Calling a Spade a Spade

Mercurial Times ^ | December 3, 2001 | Aaron Armitage

[from occupied ga]

I think the Supreme Court will throw that out the first chance they get

Don't hold your breath waiting

[LiberalBassTurds]

You are welcome.

Reference his article, there's no insight necessary for such a thin and transparent attempt to be clever. For "tongue in cheek humor" to be interesting and thought provoking it has to be subtle. This is a ham-handed attempt that doesn't work. When an author's point of view is apparent from the start the document ends up as this one does -- mental masturbation and fodder for those predisposed to support that position from the beginning. In this case the point is proven by the lack of interest in this thread by FReepers other than those that continually support each other's point of view.

Regards.

[alpowolf]

Zing! That's telling 'em.

Of course the JBT fans won't let you get away with this. You've denigrated their deity.

[Liberal Classic]

I note that I would be much more comfortable had Congress used the word war in its resolution authorizing force and I would hope that these measures will expire soon.

Yes, if we are going to call a spade a spade, then by all means President Bush should have asked for a declaration of war.

[Mercuria]

Reference his article, there's no insight necessary for such a thin and transparent attempt to be clever.

So it's the non-subtlety of the approach that you're taking issue with.

Okay.

But he made his point.

Maybe he intended to be transparent because the reasons some of the readers have for supporting the current Administration for actions said readers would never tolerate from the barely-departed Administration of Clinton are equally, if not even more, transparent?

Whatever the reason for his style...do you agree with the message he was trying to present? If not, why not?

[Mercuria]

"Meet the new boss"?

[RnMomof7]

ping with agreement

[LiberalBassTurds]

Agree? It would be difficult to agree with a document that so thoroughly intermingle animosity with naivete. If an event of similar magnitude impacted us during President Clinton's term clearly the country would have backed him equally in his efforts to prevent a recurrence. To think they wouldn't underestimates our ability to rise above the personal animosity felt towards the man, and also defies the quantitative polling data which emereged after his response to the USS Cole bombing. Unfortunately, it appears many of his diehard supporters from that time can't find it within themselves to do the same for President Bush now.

[LiberalBassTurds]

BTW on a personal note I noticed that you reviewed my profile to make a point in your response. You skipped over the part about losing a family member in the WTC without so much as a condolence. So as you are trying to do with me, let's calibrate where you are coming from... What are your thoughts on the war? How should we deal with the "American" Taliban we capture?

[Fintan]

I've been going through my files to see if I can find the FReeper who said that.

Great. Now I have to bookmark this article so I can remember who said that...

[A.J.Armitage]

Unfortunately, it appears many of his diehard supporters from that time can't find it within themselves to do the same for President Bush now.

I was never a supporter of Bill Clinton. Everything I said about him and Janet Reno above was entirely sincere. I simply reserve the right to hold Bush to the same standards I held Clinton to.

[Angry Republican]

Amen. Much praise for posting this. Now to get it leaked into the papers.

[A.J.Armitage]

Exactly what gizmo do you have that will identify the funding, planning, and institution of a nuclear device in downtown Chicago without eroding any Constitutional Rights????

There's no such thing. There is also no gizmo to do that while eroding Constitutional rights. The dichotomy you've set up, between survival and liberty, simply doesn't exist.

In short...to you, are the deaths of millions an acceptable collateral damage of remaining able to continue your "banking in private?" Are you willing to see entire cities disappear from the planet in your country so that your email messages are not recorded by a third party? Can you accept the loss of major Fortune 500 companies within seconds in exchange for someone taking your picture as you enter a football game. Just asking...

You speak as if having freedom (i.e. being Americans) will make those thing happen. It won't, nor will the lack of freedom prevent them.

[Demidog]

Picture what Clinton might have done, through crass political manipulation of the crisis. It would have been an excuse for a federal power grab.

I'm picturing it and the only thing I can come up with is what Bush has done.....

[desertcry]

Big difference, one is an honorable gentleman. The other one, I can't remember how many wives she had, and there's Waco, the cuban boy who wanted freedom, the stonewalling of the clinton investigation,.....

[Rowdee]

You can damn well bet if the Pervert was around, he'd have no problem having his henchmen implement torture against whomever 'they' decide has done something wrong....he sure as hell wouldn't have a problem eavesdropping on attorney client relations or priest penitent relations....FBI files sound familiar? Terry Lenzer? Larry Flynt?

Aren't we glad the GOP doesn't do this sort of stuff.

[Rowdee]

You classify this as tongue in cheek against the current WH occupant? Whatsa matta wid yu....doncha no General Hospial ain't a reflecshun of the reel wurld! Git yerself cot up on currint events!