Oh and, thank you billpayer for your dutiful parroting of newsspeak and the grave tone and expectorate labels in your tags and description of these dire 'world' events-Please, keep us all abreast of the world's injustices so that we may better understand the dynamics of chaos.

*promote

In honor of the dead parrot sculpture installed at Potters Field in London recently.

They talk and talk and talk, but can't provide any specific charges. Even Boehner's "lawsuit" was just....rambling with no actual specific charges.

Every time you hear nutcases talking about impeachment it's the same thing, lots of rhetoric, nothing specific, nothing that would ever hold up in a court of law. They're just being a good trained parrot.

you want to whine about the whole "lie" about keeping your doctor nonsense. Prove it...prove to me that Obama is some mustache-twirling villain that deliberately intended to deceive us and he would have gotten away were it not for those meddling Republicans. Stop treating life like it's some sort of 1980s cartoon.

Even if you could prove it..using the example of Bill Clinton deliberately lying about getting a blowjob. We then go back to the "is this really worth impeaching him over?" I believe there was a poll done at some point that supports the idea that the public wants their president to be a good liar. So make up your mind, do you want a liar or don't you?

And it's just never going to succeed and it would make the Republicans look worse than they are already. The public as a whole blame republicans for the gov't shutdown. An impeachment would be a absolute waste of time and money and for the Republicans who claim to be about fiscal conservatism, please explain to me the return on investment for this endeavor? Numerous people have argued that an impeachment would actually raise Obama's approval numbers. It's just lose lose for the republicans.

And again, we go back to the "why do we care what Quitter Palin think again?" argument.

The death of the republican party continues. I continue to wait patiently for moderate Republicans to retake their party.

From the reports so far (no clue to the veracity of them, just as there's no clue to the veracity of your 'reports') a group of about 5000 have so far, taken nearly 1/2 the country and 'informed' the populace that if they are the wrong sect of Muslim they must leave (or be killed)...they have massacred, raped, punished, tortured, and on...publicly and proudly (which makes them more dangerous, because they don't consider what they do is wrong, Saddam did but did it anyway). EDIT: they are gaining in numbers and power FAST...if they reached the level of power Saddam had and follow through on their 'promises', there will be millions killed and far more displaced.
Fuck you with your insulting BS, because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I know full well of the atrocities committed by Saddam, repeatedly, over decades, with and without our support and acceptance. You, on the other hand, claim Saddam was as bad as Hitler and Pol Pot, so I'll parrot your insult and say YOU must be ignorant of history. I repeatedly said gassing was not the only crime Saddam committed, but was obviously the worst SINGLE crime...genocides are multiple crimes over time, gassing is a single act at a single time, and the worst one he did. Understand now?
I would not accept Saddam's records to make your arguments, he was a well known insane liar.
for instance, which is it...4500 villages, or 7500 villages destroyed? Your 'information' claimed both, perhaps you should READ the information you cut and paste before deriding others for 'being ignorant of it'?
When you are forming your opinions ABOUT American policy, it makes no sense to ignore American policy.
I don't share your view about removing 'the bad man' from power because it never works. Without a reasonable, well liked, popular, intelligent government to 'take over' for the despotic leaders, and few if any zealots willing to destroy everything if they can't control it, you always end up with smaller despotic leaders fighting over the power or civil war, which has nearly always been worse (at least in the short term) than the despot. Because it never happens that the reasonable replacement government is ready before the expulsion of the despot, or that there are no zealots grasping for the power that's suddenly up for grabs, simply removing despots is usually worse than leaving them in power.
If it were done thoughtfully and thoroughly, I would support replacing them, but it's not done that way. At best, it seems the follow up is an after thought, which usually leads to disaster.

Please do give us a closer look at ISIS is doing. Massacres, torture, rape, collective punishment and on, correct? Maybe killing what, 100 people at a time in the worst instances? That doesn't distinguish them from Saddam. Within Saddam's rule those crimes are what guys like yourself colloquially referred to as Saddam's 'firm' hand. They are his, so to speak, lesser and more routine crimes. I'd left them beneath mention thus far.

If you must insist on parroting your ignorance of Saddams al-Anfal campaign I'll resort to posting excerpts as evidence that the gassing was but a small part of it.

4,500 Kurdish villages were destroyed by Saddam, that's entire villages turned to rubble.
182,000 dead civilians by counts gleaned from Saddam's own records of how many Kurds his forces had succeeded in eliminating.
The concentration camps Saddam ran were pretty clearly modeled after Hitler's:
With only minor variations ... the standard pattern for sorting new arrivals [at Topzawa was as follows]. Men and women were segregated on the spot as soon as the trucks had rolled to a halt in the base's large central courtyard or parade ground. The process was brutal ... A little later, the men were further divided by age, small children were kept with their mothers, and the elderly and infirm were shunted off to separate quarters. Men and teenage boys considered to be of an age to use a weapon were herded together.

