Some of my best friends are rabid for impeachment. I want impeachment. But I'm not not going to talk about it much between now and the November elections. Oh, I may discuss it among solid lefties, but when I'm talking to moderates and Republicans, I'm sealing my lips when it comes to impeachment.
The fact is, in most polls, around 45-55% of respondants support impeachment. That means most Democrats and lefties support impeachment.
But look at independents and moderates, and the numbers are much lower. These are the people who are going to decide the November elections. Among Republicans, even moderate Republicans, the support almost disappears.
If the Dems are going to take back congress, then it will happen for a few reasons. First, the Democrats must succeed in a strong Get Out The VOte effort (GOTV.)
Second, the Republicans-- at least the moderate, less rabid ones-- must be so disgusted with their candidates that they stay home.
There are some promising signs that this will happen.
of course, the Republicans will do all they can to mobilize their base, so their GOTV efforts are successful. The other day, Ken Mehlman, the RNC chair, encouraged Republicans to vote by absentee ballot. Do you smell something funny, like mistrust of electronic voting machines?
One way the Republicans are beating the bushes to get out their moderates-- the ones most likely to stay home-- is to raise fears of chaos, that the Democrats will destroy the country-- wild liberalism rampant in the congress and impeachment of the president and vice president. Polls show that this does not encourage people to vote for Democrats. I think that this kind of threat could be effective in getting out voters who might otherwise stay home.
The more Democrats talk about impeachment, the more it will put moderate Republicans on edge and we don't want them on edge. We want them depressed, disgusted and ignoring the news because it's all bad for Republicans.
We don't want to hand the RNC the gift of an issue that will rouse their disaffected troops.
I think this is the reason that Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and others have been rejecting the idea of impeachment. The time isn't right yet. Wait until after the Dems take back both houses of congress.
On the other hand, it makes good sense to talk about how the Republican pattern of hiding the facts, avoiding reality gives good reason for electing candidates who will support investigations of the war, of 9/11 of the Katrina failures...
Of course, between you and me, those investigations could very well lead to the uncovering of information that would virtually mandate pursual of impeachment. But the first step is seeking information. That's where Dems should be taking the Foley imbroglio.
The Republicans have a chronic culture of hiding the evidence, burying the truth.
We need candidates who are willing to commit to investigating all the areas the right wing has covered up or ignored-- corruption, scandals, dirty tricks, fraud, crooked lobbyist activities, crooked deals with corporations. That's what we should be supporting now. We can talk about dealing with what they uncover after the elections.
Once the investigations begin, things will get very interesting. The writing will be on the wall for 2008 and the mainstream media will start to cover the dirt under the Republican carpet much more. Then, when pollsters ask about impeachment, the numbers will be much stronger-- so strong that even Republicans may start backing impeachment-- to save their own hides.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Well at least you are facing Reality in acknowledging that lack of support for impeachment presently.
But since Pelosi, Murtha, and Dean (let's not forget the screaming DNC) have all said that impeachment is not on the table; what makes you think it will be put back on? in '08 no less. Wow what an obvious campaign tactic that would backfire if only for the waste.
The Dems get control in 07 of Congress, now Rob tells you to wait till '08 for impeachment. Fine if you don't have case when session start in '07; do you really think you can build one? Well since it will keep Congress busy for 2 years chasing it's tale (example see Gop and the blue dress) then I am all for it.
As for using the impeachment process in an presidential election time vs a lame duck president. Oh please go for it. I beg you. It is the one thing that might see a non DEM president elected in '08. Seriously does anyone around here understand sociology? Since it is a soft science , I figure a few leftists here actually studied it. In particulary Mob psychology and vigilante actions might help you understand why impeachment in the 2nd half of '08 is so stupid.
/Well Rob Kall finally answered my question that I have asked for months now. What will you do in '07 when the DEMs control congress and don't go for impeachment. His answer: let GWB rule for another year and maybe (if you believe the screts masters of the progressives ;)) put on a show trial in late '08 to somehow convince the masses that the GOP is bad.
//Sorry Rove wins again from what I see. And no despite the accusations I am pro militaristic not pro GOP.
///Slashies!!!
