2008-03-01
The following text is one-side of an online discussion. I did not include his half for various reasons such as the fact it wasn't well written. It should be noted that several responses on this side made reference to wording or analogies provided by him, such as the imagery of him selling the world aluminum tin foil hats for $19.95 for anyone pursuing 9/11 truth and his boasting about being able to use medical Mary-Jane. Sometimes multiple "Dear Mr. Hawley" interludes could occur for a single long-winded and meandering posting from him.
One or two of these postings were flagged as abusive and removed from the forum in which they first appeared. Others could be removed at any time. One such is the first posting with the hypothetical question involving him walking his body off of the edge of a 1350' structure. The other begins:
I find it most humorous how you constantly harp about your superior intelligence.
Mr. Hawley said that this was his real name. I have not verified it, and simply took him at his word. As such, why don't I change it here? Because it is open and public in the other forum.
The willful and almost militant ignorance of Mr. Hawley in pursuing his agenda of controlling the discussion of an online forum in Colorado, while he himself lives in California, does not go un-noticed. He appointed himself the 9/11 policeman to "roll up his sleeves" and caste the pebbles against 9/11 truth seekers.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I may be a one-trick pony on 9/11, but at least I can come up with substantially more than your one-trick, dubious, anonymous, so-called debunking site. (Really, it is a "debunked site.")
I guess I can't expect you to remove your $19.95 autographed tin foil hat that you model so well in your television commercial to put on the hat of a true scholar and researcher to see if these architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth have some valid points to make.
You're not an architect or an engineer. You don't have a PhD or any degree that employed a lot of math, so I guess you are out of your league in trying to tear down the arguments of these 320+ engineers and architects.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
And you have nothing to say to these scholars for 9/11 truth, a significant number of whom have degrees in subjects that required lots of math and physics, things you know little about.
http://stj911.org/members/index.html
You've proven that you can't handle the higher math in the fractions and square root of that foreigner's, Sir Isaac Newton's, equations for a mass falling under the force of gravity. Or can you?
Let's make this personal. If you were to walk your 6'3" 260 lbs. body off of the edge of a 1350' structure, how many seconds would it take you to hit the ground? (You may simplify and assume a vacuum and no air resistance. Hint: your height and weight don't factor in.)
Now let's assume that the 1350' structure is a 110 story steel and concrete building that had one floor (or even three or five floors) suddenly removed at the 70th or 80th story. Imagine you're still on the roof, decided not to jump, but to "ride the roof" of the building to the ground, where you'll perform a Bugs Bunny by jumping up at the last split second to save yourself. How many seconds would it take your body to reach street level plus or minus several stories of rubble? (Careful! Trick question.)
You've called yourself a "CHRISTian" in the past, Mr. Hawley. It seems to me that the Son of God who forms the foundation of your faith once said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
If you want to be an American patriot and a Christian, you better start opening your closed mind regarding what the truth is in this matter, or you will prove yourself to be neither.
Feed my sheep.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
So that you can ignore the rest of my message, I repeat two very simple questions that you should answer.
1) How long would it take you to fall to the ground from a height of 1350'?
2) How long would it take you to fall to the ground if you were sitting on the roof of a 1350' building that suddenly lost several floors at the 70th, 80th, or 90th story?
If you are unwilling or unable answer these, then you have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say.
Put up or shut up.
===========
On another subject, who is obsessed with whom? You responded to my posting early on, but not on the subject at hand (health care) but with belittling comments about me, 9/11, and 36% of the population of the United States.
To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again..."
There you go again making your arguments by insulting the messenger, not the message.
There you go again complaining because you can dish it out, but you can't take it. I used your spelling of "CHRISTian", hence the quotation marks. I used your tin foil hat analogy, because it had no place in any discussion. Don't like it used on you? Don't use it on others. Oh, how quickly you forget your "CHRISTian" values, "Do unto others..."
There you go again trying to distract the discussion away from anything substantial.
There you go again personifying absolutely everything you decry, from childish arguments, lack of intelligence, obsessions, insults, bully, threats.
There you go again bragging about your intellect. The more you talk about it, the more dubious it becomes.
... Wait a minute.
I'm sorry. My apologies, Mr. Hawley.
