Although there is some tough competition for this category, this is officially the dumbest god damn thing that right wing blogistan has gotten it’s knickers in a twist about- the idea that publishing aerial photographs of Don Rumsfeld’s vacation house in a NY Times puff piece is some sort of terrorist enabling no-no is taking stupid to a new level.
That these jackasses chose to ‘retaliate’ by publishing the home addresses of the NY Times employees gives you an idea what can happen when you combine sheer idiocy with unbridled viciousness. I would say these gutter swine should be ashamed of themselves, but pretty clearly, shame is not an option. I will try to be embarassed for them, but my gut instinct is to point at them and their disfigured personalities and yell ‘FREAK!’
And if you want to know why I am not supporting the Republicans in the fall, it is because these are the idiots who seem to be in charge ofthe modern GOP.
chopper
to really get yourself tied up in a knot, look at the freeper response. one poster advocated finding out the schedules of the reporter or editor’s (can’t remember which) kids and ‘giving’ the information to local child predators.
that’s right, apparently to some people the act of getting permission from donald rumsfeld to photograph his house should be punished by having your children well, raped and murdered.
swell.
me
I thought you american loved lawyers … isn t this illegal?
And over the internet it s a federal jurisdiction too.
Steve
Come on, Darrell and Mac both thought the retaliation against the NYT employees was perfectly comparable to the original NYT story. Surely you want to tone down the rhetoric a bit, lest you offend your friends in the comment section.
The most whacked-out argument of all surely belonged to David Horowitz, who argued that Rumsfeld was probably intimidated by the NYT into giving permission for the photographs. It’s amazing to me how quickly everyone jumps aboard the bandwagon of faux outrage, without pausing to think whether it makes them look utterly stupid.
You know, when we discussed the most recent NYT expose, the one about international banking records, I was prepared to concede a point or two. Not that anyone should be hung for treason, of course, and not that the NYT wasn’t fully within their First Amendment Rights to run the story. But once the righties stopped screaming until snot ran out their noses (to borrow one of Darrell’s favorite phrases), I could agree that there’s at least a good argument that the NYT used poor editorial judgment in running that story, and that maybe they shouldn’t have done it, even if they were within their legal rights.
But then the wingnutosphere flies off the handle over this Travel Section thing and I’m just beside myself that I bothered to engage with these people and try to find some reasonable middle ground. What a laughable liberal stereotype I am.
Jim Allen
I think you need a new category for this sort of thing, John. “Republican/Democratic/General Stupidity” doesn’t begin to cover it.
Punchy
Now, if it were the house address and daily schedule of one Jessica Alba….yeah, I’m not so outraged.
Nutcutter
There is? I haven’t heard it. The factual material I’ve seen indicates that the relevant money traffic has long ago moved away from the systems that are being tracked. That while the program might once have produced good leads, it isn’t much any more. That there was little or no information in the story that had not already been seen elsewhere.
Meanwhile, you have the Darrells of the world ranting that “classified” information had been revealed, when in fact, none had.
Sounds to me like you’ve been studying at the Joe Lieberman School of Political Discourse.
Sherard
Completely overblown and the retaliation is stupid.
Strangely, though, I think your reaction to it is just as overblown. Especially in comparison to the creaking crickets about Deb Frisch threatening Jeff Goldstein’s 2 year old. You tell me which is worse…
KC
When I read about this issue on Greenwald’s site, I thought it pretty unbelievable. I mean, Greenwald pretty much eviscerates them for being stupid and instead of admitting that maybe they went overline, Malkin and her cohorts in idiocy entrench themselves even further in . . . well . . . dumbfuckness. What’s worse to me is that there’s a point wherein this behavior becomes dangerous.
Tim F.
Sherard:
John:
Steve
I don’t really want to advocate for the other side of the argument, but I’d note that your last sentence cuts against the news value of the story. I also wonder why Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, who are not flacks for the current administration, went to bat for the program if it was no big deal.
I just haven’t seen a good argument for why this story should have been run, other than that they had the right to run it, which of course I don’t disagree with.
Par R
Sounds like another overripe and hysterical post by John.
Richard Bottoms
Yeah, cry me a river, you’ve seen the light, praise Jesus. Meanwhile you’re one of the reasons these assholes are in power and only changed your stripes about a year ago.
Some of us have been saying the Republicans are a bunch of vicious bastards since the days when Helen Chenoweth and other GOP members expressed sympathy for the Militia Movement of the mid-nineties.
Whatever came of that??
Right… Oklahoma City.
John D.
What she said was dumb, irresponsible, sick, and wrong.
Oddly enough, that statement is the general thrust of what I’ve seen on both sides of Blogsylvania. You have some on the left minimizing it, true. You have a far greater number condemning it.
As far as the “crickets” go, up until this flap, I had never heard Ms. Frisch’s name, so it is hard to cast her as somehow representative of “The Left”. It simply appears to me to be a flamewar that spiraled way out of control, leading to someone making heinous statements.
This is not new. (c.f. Usenet, alt.flame, 1985-2006)
What, exactly, am *I* supposed to do about her comments, Sherard? I’m curious. Every time someone crosses a line on one side or the other, the other side rises up demanding… what? Shunning? Execution? A 15000 word teatise on Why This Is Wrong? What, precisely, are you looking for as vindication of your position?
Mac Buckets
Back that up, Steve, or I expect an apology.
John Cole
Bah. GFY, Dick.
Mac Buckets
That’s as silly as someone saying they wouldn’t support the Democrats in the fall because Deb Frisch and the crazy Bush deathwishers seem to be in charge of the modern Democratic Party. There are wackos and creeps of all persuasions, especially on the intertrons, and no one should mistake access to a keyboard for access to official power.
Nutcutter
All asked and answered. The former by me, and the latter by NYT.
The answers in brief were:
1. They’re making political statements, not journalistic assessments. And they’re weasels.
2. NYT asserted news value, and I agree with them. In light of NSA and the general disregard for process and protections displayed by this government, telling the story was appropriate and necessary, they basically said, and I fully concur.
I prefer a press that errs on the side of disclosure, not on the side of protecting the government’s self-serving veil of secrecy. If I have to give up a putative small amount of protection in the process, so be it. The government here is a bigger threat to me in the long run than some raghead laundering money.
DougJ
Come on, is this really any worse than the Jane Hamshers of the left making jokes about “Joenertia” in Connecticut? Face it, both sides are doing this kind of thing, whether it’s Atrios calling Andrew Sullivan “wanker of the day” or Melanie Morgan calling for the execution of Bill Keller.
Steve
Okay.
Now, if that’s not a statement that the righties who published the personal information of the NYT publisher and photographer were using the same tactic that the NYT did when they printed the Rumsfeld/Cheney article in the Travel section, I’m not entirely sure what else it would be.
To be clear on my own position: Anyone who noticed the Rumsfeld/Cheney piece, and saw it as different from any other “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” piece that you see in the paper, is a little too whacked out for me.
DougJ
If there were any justice in the world, the new address of these traitors at the Osama Hussein Times would be Gitmo.
Don’t they know we’re at war? Don’t they know that more anything else in the world, Osama bin Laden wants to blow up Donald Rumsfeld’s vacation home? Donald Rumsfeld’s vacation home represents everything the Islamofascists hate. After the Statue of Liberty, it is probably the greatest monument to freedom in the history of these United States.
Nutcutter
Not at all “whacked out.” Shrewd. NYT is an icon, a set piece now in the rightwing war on anything that gets in their way. The travel piece was just an opportunity to keep the base riled up. Whether there is any rational substance to it or not …. since when has that made a difference to these people?
And knowing that, why would we keep trying to apply tests of reasonableness or moderation to anything we say or do WRT them, or to anything they say or do?
Again, just Libermanesque. Fuck them. These things are deliberate, not crazy. It should be obvious by now.
Richard 23
Wow. I agree with Par R for an entire sentence! No ellipses or anything!
The Other Steve
In the future, before accusing us all of not saying anything about something that we know nothing about, could you make sure to forward a memo on the topic to the vast leftwing conspiracy mailing list that we all belong to so that we are better informed.
Thank you.
John Cole
A.) Compare and contrast the statements/demands/actions/political strategeries of the Right-wing of the blogosphere and the actions of our current elected administration. Notice a similarity? I do. Hence, there is nothing silly whit the following statement:
“And if you want to know why I am not supporting the Republicans in the fall, it is because these are the idiots who seem to be in charge of the modern GOP.”
B.) I have been watching the Democrats for a while. I haven’t seen any signs that ANYONE is in charge of that mess.
The Other Steve
Interesting how you call yourself stupid.
The Other Steve
It really doesn’t matter.
The stupidity here is the whole “How come nobody is condeming this?” gotcha game.
The Other Steve
And if there was someone in charge, they’d be a moderate. That’s how it generally works.
The base of the party is moderates and centrists. We’re not interested in radicalism, just an end to stupidity and fucking over one another for political gain.
DougJ
Everyone gearing up for the inevitable Frisch-Churchill ticket in 2008? Why has the Democratic party entrusted people like Deb Frisch and Ward Churchill with so much power? Can’t they see that this will alienate many moderate voters?
mrmobi
Nuttcutter:
N’cutter, you are on your game today. The Republican party has just one chance to stay in power (in Congress) in November, and that is by keeping what they call their “base” and what we call “neo-Nazi hatemongers” as worked up as possible. Led by folks like Gruppenführer Darrell, they will continue to pit different groups of Americans against each other in a desperate attempt to divert attention from their many egregious failures.
When someone is killed by an angry mob as a result of these activities, they will blame the “liberal scum” or the “traitorous New York Times.”
Nixon could do this with the best of them, (and he had better writers) but he was an amatuer by comparison with Rove & Co.
capelza
The Traitorous, Treasonistic NY Times Travel Tome..
