Your logic is wrong on so many levels, I'd need a ladder to even attempt to address it. Since arguing with you is about as constructive as arguing with a brick wall, I'll just leave a comment here noting that people think you are wrong.

>> ^volumptuous:
That was personal?
I'm just wondering what you're getting at here. There are many ways the Gov should fix messes they've created.
Iraq is a good one. As Colin Powell said to GWB "You break it, you own it."
Obviously the Bush admin was too corrupt and incompetent to fix a fucking flat tire, but still, the US now owes Iraq big time. We completely fucked their shit up, and to not fix it is a horrendous idea.

That was personal?

I'm just wondering what you're getting at here. There are many ways the Gov should fix messes they've created.

Iraq is a good one. As Colin Powell said to GWB "You break it, you own it."

Obviously the Bush admin was too corrupt and incompetent to fix a fucking flat tire, but still, the US now owes Iraq big time. We completely fucked their shit up, and to not fix it is a horrendous idea.

>> ^mentality:
"was the line crossed in the Bush administration?"
"We certainly did not. Wait, now, there were some incidents that did"
Right. We don't violate human rights, except for those incidents where we do. But it's those incidents' fault, not ours.
Imma try this one next time i get caught for speeding. I wonder if the judge will buy that I did not cross the speed limit, but wait, now, there were some incidents that did.


Your analogy is bad. Petraeus is clearly saying that from his command down torture was never approved, and he had just previously stated it was a line that should never be crossed. When he clarifies there were incidents were that line was crossed, he also says they took measures to deal with those incidents. It's not like saying he and the army do not approve torture except when they are using torture. He is saying incidents happened IN SPITE of his and the military's stance against torture.

He is also coming about as close as one in his position can to saying the Cheney DID approve of those tactics. I'm thinking from this and a few other things I've heard Petraeus is likely an ally in fighting the crimes of the Bush admin.

wait a tic...

this segment of rachel's bashes on:

dana perino (bush admin press secretary)
rush limbaugh (republican gasbag)
sen. mitch mcconnell - kentucky (r)
sen. bob corker - tennessee (r)
sen. john mccain - arizona (r)

with absolutely no mention of *any* democrat, specifically this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html

"Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

"Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

"Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language.

"Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies."

and then rachel throws in a somewhat disingenuous correlation between median household income growth from the '70s through to 2000, and then falling to negative growth over the last eight years, as she would have us believe, because of wall street deregulation?? isn't such a decline far more likely because of the tech bubble bursting at the end of the last decade, or a recession beginning in march 2001, or 9/11 and a subsequently ham-handed 'war on terror'?

i'm as outraged as the next american over this fiasco... but is what rachel's doing here really 'news'?

it seems dishonest, at least to me, so i guess the 'lies' tag is fitting

I like the host for TyT. He's honest on his thoughts (or at least, portraying he's honest). But I agree with him, the entirity of the bush admin, is all about fear.

Ok I had to create a user account and logic just to respond to this statement, as a Canadian:

******Canada, never a bastion of freedom to begin with, has moved from "gay acceptance" to putting people in jail for speaking out against homosexuality as immoral or otherwise wrong. That's where America is headed with this nonsense. And it IS nonsense.******

This is biggest outright lie I have ever read. I follow the news in Canada religiously (pun intended, because I think if people followed what was going on in the world more than what was in some old book they'd be better people). Not once in Canada has anyone ever even been CHARGED with speaking out against homosexuality, never mind put in jail. Not once. This is a complete fabrication by someone who thinks that, because Americans know nothing about Canada, he can make something up and no one can contest it. This is exactly the type of BS the Yes on 8 campaign engaged in (and the Bush admin) where you spout so many lies your opponents can't debunk them fast enough and eventually some of them stick in the minds of voters.

Canada, btw, is an incredibly free country. I KNOW it to be much more so than the United States. That Americans still think they live in the freest country in the world is pure blind patriotic arrogance. In Canada, we don't have presidentally authorized illegal wiretaps on our phones. We don't have an illegal 'enemy combatant' offshore holding facility where we torture prisoners because we claim the Geneva conventions don't apply. Canada was the place African Americans fled to to escape slavery. It was and IS the place American soldiers come to to escape conscription into wars they believed were wrong. In Canada, we don't have 40 million of our citizens w/o any health care coverage.

We may not be the biggest player on the world stage, but I'd much rather be a wise advisor on the sidelines than the biggest bully in the room who got caught with their pants down.

And Canada, like Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, has the RIGHT position on gay marriage. It's been legal here as early as 2003, and nothing bad at all has happened to straight marriage. More kids who need loving homes are being adopted by gay couples. Our society isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the bigotry-masquerading-as-religon I see pervading yours. My apologies to all the intelligent, fair-minded Americans out there who can see through this nonsense, realize that gays deserve to marry (and that it won't lead to hell on earth) and that both Canada and the US have bigger concerns than to dwell on this issue.

Bush has, from day 1, been an incompetent, arrogant, douchebag of a failure. Only now he is beginning to reach the popularity level he has earned, which would be No Approval as someone in the most powerful position in the world. The best thing you can say about Bush, is that the GOP proved they could do even worse when they picked Sarah Palin for VP.

Normally, I would argue for a verbal attack as the preferred method for journalists vs politicians, but alas, the whole staged nature of the Bush admins press events rarely allows for the opportunity to get the uncomfortable questions across. Also, when shocking, unbelievable details about this administrations lies and incompetence are actually released, the media seems to ignore it. A couple of months ago, it was established, beyond doubt, in an official report, that the Bush administration LIED in order to start the war. Noone noticed. WHAT??!! In most countries, this would be grounds for immediate disbanding of the sitting regime. In the Netherlands, for instance, they sacked the whole bunch when their failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda was uncovered.

By throwing this shoe, the journalist got the full attention of the media, with a simple , relatively harmless gesture, he showed the world what we all think of the douchebag in chief, and he showed him all the respect he deserves.

Well done.

HAHA! Wow, that's some seriously clever subterfuge. I'm glad you're on our side!

But seriously, I'm no good at hate so what else can I do? Thanks for your insights, I value them.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
There is an old Ghandi quote that I'm sure you've heard 'first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win'. I just think that cp420's 'outrageous' comments aren't worthy of a fight. By simply typing pwned, he was able to steal hours of the collective time of those who argued with him, which is a pretty good return on his troll investment.

Believe me, I used to troll Republican chat rooms at the beginning of the Bush admin. The goal is to inspire as much outrage as possible with as little effort. Wasting the opposition's time and energy is the point. It was also an interesting study in psychology.

My favorite troll technique was posing as a Republican with an extremely liberal girlfriend. I pretended I didn't have my own email address and that I was forced to use my girlfriends address, which was GeorgeWFascist. People would enter the room enraged at my screenname, to which I would sheepishly apologize. The funny thing is that they actually believed my schtick and let me into their confidence.

I trolled liberal chat rooms too, sorta like Bill OReilly does here.

The other thing I learned about trolling is that it is kind of sad and lonely, because the time you spend agitating is time you are not spending with people who like you and care about you.

My 2 cents. You are a righteous kitty.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
His "ignorance" is of no concern to me. He hurts my brothers and sisters, and makes them do hurtful things to him. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be dissonance on the Sift, but I don't care for the vibe it brings.

There is an old Ghandi quote that I'm sure you've heard 'first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win'. I just think that cp420's 'outrageous' comments aren't worthy of a fight. By simply typing pwned, he was able to steal hours of the collective time of those who argued with him, which is a pretty good return on his troll investment.

Believe me, I used to troll Republican chat rooms at the beginning of the Bush admin. The goal is to inspire as much outrage as possible with as little effort. Wasting the opposition's time and energy is the point. It was also an interesting study in psychology.

My favorite troll technique was posing as a Republican with an extremely liberal girlfriend. I pretended I didn't have my own email address and that I was forced to use my girlfriends address, which was GeorgeWFascist. People would enter the room enraged at my screenname, to which I would sheepishly apologize. The funny thing is that they actually believed my schtick and let me into their confidence.

I trolled liberal chat rooms too, sorta like Bill OReilly does here.

The other thing I learned about trolling is that it is kind of sad and lonely, because the time you spend agitating is time you are not spending with people who like you and care about you.

My 2 cents. You are a righteous kitty.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
His "ignorance" is of no concern to me. He hurts my brothers and sisters, and makes them do hurtful things to him. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be dissonance on the Sift, but I don't care for the vibe it brings.

I've always had a feeling that the Bush admin. might even sabotage some of the functionality of the next administration upon the "changing of the guard"... especially if Obama takes office.... however they both would take orders from the same shadow government so I could be wrong.

I really hope we don't get a 9/11 Commission for the economy. I'd rather have a Starr Commission since the gov't. spent $40+ million on that ( http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01/starr.costs/ ) compared to a measly $3 million originally slated for the 9/11 Commission...which was increased to $14 million after the Bush Admin. reluctantly agreed to the extra $11 million ( http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html ).

Goddamit, just thinking about that is angrying up my blood all over again.

God damn brewery!! *throws eating contest trophy*

gwhiz, there is reason to suspect that the fishy shit the Bush admin. has done/is doing, not to mention the last 6 admins, have orchestrated an inevitability, which most folks find easy to deny, and unable to wrap their head around, Denial is the most predictable, and easily manipulated result, of masses of people who all share a steady diet of bullshit disinformation and programming, oozing out from the cathode-ray nippy., from the masters of spin-..Get YER tin-foil, and make ya'self a straight jacket....

We can disagree about Al Jazeera. They've improved in the last year or two, but they lost my trust a while ago and will have to do a lot to regain it.

I certainly agree that big Corporations (international and domestic) need to be hacked up a bit. They have far to much power and influence. I do NOT however buy that they control whether the US goes to war or not. I do NOT believe Iraq was about oil. We haven't seen a drop of it and it has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, a tremendous amount of lives, and more popularity and international influence. Anti-war activists and leftists love to say oil oil oil as much as they can to make those that supported the war look like evil corporate sell-outs. It's a very common political partisan warfare technique VERY often utilized by the left. (The right has its own devious techniques, but the left has mastered this particular one.) Anyway, arguing Iraq is a dead stalemate every time, so it's pointless to go on about it. Bottom line, corps have too much power, but not all the power, AND not all corporations are run by demons bent on greed at all costs. You need a certain breed of board members for that sort of heartlessness.

"Ordinary People" don't want war. That is true. But they do want certain things to be and others not to be and they don't want to be the ones responsible for what it takes to make those things be or not be. For example. The west (primarily America at this point) sees the sudden rise and dominance of staunch Islamic culture in western Europe and does not like what it sees. America is all for religious freedom--heck, we were founded on the concept--but America also values secular governing as well as some level of assimilation of immigrants. In other words, come to America, but if you don't want to be an American, if you want to be a somewhere-else-ian living in America trying to impose somewhere-else-ia's laws, please stay in somewhere-else-ia. Makes sense. America has a set of values, laws, and traditions it holds dear. Seeing sections of western European nations suddenly under a pseudo-official Sharia Law makes most Americans cringe and worry about their rights and their culture. Americans say, "we don't want that in our nation" but they don't want to be responsible for preventing it (or other things). People love to protest things while reaping their benefits. Sad state of affairs. (I'm not saying that example was a war-related one, but it fits otherwise.) One of the major functions of governments and leaders is to make unpopular decisions that are necessary. They lose popularity and even become demonized by some, but the job is done and the public can benefit and still feel innocent about it.

As for the US and S Ossentia? 1%. That is the amount of western oil that comes through that pipeline. We don't need it. We wouldn't START a fight over it, but we would defend it against an aggressor as it is in fact of western interest. We didn't need to fight over it as it was in no danger and we were in no way in danger of losing it. America has no vested interest in S Ossentia. A 1% loss in supply is barely a hick-up, especially as oil demand is now decreasing here at a record pace.

As for America moving ships closer to Iran? GOOD!! Iran has repeated threatened to shut down a HUGE tanker route. Since Israel is scared to death (and rightly so) that they might get nuked in the next couple years, which fits with Ahmadinejad's 12th Imam religious views, they might wind up attacking Iran's uranium enrichment plants. It will CERTAINLY happen if Iran tests a nuclear weapon as N.Korea recently did. If that happens, we still need that route open. If Iran shuts it down, that's a major problem for us here, even if we don't drop a single bomb in that country. This is an almost inevitable confrontation. The USA MUST not fire any first shots though. Not this time. Not ever again. However, did we start this devastating war in Georgia to move our ships? No. That idea REQUIRES that you believe that all those with power in the US are truly evil mass-murders, plain and simple, purely literally. It is fine to think that we may have taken advantage of the situation to make a tactical move, but starting it for that end is a little off the charts. Having forces in an allied nation is not surprising. That does NOT by any means mean we started it or encouraged it in any way shape or form. That leap is loaded with fallacies.

I am far too long winded.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Al Jazeera is an excellent source of news, many BBC journalists work with them and two British journos I know speak very highly to their integrity.

I do indeed distrust the US government as much as I distrust the British government, and I have lived through a 30 year conflict with the British that has opened my eyes to the propaganda regarding international affairs in British news, including the BBC.

It's not a case of me buying into any particular news story. The US has a military presence there to protect oil interests - that's a plain fact. That's what rings the alarm bells for me when suddenly there's a conflict.

It's not about assigning blame, I'm not interested in trying to show where blame lies. That's a childish game and a distraction. Bush is not the emperor at all, I do not believe for a second that Bush is in control of anything whatsoever, the idea that the man is a statesman running a country is plainly ridiculous. He is as much a puppet of corporate America as the Shah in Iran was before the people rose up and put him out of power.

It's all about perception - *why* do you think it is that the same people who think that America blew up the towers to start a war are the people who believe America is behind this conflict? What is at the heart of that perception? It's because the official version of events doesn't ring true to people who have lived through propaganda in their own country.

What is happening in Russia is part of the wider global conflict involving the superpowers, and it's all over resources and investments on a scale that ordinary people can barely comprehend. Russia, China and America/UK are slowly hardening their military and strategic positions around the world.

I don't know the reason why, it could be the beginning of the merging of the 4 big monetary unions into a global economy and central bank/government, it could be that each of them wants greater regional control of the planet, it could be that they are all working together toward a single goal, it could be that they are preparing to go up against each other.

Ordinary people do not want war, the only people who benefit are the super rich and the powerful. Russia rolled mini battlefield nukes into S Ossetia last night, and while the masses of the planet including you and me debate about what is really going on and who is at fault, people are getting slaughtered.

Maybe it's time we put our time and efforts into really trying to get people to talk about peace. Enough really is enough.

Thanks for your message




In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Taking the last part first, I disagree. That aside, I get news from quite a few sources. I am painfully aware of the bias on both sides of these sources. However, based on study, I trust some more than others. For example, Al Jazeera... black listed, "opinion journalists"... suspect, Al Franken and Sean Hanity... grudge match? That's entertainment. My statement that a need for loathing was required to buy this new story 3 days after the war suddenly and almost inexplicably begain was not meant to offend but merely to exaggerate the point that people who tend to distrust the US tend to blame everything in the world on them, even when the coals aren't even ready for burgers. These are the same people who think we detonated our own buildings to start a war over oil, when neither of those clauses is true.

News on this current struggle is so mired in propaganda and selective publication right now, it is hard to make heads or tails of who is at fault, but blaming the US and namely the Bush Admin. is so predictable a cop-out it's cliche anymore. Bush is not the Emperor Palpatine and America is not the Galactic Empire. heh.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It seems they are outing America anyway, Osettians are claiming that the 'west' is behind the Georgian attacks - being reported now on BBC and international news. Of course there is no way for you or I to know one way or the other.

