Blogcritics: Comments on Appreciating what we've got

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:32:03 EDT

Yes, this stuff does make for strange bedfellows, and that's a significant part of the interest in these discussions. And we'll just never know what kind of evidence was destroyed at Murrah, will we? I'm sure there's nothing to it, though. It's not like the Clinton administration would tamper with witnesses, obstruct investigations, or sell the country out to the Chinese communists for campaign contributions.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:24:31 EDT

Conspiracies happen, but they are almost always found out eventually because conspiracists can't seem to keep their mouths shut forever. And they're stupid. What evidence could possibly have been found in Okla City? I am against the death penalty so McVeigh should still be alive for eternal interrogation, but I hope you're not talking about some kind of governement cover-up. This topic makes for very strange bedfellows.

Comment by Natalie

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:05:10 EDT

Precisely my thinking, Al. Conspiracy theories are often loony, but sometimes they indeed are correct.

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:01:18 EDT

And if Tansy's comments DO imply conspiracy? Does that mean automatically therefore that he is wrong, because there are no such things? I tend to stay away from conspiracy theories myself, on the grounds that the stuff that is upfront and considered legitimate is so bad. You don't need a lot of shadowy conspiracies to find a great deal of absolutely prosecutable government criminality at Waco, for example. Still, even I am seriously suspicious about how the Murrah building was razed quite quickly. The ruins of that building should still be there today, just on grounds that it's a HUGE CRIME SCENE with lots of significant unanswered questions. They were awfully goddam anxious to bulldoze away a shitload of evidence.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:35:53 EDT

I am pleased to hear all that, but it still sounds perilously close to Conspiracy Theory

Comment by D. Tansy

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:00:16 EDT

I never said I agreed with McVeigh, he was as wrong as the stormtroops that attacked the Davidians, and maybe my attitude wouldn't be quite the same if my grandmother had been in that Federal building over her SS check or some such thing. But then, my attitude might again be worse toward the FedMommy had one of MY family been at Waco in '93. Regardless, McVeigh made it clear he believed our federal government executed 80 men, women, and children at Waco. He was NOT alone in that opinion. Here's a thought for you, they sure took that building down quick, didn't they? Seemed to me they destroyed another "crime scene" without thoroughly investigating. Bureaucratic stupidity? Generally, it's been my experience nothing the Fed does moves THAT quickly, except stepping on people. No love for stupidity, but McVeigh became the entire country's whipping boy, and scapegoat. A distraction that allowed everyone to put ALL their anger and/or resentment at their own inability to control current events into SEEING the devil put to sleep before their eyes! Think it could happen again? YUP. Abuse counselors tell you it's only "really" hard for mommy, or daddy, or hubby (or even wifey) to hurt you the first time, it gets easier after that. Head up, eyes wide open!

Comment by Natalie

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:12:21 EDT

It was not OK to murder the folks at the Murrah building. It was not OK to murder the folks in Waco. (I agree with Al that der Schlickmeister and Janet Reno have much for which to answer.) And it was not OK to murder Timothy McVeigh (who was much more than merely stupid). "An eye for an eye" is so Old Testament. Not to mention inhumane.

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:46:27 EDT

I'll just note that NO one here was defending McVeigh. Even Tansy described his actions as "stupidity." And Bill Clinton and Janet Reno (among others) should STILL be tried for, at a minimum, 80+ counts of manslaughter for Waco.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:14:11 EDT

Speaking as someone who laments the Fed's actions near Waco as murderous (at worst) or mind-bogglingly foolhardy and malicious (at best), I agree 100% with Eric. Timmy-boy was an unjustified fool and murderer, no matter what he claimed as his motivation. Never mind that he did more to undermine the "cause" of the Mt Carmel murders than anyone else could have. It's a dead (sorry) issue now, thanks to him. And I wish an early and painful death on anyone planning such foolishness in the future, whatever the cause.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:24:32 EDT

Ideology aside, we are a country of laws, we do not allow mercenaries to randomly decide of their own accord to blow up innocent men, women and children because they are unhappy about some official action of the government. We have channels for expressing such dissatisfaction in an orderly manner. Setting aside ideology - again - imagine the consequences if it were otherwise: an Oklahoma City every week or so. This was "terrorism" in every possible meaning of the word and is unjustifiable on any possible level.