Steve
Sometimes it’s smart not to get into the condemning business. I recall that when the flap arose about Coulter’s 9/11 widow remarks, a number of right-wing blogs went the extra mile to distance themselves and say how these statements were despicable, etc. And then in the comments section, at least half the readers would be like “no way man, Coulter was right!!!”
There’s clearly a significant part of the conservative movement that cheers on Coulter, even if individual blog owners try to look all responsible by distancing themselves. It ends up making the original condemnation look a little calculated and phony, if you ask me.
Mac Buckets
That’s not at all what it was. I was laughing at how Greenwald would call such a tactic “White Supremicist” in a lame effort to play the race card in a non-race issue. I just noted how he didn’t use a similarly racist pejorative when talking about the Times. My use of the same ridiculous Greenwald rhetoric should not be interpreted as equating the actions of the Times and the Freepers. I don’t think the Times publishing what they did is the same as idiots telling their friends to find out where the Times’ staff kids go to school. Not at all.
Do “Lifestyle” pieces expose the anti-intruder methods used by the owner? I’ve never seen one that did.
Mac Buckets
Uh, no, I really don’t — at least not anymore than I do on the other side of the wacko spectrum. Perhaps you can give an example or two.
capelza
One more thing. Malkin and her ilk staged the huge protest rally in fron of the NYT office in DC. To show the HUGE anger of the American public about this…a whopping 16 people besides the four organisers showed up. Now that was priceless.
I hear they are supposed to have one today, too. Anynews on that?
chopper
Come on, is this really any worse than the Jane Hamshers of the left making jokes about “Joenertia” in Connecticut?
i think publishing people’s home address and phone numbers with a thinly-veiled ‘go get em’ message is a bit different from making fun of lieberman’s campaign phrase. but maybe that’s just me.
John S.
Nor have I. So perhaps you could point out which part of the NYT piece “exposed” any top-secret security methods.
I’ll wait patiently while you try to gin up some bullshit that resembles a cogent response.
stickler
Oh, Mr. Mobi. You forgot the inevitable “unfortunate miscues” at the polls in November. Like in every election since 2000. You forgot our impending attack on Iran, which should be good for about three months of hurrah-jingo TV images before it turns to shit. And there’s always a late-September upgrade in the Threat To America!!! ratings.
Working up the mouthbreathers like Darrell isn’t a problem. It’s ginning up enough support from pants-pissing Soccer Moms and angry Uncle Earls that’s the trick for the GOP.
Steve
Look, Mac, you’re cool in my book, so I accept what you say now about what you meant. But your statement, maybe it was inartfully phrased, pretty clearly said the NYT had used the same tactic, the one Greenwald calls “white supremacist.” After all, if we agree that what the Freepers did was worse than what the NYT did, does that kind of make it silly to insist that Greenwald use the same terminology to deride each of them?
I never figured you for the type of guy who reads these pieces regularly. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were other celebrity home profiles out there that made mention of a security camera, that’s for sure. I took this to be a cutesy touch, nothing more. I stand by my point that if you’re actually entertaining the thought that some NYT photographer consciously decided to expose Rumsfeld’s security camera in order to make him less safe, you’re going somewhere that’s a little cuckoo.
Nutcutter
Washing Post on why NYT did the right thing
Hear, hear. That’s the issue in a nutshell.
Excellent piece, and it contains this line:
Yeah, no shit.
Also … Is Mac the new Rick? All he’s missing at the end of his sore loser, irrelevant, snotty posts is the “Cordially” signature.
Mac and Darrell can both add this footer to their posts:
Cordially, (p)Rick
Nutcutter
In case anyone in the audience was wondering why Mac refers to Steve as “smart” ….
Not that there’s anyting wrong with that.
Paul Wartenberg
I have a question. If I were to post the address of say a movie actress and have that address offered up to a group of stalkers, with the implied intent that said stalkers will use that information to harass that actress… wouldn’t that be a crime? Isn’t that harassment itself, or any form of reckless endangerment?
These columnists publish that information with the implied intent that even just one of their rabid readers use that information to hassle, threaten and possibly even injure/kill their target. Publishing a person’s home address does not fall under free speech protection, because it doesn’t add to the public forum. It’s not free speech: it’s harassment, and should be prosecuted as such.
Perry Como
One of the shows on one of the Discovery type channels on homes for the ultra rich did it. They covered some of the more interesting features of state of the art home security (it was an aside, not a feature of the piece).
Steve
There was some good discussion in Greenwald’s comment section about the legal issues. Greenwald’s take, and he’s certainly a First Amendment expert, is that this sort of thing is almost always constitutionally protected. I’m sure we can come up with extreme cases that would be different, and your example of intentionally providing the address to a group of known stalkers might be one. But in the garden-variety case, where you provide some lefty’s address to a bunch of right-wingers, Greenwald is probably right that you can’t criminalize that even if it sucks.
Mac Buckets
Is Deb Frisch still allowed to post here, John? I thought you’d at least ban that nutjob!
Slide.
simple answer, No.
Nutcutter
Strikes me as a completely inapt comparison, if we are trying to make a connection to the Rumsfield-travel piece.
For one thing, permission was given by the property owner to take the photos, and AFAIK, the purpose of the photos was clear.
Second, I’m not aware that an address was published in the relevant case. A photo of a house is not an address. I could send you a photo of my house … in fact, I used to have one at my url … and you’d never find the house with that photo. Absolutely impossible. You might find the house, but the photo wouldn’t help you unless you were already standing in front of the house.
Publishing an address is not that unusual, I see it in crime reports and various stories all the time. However, if an address that is otherwise “private” is published for the purpose of harassment, then that’s a different matter. But the important issue there is the harassment, not the address. It’s possible to harass without an address. It’s the intent to harass that is the real problem, if such intent exists.
It’s my opinion that the right has set itself up for big problems here by trying to push back the boundaries in the war it has declared on its own country. The bombing of abortion clinics, murder of doctors, the outrageous statements of people like Robertson and Fallwell blaming Americans for their own fate on 911 and from Katrina, the open disrespect of judges and the judiciary … they are deliberately using the inertia of their opposition to carve out new territory in harassment and personal attacks and getting away with it in some cases.
For example, when Coulter states that it’s too bad McVeigh didn’t blow up the New York Times, what is surprising to me is how little outrage there is over that kind of thing. Has she not also advocated the killing of government officials or judges? More importantly, has she not gotten away with it?
It seems to me that the phony “outrage” over things like Swift and NYT Travel is designed purposely to serve as a cover for the real outrages perpetrated by the right. It’s the noise machine at work and on its game.
Slide.
Nutcutter, he was talking about posting the address of the NY Times reporter not the NY Times reporting Rumsfeld’s address, but nice long winded post anyway.
Mac Buckets
Actually, all I said and meant was that what the Times did was a “White Supremacist” tactic as much as what the Freeps did was a “White Supremacist” tactic. That is to say, neither has anything to do with White Supremacists at all, which is why it’s easy to see that Greenwald is nothing but an intellectually dishonest rabblerouser feebly playing a race card in a dice game.
That original post was a lot longer, but I recall cutting it for space — prolly made it less clear.
Pharniel
except that the laws regarding private persons and public personas are differnt.
It really is a matter of public records the homes owned by the VIP.
Second paul – the piece was a classic lifestyle of the rich and the famous.
third, there are easier (and safer. the secret service is not going to deal with griefers in a gentle manor. especially since bush and freinds started the ‘free speach zones’) to harrass the VP, namely fax and e-mail. Maybe even phone calls. all much more effective than trying to show up at his doorstep. at his summer cottage.
and yes, in many lifestyle sof the ritch and hte famous (what, i didn’t have cable ’till i was 16) they would go into surprising detail about certian novel safeguards and the like.
LITBMueller
Clearly, the Times is ignorant of the awesome destructive power of al Qaeda’s air force. ;)
Mac Buckets
If you can tell me why that bit was necessary for the article, I’ll entertain that it was not a blatant breach of their privacy (“It was cutesy” is not a viable answer to me). If a reporter came to my house and published the location of my obviously hidden security cams, I’d take that as endangering me and my family, and I’d either have him in court or beat the living crap out of him. The very least that reporter is guilty of is being an asshole.
Nutcutter
Yeah, I wasn’t sure, which is why I built the disclaimer in on the first line.
But I am going to try to get more long-winded. I was thinking of a 20,000 word minimum as a place to start.
That’s only about 200 pages, so it’s still within the realm of feasability if you want to print them out.
It all depends on what the focus groups come back with, really.
OTOH, after seeing that Dr. Tran thing on John’s more recent thread …. I am not sure that I shall ever post again. It seems to have broken my brain. My mind has taken a hot dicking.
Nutcutter
Hey, you’ve convinced me. If reporters can be assholes, I certainly don’t want them writing about the government or any of its officials. Assholeness is something we just simply cannot tolerate when we’re at war.
Nikki
Actually, White supremacists have published the addresses of those they consider “race haters” on the internet. For example, this was done to Dave Neiwert of Orcinus (I learned this today!). That’s why Greenwald referred to it as a White supremacist tactic.
Nikki
Oh good lord, it was the location of ONE camera. If Rumsfeld only has one security camera at his vacation home, the Secret Service should be shot.
Slide.
clueless bucket boy:
All the time. As a former law enforcement offical now in the private security field I happen to take notice of such things. Quite frequently in a story of a celebrity’s home is there mention of the security precautions in place. Just off the top of my head I can remember stories about the security precautions surrounding Madonna’s house, Ron Perleman’s estate, Steven Speilberg, etc. etc. Not unusual at all.
Punchy
DougJ brings the quality of the Subtle Spoof to a new art form.
