I don't usually do it but I couldn't help it. I asked my cousin who she was supporting in the primaries. My cousin and I avoid even the most pedestrian of political questions because, as anyone who has attempted to have a mature conversation with a leftist, unless one agrees with them, one can count on anger and hostility.
But I began the instant message conversation by promising I wouldn't "push it" (in other words, ask for thoughtful reasons behind her decision) and that I just wanted to know who she supported.
She wrote that she "likes Hillary."
I was dying to ask her on what basis she supported this person to soon become the most powerful human being on the planet, but knew that since he answer would be along the lines of most leftists "I like that she's a woman" or "I liked Bill" (which would only beg the question "why?")
I asked if she'd considered supporting Rudy? She instantly replied "NO!!!"
Again, I was dying to ask "why not?" After all, my cousin lives in New York City. She lived there as New York plummeted into the filth and violence years under leftists Ed Koch and David Dinkens. She'd seen her city resurrected under the care of the Republican Rudolph Giuliani, with her free to walk the streets, play in the park and even visit Times Square at night to catch a play.
She was in New York when Islamic fascists murdererd thousands, closed her city down for weeks, and wrought fear and hatred and she watch as Giuliani became not just the Mayor of New York, but "America's Mayor" with his calm and efficient handling of this sudden disaster.
I was dying to ask her why she wouldn't even consider such an effective and accomplished hero but I didn't because I knew she didn't have any thoughtful reason. That's what makes her a Democrat. It's what allows an unknown like Barack Obama to lead the pack of Democrats running on such tripe as "hope" and "change." It's why such a corrupt fool as John Edwards is in serious contention. After all, Guiliani may have battled the mob, cleaned up New York and led the city through its darkest days, but Edwards his nice hair.
This is why the Democrats don't fear Iran. After all, doesn't Ahmadinejad wear a nifty jacket? How can he be evil (Hitler was evil, though, because of that funny mustache. So not GQ of him.)
Hillary's a chick, Obama is "tall, dark and handsome" and Edwards has pretty hair. Again that, how can a national hero hope to win?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
282 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 282 of 282LOL!
btw - It's nice to be noticed... and remembered, even if inaccurately. Isn't that why you're here? Only I'm probably the only one who can remember what foolscap escaped onto your keyboard.
Your words about gays as well. I posted a specific quote from Plato's "Symposium" that validated MY argument that Socrates wasn't gay. After all, Alcibiades himself testified that Socrates refused the offer.
Did I? This is what I said:
Oh bejesus, i so don't care about your Plato quotes.
I'm starting a new censorship campaign -- i'll be deleting lengthy quotes from Nietzsche, Plato, Freud, Rousseau, and certain others.
If you want to make a point, state it.
Personally, I love Nietzsche and all those other guys, but N at least is far beyond this discussion and easily, in fact usually, misunderstood even by smart people, so you should stay away from them and not casually misuse them...they're more for nuclear war than for this peashooting and spitwad firing gallery. It just sounds ridiculous in this little sideshow.
I love pedantry. And no, simes, that has nothing to do with sex and little boys. ;-)
I love pedantry. And no, simes, that has nothing to do with sex and little boys. ;-)
I know...that's peediassentery...I been around. BTW, if you want to see a great documentary about how the Christian Catholic We're the Only Damn Show in Christendumb Church has so not dealt with the child molesting priests, see Deliver Us From Evil...sociopaths on parade...straight from the middle ages.
dora, I stand corrected. touche. You won... one. I admitted it. Feel good?
And simes, pray tell. What philosphers works have YOU EVER read? And please, MAD Magazine doesn't count.
and simes...deliver us from the homo's of the Catholic priesthood, you must mean...I hear it's a pretty high percentage.
Oh but simes, Farmer John here, who has no formal education in philosophy or any liberal art (more on that later), has decided that Nietzsche actually loved Christianity, and only hated the weak "human rights" "help the poor" incarnation of itself that it had become in Nietzsche time.
Also, He Who Is Most Insuffernable believes that being a professional philosopher is damn near the most immoral and worst thing that you can do, therefore, the pronouncements upon the meaning of Plato and Nietzsche and others of current philosophy professors are completely irrelevant and invalid. Except for Jowett, of course. Also, according to FJ, the 1911 version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica contains more truth than the current one because the 1911 one was written before all the liberal revisionism of the latter half of the 20th century.
For an example of the truthiness of this encyclopedia, see the entry for Sappho, which brings itself to state that "All ancient tradition and the character of her extant fragments show that her morality was what has ever since been known as "Lesbian."" But does not explain what Lesbian means.
Oh, and also, according to FJ, the way to help black america is to impose Sharia law on them to make them stop fucking.
...and please. In what manner did I misuse Nietzsche? You claim to be a "smart" person, don't you? Prove it.
Oh yes, modern scholarship is sooo much better now. Abe Lincoln shared a bed for two years with a grown man. HE HAD TO BE GAY.
