Jump to content
Dr. Joe B.

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

Recommended Posts

World History 101.

 

 

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of

nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the

mountains during the summer and would go to the coast

and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

 

The two most important events in all of history were:

 

1. The invention of beer, and,

 

2. The invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented

to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.

 

These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization

and together were the catalyst for the splitting of

humanity into two distinct subgroups:

 

1. Liberals

 

2. Conservatives

 

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was

the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle

nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early

humans were sitting around waiting for them to be

invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's

how villages were formed.

 

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals

to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This

was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative

movement.

 

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting

learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for

the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and

hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal

movement.

 

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women.

The rest became known as girlie-men.

 

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the

domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy

and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor,

and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to

divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

 

Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by

the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the

elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

 

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added),

but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water.

They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi,

tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

 

Another interesting evolutionary side note:

Most of liberal women have higher testosterone levels

than their men. Most social workers, personal injury

attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group

therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated

hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher

also bat.

 

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and

still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game

hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers,

firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate

executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who

works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire

other conservatives who want to work for a living.

 

Liberals like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the

production.

 

Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than

Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in

Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They

crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a

business of trying to get more for nothing.

 

Here ends today's lesson in world history.......

 

It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary

urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

 

A conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of

the absolute truth of this history that it will be

forwarded immediately to other true believers, and to

more liberals... just to see them get MAD.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bugliosi attacks national media for white-washing the murders of our soldiers and countless innocent Iraqis on p.230 through p.231 of his book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

 

Over the years our press has always tried to be on the good side of administrations for fear of new regulations. In the early 80s Ted Kennedy pulled regulations on Rupert Murdoch for purchasing the NY Post journal at a time when he owned a TV station in the NY area. The Federal regulations prohibited owning more than one type of public media in a given area. Rupert was forced to sell the paper much to his chagrine. Historically big corporations owning the media white wash for fear of retaliation by a big government that can regulate them into oblivion. Probably, that explains our mass media not giving the truth to the Bushmonster's lies leading to the unnecessary war in Iraq. The media is not suppose to work that way. But it does. Forums like this one are the real hope of truth getting out. I urge all to ignore the big mass media. It is full of spin, lies, opportunists, A..kissers, and self-serving interests who care not a whit about a better life for our citizens.

 

Here is the quote from Bugliosi's book that gives his thoughts on the media's inability to tell the whole truths about the war and Bushschmuck's lies.

 

BEGIN BUGLIOSI QUOTE P.230-231: I cannot leave this section without at least a brief reference to a very predictable but nauseating phenomenon that was under way at the time this book went to press in mid-March of 2008. I'm talking about some of the painfully brainless members of the media buying into the war in Iraq. And when you have the stupid (media) influencing the ignorant (masses), well, that's a toxic combination. Let's look at this dynamic at play. In a front-page New York Times story on November 25, 2007, the reporter said that since violence was declining in Iraq, Democrats would have to acknowledge "that success." He then went on with his self-fulfilling prophecy for the masses to live up to by saying that "the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year (in other words, favor the Republican Party whose president gave us the horrible war), particularly if the gains continue."

 

This terrible nonsense--that the only thing that is important is what is happening at the moment---has been echoed many times in the past several months, despite the fact that the situation in Iraq remains terrible, with thousands of Iraqi civilians and hundreds of American soldiers continuing to die violent deaths. The horrors and monstrous crimes of the past not only are forgiven and forgotten, they never even happened. You know, 100,000 people haven't already died in the Iraq war. No, really. They're still alive, leading normal, regular lives with their families. You didn't know that? And the county of Iraq was never decimated. Look around and see. It looks just like it did before the war. And people of the world don't look down on America. Really. Just ask them. And the more than $1 trillion that people claim have been spent by America on the Iraq war was never spent. It's still in the U.S. Treasury.

 

Just like the expression "What have you done recently?" the past doesn't count. All that counts is now, and violence is down, which means that we should not only celebrate, but declare that we're on the road to victory. "Victory is within our grasp." conservative columnist Max Boot exclaimed on January 28, 2008. But what victory? That Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of our country and we eliminated him and destroyed his weapons of mass destruction? That there is real democracy in Iraq, and this democracy is spreading throughout the Middle East? That Bin Laden has been captured and executed and his Al Qaeda destroyed and they are no longer a threat to this nation?

 

With no end in sight for the war, and the worst atrocities imaginable still being routinely perpetrated, and the once bustling, safe and open metropolis of Baghdad being reduced to a city of high concrete walls and military checkpoints to help keep the Sunni and Shiite death squads out and the murders down, America is not only starting to show signs, with the help of the mindless media, of settling for fewer dead bodies, but pronouncing the whole disastrous adventure as success. In other words, instead of the absolutely horrible and intolerable situation in today's Iraq being viewed as terrible but better than it once was, it is viewed as GOOD because it's not as bad as it once was.

 

Terrible is good, black is white, up is down. The insanity continues, and the bodies keep being buried, and Bush keeps smiling.

 

END OF BUGLIOSI'S QUOTE

 

Bugliosi is among the best writers that I have ever read. The man is a marvel. Why cannot we have men like him running our nation. Other nations have great men like Bugliosi. Remember DeGaul? Remember Churchill? How in hell did we end up with the Bushlyingmurderandcontaminorofplanetearth? We cannot possibly be that stupid? Or are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What have we done to the quality of lives in Iraq since the misbegotten oil war trumped up by the Bushmurderinggang? Bugliosi gives an accurate summary of life in Iraq before the US citizens and Congress were lied into an unnecessary war. The media and the Bushgangofmurderers did their best to convince the public that Iraq would be better off without Hussein. Cheney conveyed the notion that our soldiers would be welcomed as liberators. None of the crap that the Bushmoron and company fostered was even close to the truth most of us know by now. Yet, it is possible the pyschopaths supporting the Bushmaniac believed their own Bull doo-doo. None of this collection of war dodgers ever had to face a bullet themselves. How could they know what it would be like to live in a war-torn area? Though one has to admit it does not take many IQ points to realize that any war will kill innocents. They call it collateral damage.

 

Here is Bugliosi's description of Iraq before the God forsaken abomination engineered by the most fiendish diabolical moronic ball of turd ever to call himself a president.

 

BEGIN BUGLIOSI QUOTE ON P.226: Although the things that follow are well known, they are so important on the issues of Bush's extreme failure in his war against terrorism, and the incalculable damage and harm he has done, that they bear repeating. Everyone knows what a disaster the war in Iraq has become--that no weapons of mass destruction were found; that apart from Kurdish territory, Bush literally physically destroyed and set aflame an entire nation, one that before the war was a stable nation; that Bush, against the counsel of his own military, never sent anywhere near the number of troops into Iraq that would have been necessary to not only defeat Saddam Hussein's military but to also secure the peace by not allowing the insurgency to even get off the ground; that, remarkably, Bush and his people engaged in virtually no postwar planning at all, something that is automatic when a nation, intending to win a war, is preparing for that war.