John S.
Would that be before or after you gave the reporter permission to take and publish the photograph?
Source
But don’t let a little fact like that stop you from beating your chest, Mac.
Idiot.
Nutcutter
That’s not my chest.
Cordially, (p)Rick
Richard Bottoms
>Bah. GFY, Dick.
The whole country got fucked when you and others like you voted to put George Bush into power. Twice.
Twenty thousand soldiers are maimed and 2500+ are dead because you got suckered in 2000 (and I’m being charitable here) and because you validated the Republican strategy of fag bashing & jingoism in 2004 by voting for these fools.
You throw stones at the Republican thugs now that it makes little difference, and long after it has become clear that the history books will stamp the conservative era of 1994-2008 as the age of tortures, hate mongers, and inept stweards of the country led to politcal desctruction by the worst president in history.
If I had supported these assholes I’d be running for cover too.
Vladi G
That one must have hit a little close to the bone for Mac.
Mac Buckets
I think that’s incredibly naive of you to take him only at face value, but you’re certainly welcomed to it. First of all, I strongly doubt that racists invented the published blacklist tactic, nor are they so widely known for it that everyone immediately knows what you’re talking about when you say “White Supremacist tactic.” No, Greenwald invented “White Supremacist tactic” purely to inject race into a discussion of the GOP, a tactic as old as the hills. Proof: note that he never denounces this “White Supremacist” tactic when it is used by lefties against Malkin or others on the right.
Mac Buckets
And anyone who denies being gay is gay. Right. Deep thinking there, Vlad.
Ancient Purple
It wasn’t. Then again, the entire “Lifestyles” section isn’t necessary either.
If your claim is that we should only print what is necessary, then I suggest we would have enough news for an 8.5×11 sheet of paper.
Mac Buckets
Where’d I complain about a photograph? Go ahead, find the quote. I’ll wait.
Way to keep your “100% moron” record going!
Mac Buckets
Finally, AP and I agree!
Nutcutter
Whew. The suspense was killing us.
Mac Buckets
Aw, come on, aren’t you going to call us gay now? Isn’t that all you do anymore? Come on, I’m sure there’s four twelve-year-olds reading who would think that your “you are gay” schtick is totally rad! And oh-so-progressive!
John S.
You’re a fucking dolt, Mac.
Blah, blah, blah. You cry like a little girl about the NYT “exposing” top-secret security information. So when I post a link that addresses the entirely ridiculous premise of your whining:
So the Secret Service says the story posed NO threat. But you want to magically claim otherwise? Next time, read the full context of linked information before you go mouthing off about how other people are morons.
Fucking idiot.
The Other Steve
You forgot their planned cabinet:
Secretary of State – Cindy Sheehan
Secretary of the Interior – Earth Liberation Front
Secretary of Defense – ANSWER
Secretary of Treasury – Communist Party
Secretary of Commerce – Michael Moore
Secretary of Transportation – Ralph Nader
The Other Steve
I worked with a guy once who was bipolar. He had a little computer program that would popup messages like “Feeling down, take the blue pill” or “don’t forget your red pill”.
If anybody who is still arguing that Rumsfeld vacation story was a threat… I may be able to get you that program to help you out.
Andrew
Well, I say we let the electorate decide. Who are these unelected activist people like Mac to decided whether he is or is not gay? That is fundamentally anti-democratic. We see how the homosexual agenda is aimed right at destroying the family, the most enduring institution in history.
So let’s put it to a vote like the Founders would have wanted: Mac, gay or not gay?
John S.
That would be Bucket Boy.
He would personally beat the shit out of anyone that compromised the security of his family the way the NYT did, don’t ya know.
Steve
Personally, if I was troubled by the newspaper printing the location of one of my security cameras, I’d probably just move the camera. Maybe I’m just a get-along kind of guy.
What I really wonder is whether Mac still feels I owe him an apology.
Andrew
Mac, if you love Rumsfeld so much, why don’t you marry him?
Nutcutter
Hmm. I think you have me mistaken for your shrink.
John S.
But this is the undoing of Mac’s handwringing over the story. First off he claims that the NYT has somehow compromised Cheney/Rumsfeld’s security – a claim which he cannot cite evidence for in the story itself and which the Secret Service has already refuted. Second, if the disclosure of the location of the camera vis-a-vis a photograph of it is deemed to be the culprit for the breach of security, that has also been refuted by Rumsfeld’s office directly, who gave permission for the photo to be used.
So the point is, the only people that seemed to be troubled by the NYT story are wingnuts like Mac, because the people who should have been bothered by it – if anyone had a right to do so – aren’t.
Nutcutter
Secretary of Health and Human Services — Jesse Jackson
Secretary of Education — Michael Jackson
Chairman of FCC — The Jackson Five
Mac Buckets
And you’re you are the one who is wrong about the photograph, aren’t you?
I’ll give you yet another chance to prove you aren’t a retard. Show where I said this article represented a threat to Rumsfeld.
Ready, steady, GO!
Nutcutter
You say things with your eyes.
Mac Buckets
Don’t have one, so I’m pretty sure the “Nutcutter” calling me gay on several threads is you. I’m just letting you know how weak I think you are, that’s all.
Nutcutter
Oh dear, I never knew that.
Well, that changes everything.
Nutcutter
Mac Buckets is flatulent.
Not that there’s anything { gasp } wrong with that.
Nutcutter
Mac Buckets is mean to kittens.
Nutcutter
Mac Buckets owes me a lot of money.
Nutcutter
Mac Buckets would pick green corn.
Nutcutter
That’s actually my mother. We call her Grandma Nutcutter.
Steve
If you don’t think his safety was endangered by the disclosure of the security camera, I kinda feel like that makes you even more nutso for saying you would beat the reporter up if he did the same thing to you. I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.
Nutcutter
Don’t take it personally, Mac. In fact, you’re invited to the annual Nutcutter Family Reunion.
You are welcome to bring your family, the Ballbusters.
Pick guitar, fill fruit jar and be gay-o
Son of a gun, we’ll have big fun on the bayou
John S.
You’re a complete fucking waste of time. Everyone reading this thread can see clearly what point you are trying to make with your comments. All your puerile attempts to offer some sort of Bushian “I never actually said that” defense are pathetic at best.
Perhaps you can explain what you meant by:
and
I’d love to see you parse how your breathless exclamations of endangerment and having your security exposed DON’T mean that you were saying the article represented a threat.
Take all the time you need to jam your foot into your mouth good and tight and make yourself look even more idiotic.
chopper
First of all, I strongly doubt that racists invented the published blacklist tactic,
who’s saying that?
nor are they so widely known for it that everyone immediately knows what you’re talking about when you say “White Supremacist tactic.”
that’s partly correct, it’s really more of a tactic of the far-out right in a more generic sense. it isn’t just WP groups, anti-abortion groups are well-known for this tactic; they publish the home addresses of abortion doctors with thinly-velied encouragement to ‘get er done’. then when one is shot, they cross out the name on the website.
No, Greenwald invented “White Supremacist tactic” purely to inject race into a discussion of the GOP, a tactic as old as the hills.
actually, greenwald brought up the tactic because as a first amendment lawyer, he’s defended similar groups and he’s seen how they use that specific tactic. he’s seen it before on a number of occasions. he recognizes that as a tactic pretty specific to those organizations.
in other words, he’s blogging on what he’s familiar with. i see no problem with that.
John S.
I just caught the sheer irony of this comment.
The very term itself is rooted in racism, hence why blacklist refers to exclusionary measures while the term whitelist refers to inclusionary ones.
So while racists may not have invented the tactic, they surely helped coin the phrase.
Tom in Texas
So this kinda fits just because of the General Stupidity and Outrage Tags on the original post,
A recent event at my local airport shows just how bad airport security is.
Soo… the dude lies about having electronics, has “a clock with a 9-volt battery taped to it” on him, and “there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself” in his shoes. Yet he was cleared for travel.
It’s hard to know where to come down on this. Obviously if they had found the explosives in the shoes the guy would’ve been stopped, but couldn’t someone else come through the gate with only the plastic explosives on them? I admit all I know about this is what’s in the movies, but is the explosive itself even detectable?
Some are speculating that this was an exercise by the DHS to test airport security. Regardless, it is still a stunning example of beaureucratic infighting and ineptness.
Tom in Texas
I should also say that the speculation about it being an exercise is pretty solid considering no charges were filed against the guy.
LITBMueller
Yeah, I think it was that incredibly rational Republican Sen. Eugene McCarthy….
LITBMueller
Whoops. Joseph.
More…coffee…needed…
Steve
Tom, I was wondering if anyone was going to post on this. I saw it on Malkin earlier and as much as I think most of her posts are BS, this one really left me scratching my head.
Maybe it’s like, if the guy’s not actually breaking the law, if he doesn’t have anything that would be an actual threat to security, maybe there’s no real basis to keep him off the plane. Maybe the only answer is simply to open an FBI file on the guy and see who he talks to after he lands and stuff. Still, it strikes me as extremely whacked out.
I also find it morbidly amusing that they had to mention he was carrying a Koran. Because, you know, a guy with hollowed out shoes and something that looks like a bomb timer, I personally wouldn’t think anything of it if it weren’t for that ever-incriminating Koran!
Slide.
facts have no bearing on the mind of a wingnut like bucket boy. They take a position and stick with it no matter what intervening facts show them to be wrong. For instance, I do believe these are some of bucket boy’s cherished beliefs:
NY Times somehow intentionally tried to compromise Rumsfeld’s security.
Revealing that Rummy’s home had a security camera was somehow giving away dangerous security secrets.
There were WMD in Iraq, we just haven’t found them, perhaps they were moved to Syria.
We are safer because we invaded Iraq.