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 9:21:42 AM
You misunderstand. As soon as the Dems are in control of one or both houses of congress, I want them to start agressively investigating all the things I mentioned. As soon as they pull together enough info, including whistleblowers who will probably come out of the woodwork, once the Dems make it safe, and the Repug rats jumping off ship to survive, Then, hopefully by May or June, it will be time to start talking about impeachment, maybe they can do it by October. After all, in January, 2007, Bush will have two more years to wreak his traitorous destruction on the US and the world.
I just want to see him and Cheney in a high security prison with some very large, gay bikers. (no offense to Gay bikers intended.)
BTW, it's tails, not tales.
by
Rob Kall (747 articles, 3833 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1610 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 9:45:23 AM
rob said "The writing will be on the wall for 2008 and the mainstream media will start to cover the dirt under the Republican carpet much more."
This and other statements led me to believe that you are trying for impeachment in late '08. Or do you think that AFTER impeachment is when the media will "uncover the dirt"?
As for "tale", I was correct. Excuse me for not being less subtle in my impugning of a DEM controlled congress in pursuit of a imagined conspiracy. Unless by conspiracy you mean the willing acceptance of a like minded bureaucracy to follow goals stated by the executive.
/As for Rob's sadistic fantasies, what can be said of a leftist that they have not already implemented somewhere.
//Koolaid, Chickenhawk,etc. Yep gotta love leftist insults while claiming to be fact based bloggers.
/// DEMs control congress , a given. DNC inquistion on mid level GOP staffers with some punishment, almost a certainty. And impeachment in '07; a leftist delusion based on a willful desire to ignore history,politics and even US Law. But go ahead I can already hear the excuse engines revving up for why it did not happen when it was oh so obvious to all who thought like you.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 11:07:34 AM
A practical strategy that forestalls action because it is militarily sound is not the same as one that sees that action as unrealistic. But being "pro-militaristic" you understand strategy.
by
Nezua (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 93 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 10:09:50 AM
Impeachment scares the moderates, like opening Pandora's box: too many unexpected results might occur, and too many questions are raised, such as "Who will be President?"
Far better for us to talk about "investigations" and "Congressional oversight" of our "runaway-train President;" and how the Republican party is absolutely unable to rein in its dangerous, delusional, misguided Leader.
True Goldwater Conservatives should be disgusted with Bush for the deficit spending. Christian Conservatives should be disgusted with Bush for his wilingness to torture. All Americans should be disgusted with Bush for failing to heed the clear warnings, and allowing the 9/11 attacks to occur. Rice was even quoted as saying that it was always assumed that any attacks would be outide the United States. "Assumed?" Why would anyone assume that? These people are a disaster!
Strong Congressional oversight of this administration is an absolute necessity. And the Republicans will never, never be able to provide it.
by
Rev. Bill McGinnis (87 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 10:22:13 AM
but if you and I do what you said above, we'll miss the train.
Short and sweet ;
Impeachment would feel good, but it won't change one single tyre on the old war wagon.
The hauling off of a couple of south ends of north bound critters off to the Hague is what really needs to be shown on CNN. Where do war criminals go ? Den Hague.
Sure, lay low with the impeachment, it's not very effective any old hoo. Haul some hind ends off to the Hague instead !
Let's get to the bottom of the 9/11 coverups. Let's expose those who a) let it happen and b) planned and c) executed 9/11.
Do that, Sir, and impeachment is peanuts in a jar.
Yip !
by
Tony Forest (4 articles, 14 quicklinks, 129 diaries, 1209 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 2:14:58 PM
War Crimes charges for GWB and Cheney at the ICC ala Hague?
Now that is one I have not heard before. Let's see illegal, unconstitutional, and opens the door for the US to extradite by force any foreign govt leader to the ICC. Yep so much for every attending a UN session if you "might" be tried for war crimes. There is a reason presidents retain the title (and mantle of the office) and this would break the system.
Let me guess you thought PM Ariel Sharon before the ICC was a good thing also. Yeah figures, must go with the whole I reject the past (ie history), for I am building a future (dystopian) on my fantasies quirk around here.
We can't even get foreign nation's leaders commiting genocide in front of the ICC. And you want to throw US leaders in for starting a war against a murdering tyrant? or lying? Or some other lame BS?
