Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Brave Cowards like George Clooney

I didn’t see hardly any of the movies that were honored at the Academy Awards. I didn’t watch the show Sunday night. That’s what we have computers for. I get all I need to know from that.

I did hear about and look up a quote from an interview where he called movies like Goodnite and Good Luck, Syriana and (are you ready for this as bravery) Brokeback Mountain. He bragged about how true bravery resided on the coasts and not in flyover country (like the Dakotas).

Bravery my foot. You want bravery, look at some of the blogs of men and women doing the duty of patriots and shedding their own blood doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clooney doesn’t and never will have a brave bone in his body. Big talk.

Take a look at his pronouncements:

George himself used the word "brave" in an interview he did with Entertainment Weekly. He was talking about what he calls all the "political" films coming out of Hollywood, which for him is a pretty broad category including the gay western Brokeback Mountain and, very specifically, his own two films: Good Night, And Good Luck and Syriana. Clooney sees a new epoch in which Hollywood films and people actually talk about the big issues like the war in Iraq.


OK Georgie boy, I got one for you. Make a movie about Mohammed lusting after another man. Hollywood already did something similar with Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ (It was a woman however). Or, how about a tender sensitive love story about two male Muslim jihadists doing what homosexuals do on film. Brokeback Jihad, maybe.

Then I recommend you release it in the Netherlands or Belgium. Or maybe in Kandahar, Afghanistan. I understand they like movies there since the Taliban left. That would be brave. Or, brave George, go ahead and drop a few thousand DVD’s out of a plane over Saudi Arabia with little parachutes on them and a gift note signed by you. That’d be brave. Then when they invite you to that press briefing in the house of Saud you can buy your one way ticket (you won’t be needing a round trip) and let them thank you properly.

Brave indeed.

Comments

Oh yeah, taking on McCarthyism - what a brave thing to do, what, 50 years later?? 

What is even sadder are all the mopes that think Syriana is non-fiction.

Watching Clooney, this pampered hothouse flower, pat himself on the back is a cringing embarassment.

Ken McCracken on March 7, 2006 at 08:03 pm
Rob
Rob
19516 comments
Send a private message

You know what’s hilarious?  All these liberals talking about Hollywood taking on current issues...yet a lot of these movies took five years or more to make.  Syriana, in fact, was based on a book written during the Clinton administration.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on March 7, 2006 at 08:39 pm

OK Georgie boy, I got one for you. Make a movie about Mohammed lusting after another man. Hollywood already did something similar with Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ (It was a woman however). Or, how about a tender sensitive love story about two male Muslim jihadists doing what homosexuals do on film. Brokeback Jihad, maybe.

Because Hollywood NEVER portrays Muslims in a negative light, right?

I also enjoy how you absolutely missed the point of The Last Temptation of Christ. That was nice.

Dave on March 7, 2006 at 09:23 pm
Avatar for The Whistler

Oh yeah, taking on McCarthyism - what a brave thing to do, what, 50 years later??

I didn’t see the movie, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that he left out the part about McCarthy being right.

The "attempted" communist takeover of Hollywood was also covered in the biography’s of Ronald Reagan, John Wayne and Charleton Heston (I believe). 

 

The Whistler on March 8, 2006 at 03:54 am
Avatar for richard

I think he was referring to today’s McCarthyism But since you missed that very obvious point you probably will not get this one either. And by the way standing up to any political movement that tries to remove our Freedom’s regardless of the timeline is a brave thing.

richard on March 8, 2006 at 03:55 am
Avatar for richard

Mc Carthy was right. Gee not the way my history book reads.

richard on March 8, 2006 at 03:56 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

McCarthy was right. The NKVD, later renamed KGB, infiltrated into the academic,intertainment, and news industry in America and Europe during the ‘30s and ‘40s. During the ‘50s their covert intel operations were quite effective in penetrating industrial and governmental structures in England,US,South America, and Africa. The McCarthy hearings were loud and public and functioned quite well as a smokescreen behind which the FBI,MI5-MI6, and military intel in several countries operated to break many Soviet spy rings and covert money gathering operations. But go ahead and keep your head firmly inserted in your rectum and tell yourself the communists are the Great Heros of the 20th century. We will continue to laugh at your stupid ass.

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 04:13 am
Avatar for The Whistler

Mc Carthy was right. Gee not the way my history book reads.

I suspose that you get all of your history from Hollywood, right?
 

Try the Verona project transcripts.  Back in the ‘50’s we had broke the Soviet (Diplomatic?) code.  We read their mail.  This project was declassified in the ‘90’s. 

The Verona transcripts prove that the Soviet Communists were directing activities of Communists in the US.   

 

The Whistler on March 8, 2006 at 04:35 am
Avatar for The Whistler

I think he was referring to today’s McCarthyism.

As I said I didn’t see the looney-Clooney’s movie.  However I thought it was about the Blacklisted Commies in the ‘50’s.

I shouldn’t have to point out that there’s a difference between a home-grown political party versus a "political party" that’s being directed by a foreign power. 

 

The Whistler on March 8, 2006 at 04:38 am
Avatar for Realitybasedbob

Brave cowards and American patriots 

 Who served?

 

 

Realitybasedbob on March 8, 2006 at 05:16 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

AHH! Another proponent of the great war hero J Kerry. Please regale us with tales of bloody battle and bravery! We never tire of that.

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 05:23 am
Avatar for EdMcGon

"He bragged about how true bravery resided on the coasts and not in flyover country..."

George does have a point. It does take bravery to live in the crime-infested ghettos of the coastal welfare states. I’m surprised that an elitist like George would be familiar with those areas.

EdMcGon on March 8, 2006 at 07:47 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

docdave asks 

If those so-called dems are so patriotic why are they working so hard against the country and so diligently for the enemy?

This is a loaded question...just so you know.  