The Iraq people are pleased as punch that we turned their country into a living hell.
Invading Iraq was the right decision.
Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger.
Ms. Plame was not a covert agent.
Bush is smart.
Case closed. You gotta love guys like bucket boy. Entirely predictable yes. Closed minded yes. Biased to a pathological degree yes. Incapable of objectivity yes. But damn, he is fucking entertaining. Thank you bucket boy. Thank you Darrell. Thank you Ann Coulter, Bill O’reill, Rush Limbaugh, Thank you all very very much.
demimondian
The terms blacklist and whitelist are actually intriguing examples of how words can acquire taboo interpretations which were not originally associated with them.
Blacklist arises from the term blackball, which goes back to Classical Athens: voting was performed with a box into which black and white balls were dropped. Most votes were majoritarian, but some could be vetoed by the casting of a single black ball, including certain membership votes. Fraternal societies (most famously, but not exclusively, college frats), adopted that voting pattern some centuries ago, and the term stuck.
Thus, originally, there was no racist content to the term what so ever. (At the time, the racist term for a person of african descent was not “black”, in fact.) That said, the terms are now considered racially sensitive in the United States, and should generally be avoided. Preferable usages are “blocked list” or “banned list”, and “allow list”. They are not only devoid of any racial connotation, but also, frankly, clearer and more expressive.
Tom in Texas
Steve:
The fact that he was carrying a Koran made it all the more likely to me that this was a test. Seriously — a doctored alarm clock and the Koran? It’s like Wile E. Coyote. All he was missing (and apparently the reason he got through) was a coupla big red sticks of Acme Dynamite.
But I can’t believe that you can safely carry only the components of a bomb onto an airplane. Why not just line up 10 guys, each with one pice and the last with only hollowed out shoes?
Mac Buckets
Not at all. It’s simple. Rumsfeld has Secret Service. They have security arrangements that we can only dream of. They were at most inconvenienced by the “reporting” of the Times, but it’s an inconvenience and an intrusion that they shouldn’t have had to worry about, because there was absolutely no reason for it.
By the way, have you come up with any plausible reason why it was necessary to reveal the hidden camera in the Times? What “public interest” was served there? Anything?
Anyhoo, I do not have such security arrangements. If a reporter divulges the location of my personal security systems, then I’ve got a major hassle on my hands, and probably a security gap of several days that might jeopardize my family. And since there is no possible public interest served by that revelation, the reporter goes on the “Dead To Me” list.
Mac Buckets
There’s your problem, Joe (who are we kidding? ONE of your problems). You make up all my answers, and then call all the answers that you made up “predictable.” No kidding. You’re a genius.
chopper
Not at all. It’s simple. Rumsfeld has Secret Service. They have security arrangements that we can only dream of.
which is exactly why the times piece was no threat whatsoever to rumsfeld’s safety. which is also why rummy gave permission for the piece.
hey were at most inconvenienced by the “reporting” of the Times, but it’s an inconvenience and an intrusion that they shouldn’t have had to worry about, because there was absolutely no reason for it.
it was a puff piece about vacation homes. they’ve done them about the clinton’s vacation house too. if it was such an intrusion, why did rummy let them take and publish the pic?
might as well picket MTVs offices for their show ‘cribs’.
chopper
so basically, it ends up like this:
publishing reporters’ addresses with thinly-veiled statements encouraging people to ‘do something about these traitors’: GOOD.
publishing, with permission, a photo of a vacation home of a dude with 24-hour secret service protection: TREASON.
John S.
Mac gets out his crystal ball and divines that the Secret Service was bothered by the NYT story, despite their statement to the contrary.
By the way, have you come up with what this revelation was besides a photograph that Rumsfeld’s office said was already part of the public record?
This paragraph is too stupid to even address with any kind of articulate rejoinder. I find it impossible to believe that your earlier comment can be explained as thus.
DougJ
Should we even be talking about the fact that Rumsfeld has a vacation home? Doesn’t that just make it easier for the terrorists to disrupt his vacation plans? Think about it: if they didn’t know he had a vacation home and they wanted to ruin his vacation, they’d have to hit Aruba, Key West, Venice, Capri, Bermuda, you name it. There’s no way they can do that. Now they could just teepee his place while he’s away and score a big PR victory for Al Qaeda.
Thanks a lot, New York Times.
John S.
Demi, that’s a very interesting analysis of the etymology of those terms. I did a perfunctory search for such an origin, but couldn’t find one. Could you point me in the direction of where you got this information from? I enjoy a good word origin, and one with such ancient roots is a double-bonus.
Steve
Yeah, except we’re discussing Rumsfeld, not you. I understood you to be bringing your own situation up as an illustration of why the NYT supposedly did something wrong with Rumsfeld. If your point is “it was fine because the article was about Rumsfeld, but if they did the same thing to me, it would be terrible!” then fine, whatever.
You’ve taken this off into some crazy universe where the media has to justify every photograph caption as somehow “necessary” to advance the “public interest” or else it shouldn’t be printed. As others have noted, it’s a lifestyle spread in the travel section, not a breathless expose of some secret program. It’s like you’re asking me to justify the public interest in printing the latest issue of Cosmo.
Aren’t you just a little embarassed by the over-the-top antics of your colleagues on the Right in complaining about this article? Even if you think “gee, I wish they had dropped the bit about the security camera,” doesn’t it strike you as a little bit crazy to claim that the NYT is trying to get Cheney and Rumsfeld killed by terrorists, to go around publishing the home address of the publisher and photographer to get back at them? Or does this reaction seriously strike you as completely unremarkable?
Nutcutter
You guys still don’t get it. This isn’t about security, any more than the Swift thing was.
It’s about grist for a political mill that thrives on shit like this. The machine that eats this crap for breakfast is the same machine that once wet itself for years over the murder of Vince Foster.
Why bother arguing the substance and specifics of these cases with these fucking morons? What they want is the argument, not more security for Rumsfeld.
It’s an orchestrated troll on a grand scale.
MacFukkits is just the local rep for this product. The detail man who makes sure it gets shelf space here in the information supermarket.
The entire blog, including John …. pwned. This is what the entire remainder of the election season is going to be like. Anything that deflects from the complete and utter failure of the government, put it up front and turn up the volume.
DougJ
You’ve taken this off into some crazy universe
Don’t call it a take off, he’s been there for years.
Steve
If Mac is the sales rep, who is the customer? I think Mac is the customer. I think the right-wing outrage machine gets ginned up and guys like Mac and Darrell respond by saying “yeah, that’s outrageous!” without engaging their critical faculties and thinking it through. Maybe I’m silly to think they can do better (Darrell is obviously beyond hope) but in real life I know plenty of reasonable conservatives.
Anyway, if you assume there is some kind of audience and they’re playing to it, do you really think your strategy of dismissing them with contempt and disdain is the best way to win over that audience? I guess I don’t get it.
jg
Thanks. Now I’m going to have that song in my head the rest of the day.
jg
I gotta agree. I wish friends of mine would apply even a 10th of the scepticism they heap upon anything I say, to what they hear while watching FOX News or listening to Limbaugh. Its all true when it comes from those sources, anything else gets either the third degree then dismissal or immediate dismissal depending on its source.
Darrell
Yeah, so we could be like the ‘independent’ thinking liberals who mindless repeat their marching orders in unison: “Clap harder”, “Dear Leader”, “no blood for oil”, etc.
Speaking of leftist idiocy jg, weren’t you the one the other day making absolutist statements that Saddam “couldn’t possibly” restart his WMD program?
Darrell
You assume wrongly that most of your fellow leftists aren’t complete whackjobs.. re-read this and most every other thread on BJ to have that assumption shredded to pieces
Nutcutter
Good heavens. Who in the world is trying “win over” that audience? Which is, to answer your other question, the noise machine itself. It is its own audience. It’s a self sustaining machine.
I have never tried to win over any audience. Nothing could possibly be a bigger waste of time. But anyway, we’re missing so many points here, it’s hard to know where to begin.
The first one I’d ponder IIWY, is what Mac thinks he is doing here. Look at his reason for being here and what he is doing. It isn’t about winning anyone over, or winning an argument. Or self expression. He isn’t running for office and he isn’t looking to make friends.
He’s tipped his hand many times. He thinks he’s better than we are. Smarter, cleverer, above the crude fray, too suave to be pulled down into crass liberalism even though he “didn’t vote for Bush” IIRC. Or wouldn’t, or some fucking lameass disclaimer like that. Mainly he’s just here to show us echo chamber types how worthless we are and how superior he is.
That’s it, in its entirety. Trying to extrapolate that into some “debate” or “winning over” anyone is just folly. That’s not even remotely on the table here.
LBNL, I as always …. check the name of the blog. This ain’t the Charlie Rose show here.
SeesThroughIt
Isn’t the public interest obvious? Women need to know the 42,196 tricks to drive men wild in bed!
Darrell
In the context of a newspaper which recently leaked classified info on two legal and effective national security programs to catch terrorists, although I think some of the conservative reactions to the Leisure piece were over the top, they were definitely understandable under the circumstances
Nutcutter
Oh yeah, I forgot, you also got that part wrong in terms of the premise. “Dismissing?”
I am not out dismiss. I am out to expose. I’m just a foil for these assholes to expose themselves against. I can’t discredit them …. only they are truly equipped to do that. I could never explain what an idiot Darrell is … I leave that to the expert: Darrell.
Steve
You know what, I’m not going to re-read this and most every other thread on BJ. Sorry.
Considering you’ve repeatedly referred to me as a “leftist kook,” a “dishonest partisan hack,” and the like, I’m going to assume you have equal credibility when you apply those terms to others, which is to say none.