/BTW Even you blessed Noam Chomksy doesn't believe in a conspiracy for 9/11.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 4:31:36 PM
In the wake of Foleygate, it's certain there is going to be a big investigation. Everyone is screaming for it, including some Republicans. There is something about the lurid details of sex scandals that always get investigations in gear.
If, as so many here hope, the Democrats are able to turn over both houses of congress come November, it is a surety that the investigation of Foley will only be the tip of a rather fetid iceberg. With the multitude of investigations that are sure to be spawned from that one, support for the "I" word could go from lukewarm to white hot.
Yes, I still want nothing more than for Dick(LESS) Cheney and DUBYA to be hanging out in prison with a gay biker or two. However, perhaps it is better to give time time.
Oh, and by the way, I could be defined as a gay biker since I had one at one time, and rode it from Toledo, Ohio to Austin, Texas. I was not offended in the least. Maybe one of these days I'll find a Harley in a bucket, and get back into the game.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 4:36:12 PM
War Crimes charges for GWB and Cheney at the ICC ala Hague?
Now that is one I have not heard before.
Get used to it. I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Some day in the near future, America will pay dearly for the wrongdoings. No bully on the block lives forever. No empire lasts forever. As long as there is an international criminal court and as long as Bush and Cheney are alive, I'll call for their case to be submitted to the ICC. For me, impeachment is only one stone in the road to justice.
illegal, unconstitutional
Illegal ? You're joking, right ? No one, not even the pResident of the United States of America stands above International Law.
The war in Iraq is illegal !
Unconstitutional ? Oh, I get it, you mean that worn out piece of paper. Wrong again. Just have a look at the ICC chronology
opens the door for the US to extradite by force any foreign govt leader to the ICC.
You're forgetting, the criminals I'm referring to are in Washington D.C. ....and fairly often in Crawford, Tx.
Yep so much for every attending a UN session if you "might" be tried for war crimes.
Simple ; Bush is guilty of war crimes, as is Cheney. Neither take the UN serious but both would once the power of veto is removed. The math is simple. You commit the crmie, you go to jail. No one is exempt. No one. Not even "Bubba".
There is a reason presidents retain the title (and mantle of the office) and this would break the system.
First off, Dubya was not elected. He was selected. Then Diebold assisted in keeping the criminal in the oval office.
Secondly, this so-called system is bankrupt and in need of a replacement. That's exactly what I'm calling for. The US Govt. is wed with large Corporations. In my eyes, that's fascism.
Let me guess you thought PM Ariel Sharon before the ICC was a good thing also.
Wrong. Sharon is beyond that point.
Yeah figures, must go with the whole I reject the past (ie history), for I am building a future (dystopian) on my fantasies quirk around here.
Wrong again. Take a trip back to Nuremburg. Look at what was said about the USA having to live up to the same law set down for the Nazis. W've come a long way, baby. The USA is now the bad guy. All the world knows it, yet the populus in the USA refuse to accept the truth.
We can't even get foreign nation's leaders commiting genocide in front of the ICC.
Are "we" working with or against the ICC ? We shouldn't expect progress on the part of the ICC and at the same time distance ourselves from the court.
And you want to throw US leaders in for starting a war against a murdering tyrant?
Again, the war in Iraq is illegal. It was based on lies. All this is documented. Get your facts straight.
Or some other lame BS?
Such as Depleted Uranium ?
/BTW Even you blessed Noam Chomksy doesn't believe in a conspiracy for 9/11.
Learn english, man ! Read what you write and ask yourself if it makes sense. Chomsky, is a left gatekeeper. His opinion on 9/11 isn't worth the dirt under my fingernails. All else Chomsky has to say is dead on.
r
by
Tony Forest (4 articles, 14 quicklinks, 129 diaries, 1209 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 4:31:21 AM
Comment is flagged and has been reviewed by the editors -
Reason: Inappropriate Content
Editor's Message: People who can't come up with intelligent, reasoned arguments resort to calling names. Repeated name-calling, specifically, calling other commenterxs names, will be considered cause for locking out of commenting.
Rob Kall
Rossini proves his worth ". Chomsky, is a left gatekeeper. His opinion on 9/11 isn't worth the dirt under my fingernails. All else Chomsky has to say is dead on."
