Um, Baritone, meet Dave Nalle.

====

PS: Welcome to Blogcritics: prepare to park your socialistic, anti-american, terrorist empowering, troop-undermining, baby-killing, Darwin pushing, flower-painted VW mini bus in the Lowest Level of the Circled Streets of Semantic Hell, also known affectionately as "Nalle Avenue"

I can't help but imagine that Bush's first response to 911 - 'We're at War!' - was said with a smile

the allies tried and hanged German leaders for waging aggressive war...

Saddamize Bush&Co

Like one of my bumper stickers sez: Impeach Bush & Cheney ... & then HANG them!

Poor Arch, Redtard, Big Dog, & Co: yet another commie leftist moonbat to battle. They're sprouting up like toadstools.

Except for that interesting opening anecdote this is just a rehash of stuff we've all seen and said before. Let's bring on some new thoughts on this subject.

Dave

^ Are Vox Populi and Dave Nalle one-in-the-same?

Baritone - welcome to BC!

I've read some of your comments scattered about, and look forward to more articles. This one is concise and cogent, thanks for the read.

Vox makes a bit of a point, let's see something else...reading Baritone's blurb gives me a bitof an idea...

Baritone, what effect do you see on Administration policy in Iraq from the "born again" perspective avowed by W and others? How is that possibly reconciled with the secularists of the neocons who wrote the policies? (Wolfowitz/Perle/Cheney/Rumsfeld)

For the new byline...

the Tao of D'oh

Easy D'oh .... all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and your soul is saved.

Hell, even Saddaam did that before the floor was dropped.

I dunno, Martin. My thinking is that it may have something to do with these thoughts.

"those who know what's best for us, must rise and save us from ourselves."

Could just be me.

"Are Vox Populi and Dave Nalle one-in-the-same?".

Why do you ask?

""Are Vox Populi and Dave Nalle one-in-the-same?".

Why do you ask?"


Probably because no one wants to see more than 1 highly delusional war marketer on BC....

Martin Lav,

Are we to assume then that Saddam now resides serenely at the foot of allah, or whatever god he chose? If so, what the hell. I might as well rape and pillage, gas and gun down a few thousand people, and have bad taste in home decor. Just so long as I ask god's forgiveness just prior to drawing my last breath, I'll get my ticket on the paradise express. That's great!

God's a hell of a guy. My kind of people.

Baritone,

That's exactly my point.
GWB as a re-born Christian believes that.
Hasn't he pretty much done everything you state with his army and doesn't he believe he's doing it either in the name of God or at his "Fathers" direction?
I'd say he believes that he is forgiven, just as much as ole Hussein thinks his God forgave him.

Makes sense don't it?

IMO he has the deaths of at least 3000 Americans on his head; people being killed because you went to war for profit & ego has to count for something at the foot of the "justice throne", surely?

If I were Dubya & truly believed, I'd be hiding under the bed in one of Cheney's bunkers with ashes & sackcloth of penance on my head about now. I think like his faux Texas cowboy act, his 'born-again' religion is another pretty story he & Rove cooked up for political advantage. Just like his much-vaunted "service" in the reserves.

"his faux Texas cowboy act"

You referring to Dave Nalle?

I think you know full well I'm referring to Dubya. For all I know Dave is a real Texas redneck even if he has family that own property in Maine. I don't know where he stems from. But I DO know where Dubya was born & raised, & it wasn't TX.

Maine?
Could Dave really be the BIG W in disguise?
His constant defense of W's position, hidden behind veiled opposition to his tactics and executions, leads me to believe that maybe he is Bush's good twin.

Nah - his ears aren't big enough, & he doesn't look like a depressed chimp. Also his vocabaleery is too good.

Of course, GWB believes he is doing god's bidding. I don't believe there is any god to hand out retribution or forgiveness. Killing in the name of any god is evil, and in and of itself, pointless. I've never understood people who claim to be "god's warriors." If god is omnipotent, what the hell does he need with any of us? Isn't he the all powerful smiter? Let him do his own damn smiting.

As to D'oh's query regarding the born again GWB and the secular neocons:

This is what I feel is the ultimate hypocracy of the current administration. It sets up Bush as even more of a clueless puppet. The neocons are nothing if not opportunists. It's difficult to imagine Cheney, Rumsfeld, etal as being motivated by any religious fervor. They are pragmatists of the first order. Karl Rove engineered the coming together of the political conservative wing of the GOP with the christian fundamentalists. Had he failed in that effort, Bush would have never set his butt down in the oval office.

I can't remember where, but I have either read or heard - perhaps on NPR - how, after the 2004 election, the more secular minded White House staffers became openly derisive toward the born agains. If true, it doesn't surprise me. The neocons are a cynical, self-serving bunch.

Perhaps my post does represent a rehashing of things we have heard and read. I'm not sure, however, if it can be reiterated enough, even if it is largely water over the dam. We obviously didn't learn anything from Vietnam. It seems there are always some cowboys with itchy trigger fingers out and about, and, unfortunately, sometimes they make it into the White House.

I do believe that the possible unsettling of much of the middle east by the growing sectarian violence in Iraq is a relatively new consideration. Whenever and however we make our exit from Iraq, unless great progress is made before, and the government in Iraq is very strong, the sectarian violence is likely to overtake the country and obviously, it could spread out from there to the entire middle east and beyond.

Dave - If you've got anything new to offer, I'm all eyes.

Shark - I haven't killed any babies yet today. Hope to catch up over the week end. Yeah, I like Darwin. He used his brain, his cognitive ability. It seems that most people on the right choose not to. Just an observation. I do need to touch up the paint on by mini-bus. Thanks for reminding me.

Nancy - perhaps we shouldn't hang Bush and Cheney deserving though they may be. I think that in time their gross incompetence, self aggrandizement, poor judgment and mis-calculations will come back to haunt them. Hopefully, history will judge them thus.

In the meantime we will be forced to live with (and perhaps die for) their mistakes for years, perhaps decades to come.

Happy days.

Well he is a master of disguises you know ..... after all he managed to fullfill his entire obligation to the National Guard without anyone ever seeing him there.

Dubya or Dave? Be specific - I'm easily confused these days.

Dubya.......didn't the veterans for truth or was it the Flyboys with no eyes or some other non-partisan group.....say they don't ever recall young GW hanging around the hangers?

Ah - that was his COMMANDER, the guy in charge who had no recollection or records of W. ever being there after the first meeting. Thanks for the clarification. :)

Baritone on Bush and his legacy:

"...history will judge them thus. In the meantime we will be forced to live with (and perhaps die for) their mistakes for years, perhaps decades to come."


Aside from the 3000+ dead american soldiers and the allah-knows-how-many dead Iraqi civilians, this is the great tragedy of the Bush Blunder.

Pandora is a bitch.

Yes, dubya was born in that part of east Texas known as Kennebunkport. There's a whole passal of cowpunchers all along the Maine seaboard don't ya know? Yeehaw!

I think W was born in Connecticutt, actually. The family estate in Kbunkport is known as "Walker's Point" and is a very old family asset named after the same ancestor as the W in George's name, as well as in his father's.

Just a bit of clarity from someone in Maine who has worked in the houses surrounding Walker's point when he was fixing TVs.

George Bush, Jr. was born in New Haven, CT. His father was born in Milton, MA (a suburb of Boston).

Kennebunkport, ME and Walker, TX are just they places they go to escape the urban sprawl their policies promote.

I stand corrected. GWB's birthplace is listed as New Haven, Conn. I forget what part of Texas that's in. A little further south I think. Kennebunkport is just the current family hide out.