Comment by D. Tansy

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:03:54 EDT

I am absolutely convinced that the US Federal Government outright murdered more than 80 men, women, and children in Waco Texas, April 19, 1993. ATF records place them at the scene. Don't give a damn whether there was a "conspiracy" to do so, just the fax, man, just the fax. "Theory" is defined as "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument", and it just doesn't stand up here. Theory didn't burn the Davidian church, gas the inhabitants, or attempt to bulldoze the crime scene into oblivion. It is my profound belief that the pictures alone define the absolute truth. (Not to mention 53 days of televised FedGov terrorism) "Non sequitur". What, specifically, does not follow? That McVeigh, believing himself a "true patriot", did NOT, in fact, carry out his part of the destruction of the Fred P. Murrah building in retaliation for the Waco atrocities? That it WAS retaliation? That's what his mouth said. That I doubt he was alone in his stupidity, THAT is a conspiracy "theory", due to the lack of FAX available concerning cronies. That there were unexploded bomb(s) removed from the interior of the building is FACT, but their placement by unseen hands doesn't necessarily "prove" those hands as other than McVeigh, himself. Any other statement would be conjecture, hypothesis, or your favorite word, THEORY. I didn't go there. It appears you didn't like the article on the NFL's adoption of urinalysis as the key, the cornerstone to the FedMommy's actual "hands-on" approach to reining-in American citizen's rights, freedoms, and liberties. I didn't write it, I merely adopted it. Either way, it explains itself very well. What's up, comrade? I make NO mention of " militia" anywhere in any of my articles, because I just don't GIVE a shit about 'em. Adding your own spin to what I say doesn't change what I said, except to the weak-minded or ADD impaired. Tossing in links to pages that have not a thing to do with my statement have not a thing to do with reality, either. Really poor attempt at distraction, you're no prestidigitator, dude. (Practice with small items first, maybe cards or coins) Personally, I don't believe the FedMommy will ever attempt to go door-to-door collecting American's guns, because they pretty well KNOW they'll get NOT guns, but uncased BULLETS. American's are currently over-weight and LAZY, but still FAR from stupid. But I didn't bring that one to the table, either. Last, " a simple retaliation in kind" is exactly correct. Hit me, and I WILL hit back. Myself, I try to hit where it hurts MOST, in order to stop the stupidity. It was, somehow, "okay" to burn the Davidian children, they were the spawn of Demons or some such shit. It was NOT okay to kill the children in the Fred P. Murrah building, they were the children of our lords and masters. More than anything else, THAT is a thorn in my ass, and a WICKED bloodspot on MY America. Just the fax.

Comment by Doctor Slack

Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:10:25 EDT

From the ADL link: "More than any other issue, though, the deadly standoffs at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and Waco, Texas, in 1993 ignited widespread passion [in the anti-government right]. . . "The final element forming the militia movement was a vast fascination with conspiracies. Conspiracies were easy to accept for people who believed that the federal government deliberately murdered people at Ruby Ridge and Waco and that door-to-door gun confiscation could begin any day. But the militia movement not only accepted the traditional conspiracy theories, it created a host of new ones; combined, they described a shadowy movement intent on creating a one-world socialist government no matter what the cost. This "New World Order," using the United Nations as its primary tool, had already taken over most of the planet." From Tansy's site: "Since that time when urinalysis was first introduced in the NFL, Fascism has not just grown, but flowered, and in a scant ten or fifteen years fascism in America has spread like a wild weed . . . The whole story goes on and on and involves the United nations, The Federal Reserve Banking System, The Vatican, and others, but suffice it to say that the first workers in America to kowtow to the overlords who own and run us were the football players of the NFL." Another little tidbit: "the decimation of the Fred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma on exactly the same date 2 years later was and is not "Terrorism", but a simple retaliation in kind. An act of WAR. The only difference between the two is that McVeigh and his masters didn't GAS the children before they killed them." Now Al, I'm betting you're just trying, reflexively, to adopt a Devil's Advocate pose. While I think that's enormously silly of you in this case, I don't think you really truly need the ins and outs of conspiracy theory, and its general track record for reliability, explained to you from scratch. If you do need it explained to you, though, just go read this primer. For a fun hands-on illustration, go here.