Thus we see a fanatic who only uses supporting statements and ignores all else that does not match his delusional world view. The rest of your "refutation" just shows your ignorance of American history and understanding of US politics.
/Rob Kall: These are the people I and others will remember about your website. So remember when you try to broaden your support base; the polarizing elements are what stick in a first impression.
// Rossini nice dodge on Sharon. But by the rest I can infer your thoughts. Sad.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 9:38:19 AM
And Rob Kall called me a "Koolaid" drinker with obvious reference Jonestown Guyana. So how is my commments beyond the Editor's?
/Sorry between Rossini and myself, I suspect the judgement would go my way if presented before a panel of legal experts. Rossini can't even understand the Electoral College process (as shown by his comment) much less US law and the righs of US citizens to Habeas Corpus.
//If you really think the ICC will get Bush and or Cheney please state tthe time frame and what you would do to make it happen. Because until someone shows some backing for their argument, I will keep them in the delusional category.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 3:05:33 PM
Following the KISS method (Keep It Simple, Stupid!), rossini sees impeachment as long overdue and is impatient to see the proceedings begin. Having said that, Rob's call for patience has not fallen on deaf ears. Yet ! Should the USA wish to completely recover from this mess, our war criminals must go before the ICC, as did the German's in Nuremburg.
Over simplified for the learning impared ;
There's no getting around it, the USA will fall and fall into the pit called fascism until we deliver our criminals to today's Nuremburg....Den Hague, and totally revamp today's system. More likely than not, as was with the Germans, someone else will have to force us. Even then, in the halls of justice, Americans of your persuasion will deny any wrongdoings up to their last breath.
And hey, rossini doesn't represent OpedNews. Now way Dude ! Take it easy with the accusations there, K ?
by
Tony Forest (4 articles, 14 quicklinks, 129 diaries, 1209 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 11:41:57 AM
It is very true nothing lasts forever. Even the Pyramids in Egypt will one day be reduced to mounds of dust. While it's true they have stood for millennia, they will eventually become so much dust in the wind. Nothing else that has been built since has endured: no country, no building, no society. Can America expect to survive? No, it can't. Just ask Persia, Prussia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and so many others. Oh wait, you can't. They no longer exist. They have morphed into other countries. If we continue to implode under the weight of our present government, we aren't going to be far behind.
There is no way that the criminal acts of DUBYA and his den of vipers can go unpunished. He will be out of office one day, and then his day of reckoning will be at hand.
Further, even if he finds a way to avoid prosecution here in this country, he cannot escape it elsewhere. There is no reason to doubt that he could be tried in absentia, and be found guilty in an international court of law; a good idea if you ask me.
The Iraq war was begun based upon lies. There is NO WAY anyone can spin this differently, no matter how they try. Americans are hip to that one, even if they are still being manipulated by the rampant pushing of the fear button. Polls show most Americans know the war in Iraq was started under false pretense. This is an undeniable fact.
Also, name calling is such a juvenile way to attempt debate, vulturetx. It is the same kind of reprehensible nonsense that Fox News and other Neo-con (mis)information outlets do their business. While I am all for you expressing your opinion here, I am not at all impressed when you fall into idiotic name calling because you can't defend your position with truth or fact. I am assuming you are an adult. Why on earth can't you act like one while trying to express your opinions here?
Get with the program, dude! Show us there is more a supposed Neo-con can do than call people names, or twist the truth around to suit their needs. You have a pretty limited arsenal if those are the only two intellectual "tools" at your disposal. Doesn't it give you a headache trying to spin bullshit into gold?
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 12:43:26 PM
So by your arguments Rob Kall , Rossini and many others here are juvenile for calling the president a NAzi, A dictator, "King George" and dozens of other epithets. Which only alienates the middle and polarizes the extremes.
Yes I routinely call some here delusional, I also point out that History, US Law and even basic primate behavior do not support their position. When people ignore Historical facts ( mainly FDR's history during WWII) they are not accepting reality. Thus they are acting in a delusional manner.
As for your accepting trials in absentia for US citizens (Bush/Cheney.etc.), sorry I thought you supported the constitutional but your statement says otherwise.
/But wait Pappy you yourself admitteed to junvenile behavior in responding to Sbaker. So it is more likely that you just can't accept being treated as you treat others.