"Dubya.......didn't the veterans for truth or was it the Flyboys with no eyes or some other non-partisan group.....say they don't ever recall young GW hanging around the hangers?"
- Martin Lav

There were two different entities offering rewards to anyone who witnessed GW serving at Dannelly AFB in '72-73. Cartoonist Gary Trudeau offered $10,000, and The Texans For Truth offered $50,000.

No one ever collected.

"Ah - that was his COMMANDER, the guy in charge who had no recollection or records of W. ever being there after the first meeting. Thanks for the clarification. :)"
- Nancy

Actually that was General William Turnispeed, the CO of Dannelly at the time GW was ordered there. According to Turnispeed, Bush NEVER showed up, not even once.

MCH,

I was waiting for you to come to my aid.
I couldn't remember the "pacifics" but I do remember.

I don't recall the reward, that's too F'n funny/sad.

"Well he is a master of disguises you know ..... after all he managed to fullfill his entire obligation to the National Guard without anyone ever seeing him there."
- Martin Lav

"Dubya or Dave? Be specific - I'm easily confused these days."
- Nancy

Dubya. Nalle has NEVER enlisted, nor served.

"Could Dave really be the BIG W in disguise?"
"Dubya. Nalle has NEVER enlisted, nor served."

Well one out of 2 aint bad......enlisted, not served......

Yeah, and actually cheated to buck the line in front of a waiting list of 500 guys for the Texas National Guards...and then was promoted to liuetenant without even attending officer's training school...and then was photographed wearing a ribbon he didn't earn...and then...well, it goes on-and-on...

awolbush.com

Re #5;

To whomever it may concern:

This comment was originally forged as coming from "Vox Populi" and signed "Dave"; after I questioned (in #6) whether Vox Populi and Nalle were the same person, Nalle went back, deleted the "Vox Populi" and inserted his own name.

Isn't this the same kind of shit he's passed judgment on others for in the past? What a hypocrite!! (But I already knew that)

Is this the same guy that was ridiculing Kerry for being against the war before he was for it?

On to the actual topic.

The Intel report on Iraq came out this morning.

Here's the story, and a link to the actual report is on the page in .pdf format.

from the report (quoted for Dave and Lumpy):

*Iraq's neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the
involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or
the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal
sectarian dynamics.*

~CA-CHING!



no, wait, intel report...

uh, do I smell...

MAINSTREAM LIBERAL MEDIA?!

=====

~can't wait to see how Nalle spins this one.

This whole thing seems to be going looney tunes, but I like pudding pops.

I think Iraq may go BOOM!

Baritone, Iraq has been going "boom" since we invaded...or at least when the looting started.

This may explain why the entire situation is straight fucked from the American perspective.

Could just be me.

Actually, it's the rest of the world that may go "boom." I know it's old news, but it goes back to Bush and company insisting on invading Iraq. Had we remained focussed on and in Afghanistan, the Talaban and Osama, we could be in a very different situation today. It is at least possible that Osama would now be history. If Bush had not flushed pretty much any and all good will this country had down the toilet with the Iraqi invasion, we could still find ourselves in relative harmony with the world.

The problem with Afghanistan is that there just isn't any real money to be made there. Of course, there's no oil. Now Iraq; you could make a buck there. Why fight over a country that has nothing to offer?

My son lives in Germany. He does not advertise his being an American. He has found himself in a number of uncomfortable situations when people discovered it. They just don't like Americans.

I wonder why?

Could it be that the irresponsible actions of our country have made this world a much more dangerous place to live?

Could it be that the irresponsible actions of our country have made this world a much more dangerous place to live?

Or could it be we're a nation of arrogant, smug assholes who think our country and political system are better than anyone else's?

Anyone remember the phrase "Ugly American?"

We've been hated all over the world for decades.

And with good reason.

Come on Clav ... it's not that bad. Yes, there are classic examples of the ugly American. Some of the current US administration sadly falls into that category.

Equally, there's a hard-core of professional America-haters out there (running the full gamut from box-cutter-wielding suicide hijackers to trendy, lefty US college/university professors and their little chardonnay socialist cliques of yuppies who've never done a hard day's work in their lives but love to bang on about workers and rights) but the truth is, while some might have a fair argument for US political and economic interference, a lot of America-haters outside America use the US as a scapegoat for their own self-perpetuating ills - Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and some hard-line religious cultists in the middle-east being the classic examples.

Perhaps some should look at the ugliness within their own societies or cultures before rounding on the US, which, while very far from perfect, at least attempts a nod towards a free, if not totally fair, society.

Fact is, the US has been right on a number of occasions in its fears about what some regimes might do - from our era, Cambodia being one that springs to mind.

Bush was wrong to invade Iraq on a pretext, and the conduct of the war has been wrong. But in waging a campaign elsewhere against people who plot mass murder, what would the loony left have the US do? Negotiate, and engage in a bout of self flagellation for its foreign policy failures?

Oh sorry ... some people just don't want to talk. They just want to impose a world-wide islamic state under Sharia law, where the heads of infidels are stacked in nice little piles and where women have no rights except the right to expect to be treated like goods and chattels and to get a clip around the ear every now and then.

But because they can't do that, and they don't have the wherewithal to do anything else, they'll just settle for killing as many of us as they can through some twisted logic justified by an open interpretation of a book written in the middle ages.

As for the commos, that's an ideology that's already been consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs ... some idiots just haven't worked out yet that human nature prevents the dream of a utopian paradise ever becoming reality. Instead, the leaders of such regimes ignore the suffering of their own people while using resources that belong to their people to shore up their grip on power.

At least in the US, if you don't like a president or a president's party, you can vote them out, even if you don't have a lot of choice.

Oh, yes. "The Ugly American" was a book published in the early 1960s regarding our messing around in southeast Asia which was, of course, a prelude to the Vietnam War.

I am not quite so harsh on us as some, but we obviously came to believe in our press clippings in the years following WWII. Our arrogance started grating on people many years ago.

There is reason to believe that our system of government is in many ways superior. The US Constitution is, I believe, perhaps the single greatest political document ever written. And it largely leaves out any consideration of god. (Yay!)

I suppose we are due a bit of humility. Americans are not any god's gift to humanity.

The *knot* IS Gordian in it's proportions, more then enough to stupify.

It seems like there are so many consequences with the 2.0 version of a new world order.

Maybe we should remember certain principles that better show who we, as a nation, are. No doubt we have the right to defend ourselves...but how we do it is the test of our national character. Cutting corners, and the "ends justify the means" kind of shit that allows torture, and pre-emptive invasion...suspension of rights... all these things lessen us as much if not more than anything else. Doing the right thing, and living up to your principles when it's easy is NO test.

Standing up, and doing the right thing when it's hard, that's the real test.

And we ain't doing great on that front lately. Here's to trying to make things better, rather than fucking them up more.

A dream, I know.

"I suppose we are due a bit of humility. Americans are not any god's gift to humanity"

Yes to the first bit, and yes and no to the second bit. If the US could accept that it's actually an imperialist/neo-colonialist power not very different to the one it criticised and railed against in Britain, rather than pretending to do what it does under the guise of spreading freedom, that might be a good start.

Nevertheless, and this had nothing to do with Iraq but now might, I don't believe it has to stand by and wave flowers while people plot its demise through mass murder.

On the Constitution: many of the freedoms contained within the US constitition were already mostly guaranteed under common law (and still are), and have their basis in English common law, which is why many other countries whose political/legal systems have evolved virtually identical to those of the US have all those same rights enshrined under law as well. They include such things as the right to a speedy and fair trial and the right to silence, and full protection under law of an accused's rights, which Bush wants to do away with in Guantanamo Bay.