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:15:14 EDT

Doc, my people are from Kentucky, so maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake here. Yes, you do need to connect the dots. Tansy has a website. That website has links to other websites, including some "conspiracy" sites suggesting murderous skullduggery by government officials. Now, is your point supposed to be that such ideas are not only incorrect but so disreputable that I am opening myself to ridicule even by simple friendly association with someone who would have a link to such a website on their website? That would be not just guilt by association, but guilt by three degrees of association. Surely that can't be what you mean. Dumb it down for a Kentuckian, if you could please.

Comment by Doctor Slack

Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:09:16 EDT

"Just by not presumptively denouncing Tansy on general principles?" In my first post, I told you to read his site and then read a linked article that talks about a certain form of conspiracy theory. Did you do either of those things? If you didn't, then either 1) do so and stop wasting both of our time with non sequiturs, or 2) admit that you refuse to do so and stop wasting both of our time with non sequiturs. If you do 1 (and it's in your interests) I really shouldn't need to connect the dots for you beyond that.

Comment by Al Barger

Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:42:25 EDT

In what way, exactly, am I making a fool of myself, Doc? Just by not presumptively denouncing Tansy on general principles? What's your beef here?

Comment by Doctor Slack

Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:28:49 EDT

Al, read the links, man. You're making a serious fool of yourself.

Comment by Al Barger

Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:00:30 EDT

Mr. Tansy, you should apologize to Doc Slack. As a good liberal, by definition he CARES more than you. That deep empathy counts more than any petty "facts" or "logic" that you may produce.

Comment by D. Tansy

Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:04:51 EDT

"Troll... the practice of trying to lure other Internet users into sending responses to carefully-designed incorrect statements or similar "bait." Hmmmmm, With great regard to every word I wrote, I reviewed my post, and re-reviewed, and yet find NO statement blatantly incorrect. Personally, I don't give a DAMN what name or names any halfwit decides to attempt to label me with, your opinion would have to MEAN something to me in order for your derogatory to have any effect. What I'm wondering is, what part of my statement hit home with YOU, "Doctor Slack"? What part of my statement was even MINUTELY incorrect? The basic similarities between Slick Willie and McVeigh? The "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" used ON Americans BY Americans? Perhaps the California voters being DEFIED by their pompous would-be KING in DC? Perhaps you'd like documentation? I have that in SPADES. PLEASE feel free to show me my error, OR the basis for your misinterpretation of my opinion. I look forward to waxing your arrogant BUTT.

Comment by Doctor Slack

Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:59:21 EDT

"By troll Doc Slack apparently means someone" [BargerSnark snipped] Like this. (Definition 1. I don't think Tansy is imitating a small mischievous figure of Scandinavian legend.) Al, I'll be disappointed in you if, as a corollary of your kneejerk reaction to Thing Librul, it now strikes you as Awfully Clever to make like you're too stupid to tell the difference between this and this. But keep up the routine if it makes you happy...

Comment by Al Barger

Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:34:24 EDT

By "troll" Doc Slack apparently means someone with whom he disagrees, and finds disagreeable. Personally, I consider Doc Slack to be a commie troll. It's all good. Hey, Doc, keep on trollin'.

