same shape. It has the same molecular weight. It has the same magnesium dependancy. It had the same ability to
kill cells. It has the samr T-cell trophism, it attacks T-cells. It had the same ability to produce sensatia. It has the same exact characteristics by
initial lymphadnopaty within a few weeks of infection, followed by a production of antbodies against the virus, and subsequently , 5-7 years
later the cows dies from "wasting disease", and immune deficiency. And when they fed these viruses to chimpanzees in 1974, published in Cancer Reasearch from the united States Institute of Healt, those chimpanzees died of a strange disease called "neumocystiscrenepneumonia" (sic?) Which was the first reported case of "nuemo" ever, in a pantroglodite, a chimpanzee. Dr. Robert Strecker, is a practice medicine in Los Angeles. He is a Board-certified internist and gastroenterologist. He also has a PhD. in pharmacology and is also a trained pathologist.

Dr. Cantwell: is a dermatologist, since 1965. He had a great interest in the microbiology of cancer and when AIDS developed as a disease, I
researched AIDS from the microbiological point of view. I treat AIDS patients. I've written two books, one called AIDS: The Mystery and the Solution, and the other called AIDS, and the Doctors of Death.

http://www.totse.com/en/...conspiracy/hivconsp.html

October 26, 2005 - Concerning total AIDS deaths, Dr. Campbell Douglass writes: "Dr. Strecker points out that even if the African green monkey could
transmit AIDS to humans, the present known amount of infection in Africa makes it statistically impossible for a single episode, such as a monkey
biting someone on the butt, to have brought this epidemic to this point [1987]. The doubling time of the number of people infected, about every 14
months, when correlated with the first known case and the present known number of cases, prove beyond a doubt that a large number of people had to have been infected at the same time. Starting in 1972 with the first case from our mythical monkey and doubling the number infected from the single
source you get only a few thousand cases. From 1972 to 1987 is 15 years or 180 months. If it takes 14 months to double the number of cases then there would have been 13 doublings, one then 2, then 4, then 8, etc. In 15 years, from a single source of infection there would be about 8,000 cases in Africa, not 75 million. [That's his bottom line then for Africa alone] We are approaching World War II mortality statistics here-without a shot being fired."

Thus, we are faced with a species-killer, a global war.

Dr. Robert Strecker along with the help of his brother, Theodore, a lawyer, in 1983 the two compiled extensive research of the epidemic which ultimately became The Strecker Memorandum.

Dr. Robert and Theodore tried to share their findings with national, state and local authorities, they received only two responses. On August 11, 1988, Ted Strecker, was found shot to death in his home in Springfield, Missouri. The death was ruled a suicide, in spite of the fact that Dr. Robert Strecker had spoken to his brother on the phone the night before, and Ted was both healthy and in good spirits. On September 12, 1988, the lone political official who had responded to the Streckers' findings, Illinois State Representative Douglas Huff of Chicago, was found dead in his home. The autopsy claimed he died of a stroke as a result of an overdose of cocaine and heroin. Huff had been an outspoken supporter of Dr. Strecker's work to publicize what was in essence an AIDS cover-up.

Dr. Strecker indicated that the AIDS virus was in fact developed by the National Cancer Institute, in cooperation with the World Health Organization
(WHO), in a laboratory at Ft. Dietrick in Maryland. From 1970-74, this laboratory facility was part of the U.S. Army's germ warfare unit, known as
the Army Infectious Disease Unit, or Special Operations Division, also referred to as the Army's Chemical Biological Warfare Laboratory. Post 1974,
the facility was renamed the National Cancer Institute (NCI). According to researcher William Cooper (former Navy Intelligence), noted in Larry
Jamison's article Is The AIDS Virus Man Made?, this work was supervised by the CIA under a project called MK-NAOMI.

Also in July1969, the chairman of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population, the Honorable George H. W. Bush, U.S. Representative from Texas, 7th District (1967-71), stressed the pressing need for population control activities to fend off "a growing Third World crisis."

Today presently there are 5-10 million people in the United States with AIDS. In our opinion, Africa lay on the verge of extinction, due to the infection there of 75-150 million. So, we're talking (about) massive death. Massive Death.

Source via Rik Reynolds

http://onlinejournal.com...05Mazza/102605mazza.html

Microbiologist Death Toll Mounts

By Michael Davidson and Michael C. Ruppert

Mar 3-2002 --Editor's Note: As FTW has begun to investigate serious discussions by legitimate scientists and academics on the possible
'necessity' of reducing the world's population by more than four billion people, no stranger set of circumstances since Sept. 11 2001 adds
credibility to this possibility than the suspicious deaths of what may be as many as 14 world-class microbiologists. .