It's a good document for sure, but too much is made of the Constitition by Americans, usually by Americans who have no understanding that the same rights are afforded under law to citizens in many countries outside the US, including some which might now be considered to be outside the sphere of US political influence (New Zealand, which refuses to allow US nuclear armed/powered ships to dock in its ports, would be a classic example).

Perhaps it's simply time for the US to accept that some countries just don't want McDonald's capitalism dressed up as "freedom" foisted upon them ... perhaps, like the US did 200 years ago, they want the right to decide their own destinies and to set the parameters, taking into consideration various cultural factors, for what they might feel constitutes their own brand of fair governance and social justice.

On the whole bit about the Iran connection, and what's happening with them...or at least what we have been told the last few weeks, and heard from all the elements of the echo chamber...

Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they have yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Even better stuff in the article itself, like: "The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday."

I couldn't make shit like this up, folks.

There is no doubt Iran has engaged in some meddling in Iraq (it always has) ... what I want to know is, why didn't the genius advisers in London and Washington on their $200,000 plus paypackets understand that before they went ahead and created a classic power vacuum with their invasion?

A quick look at the history books might have given them a bit of a tip-off in that regard.

Re: #48. How they could not have compiled that information is a mystery to me, when sources outside the administration have compiled so much compelling evidence of Iranian involvement. Maybe we're looking at a once burned, twice shy kind of reaction to the WMD debacle.

And despite your condescending reference to the 'echo chamber', those in the military and on the ground in Iraq - including many Iraqis - who see the evidence of Iran's activities are NOT echoing the administration, as you suggest. They're dragging the administration kicking and screaming into the harsh light of reality on this one.

Wake up and smell 2007. Most of our eyes are open about the situation in Iraq. Maybe it's time for you to put the past behind you and open yours too.

Dave

Maybe I will take anything this Administration, and those who agreed with it on the entire Iraq fiasco, with a fucking HUGE grain of salt until they fucking PROVE they can pour piss out of their own boots for less than $10 million an hour and a hideous cost in lives.

Get back to me with a track record of accuracy...or even being fucking close 3 times in a row...THEN we can talk.

You might want to wake up and smell November 2006, you appear to have missed that nobody is buying bullshit in wholesale quantities anymore.

If those who have been nothing but wrong want to get taken seriously, they had best have ALL their metaphorical ducks in a row, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and triple checked in triplicate.

Because it's all the same bullshit that was done before until proven otherwise.

the Tao of D'oh

You might want to wake up and smell November 2006, you appear to have missed that nobody is buying bullshit in wholesale quantities anymore.

And my point is that you seem to have decided it's your turn to start selling the bullshit - at least based on your comments here.

Dave

And what do you allege that I am "selling"?

Nice try, but there ain't no "there", there.

Not selling anything, just calling them like I see them, poor try at spin, well below your usual standards.

Some things are just never gonna stop.

You're still selling the tired old right-wing conspiracy paranoia you've always been selling. You just repackage it periodically to try to make us forget that it's all just a bundle of irrational prejudices untainted by any kind of objectivity.

Dave

I call bullshit. Please point out, and cite or link, to the "theory" you are talking about?

Then go up and play the link in #51 again, you appear to desire being placed in the category that clip talks about.

Dave attempts a graceful pirouette to distract the audience from the ugly sight of oozing, stinking Bush lies:

"How they could not have compiled that information is a mystery to me, when sources outside the administration have compiled so much compelling evidence of Iranian involvement. Maybe we're looking at a once burned, twice shy kind of reaction to the WMD debacle.
"

Poor things! The Bush worthies were 'burned'! They were not the deceivers, but the deceived. They didn't outsource liars duties to professional lying experts, in the good old subcontracting way, they had lies forced on them. They were the unwitting victims of practiced liars.

It was a 'debacle', sorta like an accident, couldn't be helped. It's probably all Clintons fault. Not Cheneys fault, noone in the administration can be blamed for anything more than being too trusting, too gullible. Poor things!

Will the BC fans be dazzled by the flash of Daves frilly pink tutu? Will a chorus line of Clavos and Baronius clones dazzle the audience with their long seductive limbs and twittering toes on point? Do they have sufficient attractions to distract eye and nose from the stinking rotting mass of exposed lies? Stay tuned.

(...and in the meantime - Vox Populi - agent provocateur and erstwhile factotum for the Washington elite sits at his favorite cafe around the corner from the University of Padua's bookstore - his large brimmed gray fedora protects his eyes from the glare of the noonday sun - he is lost in thought

noticing that he has finished his first half liter of a particularly good house red he motions to the waiter and wonders where it all went wrong...)

The admin is so desperate they can't even coordinate their own spin. And the MSM fails to point out their problems.

Here we have the Intel Estimate saying it'll take a year or two to get some Iraqi troops competent, and BushCo trying to peddle a short term surge to support Iraq. Doesn't compute. We'll have to have another surge in a couple months. this surge is the first step on the escalator. It's good ol' Vietnamization-type Escalation, folks. And they'll have a ready made slogan in "support the troops, it would betray even more troops now to withdraw" because there will be even more troops dead, wounded and at risk.

If you believe that this is the last time GWB will demand more troops you are daft.

Poor things! The Bush worthies were 'burned'! They were not the deceivers, but the deceived. They didn't outsource liars duties to professional lying experts, in the good old subcontracting way, they had lies forced on them. They were the unwitting victims of practiced liars.

You can SAY this all you want, Bliffle, but you know perfectly well that the facts don't exist to support your conclusion. There is NO definitive evidence that Bush's promotion of WMDs was the result of anything more than overeagerness to accept the prevailing wisdom. Suspicions and distrust are NOT evidence.

It was a 'debacle', sorta like an accident, couldn't be helped. It's probably all Clintons fault. Not Cheneys fault, noone in the administration can be blamed for anything more than being too trusting, too gullible. Poor things!

How ironic you should bring up Clinton, since almost all of the WMD evidence originated in the Clinton administration and was the basis of his bombing of Baghdad - you do remember that, right? The key difference is that Clinton chose not to use it as a reason to invade Iraq as Bush I and Bush II did. That's why he's probably a better president than either of them. But he clearly DID believe the WMD evidence and he DID act on it.

I have no particular affection for Bush or the War, but accusing him of fabricating evidence without hard facts to back up that OPINION is exactly the kind of fraud you're accusing him of.

Dave

Dave, some people just know. Facts be damned. Don't you know that? I'm no fan of hyperbole from either side. STM, I must say: bingo. Well said. As for the Constitution, everyone talks about it but very few have read it or taken the time to enjoy just how this remarkable document came to be. Just the visions and debates alone between Hamilton and Jefferson are worth the time. Incidentally, did Hamilton win? I digress. The Consitution is the single greatest piece of political writings known to us at this stage of our political existence. As you said, at least Americans try. But what do we know? We're just a couple of blokes from the Commonwealth, eh?

Now Dave has the NERVE to tell us that the CONVENTIONAL WISDOM was that Saddam had WMDs!

And that Bush was just and Eager Beaver.

Where does he get this crap, anyway?

What CONVENTION? The GOP's?

And, more to the point, what WISDOM? The mere juxtaposition of the word WISDOM with the Bush Gang is the most flagrant example of an oxymoron I have yet seen on this site.

A couple of years ago, archetypal psychologist James Hillman published a good book called A TERRIBLE LOVE OF WAR, which indicates that war as as much a part of the human set of proclivities as DNA.

Much as I would gladly drag Bush and Cheney behind a speeding Ford Falcon through the streets of Bagdad (there's my own violence patterning coming out), the real point here is it was not just them.

And it was not just right-wing survivalist crackpots like Dave Nalle who cheered them on.

It was millions of US citizens--who are now saying that Bush lied and took them in.

Wow: Gullibility is now a mass psychosis to be trotted out to whitewash that just about everybody was ready to whoop it up and make war, not love.

"Took in" 51%, not all.

Put your broad brush down and step away.

Oh? I did not see 49% out there protesting when the Monkey with a Razor Blade (thanks, Hugo Chavez) invaded Iraq.

I seem to remember, for example, that only one person in the House of representatives voted against the war.

You have a very slippery memory, D'oh. Or a maleable one--sort of like silly putty, or dough.

My broad brush will stay exactly where it is.

D'oh, at the time of the start of the war more like 67% were taken in. Remember that was a couple of years before the election.

And the reason Bush was able to 'take in' people so effectively was that he believed what he was telling them himself, and even more, the WMD argument made so much sense that it HAD to be true, whether it was or not.

You had a genocidal dictator who had used WMDs before, had funded and supported terrorists outside his borders, had maintained publicly that he DID have WMDs, refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, and had an avowed hatred for the US demonstrated by his attempt to assassinate a past president. Given ALL of that, who the hell would not be easily convinced that Saddam had WMDs.

And if you say that you weren't pretty sure in your heart that he did, then I suggest there's at least a 3/4 chance that you're lying.

Dave

You know, you two deserve each other.

[Edited] have a nice day.

D'oh, you're a sore loser.

Dave,

1. There was no evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons. (And if he was such a badass, like you say, wouldn't he have used them?)

2. The US gave him chemical weapons (right from the hand of Donald "RUMSFLED") so that he could use them against his opponents in the Iran/Iraq war. Yep, THOSE WMDs.

3. Given all that--who wouldn't be convinced that he had 'em? THIS POSTER, for one. I never thought for one single minute that he had them--and there is ZERO chance that I am lying.

4. And here's the REAL kicker: If the Bush Gang had believed that Saddam really had WMDs, they would not have gone ANYWHERE NEAR Iraq!

[Edited]

moonraven, your opinion matters little, but let me assure you "losing" has nothing to do with it.

Rather it is sheer frustration that some are so blinded by their own prejudice and ignorance that rather than listening and working through a problem together for the betterment of all, some would rather bitch and whine and snark without adding anything useful or insightful to the overall discourse.

Dave, you just insinuated that either I went along with yuor and the Adminstration's bullshit, or somehow I was lying.

Fuck that, [Edited]

Like Shark, my record on the matter is right here on BC, and like him, I was correct......much more so than you , or the White House.

Spin, lie, bullshit all you want. The facts are on record.

to Shark and the rest - I've tried, in vain it seems...moron that I am, I've kept coming back time and again to try , time and again...in different ways and differing methods.

waste of my fucking time

It's not a waste of time, necessarily, as there are lurkers on all these threads who don't post.

Besides, if you don't stay at it, you are just becoming part of the problem.

Just MHO.

(D'oh - it's a fucking drag sometimes but don't let the seeming futility get you down

as moonraven points out and we've been over before - some readers are paying attention)

Only because it's you, troll...

The only ones listening are the ones that don't need to hear what's being said...and nothing said will change one iota of the remainder reading.

I know this, and have kept on for my own amusement, and in the hopes of bringing a smile or a thought now and again...enlightening via entertainment, different styles, different methods...same results, nothing changes...none even open their minds to hear.

fuck that, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir, and have always refused being part of ANY echo chamber.

My original methodology has been rejected by the editors, my current appears ineffectual and not as entertaining...even unaccessible to some(as Shark has pointed out elsewhere).

It's only been my obvious addiction to the community and love of discussion that keeps dragging me back here to comment. Maybe I should just switch to heroin.

for you, troll...a touch of "why"....namaste', my friend...

the Tao of D'oh

Au contraire, the more the administration & its proponents try to shovel out the BS, the more important it is for others to call them on it. Even when you think you're shouting in the wind, it's not in vain. It's not always that you'll change someone's mind, that's true. But you can clarify or buttress the nascent courage of someone's convictions. I don't always know why I think/feel how I do, but I learn from D'oh & others how to deconstruct 'straw men' & fallacious arguments so at least others can't pull the wool over my eyes even if I'm not articulate to say why - but troll, shark, D'oh, and many others are, & I always appreciate their voicing the arguments I am not articulate or experienced enough to marshal, & I learn. I suspect I'm not the only one, either. The lurkers do, too.

Those who know the truth can't just leave all the shouting to the Karl Roves of this world, repeating lies until everyone believes they're truth. That's what BushCo would LOVE to happen - that D'oh & his ilk give up & quit shouting, so they can have their way with the easily distracted sheeple & idiot MSM. When you're tempted to quit, remember that Watergate started small & wee, like a snowflake that turned into an avalanche all the spin in the world couldn't stem, because a few people were stubborn enough & dedicated enough to keep shouting the truth, to keep yanking the wandering attention of the MSM & public back to the inconvenient issues, so that Nixon ended up being destroyed by the record - his own records - just like Bush will. To quote The Enemy: "Stay the course!". Because if we don't, they will.

I'm listening, d'oh.

I'm listening to you reject reasonable even kind of tediously obvious statements, such as the indisputible claim that the WMD argument was very believable, and then ranting in rage and frustration that your twisted and hostile view of reality doesn't instsntly win converts.

And i'm listening to you sharing the same side of the argument with moonraven and shark, a delusional anti-american agitator and a cranky hippy hatemonger.

you lack the ability to look at yourself objectively or you'd realize how far out of the rqtional mainstream you've driftee, as shown by the company you're keeping.

Yes, and the rest of us listen to your self-serving delusions that BushCo has any credibility, Lumpy ol' rock. Probably to preserve your self-esteem, to convince yourself that you weren't lied to & used, that both your votes in 2000 & 04 weren't a total waste & support of a corrupt, lying administration caught with its pants down in print, on camera, & on record. Sometimes it's the cranks of the world, Lump, who are the canaries in the coal mines. It's what they do best: warn the rest of us of poison in the air.

Dear Dave, aka Vox Populi aka ( ??????? ) get real for a moment and explain why you've been posting under a name other than your own.

Do you have permission to do that?

Why are you, Emry?

Clavos, are you another figment of Nalle's imagination?

Let the guy answer for himself. Shake the bugger loose from your apron strings and let him speak.

I'm not answering for him; I'm asking you a question.

If he wants to answer you, I'm sure he will.

Meanwhile, my question is just as valid as yours. Why don't you use your real name?

I prefer to wait until Dave(Vox Populi)Nalle joins the discussion...unless of course you're him.

No, I'm not he.

But, you do raise an interesting issue: What other names have you commented under?

Your insistent questions, on three threads, no less, beg the question, why the intense interest?

Are you hiding something yourself?

Would you all like it if the site required (real name) registration?

How would you be able to verify and enforce it, Christopher?

Do you always answer a question with a question? What is that, avoidance 101? I'm asking what people think...

D'oh - here's for you my frustrated friend

the d'oh of taos

Remember that game on Whose Line Is It Anyway? where everyone had to speak in question form?

Chris - it doesn't really matter to me but the psueds are fun...and some folks may be inhibited

your mileage may vary

I'm against realname registration, for anti-stalking reasons, but in favor of consistent use of one handle, and deadset against handle forgery. Forgery can be avoided by some form of digital signature, PGP is convenient. Multiple handles is very difficult to defend against.

I don't know enough about your privacy programs to know if you can keep them secure? I don't mind BC knowing - but I'd rather not have it available to every nutcase on this blogsite - like that maniac that was ranting on the Fatima thread. Can you all do that? We register w/you but it's kept secure except from BC?

Failing that, can you mandate (& enforce) use of one handle? That would probably be best.

it doesn't bother me that some folks would use multiple names...in fact I'm looking forward to reading a conversation between Dave and Vox

Clavos #80..."No, I'm not he."

You wouldn't be Nalle aka Vox Populi aka not being honest, would you?

"But, you do raise an interesting issue: What other names have you commented under?"

No as many as you, Clavos.


"Your insistent questions, on three threads, no less, beg the question, why the intense interest?"

Why not?


"Are you hiding something yourself?"

Are you?


Here's the problem with the Dave(Vox Populi)Nalle issue:

He posts messages on the same thread UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES.

If he wants to be Dave Nalle in "Bush's Iraq Plan - Same Old, Same Old" for example, that's fine with me. But when he posts IN that thread 7 times as Dave Nalle and 5 times as Vox Populi,

HE'S BEING A DECEPTIVE JERK.

So where is he and why doesn't he have the guts to answer questions himself?

Dave sez: "There is NO definitive evidence that Bush's promotion of WMDs was the result of anything more than overeagerness to accept the prevailing wisdom."

That's so easy to refute one is surprised it is even requested. Colin Powell, under orders from His Boss, said "we have incontrovertible proof...", which was a lie because it was 'controverted' soon after the invasion. It couldn't have been "incontrovertible" if it was subsequently refuted!

Some people took Powell (and his boss) at their word, on their honor, that they had the solid evidence but could not reveal it until after invasion because of "sources and methods" security, and it had the desired effect. Many people sided with BushCo certain that the "incontrovertible" evidence would appear after invasion as justification. Powell and Bushco had vowed their sacred honor on having seen the "incontrovertible proof" and we could trust them, they said.

Can you blame people for being outraged by that lie about "incontrovertible proof"? Powell and Bush forfeited their own honor to suborn the honor of more honest men. That's disgusting. But it IS a classic conman ploy (cf. "Yellow Kid Weill, Americas Greatest Conman" by Brennan).

It wasn't a little mistake. It wasn't overeagerness. they said they KNEW, and they didn't!

And people who continue to alibi and quibble on their behalf are equally guilty of lying, because now everyone knows the truth.

Liars!

Lumpy sez: "...the indisputible claim that the WMD argument was very believable..."

Believable, perhaps, by those who WANTED to believe it, but not "incontrovertible" as Powell, speaking for his boss Bush, aggressively asserted.

It was NOT "incontrovertible", as subsequent events proved, thus Powell/Bush were LYING when the words were spoken, and purposely, too, since they knew it was NOT incontrovertible.

Would you all like it if the site required (real name) registration?

No. I'd stop commenting.

Where's Dave(Vox Populi)Nalle hiding? Come out, come out, WHATEVER you are!

Hey!

Anyone want to go for some doughnuts? I could make some coffee. Or maybe we should just do some yoga. Get centered. Rest your fingers. Give peace a chance.

Om....

So where is he and why doesn't he have the guts to answer questions himself?

Enjoying my weekend because - I have a life.

As for my 'posing' as Vox Populi, I'll go over it one more time for you.

It was the result of using Camino in an internet cafe while posting on another blog under that name. Camino has an annoying feature where it remembers similar fields and fills them in for you, so some posts went up here on BC under that name. Having editorial powers I was able to correct the error and put the comments under my name.

It wasn't exactly a clever deception since I signed the bottom of some of the posts with my name.

But I do remain the voice of the people in spirit.

Dave

So where is he (Dave Vox Populi Nalle) and why doesn't he have the guts to answer questions himself?

"Enjoying my weekend because - I have a life."

Yet here he is, playing on the blog!

My life ended abruptly, Emry.

Dave

Dave, all browsers do that and I'd have thought someone who spends so much time online would know that by now.

Exactly why do you post on other sites under an assumed identity anyway?

And why under that name? I can't imagine for one nano-second that a self-proclaimed elitist like yourself could, in their wildest dreams, consider themselves as aligned with we the people. If you do, your thinking is totally out of control...

I cannot believe that you purged the Vox episode Dave...imo you took the situation and made it worse

your explanation is clearly - not exactly honest - as there were comments in which you referred to Vox by name and most all of the Vox entries were not signed 'Dave' which is your habit

I would have respected you for playing around and copping to it but this is bullshit

Wow. The "editor" of BC Politics -- Dave Nalle -- is a lying *****, isn't he? Just a flat out liar.

Nalle had two names; Vox Pop. played rabid, angry, insulting attack dog and cheerleader to Nalle's 'calm', rational Professor over the last week or two. The only few comments from "Vox" that registered with me were those specifically mentioning me, SHARK.

"Vox" attacked me in some pretty nasty, irrational, heavy-handed ways. It was in the same vein as the Nalle attacks at the time, (ie. you are a pessimist whose attitude harms the troops and all of America, etc etc. -- heh) -- but it was much nastier/explicit than Nalle's normal "implicit" insulting style. As I recall -- a few times -- "Vox" followed "Dave" pretty quickly in the comments, attacking me with a ferocity that was thematically similar to Nalle, but much more pissed off, crazy kinda sounding.

And now Mr. game designer, digital font designer, etc. comes up with some cock-a-mamey sleight-of-hand story about an internet cafe form?

What BULLSHIT.

LISTEN, Nalle, straight up, dude: You have finally shown yer true colors, and confirmed, yet again, what SHARK and others have been saying about you for years around here:

You epitomize the GOP/Bush Junta and what's been going on in this nation for the last SIX YEARS: YOU ARE A CHICKENSHIT, MANIPULATIVE, LYING BASTARD.

Everything you say is suspect, nom de plume boy. You should hang your head in shame and go play internet multi-personalities in some teenage chat room.

=======

re. This subject and Chris Rose's question about identity:

1) I will remain anonymous or go play elsewhere.

2) Really, in the scheme of things, I don't give a flying fuck if somebody creates a dozen "personalities" to use on this site -- including Dave Nalle.

(The only problem with Nalle doing it is that -- as "editor" -- he has a sense of authority and trust that is probably not best-served by also being a lying, cheating, manipulative bastard.)

As I've said around here so many times before, my 'internet' Mantra is: IT'S ONLY DOTS ON A SCREEN.

From "Bush's Iraq Plan: Same Old - Same Old

#14 - Nalle: "Sorry to see you've been reduced to stalker status. There used to be depths to which you would not stoop, but I guess you have now fully embraced the role of ghost pointing a hollow sleeve and moaning senselessly."

#39 Vox to SHARK: "It sickens me to see you celebrating the death of our troops and the torment of the Iraqi people. Your attitude and the attitude of people like you are directly responsible for our failure in Iraq. To see you boasting about it like a little child sickens me. You're a sociopath."




see BOLD items for IRONY beyond Hell & Gods

Shark: Here's a good question for you: If it's only dots on a screen, why do you get so wound up?

I may have slightly misphrased my impromptu question in that I meant it two ways. How do you all feel about the site introducing several levels of commenter? The idea would be to give different comment abilities or privileges to say, BC Writers or regular visitors, in comparison to the passing unregistered commenter. You could of course be registered as whatever name you wanted.

This WOULDN'T mean people have to give their real names or anything, that just came out in response to people above demanding to know the real id of some other commenters. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression in my spontaneous remark.

C.Rose: "Here's a good question for you: If it's only dots on a screen, why do you get so wound up?"

