२३ ऑक्टोबर, २००७
"I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products."
McCain. He's tough. But reasonable: "I certainly didn't mean I would actually shoot him. I am certainly angry at him, but I was only speaking in a way that was trying to emphasize my point. I would not shoot him myself." He's going to get someone else to shoot bin Ladin.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
I would shoot Osama bin Laden.
And Luckyoldson. Call it a twofer.
(after seeing one of his pilots miss a practice bombing target]
Admiral William F. Halsey: Well, you can tell Lt. Dickinson from me, he couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle.
(Tora Tora Tora 1970)
He really said he wouldn't shoot Osama bin Laden?
Welp, there goes whatever slim chance he still had of appealing to anyone in the Republican Party.
If he wanted Republican votes, he'd have had to say he would violate America's most basic values in pursuit of him, and then torture him, and then subject him to a slow, painful death.
By the way, did anyone see Frontline's recent documentary "Cheney's Law?"
Truly a hair-raising examination of what has happened to this country during the Bush years, and the sustained effort to expand executive power even when it was clearly unconstitutional. What strikes me most is that even some of the extremely conservative members of the administration -- Jeffery Goldsmith, James Comey, John Ashcroft -- were stunned by the unconstitutional power-grab they were witnessing.
What is clear from watching the documentary is that there is a lot more that has been done in secret than any of us know. It sounds like it goes much deeper than merely spying on Americans without warrants, or deciding that the president is not required to obey the law.
You can watch it in its entirety, here:
Cheney's Law
McCain's statement implies that he would shoot him in the back. Coward.
Tom Hagen: Sonny, we ought to hear what they have to say.
Santino 'Sonny' Corleone: No, no, no! No more! Not this time, consiglieri. No more meetin's, no more discussions, no more Sollozzo tricks. You give' em one message: I want Sollozzo. If not, it's all-out war, we go to the mattresses.
Tom Hagen: Sonny, the other families won't sit still for all-out war!
Santino 'Sonny' Corleone: Then they hand me Sollozzo!
Tom Hagen: Your father wouldn't want to hear this! This is business, not personal, Sonny!
Santino 'Sonny' Corleone: They shot my father, that's business? Your ass.
Tom Hagen: Even the shooting of your father was business, not personal, Sonny!
Santino 'Sonny' Corleone: Well, then, business will have to suffer, alright? And listen, do me a favor, Tom. No more advice on how to patch things up. Just help me win, please, alright?
(The Godfather 1972)
Truly a hair-raising examination of what has happened to this country during the Bush years, and the sustained effort to expand executive power even when it was clearly unconstitutional.
Yawn. "Hair-raising" is listening to jackboots crunch along the pavement on their way to your next door neighbor to take him away. Do you actually believe your life and limb are threatened over a political struggle carried out between the executive and legislative branches of the United States?
The extent and reach of executive (or legislative) powers has and will always be contended at the margins. The federal courts resolve these disputes regularly, and have done so for two centuries. In the current disputes, what is or is not "clearly unconstitutional" remains to be seen.
In the meantime, relax. The jackboots are not coming.
Do you actually believe your life and limb are threatened over a political struggle carried out between the executive and legislative branches of the United States?
Have you watched the program? If not, I would encourage you to do so. It is really not fair to characterize the Bush years as merely "a political struggle carried out between the executive and legislative branches."
And your straw men about jack boots and fearing for my life and limb are dishonest mischaracterizations of (1) what I said, and (2) the documentary itself.
No hard feelings, though; hyperbole is rampant in political debate, especially in anonymous fora.
But really, it's a great documentary. It's merely a sober examination of the drastic changes that go to the foundation of constitutional republic; you may agree with the direction Bush has taken, or you may not. The documentary merely describes in some detail what has happened, filling in many details that most Americans are unaware of.
I will grant that the Althouse commentariat is much more educated than the average American, so much/most/all of what the documentary discloses will not be news to those who are reading these comments.
What would be really awesome would be if Ms. Althouse herself would watch this program and provide us with her thoughts about it. Being a constitutional law prof, she's in a better position to comment than most of us, and being a Bush supporter but not a far-right conservative, I would be fascinated to know whether she supports the extreme steps taken by Bush/Cheney/Addington.
We really have seen the foundation of our constitutional republic seriously eroded by these men, and it should be a cause of great concern, in my opinion.
``How infinite is the debt owed to metaphors by politicians who want to speak strongly but are not sure what they are going to say.''
Then there are reporters who see an angle, to whom no debt is owed.
Synecdoche (part for the whole) gives a better reply, ``Asshole.''
So did PBS take money from the wicked government to make their little hit piece? Of course they did! Hypocrites!
Wait... why the hell are we talking about some panty-wetting PBS documentary? I thought this was supposed to be about McCain?
Remember when McCain said this during the 2000 election?:
"I'm telling you, they're shooting at me from everywhere," Mr. McCain said Monday. "Everybody's against me, Governor Engler, Governor Bush, all the governors, all the senators. But we're going to kill them, right, we're going to get them."