I will admit that given Abe's taste in women, that isn't too far a stretch, but to proclaim from the mere fact that one shared a bed with a man makes one a homosexual is a leap of logic too far for me.
And as the 1911 Encyclopedia states... from her then extant writing, there would appear to be no definitive proof they she "knew" women in a female-upon-female physical SEXUAL way. Although I will admit that anyone from Lesbos is a Lesbian, even if they've never licked a carpet in their lives.
Damn straight I'm a smaht poison...too smart to try to untangle that fishnet of entrapped flotsam, jetsam and horseshit...I only say that the Nietzsxkchshxkean ideas are very difficult and only make sense in a context where everyone is on the same page, certain mutual levels of understanding have been achieved...some what above GW's level ...and can't be thrown about willy nilly and with casual casuistry. I have read them all...in an academic setting to begin with and later as personal reading...I don't however pretend to understand a hell of a lot of it and if you think N was a lover of early day Xtianity as Dora says, you don't know shit either. BTW, smart people like me know that Plato was full of sophomoric horseshit and that the much abused Sophists were far more rigid and accurate in their reasoning than he was.
And you see, simes... dora can engage in pedantry when it suits her. She is, after all, the QUEEN of nits... but she usually confines her picking to those NOT as experienced at nit-picking as myself. Like attacking Evan's essays or going to the sites of those less formally educated, but far more experienced than herself, and throwing her weight around like some school yard cyber-bully.
and simes...deliver us from the homo's of the Catholic priesthood, you must mean...I hear it's a pretty high percentage.
Over 500 cases in the LA diocese alone.
Yes... many smart people do acknowledge the difficulty in deciphering the meaning of Nietzsche's writing. But if Plato is so sophomoric, then you should be able to squish his arguments like you would a fly. Yet you don't.
Hmmm. That wouldn't be the result of an incapacity, would it?
Jes' wondrin'.
There you have it, simes. Kick out the homo's and most of the kids will be safe.
I think the Pope has been talkin' something along those same lines...
"Evan's essays"
Essays? LOL
Also, Farmer, you are utterly mistaken about Socrates and others of that time and their homosexuality, though you might not be wrong in calling it something else. It was common practice,accepted by all,for older men...married men to have young boys for lovers. They did not divide their libidinous impulses into the categories of the post Augustinian, tight ass Xtian church and it was not considered homosexuality but just gettin a little. This is completely accepted and not debated by anyone but latter day moralizing lunatics. In the Roman Senate, for instance, fellatores crawled around under the tables working under the silver haired solons robes. You could gauge their progress by looking at the mindless smiles on the faces of the great deciders.
Bloggings? Blog-posts? Original non-commentary posts? You've got a better word, my queen?
Oh yes, modern scholarship is sooo much better now. Abe Lincoln shared a bed for two years with a grown man. HE HAD TO BE GAY.
I will admit that given Abe's taste in women, that isn't too far a stretch, but to proclaim from the mere fact that one shared a bed with a man makes one a homosexual is a leap of logic too far for me.
(1) To dismiss all of historical scholarship since 1911 on the basis of one example, no matter what the example, is incredibly stupid.
(2) It is, in fact, possible that Abraham Lincoln was gay. Any of our founding fathers could have been gay, too. Gayness was not invented in the 1960s. Homosexuality is a possibility for any historical figure, and I see no reason to hesitate to investigate such a possibility if there is some reason to suspect it. For the betterment of the historical record.
(3) Sleeping in a bed with another man for 1 night, 1 week, 1 month may be excusable. For 2 years? That's quite a time, don't you think? Plus, that is not the only evidence. Someone like you might find the idea of Lincoln being gay quite unpalatable (though since you're such a fan of pre-emancipation proclamation America, I don't know why you would be a fan of Lincoln)), but unpalatability has nothing to do with the truth.
Rants, ravings. Blog posts is good too, for something more neutral. Essays gives him much too much credit.
There you have it, simes. Kick out the homo's and most of the kids will be safe.
Total horseshit and easily controverted. BTW, Benny the Rat was the great whitewasher...most molestors are heterosexual men who molest little girls...do you want to claim that if we throw out heteros there will be less molesting...utterly different thing. Gays do not molest children...gay pederasts do, just like hetero pederasts do...nothing to do with gender orientation.
simes,
Show me proof that SOCRATES engaged in the act of physical love between man and boy and I'll believe you. Short of that, you CANNOT assert that he was gay (You cannot "know"). In fact, if you read Symposium, Socrates SPECIFICALLY DECLINES to participate in just such an act, freely offered, by the SINGLE most likely person upon which he would have likely performed it. His "love"... Alcibiades.
Show me proof that SOCRATES engaged in the act of physical love between man and boy and I'll believe you.
Forget that. Show me proof that Socrates actually existed.