Comment by Doctor Slack

Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:30:26 EDT

Those of you responding to D. Tansy should take a quick look at his site and read this before feeding the troll any further. Nothing Natalie has written anywhere is "similar in theme to Mr. Tansy," and Al, I think you owe her an apology for implying as much. Nevertheless, there are legitimate reasons to take issue with mawkish "let's all gaze at the Constitution" rhetoric, and to treat with contempt those who would dismiss raising those issues as "ingratitude" or "anti-Americanism." This is a genuinely serious time for democracy in America, and people who are genuinely interested in all the things they enjoy as Americans need to get interested. (I myself am interested because once a stupid and destructive thing is tried and fails in America, it's usually not too long before some crank in Canada wants to imitate it.)

Comment by D. Tansy

Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:29:15 EDT

My WORSTEST attitude is at the presumption that I am UN-American, or ANTI-American because I have something to say about the lying, theiving butchers who, "following orders," have no compunction about using "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" in MY everyday AMERICA, on our own PEOPLE. Personally, I am ANTI U.S. Federal Stormtrooper, regardless what letters make up the "office" these lice come out of. (FBI, ATF, M-O-U-S-E) That tends to include the MAIN louse at the top, since it's beyond belief the President doesn't KNOW when some of his EMPLOYERS are being murdered via his own hand. First and best is the Waco Massacre. That show set the precedent for the shit coming down the pike. There's HOW much difference between, say, Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton, and Timothy McVeigh? Only that McVeigh didn't have an office through which to order his "cleaning". But the results remained the same, right? I believe that, given an OUNCE less accountability, our "Shrubby" would make Saddam look like a choir boy. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY. It irritates me beyond measure to be labeled UnAmerican, when I bitch about the morality-crap laws enacted and ENFORCED at gun-point, for MY "benefit", and/or on MY behalf, because the majority of U.S. citizens just lay down and accept whatever crap falls out of the mouths of the bitches WE VOTED INTO OFFICE. "Land of the Free" (To-Do-As-We-Are-TOLD) Also, Albert, you're INCORRECT. Ours has become a government OF the lawyer, BY the lawyer, FOR the lawyer. The PEOPLE spoke in California on Proposition 214. Their combined voices were IGNORED, so, voting by "legitimate" means amounts to SHIT. Yet, if I were to propose "voting" from the rooftops, the FedMommy would call ME a badguy. But, they damn well wouldn't ignore THAT!

Comment by Natalie

Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:33:55 EDT

If I see no need to celebrate, it would be stupid for me to do so. As I said, when it is appropriate to do so, I will. That time has not come and does not appear to be coming in the visible future. By the way, your charge of nihilism is specious at best. Your country's traditions and stated (though not practiced, not toward all, as your nation claims) values are not the only choice. I choose otherwise. Which, whether your law recognizes it or not, is my right. Eric, I love you, but you're wrong about this. Again, if YOU want to celebrate, feel free. Leave me to my work.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:59:55 EDT

I didn't say anything about joining parades, I said "celebrate on a periodic basis," which I do not see as incompatible with anyone's beliefs or chosen mode of celebration.

Comment by Natalie

Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:37:50 EDT

With all due respect, one can salute those ideals without having to join the citizenship bandwagon or celebrating on the day you tell us we ought to do so. I think the activist work I do is a terrific way to stand for equality and justice. I don't need to be part of your country's parades just because you or anyone else insists I must. Kinda flies in the face of ideals such as freedom and self-determination. I'll light up a bunch of fireworks when I am equal under law. Sorry, I am sick to death of people telling me what they think I ought to do, especially when obeying these human -- rather than following my own conscience and principle -- would be a gorss betrayal of something valuable for something that is not. You want to celebrate the fourth? Feel free. But you're wrong to tell me that I must follow your lead when our beliefs are so very different.