Oh, and your comment that liberals always employ the same old schtick is kinda humorous when juxtaposed with the “re-read this thread to see why” line that you must have used 100 times. Yes, Darrell, you’re really the authority on independent thought.
Nutcutter
Nope, lie. Newspapers don’t “leak” classified material. They might publish it, but somebody else has to leak it.
Second lie, there was no classified information in the Swift story, and you know it.
YOu going to continue this lie crap? Because I ain’t goin anywhere and I am going to call your ass on it every fucking time.
Give it up, asshole.
Nutcutter
It would be fun, Steve, to go on some righty blogville that Darrell reads and spoof some righty material, and then watch Darrell come over here and spout it as if he thought it up.
Slide.
To follow-up on what I believe to be the surrealism of the right these days where facts and objective analysis have been thrown overboard in their ideological zealotry. This self-delusion, as epitomized by the likes of MacBuckets and Darrell, will be of some anthropological interest in future years I do believe. Arthur Silber nails it in his post today:
I like that – Macbuckets as the neurotic cultist. Kinda explains most of his posts now doesn’t it?
The Other Steve
Ok, anybody still arguing rumsfeld’s house with Mac might need that program that reminds you to take the pills. Clearly you’re all off your meds to argue with a certifiably insane individual.
Tom in Texas writes:
Sounds like an operational test to me. Checking to see what they can pass through the security screening.
That’s interesting. Clearly it shows our security system works, but it worries me that someone is trying this.
What was Malkin’s take? That we should have taken the guy out back and shot him?
jg
yes and I gave lots of reasons why I came to that opinion. Are you just going to continue calling it lefty bullshit or are you actually going to refute it?
Is the left lacking in ideas or are they all in lock step on teh same message. Please clarify.
DougJ
Women need to know the 42,196 tricks to drive men wild in bed!
Isn’t that just the kind of information, though, that the terrorists would want to know? Not just so that their agent Valerie Plame could seduce Donald Rumsfeld and get him to give up his vacation schedule, but just imagine, if you’re trying to motivate terrorists, what better way than to remind them of 42,196 sex tricks that 77 heavenly virgins can do in the afterlife?
Steve
That would be impossible, because he’s an independent thinker. Read every post in the history of the universe to see why
Perry Como
I’m sure it has already been done.
Nutcutter
Wow. That’s 42,194 more than I generally ask about on my application form.
Richard Bottoms
>I have never tried to win over any audience. Nothing could >possibly be a bigger waste of time.
Word.
Not only do I don’t want this crowd om our side, there’s no hope of getting anyway. Fuck em.
All I want, all we have ever needed in the 50/50 electorate is the 1% of true indepedents who are tired of being raped in the ass by the Bush administration.
The rest can go piss off.
Zifnab
I just want to know where the NYT finds the page space available to cover such treasonous filth when we have a very real crisis in the disapperance of Natalee Holloway that continues to plague us to this very day.
Maybe if they spent less time rifling through the Pentagon’s garbage and flinging mud at our embattled administration they could make themselves useful and do something that really matters.
Mac Buckets
Fine, so discount the bit about me if you don’t want to discuss it. Just don’t pretend I meant it to be applied to Rumsfeld when it was clearly first person.
Please. You’re being obtuse, I think, and misrepresenting me. Not every caption, not Cosmo — just certain articles that could cause harm, including those which expose someone’s personal security measures. Like Bill Keller said about the SWIFT program, he knew the national security issues he was raising in outing that program, but he had to weigh that against the “public interest” in the program. Journos weigh these things. Not every caption, not every article, but those likely to have a negative effect.
Obviosly, if printing something might affect someone’s security, there has to be a more compelling reason to print. So far, no one has offered anything whatsoever indicating that there was any compelling (forget compelling, how about mildly interesting) reason (oh, yeah, except it was “cutesy”) to print that camera information.
I don’t think the Bill Keller wants Cheney or Rumsfeld to be killed, no. Anyone calling for anyone to be “hunted down” for publishing such an article is wrong. I can see where people of a more radical bent than myself could look at exposing one of “their guy’s” security measures and see what they want to see. If Fox News had told everyone Madeline Albright’s security camera locations, the shoes would likely be on the other feet.
Nikki
Nutcutter…obviously easy to please.
jg
I find his writing to be remarkably similar to what Specialist posts at Tapped.
Nikki
And rightly so. If, however, the Washington Times did a travel piece on Albright’s vacation home and disclosed the location of ONE camera, it would be a different story.
Nutcutter
I’m your dream date.
Darrell
Today’s deep thoughts from our resident leftists:
Mac Buckets
Right, because if you disagree with TOS, you’re obvously insane. Riiiiiight.
Nutcutter
Is someone going to publish the technical explanation of why a security camera works better when its location is “hidden?” Because that would explain why most of them are in plain view, and are often accompanied by signs declaring their presence.
Also, the rationale that explains why, say, a terrorist would approach the Rumsfeld dacha and, seeing none of the “hidden” cameras, would behave in a different way — a more dangerous way — than he would if the fucking camera were just on a big pole with twenty 1000-watt lamps shining down from it?
Can we get those explanations please? Because this “hidden camera” bullshit is the biggest wad of scamapalooza I have seen here in a long time.
Nikki
But won’t my arsenal of skillz go to waste?
Nutcutter
Give it up Darrell. You should go back to claiming that NYT “leaked classified information.”
Zifnab
To be fair, independents in this country stand more in the 10-20% range. But the right wing noise machine has done an excellent job of making liberal a political slur synonamous with aethism and dead babies. And every election cycle it seems the terror alert level spikes while dozens of would-be terrorists start getting rounded up by Homeland Security with their faces plastered all over TV. That does a great job of scaring the pants off of any would-be independents. After all, when Democrats want to ban your churches, abort your feti, and let terrorists kill you where you sleep, … we live in a two-party system. Who else are you going to vote for?
Mac Buckets
Unless John is that “machine,” I wouldn’t even know where to find it. And I don’t think I have to justify my critical faculties to anyone. If you have a question, just ask.
Nutcutter
I think we should explore every possibility before deciding.
Nutcutter
OMG, you’re a spoof?
Who knew?
Now THAT was actually funny. Spit my Gatorade all over the cat.
John S.
Oh, Darrell…you and your usual tricks.
Legal programs? According to whom?
Effective programs? What is the measure of their efficacy?
To catch terrorists? How many terrorists have been caught through the two programs?
No, no…don’t answer any of these lingering questions that nobody has the answers to. Just keep peddling your typical bullshit where you presume that you are the keeper of all the answers the government doesn’t see fit to share.
Nutcutter
Yes, we already know of your greatness.
Perry Como
You have to trust the government implicitly. It’s the Conservative way.
Nutcutter
And I do. I trust them to be lying, thieving, manipulating, deceitful demagogic self-serving self-justifying sons of bitches, and in fifty years, they have never let me down.
God bless ’em!
Darrell
Well the SWIFT program caught the Bali bombing terrorist ringleader which is quite significant. The NYT article mentioned that the NSA ‘wiretap’ program nabbed would be terrorists too. Any other questions?
Nutcutter
When was the last time the snoopers saw any significant terrorist traffic on that program? Where is most of the money going now? What changed, and when?
John S.
Trusting the government is SO pre-9/11 thinking.
The realities of the post-9/11 world demand that it’s every man for himself. I mean, that’s what the government keeps telling us.
The message from Uncle Sam is clear: Don’t count on me.
John S.
How about you address the first two questions I asked before I offer up any more for your thoughtful analysis.
Steve
No, I think you’re being silly, and by comparing this issue to the exposure of government spying programs, you’re really being silly.
Everything has the potential to affect someone’s security, if you want to play that game. Showing pictures of Rumsfeld’s house has a 0.001% chance to endanger his security, I guess. Pointing out a security camera has a 0.001% chance too, I guess. But it’s completely trivial and not worth worrying about. Show me any article from the newspaper – I don’t care if it’s about a dog show in Alaska – and I can conjure up some scenario where someone might use the information in that article to hurt someone else. Whatever.
There are only two possibilities here. Either you think the NYT was intentionally out to nullify one of Rumsfeld’s security measures, or you don’t. If you do, I’m afraid there’s not much hope for you. And if you don’t, then it seriously doesn’t matter whether they had a “good” reason or not – it’s a travel article and it’s full of all kinds of random crap. As others have pointed out, profiles of celebrity homes routinely include these kinds of references, and no one says boo.
Darrell
Less silly than the all the leftists claiming that Ann Coulter seriously wants to blow up the NY Times building
Nutcutter
Are you saying that Coulter doesn’t mean what she says?
Perry Como
Whoa. Darrell, you are completely unhinged. Seriously.
Ann Coulter wrote that she thinks the terrorists should have blown up the NY Times building. People call her on it and it’s those people, not Coulter, that you chastise.
Some nutbag ‘wingers say that the NY Times is trying to help al Qaeda by exposing the homes of the VP and the SecDef. And you think that claim is “understandable under the circumstances.”
Nutcutter
Just a few Coulterisms for fun:
“I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly.” MSNBC, March 22, 1997
“My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.” MSNBC, February 8, 1997.
“I think [women] should be armed but should not vote …” Politically Incorrect, February, 2001. “It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact.The Guardian, May 17 2003.
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma Federal Building bomber) is he did not go to the New York Times building.” New York Observer, interview August 26, 2002.
“Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.” Appropriately, that quote came from he book entitled Slander, pp. 5-6.
“We should invade their (Muslim) countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” From her syndicated column, September 13, 2001.
Coulter meant none of these things?
Which of her “thoughts” does she mean, then? And how do we tell them apart?
More to the point, Darrell, how do we know what YOU think about things? You have no interest in telling anybody, as near as I can tell.
Perry Como
It’s actually pretty easy to figure out what Darrell believes in. It’s been discussed to death around here. He is another of the nannystate, big government, unitary executive loving “Conservatives”. Pretty much the antithesis of freedom and liberty.
Nutcutter
Nutcutter
Steve
Let’s stick with this one. A serious statement? Or was Coulter making a big ol’ funny two days after 9/11? I somehow doubt we’ll get to hear Darrell’s take on this yes-or-no proposition, unfortunately.
Darrell
I think you liberals are noble patriots like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, except even more patriotic and noble than either of them. I think George Bush is the dumberest President ever, and that Republicans want to control women’s uterus’ while clapping louder for Dear leader.
Darrell
Why “stick” with that one, when I never raised that as an example of liberal overreaction?
Perry Como
Unlike Jefferson, you believe that the government should be able to censor the press. So go grab some more quotes from philosopher-king Jeff Goldstein to back up your anti-Jefferson rhetoric and show what good Conservatives believe.
Nutcutter
Yeah, thanks and all that, but the question to you is, which of the things Coulter says are to be taken seriously? And, how do you know? Is there a way to tell the serious stuff from the not serious stuff?
Darrell
No way! I think the New York Times has the right to publish any classified secrets they want including the nuclear launch codes if they can get them.. just as long as the story is of public interest. That’s what’s really important.
Nutcutter
That’s a lie. No classified secrets were published in the stories you are talking about. And you know it.
Are you going to keep this up?
Darrell
I think you liberals are completely justified in your accusations that Ann Coulter is trying to blow up the NYT’s building.
Remember, Ann Coulter = Hater. Markos “Screw them” Moulitsas = Guiding light.
Fledermaus
Oh, look Darrell’s got a shiny thing. Everybody look at the shiny thing. Have you ever seen anything so shiny?
Oh now he’s waving it around – can’t take my eyes off the shiny thing.
I *heart* shiny things. Now, what were we talking about again? I seem to have forgotten.
Oh look – shiny thing!
John S.
I’m still waiting for the boy wonder to answer the following two questions in regards to secret government programs to thwart terrorists:
1)Are they legal programs? Legal according to whom?
2)Are they effective programs? What is the measure of their efficacy?
Steve
Because I raised it. I get to raise things too, right?
Next I’ll ask you to link to the leftists who think “Ann Coulter is trying to blow up the NYT’s building,” as you alleged above. But first things first.
The Other Steve
Not really. You ever met Madeline Albright?
She’s one tough cookie. I doubt if terrorists tried to invade her house they’d get out of their alive. She’d beat the mother fuckers to an ounce of their lives.
She’s not some whiney ass wanker like Republicans who hide under their desks in fear that the pizza delivery guy is a terrorist.
The Other Steve
I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but you don’t control the agenda here. Besides, you never did answer that question about why you want to marry your mother.
Darrell
Tough cookie
Pooh
Surely Not! Who could do such a thing?
Pooh
Darrell has discovered sarcasm, (see also Tom Hanks creating fire in “Castaway”) with predictably tragic, though strangely compelling, results
Nutcutter
It reminds me of “Teach Your Dog to Play the Piano.”
Sure, the dog is going to learn something. But is it a step forward for the dog, really?
Darrell
Because my mama is Salma Hayak?
Slide.
Just read something that makes all this seem so silly and trivial. This is what we unleased in Iraq and I’m afraid we will never be able to get the genie back in the bottle:
..
Pooh
Slide my guess (pace Djerijian) is that that story is apocryphal. Not to say that stuff isn’t FUBAR, but that specfic incident, probably not (somebody was probably reading George R. R. Martin and juxtaposed…)
The Other Steve
You ever met Kim Jong-Il? Nope.
That brouche she’s wearing. That was a weapon. If he’d have made a move, she would have decapitated him in a second. Albright is like a cross being Samuel L. Jackson and Steve McQueen. Except she’s a woman, but she plays the nice pleasant game until you cross her, then Die, Motherfucker, Die!
I’m telling you. Don’t fuck with Albright.
No mere mortal can stand face to face with one of the world’s worse dictators pretending to smile and be cheerful.
No, you gotta be one tough mother fuck.
The Other Steve
This guy would have been crying in his twinkies if he’d been in the same situation. It’s one thing to take on Alan Rickman in a movie, it’s quite another to take on Milosevic in real life.
Nutcutter
Yes, Slide. We said some time ago here that Iraq was now in the throes of civil war, and that the American presence WRT to that civil war has become largely irrelevant.
Americans there now are engaged mostly in protecting our own facilities and bases, and are not really engaged in dealing with the kind of violence you cite here.
The plan our Potemkin government has now is apparently to basically deflect attention from this reality until the American election is over, and then start planning drawdowns of our forces. The exact details of Iraq’s descent into complete civil unrest are yet to be played out. But they are going to be hideous.
John S.
No, Steve.
Only Darrell and MacBuckets have the authority to introduce tangential information or deviate from the topic at hand.
Darrell
You don’t. You kill them with extreme prejudice as we have been doing.
Note that liberals are * shocked * to see that those who chop off heads of innocents and blow up women and children in markets, that these same murderous terrorists could do something so despicable to a little girl. Who would have thought?
Slide.
uh huh
Perry Como
Only a limp wristed liberal would sit down and talk to that dictator and get him to stop his plutonium enrichment program. Then when he started enriching uranium instead of plutonium, only a limp wristed liberal would come back to the table to get the uranium enrichment to stop.
A true tough guy refuses to talk to a dictator, instead issuing tough statements like “Axis of Evil”. Then when that dictator aims ICBMs at Hawaii and starts doing test flights — after resuming plutonium enrichment under his watch — a true tough guy
kicks his assdoes absolutely nothing.Rarrr! Stay the course, bitches! Stay the course!
The Other Steve
Who do you mean we?
Last I checked, you’re sitting in your monday arm chair, quarterbacking the sunday game.
It’s those soldiers who are stuck on the ground in Iraq who have to deal with this shit.
Steve
Well, since Darrell won’t respond to my non sequiturs, I guess I have no obligation to respond to any of his, thus freeing me from pretty much any responsibility relating to him whatsoever. Next time he starts going on about the Clintons, remember, it’s not my job!
The Other Steve
Oh yeah, it takes real guts to pretend a problem doesn’t exist, and have your press secretary issue statements of “Well, uhh, really it’s not that bad.”
Pooh
Oh! The Light Of Darrell! It Burns Us!
Is it tiring to constantly project onto others at such velocity?
Slide.
Don’t you have it backwards Darrell? Wasn’t it the “liberals” that warned that this war might unlease forces we couldn’t control? Wasn’t your side that used terms like “cake walk” ? Wasn’t your side convinced that the war would not last more than six months? Shocked? I’m not shocked, I predicted this asswipe. Did you? If you did then you all LIED about how easy and relatively painless it would all be. If you didn’t then you are as incompetent and clueless as the neocons were that advised the president. Lets remember some of what “your side” said before the war:
so who is the naive one asshole?
Darrell
I think it was brilliant of Madeline Albright, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to put such trust in the North Koreans. Especially their decision to discard that old bellicose Repblican policy of ‘trust but verify’.
We should build upon the success of this Albright/Clinton/Carter N. Korean achievement by putting similar trust in the Iranians now to show them our good intentions.. right libs?
The Other Steve
They didn’t abandon that.
George Bush did.
Sorry to queer onyour parade.
Nutcutter
Actually, we don’t do anything. American forces are not engaged in getting between Iraqis in their zeal to have a civil war. Mostly we are defending our own bases and facilities and a few elements of essential infrastructure.
Iraqis, like Americans, are pretty much on their own when it comes to dealing with catastrophe. Our policy now is to do nothing there that will attract attention to the chaos in Iraq, at least until the American election is over. Instead, we’ll focus on anesthesia for fetuses and stem cell research restrictions, things that are so important to Americans.
Slide.
So which was it Darrell? Were all those administration officials just lying to us about the ease of the coming conflict in Iraq? Were they lying to the American public so that they would be more willing to scarifice their sons and daugthers? Or were they clueless. Incompetent. Completely mistaken. Its not as if there weren’t people warning of an insurgency. As a matter of fact Gen Scowcroft wrote about it before the war about the potential mayhem we might be unleashing. But they ignored him because they were so much smarter right?
If they lied to us should we ever trust them again? or were they just completely and utterly wrong about every single aspect of Iraq?
Darrell
Whatever you do, don’t dare “humiliate” them libs. And make sure you give them full rights to a trial and defense attorney as so many of you have been advocating.
Perry Como
President Bush’s approach to N. Korea has been a stunning success. Unmonitored reprocessing of uranium *and* plutonium for 6 years now. Add some ICBMs aimed at a US state and how could you not call the policy a success in foreign policy?
Maybe President Bush will launch a preemptive strike against N. Korea and do some more nation building. After all, those are core “Conservative” values. I wonder how many more trillion in debt that adventure would cost us?
John S.
No, we should build upon the success of this Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/N. Korean/Al Quaeda achievement by talking a lot of shit and then either doing absolutely nothing or responding in such a brilliantly maligned way to show them how fucking incompetent we are…right Darrell?
Slide.
answer the question Darrell…
were they lying to us..
or grossly wrong about every fucking single thing they said about iraq?
Darrell
George Bush repeatedly emphasized that Iraq would be long hard fight and you’re lying your ass off to assert otherwise. As for Rumsfeld’s prediction, major combat operations were victorious in a matter of weeks. Bush from Feb. 2003
Making an analogy to the committment we made after WWII, in which troops remained in those countries for 60 years.
Slide.
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion of Iraq which warned that a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it emerged yesterday.