MikeAdamson on March 8, 2006 at 08:10 am
Avatar for Realitybasedbob

Oh, did I hit a sore spot for all you nutters?

 

Sometimes the facts just get in the way of flag waving doesn’t it?

 

Have you seen the pre post hype from the Jack in the House article yet?

have a nice day.

Realitybasedbob on March 8, 2006 at 08:28 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

How so,Mike?

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 08:29 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

bob, I have known what Kerry is since ‘74. You can continue to blahblah your anti-American claptrap, it show all who see you just what you are.

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 08:33 am
Avatar for Realitybasedbob

2hotel9, why do you hate America?

Realitybasedbob on March 8, 2006 at 08:37 am
Avatar for Gene Redlin

This is going to be a dumb question

 

2hotel9

 

As long as I have been reading your comments I have wondered.

 

What is the origion of that moniker??   Just asking, if it’s not too personal.  I’m guessing aircraft.

Gene Redlin on March 8, 2006 at 08:37 am
Avatar for mcair

2Hotel9: McCarthy was right.... We will continue to laugh at your stupid ass.

McCarty was right, Up is down, black is white, Iraq is Disneyland and the Earth is flat.

Er, Hotel? The laughter you hear is coming from our side. You dopes don’t know a whole lot about anything, but it sure is entertaining poking at you with a reality stick.

 

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 08:38 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

2H9...I don’t think that those dems are working for America’s enemies or against their country. I think that they disagree with the current Administration’s Iraqi policy.

MikeAdamson on March 8, 2006 at 08:43 am
Avatar for Realitybasedbob

Woohoo Mike gets it!!

Realitybasedbob on March 8, 2006 at 08:46 am
Avatar for richard

Where have you been mike to have an opinion counter to the party automatically makes them Freedom hating terror supporters that have to get the hell out for having an opinion God dude get with it.

And by the way the current Mccarthyism and the older taught two lessons as far as I am concerned it is not OK to attack Americans in order to defeat the enemy ans eventually we get back to supecting our government in sterad of it being alright for them suspect us for no reason. 

richard on March 8, 2006 at 08:51 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Gene, it was a radio callsign I used in the service. I have used it since then on work radios and hunting. On CB I am just Niner. When I finally got on line I figured what the hell and made it my email address, and when I started trawling the blogshere it was natural to use it as my username. It is funny, in the first 30 days I was online 10 people emailed me to ask if I was who I am, people I had not talked to since the early and mid’80s. I am, in somethings, a creature of habit.

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 09:05 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Oh, and no, not aircraft. I am a RedlegGrunt, US Army.

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 09:07 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Mike, I just don’t buy that. They have no alternative plan. Other than appeasement and surrender. We followed that course for years, at the behest of the Dept. of State and the UN. It got us a far worse global terrorism problem. Islamic culture has only disdain for negotiation, it is seen as cowardice and weakness. You can only dissagree with a course of action when you have an alternative course to put forward. Anything else is schoolyard hesaid shesaid crap. The continuing efforts to undermine the GWoT by Dean,Murtha,Rockefeller,Pelosi, et al is helping our enemies. Whether they intend this or not is irrellevent, the fact remains their actions and words are helping terrorists.

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 09:22 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

mcairhead, the only reality stick you are acquainted with is the one your mother used to smack you in the head. Apparently she did not hit hard enough, you are such a disappointment to her.

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 09:29 am
Avatar for Bat One

It would certainly be better if those on the left side of the aisle had anything substantive to offer, on any question of policy, international or domestic, instead of tediously relying on their "honorable" intentions.  Not only would that be the responsible thing for an opposition party to do, but it might even suggest to people that they could be trusted enough with the responsibility of governing.

If I am driving 30 miles per hour in a 25 MPH zone and hit and kill a child, I am going to be charged with vehicular homicide, regardless of the fact that I didn’t specifically intend for the kid to get hit and die.   Thus it is with those partisans on the left who undermie our war efforts.  And incidentally,  if on of those who leaked the NSA surveillance information to the NYT happens to be a member of the military, active duty or reserve,  he/she can be charged with treason and executed by firing squad.   I’m not sure whether the major networks  could cover it in detail,  but it would be one hell of a webcast… and one hell of a wrning as well.

Bat One on March 8, 2006 at 10:32 am
Avatar for mcair

2H9...I don’t think that those dems are working for America’s enemies or against their country. I think that they disagree with the current Administration’s Iraqi policy.

To the simpletons on the right, any disagreement with the cult of Bush = treason. 

Interesting ain’t it, that while the president blames the whistleblowers for blowing the lid off his lawbreaking, his own vice-president intentionally leaked the name of a CIA agent to the RW media, who immediately published it. You don’t hear any of these nutters calling for Bob Novak’s head, do you?

 

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 10:40 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

In war, one is on one side or the other and in this war, the dems are NOT on our side.

This statement accurately and honestly depicts the view I am taking issue with. It’s just wrong because one can argue against his country’s decision to go to war without committing treason and one can argue for withdrawing from a war without committing treason. If you don’t think that you can then you’re not describing a democracy but getting sucked into a life and a political culture that our enemy wants to suck you into.

"If you’re not with us then you’re against us" is crap, the notion that one need not question or oversee one’s political leadership just because one’s country is at war is crap and, if I may be blunt, the willingness of so-called conservatives to whistle the terrorists’ tune on command through talk and behaviour exactly as they’ve planned, expected and desire is lily livered and utterly predictable...and crap.

The aim of terrorism is to disrupt the normal life of a society and following your prescriptions means getting your clocks cleaned. 

MikeAdamson on March 8, 2006 at 11:01 am
Avatar for The.Whistler

Interesting ain’t it, that while the president blames the whistleblowers for blowing the lid off his lawbreaking,

But of course it’s not lawbreaking because that would of course require breaking the law.  It is on the other hand lawbreaking to leak and report classified information.

The lefties just get confused.  They break the law and falsly accuse the other guy. 