// Blessed Be from the Militan Agnostic Pagan
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 3:15:56 PM
So by your arguments Rob Kall , Rossini and many others here are juvenile for calling the president a [Nazi], A dictator, "King George" and dozens of other epithets. Which only alienates the middle and polarizes the extremes.
I cannot and will not speak for others. If some are of the opinion that DUBYA is Hitler, I challenge you to find a way of refuting it. You can't. There are far to many intellectual writings that show direct comparison. Even if they didn't exist, you cannot change another's opinion like changing a lightbulb.
I call President Bush "DUBYA" because I do not, will not, and never have had one ounce of respect for him. I do not give respect because it is expected or demanded of me. I only give it when I feel the person in question has earned it. In his time in office, all DUBYA has done is earned my scorn. If this falls into your definition of juvenile, then so be it! I'll not change that for you, him, or anyone else. If he ever does or says anything that takes me from scorn to respect, I'll stop doing it. Until that time, he is DUBYA to me.
FYI, I am very much in the center. That is why I do not espouse either the Democrat or Republican party. I only vote Democratic because there is rarely, if ever a real Independent worthy of my vote, except for Kinky Friedman. There has yet to be a Republican I'd vote for. Even if there was, I refuse to vote Republican on principle. As I said in one of the comments under my article entitled Foley, the Purple Monkey, and the Log Cabin, I will not support any institution that openly condemns me for who and what I am.
Because I am gay, I am seen as less than human by many in the Republican Party. They have pushed their Religious Reich loving bullshit far too much for me to ever want anything to do with their narrow-minded party or its draconian ways.
I only appear liberal because I am of a progressive mindset. I am old school when it comes to my conservatism. I think it is lunacy and folly on a grand scale to pay for today with the promise of tomorrow, as your buddy DUBYA does. Multi-trillion dollar deficits? That's lunacy! It's also anything but conservative!
Oh, and by the way, your buddy DUBYA also does his best to polarize. Three weeks ago, he made a speech saying we all needed to work together. The past three days he has made speeches where he more or less accuses Democrats of treason by saying they want to wait for another attack on our home soil to do something about terrorism. If this is not polarization, what the fuck is it? If this is not the pot calling the kettle black on treason, what is it?
Yes I routinely call some here delusional, I also point out that History, US Law and even basic primate behavior do not support their position. When people ignore Historical facts ( mainly FDR's history during WWII) they are not accepting reality. Thus they are acting in a delusional manner.
No, my friend, you call names. You rarely point out anything. You blather, spew spin, and try to rabble rouse. You ignore history. You ignore fact. You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your narrow world view.
I do not. You cannot say that I haven't been just as hard on the Democrats as I have on the Republicans. This is especially so in light of the complete aquiescence of congress in allowing torture to become the law of the land by both Democrats and the rogue Republicans.
Re-read my articles. Tell me I am lying. I'll go you one better, show me in my articles and comments where I have been unjustly critical of the Republicans over the Democrats where there was NO justification for me to do so. Refute me, if you can.
As for your accepting trials in absentia for US citizens (Bush/Cheney.etc.), sorry I thought you supported the [constitution] but your statement says otherwise.
Yes, I support the constitution of the United States, even the parts of it I find irresponsible or reprehensible (like the second amendment). I am a strict Libertarian. If someone wants to arm themselves to the teeth, have at it. As long as their right to bear arms doesn't infringe on my right to suck air, I am just ducky with it!
By the way, here is my direct quote: Further, even if he finds a way to avoid prosecution here in this country, he cannot escape it elsewhere. There is no reason to doubt that he could be tried in absentia, and be found guilty in an international court of law; a good idea if you ask me.
Please note, I said "...in an international court of law..." I did not say in an American Court of law. Other countries are, by definition, not bound by OUR constitution. What I said is in no way in conflict with our constitution because I suggested an INTERNATIONAL court.
/But wait Pappy you yourself admitteed to junvenile behavior in responding to Sbaker. So it is more likely that you just can't accept being treated as you treat others.
Yes, I sure did, and I also gave a reason why. While I don't have that particular page up at the moment, I am sure I said something to the effect, "...sometimes you have to be juvenile in order to get the message across to someone who is..."