 

We also all know that Iraq had no terrorists before Bush invaded it. The only one we know of who was in Iraq was Abu Mousab al Zarqawi. But not only were his ties to Bin Laden shaky and tenuous, if they existed at all, more importantly, he had no ties or relationship with Hussein. Moreover, he operated in Kurdish territory, which was outside the control of Hussein.

 

Bush's war, then, has turned a completely nonterrorist nation into a nation with many terrorists in it, Iraq serving as a magnet for Islamic terrorists from other nations to join the native Iraqi insurgents in a fight against an America they both hate. So Bush created terrorism in Iraq, with thousands upon thousands of innocent, everyday Iraqis targeted by suicide bombers paying the ultimate price by losing their lives in markets, restaurants, mosques, etc. Bush's invasion of Iraq, we all know, thrust Iraq into a bloody, rudderless chaos, a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites where American soldiers, caught in the middle of the carnage and crossfire, are being killed by members of both groups, the very people, ironically, Bush said he wanted to liberate.

 

We also know that before Bush invaded Iraq, the majority of Iraqi people led safe, productive lives as long as they did not oppose Hussein, were free to pursue any lifestyle or religion they wanted--Muslim, Christian, gay, etc..--and walk the streets of Baghdad or any other city at two in the morning without any fear. Since the invasion they are afraid to go anywhere outside their homes, a great many even being murdered there. And children, on their way to school, routinely see dead bodies and decapitated heads out on the street, even bodies hanging from lampposts, a virtual nightmare the likes of which hasn't ever been depicted in any Hollywood horror film.

 

Before Bush, Baghdad was a relatively modern city with perhaps the finest university in the Mideast. Women had virtually full equality with men. They were free to become doctors, lawyers, etc. and enjoyed personal freedoms, the Los Angeles Times noted, "undreamed of by women in neighboring [Muslim] nations"--a far cry from what their lives will be like if Iraq becomes a Shiite theocracy.

 

On March 14, 2003, just days before Bush's invasion, although the people of Iraq were worried about what was going to happen if the invasion actually took place, the New York Times found them to be going on with their regular lifestyles. A featured article in the paper started with a reporter's visit to the Amiriya racetrack and his interviews with jockeys, racetrack employees, and bettors. The reporter observed that life among the Iraqi people--other than the omnipresent photos and paintings of Hussein and the realization that no Iraqi was free to challenge his rule, those that did being brutally murdered--mirrored life in the United States. "Perhaps 5,000 people turned up at the track to watch the eight-race card, about average for a Friday meeting. In the city, pool halls and Ottoman-era coffee shops and pinball arcades were busy as usual. The expressways that criss cross the Dallas [Texas] that Saddam Hussein's bulldozers have made of one of the oldest cities in the Arab world...were busy carrying families out to stroll in the park, or to linger over kebab lunches in restaurant, or to visit friends."

 

One pre-invasion image of Iraq that sticks in my mind was on the television news a few nights before the war started: two young Iraqi adults, speaking surprisingly good English, talked on the sidewalk with an American newsman while eating ice cream cones.

 

We know that before the war, Iraq, although poor because of UN imposed sanctions following the Persian Gulf War, was a fully functioning country with a very low unemployment rate. Since the war, unemployment has skyrocketed, at one point reaching a staggering 50 percent. And while Baghdad and most of Iraq's cities had regular electricity for lighting, heat, and air conditioning, only a few hours a day are now available to the nation's citizens, and sanitation services are almost nonexistent.

 

We know that before Bush invaded Iraq, the Shiites and Sunnis lived peacefully with each other, and now members of both sects have viciously killed one another in great numbers. Also, that almost 5 million Iraqis (in a nation of only twenty four million) have been driven from their homes. Two million have actually fled the country, leaving vritually all of their belongings behind. The remaining 3 million are living with friends or relatives or in makeshift shelters. Of those who fled the country, a disproportionately large percentage are from the nation's professional class of doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, and educators, the very people the country needs to rebuild Iraq into a functioning society. A Sunni Iraqi pathologist said, "it will take a decade just to train new physicians," almost half of whom have been part of the exodus. He said the war " has turned the country into an empty vessel, drained of talent." Two Los Angeles Times staff writers reporting from Baghdad on January 6, 2008, said, "Hundreds of thousands of skilled professionals have left the country. Businesses have closed. Insurgents and thugs have targeted professors, doctors, and businesspeople, killing them, adbucting them or driving them out of their jobs and out of Iraq. " This from a nation that was almost free of crime before the war.

 

END OF BUGLIOSI QUOTE

 

Are you proud of what our nation has done to the lives of people living in Iraq? What would you think if a more powerful nation invaded our soil and destroyed the fabric of our society? The figurative stake through the hearts of the fiends who perpetrated this mass murder of a nation sounds like a fine idea. Bugliosi made a bullseye with that observation. Whose side is God on? Huh? Do you huge supporters of the Bushabominators in the Christian right still approve of Bush's mass murder? If you do, then get your heads out of your rump NOW!!! We need to some how make up for what these fiends have done to the reputation of our great nation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The meaning of Liberal and Conservative is ever evolving.

 

By today's standards things which come to mind.

 

Conservative:

 

1. Cooperate Greed

2. Individualism "more greed"

3. War Profiteering "more greed"

4. Racism

5. Religious Fundamentalism ( The world is Flat, Earth is the Center of the Universe, and we're the chosen Mammals)

Liberal:

 

1. Free thinker

2. Scientific truth over Religious Fantasy

3. Understanding and Compassion for his fellow man/woman . Teachers and or the Education system

5. Lower Taxes for the Majority

6. Peace B)

Wrong. Species of plants and and other forms of lifes are evolving. Definitions do not evolve. They have no meaning if they can change with the direction of the wind. They are useless unless they form a bedrock on which further thought can proceed. Have you ever looked at any upper level mathematics books? Definitions tend to be exactly the same no matter which author's book that you pick on the area of math. It is stupid thinking that definitions can evolve that has created the political mess that we have. We have outright evil left wing policies being called conservative, for example!!! All progress stops when definitions can take on different meangs to different people at different points of times in history. Why don't you see this obvious common sense point? Are you use to thinking vaguely and imprecisely? Why would you allow that to happen to your perfectly good mind? Look for truth. Sometimes, like now, it will find you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the opinion of the rest of the world regarding our pre-emptive invasion into Iraq?

 

This question all but answers itself. The Bushpsycho cannot go anywhere in the world without massive picketing demonstrations. Clearly, we are on the rest of the world's poop list. We have gone from being the most respected nation in the world to among the worst. Probably, even Idi Amin could get more world votes than the Bushmassmurderer. Bugliosi's book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" gives some very eye-opening statistics on world opinion. Many are still having a hard time believing that we are not the white knights saving the world. They just don't get it. In fact, they don't want to face the truth. Bugliosi, like many great men, never kid themselves. Truth speaks louder and clearer than spin, deception, overt lies, common sense, and other safeguards against being subverted by cowardly swine like the Bushbunchofmurderers.

 

BEGIN BUGLIOSI QUOTE p.233: I should tell you that I don't think too much of modern day America. It's not the America I grew up in, one I had always assumed was the greatest nation in the world. In fact, I do not believe that America is a great nation anymore. If the only criterion for being a great nation is military power and wealth, then of course America is still a great nation. But I suspect that when, during most of the twentieth century, people throughout the world said America was a "great nation" or "great country," they weren't just referring to our military strength and wealth, but to the type of nation we were, what America stood for. Today, polls show that people around the world no longer look up to America as a great nation. In fact, the majority of the world's people have a negative feeling about America, and a great many regard it with contempt. These are the very same people, or their parents, who used to look way up to this country.

 

Although every single one of the following nations had a very positive opinion about the United States in the past half century, less than three years of Bush being president had passed when 67% of the people in France already had a negative feeling about America (and 87% were opposed to Bush's war). Other figures were 71% (and 85% against war) in Germany; 40% (and 60%) in Britain; 59% (and 76%) in Italy; 74% (and 79%) in Spain; and 68% (and 83%) in Russia. Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, which conducted the international poll between March 10 and 17, 2003, said, "This is the most negative international public opinion about America and an American president that I've ever seen."

 

How can a nation be considered great if it invades another country (Iraq) in violation of international law--a country not its enemy and not a threat to its own security--something unprecedented in American history? And perhaps worse yet, after America did this its people cheered its leader, Bush, on, the vast majority thinking it was just fine when we did this. And this support continued even after, mind you, we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the main stated purpose for the invasion) and even after Bush acknowledged there was no evidence connecting Hussein and Iraq with 9/11, which had started the whole movement toward war in the first place.

END OF BUGLIOSI QUOTE

 

Bugliosi is quite accurate in his assessment. I am proud to say that I was never fooled by the Bushlies like so many people. I Praised Senator Byrd for his standing up against giving the Bushmassmurderers the opportunity to kill innocent soldiers and Iraqis. I plan to quote a few messages that I wrote for the Peoplesforum to substantiate this point. After all, anyone could have figured it out that Iraq could not be a threat to a nation with 10 times the population and 100s of time the military power. How could anyone be fooled by their lies? That is the question that is mystifying. Especially, Congress let us down. They could have stopped these monsters. They chose to idealistically believe the lies thinking that no president of the USA could be capable of monstrous hideous murder with an unnecessary war. The Bushbunch did a good job of brainwashing. Only commonsense could have stopped their nonsense. I tried to hard to spread the truth with my messages. I was pretty much ignored by the press and Congress. I did my best to send Emails to political radio talk shows hoping that some of them would help stop the murder. Senator Byrd was ignored. So, I suppose my little voice had no hope. Still, I felt like I had to try to sooth my own conscience.

 

Let us convict the perpetrators of these international criminals who stoled our elections and destroyed temporarily our democracy. Hopefully, Obama will stop his pussycat behavior when he becomes president. It is time to get tough on political criminals committing treason and wiping their feet on our beloved Constitution.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a copy of the message that I wrote about starting the Iraq war in March of 2003. It substantiates the point that I made about not being fooled by the Bushmurderers. It also is nice to see that my positions were correct then, correct now, and will be correct in the future. I wish more viewers would join the battle to save our nation from further calamity.

 

QUOTE FROM DR.JOE.B PEOPLESFORUM.COM on Jan 14, 2003: The title is Limba-ugh Is Nonstop Idiocy. Limba-ugh thinks that attacking a sovereign nation before being attacked is conservative. Limba-ugh thinks that the Bushboobs creating huge budget deficits is conservative. Real conservatives must be horrified by Limba-ugh's misrepresenting (good) conservatism.

 

Today, he called everybody a liberal who disagreed with the Bushboob. Don't you wonder whether his listeners ever ponder the question of just what exactly does the blithering idiot Limba-ugh mean by characterizing someone as a liberal. Why don't some of you Limba-ugh [excrement]to-heads ask him to define the term? It would be interesting to see him blab his way out of such a poignant question. Throwing labels around with no definition is the worst kind of nonsense. Yet, through the years of quietly listening to the idiot's program I have never once heard him have a clear thought on anything. I attempt to defuse the nonsense that he propagates through the internet. That is why I listen to his program. The Democrat party has ignored Murdoch's minion for years not understanding the damage that a blabbering fool like Limba-ugh can do to our great nation. I saw it coming many years ago. In 1999 I started writing on the internet with my main objective to educate the masses as to what a precise definition of liberalism and conservatism should be. This subtopic is dedicated to exposing the hypocrisy of fake conservatism espoused by psychopathic morons like Limba-ugh who know not the damage that they do to our great nation. I am pleased that finally Tom Daschle attacked the nonsense spread by Limba-ugh even if it seemed a bit too late and too little.

END OF DR.JOE.B PEOPLESFORUM QUOTE of Jan 14,2003.

 

Note that the quote indicates my thoughts on going to war with Iraq. More than that it shows how tuned in I was to the reality of bozos like Limba-ugh, stooge for Rupert Murdoch. This message is just one of a number that tried to make people arise against going to a murderous war against a toothless nation, Iraq.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a follow-up message that I wrote for the Peoplesforum.com. It is very poignant relative to the horror of going to war in Iraq.

 

BEGIN QUOTE OF Jan 5, 2003 by DR.JOE.B: The message was titled: Iraq War Is About Oil: Vietnam was a pointless war. But, it did mke the defense industries hum with new business. The Defense industry made profit off of the dead and injured bodies of unfortunate souls conscripted into fighting in Vietnam. The French gave up Vietnam when they grew tired of bringing body bags home.

 

Iraq sits on top of the second largest deposit of oil. It is their misfortune to have a totalitarian government that has little respect for lives. It appears that many innocent Iraqis will suffer because of the predicament caused by their situation. In fact, they already have suffered from lack of food and health care due to the embargo placed on their nation after losing the Iraq war of 91.

 

Let us all pray for a peaceful resolution that does not sacrifice innocent victims as all wars seem to do. Maybe, Senator Wrangle has the right idea. He wants to create a draft that would send everyone's sons to war to include the wealthy as well as the working class. Charlie believes that if some of the jingoist (saber rattlers) Republicans had to sacrifice their sons and daughters then war would be unlikely. It is easy to talk war (like Bush & McCain), if one has nothing at stake. Talk is cheap. Dying is forever.