Simes, The Insufferable One thinks that gays are much more likely to be child molesters than straights.
Go back through Evan's archives. I think you'll find that I disagree with ALL of those assertions.
And if you wish to be taken seriously in ANY of your arguments... get a blog and post there....stop being a RENTER, and own up to your name.
Show me proof that Socrates actually existed.
And there we have it, don't we.
Do we "know" that he did? How?
Without an epistemology AND an ontology, we're never likely to know... for CERTAIN, anyways.
Just like whether G_d exists or the Theory of Evolution is true.
And yes, PURE logic points to either G_d's existance or our own non-existance. One OR the other.
Simes, The Insufferable One thinks that gays are much more likely to be child molesters than straights.
TIO prefers to have his fascist impulses inform him rather than the evidence...but what about this line from Huck Finn?...Jim says to Huck..."Come back to de raft, Huck, Honey?"
See what Leslie Fiedler has to say about that.
Cogito ergo sum. And no, it is not a mere syllogism.
Forget that. Show me proof that Socrates actually existed.
That's where the rubber meets the road...he's an invention of Plato, as Jeebus is an invention of Paul's.
TIO prefers to have his fascist impulses inform him rather than the evidence...
That's key, yes. He actually said that he half-admires the people who stone women for adultery because they follow through with the dictates of their religion. And also that he would have liked to have grown up in Saudi Arabia, because it's very repressed, therefore he would not be polluted with our permissive culture.
He's very much afraid of his own gay self, so he wants to the government to restrict his behavior. Solipsitically, he thinks everyone else is the same way, therefore the government should restrict their behavior as well. Correct me if I am wrong, FJ, but you do support making divorce and premarital sex illegal, correct?
(1) To dismiss all of historical scholarship since 1911 on the basis of one example, no matter what the example, is incredibly stupid.
Indeed it is... but much of the "critical" post-modern scholarship of the past fifty years is pretty shoddy and deserves to be reviewed skeptically. Especially assertions w/o evidence like "Socrates" WAS gay.
(2) It is, in fact, possible that Abraham Lincoln was gay. Any of our founding fathers could have been gay, too. Gayness was not invented in the 1960s. Homosexuality is a possibility for any historical figure, and I see no reason to hesitate to investigate such a possibility if there is some reason to suspect it. For the betterment of the historical record. It is POSSIBLE, no doubt. But just how skeptically should I view the assertion, that has gained some currency, that he was? Or that Thomas Jefferson slept w/Sally Hemmings. Yes, there is DNA evidence of a Jefferson having slept w/her line, but to state unequivocally and with absolute certainty that she was his mistress is a step one should be cautious in making.
(3) Sleeping in a bed with another man for 1 night, 1 week, 1 month may be excusable. For 2 years? That's quite a time, don't you think? Plus, that is not the only evidence. Someone like you might find the idea of Lincoln being gay quite unpalatable (though since you're such a fan of pre-emancipation proclamation America, I don't know why you would be a fan of Lincoln)), but unpalatability has nothing to do with the truth. I spent many a summer growing up sleeping in MY uncles bed whenever we visitted the Family Farm and NO he was not a pederast and NO we didn't have sex. It was COMMON practice at Inns & Taverns the WORLD OVER for men to share sleeping accomodations. The "heat" was rather limitted. To make a claim that Lincoln was "gay" on the basis of a shared bed is preposterous on its' face. Now, to make the claim with MORE evidence... fine. But just how much "rope" should people be given without ANY acknowledgement that it is "mere speculation" and not knowledge? And btw - I am NO Lincoln fan ("The tyrant's heel is on thy shore...")
Correct me if I am wrong, FJ, but you do support making divorce and premarital sex illegal, correct?
You were wrong on just about everything else in that post. ANd I don't propose divorce be made illegal. I said "rare". Papal exceptions. I might be convinced to add some "special judicial" circumstances... but no-fault divorce? THAT should be banned.
As for pre-marital sex, I do believe in an "age of consent", but short of that, whore around all you want. Just don't expect me to not make fun and ridicule single moms or pay taxes to support any b*stard children they might have. When I want to "help" poor unwed mothers, I'll place a donation in the collection plate at church.
Yeah, there is much more evidence. Lincoln and Speed didn't just share a bed as part of some larger family arrangement. They just kind of lived together, without anyone else.
That's where the rubber meets the road...he's an invention of Plato, as Jeebus is an invention of Paul's.
Paul's was not the only testimony and neither was Plato's. I don't sippose you ever read Xenophon? The Gospels?
Do you want to be taken seriosly, simes? If you do, you have to occassionally be serious yourself.
So... gay or not?
Lincoln has a pretty substantial reputation. I would think one would have to produce some pretty overwhelming evidence as to the truth of the assertion before we openly and idly spread gossip to destroy this rep. But of course, many find this kind of idle gossip of "current political" use...
But then, lets' ALSO talk about Hillary and that delicious Pakistani lesbian lover-aid of hers as well... lest anyone believe such gossip inappropriate...
Should there be a standard? Lincoln can't sue for libel...
Plato, "Phaedrus"
SOCRATES: I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves.
PHAEDRUS: That again is most true.
SOCRATES: Is there not another kind of word or speech far better than this, and having far greater power--a son of the same family, but lawfully begotten?
PHAEDRUS: Whom do you mean, and what is his origin?
SOCRATES: I mean an intelligent word graven in the soul of the learner, which can defend itself, and knows when to speak and when to be silent.
PHAEDRUS: You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and of which the written word is properly no more than an image?
SOCRATES: Yes, of course that is what I mean. And now may I be allowed to ask you a question: Would a husbandman, who is a man of sense, take the seeds, which he values and which he wishes to bear fruit, and in sober seriousness plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden of Adonis, that he may rejoice when he sees them in eight days appearing in beauty? at least he would do so, if at all, only for the sake of amusement and pastime. But when he is in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection?
PHAEDRUS: Yes, Socrates, that will be his way when he is in earnest; he will do the other, as you say, only in play.
SOCRATES: And can we suppose that he who knows the just and good and honourable has less understanding, than the husbandman, about his own seeds?
PHAEDRUS: Certainly not.
SOCRATES: Then he will not seriously incline to 'write' his thoughts 'in water' with pen and ink, sowing words which can neither speak for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others?
PHAEDRUS: No, that is not likely.
There ya go, simes... now tear the sophmore apart!
Lincoln has a pretty substantial reputation. I would think one would have to produce some pretty overwhelming evidence as to the truth of the assertion before we openly and idly spread gossip to destroy this rep.
Why would being gay destroy his reputation?
Gotcha!
No, I am NOT a bogus prof...and since I know that, and see the names you like to call me--I know that you know that you don't know anything that I know and you know that. Did you know that?
Silly girl. So young. That will go away, though. To paraphrase Winston Churchill who was once accused of being drunk by a matron at a fancy party, "...and you, madam are ugly, but tomorrow, I'll be sober."
Keep digging, prof. You're showing that you're not a prof more and more with every post.
Why don't you tell us where you are a professor? I mean, you link your name to this blog on your syllabus that you give to your students, so why are you all ashamed and anonymous now?
Why would having a lesbian-lover aide tarnish Mrs. Clinton's?
*boomerang*
Danny Glover said...
Ivanna, trust me when I tell you that you do not want to scrap with Farmer John. He will mess you up. Save your junior high mentality for fifth graders. They might respect you.
Whoaaaaaaaaaa, now ya got me askeered. Lessee, I got the follower of Elmer Fudd who's the follower of a dead parrot stuffed with a looping tape recorder telling me to back off. And, that was your best shot.........
Why would having a lesbian-lover aide tarnish Mrs. Clinton's?
Well, because it would imply she is unfaithful to her husband, whereas Lincoln's alleged homosexuality took place well before he or his possible lover were married.
Plus, if you want to talk defamation, the law only applies to real live people, because recovery under defamation is premised under an injury to character that is disadvantageous to the person. A dead person cannot be ay any disadvantage.
Plus, there is the interesting question of "defamation per se." Defamation per se are categories of defamation where the injured person does not have to show actual injury, they can recover as long as they show that the defamation took place. An accusation of homosexuality used to be considered defamation per se, as was an accusation that a woman was not chaste, but both have fallen out of defamation per se, and are there no longer.
Furthermore, defamation has to be shown to be false. Truly stating that someone is gay cannot be defamation if they are really gay. AND, it has to be something commonly held to be defaming. A Nazi cannot sue a speaker for defamation if the speaker stated the Nazi was a Jew, even if the Nazi can show that he suffered damages, because being a Jew is not seen to be something bad, like being a criminal or a drug addict or an adulterer is.
You can't defame the dead, is the short answer. But I welcome all investigation into Clinton's possible lesbian affair with her aide. Publish it, as long as it is true.
I see I missed a few points...
simes... your study/link of abortion trends was for a period in history (1995 to 2003) where legal abortions were readily and legally available in many countries around the world. Such was not the case in '73 when Roe came down. Try not creating fruit salad arguments by mixing apples and oranges. To say that a complete legal abortion ban pre-Roe had no impact on the number of abortions American women were having between pre-and post years... is ridiculous on its face. One need only examine the abortion rates doubling between 1972 and 1980 to see how extremely disingenuous you argument was. But making a serious argument was never your intention, was it?
Farmer John said...
Why would having a lesbian-lover aide tarnish Mrs. Clinton's?
*boomerang*
Watta dope! Dora has said nothing regarding Senator Clinton having a lesbian lover. No one has ...except for you; and, of course, you don't count, cybercipher....just erecting another strawman, likely the only kind of erection you are ass-ociated with.
Well, because it would imply she is unfaithful to her husband, whereas Lincoln's alleged homosexuality took place well before he or his possible lover were married.
So what? Her husband has been serially unfaithful to her. Unfaithfulness hardly seems to matter much in their "actual" (and not some idealized idea of) marriage. Why should anyone care at all?
And as for dead people not being able to sue, so what? All that means is that legally liability for spurious damage done to a persons reputation ends at death. Does that make it any more "right"?
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, does it?
Here, muse over this strawman...
Oh, I missed this one, too
These were also the high/low point years(1865 to 1914) of the industrial revolution when kids would spend 16 hours on the factory floor if they weren't mangled by the machinery or killed by disease... and then sleep there because they were too tired to go home. In addition to the black slave, there were millions of wage slaves and slaves of the company store. During that era, the US had, literally, the worst slums in the world. Free my ass. Controverted again, hayseed.
More free than today, not happier. Free as in less subject to petty regulation and control... and not having some a-hole telling you what you can and cannot do. If I wanted to kill your ass, I simply passed a glove across your cheeks and we drew blades, better man wins. If you wanted to sell your kid to a factory, do it! More kids are working 16 hour days in sweatshops around the world today than ever did in 1900. Yeah, YOUR privledged white ass has got it pretty good today, but those kids in China and Vietnam a sucking more and more "industrial revolution" era hind-tit.
i just don't understand why you are so against investigating for historical truth. How do you deal with speculation and possibility, then, if you don't circulate or publicize it so it can be researched and investigated further?
Is there any harm in any of this speculation about Lincoln being gay?
I see I missed a few points...
simes... your study/link of To say that a complete legal abortion ban pre-Roe had no impact on the number of abortions American women were having between pre-and post years... is ridiculous on its face. But making a serious argument was never your intention, was it?
yeah, you miss some points, alright...like the ones you don't want to see...the period of time makes no difference..
“The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy,” Beth Fredrick of the International Women’s Health Coalition in the U.S. said in an accompanying commentary.
How much simpler can they make it for you?
It's like the counterintuitive evidence that marijuana smoking goes DOWN when it's legalized... which provides more evidence of failed right wing policies. You also forget the frequent deaths of the mothers from illegal abortions, but they don't count when they do something so evil, do they?
More free than today, not happier. Free as in less subject to petty regulation and control... and not having some a-hole telling you what you can and cannot do.
Man, are you the best they got on here? Because your sounding even lamer with every post...riiiight, they didn't tell you what to do in those factories...and you weren't really a slave if you got paid...less than it took to live on...grow the fuck up and quit living in some peabrain, romanitcized western novel.
Sigh. "I am nobody, who are you?"
Dora, who are you?
A likely response might be acronymic:
Dumb Or Retarded Actually
Delicious Oregon Red Apple
Dreadful Oddly Recumbent Artist
Dear Old-Fashioned Ruthless Ancestor
Dead Or Really Alive
Delightful Or Real Asshole
Demonstratively Original Rara Avis
Dethroned Or Resigned Autocrat
Donkey Or Real Ass
By the way, some of my favorite poems are by Anonymous, none by Dora, though.
How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!
"O brave new world, that has such people in it!"
...and "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
I saw these same posters on another site. Someone from Australia!? An ex-pat looking for trouble?
“The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy,” Beth Fredrick of the International Women’s Health Coalition in the U.S. said in an accompanying commentary.
How much simpler can they make it for you?
...and what irrefutable "scientific proof" lead them to draw this conclusion?
You don't take MY word for anything. Why should I believe Beth? She did a study. Big whoop. I showed you a charts that showed both the number AND rate of abortions DOUBLING in a six year period from when abortions were "illegal" to abortions being "legalized"... it gives DIRECT evidence that contravenes Beth's claim that "The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy.
It sure dissuaded women before Roe legalized the practice of abortion. Unless YOU can prove that 750,000 American women were getting abortions before 1972.
...and Simes, I live in a romanticized novel? At least mine is a non-fiction one.
Anonymous, you're sad.
FJ, a non-fiction novel? WTF is that?
Why one based upon a true story, of course.
...as only "I" can "know" it.
I think I can hear the narrative running through my brain right now...
Oh look, I'm setting the words to paper...
So, um, what is the non-fiction that your novel is based on?
Blogging with deranged Leftist lunaticks, of course.
Dora said...FJ, a non-fiction novel? WTF is that?
Haha...good question...FJ's whole life appears to be a hallucination of some kind...now that wouldn't be so bad if it was steered by something a little more interesting than his crude, backward idiotology...I checked back at the earlier posts...did this freak really say slavery was good because it had a use? Sounds like one of those guys who's so desperate to be seen as ORIGINAL that he'll say any ridiculous thing to bring it off.
Ecclesiastes 3.
Try it, you'll like it.
Dora says: Also, Evan, who are you to call anyone fat?
He isssssssssss fat. Take a look at his pix. And, he's a short mf, too--short, in a lot of ways!
Dora says: Also, Evan, who are you to call anyone fat?
Mon, Dora, you're right. Evan isssssssss fat....and short, too--short in a lot of ways.
Dora says: Also, Evan, who are you to call anyone fat?
Mon, Dora, you're right. Evan issssssssss fat! And short, too--short in a lot of ways.
Dora says: Also, Evan, who are you to call anyone fat?
Mon, Dora, you're right. Evan issssssssss fat! And short, too--short in a lot of ways.
Dora says: Also, Evan, who are you to call anyone fat?
Mon, Dora, you're right. Evan issssssssss fat! And short, too--short in a lot of ways.
Dora says: Also, Evan, who are you to call anyone fat?
Mon, Dora, you're right. Evan issssssssss fat! And short, too--short in a lot of ways.
Dora says: Also, Evan, who are you to call anyone fat?
Mon, Dora, you're right. Evan issssssssss fat! And short, too--short in a lot of ways.
You're FAT!
Rudy Invokes 9/11 To Deflect Questions About Iowa Loss
By Greg Sargent - January 4, 2008, 11:34AM
Rudy Giuliani, speaking about his sixth place finish in Iowa yesterday:
"None of this worries me -- Sept. 11, there were times I was worried."
As a GOP operative I know loves to say, the man has "9/11 Tourette.s." Can't help himself.
Hahahahahhahahhahh!!!!!!!!!
Dora remarks: FJ, a non-fiction novel? WTF is that?
Well, Dora, see, FJ believes he's already mastered the fictional biography. So, he's ready to move on to a new genre.
Hhhashshahahahahahhahha!
Giuliani didn't contest Iowa, chuckles.
bud gottakrie said...
Giuliani didn't contest Iowa, chuckles.
The caucus goers gave him only 4% of the votes. He can't contest it, snickers. The dumbass is counting on Florida. Hahahhahahhah!
What's Billary counting on? Her firewall in NH is burning down as we speak.
I swear, the man just can’t help himself. It’s got to be an involuntary reflex now.
When asked to comment on Hillary Clinton’s show of emotion just before the NH primary, Rudy Giuliani invoked once again the sum total of his campaign platform: 9/11
I think everybody is their own person and they have to be their own person and this is not something that I would judge anybody on, one way or the other. And the reality is, if you’ll look at me, September 11, the funerals… the memorial services…there were times it was just impossible…not to feel …not to feel…not to feel the emotion.
He is now a parody of a caricature of himself. How can anyone take him seriously?
Now, I know why suckit likes Rudy Mussolini--he's a parrot, just like suckit.
Bush Admin. admits to destroying e-mails from start of Iraq War, Leak of Valerie Wilson's name and DOJ investigation of leak
Submitted by crew on 16 January 2008 - 11:21am. Presidential Records Act Without A Trace
Very, very late last night, just before midnight, the Bush administration submitted a filing in CREW v. Executive Office of the President, our lawsuit challenging the failure of the White House to preserve and restore millions of missing emails. We first documented the massive loss of White House e-mails in our April 2007 report, WITHOUT A TRACE: The Missing White House Emails and the Violations of the Presidential Records Act.
The latest filing from the Bush administration raises some very troubling questions that the White House clearly does not want to answer. (The filing from the White House and related documents can be found here.) This is how CREW's chief counsel, Anne Weismann, described the situation:
With this new filing, the White House has admitted that although it has long known about the missing emails, it did nothing to recover them, or discover how and why they went missing in the first place. The missing emails are important historical records that belong not to the Bush administration, but to the American people. As a result, the public deserves a full accounting and hopefully, now that the matter is before a federal court, we will get one.
The White House has now admitted that it does not have an effective system for storing and preserving emails. This is no mere technicality; it is this failure that led to the likely destruction of over 10 million email. What the White House has not explained is why it abandoned the electronic record-keeping system used by the prior administration -- a system that properly preserved White House email -- but did not replace it with another effective and appropriate system.
The White House has also admitted that the only safeguard it has to its patently inadequate method for preserving email (dumping them in files that are put on EOP servers) is back-up tape media. These back-up copies, however, are only a “snapshot” of what was on the server at the time of the back-up. In other words they are not comprehensive, as the White House concedes.
Even more troubling, the White House has now admitted that until October 2003, the White House recycled its back-up tapes, which contained the only copies of emails deleted prior to that date. What the White House has not explained is why it changed its policy of preserving all back-up tapes -- instituted in March of 2000 when the Clinton administration discovered that its system did not fully preserve all email from the Office of the Vice President -- at the same time it decided to dismantle the existing electronic record-keeping system, with no replacement at hand.
The deletion of millions of email beginning in March 2003 coupled with the White House’s destruction of back-up copies of those deleted email mean that there are no back-up copies of emails deleted during the period March 2003 through October 2003. The significance of this time-period cannot be overstated: the U.S. went to war with Iraq, top White House officials leaked the covert identity of Valerie Plame Wilson and the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into their actions.
The White House now claims there is a lack of documentation supporting both the fact that email are missing and the volume of missing email. Yet in January 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, in a letter to Scooter Libby’s lawyers, stated unequivocally: “We have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.” Moreover, when the problem was uncovered the White House Office of Administration created abundant documentation that included multiple estimates of the volume of missing email, not a single chart that the White House now suggests is the only documentation. Could it be that having now destroyed the evidence documenting the missing email problem, the White House feels free to retreat from its acknowledgment to Mr. Fitzgerald that White House emails are missing?
Also missing from the White House’s latest explanation of the missing email is why, more than two years after it discovered the problem, the White House still cannot say what happened, why it happened and how many email were affected. And the White House has yet to offer an explanation for why it never acted to recover any of the missing emails, even when presented with a recovery plan by its own Office of Administration.
It is perfectly clear why the White House has used every strategic maneuver it can think of to avoid answering any questions about the missing email: its answers are likely to raise more questions than they answer. That, years after the problem was discovered, the White House is still questioning whether or not there is even a problem is deeply disturbing.
reply
crew's blog add new comment printer friendly version send to friend
"Missing" emails
Submitted by Anonymous on 17 January 2008 - 8:01am.
The emails in question are NOT missing. Every server they went thru stores copies and the DOJ and Congress damn well know it. All they need is a subpeona and EVERY ONE can be found.
reply
Huh?
Submitted by Anonymous on 17 January 2008 - 7:50am.
It sounds like you guys are buying into the administration's bullshit explanation. Think about it - deleting sensitive emails is a CRIME. They've had people working overtime on a plausible explanation.
"Well, let's see - let's appear stupid and say our backup system involved recycling backup tapes which really don't backup the entire system. Yeah, that's it!"
This administration willfully deleted sensitive information that they did not want to be accountable for. Not wanting their rampant criminality to leak out is also why they largely used RNC email accounts instead of the White House ones to conduct corrupt business.
reply
Lets not forget...
Submitted by Anonymous on 17 January 2008 - 2:54am.
Just recently, the person charged with investigating Karl Rove, for violating the Hatch Act, was discovered to have used an outside company, like, Geeks On Call, or something similar, to come in and perform a full and unrecoverable hard drive wipe of his OWN computer. He used a government credit card to pay for it and when asked about it, he claimed it was done due to his computer being infected with a computer virus.
But when the company he used was asked about the procedure, a 7th level wipe, I think they called it, they said that they were never told anything about a computer virus and the wipe they performed would NOT be the way to deal with a virus.
Also, the White House official used this company DESPITE the fact that he had a whole TEAM of people working directly under his control, who could have and SHOULD have done any such work on White House computers.
If this administration is not held accountable for the flagrant crimes they commit on a virtually daily basis, it is going to give a green light to any other psychopath who may end up winning or stealing a future election, to do it all over again.
I'm all FOR bringing this country together again. It has to in order to remain a decent place to live. However I think that before we can heal, we must root out the infection which has permeated the walls every office and corridor of government.
reply
Ah, yes, if Bush and Cheney were to represent all Americans
Submitted by Anonymous on 17 January 2008 - 7:21am.
before a god, whoever greeted us at the Gates of Heaven would say "Wrong Station, Your destination is much farther South".
reply
It's like we have the Mafia running our nation
Submitted by Anonymous on 17 January 2008 - 2:06am.
Our Congress is unfortunately complicit.
We need to get them ALL out.
How to do that?
reply
Lost Email
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 10:39pm.
The Federal Records Act requires that all government records be kept and sent to the National Archives. Every Federal department is supposed to have elaborate systems to capture and categorize records. I worked for the Federal government in Information Technolgy for 30 years, and maintaining government records was a major headache when email became prevalent, but we all did the best we could to preserve all official records. There is absolutely no excuse for the destruction of thousands of emails. This is a clear violation of federal law, AND YET the media just yawns and goes to the next story, and Congress will just...what...hold their collective breath? If this had happended under the Clinton administration, the Republicans would be calling for blood and every talk show host would be screaming. What has happened to this country?
reply
Lost? I wonder if there are not personal lab tops, home
Submitted by Anonymous on 17 January 2008 - 7:27am.
computers, in house computers that have some stored emails that were supposedly "lost".
reply
bush
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 9:38pm.
I'm the decider and there ain't a fuc-ing thing you can do about it !!! I be jorge booosh and i approve dis message !!!!
reply
If we can find deleted child porn on a computer...
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 6:22pm.
It does take a rocket scientist to know the technology is available to read those emails and besides the RNC was good enough to have them as well
reply
Response
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 5:07pm.