And in reference to Sbaker, I will remind you as I reminded him, he began the war of words, not me. He responded to a question I asked about the impeachment of President Clinton by saying, "Pappy sure likes to twist the truth, doesn't he?" That is a direct quote, look it up for yourself.
I was asking a question, and following it by a parenthetical statement saying I was not sure about my memory of what happened. He took it as an opportunity to do a bit of character assassination. In the final analysis, it was proved by Sbaker that I was right in my memory of the events. The articles of impeachment were drawn up, but they did not pass the Senate. In other words, he attacked me for no reason in an attempt to make himself look like some kind of expert. He also did this in classic Fox News style of character assassination and throwing spin.
Will I be juvenile again in a comment or reply? You bet your ass I will! I will respond in kind. I can play any side of that fence, and I do it better than anyone who tries to do it to me. I've been dealing with small-minded Neo-con wannabes since I ran a BBS in Toledo in my twenties. I cut my teeth on that kind of idiotic bullshit!
// Blessed Be from the Militan Agnostic Pagan
I am going to assume for the sake of argument that you are, in fact, a pagan. How can you reconcile your obviously less than earth-centered love of the Neo-cons with the earth-centered, fair and balanced spiritual traditions of paganism?
If you aren't, in fact, a pagan, might I say that once again, you have fallen into being a juvenile. Trying to mock me and my spiritual beliefs is not a way to swing others here,or myself to your point of view. So, for the sake of assuming you wouldn't be so low as to mock me, I will answer as I always do when I end my writings here and elsewhere:
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Friday, October 6, 2006 at 2:51:42 AM
Sorry it boils down to when I say something that disagrees with their world view , you and others claim I am just attacking them and present no facts. NEvermind that the facts are based on US HIstory, or primate behavior, or US LAW. All things that are readily available, thoroughly researched and common knowledge to many who actually know what they are talking about given the subject at hand. So when people here talk about lies being a pretext by War but ignore FDR and LBJ, then they are an idiot or delusional.
Since presidential precedent is the cloak of the executive office.
And Pappy congrats on who you are, but from where I sit you are defending a bunch of leftists. Some of whom are stupid enough to call for the violent overthrow of the present govt.
FYI- A militant agnostic pagan is an armed agnostic (from Monthy Python popular culture reference). Who is unsure about the nature of God, but knows it is NOT the God of Abraham (ie people of the book). So yes I am truly an Infidel given no rights under Sharia.
/As for your knowledge of Pagans, it is lacking. The OTO would gladly join the neo-cons if it meant more female servants for their rituals.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Friday, October 6, 2006 at 9:01:00 AM
There is just no talking to you, is there? When confronted with truth, and when you are shown you are wrong, you immediately jump into "I know better than you," mode.
I don't protect anyone, left or right. I express my opinion and agree or disagree depending on the topic at hand. If you will notice, I have also admitted I was wrong on several occasions. I have even apologized for my words.
Have you ever admitted you were wrong? In all your writing, I have yet to see even one admission that you were, in fact, wrong. I have also yet to see one apology, although goddess knows, you sure need to do a bit more.
You challenged me on Sbaker. I laid out the events as they verifiably occured. Did you admit you were wrong about your stand? No, not at all. You completely ignored everything I wrote. Why? Would it have meant you'd have had to admit you were wrong? Sure seems like it to me.
You accused me of not supporting the constitution because I said, "Further, even if he finds a way to avoid prosecution here in this country, he cannot escape it elsewhere. There is no reason to doubt that he could be tried in absentia, and be found guilty in an international court of law; a good idea if you ask me." Nowhere in this statement did I say, "he should be tried in absensia." Even if I had, you didn't point out exactly in the constitution where that would be wrong.
While it is obvious to me that there is some amount of intellect within you, I have yet to see you argue on an intellectual plane. All I ever see is you ignoring points made, calling names, throwing spin, shade, or all of the above.
When you are proved wrong, you immediately pretend as if the proof doesn't exist or matter. You change the subject, or completely dismiss points made. It may wash with others, but not with me. You may think you are baffling me and others with bullshit, but you are only making yourself look like an intelligent imbecile. Note, I did not just call you an "intelligent imbecile". I said you give yourself the appearance of one. I just want to be clear on that point before you jump up and say, "Ah HAH, you called me a name!" I know you too well to give you any leeway on that.