 

I do not believe in drafting young people to fight wars to make oil rich barons even richer. But, if a fair draft is provided that sends the warmaker's sons and daughters to war, then maybe war will look less like a viable option to settle world affairs. Better options exist than war. Positive and negative incentives are useful. Trade agreements that benefit contesting nations have a way of bringing them together in peace. Notice how China has become of of our favorite trade partners. Very little jingoism is directed towards China even though they have more bombs and technologies for making war than most every nation except the USA.

 

END OF DR.JOE.B's quote of Jan 5, 2003.

 

This message was written 2 months before the mass-murder war began in Iraq in March 2003. You see? I knew. Why did our government not know what was obvious to me? I am smart but there are plenty of people smarter than I in Washington. We have been screwed good. Our sons and daughters and countless innocent Iraqis have been sacrificed for no good reason but to enrich greedy pigs. It is now estimated that as many as 1 million Iraqis have been killed by the war based on Bushlies. I saw it coming. I tried to educate as many as I could by blogging. Now everyone knows what I saw coming. They have actually seen the holocaust created by our Nazoid government. God help us.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next is more confirmation that I tried to warn the public about the death and maimings that would occur by a needless attack on a weak nation with no ability to stop an invasion. It is very difficult to think about the human suffering that has occurred because of the Bushmassmurderers. The bushmonster does not even want you to see the body bags. And only on rare occasion does our complicit media show the maimings. War is hell. It should never be done flippantly based on lies, greed, and desire to pump egos. The image of our cretin fake president strutting and smurking about the pain and suffering that he has caused has only one remedy. We must convict him and his gang of cut throats for treason. Here is the message written just prior to the March 2003 unnecessary pre-emptive war on Iraq.

 

BEGIN QUOTE FROM PEOPLESFORUM.COM WRITTEN BY DR.JOEB. on Feb 15, 2003: Limba-ugh proposed a possible explanation for the rousing support against the shrubbers (bushguys) thirst for an oil war. "There is a conspiracy." Limba-ugh theorized that France, Russia, and Germany have secret dealings with Iraq that they do not want to be exposed by our invading Iraq. This is coming from a jerk who laughed at Hillary's theory that there existed a right wing conspiracy to hurt her husband's presidency.

 

Is anyone with a tad of common sense listening to this hollow-headed mouth flapper who feeds from the Murdoch trow? No doubt he has many of his Schlitto-heads ready to sacrifice other people's lives, especially New York 'liberals' for the Texas bunches ignoble cause. Maybe, the applause received by the French representative at the UN meeting recently will take some of the wind out of their warboat sails. We can only hope that to be true. Some how I believe the audacious thieves of our democracy will do whatever they wish regardless of world opinion or even the opinion of US citizens. They have gall. You saw what they pulled off in Florida to rob this nation of having a great President Gore.

 

No one doubts that Sadaam Hussein is a bad guy. He assassinated his own son-in-law. He used chemical weapons on his own people. He slaughtered million of Persians using WEAPONS THAT WE SUPPLIED TO HIM. All of this is true. However, our own spies have not been able to find a direct link to him and Al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred. They found evidence that Bin Laden despises the corruption of Hussein. Hussein represents western culture to Bin Laden. Hussein is in reality a fake muslim. He uses the Islam faith only to get support from other Arab nations. They are not stupid. They understand that Hussein is untrustworthy. They have not forgotten what happened to Kuwait.

 

If Hussein was such a great threat, then don't you think that all of those Arab nations near Iraq would be cheering us on? They are not. They do not regard Hussein as a threat. And, we are less threatened by him then them. He controls a nation of about 26 million people. He has no meaningful air force. He has absolutely no recognizable navy. He has a ragged ill-equipped army. Does that sound like the profile of a nation ready to attack the world? Now, some of you might say, good golly what if he attacks us with a missle laden with anthrax or attacks us with a suicide dirty bomb? The short answer is, there will be a great crater where the nation of Iraq once was, if that should happen.

 

Hussein is neither stupid, suicidal, or crazy. He has no intention of committing national suicide. He didn't use "weapons of mass destruction" in 91 when he even had a huge stock pile of some of them. Why didn't he? It is simple. Israel would have done the honors turning Iraq into a huge crater.

 

Don't let these fearmongering schmucks who crapped on our democracy by rigging the last (2000) election using the corrupted US Supreme Court ruin your quality of life by attempting to scare you with terrorism. You are more likely to slip and kill yourself in your own bathroom than be killed by terrorism. Repudiate these rascals. We only have less than two years to put up with the corrupt Texas bunch.

END OF QUOTE OF FEB 15, 2003 by Dr.Joeb FOR THE PEOPLESFORUM.

 

Do you see how tuned in I was to the upcoming doom. No one could have imagined the scale of the mass murder that possibly is approaching 1 million. The only thing that I would change in that message from over 5 years ago is that I thought there would be a Democrat president in 2004. I still cannot believe that they had the gall to rig the 2004 election in Ohio, too. Exit polls have never been wrong in any other nations including the USA until the Bushslaughteringmurderers rigged two presidential elections where exit polls disagreed with the computerized tabulations. At least two of the Bushmurderer's cronies are in prison in Ohio for their part in corrupting the Ohio election in 2004.

 

We have been screwed. It is incumbent upon our people to rise up and punish the dirtbags who have contaminated our heritage. Treason needs punishment or it will continue in future generations. We let Nixon get off the hook. We established a precedence for criminal usage of our government allowing it to be an unpunishable crime. We must put an end to it NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a quote from Bugliosi's book that hits a bullseye on what has gone wrong with our nation. Small wonder we have become the pariahs of the world. Greed and corruption has taken its toll on our great nation. Bugliosi gives a thumbnail sketch of how we have metamorphosed into the "Ugly Americans".

 

The starter of this topic knows full well that few will take the time to read or buy Bugliosi's book. So, as a shortcut to gaining wisdom from his writings the author of this topic is giving quotes from the book that all should read. Lately, Tom Hartman on radio America, has been also addressing Bugliosi's book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder. It has frequently happened over the past 10 years that when the starter of this topic has addressed a subject that a few weeks later the topic comes up on one of the Air America or other progressive talk shows. This is no accident. The blogosphere extends way beyond the boundaries of the few that actually participate in forums like LIBERALFORUM.COM. Word of mouth brings important topics to the masses via great shows like the one that Tom Hartman has on Air America. The author wants no credit. He is most content to know that he has in some small way brought big truths to the American citizen.

 

This quote ties our popularity in the USA to our loss of concern over poverty. It is very revealing of our national character.

 

BEGIN BUGLIOSI QUOTE on P.239 of HIS RECENT BOOK: What kind of a nation do we have when millions of Americans are homeless on the streets, yet Cuba, one of the poorest of countries provides health care for all its citizens and does not have homeless people on the streets? One might say, "Yeah, but we have freedom here, and Cubans don't. Which is more important?" Not only won't that argument get you a cup of coffee, it won't even entitle you to a sip of water at a public water fountain. What about the fact that England, France, Sweden, etc.., also have medical care for all their citizens and no significant homeless problem--and the people in these nations have the same freedoms we do?

 

How can we still be considered a great nation, when, although throughout most of the twentieth centruty we ranked number one in giving (as a percentage of our gross national income) to the poor nations of the world, today we rank number twenty-one, second to last among industrialized nations?

 

END BUGLIOSI P.239 QUOTE

 

BEGIN QUOTE P.237-238 of BUGLIOSI'S BOOK: Can we still be a great nation when, in running for the presidency, it is considered to be politically unwise for a presidential nominee to talk about "helping the poor"? Fritz Mondale certainly learned that reality in spades. Challenging Ronald Reagan in 1984 on the issue of "compassion" and "fairness" and speaking often of "the poor", he won only one out of fifty states. When John Kerry ran against Bush in 2004, not only, of course, didn't Bush talk about helping the "poor", but I am unaware that Kerry ever once allowed the word "poor" to come out of his mouth, only speaking, over and over again, of his concern for "the middle class." The closest I ever heard him get to the poor was when he once referred to those "aspiring to the middle class."

 

When America was still a great nation, FDR and Truman spoke often of the plight of the poor and helping them. For instance, FDR said that "the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." JFK, among other references, said in his inaugural speech on January 20, 1961: "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." On November 8, 1963, just fourteen days before he was assassinated, he told the Protestant Council in New York City that our nation could not "long endure the growing gulf between the rich and the poor." Why would such political rhetoric sound foreign and completely out of place in modern-day America? And LBJ had his "war on poverty." He said, " The richest nation on earth can afford to win the war on poverty." What happened to the soul of America that it is now a political negative to speak of helping the poor?

 

Indeed, as early as 1991, a US-European poll published in the Los Angeles Times showed that America had already lost the compassionate state of mind it was once so well known for. Very tellingly, although the poll found that "most everyone [in the civilized world] feels that the state has a responsibility to take care of poor people who can't take care of themselves," only 23% of Americans did. In Britain and France, the figure was 62%. In Spain, 71%; Italy, 66%; Russia 70%. The closest to the United States was Germany, but it was still at 50%, over 100% more than the United States.

 

How can we still be a great nation when, though we are the richest nation in the world, almost 40 million Americans, nearly 15 of whom are children, exist below the poverty line ($19000 annual income for a family of four)? How can we be viewed as a great nation when, among the eighteen leading industrial nations in the world, we rank number one in the percentage of our population living in poverty?

 

How can we be considered a great nation when the United States is the only major industrialized country in the world that does not provide health care for all of its citizens? Indeed, though we are, again, the richest of all nations, close to 50 million Americans have no health insurance. A typical horrible consequence? USA Today reported in July of 2006 that among those in America without heath insurance who have cancer, "nearly 70 percent have missed or delayed care for the cancer, and 43 percent went without vital prescriptions." This, of course, is inexcusable for the richest nation in the world. For those uninsured cancer patients who are paying for the treatment they need, their life savings are being depleted, giving rise to this type of terrible dilemma that no American citizen should have to face: A father (or mother) with advanced cancer and young children has to ask himself if he should go through his children's education and limited inheritance money to delay his death. He family naturally tell him, yes, he should. But he has to wonder, doesn't he?

 

While we're talking about health insurance, what kind of nation are we that can't find the money to provide health care for almost 9 million of its children, but can find all the money in the world---over 1 trillion thus far--to finance a war against a nation not our enemy and no threat to us?

 

END OF P.237-238 QUOTE

 

It seemed more natural to do the p.239 quote first. There is not much to argue about here. It is true that we have become (not all of us) as a nation callous to our own sufferings. How else could we stand by and watch a murdering bunch like the Bushswine take over our country with rigged elections?

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing that should remain clear is to understand that neither liberals or conservatives truly detest government, they each want their slice. The second note is that you should base every view from a capitalist standpoint, things suddenly make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this thread, especially it's opening dialogue, to be very valuable. Not only that, but it got us talking in a very productive way (mostly). So I bring it back from the dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, there is not one TV jaw boner who rivals Hannity for stupidity and inanity. There is no stopping this schluck from his transfinite idiocy. As long as Murdoch keeps the fat checks rolling in Hannity will continue propounding newer and even more profound stupidity. Five years ago or more I decided to expose as many of the contradictions found in Murdoch blabberheads as possible. Some were real jewels. Here is one that I wrote for the Peoplesforum.com on Jan 31, 2003. What makes it so dramatic is that it was a caller on Hannity's show that exposed his ignorance.

 

BEGIN DR.JOE B.'s Message Of Jan 31,2003: Title- Hannity Has His Comeuppance For The Umpteenth Time: I truly believe that my message is getting through to the world. I thank the Peoplesforum very much for providing this forum. Here is why I believe that some how I am making an impact. It happened on the Hannity Talk show aired in the evening of Jan 31, 2003 in the Detroit Metro area.

 

A man calls in and explains that he disagrees totally with the war efforts of the junior shrub. He goes on to say how he dislikes guys like Hannity attributing lack of patriotism to people who disagree with the effort to make war on Iraq (keep in mind that the pre-emptive unnecessary war on Iraq has not begun yet). Hannity calls the man what he believes to be the ultimate epithet....Hannity calls him a liberal. The man quickly responds, I am a CONSERVATIVE LIBERAL!! Hannity is totally confused. It has never dawned on him that one could have both conservative and liberal views on different issues (and the same issue, too). Then, Hannity asks him what he means by calling himself both a liberal and conservative. The guy retorts, I have political views that are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Hannity is in a state of shock. He sputters,...then I suppose you are some sort of moderate.....

 

I was totally thrilled to know that someone out there understands that people are not liberal or conservative. It is the position on a given (atomic) issue that is liberal or conservative. What a shock this was to the moron Hannity who never has really thought through what it means to be what he calls liberal. It simply never dawned on him that the labels apply to the position on an issue...and not on the person having the position.

 

I only can surmise that my message is getting through to the public. I will never know. But, I know the power of a few good voices. Keep in mind that if two people explain what is liberal and what is conservative to two other people and so forth then over one million people will have heard the message after this iterative process has been carried out 20 times. Two to the 20th power is over one million. That is why this is so. But, the message has to be powerful in order to sustain 20 iterations or more. I believe the insight of what it means to be liberal on an issue or conservative on an issue is powerful in our current world that has become tuned in to politics more than any time in history. The last election woke up many folks who did not understand how important it is for them to understand what they vote for.

 

END OF QUOTE

 

Of course, Hannity was utterly stupid in insinuating that because one was against doing a pre-emptive war in Iraq that such a person must be a liberal. Quite the contrary we know that pre-emptive war making his surely the work of evil left wing style government such as Hitler's Nazis and Stalinistic Communists. This is not to say that all war making is evil left wing behavior. In fact, we have engaged in some very justified positive left wing wars, such as the revolutionary war, WWII, Civil war and a few others. The salient fact is that conservatives were always the last ones to want any kind of a war. They were the Tories prior to our independence. Also, this explains why Roosevelt needed Pearl Harbor before he declared war on Japan and why Roosevelt could not get his Congress and public to join in the European war with Germany despite being sympathetic to the allies.

 

The Bushliars conjured/invented their own Pearl Harbor using 9-11.... by their lies concerning WMDs, Hussein's desire to make war against us, Hussein's involvement in Al Qaeda and 9-11, etc.... Many of us think that the bushlyingPNACers allowed 9-11 to happen by letting terrorists (Atta and company) cavort without any attempts to stop their activities. There were 55 warnings including some specific to Atta. Don't you wonder why the Bushbunch never followed up on the numerous reports of Middle Easterners taking flight training only interested in air flight and not landing technique? I submit that the BushPNACbunch wanted a Pearl Harbor incident to justify their unjustifiable oil war against a weakling nation no threat whatsoever to the USA. So, the Bushliars looked the other way. I do not believe that the Bushliars were smart enough to know that the twin towers could collapse killing thousands. However, the Bin Laden Construction experts from Saudi Arabia knew full well the consequences of striking the twin powers exactly where they hit.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was in a deli in washington DC 2 weeks ago, Sean hannity walked in with 3 other men, i like some others were talking quietly about the retard, I thought I would pee myself with laughter, a young man working in the deli asked hannity if he wanted the Iraq war hero, he said what is that, the kid said i put lettuce, onion, tomato, mayo, mustard, ham, chicken and cheese on a roll, then I throw it in your face and it goes BOOM, Hannity laughed and turned around to see if anyone was listening, when he turned back around to the kid working, he got a face full of hero sandwich, I haven't stopped laughing since, the kid took off is apron and said i quit, and this was worth it.

 

 

DrClean

 

I would pay to have this on tape but I don't

 

It was the subway near the Mayflower hotel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Joe - I usually don't have too much time for participating in this forum so I choose what threads I can follow. I read your post in another thread suggesting that i come here to get a good understanding of libs and cons.

 

I liked where it seemed you were going with the discussion but i took a quick turn to self promotion.

 

Now before you tune me out:

 

Your OP mentioned how that other message boards seemed childish to you because they just bashed others. And you of course like an intellectual discussion - yet you engaged in childish name-calling yourself which contradicted what you had started with.

 

I skimmed through and read some of your other posts and I don't see what shining example of maturity you are portraying.

 

I would like to have a real discussion but I find so few examples of it here.

 

I guess I am wondering where is this wisdom your OP promised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was in a deli in washington DC 2 weeks ago, Sean hannity walked in with 3 other men, i like some others were talking quietly about the retard, I thought I would pee myself with laughter, a young man working in the deli asked hannity if he wanted the Iraq war hero, he said what is that, the kid said i put lettuce, onion, tomato, mayo, mustard, ham, chicken and cheese on a roll, then I throw it in your face and it goes BOOM, Hannity laughed and turned around to see if anyone was listening, when he turned back around to the kid working, he got a face full of hero sandwich, I haven't stopped laughing since, the kid took off is apron and said i quit, and this was worth it.

DrClean

 

I would pay to have this on tape but I don't

 

It was the subway near the Mayflower hotel

 

*LAUGH*

 

That is a fantastic story! That kid deserves a medal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr Joe - I usually don't have too much time for participating in this forum so I choose what threads I can follow. I read your post in another thread suggesting that i come here to get a good understanding of libs and cons.

 

I liked where it seemed you were going with the discussion but i took a quick turn to self promotion.

 

Now before you tune me out:

 

Your OP mentioned how that other message boards seemed childish to you because they just bashed others. And you of course like an intellectual discussion - yet you engaged in childish name-calling yourself which contradicted what you had started with.

 

I skimmed through and read some of your other posts and I don't see what shining example of maturity you are portraying.

 

I would like to have a real discussion but I find so few examples of it here.

 

I guess I am wondering where is this wisdom your OP promised?

Check this out. The only name-calling that I do is on the murdering fiends who took over our government illegally along with their propagandists like Old Pillhead, HannityofInanity, O'really?, and more working for Murdoch's Fux Nutwork. I will never dignify pigs like the ones who conspired with the Bushmurderingbastards to destroy innocent human beings. I will call them names until I drop. On the other hand, I never call good Republicans who were fooled by the murderers of our nation. They were duped. Many, like Iacocca, deserve my undying respect even though they are Republicans. Iacocca has expressed his regret in his book for donating to the Bushidiot in 2000. He could not believe that a son of his friend and Republican George Bush Sr. would destroy our nation's credibility by a pre-emptive costly war while letting many of our industries flounder.

 

There is no other way I can deal with pigs that spit on our Constitution and democracy without calling them names. The fact is there are no names strong enough to describe these indescribable low-life devils. Bugliosi suggests that a stake through the heart my be the only remedy for the devils behind and along side of the Bushsociopaths.

 

We must never condone what has been done to our country by pretending that we can honestly debate using the king's English with murdering pigs like the Bushbunch. You know who they are? Do I have to name them? Cheney, Wolfowicz,Feith,Bushjr., Crystal, All of the Fox nutwork propagandists, etc.... Almost all of this bunch were members of the Project For A New American Century (PNAC) that planned the pre-emptive Hitlerian attack on Iraq in 1997. They have killed an estimated 1 million innocent Iraqis by some estimates and have destroyed a once mildly flourishing nation. We know for sure that over 4100 of our finest troops have been killed based on the Bushlies and distortions. Read Bugliosi's account for more details. Read Iacocca's recent book for further corroboration.

 

If you want fancy tippy toeing around this bunch of pigs then you have come to the wrong blog. I don't do that. I have never given in one inch to swine that would murder innocent folks. You shouldn't either, if you have an ounce of decency in you.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not cool to assault someone like that.

 

 

I'm sure Seanny boy will survive. Just like Stan Coulter survived her pie attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still not exceptable in my opinion. It was exceptable when Ali gave Bush the crazy/insane hand signal :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our grand liberal institutions is the IRS...

 

The IRS is a liberally created bureacracy that has virtually unlimited power. And it is not always afraid to use it like other bureacracies with more restrictions. I love the IRS. Make no mistake about it. I want them to collect taxes as equitably as possible, because it is what funds our infrastructure and way of life. Without the IRS we could not afford to have the most powerful military in the world. Without the IRS we could not have a social security system that guarantees most everyone some sort of annuity for old age when most people are unable to work. Every nation has a system of collecting taxes. Tax collectors have been reviled since nations began collecting taxes. Tax collectors in the time of Christ were the most hated public servants. Little has changed despite our own IRS trying to put a more humane face on their mission.

 

The book entitled, What The IRS Doesn't Want You to Know, by Martin Kaplan, CPA, and Naomi Weiss is a must-read for all taxpayers wishing to understand the way tax collection works. Chapter 5 is especially pertinent to all loyal trusting taxpayers. The very title of the chapter gives a huge hint as to why this chapter should be read by all. It is captioned: Neutralizing the IRS'S Power.

The chapter starts out with 5 bullets that I will offer to you poor down-trodden taxpayers in the middle class who are being squeezed out of your livelihood. Here are the bullets:

 

The bullets are prefaced as follows: The IRS power base comes from several sources. The IRS has unique

o. Information resources

o. Legal standing

o. Role as a law enforcement agency

o. Legislation-originating authority

o. Ability to make mistakes without consequences

o. Freedom to do what it wants

 

Do you get the picture? If not look carefully at the last two bullets. Do you see that the IRS has unlimited power to crush you, if it so desires. And there are no consequences. You are toast, if this powerful liberal-inspired organization wishes to make you so. The IRS is bestowed with great LIBERAL freedom. This is the real source of the usage of the word liberalism when describing a bureacracy. IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU PRIVATE FREEDOM. It is about BIG GOVERNMENT FREEDOM. Why don't so many understand this point? Liberalism is about GOVERNMENT CONTROL, not about giving individual rights. Conservatism exists when BIG GOVERNMENT opts to stay out of your personal finances and life. Neither liberalism or conservatism is evil. They are both neutral paradigms of government behavior. What is really wanted is positive liberalism and positive conservatism on all issues. There is no point in pretending that either paradigm is evil. THIS IS THE MAIN MESSAGE OF THIS TOPIC.

 

And buy the way, if you wish to buy a cheap copy of this book, I am offering one in my EBAY store DOULTONANDMORE. Check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's still not exceptable in my opinion. It was exceptable when Ali gave Bush the crazy/insane hand signal :)

 

 

I think you meant "acceptable", yes? And you would be mistaken, about the pie. Public pie-ing is a long tradition in expressing disgust or rejection of an official or a celebrity. It is harmless, simply a bit humiliating for the recipient. Here is a bit from The History of Pieing:

 

"The probable originator of pieing as a political act was Thomas King Forcade the founder of High Times magazine. In 1970 Forcade pied Otto N. Larsen, the Chairman of the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, this has been called the first Yippie pieing. [4] [5] Aron Kay, also a Yippie, went on to take up Forcade's pieing tactics and pied singer and anti-gay-rights activist Anita Bryant in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1977 (audio footage of the incident is included in the Chumbawamba song Just Desserts, a homage to the concept of pieing).[6] Kay subsequently pied, among many others, William F. Buckley, G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, William Shatner, and Andy Warhol. Kay retired in 1992 after pieing right-wing activist Randall Terry. His exploits live on though. He appears in cartoon form in a 2003 animated music video, "Death penalty for pot" by Benedict Arnold and The Traitors, where he and Dana Beal pie George W. Bush and former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (at 2 minutes and 33 seconds into the video).[7]

 

Concerning Kay a November 12, 1998 San Francisco Examiner article writes: "He considers the Three Stooges, whom he began watching on TV as a kid, as the true fathers of pie-throwing."[3]

 

Recently, the Belgian anarchist and surrealist Noël Godin has gained a following for pieing figures whom he believes take themselves too seriously, most notably Bill Gates and filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard during the Cannes Film Festival. His favorite target was Bernard-Henri Lévy. (Godin stated that the men he most desired to pie were Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Travolta, Tom Cruise, and Pope John Paul II.) Godin's popularity has inspired many copycats.

 

The anonymous Biotic Baking Brigade has pied or attempted to pie, among others, conservative pundits Ann Coulter and David Horowitz; Green Party politician Ralph Nader; and Fred Phelps, the controversial leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. The Canadian group the Entartistes, founded by Rhinoceros Party of Canada founder François Gourd, has also pied many, including then-Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien. In 2003 in the city of Calgary they pied Ralph Klein, the premier of the Canadian province of Alberta, saying in their press release: "Is it surprising to see Ralph Klein opposing the Kyoto Accord for the right of big corporations to pollute, the same corporations that finance his campaigns?"[2]

 

"The pie gives power back to the people because so many feel powerless in the face of big politicians and industrialists", explained Pope-Tart (a pseudonym), a member of the Entartistes.[8] Newsweek columnist Gersh Kuntzman wrote that pieing "deserves to be one of the most celebrated traditions in our so-called culture."[6]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you meant "acceptable", yes? And you would be mistaken, about the pie. Public pie-ing is a long tradition in expressing disgust or rejection of an official or a celebrity. It is harmless, simply a bit humiliating for the recipient. Here is a bit from The History of Pieing:

 

"The probable originator of pieing as a political act was Thomas King Forcade the founder of High Times magazine. In 1970 Forcade pied Otto N. Larsen, the Chairman of the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, this has been called the first Yippie pieing. [4] [5] Aron Kay, also a Yippie, went on to take up Forcade's pieing tactics and pied singer and anti-gay-rights activist Anita Bryant in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1977 (audio footage of the incident is included in the Chumbawamba song Just Desserts, a homage to the concept of pieing).[6] Kay subsequently pied, among many others, William F. Buckley, G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, William Shatner, and Andy Warhol. Kay retired in 1992 after pieing right-wing activist Randall Terry. His exploits live on though. He appears in cartoon form in a 2003 animated music video, "Death penalty for pot" by Benedict Arnold and The Traitors, where he and Dana Beal pie George W. Bush and former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (at 2 minutes and 33 seconds into the video).[7]

 

Concerning Kay a November 12, 1998 San Francisco Examiner article writes: "He considers the Three Stooges, whom he began watching on TV as a kid, as the true fathers of pie-throwing."[3]

 

Recently, the Belgian anarchist and surrealist Noël Godin has gained a following for pieing figures whom he believes take themselves too seriously, most notably Bill Gates and filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard during the Cannes Film Festival. His favorite target was Bernard-Henri Lévy. (Godin stated that the men he most desired to pie were Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Travolta, Tom Cruise, and Pope John Paul II.) Godin's popularity has inspired many copycats.