Bonkers!
their little hit piece
In what way was the program not factual, but "a hit piece"?
Or are you just being dishonest?
You wouldn't be whining, would you?
We really have seen the foundation of our constitutional republic seriously eroded by these men, and it should be a cause of great concern, in my opinion.
"foundation of our constitutional republic seriously eroded"..."Great concern."
I must give you your due. You are indeed an expert on the issue of hyperbole.
For that matter, Palladia, do you even know what the program is about? I guess all you need to know is that it is critical of Bush, right? No need for you to actually spend any time thinking about what it discloses about the Bush administration's radical redefinition of the executive branch.
I must give you your due. You are indeed an expert on the issue of hyperbole.
Why, thank you. It's very kind of you to say, although strictly speaking, what I said is entirely factual, and not hyperbole at all.
If you would watch the program, you would probably agree. Unless you merely reject it all out of hand.
I mean, some things are simply factual: Bush invaded Iraq, Bush appointed Gonzales Attorney General, Bush has sponsored a radical legal theory that imagines outsized authority for the executive branch and has asserted, even, his right to break the law.
Those are just facts. You can support what Bush has done, or oppose it. But you should at least be able to read a factual description of what your man has done without believing it is hyperbole.
"If he wanted Republican votes, he'd have had to say he would violate America's most basic values in pursuit of him, and then torture him, and then subject him to a slow, painful death."
Nope, no hyperbole here.
I mean, some things are simply factual: Bush invaded Iraq, Bush appointed Gonzales Attorney General, Bush has sponsored a radical legal theory that imagines outsized authority for the executive branch and has asserted, even, his right to break the law.
Here are the real facts:
Bush invaded Iraq with congressional authority.
Gonzales was confirmed by the Senate.
This "radical" legal theory isn't radical at all, and will be tested in the courts.
Your remark that the "foundation of our constitutional government [is] being seriously eroded" is simply nonsense, and your attempt at seeming reasonable about it isn't fooling anyone.
"For that matter, Palladia, do you even know what the program is about? I guess all you need to know is that it is critical of Bush, right?"
For that matter Jac, learn how to type my name correctly when addressing me.
And, as for Bush, I don't really care. I don't like the guy very much, but it's dainty, fainting little whiners like you that are like jogging in sandpaper underwear. Why don't you find a tasteful couch to collapse upon? Or perhaps you can, oh I don't know, stick to the topic of the post instead of spattering it with ads for some boring PBS crap.
I do love, however, that you chose a thread with "emotion" and "hyperbole" as tags to do your spamming in.
Mattie Ross: This man wants to take Chaney back to Texas. That's not what I want.
Rooster Cogburn: He wants him caught and punished - so do you.
Mattie Ross: I want Tom Chaney to hang for killing my father. It's little to me how many dogs and senators he killed in Texas.
Rooster Cogburn: You can tell him to his face, you can spit in his eye, you can make him eat sand out of the road, you can shoot him in the foot and I'll hold him for you - but first we gotta catch him.
Please don't write about committing an act of violence against another commenter. I know you get frustrated with each other sometimes and I doubt if you mean it, but it isn't good.
This just in. Rep. Stark has votedin the famous Crooks and Liars poll.
In a surprise twist, he has voted with the 7 percent of Americans who believe his remarks about soldiers blowing up innocent people's heads for the president's amusement were wrong.
So I guess he's a troll now, too.
Ann,
That's okay.
I took a screen shot when it first posted and emailed all over for fun.
Are not "your products" a euphemism for make up and beauty concoctions?
I know you get frustrated with each other sometimes and I doubt if you mean it,
Okay. I don't have to do the violence. But, I can still enjoy the wish that he was deceased.
The streets were strangely quiet. Over behind the livery freshly brushed horses glistened in the new sun, the buckboard, caked with dust being attended to by Hans and his son. They would tend to the work this hot day.
Up the street the barkeep announced a strangely out of place "last call" so the pokes and dandies could down one more shot of liquid courage before the justice hour. The marshal, stirrups clicking on the dry boards, hand nervously pawing the new colt 44 drawn to his side by the new sinew tie-downs Ms. Ellie made for him for his birthday. Long past retirement, the occasional present was all the good people of North Fork would give him..that or a grave, freshly dug, up yonder by the orchard.
So now it was time and the marshal was to do his duty. In a dusty procession the saloon emptied behind him and they proceed to the jail at the edge of town where the tall stranger with those wild eyes would meet the noose. but not today thought the marshal. no. not today for he'd settle this score with a flash of flesh against that new pearl handle, a satisfying sound of gun metal rubbing against leather in that instant draw that made him admired and feared, even though he was older than all of them. no not today. that stranger would meet his smokewagon.
he smiled to himself as he crossed the street, dust kicking up in swirls. in the distance the dog was now silent, tensing for the crack of the report.