You are a Vietnam Veteran, which practically makes you old enough to retire if you haven't already for health reasons. The reason you had an IQ test six months ago may have been that you were concerned about either the chemicals you endured in the Army or the onset of Alzheimer’s or both. You are obviously not well, which is why you have to toke up on medical Mary-Jane, another reason to test your deprecating faculties.
Clearly, I am not having a discussion with a rational man, a clear thinking man, a logical man. You are a sick man, and my sympathy and prayers go out to you. Get well.
Please, please, please. For both our sakes, just ignore my postings from now on, because it is plain for all to see that it is an unfair debate, what with me having the advantages of logic, math, evidence, and rhetoric and you having only your poor health and bad temperament. Let's not prolong your suffering by having you lose debate after debate.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I realize that your age, dementia, and drug usage make it difficult for you to concentrate and stay on topic, so I will be patient and pose the direct questions to you a third time.
1) How long would it take you to fall to the ground from a height of 1350'?
2) How long would it take you to fall to the ground if you were sitting on the roof of a 1350' building that suddenly lost several floors at the 70th, 80th, or 90th story?
Because you have consistently been math challenged, here is a hint by way of that foreigner's, Sir Isaac Newton's, equation:
D = (1/2) g (t^2)
where g = 32 ft/(sec^2); t is tine in seconds; D is the vertical distance.
To answer question 1, solve for t. It is okay to assume no air resistance.
=======
P.S. Given that your age-related diminishing mental faculties may make the computer, the internet, and this foreign (to a Californian) website a challenge, allow me to explain that the tag you see at the bottom of my posting is called a signature. It is set by changing my profile.
In an unfortunate example of your waning powers of observation and reasoning, you wrote:
"... look at the last paragraph of your post repeated on every single post you make regardless of subject. We got it the first 50 times you posted it..."
If it wasn't bad enough that I changed my signature earlier this week I believe, looking at my user name to the left shows that even with this message, I have less than 49 contributions to this list.
So maybe, just maybe you haven't "got it."
If you insist on going off-subject, off-topic, and off-road with you insults, please take it off-list. I can be reached through my website, which coincidentally has also been part of my signature from the beginning. Take the time to explore it; I can at least back up what helps me form my opinions.
Feed my sheep.
I noticed some quircks in the technology of the discussion forum. Postings that are flagged as having a signature will be displayed using the most recently saved signature, not the one in effect when the posting was made.
My signature just before the debate started:
_________________
Maxwell C. Bridges
www.maxbridges.us www.911tv.orgTwo chairmen of the 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have twice stated publicly that there are inaccuracies in their report and unanswered or mis-answered questions.
My signature after it was changed and for most of these postings. It was shortened to 255 from Dr. David Ray Griffith:
_________________
Maxwell C. Bridges
www.maxbridges.us www.911tv.org
The greatest obstacle to seeing the truth that 9/11 was an inside job is not the lack of evidence but what can be called "nationalist faith": the belief that American leaders would never deliberately do anything truly evil to us.
My signature for the last several postings in the exchange:
_________________
Maxwell C. Bridges
www.maxbridges.us www.911tv.orgIf you want to be a Christian and an American patriot, you better start opening your closed mind regarding what the truth is about 9/11 and its fruits, or you will prove yourself to be neither.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I find it most humorous how you constantly harp about your superior intelligence. So frequently do you get into arguments and have to drag out this weak point in your sloppy defense, it seems like it happens about every third posting.
Yet for all of your praises of your mental abilities, you regularly fail to demonstrate it in your writing.
Take a hint from what your Dad would have taught you about writing: "show, don't tell."
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Here's an ode to mathematics.
36% (and growing) of the American people do not believe the official story on 9/11. And 32% (and shrinking) -- Bush's approval numbers -- are dead-enders like you who are going to re-arrange deck chairs on the sinking U.S.S. Bush all the way to the bottom and will continue singing his praises even with lungs full of saltwater.
To make the math easy for you, let's assume that these two groups are mutually exclusive and represent exactly 2/3 of America.
That leaves 1/3 of America who have yet to be convinced either way. A great majority of them can't even name members of our government beyond Bush & Cheney. They don't follow politics, the war, much less 9/11. They have been thoroughly indoctrinated from their earliest years into this "nationalistic faith," as expressed by Dr. David Ray Griffith in my signature.
Many of this 1/3 are apathetic. They figure (wrongly) that they can't make a difference, they can't change Washington or policy, so why bother wasting their time learning about it: television is after all 24/7.
As an illustration of how apathetic America is, elections in the past have been won by a majority of less than 50% of the registered voters who showed up to vote. The implication is that 1/2 the registered voters didn't bother to vote and many more of our democratic America didn't even bother to register to vote.
Yet, it is this 1/3 of America that still might see the light. And if only 1/6 of the Americans (or 1/2 of the 1/3) eventually do, we'll have a majority.
Another factor to consider about why it might be hard to reach this leftover 1/3 is exhibited in your frequent responses to anything I write.
Without doing any math, not basing your claims on any physics, not researching & vetting the analysis of many many many others, nor making a thoughtful counter-point to anything mentioned specifically, you are quick to SLAM and INSULT the MESSENGER; but curiously, not the message or any specific point or detail.
You immediately attribute all sorts of unpatriotic and un-American motives to the messenger. Is it because they rightly learned from your generation to "question authority" and you didn't? Is it because we more readily embody the patriotism of our founding fathers in a desire to shuck off tyranny (and fascism)?
You make assumptions and build straw man arguments for you to knock down.
Mr. Hawley, a very good example of all of the above is your mischaracterization of specific comments I made about you and your generalizing them to everyone over 50, to all Vietnam vets, to all baby boomers.
Such twisting of my words isn't going to fly.
Aside from being off-topic, such argumentation is despicable and dishonest.
What? Can't win a fair argument using reason and documentation, so you have to throw everything including the kitchen sink at it?
Dear Mr. Snyder,
Why are you asking a registered Republican and elected delegate to the county Republican convention "what Obama stands for"?
Why don't you look into what Ron Paul stands for, given that he is the only hope for the Republican party?
{I later discovered that Mr. Snyder hold a relatively high office in the local RNC.}Dear Mr. Hawley,
What a pity that I have to hold your hand again regarding the math in question 1: How long would it take you to fall to the ground from a height of 1350'?
Assuming a vacuum that factors out air resistance and other factors, Stick was right that we could expect you to hit the ground in about 9.2 seconds.
Question 2 was: How long would it take you to fall to the ground if you were sitting on the roof of a 1350' building that suddenly lost several floors at the 70th, 80th, or 90th story?
I said that this was a trick question.
The first acceptable answer is: "it depends." It depends on the construction of the building and whether or not the loss of several floors was uniform.
The second acceptable answer is: slightly longer than free-fall time, because maybe it was a non-uniform loss of floors that caused the upper portion to tilt and eventually to fall outside of the path of most resistance into the path of least resistance (air). The time of your decent over and above free-fall time is dependent on how many floors were passed through and the path your body traveled as you rode the roof to its final resting place outside the building's footprint.
The third acceptable answer is: significantly longer than free-fall time, because the path of most resistance did indeed resist the falling mass. In fact, given that buildings are over-designed in the loads they can hold, one could rightly surmise that if the standing structure did not completely arrest the fall of the mass from above at some point, it would at least shuck off the mass as given in the second acceptable answer. So, you might never hit the ground, or you might hit it after a significant delay, but under no condition would you hit the ground in a time equivalent to free-fall.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You dared me to take the government to court about 9/11. Expose your ignorance of recent American history, why don't you?
Have you not noticed a pattern in Bush's appointments to FEMA, the EPA, the CIA, the FBI? How about the awarding of contracts in war zones? Were they qualified or were they political hacks? Or how about his nominations to the courts? How about his Attorney General(s)?
Aren't you aware of one of his major scandals being the firing of prosecutors who refused to toe political lines (because they are in a non-partisan position) and the hiring of prosecutors who did? There's a former Democratic governor sitting in prison over trumped up charges brought forth by such hacks. Read and study the history of how they sent him up the river, and how he'll probably be let out, because a close inspection of the evidence proves him innocent.
The missing White House emails (illegally sent from GOP servers) covers the period of their firing, as well as of the outing of a CIA operative by the White House.
The moral of this story is that much house cleaning has to be done before the people of America and the world will be able to have their day in court against the Bush criminals.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You make a false assumption that if 1/3 of the American people believe X, then the remaining 2/3 believe the opposite of X or do not believe in X.
I don't have the survey questions in front of me, but the possible answers were not formatted as strickly "yes" or "no". It was at the very least, "yes", "no", "don't know or don't have an opinion." It fact, it might have even been on a sliding scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" and "no opinion." Moreover, they might have even asked more questions to help narrow in on the subject matter about a failure of confidence in the US Government's version about 9/11 being completely true.
Their results and study focus do not characterize the views of those who disagree with the premise, but those who agree. You can't make assumptions about the 2/3.
More to the point, all it takes is for an additional 1/6 of America (or 1/4 of that previously mentioned 2/3) to see the light about 9/11, and we'll have 1/2. Minds and opinions are an easy thing to change when presented with overwhelming evidence.
As Samuel Clemens used to lament (paraphrased), "Got your lies, your damn lies, and your statistics."
I would like to know who appointed the Cali-foreigner, Hee-Haw-ley, and his little buddy, Not-Thinking, as the resident government trolls to police all 9/11 postings. "Troll" indeed is the correct word, as they act as misinformed and malicious extortionists at the foot of the bridge to greater understanding.
Regardless, I thank them for keeping the discussion alive, even if it means that they've presented poorly written and weak arguments to make the pitiful case that the Bush Administration is so holy wonderful and beyond reproach that they would never, ever even remotely consider arranging for a little collateral damage, if it meant that they could advance their agenda with practically no resistance and reward their corporate & foreign sponsors handsomely. I mean really, everything else they have done has been so beneficial to all in both the short and long terms that their motives and results can't be questioned.
When last we left our two stalwart trolls, they were attempting a Bugs Bunny by riding the roof of one of the three World Trade Center buildings as it fell to the ground, at which point they would simply jump off the roof and walk away. (kids, don't try this at home. Cartoon characters aren't real.)
If they could handle between 40 and 80 successive falls of 12.5' between each floor below the collapse starting point as each floor absorbed energy, resisted and slowed the collapse, they just might make it. All the more so when we factor in the PULVERIZATION of material into fine powder and spewing of debris outside the footprint further consuming energy from the falling mass, reducing the falling mass, and making more prominent the slowing of the collapse. Gees, these huge energy sinks might have even stopped the collapse!
(Of course, this whole discussion must set aside the historical facts that no concrete and steel building has ever fallen as the result of fire before or after 9/11 -- only three cases on 9/11 --, that WTC-7 was not hit by a plane, that WTC-1&2 were both stable and had redistributed their loads after the impacts that they were designed for, that the fires in all buildings were not widespread, and that for any structural failure to be even remotely believable, they would should have been non-uniform.)
But NO-ooooo!
If our two trolls were unlucky enough to have chosen any of the three World Trade Center buildings to do their roof surfing to the ground floor, they would be shocked to discover that -- POOF! -- all floors below the collapse wave conveniently stepped OUT OF THE WAY and offered no resistance and no slowing, with the observed result documented in the 9/11 Commission Report or by observation of the video evidence (9.8 seconds, 10.3 seconds, and 6.6 seconds for WTC-1, 2, and 7, if memory serves me) being damn close to the 9.2 seconds calculated for jumping off the ledge of said 1350' buildings in a vacuum without air resistance.
Here's something our two childish trolls will appreciate as I quote Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat, "But oh no, that is not all I can do. That is not all."
Trolls like Hee-Haw-ley and Not-Thinking are incapable of debunking every single questionable aspect of 9/11, any one of which calls the government's case into serious question. So they follow the patterns of their Rovian masters by not even trying. (The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't even mention WTC-7. The NIST report that supposedly provides "scientific" foundation to the government's tale mentions WTC-7 only in passing: "we do not know how it fell.")
What about the war games? What about FAA standard operating procedure on the ground? What about bad pilots flying known hijacked planes un-intercepted for 3/4 of an hour and making highly technical 222 degree high speed downward spiral turn into the most heavily defended spot on the planet?