The conditions within the camp were terrible and torture, abuse and beatings were routine. The men of fighting age though were sorted for the express purpose to later drive them out into the desert by bus or truck for mass execution. This is how Saddam carried his genocide of the inhabitants of the 4,500 villages he'd destroyed.

Anyone interested in more or questioning the veracity of the above account can find more and endless references and evidence here:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/index.htm#TopOfPage

As for American policy, I don't quite see where I suddenly bear personal responsibility to clean up the world if I choose to form my opinions on world events independently of it's 'fit' to American policy.

I don't care much if it was Bush or Putin that took Saddam out of power aside from hedging on which would leave a better Iraq, either would be tough not to be an improvement from Saddam. Similarly for Sudan or the Congo, I'd be rather glad if world powers finally cared enough to try and spare the people there suffering under brutal military repression and endless war crimes. I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't share such a view?

Bottomline: who cares? None of the people who are attacking me here are going to do anything of any impact on the climate. It's just "talk, talk, talk" anyway. Do you buy plastic? If so, then who cares what you think about the environment?

These are not rhetorical or trivial questions! I expect answers! (not really)

Pragmatically, are you personally contributing to clean air or are you contributing to smog? I walk to work, I don't have children, I don't consume beef, and when I do use vehicles, I take public transportation and drive a hybrid. What do you do? What are your theoretical opinions contributing to anything of value? If you just want something more to freak out about (without actually contributing anything in any positive way), then you can enjoy your worry and stress and get your panties in a bunch on videosift. I have no interest in it.


And speaking of "geniuses:"

@9547bis said: "Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see."

So, other than parroting something you read on a government website, can you in fact explain the "physics" you are so convinced of? What are the "physics" that "prove" man-made greenhouse gases are the reason for global warming? And why do the warming models invariably prove to be inaccurate (according to physics)?

So, you know which is "bigger" between 5 and 15. I'm not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. But perhaps you can explain the "physics errors" in this report?

Or this one.

This section specifically deals with the "physical science." What is it that you know that the experts don't. Perhaps you can demonstrate the scientific errors with which you disagree, and point out where they're inaccurate?

Or perhaps you don't understand anything that you aren't repeating from what some government hack tells you...

Something you failed to recognize is that "data" requires a rationalist theory by which to interpret it. Many people have not been getting that kind of education (as Google's HR knows), so the "data" can then be interpreted any which way to suit pre-conditioned biases and vested interests. That's not "science." In fact, that's where so-called "authorities" come in: the propagandists and those paid to tell "the people" how to interpret the "data."

Who amongst those taking issue with my posts (@dannym3141) follows this epistemological "method" of reading the "data" and interpreting it, and who simply repeats what some "authority" tells them is the case?

(And lest you think "the people" are innocent victims, know that they seem more like willing participants; the extent to which they can be "victimized" depends on the extent of their own personal vices: anger, greed, pride, envy, laziness, etc. I'm looking at you @ChaosEngine.)

Once again you personally insult, and ignore most of the facts in order to further your insanity. I'll see your 'child' and raise you to infant.
FAIL
I only read your post because someone else replied quoting you (and I can't fathom why it showed your comment even then, it should have been hidden since you're ignored...@lucky760, what happened?)
You can't parrot what you haven't heard said, and no one else is pointing out that you can't be a patriot if you don't believe in the Fed, which unites the states....at least no one I've heard.
Your misconception based on intentionally misleading, 1/4 true, right wing media BS is obvious...this guy is a violent felon who publicly threatened to use violent force (against law enforcement that was not yet there in force OR heavily armed) to enforce his "right" to continue to break the law, no question, as are all those that brandish weapons at officers of the law, federal or not. It's the law that you can't do that to people not attacking you or breaking into your property (and NEVER to law officials) ...and no one attacked the cowards hiding behind their wall of women and children OR the Bundys, they simply confiscated illegally grazing cattle on FEDERAL land, belonging to all of us.
EDIT: and you ignore that most of these people don't consider themselves citizens, as they don't believe in the fed...without which there is no U in USA. They are citizens of their own states (in their own minds), considering themselves 'sovereign citizens', even though most don't have the balls to actually renounce their citizenship in the USA.
Non- payment of well known, legal state and federal fees for use of state and federal property, and non-payment of taxes are NOT civil matters, they are criminal, as is failure to appear. Many of his supporters guarding the Bundy's from prosecution (hindering prosecution is a felony too) are the same ones that support the fed seizing property of those caught with a joint, so it's not about state rights or 'freedom', it's about standing with idiots that hate what you hate, namely "the negro" (one in particular).

Marching in lock-step to your demise, child. Your comments on this matter read like a dutiful slave to your own oblivion.

One of the things no one has even cared to mention about this event is that the federal government, enforcing a civil affair (non-payment of grazing fees) sent armed swat teams to enforce the matter. The citizens of the United States who chose to show up in support of Bundy (a dumb-ass for the shit he's said of late, that the media has completely used to distract the putties with racism being an opportunistic side-issue in this entire debacle), who did so with guns as well-were within their rights to do so, breaking no laws. For this, they are called all manner of names and labeled as agitants, crazies,etc., by people without a clue as to how they are being ass-fucked.

The media, an arm of the state's machine, focuses upon this and continually pumps their brand of newsspeak, loaded language (like newtboy here repeats and foments to his own audience of parrots), and in doing so guides the story in a direction that further ignores facts while blatantly promoting the further erosion of individual rights under the constitution in favor of bigger, stronger, more restrictive government.

We are going to see more and more of this in the coming decade, as well as more people who favor the cozy protection of government control over individual responsibilities and accountability.

I know I'm posting to an old thread, but I created an account just to weigh in on this.

Part of the magic of The Far Side is each cartoon can be taken slightly different by each person b/c of how they perceive it or their own life experiences and still be funny. My take on this particular cartoon is the man owned a pet bird. If anyone has ever owned a parrot they've experienced shades/curtains/windows all destroyed (chewed up) by the bird. This man has had enough and decided to make a meal out of the creature.

Would you argue that whatever academics say about major world conflicts if they aren't parroting other agreed-upon-by-experts musings could be part of the overall codification of these events in world subconscious and conscious with a view to shaping minds for the next conflict to be orchestrated and implemented? The simple or complex aspects of any sacrificial lump of money and people can always be rendered into the essence of the insanity of the same with a simple and universally-agreed-upon homo-sapient common-sense.
Eveyone thinks 'ol Tom Edison was a goddamn genius and that Chris Columbus wasn't a complete cockbag posing as some ground-breaking explorer as well. What does the tinkerer and and a boat captain have in common? A lot of assholes have written tomes about both of them to deify them. One was an egotistical half-ass and the other a dirty fucking example of a Spaniard working for a cunt whore empire-builder.

ChaosEngine, your lack of any point reads COMPLETELY retarded and it's a not-so-cloaked personal attack at someone much more intellectually honest than yourself.

Again and again, your repeated statements reflect only your assumptions of my motivations based on the written words. If you'd like to know who and what I am you have but to inquire. I'll let you in on a little secret if you'd like a clue:

These are the absolute best of times to be alive in on planet now. If you want my opinion of the manner in which you and others of similar ilk conduct themselves on this site and others concerning a dissenting opinion or alternatives to run-of-the-mill editorials concerning world affairs anchored in parroting party-line opinions, you may crawl up my ass to find the answers for yourself.

As for anarchy well, you may look to geopolitics as reflected in the current paradigm, and perhaps you'll see that us common-folk haven't really got a clue of the debauch enjoyed by those involved in that sort of inhumanity.

say what you will about Obama, I love how he doesn't shy away from hecklers or he even lets them have their say.

so lets see if we can keep in the spirit of calling out hecklers. which sift troll will be the first to parrot some fox news talking point to try and change the subject? Lantern? Bobknight? Surely QM has something to say about his ears. Or will choggie dismiss it all with how the parties are all the same in his usual style of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

all in today's episode of...NAME THAT HECKLER!

Since this topic appears to have gone off the reservation, let me reign you back in for a moment.

I encourage you to re-watch the video we're commenting on.

This whole discussion, including the commentary by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, is all a response to Judge Napolitano's comments, on what is supposed to be an actual news network and, I imagine, supposed to be taken seriously?

Napolitano says: "Instead of allowing it to die, helping it to die, or even purchasing the slaves and then freeing them, which would have cost a lot less money than the Civil War cost, Lincoln set out on the most murderous war in American history."

That's what he said. In this very video, which is what we're all commenting on.

I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here.

You're attacking the comedians for making jokes about this and accusing them for doing what Napolitano just did!

He's the one claiming that Lincoln attacked the south to free the slaves!

So, again I ask, what are you even talking about?

This video, the daily show response, all of this argument, was supposed to be about Napolitano being totally wrong. I originally commented here because you were parroting his claims that Lincoln had a lot of options, but chose "murderous war" instead of buying every slave or whatever other imagined option you think he had.

So either you understand why the Civil War started, and we agree, as you sometimes seem to indicate, or you're in agreement with Napolitano and his view that Lincoln started the Civil War as one of his apparently many options for ending slavery.

So which is it?

Do you understand why you make no sense?

For enoch-Uhhh, at the end of the day, who are we to judge, period? My gentle chiding of Sagemind was more was more of an atomic bomb indictment of his take on 'reality' ( a personal construct ), the loaded use of language to parrot a framework for a way of thinking whereby so-called intelligent peeps give power away rather than embracing it, and my own coluratura-filled vitriolic on the overall tone and timbre easily recognized by anyone who doesn't think too hard about how they are being ass-fucked daily by shit-think.

Your own reductio ad absurdum with the dick-sucking options available to hard-working individuals well, I can appreciate your coming to the defense of a wayward soul but....Maybe the smarter and more fastidious folks in the herd should get more creative with such actions suggested later like tax fraud or even homicide if they want to see some tangible changes to digression of systems they so fervently defend.

Would it be more pertinent if the parrot was trained to vocalize the shopping list?