The warning, delivered in two classified reports to the
They were warned… but the boy president knew better… “bring em on” he strutted… tough guy… wanted dead or alive…
DougJ
It’s all Clinton’s fault, what’s going on in North Korea.
Slide.
nice try darrell… but these assholes running this country convinced morons like you it would be a “cake walk” as Adelman said. That it would pay for itself like Wolfowitz said. That we will be greated as liberators as DICK cheney said. They were WRONG about EVERYTHING they said about Iraq. EVERYTHING. How can we trust them to get anything right?
Perry Como
That’s a very good point. And now that we’ve been in this war longer than we were in WW2, we can see how well our nation building (Conservative, bitches!) efforts are going. The populace in Iraq is mostly peaceful, except for the few insurgent hold outs that parallel the Werewolves in Germany.
We’ve turned a corner in Iraq and it will be smoooooth sailing from here on.
Perry Como
As I said before, implicit trust in the government is a core Conservative value. In fact, trusting the government is an idea that this country was founded on.
Nutcutter
So, what is he doing right now to forestall the civil war?
What’s the strategy? What are we fighting?
Darrell
Oh not at all.. Clinton showed great judgement in placing such faith in the good intentions of a dictatorship like N. Korea. All that Republican ‘trust but verify’ stuff was for losers.
Congrats on your July 4 missile launch!
Perry Como
Staying the course!
Staying the course!
For freedom!
Slide.
Darrell, Lie or just wrong?
Nutcutter
According to this open source (exposed methodology) database, dozens are dying every day over there. It’s chaos, civil war.
Exactly what measures are we taking to bring the situation under control? What is the plan, Darrell?
When can we expect to see a stable, responsible government in Iraq that is actually able to govern the country? How will they get from here, which is violent chaos, to there?
Slide.
Darrell, lie or just wrong?
Slide.
Darrell, lie or just wrong?
Nutcutter
Iraqis try anything to protect themselves from sectarian bloodbath
I’m sorry Darrell, what did you say Bush had in the way of a plan to bring that situation under control and produce a stable, self-governing Iraq?
Does it look anything like the British plan to try and do that 80 years ago?
Darrell
Can’t say with any level of certainty. More
targetstroops may have helped, or notSlide.
Darrell, lie or just wrong?
Darrell
President Bush never said “we’re not going to have any casualties” in discussing the Iraq War. So Joe, did you lie or are you just wrong?
Steve
Hilarious. Apparently we were warned that we might have troops in Iraq for up to 60 years after major combat operations ended. Only a dishonest liberal would pretend otherwise!
Make sure you scream that one as loud as you can in the next election, Darrell, preferably until snot comes out your nose. Make sure you tell the American people how they must be stupid if they didn’t understand the clear message from their leaders that we might be rebuilding Iraq for decades. I look forward to seeing the results of that platform
Darrell
Helping Iraqis put an elected govt in place, providing security and training Iraqi policemen and soldiers. An Iraqi civil war is a possibility, not a certainty.
Slide.
according to the good Reverand Pat Robertson he did. Ok, I’ll change the question, which right wing nut job is the liar, George W Bush or Rev Pat Robertson?
.
Darrell
Steve, are you telling us that Bush did not repeatedly warn of a long hard fight in Iraq? Because that was the point of my post, responding to Joe’s claims that the administration line was that dealing with Iraq would be a snap.
Darrell
Only one is a “nutjob”, and that’s Pat Robertson.
Slide.
He almost won your party’s nomination for President of the United States. He meets with Republican senators and the president all the time. Why is your party full of nutjobs Darrell?
Slide.
Darrell’s fantasy:
Unfortunate reality:
.
Steve
Louder, please! The American people can’t hear you yelling that anyone with a brain would remember Bush saying we might be in Iraq for decades. Please, yell louder, make sure every voter understands your position
Darrell
Well, given that he had to drop out well before the end of primaries, I’d question your characterization of “almost won” any more than Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson “almost” winning the Dem party’s nomination for POTUS.. but I agee Robertson is a stain on the Republican party
I don’t know about that. I doubt he’s had anything close to a one-on-one meeting with the President after his ‘no casualties in Iraq’ lunacy.
Darrell
Steve, hate to break it to ya, but sarcasm and humor just aren’t your thing. Stick with the tried and true position of Republicans = haters.
Steve
As long as you promise to remind everyone that Bush said we’d be in Iraq for decades. He was really clear on that, so it would be a shame to let anyone forget
Darrell
Well, I think most people were expecting/hoping to maintain Germany-like military bases there for at least a decade or more if needed. Military bases in Iraq would seem a lot more useful than those in Germany for breathing down the necks of the despots in that region, wouldn’t you agree?
Slide.
a recent bush comment on Iraq:
ahhh… I feel so much better now.
Steve
Oh, I’m sure most people were hoping for that. Once again, you prove how closely right-wingers have their fingers on the pulse of the American people. I think one of the failures of this administration has been their lack of frank and open discussion about building military bases in Iraq, something most people are in favor of, after all. I hope you agree that the administration should talk about this more often
Slide.
Bush’s sharp analysis of the possibility of civil war in Iraq:
ahh.. that clears things up
Darrell
Agreed. If for nothing else, so that the American people can hear the screaming objections of leftists to those military bases.
“Who are we to put military bases in Iraq?”
John S.
Poor Darrell. It must be really tough to honestly defend these statements:
You know, because the United States and Israel were at the mercy of Iraq with that huge arsenal of WMD that little Ricky found.
Whew, we really dodged a bullet there. I mean, Iraq was on the verge of bringing destruction to our shores on a magnitude that would have warranted armies of first responders.
Let’s hear you bring that message to the public, Darrell. The same message that the President gave to us the night he embarked this nation on a serious misadventure.
Remind everyone how they were lied to. They’ll appreciate your candor.
The Other Steve
Well actually, Darrell does raise a good point.
The North Korean situation was pretty much contained up through Clinton. Oh there had been little squabbles off and on over the years.
But it wasn’t until Bush that the North Koreans decided to leave the reservation and start being aggressive.
This really is a good example of the utter failure of Bush style Diplomacy… or rather lack of it.
We should all remember that the biggest error Ronald Reagan ever made, according to these conservatives, was sitting down to talk with Gorbachev and then following those discussions up with a loosening of tensions between the two nations. The conservatives considered this a betrayal and a capitulation.
As it turns out, they were wrong then just as they are now.
Mac Buckets
Then I guess Bill Keller busies himself with silliness, because he has mentioned several times the cost-benefit type judgement that he (allegedly) goes through when there’s a story that would have negative consequences.
No, everything doesn’t, but exposing hidden security cams does directly have that potential. I mean, those cams aren’t hidden for no reason, are they? Rumsfeld’s Washington property has already been invaded by Sheehan and Co. (By the way, thank you for not going the troll route like others have with “Rumsfeld gave permission for the photos,” as if the main problem is with the pics. I guarantee you the Times didn’t say “Can I take a picture and point out your hidden security cam in the caption?”)
Even granting your conservative percentage of increased risk, the only reason you can give as to why the hidden security cam information was even mentioned in that caption is that you thought it was “cutesy.” So for the sake of cutesiness, the Times increased the risk to Rumsfeld. That’s today’s establishment media at work.
So let’s get this straight. An effective government program to bust terrorists gets outed by the New York Times, and by way of justification, the Times wrings their hands about oversight for a program that could potentially have some unnamed impact on the privacy of our banking records if we make overseas transfers through a bank in the SWIFT program. And that might have some further unnamed effect on someone’s life somewhere. So for the sake of a hypothetical attack on the sacred privacy of our bank transfers, the Times must expose that program which is capturing terrorists and their assets.
Wow, I applaud the Times for their extreme concern for people’s privacy. They really must treasure the privacy of the individual, to value it over success against terrorists.
Then a couple weeks later, the Times directly violates the privacy of a citizen by publishing a photograph of Rumsfeld’s home with a caption that is strangely devoid of any other information than “There is a lens in the birdhouse at the driveway of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s home at St. Michaels, Md.” (That’s it — that’s the whole caption of a shot of the full entrance to the property, and all they mention is that there’s a hidden security camera! Because we need to know!) but that’s no problem, because it probably only increased the risk of intrusion by a little bit.
I can’t wait for the Times next “Escapes” pics of Sulzberger’s or Keller’s house with the caption “The spare key’s under the porch rock.” When will that story be breaking?
Nutcutter
Shorter Mac: The safety of the United States Secretary of Defense depends on a lens in a birdhouse in the driveway of his vacation home.
Now that this secret has been exposed, our Secretary of Defense is no longer safe.
This proves that the NYT is on the side of the terrorists.
And since the cost of moving that lens to another location would probably be in the billions of dollars, that also proves that the NYT is out to destroy the economy of the country. Now entirely new house with a hidden lens, probably located in a fake treetrunk or in a titanium mailbox that is capable of withstanding a direct nuclear attack, will have to be constructed and tested.
Only through the negligence of the Times are terrorists now able to ascertain that the Secretary of Defense’s property is being surveilled by a camera. This top secret fact will now never again be able to protect the Secretary and his family, and his beloved dog, Checkers.
Nice work, Mac. You are definitely blazing new trails of blubberfucking nonsense here.
DougJ
I can’t wait for the Times next “Escapes” pics of Sulzberger’s or Keller’s house with the caption “The spare key’s under the porch rock.”
How about his co-op building with “don’t forget to tip the doorman”? Seriously, Mac, I don’t think anyone would care. He probably lives in the San Remo or El Dorado. You can check out pictures by typing the names into google.
Steve
All you’ve demonstrated is that if you look serious and clutch your pearls tightly enough, it’s possible to make an issue out of literally anything.
Of course there’s a cost-benefit analysis when you print a major story relating to secret government programs. That hardly means you have to do a cost-benefit analysis every time there might be a 0.001% risk to someone’s security.
I don’t think you understand what it does to your credibility to make such an issue out of the photo caption. I wish more people knew how overwrought the true conservatives are over this.
Mac Buckets
Again, proving Intertronics Blog Commenters Rule #31: Whatever follows “Shorter (fill in the blank)” is bound to be moronic spin.
DougJ
Cost-benefit analyses don’t mean much when your vacation home has been leveled by a suitcase nuke.
Mac Buckets
I similarly don’t think you understand what it does to your credibility to ignore that publishing a caption of a citizen’s house with a caption that say nothing more than “There’s a hidden camera HERE!” is unacceptable in a rational society.
Nutcutter
OMFG. I just went to NYT and read the famous article.
The famous lens is sticking right out of the birdhouse, visible to the naked eye, obvious enough to be seen from a passing car. There is nothing “hidden” about it. The birdhouse is obviously just a cosmetic cover, there to make the camera installation less ugly.
Mac, you are the biggest fucking piece of dishonest shit that ever walked the earth.
That fucking camera is not a secret and not hidden. It’s right out in the open. Any asshole on the road can see it.
Why don’t you SHUT THE FUCK UP you lying cocksucker?
Just shut up and go away. What a fucking waste of humanity you are.
Nutcutter
Get a load of the FUCKING LENS in that birdhouse! You could see it a mile away.
This is what Mac and Darrell have wasted a whole fucking day of our time talking about.
Fuck me, I should have looked at this earlier today.
My bad.
Nothing to see here, go home.
Mac Buckets
Why not? I mean, since you’ve taken it upon yourself to assess the “0.001%” increase in risk, the least you can do is tell me why it’s acceptable to increase that risk at all for no reason whatsoever. What’s the %age at which one must have an actual reason to make someone’s life more dangerous?
Nutcutter
Honest to fucking god, John had it exactly right from the get go:
Nutcutter
Prove that there’s any increase to anyone’s risk anywhere, you fucking liar.
Prove it or shut the fuck up.
The camera is so obvious from the road, you’d have to be blind NOT to see it.
Liar, asshole. Troll. Motherfuckers, why do they let you guys post here?
Nutcutter
This fucking picture will follow you from now until hell freezes over, Mac. I will post this link on your ass until the end of time and remind people what a fucking ass you are.
Mac Buckets
Sure, if you have the caption to tell you exactly where to look, of course, you can see it.
You don’t exactly cover yourself with glory, do you?
Nutcutter
Where to look? It’s a fucking CAMERA BLIND on the driveway of a house in a RICK PEOPLES’ NEIGHBORHOOD.
What the fuck, you stupid asshole? What the fuck?
Mac Buckets
I’m just taking Steve’s assessment. If you’ve got a problem (I mean, it’s clear that you have MANY, MANY problems, but if you have a problem here), your problem is with Steve.
Of course, revealing security would never have an adverse impact on security, would it? That would be unthinkable!
Moron.
Mac Buckets
Knock yourself out. I’ll ask the same question every time, and maybe one day, someone somewhere will be able to explain why the Times, bastions of Our Right To Privacy, would publish a caption that said simply “There is a lens in the birdhouse at the driveway of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s home at St. Michaels, Md.”
Because of teh PRIVACY!
Nutcutter
Okay, I’ve added the famous photo to my url, along with a description of the scam perpetrated here by the idiot Mac Buckets and his friend, the moron Darrell. You two are on notice, you will not post here again on any day wihthout my pointing out this picture to any and all who come by here. Then they will see what collossal assholes you guys really are. What fucking wankers.
Nutcutter
Oh, please do. Because anyone who looks at your crap, and that picture, will know immediately what a complete fucking wanker and asshole you really are. What a fucking JOKE.
Sometimes you get what you wish for, asshole. You trolled, you wanted attention, and you shall get attention, and the world will see what a fucking jerk you are.
Mac Buckets
Oh, no, I’m on notice! Do I have to file with the government or something?
Seriously, get a grip on yourself.
You’re.
A.
Commenter.
On.
A.
Blog.
And.
Not.
A.
Clever.
One.
Either.
Mac Buckets
Trolls use your language, not mine.
I’m sure “the world” (Jeebus, could you be a bit more arrogant as regards your imaginary influence?) waits with bated breath your next profanity-laced blog comment. Because the world is exactly like that.
Are you trying to out-insane Deb Frisch? You’re giving it a good run, but you should really talk about my kids if you want to have any chance.
Richard 23
Well, thanks to the NYT, the blind sheik now knows all about it. Nice job, traitor!
Hey look, a racoon dog with shiny keys!
Steve
I’m pretty sure it does no harm whatsoever to my credibility.
I’ll gladly show the photo to some people at work and ask if they have any problem with the caption.
If no one has a problem, then either you’ve gone way over the bend on this one, or everyone at my office has no concept of what it’s like to live in a rational society.
Reading the article, it’s perfectly obvious how the throwaway mention of the camera in the birdhouse fits in with the theme of the whole piece. But it’s not worth discussing this any further. You’ve convinced yourself that if there’s a 0.001% increased risk to someone by publishing a certain fact, it shouldn’t be published unless you can show some ABSOLUTE PUBLIC NECESSITY for printing it. Okay.
I’m sure – really, totally, absolutely sure – that if you had read this stupid little piece on your own, without any prompting from the masters of faux outrage on the Right, you would have been OUTRAGED, completely and utterly outraged, that this photo caption mentioned the location of a camera. Clearly, that’s exactly what would have happened. Why, it’s the first thing any member of a rational society would expect – except, possibly, each and every person at my office tomorrow.
Slide.
If I didn’t know better I would have thougth MacBuckets was a spoof and not a very good one at that. How fucking stupid could one man be? Hidden camera? lol… Thanks for linking to the photo Nutcutter, I didn’t realize the “cover” was just cosmetic. For anyone to think that revealing that there was a camera in that birdhouse compromised the security of the Secret Service protected Donald Rumsfeld shows a real inability to think. Is it any wonder this same moron still thinks that the Iraq was was in US interests?
You know what really gets me about the cowardly bedwetters of the right its that they are so scared of these terrorists but at the same time they think their enemies are complete morons. Now of course the terrorists would not for a moment think that there would be a camera focused on the Secretary of Defense’s driveway… the terrorists are so stupid they didn’t know we would be attempting to monitor their phone conversations… The terrorists are so clueless they would still be using the banking system to transfer funds after Bush and his administration had said DOZENS of times that we were monitoring these transactions. Yes, this is the enemy that MacBuckets is so scared of he wants to limit our civil liberties at every possible turn. Freedom of Press? fuck no we are at war. Fourth amendment protection against warrantless searches? quaint in the time of terrorism. Seperation of powers? huh, the President is the only one that can make these decisions.
Pretty weird isn’t the. the relentless fear these bedwetters exhibit over terrorists that are so stupid I would find it hard to belive they could tie their shoe bombs properly.
But you know what? I really do think bucket boy knows better. He knows his argument is absurd on its very face regarding Rummy’s security, but he is one of those type of people that can’t admit he was wrong. He stubbornly digs deeper and deeper and deeper. His tribal loyalty is amusing but causes him to lose all credibility. Kinda feel sorry for him in his ever shrinking universe.
John S.
The only insane person around here is you, Mac.
You know, the one claiming that the birdhouse camera is a big fucking deal even though the guy who owns the house and the Secret Service don’t give a shit.
MacBuckets wrestles with himself:
While the Secret Service makes it clear:
Such is the incoherently schizophrenic posting of MacBuckets on this issue. This is all anyone needs to know about – to paraphrase John – one of the dumbest god damn posters in right wing blogistan.
Richard 23
Well, it’s obvious what the camera in the “birdhouse” is for. It’s to protect against a Hitchcock style attack of the evil birds of mass destruction. Or maybe those drones that Saddam was ready to unleash on vacation homes of the powerful and clueless.
I find it kind of funny that people are arguing about cameragate with the Senator and Bucketboy. I guess as Nutcutter realized, not seeing the picture is worth a thousand words.
Having security cameras visible (and some that aren’t) is a security measure in itself. I’m no security expert, but I suspect that the camera featured by the NYT is not one of the hidden ones.
It’s not like one of those multicolor dot pictures that you have to squint at until you’re nearly blind to understand what you’re looking at.
Maybe Bucketboy thought in the photo that he was looking at a bird with a monacle.
Anyone who is unclear about this classified leak of security system details ought to look at the photo. If you can’t see the camera without the caption, see an eye doctor, if you can find one!
chopper
this thread is awesome. seriously, most of this issue was hashed out last week. the right made themselves look like chumps in the process. seriously, they got punked. overreacting bedwetters.
so i figured nobody would be dumb enough to keep waving that same flag a week later. man, was i wrong.
truly, this is entertainment of the highest caliber.
Santa Claus
I know. It’s very hard to parody people who self-parody this effectively.
Clearly, Birdhousegate is going to be one of the top issues this November.
W.B. Reeves
Darrell’s support for the Iraq misadventure seems to grow out of a sadistic wish fufillment fantasy. Show him an example of how the invasion has led to vast increase horrific violence and brutality and he views it as a permission slip to engage in like behavior.
Not that he would personally sully his own hands. No he prefers to imagine the bloody retribution carried out in his name from the comfort of his keyboard. Left hand typing feverishly, right hand busy elsewhere. All the while wrapping himself in the stars and stripes. It saves time on clean up after a gratifying session of cyber warfare.
It’s apparent what the red in red,white and blue symbolizes for him. Perhaps the blue is for cyanosis. As for the white, we can only speculate.
Perry Como
For some reason this makes me want to troll that site. Chastising a Republican that no longer supports this administration. Good job. Idiots.