In the four-month period from Nov. 12 through Feb. 11,2002 seven world-class microbiologists in different parts of the world were reported
dead and three persons involved in medical research or public health. Six died of "unnatural" causes, while the cause of the seventh's death is
questionable. Also on Nov. 12, DynCorp, a major government contractor for data processing, military operations and intelligence work, was awarded a
$322 million contract to develop, produce and store vaccines for the Department of Defense. DynCorp and Hadron, both defense contractors connected to classified research programs on communicable diseases, have also been linked to a software program known as PROMIS, which may have
helped identify and target the victims. www.copvcia.com,

Dead Scientists And Microbiologists - Master List Feb 5, 2005

"40th microbiologist to die under suspicious circumstances in four years"

http://rense.com/general62/list.htm

Deaths: Scientists (Microbiologists, Geneticists, Infectious Disease
Experts)

DR. MICHAEL PERICH - 10/03 "http://new.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=03/10/17/1715212"

DR. DAVID KELLY - 7/03 "http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/101403_kelly_1.html"

DR. LELAND RICKMAN - 6/03 "http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2003/06_26_Rickman.html"

DR. STEVEN MOSTOW - 3/02 "http://9news.com/storyfull.asp?id=1519"

DR. DAVID WYNN-WILLIAMS - 3/02 "http://www.rense.com/general21/anothertop12.htm"

DR. IAN LANGFORD - 2/02 "http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,649527,00.html"
"http://www.rense.com/general42/kellysdeathlinked.htm"

DR. TANYA HOLZMAYER - 2/02 "http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/2768289.htm"

DR. GUYANG HUANG - 2/02 "http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/2768289.htm"

DR. VICTOR KORSHUNOV - 2/02 "http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2002/pravda020902.html"

DR. ROBERT SCHWARTZ - 12/01 "http://www.stormtronic.co.uk/9-11/schwartz-hhmi.htm"

DR. BENITO QUE - 12/01 "http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/qprinter/20020504/UMURDN"

DR. SET VAN NGUYEN - 12/01 "http://www.spouting.net/archives/000484.html"

DR. VLADIMIR PASECHNIK - 11/01 "http://www.rense.com/general17/another2.htm"

DR. DON WILEY - 11/01 "http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wiley.html"

DR. AMIRAM ELDOR - 11/01 "http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7337/616"

DR. YAACOV MATZNER - 11/01 "http://english.hadassah.org.il/news/dover-28-11-2001-matzner-y-zl.htm"

DR. JEFFREY P. WALL - 11/01 "http://www.cryptogon.com/2003_06_29_blogarchive.html" \l
"105741219923816348"

Russian scientists murdered in same time period:

DR. ROMAN KUZMIN - 12/01 (Surgeon) "http://www.missouri.edu/~quinnl/news/kuzmin.html"

DR. IVAN BLEBOV - 1/02
DR. ALEXI BRUSHLINSKI - 1/02 "http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2002/pravda020902.html"

Redneck...

Afghani feminists and women in general have never stated life under the Taliban was a better regime.

They do however have a point in criticizing 'western help' when news reports and politicians state that our involvement has made their life so much better.

I asked you for your opinion on what Ann Coulter did, not your reason why she may have done it. Do you find it abhorent or not?

Online Journal? Totse? I'd prefer some sources that actually have a shred of credibility--say, one that's not advocating the overthrow of the government.

But I'm not about to wait. I looked at the links on the front page and recently discovered I'm actually frequenting the blog of someone who writes for Democratic Underground. To aid that group is contemptible--to spend my time on the work of people who would do such a thing is dumb, and I'm not dumb. To that end, I'm done with this blog.

Oh good. See ya.

Does that mean I win?

This extremist group is the most exclusionist (isolationist?) and frightened bunch of folk. Fear drives them - that's why this bu$h administration has such luck pulling the wool over their eyes.

bu$h mantra while campaigning for Gov. of TX and pres. of US was all about terror and fear. The evangelical Christians also keep the flock together by using fear. Fear of the devil.

But the polls show a CLEAR MAJORITY of US Citizens do not approve of bu$h. Thank God for that. Now we need to get more of that news out and work on soothing the frightened sheep.

Yahoo! I think you did, Soul Rebel. Great post.

Hey Redneck --- you don't believe anything unless a republican says it?

I mean - to hell with facts and documented evidence? If you just listen to the republican spin you won't get the facts. Sorry --- that's just the way it is.

well done Soul Rebel... thanks for the info. I've just got get the time to read it all... lol

I like intelligent, logical debate but Redneck you pick criticism with anyone who isn't a neo-con for the sake of it.

Good riddance,lol.