 Do you guys on the left have an office in charge of making stuff up?

 

 

The.Whistler on March 8, 2006 at 11:08 am
Avatar for Tom_with_a_Dream

Mike -

the willingness of so-called conservatives to whistle the terrorists’ tune on command through talk and behaviour exactly as they’ve planned, expected and desire

What?  The terrorists are not re-broadcasting the Conservatives’ speeches, they are using the Chariman of the DNC’s speeches, they are sheering when the left gets up and talks.  It is the left liberals who folded for decades while Americans were attacked repeatedly.  It is the left whom OBL speaks of when he references Bill Clintons’ Moqudishu (sp -5).  Pull out while you still can…

The aim of terrorism is to disrupt the normal life of a society and following your prescriptions means getting your clocks cleaned.

What? 

 

McCair -

What 2H9 did not say: 

any disagreement with the cult of Bush = treason

What 2H9 did say:

          Any agreement with the terrorists = treason.

Slight diffence, possibly even small enough to still pass in Public School, but a significant one.
 

Tom_with_a_Dream on March 8, 2006 at 11:14 am
Avatar for Bat One

Since those of you on the left never seem to tire of looking stupid, here’s another opportunity for you to demonstrate publicly the willful nature of your ignorance.  Nothing difficult.  Nothing that even a normal, marginally intelligent individual couldn’t handle with a bit of clear, rational thought and a very modest knowledge of just what they’re talking about.

1.  What was the classification of Valerie Plame/Wilson’s identity? (By comparison, the NSA surveillance information was classified at least Top Secret CODEWORD.)

2.  What law was broken by the release of Wilson/Plame’s name?  Bear in mind that she had not been posted overseas during the past 5 years, had not been covert during that time (both as required by the Intelligence Identity Protection Act) and that her names and relation to former State Department employee, Joe Wilson, were posted on his personal website fully two years before Bob Novak published her name in a local Washington, DC paper.  Likewise, her employer was listed as a well-known CIA front company in the public records of the FEC (as required by federal law) detailing her contributions to both AlGore and Kerry.

3.  Finally, if the release of Plame/Wilson’s name was illegal, please  detail which statute was broken and who the Special Counsel has indicted for the crime?

Bat One on March 8, 2006 at 11:29 am
Avatar for Tom_with_a_Dream

Whistler -

DNC is short for the Latin Domini Non Correcmundo 

 

(Alright, that sucked, but its almost quittin’ time....) 

Tom_with_a_Dream on March 8, 2006 at 11:31 am
Avatar for richard

Hey Doc my dad was a corpsman in Vietnam and has on more than one occassion stated that rules of engagement were the biggest reason for the loss in Vietnam. Now I am not saying he is correct but when he tells stories of mortars being lobbed from churches on hills that they could see and were not allowed to return fire I have to say he may have something there and then again those pussies that allowed themselves to be hit and then needed patching up could have something to do with it as well.

richard on March 8, 2006 at 11:45 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

docdave...substitute "taking the enemy’s side" for "committing treason" then.

MikeAdamson on March 8, 2006 at 11:52 am
Avatar for Bat One

Rather than rushing off to change the subject wording, how about first checking the definition of "treason" to see whether or not it fits the situation.

Bat One on March 8, 2006 at 11:59 am
Avatar for richard

I am not blind to it in fact a lot of people draw exact paralells, remember the mortar launching form the mosques in Sadr city and our extra pains not hurt the building.

This is the point I was trying to make there are a ton of factors involved and no one group is ever entirely correct not even my dad.

richard on March 8, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Avatar for mcair

The terrorists are not re-broadcasting the Conservatives’ speeches, they are using the Chariman of the DNC’s speeches, they are sheering when the left gets up and talks. 

What a load of horseshit. Where do you get this stuff from, and waht are you smoking?

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Avatar for mcair

Finally, if the release of Plame/Wilson’s name was illegal, please  detail which statute was broken and who the Special Counsel has indicted for the crime?

The case was referred to Justice by the CIA. I’m guessing they know who is and who isn’t covert.

I did the Google for you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Rob
Rob
19516 comments
Send a private message

The case was referred to Justice by the CIA. I’m guessing they know who is and who isn’t covert.

And yet...no one has been indcited for a leak. 


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on March 8, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Avatar for richard

Thanks I kind of took it that way but after looking at my response I can see where that did not come out thanks for the clarification though.

richard on March 8, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Avatar for richard

Ah but a leak the none the less and for political gain none the less.

richard on March 8, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Avatar for mcair

richard, the fact that our mission in Vietnam was limited in scope certainly didn’t help.  Frankly, I believe that we should have invaded North Vietnam but the political world was entirely different then with special considerations for the ‘cold war’ with the USSR etc.   Even without that we were kicking the sh*t out of the North Vietnamese and should have prevailed if we had continued to support the South. 

How many dead Americans does it take to satisfy you guys? WTF would have changed had we stayed and allowed a few more tens of thousands of our youngsters to be slaughtered in another war about nothing? What American interests were at stake in Vietnam? What did we lose by pulling out when we did, apart from saving our own kids?

You lot are insane.

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Avatar for richard

On the same note mcair it could be argued that a lot of lies could have been saved had we just kicked ass.

richard on March 8, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Avatar for mcair

And yet...no one has been indcited for a leak. 

Libby’s indictment for obstruction addresses is role as fall guy for the administration.

True, here are no indictments for the leak thus far....until Mr. Libby cuts a deal when faced with the penalties for his crimes.

And he will cut that deal.

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Avatar for Tom_with_a_Dream

Ever heard of a little man named Kim Jong Il?

Riuchard -

Ah but a leak the none the less and for political gain none the less.

No leak if no indictment.   Frivlous charge, maybe, but no leak…

Tom_with_a_Dream on March 8, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Avatar for Bat One

McAir,

Perhaps you’’d be willing to help me out just a wee bit more?  I can’t find anywhere in Fitzgerald’s press conference where he actually indicted anyone for the "release" of Plame/Wilson’s name, nor did he specify which law was broken.  Finally, he did not state the level of classification of Plame/Wilson’s employment was.  Note too, that while Fitzgerald says that her employmnet at CIA was "not widely known," he does not say that it had not already been made public… which of course it had.

Still, I’ll settle for knowing what law was broken, the name or names of the person(s) who broke that law, and the dispostion of their criminal case. 

Bat One on March 8, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Avatar for mcair

I think guilty by association applies but if it doesn’t the expression ‘it takes one to know one’ always works.  Have a nice day.

Answer the challenges presented or don’t bother to post. Better yet, before you spew unsupportable BS, be able to back it up.

It never ceases to amaze me how many times I’ve seen posts on this blog that call Democrats treasonous, or somehow "anti-american" for one reason or another. It also never fails to amuse that the same posters have no facts to back up their ridiculous assertions - it’s all bluff - mindless rhetoric, from people that are pathologically unable to admit that the mistakes that have been made by the party they support.

Sad, really.

 

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Avatar for mcair

Perhaps you’’d be willing to help me out just a wee bit more?  I can’t find anywhere in Fitzgerald’s press conference where he actually indicted anyone for the "release" of Plame/Wilson’s name, nor did he specify which law was broken.

Wasn’t it the Vice President himself who recently claimed he had the power to de-classify anything he wanted? How convenient. Sounds like someone is afraid the long arm of the law may be getting a little close for comfort…

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Avatar for Chief RZ

2Hotel9, Whistler   Correct.  I read from another source the scene where we finally cracked the USSR code and there was a KGB paid, communist standing behind him.  Of course, he tipped off his "employers" as the liberals would call them and that was the last message we decoded until the wall fell down, thanks to Ronald Reagan and we read more about their activities in the Stasi files.

Chief RZ on March 8, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Avatar for Bat One

McAir,

I’m terrible sorry if all this persistence makes you uncomfortable, but really this isn’t all that difficult.  What law was broken?  Who was indicted for breaking it?

Without a cogent answer to each of those very simple questions, your whole argument, your entire point of view, crumbles like so much dried donkey dung… which is apparently all it was ever worth to begin with. 

Bat One on March 8, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

Bat One said

...how about first checking the definition of "treason" to see whether or not it fits the situation.

I believe that docdave politely, and quite correctly, chided me for using "treason" because we’ve discussed that to death...or at least I have. 

MikeAdamson on March 8, 2006 at 01:54 pm
Avatar for mcair

I can’t find anywhere in Fitzgerald’s press conference where he actually indicted anyone for the "release" of Plame/Wilson’s name, nor did he specify which law was broken.

I assumed you’d read the reply to the earlier post with the exact same question. Whatever. Libby has been indicted on five counts, all related to reluctance (so far) to identify the leaker(s). That is why he is looking at charges of obstruction and making false statements. 

Finally, he did not state the level of classification of Plame/Wilson’s employment was.  Note too, that while Fitzgerald says that her employmnet at CIA was "not widely known," he does not say that it had not already been made public… which of course it had.

Which of course you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You seem to think investigation is frivolous. As I have stated, it was th CIA that referred the case to Justice. That answers your question about Plame’s classification and whether a law had been broken.

Does Rush/Hannity/Assrocket have any other misdirection you wanna relay or are we done here?

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 02:09 pm
Avatar for mcair

Doc: my earlier challenge to you stands. In simple terms that this liberal can understand, explain the mission in Vietnam, and what American interests were at stake.

Explain the exit strategy (a GWB "until we win" doesn’t cut it, BTW) and how many American casualties would be acceptable to achieve whatever goals were established..

Thanks.

 

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 02:23 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Mike, not trying to pick any fights with this, I think it would be good to visit the actual definition of the word. It is bandied about rather cavalierly, I have done it myself. Treason:violation by a subject or citizen of allegiance to the sovereign or the nation, esp. by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign, or overthrow the government. That is the Oxford Pocket Edition definition, admittedly a bit short, even terse. It is a good starting point. In the Webster’s Collegiate it is 2 large paragraphs and I really don’t feel like transcribing them here. So, can the term treason be applied to citizens who actively work to undermine an ongoing war effort? I believe so. Then again, I am a rather Old Testament, blood and fire kind of bastard. One of the reasons Uncle and I seperated on less than amicable terms back in ‘85.

 

 

 

 

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 02:27 pm
Avatar for Bat One

McAir,

Thank you.  So, as far as you, or anyone else has documented then, no federal statute was broken by the release of Plame/Wilson’s name (which was already in the public domain), there is no public record of her employment being classified (Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret), and no one has been indicted for releasing or publishing her name.  All as I had thought.

Now, if you really feel up to it, we can discuss Joe and Valerie some more.  Or we can take on the NSA surveillance leak.  Whatever.  But this time, try bringing some fact to the table, please. 

Bat One on March 8, 2006 at 02:42 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

2H9...no worries. Of course I disagree with your thoughts on treason as would anyone who believes in the American Constitution. You can’t stifle free speech and free thought in a free democracy. I know you’re at war and I know you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theatre but your founding principles are your founding principles. Saying that a war is wrong is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The enemy may take comfort from someone who says that the war is wrong but that is the nature and the by product of free speech.

If you think that such talk is bad for the country then restrict or ban free speech if you want but be prepared for the consequences when someone you don’t agree with is in charge...or better yet set up a state where speech is regulated so that the enemy can’t take comfort from words that some of your citizens speak. You don’t have to ban all speech, just the speech that you feel hurts your country. Grrrrrr.

MikeAdamson on March 8, 2006 at 02:55 pm
Avatar for The.Whistler

I would say being anti-American doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of Treason.

