There have been lots of attacks — just none succeeding on U.S. soil. I guess in Troofy’s world, a vicious, deadly attack on our closest ally (7/7, anyone?) counts as a great Bush success. And who is Al-Qaeda’s neck? It’s obviously not Osama Bin Laden, because Bush & Co. HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHERE HE IS and don’t care — after all, Osama only murdered 3,000 not-real-pro-Americans in that evil, elitist, not-small-town New York.

‘Among those indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit on March 6, 1970 for conspiracy to bomb police and military installations was Larry G. Grathwohl – reputedly one of the “most militant members of the SDS Weatherman faction – an FBI infiltrator, known as a demolitions expert, who gave bomb-making lessons to the group, regularly brandished both a .357 magnum revolver and a straight razor, and admitted to the New York Times having personally participated in the bombing of a public school near Cincinnati in 1969. Charges were dropped against Grathwohl (but not against his alleged co-conspirators who, by then, had gone underground), and he “retired” into the Bureau’s witness protection program, eventually writing a sensationally self-serving account of his exploits entitled Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen.’

Oh come now – the FBI would NEVER actually HELP terrorists to blow up Americans, would they?

Oops.

Um …

Never mind, America – you’re very very safe – go back to watching American Idol & Desperate Housewives – your government knows what’s good for you … Scout’s Honor!

When Obama becomes president, it will result in a weaker economy, as the country becomes more protectionist and taxes are raised.
When Obama becomes president, it will result in a less safe country, as we take our foot off of al Qaeda’s neck.

Your country is neither safe, nor does it have a strong economy, right NOW – unless you think lots of survivalist/Dominionist nutjobs stockpiling ammo while frothing about how much they’ll get off on blowing shit up if their guy loses makes you “safer” … while even giants like Ford & GM are going to BushCo for emergency corporate-welfare bonuses to avoid Chapter 11 … Obama would have to launch an ICBM strike on Wall Street to match the devastation Bush has wrought since circa 2004 … oh, & please recall: Clinton raised taxes in a recession, & America’s economy went straight into a boom.

Protectionism? Oh, you poor ignorant sap. PoliSci 101 FAIL. Yeah, a trade-war with the rest of the world at the start of a deep recession is just what Obama’s got in mind, I’m sure.

You’re zero for two.

The Bush administration has engaged Islamic terrorism on all fronts possible: military, diplomatic, financial, intelligence, etc.

Heck of a job, Georgie!

The result has been no attacks on the US since 2001.

Given that – as anyone with a clue knows damn well – all US Embassies are by law American soil, I believe the exact phrase I’m looking for here is: you are totally full of shit.

Thanks for failing.

I’d suggest stripping him nekkid and putting a black hood over his head and then having women interrogators humiliate him, but he’s already shown he has great resistance against those techniques.

Putz that he is.

Cindy Sheehan?

Steven Howards?

Joe Wilson / Valarie Plame?

Think that could be Phillip Berg of the Xenia “JUDGE ORDERS OBAMA CAMPAIGN END” Fame?

Joe Max, it’s nice that you make free speech equivalent with Nazis marching around your campus. It’s a gentle demonization of anyone who disagrees with you.

Now your vast powers extend to reading my mind as well as Barack Obama’s.

No, Truthy, it was an example of the Platonic method of using an extreme example to illustrate a point, the point being that I don’t believe in restricting anyone’s right to blather nonsense in public.

Unless you suffer under a persecution complex, in which case you take it and everything as a personal affront.

And you have the gall to complain about political correctness? Are you trying to chill my free speech rights?

I am very curious to see what kind of hatred is going to be released next week – the absurd triumphist writings here and at other liberal sites is an interesting preview.

It will be interesting, I agree. But don’t confuse hatred with mockery and derision. Mockery and derision are their own ends. Hatred is something that leads to actual violence (not the imaginary kind that hasn’t happened yet.)

I’d prefer to think of free speech in terms of … say.. being able to ask a question of our Glorious Leader (which he will never be), without being ripped apart by the press. You never answered my earlier question – Can you think of any person who questioned Bush being excoriated the way JTP has?

Can you give me an example where Bush used the citizen who asked a question as a full-blown presidential campaign theme, up to and including hiring the guy as a campaign surrogate? Nobody cared about that bit of video until McCain made a big deal out of it. If McCain hadn’t seized on that otherwise forgettable episode and made it iconic, poor ol’ Joe the not-Plumber would still be not-plumbing and contracting without a license in the same obscurity again after one half of a news cycle. Now, if McCain made a campaign theme out of Joe the not-Plumber without his permission, then Joe the not-Plumber was being abused, and if he didn’t like it he should have asked McCain to stop. Then he could have sued the McCain campaign for publicly humiliating him.

Since he didn’t do any of these things, we have to assume he was doing what he wanted to do.

As I said in the next post’s comments: I have no sympathy.

Any fair viewing of the full length video of Joe the not-Plumber’s question and answer with Obama can see that Obama went out of his way to explain the wonky details of his policies to Joe the not-Plumber. At the end of it, Joe the not-Plumber seemed to be satisfied with the answer, even if he disagreed with Obama’s position.

You still seem to think that Constitutional rights include a right not to be criticized or mocked for making idiotic statements in front of media cameras, as has been Joe the not-Plumber’s wont since his 15 minutes arrived. I think you long for the good old “fair and balanced” days of media coverage, where a liberal makes a policy statement that is rational and sensible, a conservative makes a statement that is batshit crazy, and the media is expected to give both statements equal weight, and divide the “consensus view” at some imaginary “halfway point”. (See “Overton Window.”) Sadly, you guys have pushed it so far into batshit crazy that it’s finally backfired on you.

Let’s get on to the meat of your question. Your fundamental premise is flawed – I am not here to convince commited leftists. I’m here to call you out on your hypocrisy, and to amuse myself at your expense. So far so good. But on to your question.

Then let me riposte with the words of William Blake: “When I tell any truth it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those who do.” That’s why I bother with you, Truthy. It’s not for your sake, believe me.

I’ll give you two answers:

When Obama becomes president, it will result in a weaker economy, as the country becomes more protectionist and taxes are raised.

Unqualified comparison: weaker than what economy? Weaker than Bush’s economy? Pretty low standard you’re demanding there, Truthy.

Or “weaker” than the imaginary Randian no-tax free-market paradise that has never existed in the history of the world? “Compared to my dream economy that doesn’t exist, Obama’s is weaker!!!”

When Obama becomes president, it will result in a less safe country, as we take our foot off of al Qaeda’s neck.

Extremely unqualified declaration. What exactly is this “foot on Al Qaeda’s neck” you speak of? I assume you don’t mean that President Bush has a bound, gagged Al Qeada terrorist under the desk in the Oval Office with his wingtips resting on his throat. It’s an allegory, right? So what exactly do you mean non-allegorically, and how will the change in administrations mean that allegorical “foot” will be removed, and what exactly will be the operational, real world result of this de-footing? Be specific.

Loose nuke attacks? Drive by terror shootings? A repeat of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War? (Is that another one you’re too young to remember?) What exactly?

(Note: Hamas “dancing in the streets” is not an “operational” result.)

Try again.

Helen Thomas.

I’d like some saltines.

Oh, I’ve got tons of them, come on over if you don’t mind eating ’60′s era Civil Defense supplies!

Joe Max, thanks for posting the speech codes at your university. I myself prefer the First Amendment. I truly would not want to live in an environment where a “gesture or word” from me, interpreted by someone else as offensive, could land me in trouble.

So shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre is OK then? Porn on the Internet for kids? Organizing a lynch mob? Do you draw the line anywhere on free speech rights?

You do? OK, we’re just quibbling over the price for your whoredom then.

Personally, I’ve got a pretty libertarian attitude toward 1st Amendment rights. If a bunch of idiots want to dress up in Nazi outfits and goose-step around the campus, let ‘em. I get to point and laugh out loud at them, and launch into a rousing refrain of “Springtime for Hitler.”

See, what you seem to be demanding is the “right” not to be ridiculed and ignored. You want “the right to have my speech be respected.” Sorry, but that definitely is NOT in the Constitution.

Laws against harassment is found in most state, county and city criminal codes too. But as with the rules against harassment at Berkeley, the burden of proof is high. Damages must be demonstrated by evidence.

You make these restrictions sound quite benign, but such paternalism can turn nightmarish very rapidly.

So how about describing your nightmare? It’s been four rounds of posts so far I’ve been asking you, and you still won’t do it. Let’s try that fill-in-the-blanks game you like so much:

“When Obama becomes president, it will result in ___________________.”

To play the game, the blank must be filled in with one of the following: an actual law or budget proposed to Congress, an Executive Order signed, a decision as Commander-in-Chief, or a foreign or domestic policy initiative presented in a major address to the nation. That should give you plenty to work with.

IOW, actions, not words or associations or tendencies or whatever nameless paranoia is bubbling in your fever swamp of right-wing nightmares.

If you want to succeed in scaring us, give us something actual and concrete to be scared about.

“Actually was looking for you. Watch WFLD news tonight; you’ll get an update on voter fraud. Enjoy!”- The Troof

I thought I saw you on my lawn, but sadly, Troof, right now they’re playing something about Scott & Laci Peterson – or rather, the liberal plot to kill Laci Peterson and blame it on Scott the Cop.

Just produce the report you mention previously. Hell, I even gave you the page count. Or just man up and admit the truth of its findings. We both know what they were, unless you refuse to admit it.