Who says I get wound up? I always type with a big grin on my face.


[...and btw, in case you haven't figured it out, I'm a writer and "SHARK" is a *character; I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it, but I usually learn something from 'him' -- and besides, he cracks me up!]


*the ONLY name I've ever used on BC

NOTE: I believe that Dave Nalle/Vox has violated the trust of the visitors, regulars, writers, and contributors.

He should be stripped of his "official duties" for BLOGCRITICS, and hand over his set of "key" to the Blogcritics Politics site.

...Since he's a lying [self-deleted] who refuses to own up to his little deception.

===============

From "Support Our Troops: A Crock"

#44 - "Vox" used fake name as an opportunity to call Nancy a hypocrite.

#72 - as Dave Nalle: "...I'm just motivated by a raging desire to see people like you exposed for the destructive, inhumane and illiberal extremists you are."
======

From "Facts about the "Surge" in US Troops for Iraq"

#12 -- "Vox": "...given the level of pure hatred displayed in some of the comment threads here, you deserve some credit for even trying to post something objective. Truth may be your armor, but people like shark will still try to smear it in shit..."

["Truth may be your armor" ... Nalle's "poet" is coming out here! ahahahah!]

#30 as "Vox": "Maybe I'm weird, but it seems to me that actually taking pleasure in the idea of the US military being defeated by terrorists is a hell of a lot more than just 'disagreeing'."

[He's reinforcing his own theme here... ahahahahaha: A Nalleian theme being stated as fakey-dopey naive sarcasm. Sheesh.]

#32 as "Vox": "...Nancy, are you familiar with Shark? He'd clearly be happier if the US lost in Iraq. Anything to take down Bush."

If this is you typing with a big grin on your face, I'd hate to see what you're like when you do lose it.

"It was the result of using Camino in an internet cafe while posting on another blog under that name."
- Dave Nalle/Vox Populi

Wow, you mean you ventured outside your fortified compound? Isn't that dangerous? Aren't you afraid of being attacked by a stray dog, or did you take your .06 with you...?

shark sez:

"Vox" attacked me in some pretty nasty, irrational, heavy-handed ways.

Wow! Pot, meet kettle.

Feh.

Shark, when you start posting under YOUR real name and take responsibility for the vile shit you spew over this site daily, then your complaints about names might start to deserve some serious consideration. Since you don't have the balls or the honesty to do that, why should I give a rat's ass about anything you write?

And BTW, you look like a fool posting your bitchrant a day late and a few braincells short considering there are no Vox posts any longer and I explained why and how they existed on three threads more a day before you commented on them. And th eposts didn't go away, they are all now just properly attributed.

If you would like to tell me your real name I'll gladly go and change your comments so they show it instead of 'SHARK', or are your words not worth standing by?

Dave

The difference is, Nalle, that Shark has never proclaimed himself to be BC's self-appointed policeman/private invesigator like yourself, having even gone to lengths once of tracing a commenter's IP all the way to China...

While sorting through all this blather, I have found a few relevant and cogent comments. By and large, however, it has mostly been a circus of personal attacks, profanity and name calling. Pretty infantile stuff. If I could, I'd suggest that you take your arguments outside. But alas.

One of the problems that most of you seem to have is an assumption that whatever side you may be on, that the other side is always all wrong. The opposition are all incompetent, unscrupulous, unmitigated liars.

I am no fan of Bush and company. They are responsible for the totally untenable situation in which we find ourselves in Iraq.

However, Bush, Cheney, etal do not think of themselves as evil. While I am troubled with their respective motives, their alliances with christian fundamentalists and big corporate interests, I see them as no more nor no less culpable as many who have come before them. Osama believes himself to be a great leader and a hero. It's all a matter of perspective.

I essentially align myself with the Dems, but I certainly do not see them as faultless. Even the recent takeover of congress by the Dems is less a left wing victory than some may believe. A number of the new Democratic congress persons are clearly against the Iraq war and other elements of the Bush adenda. But many of them are social conservatives, stating their opposition to abortion and same sex marriage. The constitutional ammendment against same sex marriage remains very much alive even with democratic control in congress.

Be mindful that this remains a largely conservative minded country. It is the most religious country in the western world. The fundamentalists have not lost, nor are they going to melt back into the wood work. There is work to be done, and we will get nowhere with assumptions that ALL of the opposition is ALL bad, or that the side on which any of you are aligned is ALL good.

All this name calling crap just widens the gulf between us. That is school yard stuff.

Damn, Baritone. What the hell are you doing introducing a bit of common sense into the discussion.

Dave

"Be mindful that this remains a largely conservative minded country. It is the most religious country in the western world."

So when it invades a crippled, defenseless sovereign nation to grab its oil reserves, it must surely have some sort of God on its side.

Aw, heck, Dave, I'm just a wild and crazy guy.

Everybody thinks that god is on their side. Everyone else is doomed to eternal hell.

I think god is just a great kidder. What a guy. He's sittin' back, downin' a few brewskies and hootin' at our stupidity. ("Hey, Sebhael, Zethar, come sit yourselves down and pop open a Honey Brown. You gotta watch this.") After all, think of it; wouldn't you get bored if you were omnipotent, and omniscient to boot? It would be tough to keep things interesting; especially when you've got infinity to fill.

(A bit earlier in the narrative I guess, but when you're talking infinity, who can tell, right?: "Oh, man, what to do, what to do? --- Man? Hey, that's it! Man!! I'll make man; give him sentience, and then, and then, YES! Condemn him to hell for using it. Ha, ha! This is great! Whoo doogies! Hey,Lucifer, get up off your moldering, undead ass. I got a job for you."

Nalle: "...when you start posting under YOUR real name and take responsibility for the vile shit you spew over this site daily, then your complaints about names might start to deserve some serious consideration."

False dichotomy. More sophistic bullshit. Change the subject.

What I "do" has nothing to do with the fact that you Dave Vox -- a BC "official" -- created a fake screen name so you could call me a "sociopath" -- toss in limp backup material for your own looney political points -- and still maintain the LIE that you never call people names.

Anyway, Vox Populi is a Liar.

a Chickenshit.

a Hypocrite.

Baritone: "All this name calling crap just widens the gulf between us. That is school yard stuff."

Baritione, yer new here, right.

Give it a few months.

You'll be "fuck you"~ing like crazy, as soon as you realize that while you're playing nice, "debating", and presenting concise atheistic, liberal "FACTS" -- your "opponents" [Bush, Cheney, Fundamentalists, CEO class, Dave Vox types, et al] are quietly raping, pillaging, and plundering this once great nation -- while they lecture you on proper behavior.

F'r instance: on "The FOLLY of the Iraq War"

Um, "folly" sounds like a small error someone makes while serving tea.

I might have said "folly" a few years ago, but after years of posting hundreds of much better, more entertaining, and more outraged IRAQ articles on Blogcritics -- after YEARS of "debate" [read "subjective lies with objective, empirical support"] over $400 billion dollars, tons of "marketing" bullshit, and the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, I'd call it A FUCKING DISASTER.

Not just a disaster, a "FUCKING" disaster.

See. That tends to reflect my particular Reality Tunnel much better than "folly".

Same with Nalle Vox.

He says he made a "mistake".

I say he's a lying, manipulative chickenshit.

See how that works?


Just tryin' to be helpful,
xxoo
S

*SHARK'S DISCLAIMER:

I am an atheist and a political liberal. I have been blogging for almost a decade (and about 30 years before that in the real, non-vitual world) with concerns regarding the rise of religious fundamentalism and its influence on government at all levels. Much of my work has focussed on issues regarding the above, but I tend to meander about when something unrelated piques my interest. Especially when Dave Vox is an official of the BC site and also using fake screen names to boost his sagging self-esteem. Whatever I post here will by be unfalteringly scintillating and generally apropos of nothing.