Anti-Americanism is protected free speech in most cases.  Treason is working with an enemy (certainly in a time of war) or acting against the war effort.  Certainly the leak of the NSA efforts was treason.  

 Most of the Anti Americans feel that it’s our fault we were attacked.  We have no right to declare war on those that have pledge us ruin and destruction according to these ying yangs. 

I think you can be anti-war and be pro-American.  However that doesn’t seem to be the case with most of the vocal anti-war types. 

 However speaking against America’s effort at war is likely to be free speech.  One exception to this that seems rather obvious is that actively working with the enemy to spread their propaganda would not be protected.

 

The.Whistler on March 8, 2006 at 03:03 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

TW...good points that I can generally agree with. I certainly know many anti-Americans so I won’t pretend that they don’t exist.

MikeAdamson on March 8, 2006 at 03:12 pm
Avatar for Realitybasedbob

Sorry if I am jumping in late to this nonsense

 

Bat One, did you read what PF said?

 

FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I’m Pat Fitzgerald….

…The grand jury’s indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements….

…Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I’d like to put the investigation into a little context…

 

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

 

Did y’all miss these:

The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

The Raw Story | Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say

 

Realitybasedbob on March 8, 2006 at 03:26 pm
Avatar for The.Whistler

But does comparing Bush with Hitler rise to the level of treason?  I don’t think so.

I think it’s easy to tell the difference between a Pro-American Anti-War person and a Anti-Americann moonbat.  The Moonbats always ascrbibe bizaare motivations behind the war effort.  For example:

"I think the war on terror could be sovled in a better way"  Here’s are my ideas to do things better."

"GWB is only answering to Cheney’s Halliburton.  This is an illegal war.  We have to turn our sovereignty to the UN.  We  had it coming.  Those guys that cut off Nick Berg’s head are freedom fighters."  etc etc etc.

The.Whistler on March 8, 2006 at 03:27 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

docdave...that’s free speech for you...it’s messy. Calling Bush a Satan is the expression of one man’s opinion while causing violence to someone or damage to something or suppressing someone else’s right to speak freely are different kettles of fish entirely. Have a little faith in your Founding Fathers’ faith in the utility of free thought and free speech...those guys weren’t dummies.

MikeAdamson on March 8, 2006 at 03:29 pm
Avatar for The.Whistler

…The grand jury’s indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements…. …Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I’d like to put the investigation into a little context… Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

 I noticed in the charges that he didn’t charge Mr. Llibby with any kind of charge related to "leaking sensative information."  The charges have to do with being completely honest with the investigation.

I also read that Mr. Fitzgerald is on record as not knowing if any laws were broken in releasing Joe Wilson’s wife’s name. 

The.Whistler on March 8, 2006 at 03:30 pm
Avatar for robert108

rbob: If that were true, why isn’t Scooter being accused of the "underlying crime"?

robert108 on March 8, 2006 at 03:31 pm
Avatar for The.Whistler

Oops and Mr. Fitzgerald didn’t say it wasn’t known by outsiders she was a CIA officer.  It just wasn’t widely known.  If called to testify I’d have to admit that I didn’t know and still don’t care.

The.Whistler on March 8, 2006 at 03:31 pm
Avatar for Realitybasedbob

as far as i know the case is still opened is it not?

Realitybasedbob on March 8, 2006 at 03:32 pm
Avatar for Realitybasedbob

Most of the anti American speech is coming from the right, defending what appears to be and Dumya has admitted as much, a clear violation of American law.

If the NSA (bushco) was in violation the FISA law were their actions treasonous?

US CODE: Title 50,1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports...

 

Realitybasedbob on March 8, 2006 at 03:35 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

They are elected officials of our government and their activities and speech are giving aid and comfort to our enemies. If they were private citizens they could say anything they want, they are not. Once you take that oath everything is changed. You must consider every word and action in that light. That is the difference. I, as a private citizen do not have those strictures. I can go into a crowded structure and yell fire!. Should I do this? No. Common sense should be sufficient to tell me, or anyone, that. The same principle should tell persons elected to office, in any government, the same.

2Hotel9 on March 8, 2006 at 03:38 pm
Avatar for The.Whistler

So was Clintone in violation of the law when he did the same thing.  Or how about Peanuts Carter?

 In fact the administration is in a far stronger position as we are at war and he was listening in on folks he had reason to believe were our enemy in this war.

But I’d suggest you keep up your anti-American tirade.  Siding with the enemy is really going to help the Democrats in elections. 

 

The.Whistler on March 8, 2006 at 04:09 pm
Avatar for mcair

Sure I can get into that subject in depth but why should I if all you’re going to do is ridicule everything I write that you disagree with.  If you can be civil we might be able to post some interesting comments that we can all discuss and debate with candor.

OK Doc, as a registered tree-hugging liberal, I know I should be a lot more sensitive to you compassionate conservatives. You will find that I am the model of civility - unless I read bullshit, in which case I gotta call you on it. I can admit to being wrong on occasion. I enjoy reasoned debate.

I am genuinely interested in hearing an opinion that speaks to a continuation of the war in Vietnam beyond the time of American withdrawal - but I just don’t see it. The withdrawal was driven by the publics mounting anger toward increasing casualties with no apparent benefit to American interests and no exit strategy. Pretty much the same thing we’re looking at in Iraq - only the stakes are much higher this time around.

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 04:36 pm
Avatar for robert108

rbob: Fitzgerald is still fishing on the taxpayer dollar.  It’s monitoring the microwave spectrum, which isn’t covered under existing law.  Stop lying.

robert108 on March 8, 2006 at 04:36 pm
Avatar for robert108

mcair: Glad to hear some reasoned argument from you, rather than the usual invective.  The problem with the whole Vietnam argument is the misinformation given to the American public by the media at the time, like lying about the outcome of the Tet Offensive.  You are right about the public, and the fact that the media manipulated public opinion forced the military to cut and run, thus assuring our defeat, and you are also right that the Dems and the lefties are trying to Vietnamize Iraq.  The difference this time is the existence of alternative media.  The MSM can’t get away with its lying and disinformation this time, and that will make the difference.  I guess all those Vietnamese who got slaughtered as a result of the cut and run tactics of the lefties might disagree with your contention that there is more at stake this time, but I agree with you.

robert108 on March 8, 2006 at 04:42 pm
Avatar for mcair

rbob: Fitzgerald is still fishing on the taxpayer dollar.

Were you alive during the 90’s? Fitzgerald ain’t hunting $70 million trouser trout.

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 04:56 pm
Avatar for Chief RZ

Stopped by when someone suggested that mcair was open to a logical discussion.   Yes sir, look at the casualties in WW II.  If we were not united, we may have cut and run during the Battle of the Bulge, or the opening months of Guadalcanal.  This sideshow in Iraq has less casualties than one skirmish during the War Between the States.  There were draft riots in New York, martial law was in effect, prison abuse?  read about Andersonville.  At this point, the enemy is very much using the media.  They have studied Vietnam.  Take a look at Michael Yon’s blogspot or IraqTheModel.  These were and are real people with their boots down and eyes on target for a year or more, not sipping tea in a hotel in the Green Zone.

Chief RZ on March 8, 2006 at 05:02 pm
Avatar for mcair

Mcair, you probably won’t agree but I don’t believe in ‘cut and run’ which we did in Vietnam.  A war is not over until it’s over.  If we had played the ‘too many casualties’ schtick in WWII, Japan would still be occupying China and a big part of the Pacific.

We dropped the A-bombs on Japan specifically to avoid the major infantry cfasualties that would have resulted were an invasion of mainland Japan necessitated.

I wil lagain ask you: if we hadn’t "cut and run" in Vietnam, how long would that conflict have lasted? The problem we faced in Vietnam was not  military might, btu strength of numbers. It didn’t matter how many villages we napalmed, there were always millions more ready to fight with whatever weapons they could muster.

I believe the same is true with Islamic fundamentalists. Therer comes a point when, despite our overwhelming strength militarily, ultimately we do not have the numbers, or the stomach to endure a fight to the finish. They simply outnumber us.

I am not being defeatist here: this is the same reality we faced in Vietnam. Better to withdraw and live to fight another day than to continue a losing battle.

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 05:06 pm
Avatar for mcair

  The MSM can’t get away with its lying and disinformation this time, and that will make the difference.

 All due respect 108, but you cannot support this argument. Neither can Rumsfeld. You are making excuses for a failed strategy, period.

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 05:10 pm
Avatar for mcair

Yes sir, look at the casualties in WW II.  If we were not united, we may have cut and run during the Battle of the Bulge, or the opening months of Guadalcanal.

Chief: we were united -  because we were attacked. We had purpose.  

  This sideshow in Iraq has less casualties than one skirmish during the War Between the States.  There were draft riots in New York, martial law was in effect, prison abuse?  read about Andersonville. 

Sideshow? I am surprised and disappointed in your determintaion that 25,000 casualties for a war of choice is merely a "sideshow". AT that rate, how many more "sideshows" can we afford?

At this point, the enemy is very much using the media.  They have studied Vietnam.  Take a look at Michael Yon’s blogspot or IraqTheModel.  These were and are real people with their boots down and eyes on target for a year or more, not sipping tea in a hotel in the Green Zone.

It will take more than a couple of bloggers to convince me that Iraq is somehow on the verge of becoming a flourishing democracy. The history of  trial feudalism in Iraq - and the facts on the ground - do not support this position.

The enemy using the media? I’ll say this again: blaming the media is a pathetic excuse for a failed strategy.

Do not pretend that the media’s reporting is somehow disrupting Rumsfeld’s brilliant masterplan for rebuilding Iraq. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that such a thing does not exist.

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 05:24 pm
Avatar for Chief RZ

OK.  McCair--No, no one can.  No one could in WW II either.  We faced a two bit communist enemy that we gave sanctuaries to in Cambodia and North Vietnam.  This time, Iraq will not be that sanctuary.   One other large difference is that we were attacked.  We are morally correct, have freed that country from a vicious tyrant, and planted the seeds of democracy.  The same as after WW II.  Take a read here:    http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/war-protesters.htmWhat is/was the exit strategy for Bosnia?  Take a throw at a few of the others you see there also.

Chief RZ on March 8, 2006 at 05:27 pm
Avatar for mcair

Mcair, you need to change your avatar, it’s giving me a headache trying to read your posts [hopefully that wasn’t your goal]. 

Ha-ha! That’s me banging the reality stick on a cowbell - you know him as 2Hotel9 (just kidding 29 - my Mom loved me, she really did.)

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 05:27 pm
Avatar for Chief RZ

Mcair-  2,000+ casualties on our side pales to the numbers from even Vietnam.  You apparently have not visited the two sites I mentioned.  These are real GIs and one imbedded person in Michael Yon’s case.  Read Michael’s… No, I will paste two paragraphs here: To an enemy in need of assets, a press that is increasingly disengaged is like an empty car with keys in the ignition--begging to be stolen. How the keys came to be left in the car, and how the inevitable theft managed to go unreported are questions for a different dispatch. To really understand the dynamics of the Battle for Mosul, it suffices to say the enemy started with a media advantage that they continue to exploit even now.Insurgent leaders must have spent hours watching western television, particularly news broadcasts. They planned attacks that would create dramatic footage for the nightly news, and in many cases, they provided the camera crew and made the footage available for streaming and downloads on the internet. In light of their other recent media victories, the enemy felt ready to take on the Americans in Mosul.”   from my posting just after the one mentioned. 

Chief RZ on March 8, 2006 at 05:38 pm

In contrast to the opinions and feelings of today’s Hollywood, the real actors of yesteryear loved the United States.

They had both class and integrity. With the advent of World War II, many of our actors went to fight rather than stand and rant against this country we all love. They gave up their wealth, position, and fame to become service men and women, many as simple “enlisted men”.

Because you can’t support your country unless you fight for it. Sorry Rob. You don’t love your country. :(

Dave on March 8, 2006 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

man...I dig that crazy gravatar.

MikeAdamson on March 8, 2006 at 06:15 pm
Avatar for mcair

OK.  McCair--No, no one can.  No one could in WW II either.  We faced a two bit communist enemy that we gave sanctuaries to in Cambodia and North Vietnam.  This time, Iraq will not be that sanctuary.

Chief - Prior to our invasion, Iraq was a secular dictatorship. Hussein was an evil bastard to be sure - but one that was effectively contained, and not a threat to the United States. There was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before we arrived.

Our enemy in the war on terror is Al Qaeda - literally translated as "the base". This organization is not loyal to any nation, and is dispersed throught the world.  

   One other large difference is that we were attacked.  We are morally correct, have freed that country from a vicious tyrant, and planted the seeds of democracy.

We were not attacked by Iraq. Agreed, we have freed that country from a vicious tyrant, but to what end? What American interest is served? We were not attacked and he had no capability. The invasion was sold on WMD and supposed links to AL Qaeda. Neither was true.

Iraw in it’s current state is a haven for terrorist activity. A society bordering on lawlessness, an resented occupier, a large contingent of malevolent youth - we’ve upped the ante big time. Like it or not, we’ve created the sanctuary.

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 06:24 pm
Avatar for mcair

Mcair-  2,000+ casualties on our side pales to the numbers from even Vietnam.

Again, I am surprised and disappointed that you avoid the truth. 2300+ dead and 20,000+ seriously injured. That makes 25,000 casualties.

That’s less than the attrition in Vietnam - but that conflict spanned 25 years. We’ve ammassed 25000 dead and wounded in 3 years in Iraq, and most of that number since "mission accomplished".

What I refuse to buy is your, and others on the right, argument that the number of casualties we have suffered is acceptable based on statistical omparison to casualties suffered in other conflicts. That cannot be our justification for thsi war and wars to come. What will be the yardstick? We stay until we’ve killed as many kids as were killed in WWII? Get real.

mcair on March 8, 2006 at 06:48 pm
Rob
Rob
19516 comments
Send a private message

Because you can’t support your country unless you fight for it. Sorry Rob. You don’t love your country. :(

I can’t find where he said that, Davey.

Maybe you shouldn’t put words in people’s mouths. 


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on March 8, 2006 at 06:51 pm
Avatar for robert108

mcair: Germany never attacked us in WWII;  by your "logic", then, we should never have fought them. 

Who won the Tet Offensive?  Had the news media reported the truth(which they didn’t) that we won a convincing and total victory during Tet, public sentiment would have been encouraged to continue on to victory in Vietnam, and not too long afterward.  Instead, they lied to the public, anti-war sentiment was energized, and we ended up cutting and running.  I thought you said you wanted reasoned debate?  You seem to be back to your old invective, name-calling and the reciting of hyperbolic leftie talking points. 

robert108 on March 8, 2006 at 07:14 pm
Avatar for Bat One

McAir,

Sorry about the extended delay.  I teach a class several nights a week and simply did not realize how late it was earlier (What a strange sentence that is!?)

Before I jump into to the Vietnam fracas here, I have a question.  Is your knowledge of the subject first hand, academic, free-lance curiosity, or a combination of allof the above?   I don’t mean the question as ammunition to disparage your point of view, but merely to more accurately guage what you have to say.

Bat One on March 8, 2006 at 07:22 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Funny how your reasoned debate always boils down to America is evilgreedystupid, mcairhead. And still not one single idea on how to destroy Wahabist driven terrorism. Nope, the only thing we hear from you is cut&run. The only point you have is W. Bush created every problem in the world. Every thing you have to say always hinges on VietNam. You are trapped in the past, every point you raise is directed at dragging us all down to your level. In case it has slipped by you, the terrorists in Iraq are not fighting us. They are killing children and women. They are targeting police and ambulances and firefighters. And they have put forward not one single idea or plan to build a country in Iraq, only to kill all who do not crawl on their knees and beg them for the right to live. Your support for Wahabist terrorism is cloaked in your constant resistance to all who stand against it, your blind rush to drag all of the human race into a new darkage with Mullahs as the overlords of every man,woman, and child. The end of free speech and free thought. The end of medicine and technology. The destruction of anything not found in the Quran. Like it or not, your continuing fight against the war on terror is tacit support for Wahabist Terrorism. And you are who they will target, not me. I am armed and willing to fight, they will come for me and mine after they are done with your kind. Or will you submit and be their willing slave? Think you can convert to Islam and be on the"winning" side? Wrong. Converts are nothing higher than slaves. Your grandchildren may be considered Muslim, never you. So, in the interests of reasoned debate, tell us why you support the people who publicly and repeatedly declare their intent to kill you and destroy your entire culture. It is a very simple question, you should be able to answer it in one short paragraph. Lets hear it.

2Hotel9 on March 9, 2006 at 03:31 am
Avatar for mcair

Funny how your reasoned debate always boils down to America is evilgreedystupid, mcairhead.

And I’m un-American right? I’ve been labelled "commie" and "socialist" on this board a few times - like I care - that’s usually an indicator of the labeller’s ignorance. I disagree with the current administration, and Republican ideology in general. My anger is directed toward those targets.

And still not one single idea on how to destroy Wahabist driven terrorism. Nope, the only thing we hear from you is cut&run.

I have not advocated cut-and-run in Afghanistan.  I think we should have stabilzed that country before running off on wars of choice that target countries that had nothing to do with Wahabist driven terrorism. Got it?

