 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Wrong sir!
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:29 PM found this - very dramatic wouldn't you say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:34 PM Ho Lee Shit. What a GREAT SPEECH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:40 PM For anyone who can't access youtube, I will gladly send you the text of the speech via message. Just let me know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Big Mick Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:41 PM That dude will be named an unlawful enemy combatant. He is spot on, IMO. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:44 PM He'll be sharing a cell with you for that remark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Big Mick Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:49 PM Next to yours, LOL. Piss on these maniacs. It's time for some protest folksingers to go to jail again. This idiot might have finally removed my songwriting mindblock. We can't count on the friggin' apologists in the halls of Congress to have any damn guts. It ain't in the nature of politicians. The guts will have to come from the street, and from the voices of those who are willing to use their gifts to call attention to these folks. I said several years ago that this man might be the most dangerous man to ever inhabit the White House. He has now proven me right. I would rather be wrong. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,memyself Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:53 PM Who is that guy, anyway? And was his speech made in a forum in which many people would have heard it? (I'm serious). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:56 PM I have a terrible feeling in my guts that bad shit is about to happen. (OK, so I'm paranoid. But remember what Kissinger said about paranoids.) There are Homeland Security exercises happening before, during and after the elections. What will happen if it looks like Dems are going to gain control of one or both Houses? Tie that back to the rejuvenation of 'camps' all over the US, and troops moving from place to place within the US and what does that look like? Two to one there will be an increase in level on the Terrorist Thread board. The picture THIS paranoid gets is not a pretty one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: skipy Date: 21 Oct 06 - 01:14 PM Heavy. Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Don Firth Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:33 PM One of my favorite scenes from on of my favorite movies/plays. The same things Sir Thomas More says about laws in this scene also apply to Constitutional protections: William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!No further comment necessary. I think that about says it all. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM WOW! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:45 PM His name is Keith Olberman. He runs a TV program called Countdown on MSNBC. He's ruthless in excoriation and very funny in humor. Here's a lecture on Rumsfeld of similar eloquence. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,memyself Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM Thanks! Now, I'm not familiar with MSNBC - an off-shoot of NBC? (Hey, I've been in the bush for quite a while now ...) Would he have much of an audience - say, compared to something like the Colbert Report? I'm just wondering if the people who really need to hear what he's saying are likely to hear it, or if he's just preaching to the choir ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,lox Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:09 PM I think realistically you're probably right memyself. It is a great speech, but it kind of rates as "what you should have said was ...". You know, when two people exchange disparaging witticisms and one goes off, having been bullied off the court by his stupider but bigger opponent, saying to his friends "what I should have said was ..." These kind of things can be great, but this looks like being an anthem for the outraged rather than a milestone or turning point in the debate. More like a piece of relevant art, though that should not be considered to be to it's detriment. Art as a political tool should not be underestimated, and this guy has created something very powerful. It scared the hell out of peace and skipy. Let's hope it's not just the choir who get to hear it and indeed who open their ears to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:11 PM He has a wide audience in the liberal community, but probably only a fraction of Jon Stewart's and probably less than Colbert's whose popularity still hasn't reached Stewart's in spite of his desperate efforts. :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:17 PM The Neocon agenda has scared the hell outta me for about two decades now. Bush is one of the most 'powerful' figureheads they have had for a long time. I think he's personally too stupid to think this stuff up, but he's not too stupid to carry it out. It's like that old stroy about congestion on the LA Freeway (written by a sci-fi author whose name I forget) and as cars keep merging into the flow the traffic gets slower and slower, until at last there is a loud CLICK, and the traffic stops completely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,lox Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM have a look at this |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:46 PM We can but hope . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:56 PM The truth revealed . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Bill D Date: 21 Oct 06 - 04:08 PM Yeah....might be! We already see that about 30% of the right would keep voting Republican if you could SEE the horns and tail on their candidate! Promise 'em tax cuts and guns and no abortions and allow religious instruction in the schools, and they'd elect the village idiot!...Oh...wait... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Don Firth Date: 21 Oct 06 - 04:53 PM 'Fraid you're right Bill. After all, they did! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,wordy Date: 21 Oct 06 - 06:09 PM A match struck in the darkness. I hope it's not blown out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 21 Oct 06 - 07:39 PM Finally someone REALLY telling it like it is! Thanks for the link. I heard the beginning of it when it ran, but had to leave before I heard anymore. And, it's one, two, three, what are we fightin' for! Next thing ya know we'll be doing a fundraiser to bail Big Mick out, after his next song gets out!:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:03 PM "next stop is ..." Hey! did you realise that "Iran" rhymes with "Vietnam" - just gotta bend the scanning slightly... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: JohnInKansas Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:05 PM A text transcript appears at the first link now, but may have been added since the thread started. The opening link also is available directly from MSNBC, with transcript, at 'Beginning of the end of America' You can find transcripts of recent Countdown shows, among others, at MSNBC Transcripts The program for the first "Special Report" in this thread appears at the end of the 18 October 2006 program transcript. I'm still looking for a transcript of the piece on Rumsfeld that Amos linked up above. I think I remember loading the video somewhile back, but I'd rather have text, and the link doesn't - as far as I can tell - have any broadcast date shown. Searching was interrupted by the need for a battery transplant on my mouse. You don't suppose "they" killed it on purpose? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:08 PM "Old Iran" firs... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:19 PM Here ya go, JohninKS: Here is the full text of Olbermann's commentary (on Rumsfeld): The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet. Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American. For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration's track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve. Dissent and disagreement with government is the life's blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq. It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong. In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld's speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless. That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld's, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the "secret information." It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld's -- questioning their intellect and their morality. That government was England's, in the 1930's. It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England. It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords. It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed. The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth. Most relevant of all — it "knew" that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused. That critic's name was Winston Churchill. Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill. History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts. Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy. Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards. His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis. It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain. But back to today's Omniscient ones. That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And, as such, all voices count -- not just his. Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego. But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris. Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes? In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America? The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too. The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought. And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism." As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed. Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow. But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: "confused" or "immoral." Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular." And so good night, and good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Bobert Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:34 PM Ahhhhh, like what here is new business??? No offense, great speech, but it's all been said before... Heck, even I've taken a few shots of late here in Mudville against this dumbass and very unconstitutional act that Congress has passed... 800 years of accepted lagal principles laid out in the Magna Carta down the drain... But I don't blame Bush as much as the chickenhawk Republican Congress which punted on this one... Especially big-mouth John McCain who woof-woofed about this 'n that but in the end he caved like a man without a spine... Yeah, a perfectly gutless performance on his part... Now it goes to a Supreme Courth which is about as feeble and spineless as Congress has just been... Beam me up, Scotty, 'cause Bush is tryin' to burn this country down... An' doin' a good job at it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:28 PM . . . and? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: John O'L Date: 21 Oct 06 - 10:17 PM From what I see I get the idea that, as in Australia, there is a realisation slowly dawning on the great mindless mass of the population that they have been hoodwinked, but it seems that, as in Australia, there is no viable opposition; no alternate government worth voting for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,cigilteach Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:31 PM Nope, there will be no opposition. Perhaps some people might change the channel more often in search of something more comforting on the tube. Or maybe take a trip to Walmart or McDonalds to liven their spirits but that's about it. It starts from about four, this sheeple business. This is a country where people WILLING drug young children for not shutting up and sitting still. Critical thought is actively discourage in our schools. By the time people reach adulthood their expectations about being a useful and happy citizen are as low as you can get. Nothing will happen until we are run right into the ground and what will happen then is we will wait for some other despicable lot to take over because we are completely dependant on a non-existent, better-than-ourselves other. Just like we learned in school, we will shut up and sit still and wait to be told what to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 22 Oct 06 - 07:22 AM If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a miority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution - certainly would if such a right were a vital one. First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861 Abraham Lincoln What is Lincoln's reputation in deepest Republican territory? I ask 'cos I don't know, partly thru being the UK side of the waters. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Bunnahabhain Date: 22 Oct 06 - 09:20 AM On that logic, Blair has given us grounds for revolution ( as opposed to mere revulsion) many times over. One of the cornerstones of Britian's mainly unwritten constuition is the principal that we can do anything that is not banned. The number of assults on various liberties he has made for the tempory approval of a majority (often, just a majority of his back benchers) is amazing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 22 Oct 06 - 10:01 AM That speech really dynamized (if there's such a word) my Beautiful Wife and me. We have volunteered to the local Democratic organization for driving duty, driving voters who need it to the polls, or on her part possibly babysitting while mama votes. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 22 Oct 06 - 10:18 AM Good for you, Uncle DaveO! *aside* what is the deal with the unwritten constitution of Great Britain? How do you know what is guaranteed when it is unwritten? Who decides? Just wondering.:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Donuel Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:36 AM Peace, Obama wtites of hope but my eyes see a realism less kind. The crimes against the Constitution are now so great that the tyrants who are respondsible are protected. There will be a reversal of all accusation and indictment. A reversal in all attempts to restore Democracy and Liberty in this country will be based on my running theme that Republican tyrants will simply blame Democrats for the sins the Republicans have actually commited. An example: Just like Dan Rather taking the fall for discussing the service record of George Bush, The Democrats will take the fall for Diebold manipulation of elections. A burglary of Diebold software will be reported in MD and then charges against key Democrats will accuse them of trying to change millions of votes. It is no longer enough to give awards to Cheney, Rumsfeld and other screw ups, now opponents will be prosecuted, sued or worse. Journalists and defense lawyers are now in prison for speaking up or shutting up. My pictorial editorial voice was ripped from me. People are in fear. The wealthy are nearly satisfied and their bunkers have been built. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: DMcG Date: 22 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM *aside* what is the deal with the unwritten constitution of Great Britain? How do you know what is guaranteed when it is unwritten? It's easy enough ... we don't. There have been campaigns many times for a written constitition for the UK. Maggie Thatcher dismissed a campaign in her time with words that were more prophetic than she realised: "Some of the worst abuses of the law and human rights have been carried out by countries with written constitutions." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 22 Oct 06 - 01:19 PM Cut-n-paste from the Chicago Sun-Times "When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again." "What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted." I sure wish George W. Bush would take a 'little walk with Jesus' before it's too late. I pray for him every day. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 22 Oct 06 - 06:20 PM for a little inspiration, look here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 22 Oct 06 - 06:48 PM Love it, Lox! Thanks, DMcG. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: autolycus Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:05 PM Also,katlaughing,re our lack of constitution, that fits with the thought (source unknown) "The gentlemen of England play the game, but change the rules if they feel they are losing," which could hardly be done under a written constitution. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:12 PM The british constitution is not non existant. That is a myth. It is different, being enshrined in the common law. There are pro's and cons to doing it the British way and to doing it the French way. Having it all spelt out in a single document doesn't make it free from abuse. The british constitution evolves very slowly, and has done for hundreds of years. It is a fascinating thing to study and I actually think it is a superb foundation for Britains political and legal culture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Don Firth Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:16 PM ". . . which could hardly be done under a written constitution." Well, Ivor, I don't know about that. If the Constitution proves "inconvenient," one could just ignore it, I guess. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:36 PM ttr, I used to pray for Bush but I have given up on him... Jesus told us to "shake the dust from out robes" and Bush has brought way too much Satanic crap down on the Earth that I've done just that... He will ***not*** change... He is in the grips of all that is evil... He has had plenty of opportunities to come clean but he refuses... So, unless a miracle happens in his life and he comes to accept and understand what he professes to accept and understand, he is lost... Which really doesn't bother me one bit... Some folks have been so evil that they don't deserve a get-outta-Hell card... Bush is one of those people... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 22 Oct 06 - 10:14 PM Aw shucks, Bobert ol' boy... Handin me the tail o the bull yer facin' the sitiation with... ah mean... are you that there mighty judge an jury with a keen sense fer deaf'nitions of 'evil doers'? Yer makin' it soun' as plain as the nose on yer face... kinder like yer shoutin' 'bout what ol George is a doin'... like makin all them shades o grey inta technicolor black an white assumtions? Believe you me, ol' boy... Ah ain' got no such preesentiments, an' ahm none to fond o yer arn clad con-victions an jushments 'bout folks ya don' even know... Ah cuts a wide berth 'round them bear snappin traps 'cause they way ya down and make it hard ta hold yer head up fer all the pain an' such. Seems ta me, ifs ah remembers kina correct like... Jesus also said sumpin 'bout lettin' him who is without sin ta be throwin them first stones... hmmmmm? But heck if it ain't so... Ah loves yer melodromatic meanerin's... an' that you, ma frayund, aw one spunky ol' beacon o light... an we needja ta shine it cayfully. Ja heah... ehu wippasnappa? ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:02 AM From: GUEST,cigilteach - PM Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:31 PM "It starts from about four, this sheeple business. This is a country where people WILLING drug young children for not shutting up and sitting still. Critical thought is actively discourage in our schools. By the time people reach adulthood their expectations about being a useful and happy citizen are as low as you can get." Is this what you're talking about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: GUEST,cigilteach Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:27 AM Yes, just like that!! It is really frightening but it rings a bell, doesn't it. I think if we all think back a bit we can come up with loads of examples just like that from our own schooling. I really don't think I am way out there in thinking that is where it starts - the complacency, the ennui, the total lack of connection to the stark realities. We are trained in this from five or younger. Since the use of psychotropic drugs prescribed to children under 12 went up 400% last year alone, it is only getting worse. But bring up the subject of approaching "education" a little differently (like unschooling or whatever) and people baulk - and often not ten minutes after launching into some story about how their child is struggling so in school because of this or that completely inane and contrived circumstance.... Meanwhile, it is as if you were some crazy renegade promoting child abuse when you say TAKE THEM OUT, stop dancing around in circles talking shite while the light is stamped out of your child's eyes. DUHHHH. The educational system is clearly beyond repair (yes, there are exceptions but few) and we need to step out of it. But like I said in my oh so bubbly and optimistic mood the other night, it isn't going to happen. Instead, they might curb the kid's TV schedule or bar McDonalds for a semester until the kids conform. What will these kids do about the frightening state of affairs when their time comes - even less than we do, if that is possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: John O'L Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted all else follows." - George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: katlaughing Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:04 AM Thanks, Ivor and Lox. I am off to study about the British unconstitution, some more!:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wrong sir! From: Lox Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM GUEST,cigilteach, this is the other alternative Kat, The subject to look up would be "british constitutional law". You would be able to learn what the building blocks of the British constitution really are and how the courts make it work rather than just getting a political synopsis which might be far less fascinating (certainly in my subjective view). It might be hard going, but it has such a long and deep history and such a depth of accumulated wisdom that it is worth it. |