#106 Soul Rebel....excellent, all this info is one enlightening post. Have been hearing the info about the 'dead scientists' on 'Coast to Coast' for a couple of years. I have always believed Aids was made in the USA. Never did buy the monkey story. Population control has been on the agenda for years, much longer than I knew from reading your post.

I have mentioned before that Flight 800 was carrying cannisters of the live Aids virus when it crashed, a never reported fact. An eye witness, (a citizen helping to pick up pieces of the wreckage) reported seeing the cannisters marked poisen..live Aids Virus. I have the remark on tape. The flight was heading to France..then where? Africa seems to be the U.S. testing ground for a lot of our biological weapons. But then they have all those diamonds...ya know.

I have thinking a lot lately about what exactly defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction. I am very confused here. The USA has every WMD imaginable, and probably several more, that most of us common people could never imagine....and do not hesitate to share with whoever happens to further the Corporate agenda at this time or in the past, ie: Iraq.

I have a book that shows all the chemical and biological weapons facilities located in the U.S. Interesting one is located near Four Corners in the US. This is where the outbreak happened....the names escapes me but it was carried by mice..go figure...a common creature used for experiments.

Now I am hearing more and more about mind control technology being used against us. The selected president and his staged props are so Hitler.....the banners, the troops, helicopters flying overhead.....this is blatant mind control, subtle control is a science unto itself. M4

M4 - I didn't know the part about flight 800. Gahhh. The gov't has done this sort of thing in the past to military (& other gov't) personnel & citizens - the Tuskeegee Experiment, experiments with radiation, experiments with hallucinogens - etc. God only knows what's been going on for the past few decades.

I was watching a doco on Hitler the other night and saw clearly the similarity in the bu$h reichwing decorations, orchestrations, so forth.

Weird times. I really wonder how far it will go.

Kira...coming soon to the tv in your living room...bush 'inspecting' the troops, as they march in legion, saluting him in the grandstand, Capital in the background, WH, or will they use The Mall. All his base with their 'passes' around their necks, screaming from the top of their lungs...long live the der leader. Scenery complete with a long row of 'death equipment' ie: tanks, etc., jets and whatnot flying overhead. Anything hitler did, bush can do better...just ask rove. Hollywood can not even compete. M4

If you haven't seen it, I was battling Redneck on the Judith Miller post before he bailed out. We were "discussing" fascism - I'm still not sure what his take was on it, other than it was supported by propaganda...

But anyway, I posted some "telling" paragraphs from Mussolini's writings on Fascism. I always tell people to look at Mussolini - not what he did, because he was not very effective, Hitler was the effective one - but rather what he said, what he wrote about the Fascist state. We're 98% there already, and the pillar of resistance to fascist oppression is a real media system that doesn't work solely as a goverment mouthpiece. That's why they're working hard to regulate the internet - right now, this kind of blog site and discussion is the only place that effective dissemination of truth can take place.

On a slightly different note (I'm enjoying the learning curve here by the way) as I don't get access to O'Reilly (at least that's one thing the Australian govt has not picked up in the media thank goodness!) has anyone seen the interview he was supposed to have had with Ann Coulter the other night?

If so, please tell me the details.

Interesting to see if O'Reilly says anything at all about it, I suppose it's only non-christians, democrats, commies and secular people who get booted off his show...

SR #116 I have been reading your debate and our media is complicit in this, Corporate owned, what with about 6 or so having a complete monopoly on all we see and read. I have pretty much turned off the tv and stopped reading MSM, other than linking to stories referenced here and there on the net.

I have often stated that if the internet had been up and running during Viet Nam...that war would have never gone on as long as it did. Bill Gates' stated as a goal a few years ago, that his desire would be a computer in every home. Now his own father...of Preston, Gates, and Ellis Law firm is being linked to the Abramoff scandal. How would we know this if not for the net. A bit of irony I think.

Yes, when the neocons get control of the net, then we will truly have entered the Nazi era. The American people will truly be silenced and genocide will be nationwide, not just in N.O.

I have little sympathy for people that do not heed the warnings. They are the ones that will cry foul when they wake up, if ever, and find out they are merely tools used to further this coup d 'etat. The people posting on these sites about the Truth, will be the first ones targeted, after all the non 'born again' christians (who appear to be the new enemy of the Right..that is still a bit fuzzy to me, trying to sort out which church is Right and who is Left). As in Nazi Germany, they went after the doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc....the intellectuals, next. I think it is imperative that the information being posted is done so. Perhaps one or two people will wake up, before the net becomes silent, which I suspect will be sooner than later.

I am very sad. I feel very used. We have been lied to from the beginning of our 200+ years of history. We are a nation built on the backs of slave labor and genocide of the native people. We swallowed the whole whale. We believed we lived in the greatest Nation ever, but the Truth is we have not.

