Man is by nature a political animal

One ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark, its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time, one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase - some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse - into the dustbin where it belongs. George Orwell

Posted by Phil on March 23rd, in the afternoon | 160 comments


Phil on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 3:14 PM

just testing this out...

Bigworm on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 3:29 PM

Giving props to William James I see.

Bigworm on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 3:30 PM

Better quote by George Orwell.

Bigworm on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 3:37 PM

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

Bigworm on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 3:40 PM

Another good quote.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? - Mahatma Gandhi

Bigworm on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 3:41 PM

Jimmy Carter is very wise.

"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."

Green Baron on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 3:44 PM

This is awesome. A chance to claim my throne as the wordiest Natty Sci Mofo' out there.

I'm only 19 letters behind Marc.....oooohhh, you're goin' down; and when I say down, I mean down down down down down down down with lots of letters down.
words words words.
Fuckin words

Phil on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 3:56 PM

more quotes!
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Phil on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 4:04 PM

I think I might make this so it only shows the last 50 posts or so to make it more manageable long term...Yeeeeeeah.

Bigworm on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 4:14 PM

Probably a good idea because this page could get chest deep in bullshit quickly.

Green Baron on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 4:28 PM

I have that post above my desk Phil.
I don't think Brock likes it.


Green Baron on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 4:29 PM

At least I HAD it there......hmmmmmm.....
I just looked to discover it missing.

Green Baron on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 4:29 PM

I meant quote, not post. fuck

Bigworm on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 4:50 PM

Baron - Brock's a German. Why do you think I call him Erwin Rommel aka "The Desert Fox". He is upset that we all know the great German secret on how to start a war.

You non patriotic pacifist, will burn in hell!

Green Baron on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 4:55 PM

Well, you never let me get to my point on Iraq, since this forum is just for that.
I think what it all boils down to, is what makes Iraq different than Iran and Korea, and other oppressed nations of hate. I think what Sheehan and others is saying, is that the administration led us to believe that Iraq is a threat, where the others aren't.
I mean, Korea's not a threat. Kim Jong Il is just sitting in his mountain palace with his black panthers feeling ronery.
However, I think we were led to believe that Iraq had to be invaded as it was a threat; which anti-war activists believe was false. I think the real reason was to "settle the score" per se, or because we know we could kick the shit out of Iraq. I just don't think we realized that licking their ass and occupying are two completely different things.

I just want those boys out of there. I don't think the cause that they're dying for is a good enough one.

Bigworm on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 5:29 PM

You know what, the more I sit back and look at it you might actually be correct. Even though I still feel that Iraq had WMD at some point and just because they haven't found an armed missle doesn't mean they didn't have them in the first place.

I think before the US attacked and invaded Iraq those weapons were long gone or covered up, which is why Saddam went on the run with about 1 millions US dollars on him. Saddam tried to lay low so after everything was blown over he could come out of hiding and resume power again. If Iraq didn't have anything to hide, then why run? I think he knew he had some key guys in the UN and he knew they would never do much into actually having him hand anything over.

I completely agree that the UN is the best way to handle these things, however, how long do you give an individual? I didn't want to invade Iraq and waste billions of dollars because that is money that could be well spent on programs back here for Americans or helping reduce the defecit. Dictators who are oppressing their people are like Sith Lords. The only thing they fear is losing their power and they will do everything in their means to keep it.

You are very correct though, occupying Iraq is completely different than kicking their ass on the battlefield. Bush made the stupid comment about it being over after Saddam was caught. That was only the beginning. Now you have to occupy a country and convince people we are occupying them for a good cause, which has proved to be very difficult due to the hatred for Americans that is taught by radical islamic clerics and the censored media. Now you have extremist terrorists calling for a jihad with the US. In my opinion, there must be a diplomatic end, until then Iraq moves closer to a civil war.

Green Baron on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 11:09 AM

Yah, the question remains, where do we go from here. I think we can conclude that muslim extremists are almost as bad as scientologists. It really sucks that we're placed in this position now of what the fuck to do with them. I'm not so sure we shouldn't just bug out, let them kill each other, and when the weakened victor emerges, convince the world their psycho fucks and kick their ass again. Repeat this a couple times and your left with the sane ones; what's left of them.
Yah, I know, not much of a foreign policy.
I don't know why we're even trying Saddam. It's not like he's ever going to be released. We should have just shot him. I mean, look at Milosevic. We wasted hundreds of millions trying that fucker and he ups and dies. What an asshole. We should have just shot him, turned to the world and said, "Oh come knew it was coming. Here's the hundreds of millions it would have cost to hold him and try him, now shut your fuckin' mouths"
Several of my friends from high school and college are over there fighting those psycho fucks. I just feel they're not the ones to do it; especially when they are viewed the way they are by the rest of the world. That's a lot of young men that have given their lives for those cocksuckers. And for what, getting Saddam? I mean, that's really all we accomplished. I just don't think Saddam was worth it. I don't think there is a way to avoid civil war; in fact, I think it's already going on. We really don't know, as all of the journalists are holed up in the Green Zone and those who leave get killed. We get a scattering array of reports of what's going on, and of course they're what the world wants to hear: Bombs, death, psycho fucks.
Every day there's like a dozen people killed in Baghdad, 3 cops just the other day. Baghdad is about the size of Louisville/Cincy right? Can you imagine 3 cops dying every day in that city. Who the hell would want to be a cop? And that's just Baghdad. What's going on around the rest of the country?
It's a scary situation that I don't think we comprehend. Civil war is already coming, and I don't think we should be in the way. Yah, it's a shitty thing to do, but I don't know if there is anything we can do about it now.

Bigworm on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 11:39 AM

In 2003, the population of Baghdad was estimated at 5.8 million people. The city is freaking huge, which just proves why it is so hard to maintain order there with just a handful of troops/patrols/policeman. Couple that with the fact that everyone has a machine gun and you have about 5.8 million vigalantes in Baghdad alone. That is how it is in every city over there about. Clerics are pretty much all anti-US (not that I really blame them for the shit they are in now), and they all have their loyal followers. What is stopping them from turning on us at any moment?

A civil war on the horizon in Iraq and everyone is seizing control. What is going to be really bad is we are going to have another version of Israel/Palestine over the West Bank, except multiplied by having more than 2 groups fighting. It won't be the Sunni vs. the Shi' will be all crazy clerics and their armies for themselves, trying to reign supreme. That is what awaits the world if the US/UN leaves now. I don't think we should leave, but what remains to be seen is does it really matter if we are there or not?

What is also an interesting turn is the Iraqis are starting to stand up against the insurgents. For example, several days ago Al-Sadyr's men hung 4 men who were carrying bomb vests that wanted to cause more chaos than what is already going on. This is a necessary step to show the Jordanian Terror Mind that "we ain't gonna take it....anymore!" (sorry couldn't resist). As these people finally become fed up with the insurgency they will rebel against these people.

And what is Al-Zarqawi really trying to accomplish. He keep destabilizing the region, and is he hoping they will boot the US out and will he stop at that point? It's not really like he can take control because he is Jordanian and the Clerics and people of Iraq won't accept him. I wish the people of Iraq would turn on him and cut off his head as a warning to the other insurgents. If we can get to him, we can get to you type of thing.

Bigworm on Monday, March 27, 2006 at 4:56 PM

Looks as if patience is growing thin.

Brock on Monday, March 27, 2006 at 5:08 PM

Holy fuckin' shit. Phil, you are the anti-christ. This whole political page is going to further suck my life away. On top of that, once and for all, the Baron will never stand up from his desk and nothing will ever get accomplished in the lab.

Natty Sci website expansion is inversely proportional to DeKoter lab productivity.

Oh well, that cure for cancer can just wait.

Bigworm on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 10:54 AM

Desert Fox - this was the happy medium. We get our own page to rant and rave so we don't invade their forums that belong to poop jokes and the such.

Brock on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 4:42 PM

I kinda got that.

So lets talk about Hilary and how big a nutjob she is. I don't think she has any business running for president. Actually no woman has the right to run for president. Nancy Zimpher proved that!

I have decided that anytime someone mentions Hilary and presidency together in the same sentance, I'm going to scream Nancy Zimpher at them and kick them in the shin.

Bigworm on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 11:21 AM

So what if we have a Clinton vs. Rice runoff?

Bigworm on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 4:40 PM

Baron - maybe we learned a hard lesson in Iraq and are trying the diplomatic UN route the 2nd time around.,2933,189452,00.html

Bigworm on Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 2:40 PM

Mmmmmmmm...Defiant Iran is.

Brock on Monday, April 03, 2006 at 12:36 PM

As I recall, there were a few UN resolutions that were passed before Iraq too. This defiance of UN resolutions is nothing new.

Jay on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 at 11:44 AM

Right, because Democrats are the assholes.

Bigworm on Thursday, April 06, 2006 at 2:08 PM

Tom Delay is a fucking idiot.

Bigworm on Friday, April 07, 2006 at 9:31 AM

Jesus Fucking Christ!

Israel and Palenstine might actually finally come to a resolution.,2933,190939,00.html

Anyone want to take any bets how long it will take for the first suicide bomber to come across the boarder if they actually make 2 states?

Jay on Friday, April 07, 2006 at 12:53 PM

I'll take 30 seconds after division.

Barry on Friday, April 07, 2006 at 2:28 PM

all politicians are assholes and no politicians are anywhere near altruistic

Bigworm on Monday, April 10, 2006 at 11:05 AM

Looks like a show-down with Iran is looming. Good thing North Korea doesn't have any oil.

Jay on Monday, April 10, 2006 at 11:34 AM

Here's an interview with a New Yorker writer, about Iran. I'm not sure how much is speculation, but it scares the bejesus out of me.

Bigworm on Monday, April 10, 2006 at 3:00 PM

My favorite point was a potential Hitler..look in the mirror ass!

Barry on Monday, April 10, 2006 at 3:54 PM

Caution! Republican speaking: i'm going to go ahead and speak my mind here and i know you may disagree. Who is a bigger quack Bush or this guy from Tehran? I'm going with the Iranian guy. Remember this guy has said that the holocaust was "a myth" and that the nation of Israel should be wiped off the earth. And I know no one asked my opinion on the war in Iraq, but here it is. If you don't want to hear it don't read it. We had bad information. That's it. Bush has proven to have blind faith in an administration that has proven itself incompetent (courtesy of that bitch Katrina). Remember that this guy is only the third president that i can count to have his country attacked while he was in office (1812 and Pearl Harbor). He was probably scared of being the only president to have been attacked twice and he would never have been forgiven of that by people now, historians, and i think himself. So when his administration told him that Iraq had WMD's he acted, the same as congress did. To me it seems a bit irrational to think that this whole war was a scheme for oil or vengeance for Papa Bush or whatever other conspiracy theory you come up with based on one thing...he's a FUCKING MORON! This is the same guy that after 6 years of people ripping on him for mispronouncing "nuclear" he still says "nucular" and people try to tell me that he's smart enough and devious enough to come up with a plan to convince Congress and America to go to war with Iraq for his own personal gain...please he has to have Condi tie his shoelaces. His administartion isn't any more intelligent(also see Katrina reference). No, after careful consideration I 've decided that we are in this war because our leaders are well intentioned but dumb, not evil. Why wouldn't Bush say he screwed up? It's possible that he's arrogant and refuses to admit his wrong (I don't think Washington is full of the most humble of people). Another option is that he believes we screwed up but also believes (much like I do) that we can't leave now nor likely anytime soon. If we cut and run some quack maybe al-zarqawi will suddenly find themselves in charge of a country that the world is dependent on for oil. with the amazing amount of revenue the oil can bring in, al-zarqawi would seek to no end to obtain wmd's and would not hesitate to use them on Israel or the U.S. So if Bush believes the troops can't leave (i.e. they have to keep risking their lives) why would he say that this mission was a mistake. Many (though certainly not all) of the troops believe in what they are fighting for. If their boss tells them "actually guys i fucked up, but you still have to stay there oh and watch out for the roadside bombs. My bad." I think you would see men and women going awol like mad (and who could blame them). And for every man that goes awol that's another man with an exposed back. So this is my opinion. Feel free to say I'm stupid, or narrow minded, or a robot or whatever else you want to say because i honestly don't give a shit i work with the uberliberals all day. if you want to disagree with my points in civil discousre that's fine have at it. Peace out.

Barry on Monday, April 10, 2006 at 4:02 PM

sorry about getting worked up but i think calling the bush administration "hitler" is more than a bit of a stretch and i've heard this conspiracy theory stuff all day for the past 2 years and i get a little tired of it, especially when there seems to be such a simple obvious answer.

Bigworm on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 4:00 PM

Hey I was a proud Bush supporter, however, he got under my skin with the port deals. I still back him in Iraq because I agree that tyrants need to be wiped out and I don't care if they have a remote chance of a WMD, those fuckers should not be allowed to have one.

Okay, calling him hitler was over the top, I agree, on that but he is losing supporters and needs to change policy.

Bigworm on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 4:18 PM

Maybe The Prophet said quit fucking everything up you damn extremist.

Green Baron on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 2:51 PM

Wow, people are still posting on here, I should have been checking.

You bring up a lot of good points Barry. A lot of people are pulling the conspiracy card, and I guess I am a little. However, I disagree in the fact that Bush was the sole supporter of said conspiracy. Remember, the President calls the shots, but he's not the only one looking through the rifle. There is substantial evidence that others in this administration wanted desperately to go after Iraq; for their own reasons. These are the individuals that are feeding him a lot of the information that he gets. You won't get any argument out of me that he is an idiot, but he should be double-checking some facts before jumping into battle; even an idiot knows that.

The whole war in Iraq began in public political discussion which were ignored several years before Iraq, between Hawks and Doves. Once the Hawks got into Bush's cabinet and leadership positions, they got their wish by attaching the terrorist tag to the operation. Once they had a reason for Iraq, they had a right. Unfortunately, I believe that reason was flawed from the beginning. I'm gonna steal some Bill Hicks here, but shortly after Iraq War I, Saddam was quoted as saying, "Iraq has no problems with America, we only want to see George Bush's head cut off and kicked down the street like a soccer ball". That's funny, I want to see the same thing! My point is, Iraq was never a threat in my opinion. Even if Iraq had WMD's, they were likely supplied by the US, just like every other nation in the middle east. Why go after them now with such an excuse?

As for pulling out (ha ha), I don't think the insurgents would win control of Iraq. Iraq has an established police force and army now that can withstand their attacks. I see no reason why US servicemen, who aren't doing most of the policing now that the Iraqi's are taking control, should continue to engage in such operations. These sons and daughters are giving their lives for a war I never agreed with. I don't think chaos will befall Iraq if we leave, not now. And yah, this is arguable.

Bush as a Hitler. The similarities can be drawn. But hell, I could pull similarities between a 3-balled poodle and Ashley Simpson; don't get worked up over it. It is just a ploy of extreme liberals to grab your attention, and it worked.

Green Baron on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 2:56 PM

And on the WMD's issue. The US sold most of those WMD's to Iraq and other middle Eastern countries. Now, it is a little hypocritical to start firing on them now for having them; but in the US defense, if we didn't sell them, someone else would have. I keep trying to explain that one to my wife. She is always on my case about the US being the world's #1 arms seller, and we do most of our business with nations in conflict (well that's obvious). I keep trying to explain to her that if we didn't sell them, someone else would swoop down on that market; so why shouldn't we see a little piece of that action? But of course it is never a good stance to come out and say, yah, well we want them back cause you can't handle them.

Jay on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Gee, a Fox news correspondent getting paid to talk favorably about the administration. Go figure.

Green Baron on Friday, April 28, 2006 at 12:07 PM

Why do we even vote for these guys? Instead of taking the fuel efficient car the final blocks after giving a talk about the importance of energy conservation, they switch to their gas-guzzling SUV's.

Jay on Friday, April 28, 2006 at 4:08 PM


Green Baron on Thursday, May 04, 2006 at 5:09 PM

Stephen Colbert sells out:

Barry on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 12:28 PM

fuck it, i've been in one arguement today why not start another
"As for pulling out (ha ha), I don't think the insurgents would win control of Iraq. Iraq has an established police force and army now that can withstand their attacks. "
I find this point especially interesting because all I hear on the news, in the office, and the political arena is how we don't have control over there. That Iraq is headed for civil war. If the Iraq military and police don't have control now, how would they have it on their own?

Green Baron on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 3:23 PM

Well, it's like this. Iraq is an area of instability; and there is no control as there are bombs going off in markets and people are killing each other. However, if we leave, this stuff will continue to go on. Maybe it will be less, who knows. However; it's no different than the current situation.
My point is, there is no way the insurgents will gain governmental control. What is being confused here is instability versus governmental coup. There is instability in Colombia (bombs, mass murders, kidnappings) that don't get reported. However, the insurgents there are not near gaining governmental control because the Colombian military isn't going to start taking orders from them. The same is for Iraq. Yah, the insurgents might blow some shit up, might kill some people, might kidnap some people, but they aren't going to make the laws and they aren't going to take governmental control; because the Iraq military is not about to start taking orders from them.
Plus, you aren't going to stop daily bombings. The media likes to say it is a area out of control; but that is misleading. Somalia is out of control, Iraq has control, they just have insurgents. As long as they keep fighting back, which they are more than capable of doing without us at this point, than why should we stay and continue to lose our soldiers to some sand-herder. They are going to kill each other without us, we're just getting in the way. The government has been established, it has a armored military that will continue to control; in the words of the philosopher Hudson, "Hey, why don't we just bug out and call it even, man?"

Barry on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 4:15 PM

...and we come to an impass as often happens in political discussions. I understand and agree that there is a difference between instability and a coup. I also agree that Iraq will never be bomb free. But in this instance I think the instability is one that Iraqi forces are not yet ready to control and could lead to a coup. Make no mistake, I enjoy these discussions and feel that listening to my hippy friends here in academia as well as friends on the sci has been a valuable resource for establishing and defending my own views and hope you feel the same way. I learn little by only listening to those of like mind. So I guess I'm saying thanks.

Green Baron on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 5:44 PM

Yah, I agree. The situation in Iraq remains a mystery, as most reporters fear to venture into the field; but remain holed up in the green zone. We shall agree to disagree, but San Diego does mean a whale's vagina. And I absolutely enjoy hearing other people's views. Most times I just come off too cocky and sure of myself; which gives the impression I'm not listening to other people. That isn't the case, and I'm trying to get better at that.

In other news:

which is what really blows my mind. I guess when we need the oil, anybody who we aren't fighting looks nice. I mean, this is bullshit. Libya still harbors terrorists and terrorist activity. They recently attempted assassination of the Prince of Saudi Arabia. What the fuck? Honestly. Take them off the terrorist list? A little hypocritical, don't you think?

Bigworm on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 11:16 AM

Their army and police are untested. Yes they will fight when the Americans have their backs, but they must prove they can fight without the Americans.

This could be partly psychological due to being oppressed for many many many years.

Bigworm on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 12:00 PM

That is Bush's way of dealing with the "energy crisis". There is no crisis. Gas costs $3 bucks. Either pay it or don't drive. We have long had everything our way for way to long...those days are gone.

Barry on Friday, May 19, 2006 at 4:41 PM

proof that there are people that go way too far on either side of any issue (not that I think anyone here would debate that point),2933,196219,00.html

Barry on Friday, May 19, 2006 at 4:47 PM

cheney just spoke at commencement this morning. One grad student did wear a bright orange jacket and her major professor wore a target on his back.

Green Baron on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 11:08 AM

The best movie from last year - Good Night, and Good Luck.

The best movie. Absolutely fantastic. However, if you turn on Fox News to gather all your liberal news, you won't like it. You won't even understand it.

The truth is, there is no such thing as liberal news. My argument is that movie.

Barry on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 1:04 PM

i watch fox and cnn usually though sometimes cbs, nbc, msnbc etc. But i usually try to watch fox and someone else. here's the thing. saying you're fair and balanced doesn't mean you're fair and balanced. and i do think fox is biased to the right. but i also feel that many other stations are biased to the left.
simple example:

cnn: three marines were killed in fallujah today from a roadside bomb. It is the 10th incident this week.

fox: three marines were killed today from a roadside bomb as they were securing a block in fallujah. military officials said the mssion was a success.

same story, but pending on what part you leave out, you can get a slightly different view of how things went over there. That is bias. News of such importance should be reported completely. It is important to remember every troop that gets wounded or killed and they should make the news every day. and it is vital to remember just how many troops have lost life and limb over there. they should not be forgotten. it is also important to note when objectives are being accomplished.

Additionally, many who argue about liberal bias are not talking about the news during the Mccarthy era. They feel as though the news has slowly drifted away from being unbiased. Lastly, Fox certailny has conservative opinion pieces ("O' Reilly Factor"), but a lot of their editorial shows show both sides of an arguement ("Hannity & Colmes," " the Beltway Boys" and Brit Hume's show). However, many shows on CNN and other news stations feature people with a liberal viewpoint. I always get a kick out of seeing Joe Klein on as CNN's political analyst with no one of opposing viewpoints on with him. The you see him on the Daily Show and it is quite apparent where he stands politically.

Barry on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 1:39 PM

oh and I did call the Ray Nagin getting re-elected thing. I think there's a lesson for Democrats for this November to learn from this election and from national elections in '04. It seems to me that no matter how bad the incumbent is screwing up, you better come with more than the "i can't do as bad as that guy" approach. It seemed like that was the Democratic platform in '04. Kerry would bash Bush's policies, but offered little explanation of what he would do on his own.

Example (mind you none of these are direct quotes, i'm going from memory) : The President has turned the Iraq War into a quagmire and only plans on more of the same.

(That's good. point out the flaws in your opponents plans, and the more specific you get the better. but we got no plan from Kerry on what he would do differently. We got:)

I have a five point plan to turn this war around and get our troops home. I will start by getting more foreign nations to get involved...

He never really went into how he would get other countries involved, just said he would get them involved. how do you persuade France, Germany, and Russia to get involved with a war that they objected to from the start? Not to mention that their people are against the war and those people, not US citizens are the ones you have to keep happy in order to keep your job.

Mitch Landrieu even said that he didn't think Nagin and he really differed politically, just a difference in leadership style. Not many differences in the plan.

Certainly there were other factors at work in both these elections including evangelism, racism, sketchy monetary support, etc. But I'm saying the GOP has all but handed the Dems the fall election, but the Dems better have some plans of their own. It's easy to sit back and say I can do better than that guy and criticize his decisions. It's another to come up with your own plans and actually do a better job.

Green Baron on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 3:22 PM

I would completely disagree that there is any left-biased media; aside from AirAmerica. Even PBS is funded by major corporations. If they speak out against them, they lose their funding. How can you be biased against your funder? (Watch Good Night and Good Luck, a true story, to see this in action on CBS 50 years ago.)

There is a difference on how you report the news and which news you choose to report. Many television news networks don't even report on stories. Not a single station has ever covered Libya's assassination attempt on Saudi Arabia's prince. Why not? Well, that would be negative news for the oil industry, wouldn't it? All major news networks are owned by 5 megacorporations; who all have interest in Libyan energy. It's quite obvious why news gets reported the way it does. The war in Iraq is impossible to avoid.

CBS, NBC, ABC, don't tell both sides. First off, why are there only 2 sides? That seems to indicate one is right and one isn't offhand. There's certainly nobody out there telling my side in the news. The coverage of the election was ludicrous from every network. Most of it was gossip and heresay. Why not just tell it like it is? Kerry and the democrats had to tell America Bush's tax cuts were benefitting the top 1%. Not a single network would reiterate it. However, didn't stop them from covering the Shrimp Boat Veterans, or whatever their names were, from crucifying Kerry. Week of Iowa caucuses, picture of Dean on the cover with "Doubts about Dean" in large bold on Newsweek. WTF? The article had nothing negative about him, but displayed him in a negative picture and he loses the caucus to Lurch. Are you kidding me?

And Colmes is not the Democratic point of view. No Democrat would choose Colmes as their representative. He's a tool.

Green Baron on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 3:36 PM

I thought Kerry's plans were well laid out. I think it was that he was going to attempt to gather assistance from other nations; which was a lot better than Bush's stance of, "Fuck 'em". This didn't necessarily have to involve troops. It would be their assistance in establishing government, assist the iraqi people through charitable efforts, engineering assistance (all stuff we could use but Bush doesn't ask for it). So chances are, France, Russia, and Germany would assist in those aspects as we do with them all the time.

That's what bugs me, people say Kerry was wishy-washy. That was complete Republican propaganda that was reiterated on all major networks. If anyone really read his site or listened to him talk he was very precise in what he envisioned. Yah, he didn't say, "Well, first I'm gonna call France and ask them for this, then I'll call the Germans...." But who does. Bush never had any plan except, "Stay the course....uhhhh....terror....terrorists, freedom.....uhhhh.....nucular.....look! terrorists hate freedom! uuuuuu.....God bless America.....Jesus would vote for me"

Green Baron on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 3:39 PM

Here's a good joke,
So Bush was awoken recently by 3 ghosts in the white house. The first ghost that appeared was George Washington. Bush asked him, "How can I best help the American people." Washington responded with, "Be honest".
Next, Thomas Jefferson appeared, and Bush again asked, "How can I best serve the American people?" Jefferson replied, "Listen to the people".
Finally, Abraham Lincoln appeared, and Bush reiterated, "How can I best serve the American people, Abe?"
Lincoln replied, "Go to the fucking theater"

Barry on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 5:24 PM

I have seen good night and good luck.

"First off, why are there only 2 sides? That seems to indicate one is right and one isn't offhand."

I thought about that right after I typed it. You're right there are more than 2 sides. But I didn't mean that one is right and one isn't. On the contrary, I watch multiple news programs because I often believe the answer falls in the middle somewhere. To continue with my example earlier: what happened in Iraq was that for the tenth time this week 3 marines died, though the objective was achieved.

"Why not? Well, that would be negative news for the oil industry, wouldn't it?"

Are you suggesting a nation-wide right wing bias?

"There is a difference on how you report the news and which news you choose to report."

Obviously, but my point is that the bias is often in what news gets reported and what news doesn't. You're Libyan assassination story is a good point however.

"Kerry and the democrats had to tell America Bush's tax cuts were benefitting the top 1%."

Unemployment is below 5%, many attribute this to the tax breaks. Though I think we would go back and forth about this all day.

"And Colmes is not the Democratic point of view. No Democrat would choose Colmes as their representative. He's a tool."

He may not be Howard Dean but he is a registered Democrat. He voices many of the opinions you've stated here. That's a damn shame. He certainly looks like a tool, but I think he makes a lot of good points and does a good job of refuting the arguements Hannity and other conservatives put forward. He does it in a calm tone and doesn't attack anyone's personal character and due to that many times I think he comes out looking more classy and ahead than Hannity. Maybe it's just a preference for style. I don't care for analysts that have to yell over other people (O'Reilly), or make accusations about someone's character (Ann Coulter). I prefer an analyst that can say what needs to be said, make strong arguments, without resorting to 5th grade name calling. Really, if I called you a gd pot-smoking, tree-hugging hippy who thinks that all the world's problems can be solved through diplomacy are you going to listen to anything I have to say? and if you said I am an ignorant, sister-fucking, war mongering, homophobic redneck does that really get us anywhere? So maybe that's the difference in the view of Colmes. Or maybe you don't like him in much the same way as many conservatives don't like John McCain.

Barry on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 5:38 PM

"I think it was that he was going to attempt to gather assistance from other nations; which was a lot better than Bush's stance of, "Fuck 'em"."

Engineering shit is nice, but what we need are troops on the ground, so there are less of our troops there. Bush tried to get their aid when he went to the U.N. before the war ...they said no. He tried after the Iraq military serving under Saddam was defeated...they said no again. I can pull out conspiracy shit too. Maybe France and Russia didn't want to get involved because Saddam was hooking them up with low oil prices and Germany had a contract with Iraq over oil drills.

"If anyone really read his site or listened to him talk he was very precise in what he envisioned."

I watched every debate and listened to a lot of what he had to say outside of the debates.

"Well, first I'm gonna call France and ask them for this, then I'll call the Germans...."

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying Kerry did not explain how you convince a nation that is against this war to assist in it. To me it was like the High School class president debates where "if i get elected, I will push to do away with the dress code." You can push all you want, it won't work.

Green Baron on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 6:26 PM

That's from the AP. Notice how the American media puts the title. "Killed dozens of Taliban". Unless you read every single article, you'd never notice that they hit a school. I'm sure the Pakistani Times has a much different take on this. Yet, we are considered "liberal" media.

I'll answer more later, I'm going home.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 11:10 AM

That is the BBC coverage of the same article. Notice how it slants more left than what is considered "liberal" here. I could show a million examples of this. What we consider liberal in the media still falls to the right of what is reported elsewhere. That's from the BBC, that is still right of other reports, but farther left than us because it is funded by the British government; and they can't lose their funding. Notice the title, "Dozens die". Not, "dozens of Taliban". Also notice they describe the school, which the US AP omits. But they still don't describe the ages of this school, or why the hell it got hit. These are things that are most likely reported in other sources. This is what I mean by what we choose to cover. Sure, the AP article appears to be to the left as it covers negative reports. But it lacks the detail necessary to truly be liberal. So, there aren't 2 sides in this. There are obviously more. Gathering all sources from US sources is not being fair and balanced; doesn't matter who you turn on. Hell, NPR didn't even cover this story.

I thought the best example was early in the war when all US papers published the picture of the US soldier giving water to a Taliban fighter, and he was praised on the cover for being the humanitarian. However, the BBC had the same picture, without the cropping, that showed a friggin rifle being stuck to the guys head by another soldier. Somehow, that was cropped out when reported by the US news. You could turn on any news source in the US and not get that side of the story.

So, am I suggesting a right-wing bias. That question suggests that that is an impossibility. As much of an impossibility as a Nazi bias in Germany in 1938, an Bathe-party bias in Iraq in 2003, etc. etc. This country is fueled by money and greed. Bias, conspiracy; these are negative terms that suggest it is bad to talk about what is going on. Right-wing mentality is for the strengthening of corporate America. Therefore, displaying news negative to corporate America would not help this. Therefore, the news gets editorialized. I thought it was best in the movie when Jeff Daniels says, "Well, you have to tell both sides." Well, who says there are always 2 sides to a story? Who says there is anything else but what happened? It's the news, not the reasons for the news.
The Kerry comment was to provide an example of how the media was refusing to reiterate both sides; not because of the validity of the statement.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 11:10 AM

And Colmes is not who any Democrat would choose to go up against Hannity. Truth is, I've never watched a show, but I've seen clips of it. Colmes continues to omit points that Hannity would have no answer to, or would have to struggle to find one. No, I hate name-callers as well. By "tool", I mean that he doesn't argue his supposed side well enough. He's a pinata for Hannity to smack around. I hate most political analysts are rarely read, or listen, to any.
I believe if we had some engineering help (road construction, electricity, rebuilding of destroyed home, assistance to displaced families) we might have a lot less resistance than we have now. In addition, if it was a cooperative effort in setting up a government, perhaps there would be less resistance to it. Troops would be nice, but Kerry never said he would ask for them. He said he would appeal to the international community for assistance. Something I think we could use in whatever they could give.
For me, Kerry saying he would make an attempt, was good enough. I took him at his word that he would try to get international assistance and appeal to the international community in any way possible. He asserted that it wouldn't be easy; but he would try. Bush came flat out and said no such attempt would be made if he were re-elected; and he has certainly kept to that. I think if we had some assistance, the resistance in Iraq would be less. If it was an international attempt to set up a government, the country would be more accepting of it. Since it is a US-UK effort, I can only imagine that very few are fond of it. I also think that if the US would appeal for assistance to the world, the world would be more docile in their protest against the war. Instead, the international community remains pissed at us; and it will only hurt us in trade and economy.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 11:20 AM

Notice the AP article spends most of its time describing what fantastic weapons we used to kill a bunch of kids. This happened repeatedly in the war. CNN had a detail on all our fantastic machinery. "Yah, we got A-10 warthog lined with 50-caliber heat seaking retro-rockets, the most advanced weaponry in the world". War is war, it isn't some video game. People die. The focus was completely turned from what they do to: what they are. We all laughed at the Iraqi Ministry for his version of the story; but how hypocritical of us. No one had any idea of what we were doing to the Iraqi forces or friendlies, just that we were blowing the shit out of them like they were space invaders. That we were being greeted by parades, flowers, and kisses as we stormed into their towns. No one looks back on this and says, "Wait a minute? They loved us and now they hate us?, Something ain't right here".
Our version was warped to. Albeit not AS warped. But warped nonetheless; and it was very sad how everyone laughed at that guy but couldn't laugh at themselves.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 11:27 AM

One more, it goes back to the assistance thing. I am forever reminded of coverage of a US raid on an Iraqi home. The troops go to the door and knock at 1 in the morning. The guy comes to the door and attempts to explain something, but only speaks Arabic. Unfortunately, the troops don't have an interpreter, so they got no clue to what this guy is saying. The troops say open the door, he denies them. Finally, they bust down the door, beat him to the ground, tie him up, and completely ransack his house to find absolutely nothing.
HAD they brought an interpreter, the would have realized the guy didn't deny them, he said the women of the house were not clothed properly, and to please give him a couple of minutes (it was 1 am afterall). Now the guy, who was in support of the US, is no longer in favor of what we are doing. We completely destroyed his house and broke a holy Muslim rule of law. If we could increase our Arabic interpreter population, perhaps this would have been avoided. But instead, we just pissed off one more Iraqi. This is where assistance would help.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 11:33 AM

Sweet, found it:

The unaltered photo

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 11:36 AM

better image

I haven't been able to find the cropped version of it.

Brock on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 2:42 PM

Take a good look at that picture. Take a good look. Depth perception. That gun is not against his head, its in the forground. They are soldiers, capturing prisoners. They better have guns. Of course its cropped out, because its not pressed against his temple like some would have you believe, but simply in front of the action. Ever see Forrest Gump. You can make a lot of things look real if you juxtapose figures.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 2:50 PM

Yah, I saw that. But I couldn't correct what I had previously typed; and I didn't have the picture in front of me when I typed it.
However, he is still pointing the gun at him; and, it was cropped out of the picture when published in the US. And it is obvious why; which still supports my point.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 3:01 PM

Also, if you look, that's an Iraqi Republican Guard outfit, not a Taliban. So it was the Iraqi war, and I lied twice. And of course I didn't really sleep with Mira Sorvino, so that was a lie too.
But the point stands. If it was "liberal" media; why crop the photo? Obviously the gun represents an image you don't wish to convey. Why else would you crop it.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 3:10 PM

Here is a good article on Hannity and Colmes:

It is from FAIR, who claim to be "independent".
Their claim, not mine, before you scream at me for them being liberal. I really don't know much about them; but my guess is if you are called "Fair and Accuracy in Reporting", you probably believe it isn't fair or accurate; making you a liberal. But I liked the article.

Brock on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 3:18 PM

Not to beleaguer the point, but the gun is pointed in his general direction. If he pulled the trigger, he might hit the guy in the knee, but its not aimed at his head.

The reason why this was cropped? Because, just as you have, many would say that the gun is pressed against his head, and its not. An optical illusion completely obscures the fact that the soldiers are giving this guy water, and not chopping his head off.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 3:28 PM

If you look at the picture, the guy has his left hand under the rifle in an aiming manner, meaning he is pointing the gun at the Iraqi; and I'd say more at his chest.

I think it is undeniable they are giving him water. The gun is irrelevant for that aspect. No one would deny that, unless the canteen holds battery acid. He is an enemy, so it is expected you would cover the guy with your rifle. If it was truly liberal, it wouldn't matter the gun is there. But its not; so in the US, you lose the gun. In addition, the guy also has his hands bound, which is also missing in the US edition of the photo (which the more you argue it, the more I have to find it).

Just looking at the picture without caption, it is quite obvious soldiers are giving an Iraqi water while keeping him covered. However, in the US version, it is only US troops giving him water. It is what is omitted that makes it no longer liberal.

Green Baron on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 3:56 PM

Here is the US version of the picture, although it is off my photobucket, I found it in a yahoo search, but it had been removed from the site, so you get the small version.

Bigworm on Thursday, June 01, 2006 at 4:51 PM

Inside a rocket building GAZA!

Bigworm on Thursday, June 01, 2006 at 4:54 PM

yeah definately for worse to bound someone's arms and give them water with a gun pointed at them as opposed to taking out a huge knife and beheading someone.

Green Baron on Friday, June 02, 2006 at 10:46 AM

Yah, but in the Al Jazeera version of the film, they crop out the knife and give him scissors instead, so he's just giving the guy a haircut.

Bigworm on Friday, June 02, 2006 at 11:37 AM

Good call Isaac.

So the question is where did this material go?

Green Baron on Friday, June 02, 2006 at 11:44 AM

Are you suggesting Iran? I doubt that. Saddam and Iran hated each other. I could believe Syria. However, I find it more likely that it never existed. I also find the possibility that Iran is not after a nuclear weapon.

Green Baron on Friday, June 02, 2006 at 11:46 AM

I thought that defector, Khidhir Hamza, was also shown to be full of shit too; that he expanded his story to gain appeal and sell books.
I am not sure, though.

Brock on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 at 2:21 PM

This is the bullshit that happens when we listen to Europe

I can handle our guns and rockets being used against us, but not nuclear weapons.

Jay on Friday, June 09, 2006 at 3:34 PM

Mark my words, this is the start of WWIII.

Green Baron on Monday, June 19, 2006 at 5:47 PM

So when does Iran play Israel in the world cup?

Does anyone show up to that game?

I'm sure it would be a blast.

Green Baron on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 12:08 PM

German fans are great:

But they got nothing on the Swedes:

What does this have to do with politics? Well, it's all boobs anyway.

Bigworm on Monday, June 26, 2006 at 3:25 PM

Holy shit..this is crazy...though doesn't really surprise me.!=8211

Bigworm on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 9:12 AM

I think the insurgents are in trouble now.

Russians are crazy and will fucking gas an entire town to kill one person.

Green Baron on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 1:14 PM

Holy shit. I remember the story of when Lebanese terrorists captured a shitload of Russian embassy workers, and then said they would cut off one's head each and every hour. So Russia employed Spetznaz who kidnapped one of the terrorists and cut off his head and sent it to the other terrorists.
The hostages were immediately released. Those Russians got some balls.

In other news

"Obama: Democrats must court evangelists"

Obama: "Our slogan could be, join us! We'll fix your teeth, sterilize you, and teach you to read!! I'm just not sure if anyone will be able to read the signs."

Green Baron on Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 6:57 PM

Green Baron on Friday, July 14, 2006 at 12:06 PM

Here is information on the social security debate, with a good description of the pros and cons and why the resistance.

Jay on Monday, July 17, 2006 at 1:02 PM

Of course he will veto it. If he didn't, it would mean his mind would change. And the day he changes his mind is the day the world ends

Bigworm on Thursday, July 20, 2006 at 12:25 PM

This is going to go over well.

Bigworm on Thursday, July 20, 2006 at 12:27 PM

Baron - you those Russians are fucking crazy....and you don't even want to fuck with one drunk on Vodka.

Bigworm on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 at 9:16 AM

Hellzbollah doing stuff it claims that it doesn't do.;t=t&f=b

Brock on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 at 6:34 PM

It honestly doesn't matter. No one in that region gives a rats ass who attacks Israel. The problem is, and its a Catch-22, is if Israel strikes back (no matter how carefully) they are accused of attacking innocents and instigating. If they don't strike back, that won't stop everyone else from firing rockets at them and blowing up buses. They can't do anything to appease the Arab world... well, except die. There is no solution to this problem except a clean slate. Nuke 'em both.

In all seriousness, the only solution I can come up with is to move Israel over here. Say New Hampshire or Maine or Delaware. Then, make Jerusalem a soveirgn state, like the Vatican, that remains neutral, like Switzerland, and give back the old Israel to the Palestineans. Therefore, the Jews have a place, the Palestineans have a place, and everyone can enjoy Jerusalem, that pile of dirt.

Jay on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 at 3:35 PM

Brock, I totally agree with you on that. Even if you're not being serious.

Bigworm on Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 4:59 PM

Rock Rock ON!!!!!!!

Green Baron on Monday, August 14, 2006 at 4:45 PM

Well, there you have it, Hezbollah wins:

Jeez....who would've thunk it?

Good plan Brock. However, I married a part-Jew, and I don't want to live next to any more. The nice thing about Muslims is that they hate each other more than they hate other people. If we bug out; they'll likely just kill each other. That is fine with me.

I think we should move the Jews to Italy to tell you the truth. They're still on the same sea; they get better wine, and we get rid of the greasy dagos, which no one liked anyway. Plus, Italy was part of the problem to begin with. Damn waps.

Jay on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 9:38 AM

Here is a cool article talking about politics in metal. And if features a band named "Cow Decaptitation"

Jay on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 3:55 PM

Actually, it's Cattle Decapitation. My bad.

Brock on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 11:10 PM

Israel has the most highly educated population in the world. I wouldn't mind having some of that brain power over here. You wouldn't have to live right next to them since they'd be in Delaware. Its freakin' Delaware. Honestly, Delaware is almost exactly like Isreal... same size, on the coast, and full of nothingness.

I don't really want to hand anything over to Europe right now. They are getting a little too much pull, and they are tiny compared to the rest of the world. Don't get me wrong, Europe is a fun place, but they've had the world in their palm forever, so its time the power be pulled altogether. That is, until I become supreme chancellor of Switzerland, change the name to Schweitzerland and then start annexing stuff, like France and Germany.

Wing Commander on Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 5:30 PM

Brock, when you take it (Switzerland) over, can I have Gstaad?

Green Baron on Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 7:28 PM

Well, there is is everyone. I hope you all caught it. The true motives of Brock.

"Move all the Jews out of Europe and leave it to me....."

The German is strong in this one....

Green Baron on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 at 11:49 AM

For those of you who are curious why gas prices are falling despite no major development to explain it; think about it for a second.

Elections are coming up. Rich oil tycoons want to keep the Republicans in charge. Making voters feel more secure in the economy is a likely way to sway a vote to Republican; and it also negates the argument of the rich oil tycoons syphoning money from the people. Just something for you to think about in the upcoming election what sick backwards fucks you are about to likely vote for.

And also, be prepared. Should the Republicans win, gas will jump up after the election. Should the Democrats, it will skyrocket.
I would say the following, by January 1st gas will be at:
Republicans control congress: 3.15
Democrats control congress: 3.75

We'll see what happens, won't we?

Green Baron on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 4:12 PM

Wow, holy shit. How corrupt is your government? 6 months of denial is finally admitted. I wonder when they will come out and say, "well yah, we knew there were no WMD's, but we said fuck it and went in anyway"

No torture huh? Than why are they secret?

Jay on Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 10:34 AM

The last line of the article scares the crap out of me.

Bigworm on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 10:29 AM

Bigworm on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 10:30 AM

Yeah, I vote for whoever I think will do the better job. I am a registered Democrat, but definately wasn't supportive of the 2 SOBs they brought to the party. Not that W is a great President, I just felt the way things were it was important to keep him in office.

My man is Barak Obama....will he run in 2008? I hope so.

Bigworm on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 10:35 AM

Brock have you been reading Mein Kamp?

Green Baron on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 4:12 PM

Fantastic Keith Olberman speech:

If you missed it.

Green Baron on Monday, September 18, 2006 at 12:00 AM

Bush's speech for invasion of Iraq included reasoning that alluded to Saddam's prisons for those who opposed him and are tortured.
We move in, lock up 13,000 Iraqis, torture them on mere suspicion of opposition, 70% of the time we are wrong.

Hey, we're just bringing freedom to an oppressed nation. fucking bullshit.

Green Baron on Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 4:46 PM

Ha ha ha....hahahahaaahahah
Christ if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.....
"I'm gonna raise government spending to astronomical proportions, then, when the Democrats win control, we can blame them for raising taxes to pay for it!"

Green Baron on Monday, October 02, 2006 at 5:57 PM

So, you still going to vote with these lying fucks:

More people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than Sept. 11, only counting US casualties.

We have been responsible for thousands of innocent casualties in Iraq. Torturing innocent people. According to Congressional reports, danger for terrorist attacks have only increased. This government lied to you. Took you into a war under false pretenses. They continue to deny facts. They continue to lie. Listen to stupid fucking Condi, "That's not what it says". Bullshit, that is what it says, read the fucking thing, you stupid bitch. What, it isn't in Russian? Well learn to fucking read English. Christ, somedays I wish I was Tim Russert or that he would grow bigger balls.

Blame it on bad intelligence. Well, then, someone has to be held responsible. And sure as hell Bush and company haven't made anyone pay for bad intel. This is fucking war. These are dead people. On bullshit premises. Fuck this shit. Hold them responsible. Change the tide. Vote these fuckers out of office. All of them. Vote against the incumbent. Fuck the party, vote in new people.

Brock on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 5:46 PM

My only problem with this angry "we were lied to" ranting is that those who are running against the incumbants (regardless of party) are providing no alternative. This is a joke. "Vote me into office because I'm not that guy.... whats my plan? I don't know, but I'm not that guy, so vote me in."

Give me a fuckin platform people. How am I supposed to make a decision if I don't know what you want to do. I've gone to a bunch of websites looking at candidates and neither side has a fucking platform. Its either "I supported the president" or "The president is the devil and that guy supports him, so vote for me." Thanks... I'm voting for the Liberatarian party.

Hell, if some nut were to come out and say "Lets just nuke half the world, legalize marijuana and gay marriage, and force public schools to pray" I'm voting for that guy... because he at least has a goddamn plan.

Green Baron on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 11:46 AM

Well Brock, the incumbents have a plan. Stay the course. Stay what course? More Americans died this year than last in Iraq, last year was more than two years ago. It is a constant rise. We aren't winning. So stay what course? The course til all our boys are dead?
Afghanistan is something you never hear about anymore. Why? The Taliban are at their strongest since 2001. Karzai has handed all power over regional territories to warlords. Yes, you read that right. It was done in an attempt to slow the Taliban assault. It doesn't work because the warlords are funding the Taliban.
Musharraf has signed a treaty with tribal provinces telling them he will no longer intervene in their territiories in the search for Bin Laden or Taliban. What? You read that right. Facing reprisals for recent assaults, Musharraf attempts to save his own ass by bugging out.
So what course are we staying here? Corruption, cover-ups, and a split political parties are destroying government. These assholes, all of them, refuse to work together. They instead turn to individual attacks on character. How does this help us? Replacing these assholes with fresh faces sends a signal that the American people are smarter than this.
And a politician with a plan is as rare as a screendoor on a submarine. There is no such thing. Every politician....every last one of them, blows bullshit out their ass in an attempt to get elected. Most of them are so vague on their plan that you cannot argue with them. That is the approach of every politician. Repeat the vague rhetoric until people forget the question. If you have a plan, you don't get elected. There are far too many issues for everyone to agree with you. So, a politician with a plan is unfortunately not going to be found for you. If I said, I like abortions, I disagree with women voting. I just lost half my votes. All smart men would vote for me, but that's it. Sympathetic men (morons) and women would vote against me; and I'd never get elected. These are just two issues. You simply can't have a plan.

Green Baron on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 11:59 AM

In other news, nuclear war sits on the horizon. Luckily this only effects our economy. Kim Jong Il can have all the Nucs he wants at this point, he can't get them to us. Yah, sorry Japan....but uh, you're fault for being so close to him.

Brock on Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 12:18 AM

Thanks for the jibberish... but call me an optimist when I think that someone with a plan can be elected. You don't have to go hard and fast on every single issue out there, but at least give me one plan... be it legalizing marijuana or whatever.

You hit the nail on the head that the bipartisan system is to blame. Thats why I kinda like how Cincy elects mayors... no parties.

I'm ready for someone to just ignore partisan politics and just give me some kind of goal.

McCain '08

Brock on Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 12:21 AM

N. Korea nukes Japan.... REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR!

Green Baron on Monday, October 16, 2006 at 9:57 AM

Yah, you're right. Much better to elect someone with a bad plan than someone without a plan at all. What was I thinking?

Brock on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 12:58 PM

You were thinking angry, disgruntled thoughts...

Green Baron on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 11:44 AM

Why is the conservative rhetoric that liberals are always angry and disgruntled? Perhaps because we think? Maybe that's why people with Down's are always happy? Or is it simply because we choose to disagree? Is it such a bad thing to question the motives of those leading you? And does that imply that you are an angry person for doing so? The answers to the last two questions, for any person with logic, would be no.
Questioning the motives of those in charge is what this country was founded on. Had we not, we'd be praising the queen and speaking in some foreign English speak. In addition, it informs those in power that their moves are being watched; and provides balance to a government, that which is lacking in countries like North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.
I wouldn't say I'm angry; I'd say I have an opinion. Which is better than following blindly.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

Brock on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 6:59 PM

"Angry, disgruntled thoughts" wasn't in reference to questioning of the gov't or politics... it was an observation to your general view of society, at least recently.

Green Baron on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 at 2:18 PM

For some reason, when I think of Rumsfeld leaving, I picture Sean Connery in a greek outfit, walking to the balcony of his castle to address a gathering of people; and while lifing a giant horsehead over his head, he yells, "The enemy of the people is dead"; right before throwing the horsehead from the balcony.
And everyone cheers.
At least, that's what I think of.

Green Baron on Monday, November 27, 2006 at 10:53 AM

Coalition of the retreating:

Green Baron on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 12:22 PM

Just for the record, in the first 6 years of the Vietnam conflict, US death toll was at 500. 2 years later, it was at 3950.
Think about that as we enter the 4th year of Iraq, and are currently approaching 3000.

Yes, there are things to consider. Only 20,000 troops were in 'Nam in 64, but there were 200,000 in '65 (6th year). Plus, we got a lot of Mai Kong pussy in Vietnam; which Baghdad pussy probably just doesn't compare to, probably full of sand and shit.

Bigworm on Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 10:35 AM

And Saddam is dead.

Green Baron on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Unfortunately we permit his execution to be screwed up as well, allowing him to be humiliated and ridiculed. So humane.

Too bad we pissed everybody off now, again.

Any way, he's not dead. It was all an elaborate setup so that he can come back into Baghdad and hear everyone say,
"They said you was hung"
Just so he can respond:
"And They was right!"

Brock on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 at 3:29 PM

What is this "we permit" shit?

Its the Iraqi government, elected by the Iraqi people. If we "permitted" them to do anything, that would have demonstrated to the world that the US is puppeteering the Iraqi gov't, which sure as hell isn't happening. They are doing their own thing, and this was a big stage for them to do it. France doesn't tell us how to carry out executions.

This time, you can't blame America for something.

Green Baron on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Yeah, but you're right, we have nothing to do with the government in Iraq. That's why Saddam was in our custody for violating Iraqi crimes? Then we handed him over for execution immediately upon conclusion of the trial. How many people are in French custody while going to trial in the states? We also don't have 150,000 troops over there huh, that liberal media telling me lies again. How many French troops are guarding the peace here?

"Iraq" executes a murdurous barbarian in a humiliating and barbaric way. Saddam was in our custody, and we handed him over to be executed and humiliated. You gonna tell me that the US couldn't have said, "ummm, you can execute Saddam, but you can't march him in front of an angry mob".

But yah, it's an Iraqi government afterall, they could have told us to piss off. Oh wait. What's that? Jalal Talabani, the current president was appointed to the interim government by the US? Huh, so was Abdul-Mahdi, the Vice President. Jeez, nearly every candidate for president of Iraq came from the Iraqi Interim government; created, and appointed, by the United States. Wow, that's weird. "Here you go Iraq, you are free to elect our chosen potential candidates for your government! " Cry for freedom Iraq! You are Free! You are free to be governed by people we have chosen and support us! Yeah!

Green Baron on Thursday, January 04, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Oh, and France DOES tell us how to carry out execution.
France has many US felons but refuses to extradite them because of our stance on the death penalty. So therefore, they don't permit us to kill them.
Yet we handed Saddam over 2 hours prior to his hanging; permitting them to humiliate and ridicule him.

douglas on Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 5:33 PM

great article for stubborn conservatives like me:

None of them are taking the time or energy to find out what is actually going on over here."

Most of the soldiers who spoke with CNN said they believe that if the fresh troops are used in the right way, the increase could be a significant help. But these men have no say in policy.

jen on Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Funny to me--- courtesy of my friend Keith:

I just received my first pay check of 2007 today and noticed that it was $3 more than usual. So i pulled out my last pay check of 2006 and did a quick comparison. Gross pay was the same, all of my pre-tax deductions the same...but wait, the federal income tax is lower, $3 lower! Wow could this be true? Will i be receiving $3 more dollars every pay check this year courtesy of the feds?!? Holy Shit! That's amazing!

So then i started thinking about how this could have happened!?! Then i remembered that Republicans are always talking about lower taxes and hey any tax changes that would have taken effect on January 1 would have been passed while the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, Presidency, Courts, Iraq, etc.! Wow!

So i had to take a few minutes out of my busy friday afternoon schedule so that i could thank them all. I'm really sorry that you guys lost total control of America this past November. I have to admit that i didn't feel bad for you at the time because you guys, in the last twelve years, have managed to manufacuture an unjust war based on lies so that you and your buddies could make a huge profit through defense contracts. Or the time that you dragged a former president through the mud and embarrassed the country in front of every human being on earth all because he was a bad husband. Or that you have managed to piss off almost every one of our allies with your cowboy-logic to foreign policy. but now with the thought of $6 extra dollars a month dancing in my head, i'm really sorry guys. if i had known what the fruits of your hard work would have resulted in, i would have resisted the Commie lies of the democrats and voted for you all in November...twice. yeah, twice.

So anyway, just wanted to take a few moments and say thanks to you guys...BIG SHOUT OUT TO G. DUB AND THE CREW! I usually feel sympathy for the millions of people that your policies piss on every day but with enough money for a Snickers and a Yoo-hoo in my pocket, thoughts of those people just slip right out of my mind on this day...and maybe (hopefully) every day. (that stuff is just too depressing.)

now if you will excuse me, i've got a sweet tooth to satisfy. i'll never doubt you again W.

Bigworm on Monday, January 15, 2007 at 10:55 AM

So did anyone else see this.

Saddam's 1/2 brother was decapitated when he was hanged.

Green Baron on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Yeah for the Democrats!

Bush has sidelined his 'illegal' warrantless wiretapping; most likely because the Dem's would actually do something about it and bust his ass wide open.

Now it goes to a "secret special court", which I imagine Bush just made up on the spot. And yes, he really calls it that.

Brock on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 2:01 AM

I'm still waiting for these predicted gas price hikes that were to follow the elections... the Dems won, so wasn't it supposed to be like $4 a gallon by now?

At least that's what an expert said back in September.

Green Baron on Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 11:04 AM

I was wondering when someone was gonna call me out on that.

Hopefully it will be proof enough not to listen to anything I say!

But, in my defense, last time gas was $55 a barrel, it was 1.25 a gallon. Now it's $2? WTF?

Green Baron on Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Ignore that last post, it's bullshit.
But this isn't bullshit:

Notice how the price/barrell drops off significantly in mid August, and notice how gas prices drop, but not nearly to the same degree as oil. hmm??? That's funny, they nearly match up until that point. Think we're getting fucked?

Brock on Monday, February 05, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Anyone have an opinion on this national ID thing? I think its kind of a good idea... there is really no excuse for not having all uniform and connected. But I'm also obsessive-compulsive when it comes to keeping records organized.

Barry on Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Keep an eye out on C-SPAN for a reshowing of a debate that took place in late February in New York between Mario Cuomo and Newt Gingrich (yes, Newt "I was having an affair while prosecuting the President for having an affair" or "language of the ghetto" Gingrich). I watched it last night and thought both men presented large scale ideas to address current problems and did so with class.

Barry on Monday, April 30, 2007 at 12:59 PM

penn and teller on the 9/11 conspiracy

Green Baron on Sunday, June 03, 2007 at 10:28 AM

Robert Gates, boy genius:

Imagine, the US, telling someone: "We see there are terrorists coming out of Iraq and attacking you, but you can't invade Iraq, you should take care of it on your own soil"

Wow. How nice would it be if these government officials thought a little bit before opening their mouth?

Green Baron on Friday, June 08, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Just 1 of the million reasons I will never vote for the Republican party again:

And Senator Brownback's (One of the three REALLY BIG idiots) response in the NY Times:

I seriously hope to God (full pun intended as I am atheist) that none of you would ever vote for an idiot with his mind so clouded that he can deny scientific evidence. I don't care what he plans for our nation. Using faith as your sole reasoning to turn away sound evidence is a very disagreeable quality; and one that no leader should ever have. Which brings me to our current leader....

Barry on Monday, July 02, 2007 at 5:09 PM

so I guess I should clarify my views here as some may be concerned about me. I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I teach evolution in intro bio labs. For me there's not a conflict between evolution and my religion and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There are some legitimate criticisms (namely that it is not a testable hypothesis), but on the whole I believe it to be sound theory. For some legit criticism read R.H. Peters "A Critique for Ecology" I read parts of it for an ecology course I took last fall-I don't agree with Dr. Peters, but he does raise interesting points-once you get past the knee jerk "what the hell are you talking about" reaction.

Also, Huckabee has said that while he doesn't believe in evolution he would never support legislation that would not allow it to be taught in schools which is my largest concern-thank you Kansas.

Green Baron on Monday, July 02, 2007 at 10:57 PM

Well, there's a couple of things to be said.

What a disgusting administration.
Thanks for wasting our tax dollars.
Someone remind me again why we have a presidential pardon?

Green Baron on Monday, July 02, 2007 at 11:10 PM

And the evolution thing. It wouldn't matter to me what a president says he won't do. The fact that faith without evidence would trump sound research is enough for me to disregard anyone's advice, let alone electing them into office. The purpose of science is to disprove. The 'testable hypothesis' excuse is a common retort. It's another way to say, "It isn't proven". Well, that's science folks. Science disproves, it never proves. In science, there is nothing that is proven. For instance, how about a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Is it proven that it takes two slices of bread, peanut butter, and jelly? If you say yes, I ask you to make one underwater. All of a sudden you must now correct the statement. It will continue to be rewritten until it is as accurate as possible.
This is evolution. Evolution disproves Creationism, in its original form. Genesis is a bedtime story. All of a sudden, the story must be rewritten, and in comes Intelligent Design, a wolf in sheep's clothing. Of course evolution is not proven. Nor will science ever prove it. It is waiting to be disproven, or rewritten. And every evidence we have only supports it further. Anyone who asks science to prove does not understand science.
Therefore, I will never vote for a politician who does not understand what a theory is. It is not proof. It is fact. And there is a major difference. Facts can change. Proofs don't. And Creationism is no longer fact, it is fiction.
Here is a blog I had with a creationist (who just happened to be senile, but oh well, I got my point across).;store=books

Green Baron on Monday, July 02, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Well, it looks like the senile old coot deleted all of his posts. Oh well, my retorts are still there (just scroll down). His were incoherent ramblings for the most part. He probably put a gun in his mouth as do most people who talk too much to me.

Barry on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 at 1:59 PM

1) Baron the point that evolution is not a testable hypothesis isn't dealing with the idea of proving evolution, we all know you don't set out to prove in science. The criticism is that there exist no means to disprove evolution because it does not lend itself to testing (especially large scale ideas like sympatric speciation). For the record, Peters was an ecologist himself before he passed away.
2) You're right Intelligent Design is a rehashing of a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis and I'm not a fan of it being taught as science. I'm ok with schools being allowed to teach it if they want as part of a theology course. When I lived in Alabama I knew a lot of people that didn't agree with evolution and in large part they didn't understand it. For example: people love to say that evolution is a random process, when in fact it is inherently non-random because it is largely driven by natural selection (non-random by definition).
3)Ignorance is one of our countries greatest problems and I hate listening to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc. speak but I will never understand their point of view if I only listen to Sean Hannity's spin of their views. Also sometimes they make some good points, points I may or may not agree with, but good points. Same goes here, these kids will never understand evolution and then be able to decide whether or not they agree with it if they only hear their churches' version of evolution. What I want is for people to have informed opinions and if a kid takes a college level evolution class with an open mind and still comes out feeling uncertain then so be it, but at least he won't be lecturing on how "random" evolution is. Oddly, I feel the same way about Intelligent Design. Let's educate people on different points of view and let them decide for themselves. Of course the danger here is for Creationist views that have been discredited (the world being 6,000 years old, etc) will be treated as though they haven't been, but like i said earlier it would be a theology course.
4) How you vote is your call, I was simply pointing out that Huckabee wasn't going to legislate his creationist view. I hear what you're saying and in a lot of ways agree with you. When I watched the debate and saw those guys say they don't believe in evolution, I was a little embarrassed. But I try not to vote on candidate's personal views because I operate under the assumption that all politicians are full of shit (prime example W's "Anyone involved in the CIA leak case will be fired" and then issuing a commutation to Libby-what a fucking asshole) so you never really know their personal views. Huckabee, Brownback, all of these guys have a large constituent of Creationists to pander to and saying their Creationists does separate them from McCain, Giuliani, Romney, etc. so maybe they're just trying to get those extra points. They can be held somewhat accountable however for how they legislate and how they adhere to election promises come the next election, so I try to focus on what they plan to legislate and what they don't.

Green Baron on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Excellent points. I couldn't agree more. I'm a little peaved at Clinton and Obama as well, for going down south and nearly painting on the black face in order to pull votes. Quite dispicable. But I find that as long as a candidate is willing to accept facts, then he/she is at least able to make a well-informed decision. Unlike our current leader, who lacked any true evidence of WMD's but waged a war because he 'believed' they were there (of course, we should all know by now that that was never the real reason).

Although I would disagree that evolution does lend itself to testing, in a way. If you were able to mate 2 dogs and get a cat, well, that would disprove evolution if the genetic material just didn't match up. And of course, Og, or whatever his name was, would be right, "d" "o" "g" really would spell cat. I agree that conjuring an experiment set out to disprove it has many difficulties. But the massive expanse of repeatable experiments and underlying mechanisms of the process have been well described and validated. If any one of these had fallen through, perhaps the experiment did exist that would disprove it, it just doesn't exist because it is true.

Green Baron on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 at 2:33 PM

I'm also not sure I would allow teaching of ID in school at all. I mean, we could teach that WWII was fought between the Autobots and Decepticons, and then say well, the kids can choose which one they wish to believe. Although that would be pretty freakin' awesome, it just didn't happen that way.

Brock on Friday, July 06, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Any reference of Transformers to degrade the "Intelligent" Design theory gets an "A" in my book.

douglas on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 9:21 AM

no one will probably see this for 2 months, but this is a bunch of bullshit:,2933,301356,00.html

Green Baron on Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 5:26 PM

Dead on Douglas. Fox News covering such a story....what bullshit.

Green Baron on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 7:27 PM

$5000 per every citizen of the United States

Not even counting those who are paid with their lives.
Was it worth it? It ain't over yet....

Green Baron on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 4:20 PM

2 years ago,
"We don't want a long-term presence in Iraq"


Brock on Saturday, February 09, 2008 at 2:22 PM

So with Romney out of the Republican race, and McCain the presumptive nominee, who else thinks it would be awesome if he picked a Democrat for a running mate?

Its extremely unlikely to happen, but I think it wouldn't be a complete death sentence. Granted, the Republican base would go ballistic, but what are they gonna do: vote for Hilary or Obama? If they are that hardcore, there is no option.

You'd need a nice choice from the Democrats to appeal to moderates, but I am certainly ready to blast the political beast in the head with a dual-party candidate.

Barry on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 3:54 PM

won't happen. if it were to happen i would gues mccain-lieberman (though lieberman is an independent now) and even that's a stretch. mccain's biggest problem right now isn't with the independents (relatively speaking), its with conservatives and he would likely want to pick a running mate that can help appease them on the economy, immigration, environmental policy, etc. Also I have to admit McCain sucks on the economy. He even looks uncomfortable when asked about it, so he would likely want a running mate with a strong conservative economic background (Romney would be a good choice for him-but they hate each other).
As far as what the conservative base will do with a McCain-YetToBeNamedDemocrat ticket...I suspect if Hillary were the D-candidate a fair bit would show up out of disdain for her, but many just wouldn't vote to "send a message" to the Republican Party. I don't think he can win without those votes.
The GOP tried the opposite strategy in 64 by nominating Barry Goldwater, a staunch conservative, to run against LBJ. Many think he was basically a sacrificial lamb and had no chance at beating LBJ and he did get his ass kicked. There was a more moderate Republican (Rockefeller) that many pushed for that would have at least put up a fight, but the party decided to "stick to conservative principles" rather than try to win the election. Many now like this decsion and found it helped to redefine the GOP, depends on where you stand I guess. The GOP is a year and 3 months removed from a complete ass-whooping and Iraq is still very unpopular and the economy is headed for recession. That doesn't spell victory to me. So, what do you do? Do you stick to your base and sacrifice this election or do you go more to the middle and try to win it? Apparently, they are going to try the latter. I like McCain (largely because he's the only Republican that is advocating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions), but I know a lot of conservatives that don't. I don't know anyone right now taking it so far as to say they won't vote for McCain in the general election (Ann Coulter doesn't count-they have to be human-and Glenn Beck talks a big game, but I think he's bluffing trying to get a more conservative candidate). I think if he picks a more hard lined conservative VP and runs against Hillary, the conservatives will show up and he typically does well with independents (though it depends on where they stand on Iraq, tax cuts, etc.), so I think he has a chance right now. But the world is not static. There has been a decrease in violence in Iraq combined with fear of a recession that has moved Iraq behind the economy as far as the #1 issue goes. If violence in Iraq escalates by November, that could become the #1 issue again and McCain will get smoked.
Another reason there will not be a dual party candidate in this election is that there is such a sharp divide between the two parties on the issues. You don't get much of a more clear divide than "If I'm elected we'll start a phased withdrawal immediately." and "We might be have some presence in Iraq for 50-100 years." It is worth reminding that McCain was saying that we might be in Iraq for 50-100 years in much the same way we are in South Korea today. I realize even that is an unpopular stance but I'm just clarifying that he was not saying that things in Iraq are going to be as they are for 50-100 years.

Barry on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 3:54 PM

i need to do a better job of making short bulleted points, sorry.

joe on Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 4:36 PM


douglas on Thursday, March 21, 2013 at 10:22 AM


Brock on Thursday, December 25, 2014 at 4:32 PM

"The Interview" and its impact on bringing down the North Korean regime. Go.

Add Your Own

User Name


Your comment (just plain text, URLs will be converted automatically)