In case it has slipped by you, the terrorists in Iraq are not fighting us. They are killing children and women. They are targeting police and ambulances and firefighters.

The insurgents in Iraq are by and large Sunni. They’ve always been there, with the Shiites, and they’ve always fought each other. Hussein’s regime kept the peace between them.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the "potential is there" for sectarian violence to become full-blown civil war.

He said that on Monday. I agree with him. Is he wrong? Tell him!

Your support for Wahabist terrorism is cloaked in your constant resistance to all who stand against it, your blind rush to drag all of the human race into a new darkage with Mullahs as the overlords of every man,woman, and child. The end of free speech and free thought. The end of medicine and technology. The destruction of anything not found in the Quran. Like it or not, your continuing fight against the war on terror is tacit support for Wahabist Terrorism. And you are who they will target, not me. I am armed and willing to fight, they will come for me and mine after they are done with your kind. Or will you submit and be their willing slave? Think you can convert to Islam and be on the"winning" side? Wrong. Converts are nothing higher than slaves. Your grandchildren may be considered Muslim, never you. So, in the interests of reasoned debate, tell us why you support the people who publicly and repeatedly declare their intent to kill you and destroy your entire culture. It is a very simple question, you should be able to answer it in one short paragraph. Lets hear it.

Let’s pretend you didn’t write that. Now, just ring the doctor and be sure your refills are up to date.

mcair on March 9, 2006 at 04:11 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

No, mcairhead, pretend is your realm. Your resistance to fighting Wahabist terrorism is support for it. You are what they hate. They only dislike me. I don’t kowtow to them. You claim to support the war in Afghanistan, here is a hint. The war in Afghanistan is over, now the war has moved into Waziristan province, eastern Pakistan. With the election of a representative government in Afghanistan the war was concluded. Now terrorists are striking against the people of Afghanistan in an attempt to collapse the government. Your inability to track events as the move from country to country is rather sad, even pathetic. The one overarching factor in all this is Wahabism. And yes, Saddam’s clandestine support of groups he publicly decried did tie the Baathist government of Iraq to multiple terrorist groups. The ongoing training of terrorists in Iraq, by Iraqi military and intel organisations, did tie the Baathist government of Iraq to terrorists whose ideology they claimed to disagree with. Once again, your inability to follow events as they ebb and flow from region to region is sad, and rather pathetic. So continue to pretend none of these groups or events are connected or related. That appears to be the only way you can live with yourself.

2Hotel9 on March 9, 2006 at 05:29 am
Avatar for Tom_with_a_Dream

My anger is directed toward those targets.

Yup.  And anger, as is always the case, does little to further your cause…

Hussein’s regime kept the peace between them.

Could we find some who disagree?  Oh, that’s right, they’re all dead!  But I hear that a bullet to the head is quite peaceful, not so sure about the pre-bullet raping/etc, but its all good in the end, right?

 

Tom_with_a_Dream on March 9, 2006 at 05:33 am
Avatar for richard

Why is torture only terrible when others do it?

Oh rob what is the record for number of posts this one is like the energizer bunny.

richard on March 9, 2006 at 05:38 am
Avatar for mcair

You need to read this: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0078--

I won’t bother with your rambling dissertation on my supposed terrorist-loving ways, but I will call you on this:

The war in Afghanistan is over. With the election of a representative government in Afghanistan the war was concluded.

Better call Gen. Abizaid and let him know, and the President might want to revisit his budgeting additional funds to support our presence in Afghanistan.

mcair on March 9, 2006 at 05:39 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

So we are still at war with Germany and Japan? How about Korea? The Phillipines? Stabilisation and reconstruction are not war.

2Hotel9 on March 9, 2006 at 06:09 am
Avatar for Tom_with_a_Dream

"Pressence in" (not equal) "fightinhg war in". We have a pressence in hundreds of contries! Go bang your drum some more, its really cool.

Oh, and Richard -

Torture is not only bad when others do it, but it is bad when they are cutting off fingers, raping children in front of parents, and killing you.  Not so bad with a pair of GI panties on your head, or making you pee yourself because they scare you with a dog. 

Tom_with_a_Dream on March 9, 2006 at 06:11 am
Avatar for The.Whistler

They’ve always been there, with the Shiites, and they’ve always fought each other. Hussein’s regime kept the peace between them.

Funny how you guys define peace.  I have a somewhat different idea of what it means. 

 

 

 

The.Whistler on March 9, 2006 at 06:19 am
Avatar for richard

I fail to see where the degree or style of torture makes a difference I mean seriously dude our tortue is ok because it is not as bad as his is about one of the dumbest things you have posted and by the way there were a bunch of stories of torture that were propogated by the first Bush administration of ears being cut off and babies removed from incubators that turned out to be lies.

richard on March 9, 2006 at 06:21 am
Avatar for mcair

So we are still at war with Germany and Japan? How about Korea? The Phillipines? Stabilisation and reconstruction are not war.

We have a presence in the countries you list because of their strategic location.

We spend $1 billion a month on Afghanistan according to David Rogers in the WSJ. The government in Afghanistan is so weak that we are unable to leave. Our continued presence there is worthwhile, however.

 

mcair on March 9, 2006 at 06:36 am
Avatar for mcair

Funny you think? Hussein kept a lid on sectarian violence, like it or not. Or are you ignoring reality?

mcair on March 9, 2006 at 06:37 am
Avatar for Tom_with_a_Dream

And the pre-execution rapes?  How about the graves filled with, what, mine causualties?  Sure, a few accounts have been proven false.  Keep going, you have a long way to go.

Oh, and yes, I do differentiate between torture to get info (we have) and torture to get your rocks off (they have). 

I haven’t read it but I think I’d like to.  Here is the Grand Jury indictment on Zacarias Moussaou.  I believe they we used torture on him...  successfully. 

Tom_with_a_Dream on March 9, 2006 at 06:44 am
Page 1 of 2         1 2 >

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?