Much of my reading has to do with a paradigm shift. The old view of the world is passing away and a new view is emerging. Too slow for me, but I am not the architect. Many people still believe in the old view and cannot get out of that reality. Change is hard, the old way of believing is comfortable and familar and to break out of the mold requires courage and much 'homework'.

I now have some understanding of why I have been do obsessed for years to understand the bigger questions...why am I here, etc. I have a strong foundation and see what is happening from a bigger perspective than had I lived all of my life acquiring 'things' rather than knowledge. I am not controlled by 'fear'. That in itself is a threat to those in power. Fear is used to control the masses and as more people see that, get out of the fear mode, the control is lessened. Will the scales tip in our favor....will we be able to stop this....I don't know.

There has been much talk on the different sites about civil war, revolution, what have you. I go back to Orwell's 1984. Revolutions are not done to get rid of a dictator, they are done to establish a dictatorship. I do not have the direct quote in front of me, but it is something to that effect. I feel an invisible hand at work here. M4

The Right is melting down. My husband was just flipping channels and all of sudden their was ac running off a stage while having pies thrown at her. This may be old news, she was at some university and the students rose up and blasted her. Was unable to finish her speech. Someone turned up a boom box and blasted her out. LOL. She is quite a piece of work, pretty nervous in the interview with faux (sean), her lip was quivering 90 mph. Now I know what everyone here is saying..she is looney tunes. M4

I saw that Coulter/pie clip...funny as hell. I've just started re-reading 1984. It's been a good ten years since I read it. I went to see Michael Moore at a local community college a couple of years ago, and got a chance to be part of the audience Q & A. I have to say that even though I was in a room with 5000 people who were for the most part, i suspect, left-leaning, there were some of the dumbest questions - I was really embarrassed that people weren't getting to the meat of the matter: the conspiracy, the controlled media, the orchestrated deception. I have that on video, I should go back and watch...but I got up and asked him to comment on the parallels between the rise of the neocons and the rise of the Nazis. There are so many parallels in events and in tactics. But Moore said we should all go and reread 1984, but that Big Brother was not the scariest concept presented. It was the Perpetual War - always an enemy, nameless, faceless, out there somewhere waiting to do us harm. I am with you, M4 - I choose not to live in fear, either of terrorists or other media-hypes, or my government - though I believe there is far more to fear from the government. But we do this out of choice. There are many others who do not live in fear of the government because they are ignorant, and that's a very different scenario. You and I can choose to evade this kind of control, simply because we are aware of our surroundings. Those who live without that awareness are susceptible to the mind games of The Rovian Nightmare and others. Having said that, I'm still getting out.

I wish I could get out, I do so wish it. I know what is happening and I guess my destiny is to live it, to witness it. I have done a quick search of my library looking for my old tattered copy of 1984 and may have given it to one of my sons. I remember the perpetual war, the rewriting of history, etc. I am surprised that the audience at Moore's talk were so ignorant. Maybe 'we' are smaller in numbers than I thought...that is an ugly thought. I thought when I found the internet and all of these blogs, that the majority of people were waking up. I just have to believe that everyone has a button and when that button is pushed, it's wake up time. That is the only hope I have to cling to. I like your point about ignorance being a pass to people to not fear their government. Hadn't thought of that angle. You are so right, ignorance is bliss. M4 (going to leave and search for the book some more)

I pulled the entire book offline from this website:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/orwell.html

SR Thanks for the address, may need to go there, as still haven't found it, but have a few more places to look.

Thank you, Soul Rebel, for all your amazing comments and research. They are much appreciated.

Keep up the good work - you are providing a lot of important research and support!

Liberal Virtual Hugz!
Kira

Sorry for getting slightly off topic but I wanted to
share a really cool link on an Australian edgy satirist....

Name is John Safran - a lisp talking jewish Aussie who looks at a whole set of religions or movements.

If you have the time, have a look and play some of the downloads.

This series is basically about him 'road-testing' a bunch of religions. Seeing him being interviewed by the KKK and then belatedly telling them he's jewish is very funny.

Hope it's enjoyed, nice for bloggers to see some australian satirism.

http://www20.sbs.com.au/...ndex.php?action=download

That was funny, Ginny! I ran across Safran about a year ago, but lost the name & link. Thanks for posting it & reminding me!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M4 --- I just ran across this:

PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.

Kira...why doesn't this surprise me! I don't doubt for a minute this is happening as we speak. So much is happening here, strange things...I have heard so many people lately complaining that they 'can't remember yesterday', we all chuckle and laugh...well...the USA has a huge Black Budget and makes one wonder doesn't it. I have some interesting books that describe some of the sinister projects conducted in U.S. I wear my tin foil hat while reading them of course. M4 (who thought only Hussein targeted his own people...according to bushco)