Forgive me in advance.

: ) <--- oh, did I mention I often resort to emoticons?


**thanks for letting my borrow your personal "bridge-builder" bio, Baritone!

BTW: Just for the record:

I work on the assumptions that ALL of the opposition is ALL bad -- and that the side on which I'm aligned is PRETTY MUCH THE SAME -- and will turn on me in a heartbeat.

So, Shark, do you believe that if you expand your "fuck you's" geometrically that you'll win?

I am new here, but I've been around probably a good deal longer than you have. I've seen all this shit before. It's not original with all of you. This kind of dip shit banter didn't originate with blogging. Do you really believe that your being obnoxious equates with being wise? I could just as easily come here and tell all of you to get fucked and kiss my voluminous ass, but doubt that it would get me anywhere.

I am not shocked by the tenor of these "debates" just bewildered at how you can believe that you are advancing your cause in any effective way.
There are always angry young men (and women) who scream at everybody to fuck off spewing spittal, but all that usually ends in more idiotic violence, more death and destruction perpetrated by self-righteous assholes who think they have all the answers, but in fact don't understand shit.

But, hey. Have a nice day.

1. I originally posted on theis site under the name I use for other writing--one of my two legal names--and immediately the multiple identity assholes here (Clavos, Franco and ol' horseshitter Dave) decided they could invade the crap out of my privacy.

2. I don't know why you folks are surprised by Dave's lies and generally decptive behavior on this site. I have called him a liar innumerable times, and his moniker for me for a week or so a couple of months ago was DUMB DECEPTIVE DAVE. If I say someone is lying, it's because they are. If you think that sounds arrogant, find ONE instance--just ONE--on any of these threads where I have lied.

moonraven sez,

and immediately the multiple identity assholes here (Clavos, Franco and ol' horseshitter Dave) decided they could invade the crap out of my privacy.

You've been told this before, but it obviously bears repeating:

WHEN YOU PUBLISH ON THE INTERNET USING YOUR REAL NAME, YOU HAVE FORFEITED YOUR "PRIVACY."

It's a simple concept, even you should be able to understand it.

(moonraven - off topic but...here's one for you:

the d'oh of taos)

Baritone: "So, Shark, do you believe that if you expand your "fuck you's" geometrically that you'll win? ...I am not shocked by the tenor of these "debates" just bewildered at how you can believe that you are advancing your cause in any effective way."

Well, herein lies the easing of your bewilderment:

I'm not here to advance my cause in any way, shape, or form. I have no cause, except to allow my muse to vent its spleen.

(It keeps my blood pressure down.)

====

Baritone: "I could just as easily come here and tell all of you to get fucked and kiss my voluminous ass, but doubt that it would get me anywhere."

Where would ya like to "get", Baritone?

Have someone who supports the disaster in Iraq "change their mind" by reading:

"Bush's obsession with bringing down Saddam has cost us dearly. We are now mired in a conflict from which there is no graceful exit." ??

Profound insights, true cough cough -- and almost universal in this nation as we speak -- but change someone's mind?

...Especially when it's written by a guy who says he's an atheist AND a liberal right outta the box?! Oh, that profile will win you a lot of converts on fucking Main Street.

We're all just pissin' in the wind here, babe. You're not going to effect any change; we [Americans] have ADD and dogmatic opinions to go with it.

=====

Gotta run! Huge bomb in Iraq kills 130! Film at seven!





And you have a nice day, too.

Thanks, troll. An apt choice.

And now clavos wants to make ME responsible for HIS invading MY privacy.

He has some fucking nerve.

And that's ALL he has.

Emptypants.

And there u have your confirmation. Shark may call himself whatever he likes, but he's just a nihilist who doesn't take anything seriously. We should all give his comments excactly the amount of consideration they deserve, which is none. They mean nothing to him and if u waste your time even reading them then he's made a fool of u.

Shark: " created a fake screen name so you could call me a "sociopath""

Talk about gaping holes in logic. He's called u that and far worse under his real name. Why would he need another name just to state the obvious?

LOL, Lumpy!

I would say that Shark is useless to himself and to all others. He is truly pissing in the wind. His every word is drenched in it. He is simply someone who apparently hates himself and everyone else to whom he condescends.

Another fellow I have exchanged comments with on BC told me that he writes posts but rarely involves himself in the comments because they so often devolve into meaningless chaos. I would say that is what has happened here.

I resisted the urge to jump into the fray with both feet. I will now leave all of you to your stupid banter. I will likely offer new posts in the future, but will more often than not refrain from joining in with this type of meaningless crap.

You all must be so proud!

"I would say that Shark is useless to himself and to all others."

Ah, yes, but an article about The Folly of the Iraq War in Feb 2007 is so useful. Such a brave stand at this time in our nation's history. Can't wait for your piece about how bad slavery is.

Seriously, the meaningless chaos is what it's all about, and pass onto to your friend that in the grand scheme of things, the articles are pretty meaningless as well. If you are looking for deep philosophical discussions about politics, I'm not clear why you are on the Internet.

This is performance art, pseudo-intellectual ramblings sprinkled around insult comedy. Just hope to get a laugh or two. Anything else will end in disappointment.

OK...our little SHARK serves many useful purposes, much like his maligned namesake. Both his insight and comedy are rare to find, you may not like what he has to say at times...and he can get quite ferocious...

but he is a straight up, and stand up kind of fishy

which cannot be said for everyone involved

parting bit to Baritone - there are definitely times when insult comedy and pure partisan snarkiness rules the day around BC...but that is the nadir...and it can still be mildly entertaining

this places rises to the sublime at times when the discourse gets into the deep waters, and the Intellects get dusted off and stretched...other times it could suck the soul out of Aretha Franklin

your mileage may vary

30

I have no illusions about what I am doing here. I don't believe that any of this in any final analysis will amount to a hill of spit.

What I do elsewhere with my life simply as a husband, father and provider will count for more than anything I could possibly do on the internet.

But I have had some discourse with others whom I have touched and been touched by some of them. I'm not going to change the world, as it is likely that none of you will either. At least not here. Those of you who find this such a useless endeavor, why hang around? DO something. Don't hypocriticaly criticize others for doing the same thing that you're doing.

If I can work something out and put it to (virtual) paper that provides even one someone with a different perspective, then that's a plus for me.

As a newby to BC, perhaps I am prejudging some of you - in particular Shark. However, I have found little in this instance that inspires.

It is easy to confuse nihilism for brilliance. Just the intimidating nature of it tends to knock people off center resulting in, for some, the assumption that the bully must be right. It's similar to an assumption by some that prostitutes, druggies and the like have some greater wisdom about life because they've spent so much time looking at it from the bottom up. But the fact is that the view from there is very limited and grossly distorted.

Some of you obviously revel in this kind of discourse. I find it little more useful than the talking head cable news shows that have four or five people all gabbing at once, ultimately with nothing being said.

I was not attempting to be "brave" with my article. There remain a number of people who do not understand what is going on in Iraq and how it parallels the Vietnam fiasco. At any rate, in my perusal of BC political offerings, I have yet to run across anything that I found to be particularly cutting edge, profound or "brave."
Most is no more nor no less than the prattle that I wrote.

I didn't just walk out of the wood patch. As I noted, I have run into nihilistic bullies before. I had a casual acquaintance with Bill and Emily Harris and Angela Atwood many years ago. Angela was quiet, but Bill and Emily were openly hostile to the establishment and, they believed they were true revolutionaries. If these names aren't familiar to any of you, Google them. Things turned out so well for them. Especially Angela.