Back in the day, there used to be a drinking game done to "The Bob Newhardt Show," whereby a drink was to be consumed each time Bob's name was mentioned.
Were I still in college, I could make a similar game out of each time Hee-Haw-ley uses words like "nut," "lunatic," or "tin foil" to make his lame case.
Dear Mr. (Not) Thinking,
Set your VCR to record local cable channel 22 every Saturday and Sunday from like 4 a.m. to 6 a.m.
They've been regularly running a presentation from Dr. Steven E. Jones, who:
"thoroughly and definitively debunks the FEMA, NIST and 'fattie bin Ladin' myths promoted by the U.S. government's 'official conspiracy theory.’ His analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 leads to only one conclusion -- all three buildings were demolished with thermite and explosives. Jones takes extra time to consider WTC 7, since over half the population of America has never even heard of its collapse and it wasn't even hit by an airplane."
This DVD and others can be purchased through www.911tv.org.
How about if you and Hee-Hawley simply purchase something from this "nutty" website for only $19.95 (or less), watched it at home, and then compose a review listing details from the DVD and why they are or aren't so. Keep a score-card on everything they said, totaling the scientific points and logical conclusions as things that "I have seen the light and now strongly agree with" or a sliding scale down to "I strongly don't agree with the specific assertion X based on Y; here is a relevant passage from Q, its link, and my plain text explanation for how Q debunks X and/or Y." As long as we are on the subject, while "Popular Science" (PS) does occasionally report on scientific findings, it is not an official trade journal in science. There are many things about the PS article on 9/11 that others have debunked. Before you list it as a source, you should probably save yourself some debating from me by visiting those numerous websites that debunk that PS article.
What is it going to be, gents? Are you two comical characters going to act like horses (or jackasses) being led to water but being too stubborn and unwilling to drink? Or are you going to see the light and be led like a black sheep of the good sheople to the truth?
Feed my sheep.
Yep, Hee-Haw-ley, your MOS is definitely troll.
Free speech and your rights as an American? Yeah, right. As with so many things happening today, you profess a profound lack of being informed.
The forum is owned by the Coloradoan. If we truly had those free speech rights in this private, corporate-sponsored forum, we wouldn't see postings go missing. It is within the Coloradoan's power to restrict the forum only to those living in Colorado or Northern Colorado. Next time, read the disclaimer form you clicked through when you signed up for access. Don't flaunt this temporary access you're given.
Moreover, your right to free speech in any forum ends at the tip of my nose. Stay on subject, stay on topic, stay above board, stay respectable to your debate partners, no problem. Launch personal attacks -- your MOS -- and it would be within the bounds of public decency to ban you from the discussion forum. [This isn't something new; it's been around the internet from the beginning of Usenet Groups.]
You keep bringing up that you'll believe something other than the official 9/11 story the day it is brought to court and convictions are passed down. "Innocent until proven guilty," your words, right?
Your short-term memory and your reading comprehension are on the blink, because I already wrote about how Bush stacked the courts and the agencies feeding into the courts. Much house cleaning needs to be done to get the political hacks out of non-partisan positions before the citizens of the United States will get their day in court against the Bush criminals.
The true irony here are the 9/11 fruits imposed on Guantanamo detainees or any one labeled an enemy combatant: vanishing rights include "innocent until proven guilty," the right of haebus corpus, the right to an attorney, the right to view the evidence, the right to confront your accusers, the right to be secure in your persons, property and effects, ... *POOF*! Gone!
So, Hee-Haw-ley, I stand by my signature that you helped inspire. Pay attention.
For that matter, pay attention to your own words of wisdom and when it might be wise to just shut your own trap.
If I was your step-daughter or your wife, I'd be banning you from posting under your real name; from making any reference to their names, ages, addresses, professions, or any thing that can make them identifiable; and from other comments that reflects badly on the family [who might need a background check one day].
Really! You are certainly ~not~ in the running for (step)father-of-the-year! Get a clue, Mr. High-and-Mighty IQ and security expert! Or are you just a mall rent-a-cop wasting away his MENSA tin foil merit badge?
Your stupidity in this area of protecting your family online really does give Karl's contention some credibility that you may not be who you say you are. I'll stick with my contention, though, that you are a government troll with your little buddy, (Not) Thinking.
Your job is to bait people and set up sting operations. Your so-called step-daughter at CSU is probably a totally unrelated under-cover cop. Why else would you continue to reveal personal information about them despite well-intentioned (albeit pointed) admonishment from members of this forum on multiple occasions (me included) to shut your fat mouth. How many other forums are you paid to provoke on to the tune of 9.25 posts per day?
Finally, for those reading your postings and playing the Hee-Haw-ley buzzword bingo drinking game (whereby a drink is to be consumed each time Hee-Haw-ley uses words like "nut," "lunatic," or "tin foil" to make his lame case), you did not disappoint. The readers are getting pretty hammered reading your yammering.
Hee-Haw-ley,
MOS - military occupational specialty. You don't have to have just one.
Yours is now officially "troll".
For the record, the killings of JFK and RFK and MLK and Malcom X were all very fishy. New evidence has come to light recently about JFK and RFK. In the case of the latter, the "official" report said it was a lone gunman carrying a gun that could only hold 8 shots. Yet 16 bullets were found and heard on tape. The patsy attacker came at him from the front, yet four of the deadly bullets hit RFK from the back. And audio tests from the recording show several bullets fired too close together to be from the same gun, same person.
I need not go into JFK's magic bullet.
As people get much older and want their conscience cleared before meeting their maker, they start talking. Those reports are available for those who care.
But we probably need to go into OKC bombing. Did you know that the same four government employees who wrote up the official explanation of the OKC bombing were associated with the NIST report, which FEMA BPAT then took over with the same people. Four of the "official" 9/11 government reports "from experts" used as the basis for the 9/11 Commission Report had the same authors, who happened to be the same authors for OKC. Coincidence?
In OKC, there were eye witnesses, police, and media all reporting multiple bombs -- some not yet exploded. Yet by the time the official report and monkey trial happened, it came down to little ole home grown Timothy McVeigh and his fertilizer truck bomb.
Seeing how you are a Vietnam Vet, you need to look into the Pentagon Papers and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The latter was based on the premise our war ships were attacked by N.V. in the Gulf of Tonkin, right? Do some researching into who the attackers were and why those on our war ship who survived had gag orders placed on them. Hint: it was a false flag operation that Johnson knew about and leveraged to "stop the dominos."
Also for the record, Hee-Haw-ley, you have indeed had postings on the Coloradoan removed. You have posted so many and don't write off-line before posting on-line, that you don't know. In fact, on this very thread, at least two were purged. (I had at least two removed, too.)
I'm not whining about the frequency of your postings. I'm whining about your lack of substance, your abuse, and your skew.
You regularly come down hard -- without facts or substantiation but with personal attacks -- against anyone pointing out obvious disconnects in the official reports on any of the major events that shaped the course of recent American history.
You, sir, are a troll, your MOS.
Hee-Haw-ley,
Very ironic that Karl and I sound like "boring professors" trying to teach you something. You find us easy to tune out, just like any actual professors you might have in your formal education and where you obviously learned NOTHING. Hee-Haw-ley knows it all already, because he is MENSA smart, has a "HIGH" IQ, and doesn't need any damn liberal college professors listing statistics, facts, or evidence to make a case. Hee-Haw-ley can make his case simply by his commanding 6'3" 250 lbs. stature.
So you discovered a Clinton posting of yours (that I never saw) that got removed. Big deal. Again, you have no off-line record of what you posted, so you don't know what got purged. There are at least two more on this very thread that I am aware of.
Okay, Hee-Haw-ley, this is what you wrote:
"[W]e are all presumed innocent until prove guilty in a court of law."
So, troll, PUT UP OR SHUT UP! BE A PATRIOT FINALLY!
Are you even paying attention to what is happening in Guantanamo Bay prison or America's other stealth prisons throughout the world? Are you paying attention to rendition? to torture? etc.? We have the USA Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act and other new laws that point blank shoot holes in the very things you say this country stands for, yet your MENSA IQ won't let you see it. How uninformed can you get?
I know what you're gonna say.
"Them thar prisoners in them thar foreign prisons are damn foreigners who don't have the same rights as the Constitution."