Your avoidance of truth and inability to admit you are wrong is as see-through as DUBYA's lies. You won't address these issues where you are proved wrong because you think yourself to be infallible. You aren't! Get used to it.
This is what I so dearly love about the printed word as opposed to the spoken word. You can always find your reference, and make your point once again. In the land of cyberspace, there is no worming away from truth, or twisting of the words of others because all one needs to do is cut and paste their commentary for further review. Your tactics might wash in the world of the spoken word, but here in the world of the printed word, you are completely hamstrung in your efforts at spin.
As per the reference to Monty Python, in which episode does that appear? I'm sure it's here among the mountains of Python stuff in this apartment.
As per this quote, "As for your knowledge of Pagans, it is lacking. The OTO would gladly join the neo-cons if it meant more female servants for their rituals," that is the thing I love about being a part of pagan tradition. We can borrow, and mix and match traditions without having to worry about someone standing up and claiming dogmatic superiority.
It is obvious from your statement that you have either forgotten this, or don't know paganism as well as you think you do. I know many who mix shamanic tradition with Celtic/Wiccan, or mix Egyptian Mythos with Eastern philosophy, as well as strict adherents to each individual tradition's fundamental roots.
Yes, you are right in one aspect of your comment: my knowledge is lacking. Even though I have read many books on he subject, dabbled in many different traditions, and have called corners and officiated at more than one sacred circle, my knowledge is still lacking. It will always be lacking, as will yours.
That's the beauty of paganism. There are so many traditions with so many pantheons, not one person alive can claim complete knowledge of every new age, pagan, heathen, arcane, or occult tradition that exists, or the gods they contain.
Since paganism is more a system of spiritual belief than a codified and dogma-filled religion, there is no one in the world of pagan thought that can rightly say one person's set of beliefs or pantheon is better or worse than the next person's. Those who attempt this only show they are nothing more than frustrated christians who have yet to give up the, "I'm right, you're wrong," mentality built in to the patriarchal, my way or the highway, dogmatic claptrap that is mainstream christianity. Those individuals, yourself included, need to go back to the faith of their fathers and cover themselves in the reeking mantle of self-righteousness for which christianity is noted.
My beliefs are mine alone, and you have no right whatsoever to challenge them or in any way say I am wrong, or lacking in knowledge. To do so only shows your knowledge is as lacking as mine.
Once again, you have shown your ignorance. You have attempted to show superiority to me on this issue by trying to say my knowledge is lacking. In the paraphrased words of the Wiccan Rede, "that it do no harm, do what thee will." What I do in the spirit realm harms no one, so I do what I will.
Your words have once again set a snare into which you eagerly walked. You really should be more careful.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Friday, October 6, 2006 at 2:31:59 PM
Mandatory- the second change brought because of VultureTX
you said "There is no reason to doubt that he could be tried in absentia, and be found guilty in an international court of law; a good idea if you ask me."
Please just go away and take your meds, 'cause now you are just ranting. You claim your excuses say something else than what you said (re Sbaker). You digress about paganism when you miss the point since I never claimed you were not a pagan, you made that accusation. And I said you were wrong about Pagans not paganism, I should f*cking hope you can understand the difference.
You can't even defend the above statement. You try to make it say something different.
/Okay Clue Time - Article I Section 9 US Consitutiuon - Writ of Habeas Corpus. Thus to surrender a US citizen to a extra US court is suspending their right to it since the actions of the president were committed in the US. The results happened elsewhere, but jurisdictionally they are definitely US based. Next Article 98 agreements and the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 forbid turning over any US citizen (or even no citizen working for the US) specifically including ex-govt officials to the ICC. This allow for military action to be taken to retieve them already pre-approved by congress.
//Now I bet you will rant and rave some more being unable to admit you are wrong (just what you accused me of) and follow my posts around with your trollish remarks.
//Good Day!
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Friday, October 6, 2006 at 4:18:11 PM
you said "There is no reason to doubt that he could be tried in absentia, and be found guilty in an international court of law; a good idea if you ask me."
Yep, I sure did. I see at long last you finally site your sources on this. How nice! That only took three posts from you to finally get to it, but I'll talk more about it when I get there. I must say though, thanks for finally making your feeble-half hearted attempt to prove me wrong with real information instead of the vomitous ooze of spin for which you are so famous. It's about time.