"b....i'll just leave you in anticipation while i do some fact checking."
hdhouse
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/10/violence-in-iraq-has-dropped-by-70.html#comments
mr. forward...the fact is anything you demonstrate to "b" is a waste of time.
I take Mr Forward's point as saying that you - hd - didn't follow through with what you said you would do.
Because, as everyone knows about you, hd, you can't.
Big surprise.
Jack:
By the way, did anyone see Frontline's recent documentary "Cheney's Law?"
Truly a hair-raising examination of what has happened to this country during the Bush years, and the sustained effort to expand executive power even when it was clearly unconstitutional.
Yes, undoubtedly, you consider FrontLine to be automatically trustworthy. I have seen their anti-gun documentary called Ring of Fire, and knowing something about that subject, I don't think that they are trustworthy at all.
But feel free to watch it in lieu of a Stephen King movie.
For myself, I was born and lived overseas before immigrating here, and I know what hair-rising is.
Things would work out better here if people would talk about ideas rather than each other.
Damn--where was frontline during the civil war? Lincoln would have really caught hell. Me? I keep my 45 service revolver by my bedside and have the black helicopter early warning system set on super-sensitive. I am very concerned that all the BushMcHitlerHalliburonCheney critics such as the NYT editorial staff and columnists have all disappeared; I am sure Bushco and the BFEE had Molly Ivins whacked. Its just SO SCARY out there... The supreme court has been abolished; congress is in the hands of Republicans; tanks are rolling through the streets.....oh wait.....God what a bunch of deluded pussies.
OMG--as a card carrying NRAer I cant believe I called my service 45 a revolver instead of a pistol. Oh the shame.
why is frontline "not to be believed"? it was an excellent outline of events. it drew from people on both sides of the issue. yes it was scary.
thank you ann. i'll try and behave.
b. you try and behave too.
hdhouse said:
thank you ann. i'll try and behave.
b. you try and behave too.
Fair enough.
-----------------------------
Ann Althouse said:
Things would work out better here if people would talk about ideas rather than each other.
Ann, is this your example of how to discuss ideas after you have been personally attacked?
Andrew Sullivan's inane attack on me
or maybe this one?
I call bullsh*t on TPM's defense of its bullsh*t video.
As far as I know, Thompson Center Arms are all single shot pistols. So McCain would have to be a very good shot. Their feature that appeals to shooters is the barrel interchangeability: you can find one for every cartridge.
On topic - McCain is an old man with old ideas. Like many of his generation, he personalizes ideology and mass movements into being All About One Man - because he believes the masses need all that simplified into being all the doing of one Great Man (Reagan), or all the fault of a single Great Evildoer (bin Laden).
So shooting bin Laden or naming a gun for Reagan is supposed to be that "easy-to-grasp" soundbite...that will dispense with the complexities of Conservativism and Reagans pragmatic dealings and nuances...or reduce a global, complex radical Islamist problem to one bad guy.
The problem is if you keep it misleadingly simple too long, factions in the masses actually begin to believe that all their problems end with demise or elevation of the personalised.
Radical Islam automatically goes way if Binnie gets whacked. The delusion spreads to bin Laden, one of just hundreds of radical Islamist leaders globally, gets elevated to Moby Dick proportions and to obsession level where "getting him" is so important it is worth invading Pakistan. Worth taking more casualties than we have in Iraq, and risking a larger shooting war with a nuclear Pakistan under radical Islamist leadership once we betray Musharaff - all to get one man dead or in contact with his ACLU lawyers.
Conversely, partisans somehow believe the answer to our political problems and huge challenges America now faces is to somehow find someone that acts "just like" JFK or Reagan and has the "same, true" beliefs as JFK did 50 years ago confronting entirely different issues and problems, or Reagan applying "good 'ol Republican religion" to a world of 25 years ago which was enormously different than the present world the next President must operate in - both domestically and internationally.
Personalizing politics or conflicts is a foolish shortcut.
I bet McCain's comment got applause at the small arms plant. [I suddenly visualized bins full of plastic doll arms labeled "small"] The "I would kill him with the stuff you made" portion of the remark is perfectly acceptable, but the "follow him to the gates of hell" portion of the comment is déclassé . Hell doesn't have gates, it's wide open with a free back and forth flow of people, products, and capital. The phrase is clunky, he could have said "I'll cross the Styx and go where Dante went," you know, something a little more nuanced. Similar to the way messages painted on ordinance has become more sensitive -- they've advanced from "phuk ewe" --> "♡ love and kisses from US" -->"it's not you, it's me"
Then the thread gets completely jacked by a poster named jack who want to talk about something else entirely that he's got rattling around his head. So much rattling it requires a number of posts to make the same point. No, jack the jacker I didn't view the thing you linked and I'm not going to, in fact I haven't read 90% of what you said, I'm getting just that good at identifying jackers, and, no, I'm not going to read any more Chomsky or Zinn. I'm not the slightest bit afraid of Cheney, no matter how hard you try, and I refer to Rumsfield as Uncle Rummy. So there
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा