Log In | Sign Up | February 17, 2008
  • Home
  • Politics
  • Media
  • Business
  • Entertainment
  • Living
  • 23/6
choate, Karl Rove, rove prep school speech, rove speech canceled, speech rove choate
choate, Karl Rove, rove prep school speech, rove speech canceled, speech rove choate

Karl Rove Drops Prep School Speech

January 28, 2008 04:04 PM EST | AP


stumbleupon :Karl Rove Drops Prep School Speech   digg: Karl Rove Drops Prep School Speech   reddit: Karl Rove Drops Prep School Speech   del.icio.us: Karl Rove Drops Prep School Speech

WALLINGFORD, Conn. — Following protests from students, former presidential adviser Karl Rove has withdrawn as this year's commencement speaker at a prestigious prep school, the school's headmaster said Monday.

The choice of Rove as speaker for the June commencement at Choate Rosemary Hall had led some students to plan to walk out of the ceremony. Others had sought to bring comedian Stephen Colbert to campus for an alternate speech.

Instead of commencement, Rove now will speak at the school on Feb. 11, headmaster Edward J. Shanahan said. Shanahan said he will deliver the commencement address at the school, the alma mater of John F. Kennedy and Adlai Stevenson.

Shanahan said he had asked seniors for their opinions on the proposed commencement speech and many said they wanted to hear from Rove _ but at some time other than commencement.

He said they also were concerned that outsiders might disrupt graduation if Rove appeared in June.

In an e-mail to students and staff Monday, Shanahan quoted Rove as saying: "I would not want 12 minutes of remarks to be used as an excuse by a small group to mar what should be a wonderful day of celebration for the members of the 2008 graduating class and their families, so I am delighted to instead accept Choate's invitation to speak on campus Feb. 11."

"He was more than understanding," Shanahan wrote to the students. "He was gracious and generous in his thinking about you and 'your day.'"

Rove, one of President Bush's most influential advisers, left the administration last year.

Comments for this post are now closed


Comments (365)

0 comments pending

FAQ: Comments & Moderation | FAQ: Huffpost Accounts

Post a comment

Tip

collapse  nattymarge50 (See profile | I'm a fan of nattymarge50)

I am amazed at some of the comments on this board. There are some gross misperceptions here. First and foremost, the students at Choate are not spoiled rich brats, but that's the perception of many. Are there some children of wealth that attend the school? Certainly, but they are in the minority. Fact: approx 70% of the of the students recieve some level of financial aid, and many are attended under full scholarship. So this is not a group that is made up of the rich and elite, rather the middle class. Secondly, folks are missing the point all together why the kids protested. Their protest had nothing to do with being conservative or liberal and EVERYTHING to do with moral fiber. School's motto: Fidelity and Integrity. These students had every right to voice their opinions and concerns. In the end they were heard. They never stated that Mr. Rove was not welcomed on campus, they stated they did not want him as a commencement speaker.
Mr. Shanahan took great care in calling a meeting with the senior class. He listened to their concerns, he saw first hand the angst created by this whole mess. Then Mr. Shanahan took action. I applaud these students for speaking up, because their voice in mass, created change. I applaud Mr. Shanahan for taking action to ease the angst.
I am a parent of one of these hard working students, so I understand first hand the situation. Take your liberal verses conservative arguments elsewhere.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Common sense. Your children exercised common sense as well as moral fortitude in the matter, as clearly did Mr. Shanahan.

Rove would no more be an appropriate commencement speaker, than any number of fellow travelers of his one could care to name. IMHO that was never the point, as I have argued here (and I am no liberal).

I for one appreciate your speaking up, and sharing the demographics of your school.

Respectfully,

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  nattymarge50 (See profile | I'm a fan of nattymarge50)

Leland, thanks for your comments. If you were to look at all the boards regarding the subject of Rove speaking at Choate,the matter has been so twisted out of context. I am proud they banned together and respectfully spoke their minds. These kids have already played a role in history by being part of the largest graduating class in US history. They have also faced the most rigerous and competitive college application process of all time. They don't need additional angst than they already endured. Again, kudos to them, kudos to Mr. Shanahan for listening to them. There is great tolerance at Choate.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"There is great tolerance at Choate"

How does banning a speaker indicate "tolerance?"

Ignorance is Strength!

collapse  nattymarge50 (See profile | I'm a fan of nattymarge50)

Perhaps you didn't read the latest threads or news. Karl Rove was not banned from the school..matter of fact he is speaking to the entire student body on Feb 11th.
It's too bad that you have chosen to be so negative. It's obvious you enjoy the name calling game. Perhaps in your mind is the narrow one,.

collapse  nattymarge50 (See profile | I'm a fan of nattymarge50)

By the way TimmySlagle, I'v been a long term Republican...35 plus years...I would expect more from a fellow Republican.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

Sorry, didn't mean to offend.

It just seems weird that you would congratulate a school for being tolerant after they essentially booed a speaker offstage.

It seemed like an Orwellian remark. I surmise that you meant there is great tolerance at Choate DESPITE the appearance of intolerance indicated by the recent events.

Again, sorry.

collapse  nattymarge50 (See profile | I'm a fan of nattymarge50)

TimmySlagle, no one has been booed off stage. I am a proud parent of one of these Choaties, and the students are eager to hear what Rove has to say, now that he will be speaking on 2/11 and not commencement. I am most confident that they will engage Mr. Rove in some very thoughful conversation during his visit to the school. tolerance is saying "we welcome you to speak, but just not on graduation day". Again this was never a "liberal verses conservative" protest from these students. It was an issue of moral fiber..as a Republican, I have to admit, Mr. Roves ethics have been highly questionable. The angst which students felt on campus 2 weeks ago is now virtually nonexistent. Trust me, on the whole, this is a very bright, respectful collection of students.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

I beg to differ.

If the date and location had to be altered, because of the threat of protest, it is virtually being booed off the stage.

And it would be impossible to find ANY commencement speaker from the political realm who isn't without controversy. Perhaps from now on, Miss America should be the commencement speaker.

Saying "we welcome you to speak, but just not on graduation day" is no more tolerant than saying "of course you can stay at this Hotel, as long as you come through the back door."

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

How so?

I do not think blacks in the south would agree with you. It is another pathetic argument!

collapse  nattymarge50 (See profile | I'm a fan of nattymarge50)

TimmySlagle, I guess we can respectfully agree to disagree on this matter. Perhaps if it were your kid, attending that school, you would feel and see it differently. By the way it wasn't just the concerns of student protests, but protests from outside sources. Commencement will be filled with joy, not angst and concern...that's what matters to us..

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Perhaps if it were your kid, attending that school, you would feel and see it differently"

You're right, I probably would. If my pride and joy were wearing a Choate crest on his navy blue blazer, I would be hard pressed to say anything negative about the school.
And I don't think the decision of the school to re-schedule the Rove speech was not the right one. A commencement is too special to have it ruined by a bunch of rude kids.

I just think it's a shame, that liberals have to be so intolerant.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, those poor high school students have ruined our democracy with their voice of dissent and if they want to become an expert at ruining a democracy they should just follow the ramblings of Rove.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

The real reason Rove pulled out of the speech was that he wanted immunity to speak at the school and school administrators said they did not have authority to give it to him.

collapse  JohnKemp (See profile | I'm a fan of JohnKemp)

WOW!

College rich kids & their actions.

Really front-page stuff.

I can only imagine that they crawled home & cried to their rich daddies about "the inhumanity of it all."

Imagine, having to listen to someone with whom you disagree.

Why don't they go & buy a pair of Birkenstocks instead?

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Wow! John Kemp, who appears to have tired of arguing that the North started the American Civil War, still defending his "Gang of Pedophiles" party with red herrings and nonsense!

Check this one out, Johnny Reb:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

Care to comment on how your vaunted "party of family values" more resembles the Adams Family on meth?

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  nattymarge50 (See profile | I'm a fan of nattymarge50)

Choate is a private high school, not a college. By the way, 70% of the student body is on some level of financial aid. These kids are anything but spoiled rich brats, actually the majority of the students are from middle class familes...lastly they are incredibly tolerant and don't run to their daddies. How do I know, I'm a parent of one of these kids.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Rove and Rush Limbaugh have a strong resemblance. Is it possible, they are the same person?

I think one good thing about the Bush presidency is that now any child thinks he or she can grow up to be president. If someone as dumb as Bush could make it, then anyone can.

collapse  Tankan (See profile | I'm a fan of Tankan)

Karl only looks stupid!

He's really very intelligent, in an twisted sorta way!

collapse  Economike (See profile | I'm a fan of Economike)

So was the unibomber.

collapse  speakingtruth2power (See profile | I'm a fan of speakingtruth2power)

good and relevant point

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, I agree he has an intelligence whereby he can justify anything.

collapse  KansasKowboy (See profile | I'm a fan of KansasKowboy)

The school was probably locked into paying him whether he showed up or not. So they decided to have him talk, just not at graduation.

collapse  lthuedk (See profile | I'm a fan of lthuedk)

collapse  nancytheragingliberal (See profile | I'm a fan of nancytheragingliberal)

Yes, the stench lingers. The Rove beast continues to wander deep in the bowels of the earth, plotting more mayhem and destruction. Why not? He has had more than 30 years of on-the-job practice. Why stop now? He continues to weave his web of destruction. The comment, "He was gracious and generous in his thinking." The devil was charming and gracious too-----Just a friendly reminder my fellow bloggers.

collapse  weddedgay (See profile | I'm a fan of weddedgay)

In a way I am almost sad to see this. I had already imagined various ways the students could protest Rove's speach: silently standing and turning their backs on the evil before them, or perhaps all of them standing and reciting the Pledge of Alegence starting in a whisper and growing into a shout etc.

Interesting that Rove and the headmaster see the idea of a protest as spoiling the ceremony, and I see a protest as making the ceremony meaningful.

collapse  wadenelson1 (See profile | I'm a fan of wadenelson1)

Amen, bro, amen.

collapse  xcrunner77 (See profile | I'm a fan of xcrunner77)

Far better not to invite such evil into one's home. They can still protest when he speaks at the school.

Way to go, Choate students! Thank you for showing that the younger generation does have morals and a sense of decency. You have done your school proud.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, you are so right. Parents should not let school administrators turn these kids into little automatons. Students should voice their complaints in creative ways. Let Rove know what disdain the country has for him. He is loathsome!

After the speech, the school should hire shamans to spiritually purify the place where Rove has been and remove all the bad karma. Students should wear garlands of garlic around their necks during the speech to protect them from evil spirits.

collapse  Mike169 (See profile | I'm a fan of Mike169)

Rove - not welcome in the halls of the elite? Maybe he can go share some fried squirrel with Huckabee as he galvanizes the Christo-fascists at Bob Jones High School.

collapse  skizziks (See profile | I'm a fan of skizziks)

......why did they get Rove.....was O.J. not available ??......

collapse  Mike169 (See profile | I'm a fan of Mike169)

As a Bills fan I have to take exception to the OJ remark. Rove is a despicable scumbag whose policies have helped destroy this country, limit political involvement and abet the rise of Christfascism. Juice was never convicted of any criminal act and was one of the greatest running backs in the NFL history. Rove can just about waddle.

collapse  Cybesq (See profile | I'm a fan of Cybesq)

Sorry, there's a problem when you are more interested in your football team than a woman with a slit throat left on a walkway outside the house where her children were sleeping. O.J. may not have been convicted criminally, but he was found civilly liable for the brutal deaths of two people. Maybe you just spent too many Bills' losing seasons sitting in the stands and ended up with brain frostbite.
Rove is scum and every bit in the same league as O.J. He didn't wield a knife but his actions are clearly responsible for needless deaths, American and Iraqi.

collapse  rbspickles (See profile | I'm a fan of rbspickles)

And people are saying our kids don't have a clue. WAY TO GO YOUNG CHOATITES!!!! You have given me my hope back. Thank you!!! You make me proud, once again, to be an American!

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"WAY TO GO YOUNG CHOATITES!!!! "

Yes, we should all applaud their narrow minded victory. How dare their headmaster attempt to expose those poor kids to a contrary opinion. Why you might as well through four years of liberal brainwashing right down the drain.

One Party, one people, one nation!

Stalin would be proud,

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

A contrary opinion is one thing, a lying, cheating, traitorous creep is quite another.

Rove is the symbol of corruption for more than 1/2 the American population. Why would anyone besides the people at Regent and other NARROW-MINDED "universities" want a criminal speaking at a commencement ceremony.

The beginning of their real lives beyond school should be heralded by a reputable spokesperson who can speak honestly and helpfully. Rove, who is a known liar and who is responsible for treasonous acts against the American people, is incapable of honesty and would only color the ceremony with his hypocrisy and lies.

This small man with his bag of dirty tricks would only serve to make the graduates feel like they needed to take a bath after listening to him.

I'm proud of our young people and I'm glad they stood up for what's right.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Rove is the symbol of corruption for more than 1/2 the American population"

Actually, it's about half. The other half of America thinks he is a brilliant political advisor. But that half rarely gets heard, because they're civilized. You never hear about anyone protesting a Sandy Berger commencement address.

Republicans believe in free speech.

Democrats believe in shouting down the opposition.
(..and you're proud of it too.)

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

um..., sure, whatever you say...

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes , I am sure Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly belief in free speech. Just tell them they don't and they will shout you down!

collapse  Unsui (See profile | I'm a fan of Unsui)

Here is an excellent use of the Rovian tactic of accusing your opponent of exactly what you are guilty of. I love it: Rove's political tactics are "civilized"?!! "Rarely heard"?! Shmeagle, that is rich, really rich.
Bye the bye, since when do Republicans believe in "Free Speech"? Isn't it the Rove operatives who had people arrested if they wore offensive (to Bushies) T-shirts or carried signs opposing Bush/Cheney during Republican Rallies?

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Rove's political tactics are "civilized"?!! "Rarely heard"?!"
That's not what I said. I said that the Republicans are civilized, and their opposition to a speaker is rarely heard. Republicans will sit patiently and quietly through the most offensive Leftist diatribe.

Whether it's a Kucinich supporter screaming in the audience of a talk show, a bunch of Naked Vegetarians at a fashion show, or Code Pink members disrupting a session of Congress, the noisemakers are usually Liberals.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Republicans love authority, therefore they may sit politely through any speech. However, argumentation and evidence does not sway them. Ideological beliefs are all that is important. And if conservatives are so civilized, what about all the pundits on Fox News who constantly shout down anyone who disagrees with them or calls them traitors.

Democrats like and encourage debate and consequently, can sometimes reach no consensus. Republicans like decision-making done in a very top-down, hierarchical manner and not all that messy democracy and arguing.

I agree with Unsui that never has political speeches and rallies been as screened as under the Bush presidency. A man or women was arrested in, I belief, Texas for wearing an anti-war t-shirt. People who go to Bush rallies must sign statements whereby they swear they are supporters. Questions are pre-approved. Dissenters are stationed 1/2 mile from Bush's limo route. As a result, Bush is probably one of the most out of touch presidents in history.

Even among staffers dissent is not tolerated. General Shenseki was fired for disagreeing on troop levels needed in Iraq. Larry Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was fired for saying the Iraq war would cost $200 billion. The list goes on and on.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Democrats like and encourage debate"

That is nothing more than a load of hooey. Any dissent from the Democrat dogma is categorized as racism or sexism are any one of the half dozen pejoratives you use to squash dissent.

Gays and Blacks who are Conservatives are called awful names; names that would result in forced resignation if a Republican or Don Imus ever used them.

My favorite quote, from Al Gore, sums up the standard Democrat position quite nicely:

"The Debate is over"

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

"Gays and Blacks who are Conservatives" are dramatically outnumbered by those who are not.

"Repedophiles" are outnumbered by registered Democrats by a,most two-to-one nationally IIRC. And that's not including *independents* like myself who have had it up to the proverbial *here* with the corruption, malfeasance, and venality of the "Gang of Pedophiles" and their satanic chimp of an excuse for a president these past seven years from Hell.

Al Gore didn't lose the popular vote; Chimpy was *appointed* by a stacked Supreme Court after his bro Jeb pulled the Florida secretary of state's leash and had her stop any recount.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Repedophiles" are outnumbered by registered Democrats by a,most two-to-one nationally "

You got a link for that?

If it IS true, I would suggest that the popular Democrat tactics of registering dead people, illegal aliens, and others not eligible to vote, might be the culprit.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Al Gore didn't lose the popular vote; Chimpy was *appointed* by a stacked Supreme Court after his bro Jeb pulled the Florida secretary of state's leash and had her stop any recount."

First of all, we don't elect Presidents by popular vote. In fact, we don't really vote for Presidents at all. (Time to read your Constitution). State Legislatures appoint electors, who vote for President. The Florida Legislature was being blocked from certifying the Florida Electors by the Florida State Supreme Court (Whis was 100% Democrat --- talk about "stacked")

The SCOTUS didn't "appoint" Bush, they stopped Gore and the Florida Supreme Court from stealing it.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Wow, Timmy! You're idea of reasoning is of the sort I viewed in case studies of paranoid schizophrenics; routinely delusional.
Here's a link for your edification:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
This is what you and your fellow travelers are defending so slavishly.
Stunning. The party of "family values" and "superior morals." You can put all the lipstick you want on that hog, Timmy, but it's still a hog.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

But clearly IMHO homophobic. One need only review your profile to understand where you get your lunatic fringe belief system from (Rush Limbaugh).

You are truly to be pitied.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Well then, you have not been paying attention. Katherine Harris, the very partisan Secretary of State in Florida did everything in her power to throw the election to Bush (and afterward Bush discarded her in her Senate campaign.) Her office disenfranchised thousands of black voters, claiming they had a recored because they may have shared a common name with someone who did, etc. RNC representatives staged a fake march where the recount was taking place pretending they were the citizens of Florida and demanding the recount end. In their decision throwing the election to Bush, U.S. Supreme Court Justices pointed out the ruling was not meant to be used as a precedent. It was that partisan and poorly reasoned. And the subsequent eight years of Bush chaos and misrule speaks for itself.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

It wasn't as partisan as you think. The original decision was 7-2 that the recount Gore was attempting was unconstitutional.

And as I said before, the votes are irrelevant anyway. The US Constitution recognizes the authority of the State Legislature to appoint electors, NOT the actual vote.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

What could possibly be unconstitutional about a recount in a hotly contested election?

What are going to do next ban books?

The state legislature appoints any electors it wants, why have popular elections then? The people should stay home and have a cookout. Leave the messy election to the partisan legislature to deliver it to their party. This must be the conservative idea of how elections work.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"What could possibly be unconstitutional about a recount in a hotly contested election?"

Gore only wanted to recount the districts where he was the favorite. The Supreme Court agreed 7 to 2 that was a violation of the equal protection clause. It was that decision that halted the recount.

"This must be the conservative idea of how elections work."

No, it is the Constitutional idea of how the President would be elected. (The Constitution --You should read it sometime.) That all 50 State Legislatures have agreed to appoint electors based on the popular vote within the States, is a right granted by the individual States, not a Constitutional necessity.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, of course we have an electoral college, but the state legislators must follow the will of the popular vote.

Bush v. Gore was a per curiam opinion which courts usually decide as a whole. In this case, it was done in this matter because none of the Justices wanted to be associated with its content. It held the Florida method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional by a 7-2 decision.

By a 5-4 decision, the court held that no alternative method could be decided within the time limits established by the Florida legislature. This was the operative part of the opinion and was decided along traditional partisanship lines.

Florida recount law allows a candidate to request a county to county manual recount, and Gore requested recounts in four counties.

Floride recount law requires all counties to certify their election returns within seven days of the election and several of the counties requiring recounts did not belief they could meet this deadline. Three of the four counties that Gore requested a recount in did not meet the seven day deadline. The Florida Secretary of State, the busty Katherine Harris, would not extend the filing deadline.

The five Justice majority ordered the recount stopped three days before the December 12th safe harbor deadline arrived. This decision was highly criticized.

As for the Equal Protection clause argument, how can one have different counties counting the vote in the same way when each county had different methods of casting ballots, some had optical scanners, etc.?

Justice Stevens said in his dissent: "Time may one day heal the wound inflicted to that confidence (in the rule of law) that will be inflicted by today's decision." He went on to say, we may never know the winner in this years presidential election, but the loser is perfectly clear. "It is the nation's confidence in the Judge as the impartial guardian of the law."

Many legal scholars say the decision was corrupt.

And your remarks do not take into account all Katherine Harris' shenanigans to disenfranchise voters before the election.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, that is why the candidates in the Democratic primary look like America and the Republican candidates are all white men who would not even debate in front of a black forum. Shame on them!

Al Gore was simply summing up scientific concensus. One can debate all one wants. For example, in some circles, they are debating whether the earth is flat or round or some other more interesting shape.

Where was the debate within the administration leading up to the Iraqi war? Where were the voices that argued it would not be a cakewalk or that the Shia and Sunni had centuries of grievances between them? Where was the debate that our presence would not be long tolerated, as all other occupying armies and colonists have been kicked out of their occupied territories? Britain and France have a good deal of experience with losing their empires.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

By the way, it is the conservative movement that maligns gays most forcibly and even tries to change their sexual identity, using therapies that have long been scoffed at by the medical community. (Your friend Karl Rove learned this lesson well, putting anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot during the last presidential election. Remeber him, Rove?)

And conservatives have been most vociferously using state's rights arguments to suppress blacks through the years and are most active in voter suppression campaigns that attempt to deny blacks and other minorities their voting rights. It is Republicans who benefit from these tactics.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

" putting anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot during the last presidential election"

Another Democrat Myth.

Bush actually LOST the States where gay marriage was on the ballots.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Well, then, it is not a myth if they were there then, right? If I recall, there was such an initiative on the Ohio ballot and I suppose it just materialized through thin air? And, of course, the larger question is, which you seem to ignore because you adopt a Sean Hannity argumentation style where you always change the point, what were they doing there in the first place? Is this an issue that affects the lives of average working citizens? (Aren't these the very tactics you praise Rove for the use of, by the way? Otherwise, what is his value?)

And what ever happened to your friend, Rick "man and dogs may marry" Santorum.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"There were no data that supported the notion that Bush gained votes because of the gay-marriage ballot measures, let alone that the measure had won the election for him. In fact, the data suggested that he would have done better if the gay-marriage proposals had not been on the ballot.In states that voted on the gay-marriage ban, Bush increased his vote share from 53.33% in the 2000 election to 54.17% in the election just past. That's an increase of 0.84%. In states where gay-marriage bans were not on the ballot, Bush increased his vote share from 48.82% to 50.78%. That's an increase of 1.96%. Bush's vote share rose more than twice as much in states where voters didn't have a chance to ban gay marriages."

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_01/bradford-election.html

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Are you arguing Rove was unnecessary to the outcome of the election? Bush could have saved his consultancy fee then.

Besides an argument of whether something worked or not is very different from what it was intended to accomplish and the morality of putting such a measure on the ballot to begin with. It was intended to increase the turnout of religious fundalmentalists and conservative voters. As I said, whether or not it worked is a different matter. (And given you know all those statistics, whether true or not, I suggest you get out more often than now.)

But I like how you attempt to reduce everything to a Sean Hannity style of argumentation. Keep trying!

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Tim, denied any science lately? Your party denies it on the one hand with global warming and invents it on the other with intelligent design. At least, you are equal opportunity fibbers.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

On the evidence that just seems to keep mounting (they've bagged one of Romney's aides), the "Repedophiles" "love" more than just authority:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  Hughsie (See profile | I'm a fan of Hughsie)

Republicans believe in free speech? For 7 long years we have had "President Stupid" afraid to speak to anything but a hand picked,partisan crowd who had to vow a LOYALTY OATH to get in!They don't shout Democrats down, THEY DON"T EVEN LET THEM IN!!P.S. You're a Moron. Drink some more of the Bush,Cheney,Rove etc, KOOL AID!

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

Please cite me an example of Republicans being knowingly admitted into a Democrat event.

Hand picking a crowd is not a Partisan tactic, it is completely Bipartisan.

But how does screening an audience infringe on "speech" anyway? Audiences aren't there to speak, they're there to LISTEN.

I think you just unintentionally illustrated my point. Democrats don't go to Listen, they go to disrupt.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

"But how does screening an audience infringe on "speech" anyway?"

Jeez, you're so programmed you don't understand what we're talking about, anyway. It appears that all you're capable of is defending Rove and his type of tactics, regardless of whether you make sense or not.

BTW, Bush is the president of the U.S., not the Republic of the Republicans. The fact that he only speaks at republican gatherings AND anyone with a dissenting opinion is excluded from these gatherings is very unAmerican.

The republicans and Bush have disenfranchised the majority of the American public. And you claim republicans believe in free speech.

You don't even know what free speech is.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"anyone with a dissenting opinion is excluded from these gatherings is very unAmerican"
but if they're excluded, how do you explain THIS:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/war_protester_amazingly.html
Okay, then what would you say about a President that actually ARRESTED protesters at a public appearance?
http://www.justicejunction.com/government_clinton_rejects_freedom_of_speech.htm

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

Jeez. You blow my mind. To refute me you attach a link to an article that underscores what I said. The article is about a protester, ONE protester, allowed to stay at a Bush event. The article even implied that Bush's handlers might get into trouble for the oversight.

Your next link about someone getting arrested at one of President Clinton's events is contained in a newpaper that also posts essays from Timothy McVeigh against the government and asks for comments on McVeigh's garbage.

Whew! You're one bright guy. Maybe you should read the links before you post them.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"s contained in a newpaper that also posts essays from Timothy McVeigh"

Classic Ad Hominem attack. I only used that link, because it gave a nice summation of the incident. If you doubt the veracity, here's the Sun Times Article:
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=headline(Couple%20charged%20after%20Clinton%20visit)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=title&p_text_advanced-0=(%22Couple%20charged%20after%20Clinton%20visit%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=nol

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

Your first link is an article that pretty much underscores what I said. It is about one protester, one, who was allowed to stay at a Bush event. The article even says people wondered if it was an oversight by Bush's handlers and questioned whether they'd be admonished for it.

The second link is an article about President Clinton and two protesters who were arrested at his event years ago. However, the article was very sketchy. What is more noteworthy is that the same journal with the Clinton article also had a article posting Timothy McVeigh's antigovernment rantings and asked for reader input on the validity of McVeigh's words and ideas. Hmmmm...,



collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

whoops! sorry

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

No, you argument is very well said! (Although I can not recommend reading Tim's links, which may lead to madnesss and involuntary confinemnt.)

Bush is famous for being intolerant of dissent. He is shielded and protected from it by his minions. Many visitors to the White House have commented on how even Bush top adviser's like Rice are very obsequious to him and shield him from adverse opinion. He is treated as a infant. This reason is likely why his policies are so disastrous and unpopular.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Hillary recently spoke here in town. Volunteers were giving out tickets to the event on the street. No attempt was made to screen voters by party. What America do you live in, where you think in a rally of thousands no Republicans can get in and listen to a speech? Are we all painted red or blue depending on our party preference? Only Bush screens to this degree. One must sign a pledge when entering that one is a loyal Bushie and then officials are told in advance how to deal with dissenters.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

If Rove did not change his testimony to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzerald after testifying to a grand jury four times about the Valerie Plame outing, he would be in jail right now. He lied until he found out he was still a focus of the prosecution, then he managed to remember the events truthfully.

Rove will probably go to jail if Congress ever get the documents behind the politicalization of the Justice Department that included firing Assistant Attorney General's for not bringing voter fraud cases against Democrats even after their investigations indicated there was no voter fraud.

Again, he is only a brilliant political operator because he will do absolutely anything to get his candidate elected, including bugging his own office and blaming the opposition, painting Vietnam vets like McCain and Kerry as traitors, and the same of former Senator Max Cleland who lost both legs in Vietnam. Rove has no moral boundaries.

His other policy successes include runaway deficits, endless warfare, a divided nation, a failed presidency, tax cuts for the wealthy, politicized intelligence on the war, etc.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"a divided nation'

Oh please. The Nation is divided, because you guys still refuse to accept Gore's loss way back in 2000.

It's not the division that bothers you, it's that half of the Nation is still Republican, and refused to get in line.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

What bothers me is the irresponsibility, criminal way Bush has ruled. Wiretapping his own citizens, using the war to divide people, torturing in the name of security, raping our other civil liberties, decimating the good name and authority of the Justice Department, manipulating intelligence. Need I go on?

I like the mindless way you pull two or three words out of an argument and choose to respond to that and ignore everything else? You have mastered the classic Sean Hannity, Fox News argumentation style where no facts are relevant, but the game is only to score a few cheap rhetorical points.

This is a coward's way to argue and it does not address how Rove and Bush have maligned what is otherwise a great country. They have exposed the weaknesses in our system by undermining checks and balances and treating Congress as a bastard stepchild.

They have chosen sycophantic lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel who give them authority to do anything and even advise them they can ignore laws and treaties in a time of warfare.

The President has also employed signing statements detailing what parts of legislature he will ignore. The man is a disaster.

For a look at how Rove politicized the entire workings of government see former Treasury Secretary's Paul O'Neill's book The Price of Loyalty written by Ron Suskind. It desribes many of Rove's Machianvellian ways and behind the scenes manipulations.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

If Rove did not change his testimony to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzerald after testifying to a grand jury four times about the Valerie Plame outing, he would be in jail right now. He lied until he found out he was still a focus of the prosecution, then he managed to remember events truthfully.

Rove will probably go to jail if Congress gets the documents behind the politicalization of the Justice Department that included firing Assistant Attorney General's for not bringing voter fraud cases against Democrats, even after their investigations found no evidence of voter fraud.

Again, he is a brilliant political operator only because he will do absolutely anything to get his candidate elected, including bugging his own office and blaming the opposition, painting Vietnam vets like McCain and Kerry as traitors, and the same with former Senator Max Cleland who lost both legs in Vietnam. The man knows no moral boundaries. None!

His other policy accomplishments include runaway deficits, endless warfare, a divided nation, a failed presidency, tax cuts for the wealthy, politicized intelligence on the war, etc. Although Rove was bright enough not to mention Bush's name at all at a recent speech he gave.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Timmy,
clearly you dwell in a parallel universe. The "Repedophiles" only believe in free speech when it suits their corporatist agenda. You Freudian projection behavior is quite pathetic, really.
Civilized? Give me a break! How is launching a war for oil and empire based upon lies about WMDs civilized?
How the Hell is bankrupting our country with runaway spending on said war and cronyism running riot through the halls of government civilized? How is enabling the continued corporatisation of our nation's healthcare system civilized, with over 47 million Americans without any health coverage, civilized?
How is continuing to neglect the needs of our Armed Forces personnel, sent into battle without adequate body armour and denying them benefits after they come home maimed, crippled for life civilized?
How is systematically signing away by presidential fiat our rights as Americans otherwise guaranteed by The Constitution, enabled by the "Gang of Pedophiles" during their majority tenure in congress?

Civilized? Only if the most corrupt and depraved among the Roman aristocracy under such as Caligula can be called civilized!

You need professional help, as you are clearly delusional.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"lies about WMDs civilized"
You see this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
Turns out President Bush didn't lie.

Saddam Lied, and Bush believed him.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

You are truly pathetic. If I said Rove was a tall, pasty, white, fat man, you'd say he was a bronzed, hard-muscled Adonis.

Get a grip, Bud, you're wrong. So Wrong!

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"you'd say he was a bronzed, hard-muscled Adonis"

No I wouldn't. I don't use terms like that. (I'm not Gay).

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

A classic rovian response. You must have taken classes. It appears that you must have learned at Karl's knee.

btw, only a closet case worries about using terms that might be "gay".

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"only a closet case worries about using terms that might be 'gay'"

Who's worried? I just pointed out that I would never think of calling Rove a bronze hard-muscled Adonis, because I never think of bronze hard-muscled Adonises.

For you, on the other hand, it's second nature. Those words slipped comfootably off your keyboard, like a silk bathrobe off of a freshly waxed chest.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Do you often think of silk bathrobes slipping off of freshly waxed chests? I think we have found the nature of the problem. Perhaps we can put you in touch with Rev. Haggard for sexual reassignment therapy?

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

Well, since I'm a woman, the idea of a silk bathrobe slipping off the freshly waxed chest of an Adonis is quite nice.

However, I do think that as a man, your reference is odd. I mean, real men don't write like you. In fact, I don't need a "freshly waxed chest" on my Adonis. I prefer a hairy chest, most women do.

Now, I have heard that gay men like the freshly waxed chests to which you so adoringly refer.

Frankly though, it makes no difference to me. I don't care if you're gay, straight, or transvestite. The paranoia about gays is usually limited to closet gays like you.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

I did not know that you were female. I did know that anyone who would the term "Bronzed Hard-Muscled Adonis" had an obvious preference.

The silk bathrobe was a joke. And it took me a LOT of work to come up with that metaphor.

And there is no blind obedience to Rove here. I just don't see the problem in letting the guy speak.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Did you say "obedience'? Do you want Rove to discipline you? Rove may volunteer.

Did you hear Rove's description of when he first saw George Bush and Bush had on a pair of jeans and cowboy boots with a can of chewing tobacco protruding from his back pocket. He described Bush as more charismatic than any man has the right to be. You and Rove may have much in common.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Well said! And Tim replies next that he did not know that you are female like that has any bearing on the subject.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Are you suppressing a homosexual identity? Perhaps that sexual confusion explains all your myriad antagonisms.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

It also explains his blind obedience to Rove.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Rove is also a closet homosexual.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

So Dubya was stupid as opposed to dishonest? Either way he is unfit to be president, as he cynically launched a war to benefit his family's cronies.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Review Timmy's profile; he admits he's a Rush Limbaugh listener (explains just about everything).
Ever notice how Timmy simply won't address any aspect of reality that contradicts his Limbaughesque world view?
The boy is textbook, just plain textbook delusional.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

BTW, I also admitted to listening to NPR.

I like being informed.

On the other hand, you (and the kids form Choate) only listen to one side of the argument, and somehow you think that makes you smarter.

I'll never understand Liberals.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Your answer makes the very point she was addressing.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

NPR? And? Clearly whatever you listen to is only meant to reinforce your preconceptions, rather than balance out the srceed of Limbaugh that you listen to with such evident devotion.

You presume much about me, Timmy. First I'm not a "liberal." I'm a Military Historian, son of an Old Corps US Marine, and a registered non-partisan voter. I have voted *Republican* in elections past, when we still had Republicans who were anything but the vile "Gang of Pedophiles" they are today.

I am a trained researcher, Timmy. I look at more than one side of the argument, as "Truth is a three-edged sword." My conclusions remain the same on this subject matter, however, because the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that the Supreme Court appointed excuse for a president and his party are corrupt, venal, morally bankrupt, and interested only in seizing power and holding on to it by any means fair or foul, all the better to enrich themselves and their corporate cronies.

That you and other true believers like you slavishly defend these degenerates with a clinical disregard for any empirical evidence that contradicts the daily lies and misrepresentations spewing from whatever spokescreature this rogue administration puts up before a complicit corporate press, is what is so disgusting to behold.

That you admit that you are incapable of understanding "liberals" is the first truly honest thing you've stated on this forum. As a devotee of Rush Limbaugh, your inability to comprehend anything at all that contradicts your cult leader and his fellow travelers, is no surprise after reviewing your profile.

From where I am sitting, you are at best a sad fool, at worst a willing accomplice in the dismantling of our democracy, for the enrichment of a few very real authoritarians who care nothing for our traditions of the rule of law, our constitutional guarantees of freedom, or the very lives of our people.

It's really become that simple.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

Thank you. Well said.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Tim would probably say there is no such thing as a "registered non-partisan" voter and then return to watching Rush Limbaugh.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"and then return to watching Rush Limbaugh."

Watching the Radio?

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

No, looking at your framed poster on the wall of Rush with candles on either side of it, while listening to his voice over the radio.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

That's "looking" you said, "watching."

Ignorant fool.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, I guess you win that debate. Another example of conservative tolerance!

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

No debate.

Just pointing out that you're so ignorant, that you didn't even know that Rush's TV show was cancelled twelve years ago,

And you're foolish enough to believe, that you're well informed.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Or actually, not knowing when Rush's show was cancelled could mean I an very bright. Rush's listeners are the ones who are a little slow.

They either know it is a con and participate anyway, or they do not know it is a con and then they are really in trouble.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

No, I think Tim would say he is not dishonest, only stupid.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Well, Timmy, I just finished reviewing your profile.
By your own admission, you are a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

Now your intellectual dishonesty and utter moral bankruptcy is perfectly clear, you being a "true believer" in the Rush Limbaugh cult of personality.

I would do better to debate a brick, urging it to change into a teapot, than attempt to extract a single response from you grounded in reality and human compassion and decency.

Had I wished to spend my time in such a pursuit, I would have specialized in Abnormal Psychology; at least paranoid schizophrenics can make progress with the right medications. It's rare, but it can happen now and again...

I can only pity you, as one would pity a mad dog.

God help you, for you are truly one of the lost and the damned.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

There were many lies. Administration officials lied about the aluminum tubes argument (that they had a use in nuclear weapons), about Mohammad Atta meeting with Saddam agents in Prague, lies about Saddam attempting to purchase uranium in Niger, lies about the credibility of the the defector Curveball. The admiinistration lied again and again and simply discarded what mid-level analysts told them. Doug Feith, an ideologue, was charged with finding connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Of course, he found myriad fictional connections which did not exist. His information went directly to the vice-president, unvetted by other security agency officials. The whole thing was a sham!

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

"Republicans are civilized?!" Only if the Roman aristocrats who partied with Caligula were civilized!

The "Gang of Pedophiles" only believes in free speech for corporate advertisers. Everyone else is expected to shut up and tow the party line as espoused by Rove and his fellow corporatsist travelers.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  Passenger57 (See profile | I'm a fan of Passenger57)


Not only that,but the world already knows what Rove's "contrary opinion" is;they've heard it,they've seen it, some probably read about his history of Dirty Tricks.
It would be different if,instead of Rove,they protested some anonymous pro-Bush person without giving him a chance to speak.
True democracy was at work-something was presented,no one liked it, they protested it, and things got changed.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"True democracy was at work"

Nonsense. True democracy would have entailed a vote on the matter, and let the majority opinion take precedence.

Instead, a vocal minority threatened to disrupt the speech, and ruin it for everybody. That's not Democracy, it's closer to mob rule.

And incidentaly, Karl Rove was never charged with a crime; Sandy Berger, his predecessor, WAS (and plead guilty). Yet Berger is a very popular commencement speaker, whose speeches are NEVER protested.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Republicans see mob rule around every corner. The students at the graduation event are a captive audience. They are right to protest Rove. It is their day. They are informed and know what Rove has done to our democracy. Why receive a speaker who has used all the levers of democracy to undermine it. His goal all along was a permanent Republican majority. I guess that is not in sight at the moment.

Rove and Doug Feith have one thing in common. For the near future, at least, they can say they have never been indicted for a crime. That single accomplishment is what their years of public service has amounted to and I hope soon they no longer have even that.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"permanent Republican majority. I guess that is not in sight at the moment."

Really? Are you that secure with 51%? You Democrats consistently make the mistake of thinking you are the majority. You might have won Congress, but you're not the majority,

Thats the reason why you haven't gotten a single portion of your agenda passed in the past year. The Nation is currently split 50/50.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

So says the 26% of the population who still slavishly defend the "Gang of Pedophiles" and their corporatist agenda.

Timmy, lay off that Kool-aid.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"the 26% of the population"

That's the Presidential approval rating. Which never could be expected to rise above 50%, because the Democrats hate him. The reason it is below 50%, because (contrary to Democrat wisdom) he's not Conservative enough.

As much as you would all like to deny it, the Nation is split almost evenly. Liberal/ Conservative 50/50

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

More Rovian tactics. Let's see, Timmy and his fellow Rovites claim there are only 50% of our population who despise what the republicans have done to our country.

Hopefully then, according to Rovian tactics, we'll be so demoralized AND so stupid that we'll jump on the republican bandwagon because they're the winning party.

Timmy, don't you get it? Only through lying, cheating and illegally thwarting our system - Bush "won" the presidency with LESS THAN 50% of the popular vote.

The republicans never had the 50% you claim, otherwise, they could have won fair and square and wouldn't have resorted to the illegal tactics which were used in 2000 and 2004.

Take away the illegal dirty tricks and a republican hasn't got a chance in hell of becoming president in the 2008 November election.

Dream on, Timmy.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Bush "won" the presidency with LESS THAN 50% of the popular vote"

Not true. He handily beat Kerry by three million votes. The illegal tactics you refer to are nothing more than Democrat Mythology. If there were any grounds,or evidence of impropriety, Kerry would have pursued a lawsuit.
Perhaps the Republicans will lose in November, but I guarantee it will be by a very close margin.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

Gore won the popular vote in 2000, in spite of voter disenfranchisment conducted by Katherine Harris in Florida. It is clear that tens of thousands of legitimate voters, who were democrats, were turned away from the voting polls, illegally. This we know. You can try to rewrite it as you and yours have done since, but it doesn't change the truth. George Bush cheated and was handed an illegal win.

The voter caging and other forms of voter disenfranchisement during the 2004 election are well-documented, especially in Ohio. We've even had several republican officials admit they were involved in this disgusting activity.

Like I said, Timmy, the only way the republicans won the last two presidential elections was by cheating. Aren't you proud, Timmy. I mean this is what Rove is all about, and it worked.

But guess what, Timmy, paint it as you like, the republicans will be throughly trounced in this next election. I'd imagine that they'll lose even if they resort to their usual cheating.

Because you know what, Timmy, because the American people are sick of the incompetence, war mongering, and robbery of our national treasury at the hands of republicans.

I think you guys, and all the apparatus that supports you guys like right-wing talk show liars and Fox TV, are going in the gutter.

The fox ratings are way down. Republican donations are way down, republican voting in primaries is way down. You guys are so lame.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"George Bush cheated and was handed an illegal win."

Wait a minute.

I'll assume for a minute that you are right, and the Supreme Court appointed him.

What is "illegal" about that? Certainly if the Supreme Court has the authority to legislate (as they did with Roe v. Wade) then they have the authority to appoint a President.

And it was perfectly legal.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

You know perfectly well that I was referring to the illegal disenfranchisement of voters. If Ms. Harris hadn't done such a good job ensuring that legal voters were turned away at the polls, the vote would never have appeared to have been as close as to need a recall.

These people would have voted for Gore - thus - Ms. Harris' choosing them to disenfranchise. There were a lot of them. Enough to show the race was clearly won by Gore, had they been allowed to vote.

But then since you're such a Rovian slave, you thinks it's perfectly OK to illegally tamper with our presidential elections. I mean I guess that's what Gore deserved, right. Didn't he deserve to loose because he was too stupid to understand that he was running in a fixed election. Yeah, you guys think that was really dumb.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, it was legal, but he still cheated. The Secretary of State Katherine Harris, disenfranchised black voters. A full recount was not permitted. The Supreme Court made a highly partisan decision which it directed not be used as precedent.

Besides that is not even the issue. How Bush ruled is the issue. He has set the country back 50 years.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

So was your favorite vegetarian's rise to power. Hitler then proceeded to dismantle his country's embryonic democracy, one policy statement at a time.

Sounding a little too familiar, or does that Kool-aid inhibit your hearing as well as your reason?

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

My favorite vegetarian?

Hitler liked smoke-free workplaces, ate a vegetarian diet, and applauded school children who would shout down a commencement speech from the opposition.

Sounds more like he's on YOUR team.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

No, Timmy. You know liberals and Nazis are opposites. It's really interesting. I guess this is the new version of:

Rovian Tactic No. 101: Projecting.

I've seen this bandied about lately,"liberals are the real fascists". In fact, the author of this crazy book was on Jon Stewart, recently.

So, Timmy, that's the new theme you're sposed to post - over - and - over - and - over - again - until, the less-than-bright believe it?

Is that it?

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

" You know liberals and Nazis are opposites"

No.
I don't.

I know the Liberals THINK they oppose Hitler, but so did the Communists. But in reality there was very little difference between Nazis and Communists.

A socialist is a socialist, no matter which side of Poland you live on.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Timmy,

you are undeniably a either a delusional quack, and/or a deliberate historical revisionist with a very undemocratic agenda. Either way, IMHO you have firmly established that you have absolutely no credibility, and nothing useful to offer.

Your views are those of the white supremacists I've tangled with over the years; untroubled by the ravages of honesty, humanity, decency, or empirical evidence.

You assert that the communists did not actually oppose the fascists; amazing. Over 20 million communist Russians died on the Ostfront from 1941-45 as a direct result of the Nazi invasion, and you assert this canard with a straight face.

Fact: one of our country's greatest liberals, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, opposed your favorite vegetarian tooth and nail. Your hero Chimpy McFlightsuit's grandaddy Prescott was supporting, aiding and abetting Hitler, even after war was declared, and came within a cat's whisker of being hauled up on charges for his troubles. Only his position and political allies saved his bacon from a prison cell or even a hangman's noose.

Seems some families never learn.

That's some cause of freedom you're supporting there, Timmy, one impressive family legacy you're defending here tooth and nail.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

yawn...

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

Yes, I know the Communists fought the Nazis. That is exactly my point. They each thought they had a better idea for the future of humanity

But really, how was one any better than the other?

The American idea, is that individuals determine the future, not have it imposed on them by a faceless bureaucracy.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Timmy, your "point" was that you asserted that communists and nazis were the same. They are in fact polar ideological opposites; one seeks the dictatorship of the proletariat, the other seeks the dictatorship of an individual and a corporate aristocracy. Neither are democratic, although both love to wrap their efforts in the trappings of "freedom."

The whole point, Timmy, is that *We The People* *are* the government. Chimpy and his signing statements however, are clearly of a different mindset.

That is what this son of a WW2 US Marine has been fighting against in my own humble way these past seven and a half years, fighting against the most corrupt and venal excuse for American government since Boss Tweed infested Tammany Hall, and Ronald Reagan signed off on $435 claw hammers as "multi-directional impact generators."

Keep grabbing at straws and repeating Rush's talking points all you want, Timmy. No matter how much you assert the Rovian one-liners are the truth, they remain lies of the lowest order.
By your own words are you known as just another Kool-aid swilling Limbaugh cultist, merely another sad little troll trying to stir things up taunting the "liberals."

Congratulations, Timmy, you're now the latest in a series of internet "Bedcheck Charlies," and regarded with the same esteem by sane people everywhere.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"your "point" was that you asserted that communists and nazis were the same. They are in fact polar ideological opposites;"

My point was (and still is) that from the perspective of the individual, there is little or no difference. It's all in semantics. Under one, the corporations become the government, in the other, the government becomes the corporations.

The result is always the same.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

And yet you persist in slavishly defending an American presidential administration that has done everything short of staging its own "kristalnacht" to push for authoritarian power, and a "Night of the Long Knives" to eliminate its political rivals..

Under Bush, corporations have exerted far more influence on the highest levels of government since the age of the robber barons - defacto corporate control of government- and yet you deny what is piled before your very nose, what millions of Americans including such cranky old school conservatives such as myself can see, evidence that would be obvious to Ray Charles (a deceased blind man).

Stunning. Your capacity to ignore unpleasant facts that shake your neo-con world view is simply stunning. Truly human denial is on par with the extremes of human stupidity. I cannot yet determine which is worse, as it would seem the end results are much the same.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

I think Republicans are quite fond of corporations, as well. Did not energy companies all have a seat at the table to formulate Dick Cheney's energy bill? And Cheney went to the Supreme Court to keep their influence secret. (Conservatives also hate regulation because it can eat into corporate profits and despise trail lawyers who may hold corporations accountable.)

Therefore, if you prefer individuals over corporations support the Democrats.

Hitler's National Socialist Party was socialist in name only. In a beer hall oratory, Hitler gave a speech attacking social democrats, liberals, capitalists, communists, and, of course, the Jews. His ideology was really based on a belief in Teutonic superior and the mythology surrounding the ancient Germanic warrior Gods, along with a spirit of hardship created by the Treaty at Versailles.

But what I think you are trying to say is that communists and the fascists are different forms of authoritarian government. Both encourage nationalism, as does the far right in this country. Conservatives in America has their own streak of authoritarianism, i.e., constantly berating the free press, dismissing Congressional oversight and Congress as a check and balance to the executive, and advocating the primacy of the executive branch. Bush's signing statements are an example. Another example is John Woo's legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel instructed Bush that he can ignore treaties and domestic laws during a time of conflict. Do you agree he can, Tim? If so, you share the same streak of authoritarianism that Rove and Bush get giddy about.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

CrazyTim, you said liberals think they oppose Hitler, but so did the communists? Does this statement mean neither the liberals in America nor the coummunists in Russia really should have opposed Hitler? Perhaps if Hitler had won or would have not killed himself, we would have noticed how similar we all were and gotten along together fine. Perhaps we should make an attempt to somehow resurrect his reputation, or at least, make an apology to his family saying we were mistaken. Agree?(Perhaps liberals and Hitler have so much in common because he was a vegetarian, as Goldberg would argue.)

Your arguments veer to the really kooky and almost to lunacy.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

If he was any more conservative his name would be Mao Tse-Tung.

(And before you point out that Mao was a communist, let me say the point is that they are both authoritarians.)

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

Well didn't Mao start the Cultural Revolution?
Wouldn't that indicate a great "tolerance for change?"
Seems to me he was a Liberal.
A Chinese "Conservative," would have returned China to Imperialist Culture that existed before the Boxer Rebellion.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Mao was an ideological communist in public, and a mere despot in private who fancied himself the next Son of Heaven (emperor).

Mao was no liberal, except by your thoroughly twisted reasoning.

Chiang Kai Shek was the indeed the "conservative," in fact a functioning fascist who was receiving military aid from Nazi Germany prior to the alliance between Imperial Japan and Germany.

Chiang was so obsessed with killing Mao and his communists, that he was effectively ignoring the Japanese invasion of China until he was forcibly kidnapped by his own generals, and forced *at gunpoint* to agree to a ceasefire between the KMT and the communists, and present a "united front" against the Japanese.

Hell, Timmy, the only reason Chiang even bothered to try and defend Shanghai in 1937 was because "Big Ears" Du, the head of the notorious Green Gang that controlled all of the opium traffic in Shanghai and to whom Chiang was politically and *financially* beholden, *insisted* that Chiang do something by committing his very best troops to the fight! It was a stupid move strategically, as the Japanese unceremoniously destroyed the very best of the KMT's army divisions, and Du and his Green Gang were gutted.

But that's an authoritarian for you; politics of money and cronyism trumps good government and sound strategic planning every time.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

I think to return to its ancient warrior past of discipline and sacrificing one's life for the emperor was more what Japan had in mind during W.W.II. Really, after the war it was amazing how quickly they were able to overcome this mentality and move on.

Regarding your Mao argument, if all change is liberal, then I guess everything is liberal. I would argue, on the other hand, liberalism puts the individual at the center of things and makes an assumption of certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (sound familiar), which Mao would hardly recognize. Also, a liberal does not assume any sacrifice for the greater good of the state or the party is justifiable. In fact, a rule of law is assumed.

If all change is liberal, then a baseball team that changes the design of their uniform must be a liberal team. If a person agrees with Ron Paul or libertarian conservatism and then adopts war hawish conservatism, he must now be liberal. What if Karl Rove begins to wax his chest, is he now a liberal? This argument may get somewhat ridiculous and you may have been overdosing on too much Sean Hannity.

As an extension of your argument, the founders of our Republic must have been confirmed liberals because they advocated the most extreme change which was breaking away from the King of England to form our own nation. Therefore, we as a country are all liberal unless we want to return to being an English colony. Agree?

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

"I think to return to its ancient warrior past of discipline and sacrificing one's life for the emperor was more what Japan had in mind during W.W.II."

No it was not. The bushido of the 20th century Imperial Japanese Army was not the bushido of the samurai, as it excused and even encouraged IJA soldiers to commit atrocities against POWs and civilians alike. Non-Japanese were to be seen as expendable non-entities, as "logs" or "comfort women." No war crime was beyond the purview of the IJA soldiery, as long as it could be rationalized as serving the greater cause of victory for the emperor.

The intent of the Japanese leadership consisting of the Army generals and other professional officer corps members of the Black Dragon Society (Japanese home-grown fascists) and the Emperor Hirohito Himself was to carve out their own colonial empire at the point of an Arisaka bayonet in mainland Asia, specifically Korea, Manchuria, and most of all China. They also had designs on Soviet territories as well, but after the thrashing the Red Army administered in 1939 near the Khalkin Gol River, they got over that vainglorious ambition and refocused their efforts on China.

Two years prior to Khalkin Gol there was the Rape of Nanking, a deliberately orchestrated act of mass terrorism and atrocity designed to try and terrorize the rest of the Chinese civilian population into surrender ala Ghengis Khan. This is just part of a legacy of despicable atrocities and deliberate war crimes committed in the name of their "divine" emperor, crimes such as Unit 731 that are still not taught in Japanese schools to this day as a matter of policy.

The German people may have collectively learned to face their Nazi past and their role n the orchestration of the Holocaust. The Japanese of today could do well to learn from the Germans on this subject.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, Citizen Leland, I did not mean to excuse or downplay Japan's atrocities during and preceding the war. Perhaps my choice of words was unfortunate and I stand corrected. (I am sure in their ancient past they had no colonial ambitions and their warrior code was much different than that of the war era.) Many of their acts of cruelty during the war were unspeakable and you mentioned many.

As Germany did to their credit after the war,(as you know it is illegal in Germany and much of Europe to deny the Holocaust), Japan should have admitted the extent of their crimes and apologized to the comfort women and for their other acts of cruelty. Instead, today Japan tries to erase the mention of these horrors from their children's school texts, which is very sad and angers their neighbors. Admitting the extent of what they did and their role is the most concrete step to insuring that history does not repeat itself and would make some atonement for their carrying out these crimes.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

real,
I will refrain from going into Bushido, its origins, and its evolution. Suffice that I've been studying Far Eastern Military History for about 30 years now (ever read Hagakure?). The Japanese tradition sof war are harsh on the best of days, but personal honour has held various levels of meaning depending upon what period of Japan's blood-soaked history we're talking about.

For the most part, ruthlessness in war was expected, but intentionally slaughtering civilians after days of deliberate rape, torture, and looting *as a matter of official policy* was not something one usually finds in conjunction with the samurai; unless one looks at Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea as the first step in establishing himself as emperor of *China.*

Japan's bid for empire in the 20th century was unlike anything that nation had attempted before, and on a scale far greater than any attempted before by that island nation and its unique people. It was a catastrophe for those on the receiving end. Best to keep that in mind IMHO, as well as the continued failure on the part of the Japanese to openly confront their nation's actions during their land grab in China and the Pacific Rim. Japan, its people, and their unique culture have so much to recommend them, so much unique beauty. But it is best IMHO to temper one's natural desire to be seduced by this glorious maiden, without first confronting her terrible past.

Cheers.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

The minimum wage bill passed and Congressional ethics reform passed, as well. Necessary oversight of this corrupt administration was achieved. Democratic turnout has doubled in primaries since the last election. You guys will be trounced in the next election. Bush and Rove have buried your party.

Yours is the party that denies science, tries to suppress voter turnout, cuts taxes for the wealthy, and looks at the world with hostility and belligerency. People are tired of it!

collapse  wolfgangmo (See profile | I'm a fan of wolfgangmo)

"Yes, we should all applaud their narrow minded victory. How dare their headmaster attempt to expose those poor kids to a contrary opinion. Why you might as well through four years of liberal brainwashing right down the drain.
One Party, one people, one nation!
Stalin would be proud"
So have you ever been to the school you are talking about. It is pretty conservative and pretty right wing from its admin to its teaching staff. So what liberal brainwashing are you referring to Mr. Orwell?
Liberal [noun]: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
Stalin, in case you were in a coma during any history courses you ignored, killed all the liberals in the SU.
Timmy, take that lollypop out of your mouth and go to your room. Bad little retard. No. No.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

" tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition"

Spare me your inappropriate dictionary definitions.

Tolerant of Change? Right. How did you all feel about the Bush Tax cuts? Social Security reform? The Contract with America?

Not bound by Authoritarianism? Not in this country. Democrats ARE the Party of Authoritarianism. Democrat Liberals want laws that tell people what and where they can smoke, what they can eat, where they can live and how they drive there. They want to tell Doctors what they can charge for procedure, and McDonalds what they have to pay their employees.

Not bound by tradition? Yeah right. Look up "Stare Decisis" and "Roe v. Wade" then tell me how you Liberals aren't bound by tradition.

The true meaning of "Liberal" was lost long ago.

collapse  csavage (See profile | I'm a fan of csavage)

Hmmmm, I believe it's repubs that want to tell me who I can or can't have sex with and just how often-they want to do away with birth control.
As for telling doctors how much to charge, my reimbursements have dropped every year, including the last 8 because Bush and the Republican Congress never wanted to rewrite the Balanced Budget Act of 1997-passed by a Republican Congress, BTW.
As for minimum wage, that was a little liberal concept hatched by the labor unions-if you make more than 50 cents a day, thank a liberal.
Telling people not to smoke indoors is a bipartisan effort.
No one tells you what to eat-that's why 60% of Americans are obese. Nutritionists try to make guidelines, but that's what they are, guidelines. Please show me a law to back up your claim.
I'm not quite sure where the claim "telling people where they can live" comes from either, unless you mean doing away with low-income housing units and having poor people live in apartment complexes under the Section 8 provision, but that's the apartment owner decision to participate, not a law.
How they drive there? Hmmm, we pay anywhere from 12-34 cents per gallon in gas taxes to the feds-I'd surely like a nice highway system for that money...is that what you meant?

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"I believe it's repubs that want to tell me who I can or can't have sex with"

Well I believe you are wrong about that. Feel free to provide me with any links to the contrary.

"Telling people not to smoke indoors is a bipartisan effort."
Yeah, but the opposition was close to 100% Republican. It's no coincidence that the States who passed bans were almost monochromatically Blue.

"No one tells you what to eat...Please show me a law to back up your claim."

NYC bans trans fats in restaurantshttp://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-04-trans-fat-ban_x.htm

"I'm not quite sure where the claim "telling people where they can live" comes from either"
"How Smart Growth Fits Into Small Towns"http://www.planetizen.com/node/28893

"How they drive there? "
Should automobile fuel economy standards be tightened?http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/170157301.html

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

People can smoke in their homes, but not in the workplace. Secondhand smoke is as damaging as lighting up oneself. You complain about not being able to work in a smoke filled environment then complain about medical insurance costs.

Zoning is sometimes a fact of life. Do you want to buy a home and then have a garbage dump open on the empty lot next door?

Fuel efficiency standards should be tightened. Detroit has always met these increased efficiency standards in the past. You complain of conservation measures and then complain that we should be on the offense against terrorism when terrorism is linked to oil revenues. The oil revenues subsidize many terrorist organizations. Therefore, increasing fuel efficiency standards is important to national security.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Secondhand smoke is as damaging as lighting up oneself"

No it's not.

Got a link?

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

Could you not refute anything else besides secondhand smoke silliness?

Got a link? Got milk?

You must be paid well to play this game.

Anyone else would have the integrity to not continue to lie and post malicious shit in order to further Der Fuhrer Rove's agenda.

But didn't you get the memo? Rove's agenda is as dead as Hitler. It's time to bury them both and turn the page to a clean, honest time free of the criminals you so loyally support.

You know Karl laughs at people who are like you don't you? You see, he's a sociopath - no conscience, no allegiance to anyone but himself. He thinks people who are stupid enough to support him and do his bidding are beneath contempt. He hates you because you are so stupid to believe him.

He's a real prince. Go on, Timmy go on and write more garbage for your evil master.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Instead of me providing you with a link, why don't you ask any doctor? Is it possible to pursue information by yourself? Do you need a link to wake up and have breakfast in the morning or to tie your shoes?

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

I did.

Found out that second hand smoke is about as bad for you as a can of pop and a bag of microwave popcorn every day.

It's nowhere near as risky as actually smoking.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

collapse  Cybesq (See profile | I'm a fan of Cybesq)

Wow Timmy impressive research. Your comedy club experience is pretty much the same as a degree in pulmonary science. And a link to your own posted nonsense about popcorn? Again, WOW.
The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker"s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent -
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
How many people die a year from living in the house of someone who eats popcorn. Please, let me buy you a pack of smokes. We need to thin the herd.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

we're not talking about "living with a smoker" we're talking about working in a place where smoking is allowed.

Unless of course, you want to legislate what people are allowed to do in their own homes, which would give even more weight to my argument about you guys being Authoritarian.

And people who work in popcorn factories have a 3% chance of contracting popcorn lung. Which is way more, than the risk of contracting lung cancer by living with a smoker ( roughly 0.03%)

And the reason I posted that vanity link, was to prove that I did have a very long discussion with a cancer doctor about the topic, not because I fancy myself an authority.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

Oops, I missed a zero.
The risk of contracting lung cancer by living with a smoker is roughly 0.003%

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

How much did the cancer doctor, or Oncologist, bill you for the long discussion? They are not known for having long discussions free of charge.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

I have tried to work with your arguments, but have concluded you are looney. You have some mindless monomania where you keep repeating the same nonsense and one who argues with a loon must be crazy himself. It sounds like you have been locked in a room listening to Rush, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly for several lifetimes and have not come out for air. Then you list a link to your own screwy website. Please enjoy the company of Fox news for the rest of your life.

By the way, microwave popcorn is only bad for those who manufacture it. They develop serious respiratory illnesses. A can of pop a day will not hurt you, although maybe we should make it illegal just in case.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Men and women who drank more than one soda daily had a 48% adjusted higher prevalence and 44% higher roughly eight-year adjusted incidence of the cluster of heart disease risk factors than those who drank less, reported "
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/MetabolicSyndrome/tb/6225

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

I grudgingly have to concur on the soda issue.
But that's because of what I know, not what I read on a timmylink.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Yes, and while a can of soda may not put you at risk for heart disease, the question is begged about the effect of daily doses of High Fructose Corn Syrup, and sodium, which most sodas seem to be loaded with these days. So IIRC you may not be contributing to heart disease, but hypertension and diabetes may become a very real long term risk if one's soda habit proves to be the tipping point for acquiring the aforementioned diseases.

Food for thought (pardon the pun).

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

Actually, if you follow the link, you'll see that the risk of heart disease is the exactly the same, whether the soda you drank was regular or diet.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, I drink too many sodas myself. I meant to say one can a day probably will not hurt a person. (I drink several.) Anyway, it is funny that Tim defends smoking in the workplace and then alerts us to the dangers of drinking soda. He is a true contrarian!

Just agree with him then that Rove is a hero and he will likely start srguing the opposite. (But, I guess, this agreement is asking too much. I would feel like a traitor if I affirmed Rove.)

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"t is funny that Tim defends smoking in the workplace and then alerts us to the dangers of drinking soda"

No, I was putting the "danger" of Second Hand Smoke in proper perspective.

You said, "Secondhand smoke is as damaging as lighting up oneself"

It's not. It's not even as bad as drinking a can of pop, or microwaving a bag of popcorn.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Second hand smoke is very dangerous, indeed. Consult the American Lung Association Second Hand Smoke fact sheet:

-second hand smoke has been classified by the EPA as a known form of lung cancer for humans.

-second hand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Second hand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic.

-nonsmokers exposed to second hand smoke at work are at an increased risk for adverse health effects.

-second hand smoke causes 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

Tim, I do not mind you putting out conservative misinformation, but you should not put out misinformation on serious subjects such as this one. There is no doctor who would tell you that secondhand smoke is not a serious health risk. If you really talked to a doctor who told you so, please tell us his or her name and number here to be contacted. This is a serious issue and not to be played with.



collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Hey, Timmy! Wanna make a mouse a diabetic? Just feed him High Fructose Corn Syrup. Did you know that HFCS is found in a huge number of processed foods, bread, and more drinks than you can shake a stick at, including ostensibly healthy fruit drinks?

Did you also know that the obesity epidemic we now find ourselves in, along with the childhood diabetes epidemic raging through our land, co-incidedd nicely with the introduction of HFCS and Hydrogenated oils into our food supply by corporate food processors?
No? Didn't know that?

Or would you rather we return to the good ole' days of lasse faire capitalism, the age of the robber barons where employers didn't have to pay workers anything more than they thought they were worth, didn't have to provide sick leave, health insurance, vacation time, bereavement leave, days off...?

Personally, I can live without the trans fat being slipped into my diet by restauranteurs and food processors, I can live without the HFCS in my bread, and I sure as hell can live without a nicotine *addict* inflicting their carcinogens on my air space. You do know that Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, more addictive than *Heroin,* right?

Some regulatory laws protecting health and quality of life make sense, Timmy, even if they may clash with your Social Darwinist sensibilities.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Some regulatory laws protecting health and quality of life make sense"

Maybe. But they're still Authoritarian.

Any idea who the first Leader to make workplaces smoke free was? Here's a hint: he was a vegetarian.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

You're so cute, Timmy. Now we have a question and answer period.

Did you know, Timmy, that Bush isn't a libertarian, right?

Did you know, Timmy, that Bush has increased our government with his tenure? Did you know he increased our deficit? A lot.

Did you know Timmy, that your civil libertities have been trampled under Bush.

Did you know Timmy, that an Authoritarian government is exactly what Bush has created?
Our government under Bush does not answer to the people or Congress or the Supreme Court.

No, Timmy, our new authoritarian government under Bush allows wiretapping and torture. It allows our government to stick people in jail with no rights or recourse. I could go on and on.

But you Timmy, you think an authoritarian government is one who has laws protecting its people and its environment from those who have a patent disregard for anyone but themselves.

Timmy, I'm sorry, but you are so wrong.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Tim, does not care what is trampled. As long as he has the freedom to make looney conservative arguments, this is just the right amount of freedom he needs!

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

"The leader who worked to make the workplace smoke free was a vegetarian." What is the connection? He may have also listened to symphony music. Who cares? He may only exist in your imagination, as well.

I agree with a previous post that said you must get paid to make such nutty arguments and responses. Someone must pay you to try to dumb down Amercia and perhaps that person is a vegetarian too.

I think this whole espisode is explained by a confused sexual identity. And man, if Sean Hannity is ever sick, you can readily fill in. Your responses seem as if from another planet as his does.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

You're referring to Adolph Hitler, in your usual straw man argument fashion. Hitler's motives were about productivity of the war industry to fulfill his dreams of conquest and social engineering as espoused in Mein Kampf, driven by his corporatist agenda. He didn't give a rat's ass about the health aspects, and corruption, cronyism, and exemptions for the Nazi Party connected were rampant until the last years of WW2.

Vegetarianism does not automatically equate to human decency, anymore than party affiliation, but such grey areas of reality are clearly beyond your capacity to comprehend, as it is so apparently obvious of your cult leader Rush Limbaugh and your fellow extremists who have controlled the "Gang of Pedophiles" for the past twenty years now.

The fact that Adolph Hitler enacted such a smoking ban does not invalidate the science arguing that it is medically efficacious to prohibit the activity, no more than the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian invalidate the well documented health benefits of the vegetarian diet. But then again, the Scientific Method does not appear to be your strong suit, as it requires a firm grip on reality, and an acceptance of the truth, no matter how emotionally unpleasant that acceptance may be.

End Part I

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Part II

Then again and more to the point, grasping the truth and owning it is not the strong suit of any self-proclaimed "conservative" follower of Rush Limbaugh or the current leadership of the "Gang of Pedophiles" and their corporatist fellow travelers. If ever there was an authoritarian party trying to assert itself in this country, it is this morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest gang of corporatist cronies closeted self-hating gays, televangelist charlatans, and shysters. Not since Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall has our country been subjected to such runaway corruption, and never before on such a national scale.

Not since Caligula and the Roman patricians who supported him have we seen such depravity acted out in government with such bald-faced arrogance.

That you so slavishly support them, engage in red herring and straw man arguments in their defense, and textbook Freudian projection behavior to smear those you designate as "liberals," only confirms the fact that the authoritarian mindset is also grounded in the need to project those values upon those they wish to suppress, to assuage the cognitive dissonance that such Orwellian behavior would otherwise invoke.

You need professional help, Timmy. It is evident that the world and its ills are too much for you to cope without it.

God help you.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"It is medically efficacious to prohibit the activity"

It is also Authoritarian.

That's my only point. You can excuse it however you want, but telling people that you know what's best for them, and using the force of government to micromanage their lives, is the textbook definition of Authoritarianism.

And it turns out that the Democrats are the Authoritarian Party.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

"The right to swing your fist ends where the other guy's nose begins."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes.

But a devotee of Herr Limbaugh would use such specious rationalization to excuse the excesses of the corporate sector (among other such excesses by the rich and powerful). Hwever in my experience a true authoritarian would dismiss anything *humane* as "contrary to democratic freedom" if it cuts into their profit margins, wether actual or desired.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

By that rationale, the USSR wasn't Authoritarian.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

It is no use, this guy is just rabidly insane. Tim, please say whatever you want...blah, blah, blah.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

Insane, stupid, or paid to write this hogwash.
Only Timmy knows for sure.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

...or perhaps he's just clever.
Thank you all for a delightfully entertaining day or two.
There's a new fan on each of your profiles!

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

No. Clever isn't the word I'd use...,

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Troll. And a quacking troll at that.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Yes, Tim's initial argument was that liberals were so intolerant and all the arguments in response were thoughtful and merely pointed to his inconsistencies. (But I guess he needed to make a few friends, besides his imaginary ones.)

Tim, say hello to Rush and Sean Hannity!

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Backwards!

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

It wasn't; the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was in fact *Totalitarian* in nature, and any first semester political science student would know this, Timmy.

Try again.

Better yet, go seek professional help. You desperately need it, and *maybe* it's not too late for you.

You also need Jesus, but you'd first have to give up worshipping Rush Limbaugh, as polytheism is prohibited by the Ten Commandments (which your "Gang of Pedophiles" breaks on a daily basis as a matter of party policy).
God help you.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  cct1984 (See profile | I'm a fan of cct1984)

Nice diatribe...how about coming back to reality for a change. What piece of legislation or program have the Republicans proposed that dictates who you can have sex with??!! Do away with birth control?!...where do you get this stuff. If you're going to make a cogent argument for or against a position, it helps to first have your facts straight. Instead you lead off with two statements that are a total fabrication. The rest of your post goes downhill from there.

Minimum wage may be a liberal concept, but it has very little to do with you making more than "50 cents per day." Your myopic thinking is typical of those with little or no education in economics. If you get paid more than "50 cents a day" it's because your employer thinks the value you add to his business is worth more than 50 cents per day. When you force businesses to pay workers more than the "value" their labor adds to the bottomline, they will inevitably cut back on the number of workers they hire until the amount of their payroll is equal to the "value" of the work being done. In other words you will have fewer workers doing more work per person. Net gain for the employer is zero, but workers will suffer a net loss as there will be fewer jobs available--so much for singing the praises of minimum wage.


collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Many studies indicate your analysis is not true. A study in New Jersey saw no job loss with an increase in minimum wage. Also, a higher wage slows employee turnover and increases productivity.

Henry Ford offered his workers in 1914 the astronomical wage of $5 a day. When asked why he paid such an amount, Ford replied that he wanted his workers to be able to purchase his automobiles.

collapse  Jeff1958 (See profile | I'm a fan of Jeff1958)

Tolerant of change? Right. How do you feel about Roe v Wade? Health insurance for all Americans? Torture? Tax increases to balance the budget (and reducing the interest we pay for the deficit)?

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Tolerant of change? Right. How do you feel about Roe v Wade?"
It should be changed.
See, I embrace change more than a Liberal.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Good, change it. That change more than anything would insure that Democrats will hold the White House for the foreseeable future.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

So now the dictionary is inappropriate? Perhaps soon conservatives will write their own dictionary where they describe dissent as disloyalty and freedom as being uninformed.

The Bush tax cuts and the Contract with America represents regressive change returning us to an era of robber barons and Hooverville camps. Have you noticed the rich have gotten richer under Bush and the poor poorer. Real wages are down.

Democrats do not tell doctors what they can charge. Insurance companies do. Man, are you backward!

It is conservative justices who have shown contempt for stare decisis as their ruling in the "separate but equal" school integration case indicates. Republicans want a return to a pre-New Deal, survival of the fittest economy. No one wants that Darwinian state of affairs with no unemployment insurance, no social security for the elderly, no societal safety net at all. A society is not measured by how many billionaires it can create, but how it takes care of its most vulnerable citizens.

collapse  dutchess2 (See profile | I'm a fan of dutchess2)

I don't think you really want children of any age exposed to, or to see others acclaim, a lying, dirty low down snake.

If you want them to experience such....plenty of movies will do it for you.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"I don't think you really want children of any age exposed to, or to see others acclaim, a lying, dirty low down snake."

Yes, ideas like these were very popular near the middle of the last Century. We have to isolate the Children to protect them from dangerous ideas, and parents can't be trusted to enforce such an important task.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Is that why so many conservatives and fundamentalists homeschool their children?

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Right. You Republicans sure love America's children:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

You notice when Tim loses an argument he just suddenly disappears!

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Like the proverbial Romulan from Star Trek. He turns on his intellectual cloaking device...

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  mari2JJ (See profile | I'm a fan of mari2JJ)

You are talking like these young people must be exposed to a criminally minded person just to add to the balance in their education. Look, these kids are old enough to sign up for military service and would quickly be sent as gun fodder in this disgusting war in Iraq. Amazing that when a group of young people use their minds and have an opinion, they are put down because they do not come to YOUR conclusion in this matter. Me, I am for FREEDOM OF THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!! This old woman says "God bless you young people. You go kids!!!!!"

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

You think Rove would use the platform to say anything truthful. He would spin, lie, distort. Even on the Charlie Rose show he tried to blame Congress for pushing Bush into Iraq too quickly. Several Bush officials admitted it was not true. The man can not tell the truth.

Rove wrecked our constitution. Perhaps you can tell me some of his policy successes. Is it deficits as far as the eye can see? Tax cuts that benefit the top one percent of society? Endless warfare and telling Republicans to run on the war and paint Democrats as cowards?

Students should be active and not mindless dregs who just think of success and try to please authority figures. Those who whose only goal is to please authority figures are called young Republicans.

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

Letting Stalin speak is one thing, letting Rove speak is another. Rove can speak from the parking lot during the ceremony and then be lead away in handcuffs.

collapse  Rog49Thomas (See profile | I'm a fan of Rog49Thomas)

Am I reading this right?

The rich and privileged of Choate don't want Rove.

What a pleasantly happy day!

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

"Tolerant of change? Right. How do you feel about Roe v Wade?"

It should be changed.

See, I embrace change more than a Liberal.

collapse  mari2JJ (See profile | I'm a fan of mari2JJ)

Your jump off subject is very evident.

collapse  TimmySlagle (See profile | I'm a fan of TimmySlagle)

It was an unfortunate double post.

Dang HuffPo screwed it up.

Scroll up to the remark by Jeff1958, and you'll see where it was supposed to be

collapse  tumblewind (See profile | I'm a fan of tumblewind)

Why anyone in their right mind would pay money to hear from Rove only leaves one to wonder how elite this Prep School really is?????? The man is a political hack of the worst kind! One who should be ignored by the intelligent of this country!

collapse  Joeblue (See profile | I'm a fan of Joeblue)

Why isn't this piece of shit in jail.

collapse  blackmouth (See profile | I'm a fan of blackmouth)

I agree, he should be in prison for treason, instead he goes on speaking his neocon crap lies as insight, Ha! give me a break. I hope this traitor gets his just desserts every where he goes. If only the true patriots of this country rise up and bitch slap this fat traitor in the wallet, where it really hurts neocons like him.

collapse  LeonBNJ (See profile | I'm a fan of LeonBNJ)

I salute the student who apparently had more brains than the school's adminstration and their parents to tell Rove to get lost from their grad ceremony. Clearly Rove knew he was wanted like the plague there. By having him speak on another date is ok to some extent, so long as they also have other speakers over the semester that express views opposite of Rove and discuss the terrible harm he has done.

collapse  RushLimbaughsPutz (See profile | I'm a fan of RushLimbaughsPutz)

Just look at that physique! He is an inspiration to all the Young Republicans out there. Now that's what I call a real American. Do you think he would like to meet an older man who happens to be a drug-addicted radio host? I wonder what makes him tick? Does anyone have any dope for me today? Thanks--Rush L

collapse  gcallaghan (See profile | I'm a fan of gcallaghan)

Nobody is interested in what this asshole has to say unless it comes after he puts his hand on a courtroom bible raises his right hand and says "I do" first.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

No. We still won't be interested in what he has to say.

We will only be happy when he's sharing a cell with his buddies Bush and Cheney. For life.

collapse  Jeff1958 (See profile | I'm a fan of Jeff1958)

Will Jeff Gannon be allowed conjugal visits?

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

No. They have to make do with each other. They deserve no one else, no matter how vile.

collapse  Passenger57 (See profile | I'm a fan of Passenger57)


Rove can't put his tentacle on anything for too long before the slime starts to make it slide off. And Rove promising to tell the truth in court? Remember: if you believe what you're saying,then it's not a lie.
Rove = "Turd Blossom" - "Blossom".

collapse  Mark701 (See profile | I'm a fan of Mark701)

Who is this guy Shanahan and why is he sucking up to Rove??

collapse  fishsandwichesrgood (See profile | I'm a fan of fishsandwichesrgood)

There's that infamous liberal open mind on display yet again.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

As opposed to the close-minded neo-con "mind" that demands blind obedience to power and the unwavering worship of money and corporatism.

What you fail to grasp is the concept that an open mind is permitted to *reject* garbage such as that peddled by the likes of Karl Rove and the "Gang of Pedophiles" party from which he springs. Only in $cientology or the "Gang of Pedophiles" party does one find the intellectual act of rejecting psychotic thoughts to be prohibited as a matter of dogma.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  fishsandwichesrgood (See profile | I'm a fan of fishsandwichesrgood)

What you're really rejecting is conservative philosophy, which a good chunk of Americans actually support by the way. You've simply invented KR as a boogey man as an excuse to cover your ears and close your mind. And your invocation of Scientology (don't really know any conservatives who embrace that one) and pedophilia (Foley's kind or Studd's kind?) is merely evidence of a lack of capacity you'd have even if you were willing to listen to what KR had to say in the first place.

collapse  mrcontinental (See profile | I'm a fan of mrcontinental)

"You've simply invented KR as a boogey man as an excuse to cover your ears and close your mind."

No one has invented anything about Rove, he represents all that is wrong with this nation and the current illegal administration...hate, dishonesty, greed, and warmongering.

And as for your "conservative philosopy" don't make me laugh; nine trillion debt and counting and higher body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.

Rove is a snack oil salesman who conned you rubes into throwing away your futures for an illusion.

collapse  fishsandwichesrgood (See profile | I'm a fan of fishsandwichesrgood)

Ah, when Bill Clinton and/or Hillary do it then it's "political brilliance"? And there was no greed or scandal or wars or lying or nuttin' under that admin. Let's face it, the internet and blogs like huffpo have polluted the political discourse to the point where both sides of the aisle literally hate the other and the probability of rational discussion is less than zero. As a result, one sicko like Foley becomes evidence for an indictment of the entire GOP. When's the last time you found a thread on huffpo that really was an exchange of ideas vs. name calling? I try, like a fart in a hurricane, to get a different point of view considered, but the insults bring that to a quick end. Of course, I enjoy insulting right back, so I stick around, but I certainly don't come here for any serious debate. Sooooooo, go fuck yourself - hahahaha!

collapse  Passenger57 (See profile | I'm a fan of Passenger57)


Fish,the question you need to ask yourself is how long is a person supposed to have an "open" mind about a person whose actions indicate that they are not to be trusted? How long am I supposed to keep hitting myself in the head with a hammer because it feels good when I stop?

collapse  fishsandwichesrgood (See profile | I'm a fan of fishsandwichesrgood)

Hmm, in your case, I'd say about another hundred thousand or so ought to do it!

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

Rejecting Karl Rove does not reject true conservative philosophy. Many honorable conservatives cringe at Karl Rove's tactics.

Bush is not a conservative and neither is Rove. True conservatives have been all over the air waves and print media for the last couple of years denouncing Bush policies, the disregard for our Constitution and the Rule of Law, and Rovian bad behavior.

Say what you will, Rove is nothing but a bad actor. Why should we be willing to hear what he says? All he does is spin the truth to meet his needs. I've heard enough of his lies for one lifetime.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Fishy,
get the facts straight, shall we? The "Gang of Pedophiles" party has over seventy (70) of its members indicted and/or convicted of sexual misconduct involving minors.

The Dems don't even get close to the record of the self-proclaimed "party of family values" on this, and you damn well know it. Here's the list for your edification:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

Looks like one of Romney's little gang will be joining the list:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ExRomney_aide_College_Republican_head_busted_0125.html

Predictably, you refuse to directly respond to anything that contradicts your neo-con dogma, and engage in straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks, along with Freudian projection behavior so textbook predictable of such as you, one of the devout defenders of the Busheviks and their corporatist agenda.

If I lack any capacity, fishy, it is to continue to stomach the intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of Chimpy "Mission Accomplished" McFlightsuit, his Uncle "Deadeye" Dick Cheney, their satanic propaganda minister Herr Rove, and the "Gang of Pedophiles" party from which they sprang with their corporatist agenda, and a war for oil and empire based upon endless lies about WMDs, a war that is bankrupting our nation and has cost over 3,000 American lives that we know of, and God-only-knows how many Iraqi civilian lives as well.
Mark this, fishy, I have seen what modern weaponry does to the human body. I have seen things from Iraq that we civilians are not supposed to see, including the aftermath of what happens when modern weapons are deployed against civilians, including CHILDREN.
All of this has been done in our names, fishy, done for the profits of a few select Bush family cronies.

Otherwise to this son of a WW2 US Marine, I know a slimy little toad of a shill like your demi-god Rove when I see one, and know the sound of their pathological screed when their shriek it to anyone unfortunate to be in earshot.

Fishy, you really need to lay off the Kool-aid.

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  fishsandwichesrgood (See profile | I'm a fan of fishsandwichesrgood)

Well, when you have to dig down to Republicans at some county board level, then I'm guessing your research was limited. And your obsession on this subject is slight disturbing. Suggest you get some help - fast.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

Boring, boring, boring response.

It doesn't matter what level they're at, these hypocritical "family-values" guys like to ride herd on everyone else's moral behavior. Then they turn arround and commit vile crimes against the helpless. Or, they condemn others for being gay or for adultry, while they themselves are involved in the same behavior. Some of them top the behavior with a little crystal while they're at it.

Believe me, it if the dems were as bad, we'd have heard about it ad nauseum on FAUX News.

No. The republicans appear to have cornered the market on vile behavior.

collapse  fishsandwichesrgood (See profile | I'm a fan of fishsandwichesrgood)

You've managed to invoke just about every one of the top 5 liberal catch phrases in huffnutland. And congrats are in order on using the word "vile" twice. You really just need some kind of autopost program to fit in on this site.

I'm really not convinced that you've done any "analysis" of scandals (Reps v. Dems). You just say what you want to be true and believe it because other idiots on this site say the same thing. Enjoy wallowing in your own crapulence.

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Fishy,

classic Freudian Projection behavior. Seems to be a neo-con trait. It is you methinks that needs the professional help, and quickly.

I understand they're doing wonders these days with anti-psychotic medication...

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen

collapse  BlackWidowPilot (See profile | I'm a fan of BlackWidowPilot)

Gnome? That is no gnome, sir. Gnomes are peaceful and unoffending creatures. Karl Rove is no gnome!
That is an Outhouse Troll.

Please make certain that you understand the distinction!

Leland R. Erickson
Citizen
Garden Gnome Liberation Front

collapse  cartach (See profile | I'm a fan of cartach)

Well,well,well. From the mouths of babes. Everybody here feels real self satisfied and happy as pigs in shit because a bunch of high school kids have had enough and don't want to listen to advice from Bush's chief propogandist at their commmencement excersizes. Too bad you did'nt have the guts to do the same a number of years ago,you may have saved a lot of pain. Don't be so smug.

collapse  sawdustinhershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of sawdustinhershoes)

I think that a lot of the people writing comments voted against Bush and his henchman Rove.

I don't know why you feel you have to insult people who've probably hated Rove as long as they've known who he was and what he stood for.

I, for one, will not agree that we got "what we deserved" because this president and his Roves were able to cheat through two elections.

If we somehow allow another repubican to become president, then we do deserve to be chided.

Until then, you are the one who needs to check their smugness.

collapse  wadenelson1 (See profile | I'm a fan of wadenelson1)

Who sir are you trying to insult? You sound to me like a Republican.

collapse  isis (See profile | I'm a fan of isis)

Kids today don't need a narcissist as an example. They already have Brittany.

collapse  lthuedk (See profile | I'm a fan of lthuedk)

collapse  sayitloud (See profile | I'm a fan of sayitloud)

The students and faculty should feel proud to have opposed Rove delivering a commencement address, of all things. Rants about the school's "elitism" notwithstanding, we're still basically talking about high school level education. Headmaster Shanahan is no Lee Bollinger. CRH is no Columbia University. Inviting Rove made absolutely no sense.

collapse  vippy (See profile | I'm a fan of vippy)

We wanted to know what Ahmedinejad had to say.
We did not believe the lies about him from this administration. However, we know all about Rove already, how he was part of the 935 lies by Bush. Big difference!

collapse  Rosanneofpgh (See profile | I'm a fan of Rosanneofpgh)

I hope the parents of those Choate students are proud of them. I know I would be if any of them were my child! In spite of the stupidity of the headmaster, the Choate school must be doing something right!!

By their activism, these students have shown me that there may be hope for our country after all!!

Nice going, kids. We're proud of you!!

collapse  realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)

I applaud these students for not being potted plants and for exercising their democratic responsibility of dissent to a speech by Rove. The cynical Rove would spin, distort, revise. These students actively said enough is enough with regard to the practices Rove has used to win elections and how he has dragged our constitution through the mud. Why should one be compelled to listen to a war criminal. Until Rove seeks redemption, let him be a pariah.

Post a comment

You must be logged in and your account must be approved for you to be able to post comments. Log in now or sign up for an account.

 
 

 Site  Web ASK_logo