And this is the Democratic Misleadership's response to more evidence the Bush Regime has committed Impeachable offenses -
.
reply
look to 'the sopranos' for insight
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 3:38pm.
how many different ways are the bush adminsitration demonstating, over and over again, that they are acting like a criminal enterprise. they don't want records of their activities, they only want to stay in power and do whatever they want. looks like a criminal enterprise, acts like a criminal enterprise...hey, it must be a criminal enterprise. regardless of the expensive clothing and conservative grooming...these people are thugs.
what we need is an insider techie with a conscience to speak up. come on over to the light!
reply
someone might want to check
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 2:31pm.
Someone might want to secure and check all users’ computers that may have been used to send or receive White House emails; even if these computers were not backed up, copies of the emails that were ‘deleted’ may be sitting on them; user ‘deleted’ and actually deleted are two different things, though most users don't know this.
Someone might want to check White House backups of users’ computers and servers; then check backups of users’ computers and servers anywhere from which emails were sent to the White House and anywhere to which emails were sent by the White House. It's unlikely that emails sent to places like the Congress and the CIA and the Justice Department, and RNC, newspapers, personal computers and the ISPs they use (Gmail, MSN, Yahoo), etc., were all deleted from users’ computers, servers and backups as well.
Then someone might want to check the NSA databases and their backups for any White House or related emails wiretapped and stored there. Mark Klein (AT&T) said they tapped everything.
There may be hard copies wandering around too; and the memos requesting them as well. And don’t forget the email attachments; they must be everywhere and of every variety, including digitally scanned items.
Someone might want to just hire a forensics specialist.
Remember there was a bunch of software that was developed for analyzing all the data the NSA collected that was never moved from ‘test’ to ‘production’, which would have required legal approval it never received. It was in ‘test’ mode for five years or so; who knows how much data may have been collected and stored for that purpose as well.
Also, someone might want to check if someone on the intelligence side of Washington already has these emails or copies of them and a lot more.
reply
re: Someone might want to check
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 6:52pm.
Uh... the dog ate em. Yeah, that's right.
reply
correctly and completely going forward?
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 2:19pm.
Given this unfortunate state of affairs, it would be best if a verification that the current processes in place are working could be instituted to ensure all appropriate backups and documentation are being done correctly and completely going forward.
Something as benign as a fire in a wiring closet could damage connections between user computers and servers necessary to ensure everything is properly backed up. It could even look like the system is working if you didn't know some of the computers were not connected and so were missing from the backups; their absence from the backups might not get documented.
reply
Nothing "Standard" about these IT practices
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 1:58pm.
Nobody over the age of 17 with any practical IT experience can say with a straight face that this is in conformance with standard information technology practices.
They lost data. All the data. Odd as it may sound that is more difficult, way more difficult, than losing some of the data. It is so difficult that it is likely to be deliberate or a hollow firewall to stop people from looking.
Somebody has the data. In fact it's likely that lots of people have pieces of the data and they are clutching it as a get out of jail free card.
Keep up the good work CREW.
reply
Redundancy
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 3:20pm.
I couldn't agree more. The point of a disaster recovery system is to collect all email in the system. There would be multiple backup copies of these emails, because each backup is a cumulative sweep of all email. A person might ask: Get me the backup performed in the last week in March. That backup would contain much more than just the emails done in March, but all emails stored in the system up to the date of the backup. Systems people I know back up more frequently than once a month.
Now we are to believe that NOT ONLY THE INITIAL emails were destroyed, but ALL of the backups over a period of several years? This is not industry practice, and it can't be an accident. If the email is really gone, it was an orgy of data destruction.
Besides all the other pre-2003 White House activity already pointed out, the White House contacted phone companies to start their illegal surveillance program in February, 2001. Note: the first meeting was not "after 9/11" as characterized in many media reports. It thus appears the WH destroyed all emails on this subject, or is trying mightily to keep them from seeing the light of day.
All the best,
Guilty Bystander
reply
Missing e-mails
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 1:39pm.
I have a question.
These seem to be impeachable offenses. Who will ultimatley be held responsible for hatch Act violations?
reply
March of 2003 also was when the US DHS opened its doors
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 1:18pm.
CREW missed another important event that happened during the time the emails were destroyed, as were the backup tape records. The US DHS opened its doors in March of 2003. DHS is apart of the Executive Branch and we have no way of learning what instructions the White House was giving the DHS via email from 3/03-10/03. Also, Karl Rove was actively violating the Hatch Act during the 3/03-10/03 time frame that no email records anymore exist. This includes he was violating the Hatch Act at the US DHS.
reply
DHS emails
Submitted by Anonymous on 17 January 2008 - 12:40am.
DHS backups will have those; everything sent, everything received.
reply
White House Thugs
Submitted by Anonymous on 16 January 2008 - 6:48pm.
Rove, Cheney, Bush and others will make Watergate
and Nixon appear Angelic. Evil people all of them.
Treason should be at the top of the list for all of them.
Visit Our Site
Post a Comment