Please just go away and take your meds, 'cause now you are just ranting. You claim your excuses say something else than what you said (re Sbaker). You digress about paganism when you miss the point since I never claimed you were not a pagan, you made that accusation. And I said you were wrong about Pagans not paganism, I should f*cking hope you can understand the difference.
Firstly, I'd take my "meds" if I could afford health insurance. While I am sure you are saying I need to take some sort of medication for a mental deficiency only someone as condescending as yourself could assume I have, I'd just be happy with blood pressure meds, or maybe even cholesterol lowering drugs. Of course, the lovely state of the economy wrought by the assholes you support has made this impossible.
Secondly, I have spoken on Sbaker several times. I have spoken to that, up to and including the fact that I admitted I was behaving in a juvenile fashion towards him in direct response to his behaving in a juvenile fashion towards me. I have sited the events that precipitated a war of words with him. You refuse to admit that I was right, both in answering his juvenile writing with juvenile writing of my own, and that he was the instigator of the war of words that brought on my juvenile behavior. You can continue to beat this dead horse, and I will continue to pick up the stick and beat it as well.
Thirdly, I spoke of both pagans and paganism in response to your accusation, /As for your knowledge of Pagans, it is lacking. The OTO would gladly join the neo-cons if it meant more female servants for their rituals. You can try to twist my words in whatever fashion you like. The truth of the matter is that those who read our conversation are going to know who is being truthful, and who is trying to worm out of being caught by their own words.
You can't even defend the above statement. You try to make it say something different.
Once again, those who read this conversation will be able to know whether or not I answered you in kind, or whether I took your standard tack of ignoring the truth and throwing beside the point spin.
/Okay Clue Time - Article I Section 9 US [Constitution] - Writ of Habeas Corpus. Thus to surrender a US citizen to a extra US court is suspending their right to it since the actions of the president were committed in the US. The results happened elsewhere, but jurisdictionally they are definitely US based. Next Article 98 agreements and the American [Service Members'] Protection Act of 2002 forbid turning over any US citizen (or even no citizen working for the US) specifically including ex-govt officials to the ICC. This allow for military action to be taken to [retrieve] them already pre-approved by congress. Gee, that only took three postings. Thanks at last for finally citing real information instead of blowing hot air.
I stand by what I said. Being tried in absensia means literally, tried with the defendant ABSENT. That means DUBYA's happy, moronic ass can still be sitting pretty here in the US, even though a foreign court of law declares him guilty of being a war criminal. Oh, and by the way, the Writ of Habeas Corpus has effectively been neutered and nullified by a piece of legislation DUBYA rammed through congress. That renders your stupid argument void, even on its face.
//Now I bet you will rant and rave some more being unable to admit you are wrong (just what you accused me of) and follow my posts around with your trollish remarks.
Me ranting and raving? Oh, surely you jest. I have not, even once in this conversation ranted or raved. I have answered your arguments, allegations, and outright lies with logic and reason. You, my friend, are the one doing the ranting. You have attempted to minimize me, condescend me, and prove me to be ignorant, and it hasn't worked.
I will not roll over for you, not now, not ever. Perhaps others whom you slam about with words will give up and let you have your way, but I will not! You are clearly wrong, and I have proven this time and again by simply posting your words and answering them in kind.
It is not up to me to judge whether or not you are full of shit. Those who read our back and forth will know who is the one retaining a level head, and who is grasping at straws to make their points.
I have no problem with someone who calls themselves conservative. I hold many conservative ideas myself. However, if all someone can do is parrot the effluvia of the Neo-con mouthpieces, and the miasma of Fox News, they are not a Neo-con. They are nothing more than someone who cannot filter the barrage of misinformation from the right through a mental bullshit detector. I'm sorry if I possess the ability to filter out the bullshit, and you don't. That's your problem, not mine.
//Good Day!
Oh, it is a good day. I just read an article where Anne Coulter, Sean Insannity, and Flush Lintball are now calling Democrats gay bashers. It is a good day indeed when one gets to hear about pots denouncing kettles for a color similarity.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Saturday, October 7, 2006 at 2:32:12 PM