 

The anonymous Biotic Baking Brigade has pied or attempted to pie, among others, conservative pundits Ann Coulter and David Horowitz; Green Party politician Ralph Nader; and Fred Phelps, the controversial leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. The Canadian group the Entartistes, founded by Rhinoceros Party of Canada founder François Gourd, has also pied many, including then-Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien. In 2003 in the city of Calgary they pied Ralph Klein, the premier of the Canadian province of Alberta, saying in their press release: "Is it surprising to see Ralph Klein opposing the Kyoto Accord for the right of big corporations to pollute, the same corporations that finance his campaigns?"[2]

 

"The pie gives power back to the people because so many feel powerless in the face of big politicians and industrialists", explained Pope-Tart (a pseudonym), a member of the Entartistes.[8] Newsweek columnist Gersh Kuntzman wrote that pieing "deserves to be one of the most celebrated traditions in our so-called culture."[6]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieing

Amen to pieing. I have a long list of pieables. But I would like to add a twist to the pieing. I would like to add some permanent dye to the ingredients of the pie to make it last. I guess I do not have to tell you who is on the top of the pie list. I start with numero uno George W. Bushpie-eyed-wonder-of-the-world. Cheney gets two pies in case one is not enough. etc.... Rushboobo gets a thornapple pie. Hannityofmuchinanity gets a dunking in a parking-lot-sized pie. There is no pie big enough to do the job of pieing O'Really?. He is the utter substance of pieworthyness. No pie would be big enough. One pie does not fit all sizes for sure. O'Really? is beyond all pieability.

 

Let us say a quiet word of prayer for the king of all piers: Soupy Sales (Milton Heinz). Soupy, whereever you are, we all owe you a huge debt of gratitude for making pieing a way of life. Many do not know how inventive Soupy was. I was lucky enough to grow up in Detroit, Michigan when Soupy was a young man inventing the first TV talk show. He used all of the ingredients of the Tonight show years before their was a Tonight Show. He gave a short monologue. He had a band. And he interviewed famous entertainment folks on his TV talk show. And he did it all in 15 minutes!!! Pieing was his gimmick on his day time kiddies show. Most of the time he took the pie himself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Censoring the horrors of the war is explained by Dan Kennedy of the UK. The USA inspired destruction in a sovereign nation based on lies has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the world. Dan Kennedy wrote an interesting piece on the Iraq debacle's coverup. Everyone should read his article. Here is a sample from the article:

 

BEGIN QUOTE:

Even by the squeamish standards of the American media, the photographic record of the war in Iraq is remarkably antiseptic. The paradigmatic images are not of combat or of bodies in the street but, rather, the digital snapshots taken by US soldiers of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated at Abu Ghraib, that is, a consequence of war rather than the thing itself.

 

To an extent not appreciated by the public, the shortage of photographs depicting the dead and dying is not an accident. This past Saturday, the New York Times reported on the plight of Zoriah Miller, a freelance photographer who was banned from covering the Marines because he posted several photos of their dead bodies on his website. Miller, the Times added, is hardly alone in being pressured not to show the world anything too graphic.

 

Questions about war photos are as old as photography itself. More than a century ago, Mathew Brady and other photographers shocked a nation with their images of dead soldiers in the American civil war.

 

More recently, it has become an article of faith on the political right that grisly images of the Vietnam war- including the famous pictures of a street-side execution and of a naked young girl running from a napalm attack - undermined public support and led to the American defeat. Subsequent administrations have made it increasingly difficult for journalists to cover war in all its horror.

 

Think back to the early, triumphant days of the Iraq war, leading up to the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco. War was reduced to a video game, with action figures racing through the desert and streaks of light aimed toward Baghdad. Once the insurgency began, the war became so dangerous for journalists to cover that they became dependent on the American military units with which they were embedded-a very different scenario from Vietnam, where reporters and photographers were able to operate with little interference.

 

More than 4,000 American troops have died to protect their country from Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, but you'd never know it from the nightly news. In a break with longstanding tradition, the White House even banned the media from observing the flag-draped coffins of dead soldiers when they arrive at Dover Air Force Base, in Delaware.

 

Contrary to conventional wisdom, bloody images of war do not necessarily undermine public support. I recently had an opportunity to view newsreel footage from the second world war, and a silent clip from the first world war, that were astonishingly graphic in their depiction of violence suffered by both the good guys and the bad guys.

 

The difference is that the second world war, especially, enjoyed near-universal popular support. Terrible images of troops felled in a war for survival only toughened the national resolve. Images of dead American troops in Iraq, by contrast, would-like those pictures from Vietnam-only serve to deepen public anger.

 

Just before I wrote this, I paged through a book of Iraq war photos by Ashley-Gilbertson called Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Gilbertson, whose pictures have often appeared in the New York Times, is not one to indulge in violence for violence's sake. There is as much blood and death in the brief side show of Zoriah Miller's work as there is in all 264 pages of Gilbertson's book.

 

Still, Gilbertson's images are difficult to look at because they are so real. His is not the Iraq of General David Petraeus, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the surge emboldened Sunni Awakening. Rather, we see courageous American troops, terrified civilians and an oppressive, overwhelming sense that it's all going to end badly. Gilbertson closes with the 2005 Iraqi elections, itself a bittersweet victory. He, and we, know that some of the worst violence occurred later on.

 

As it occurs still, On Monday, at least 53 people were killed and another 240 wounded in separate suicide attacks in Baghdad and Kirkuk. McCain can repeat "the surge is working" as much as he likes. Iraq remains an incredibly dangerous and fragile country.

 

Interviewers frequently ask Barack Obama if he'll admit he was wrong about the surge, but they rarely ask McCain if he was wrong about the war. In large measure that is because the American public cannot see the full consequences of this tragic mistake - a mistake that McCain supported from the beginning.

END OF QUOTE

 

Do you see what Dan Kennedy is pointing out? He is telling you that our US corporate news media is dysfunctional. It is slanted to making the war palatable depite its indescribable horrors. Moreover, it is slanted to allow the public to go along with its continuation of horrors.

 

Our corporate media is not trustworthy. It is not operating the way that our founding fathers had envisioned when freedom of the press was considered paramount to a healthy democratic republic. Our corporate media has beome a shill for our criminal government. The general public is being kept from knowing the true horrors of the death and destruction caused by the Bushwarmongering administration. Hitler controlled the press in the same way. And this is just one of the many ways that the Bushmonsters have abominated our democracy.

 

Are you getting tired of waiting for the impeachment to begin? Perhaps, you have given up hope. That would be understandable given the current state of our government. We can only hope that Obama will win and some how induce prosecutions of the destroyers of our nation's reputation.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×