Otherwise, I suggest that you all cultivate a taste for steel cut oatmeal and watch your sodium intake. It'll kill you.

Coupla points:

Baritone, there's this thing we do on the internet; it's called "averting one's eyes" -- very helpful when dots on a screen become scary, disappointing, or 'offensive'.

JJHunsecker -- first, I loved your film; reminds me of Dave "Vox Populi" Nalle: "My right hand hasn't seen my left hand in 30 years."

Secondly, thanks for your comment. Especially, "...the meaningless chaos is what it's all about, ...the articles are pretty meaningless as well. ...this is performance art".

And the following was both useful and hilarious: "... Ah, yes, but an article about The Folly of the Iraq War in Feb 2007 is so useful. Such a brave stand at this time in our nation's history. Can't wait for your piece about how bad slavery is."

Baritone really went out on a limb here -- and now expects either praise or 'deep discussions'. Apparently -- he doesn't understand we've been at this rodeo for years, and what was once a raging bucking bronco that we rode for honor and glory has become a zombie-dead horse that we beat with outraged obscenities just to keep the vultures at bay. (and the word "folly" is like a fucking feather compared to the IEDs we've planted in this tragic arena.)


And thanks to D'oh for putting the words "insight" and "comedy" together in my defense. D'oh, on almost every level available to a carbon-based biped, always gets it.

And now back to my original point...

NOTE: I believe that Dave Nalle (aka "Vox Populi" and gawd knows how many other manifestations) has violated the trust of the visitors, regulars, writers, and contributors.

He should be stripped of his "official duties" for BLOGCRITICS, and hand over his set of "keys" to the Blogcritics Politics site.

Much as I enjoy your contributions on BC, Shark, and I generally do, I can't support this suggestion.

Whilst I think Dave did get over-excited and made a couple of mistakes, I'm sure he will take note of what happened and behave differently in the future. He certainly should not be removed from his role at this time.

I think it's a bit silly to be making remarks like he has violated the trust by people who clearly never trusted him that much in the first place!

It may come as a surprise to his fellow Americans, some of whom may be coarsened by that country's seeming obsession with punishment and revenge, but everybody deserves compassion and the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

Shark, you recently told me you are a writer so you do have the option of joining BC and posting your own articles here.

It may be interesting to you to be the proponent of an idea or two, rather than reacting to those of other people. Of course, you'd have to master some defensive skills to add to your impressive attacking abilities...

And, as all articles pass through the editing process, you may even polish up those writing skills of yours. As I have to delete them all the time, I'd be especially thrilled if you mastered the art of not putting acres of empty white space into your work.

;-)

Baritone: "There remain a number of people who do not understand what is going on in Iraq and how it parallels the Vietnam fiasco. At any rate, in my perusal of BC political offerings, I have yet to run across anything that I found to be particularly cutting edge, profound or "brave.""

Check these out when ya get a few hours; and note the dates, too.

xxoo
S

A New Plan for Iraq (April 04)
Iraq/Vietnam - GWB/LBJ (April 04)
Iraq: Who Gives a Shit? (Aug. 04)

Iraq: It's Over. We Lost. Let's Leave Now (May 04)

2005 and Biblical Shit (Jan 05)

Iraq Election Memo: "Vote and/or Die?" (Jan 05)

Trust Me: An Iraqi Timeline (Jan 05)

Iraq Election Summary (Jan 05)

You're Right - I'm Wrong (Feb 05)
Beating a Dead Donkey (Apr 05)
Fun With Sheehan, Rove, and Iraq (Aug 05)

This is pretty darn mind-boggling. This back and forth about --- what was it about again?

Anyway, these exchanges are just the same as what we've seen on the 'High School Musical' or 'Pretty Ricky' posts.

Childish rantings.

Just a slightly better vocabulary.

A lot of us lost interest some time ago; but they enjoy trading the same old same olds among each other, so let them be happy & natter. It doesn't cost us anything, after all.

If so many of you found my offering soooo last year and beyond, why bother using it as a platform for all this crap? You assume that this tight little group that you represent is all there is in blog world - as if BC is your private domain. If so, perform a coup and deny access to all but this little group and enjoy yourselves. It's a big world. New eyes come along everyday. Some of you think you are so wise, but yet are, well - not so.

so let them be happy & natter. It doesn't cost us anything, after all

Well Nancy, that's one way to look at it. Good luck!

Wasn't referring to that, Baritone; sorry it came across that way. I meant the usual 2 or 3 who always fall to recriminating & bickering among each other about who's playing semantics, etc.

The war in Iraq isn't over. It isn't worth jumping at conclusions.

ProfEssays says - *The war in Iraq isn't over*

this is the critical point...and a big reason for the vitriol

Baritone - comity isn't necessarily everything it's cracked up to be...you seem tone deaf to SHARK's underlying frustration with apologists and consistent ethical stance

So "in your face" confrontation rules the day? I am not being "tone deaf." My ability to "hear" is overwhelmed by the cacaphony. I am not an apologist for Bush or anyone else. Shark just thinks I didn't raise the volume high enough. He doesn't think the word "Folly" makes enough noise. We tend to tune out when the noise level gets too loud.

Shark's frustration is not my concern. He claims to have no "cause" which renders his rantings, be they comic or acerbic, empty - that old "sound and fury" thing.

*We tend to tune out when the noise level gets too loud.*

or maybe you tend to tone out while others who are comfortable with the volume cranked up might appreciate the 'street theater' even when it's disruptive

and wouldn't you agree that 'folly' seems weak when juxtaposed to dead bodies - ?

I do look forward to your comments when dealing with the next rabid ID proponent that comes along

(as for SHARK's notion that he is just dust in the wind...well we all get there now and then)

others who are comfortable with the volume cranked up might appreciate the 'street theater' even when it's disruptive

And there are those of us who think it's vulgar and low class...

understood Clavos...different strokes and all

Count me on the vulgar and low class side of it all.

Especially in light of the rampant lies tossed about by some who favor war over thought.

thanks Shark, for the kind words

This link is for Clavos, and ANY who have served...food for thought for all the rest.

War should be a last resort, not the first option.

Thanks for the link, D'oh. Haven't listened yet, but you know I will.

The trouble with vulgar and low class is it diminishes whatever argument it's trying to support; and worse, drives away those offended by it, some of whom might have something to contribute to the debate.

There's a reason why formal debate has rules. We don't have to go that far (it would get very ponderous and boring, for one), but civility would be a nice start.

That said, I know I have been guilty of vulgar and low class on these threads myself, but usually with the intent of "fighting fire with fire".

Clavos - in view of what gets thrown up on the screen here at BC, sometimes vulgar is the ONLY response.

You have read enough of my typings to know I can be civil, or quite harsh (and if you think D'oh can be harsh, try some of my older gonzo rants, makes Shark look like the Church Lady) but my hard line tends to come after the facts have borne out certain statements, and disproven others.

Like Iraq...there's a vast record here on BC of things like Shark's links in 137-140, as well as opposing stuff from Dave and the like, not to mention my own and others.

Time has proven some right, and some absolutely wrong.

Clavos:

At least with this poster, you started your vulgar and lowclass insults right from the get go.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Baritone,

While I appreciate your position and tact, some of us have had our blood heated to the point of frothing by Dave, his pet goat Clavos and others with this "folly".

I have demanded his removal from this site on other occassions as I believe he is a flat out traitor to the free-world and has been promoting anarchy and violence to any of us who do not share his political views.

I agree with SHARK 100% in that Dave un