Why do I have to assume a hatred and loathing of America? I'm not claiming anything, and I'm not narrow minded or naive enough to only post news clips which I happen to believe or which happen to fit my own personal ideaology. No need to be defensive. It's not people like us who are making these things happen, we are mere bystanders.

I'm trying to get all the news I can as it rolls in, watching it unfold on the news in different countries gives you a much wider picture rather than sticking to one single news source. The *way* it's being reported in different countries is *as* interesting, if not *more* interesting than the content of the reports.

You aren't convinced by this because you have a preconceived notion that it is 'ludicrous'. That's your culture talking, not you.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'm not convinced. It still appears to me to be conspiracy theory hogwash. In my eyes, it would require a SERIOUS loathing of America to assume such a thing is true on a whim. America did not "orchestrate" any Georgian action. That's just ludicrous. They would out us since they're being obliterated at the moment, since we're not helping. You have to assume that America is EVIL in order to assume these things. If a naval move is made at the same time, than it is because America is taking the opportunity that has been laid before them. Prime time for easy action.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It sounds like it, but it isn't...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=warships%20gulf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
>> ^Memorare:
read an article today suggesting the aggressive move by Georgia was orchestrated by the US as a strategic diversion to keep Russia busy during a naval blockade of Iran. shrug


Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me. Propaganda.

Taking the last part first, I disagree. That aside, I get news from quite a few sources. I am painfully aware of the bias on both sides of these sources. However, based on study, I trust some more than others. For example, Al Jazeera... black listed, "opinion journalists"... suspect, Al Franken and Sean Hanity... grudge match? That's entertainment. My statement that a need for loathing was required to buy this new story 3 days after the war suddenly and almost inexplicably begain was not meant to offend but merely to exaggerate the point that people who tend to distrust the US tend to blame everything in the world on them, even when the coals aren't even ready for burgers. These are the same people who think we detonated our own buildings to start a war over oil, when neither of those clauses is true.

News on this current struggle is so mired in propaganda and selective publication right now, it is hard to make heads or tails of who is at fault, but blaming the US and namely the Bush Admin. is so predictable a cop-out it's cliche anymore. Bush is not the Emperor Palpatine and America is not the Galactic Empire. heh.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It seems they are outing America anyway, Osettians are claiming that the 'west' is behind the Georgian attacks - being reported now on BBC and international news. Of course there is no way for you or I to know one way or the other.

Why do I have to assume a hatred and loathing of America? I'm not claiming anything, and I'm not narrow minded or naive enough to only post news clips which I happen to believe or which happen to fit my own personal ideaology. No need to be defensive. It's not people like us who are making these things happen, we are mere bystanders.

I'm trying to get all the news I can as it rolls in, watching it unfold on the news in different countries gives you a much wider picture rather than sticking to one single news source. The *way* it's being reported in different countries is *as* interesting, if not *more* interesting than the content of the reports.

You aren't convinced by this because you have a preconceived notion that it is 'ludicrous'. That's your culture talking, not you.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'm not convinced. It still appears to me to be conspiracy theory hogwash. In my eyes, it would require a SERIOUS loathing of America to assume such a thing is true on a whim. America did not "orchestrate" any Georgian action. That's just ludicrous. They would out us since they're being obliterated at the moment, since we're not helping. You have to assume that America is EVIL in order to assume these things. If a naval move is made at the same time, than it is because America is taking the opportunity that has been laid before them. Prime time for easy action.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It sounds like it, but it isn't...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=warships%20gulf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
>> ^Memorare:
read an article today suggesting the aggressive move by Georgia was orchestrated by the US as a strategic diversion to keep Russia busy during a naval blockade of Iran. shrug


Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me. Propaganda.

I hate that members of congress have to ask constitutional scholars about things they should already know. If you are a member of congress I would think you should take it upon yourself to study and understand the constitution. Impeachment proceedings should have started years ago. BTW, the guys defending the Bush Admin at this hearing had a very weak defense.