Listen here, Cali-foreigner. According the the US Constitution, when our nation ratifies a treaty or international law, that law becomes the supreme law of the land (of the USA). Privisions in both international law and our law barred torture, barred incarceration for no reason, barred rendition, barred a whole litancy of abuses by your beloved Bush criminals. There were international laws for how prisoners should be treated, which Bush/Cheney smuggly circumvented by calling those they picked up "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoners of war," a distinction that won't last too long into the 2010's, if you ask me.
Moreover, those mentioned new laws do not limit such harsh treatment to "damn foreigners;" it can be done to any American. Whether they have evidence or not, they have the power to search your premises without informing you, tap all your communication and records, pick you up off the street and send you anywhere they friggin' please without telling you or your loved ones, and there do anything they want to you. Pay attention.
Simply waiting for the accusations to be proven in a court of law is certainly valid when talking about individuals, but doesn't cut it when talking about the U.S. Government. Why? Because the government has so many ways to circumvent, squash, and stifle any such attempt whereby it won't ever see the light of day before even the lowliest night court judge. Why don't you Google the name Sibel Edmunds? Pay attention.
Yes, Hee-Haw-ley, will you finally open your eyes and pay attention!
This is no longer about your test taking ability from the 1970's. It is about being a Thomas Jeffersonian patriot and keeping yourself informed about what is really going on in this country. You obviously have not. Now, patriot and Christian, pay attention and do something.
Hee-Haw-ley the troll wrote:
"That said I find not one post of mine that has been pulled do to content I wrote on any subject."
On this, Hee-Haw-ley and I are in agreement.
You see, Hee-Haw-ley rarely writes meaningful content on any subject, so that alone would make his statement true.
The postings that I am familar with and were pulled were bigoted flaming attacks directed at another person (the messenger) and had little to nothing to do with the subject (the message) except that this is what Hee-Haw-ley, in his stellar IQ, thinks is reasoned debate and substantiation.
Thank you for your most generous offer to join you in a Yahoo video conference.
This is yet another strawman argument from the Master Debater who claims others on this list weren't manly enough to take him up on. Of course, proof that Hee-Haw-ley was playing with straw is the fact that he neglected to propose and negotiate a date or time or video conference ID to make such an event a reality.
I suspect that Hee-Haw-ley wants us in a video conference so that he can prove he is capable of screaming loud enough for the digital technology to clip and long enough for nobody to get a word in edgewise while everyone gets to see the froth building in his mouth.
Such a bullying event would be great for those playing the drinking game, Hee-Haw-ley buzzword bingo.
My time is precious.
I know that you'll get more reasoned debate from me, if I'm given time to compose (and edit) off-line on my own time before posting. You should try that sometime. It really works.
My offer to contact me off-list through my www.maxbridges.us website is still valid
As such, I won't be joining you for your Yahoo video conference. (Can anyone say, "waste of bandwidth"?)
Dearest Hee-Haw-ley,
Don't put words in my mouth. Write your uninformed opinions and your ignorant thoughts, but don't ascribe to me anything I haven't stated myself.
You regularly generalize comments made about you -- and you alone -- and feebly try to make them applicable to a whole group of people.
This is despicable and dishonest. Write your screed. Not mine.
Yet, "there you go again" in your latest screed claiming that I "want to extend our rights to terrorists."
What was with all of this hot air you were blowing about "innocent until proven guilty"?
What terrorists? Have they been tried and convicted of such? Has it been proven in a court of law, military or civilian?
The government doesn't even call them that. It calls them "detainees" and "enemy combatants."
Why? Most of them were sold by warlords to our military as "being terrorists" to settle ancient family disputes or other less-than-wholesome reasons to curry favor with our occupying forces. Were it not that the Bush Administration would lose face and that George can't take responsibility and admit mistakes, most would have long been let go.
It isn't a matter of "extending our rights (to them)" as it is a matter of re-establishing the human rights that all people on this planet have as per multiple UN resolutions that the US government has supported, ratified, and made supreme law of our land. I obviously understand the Geneva Conventions better than you.
The military courts you are so "high" on are described even by those participating as being kangaroo courts and a farce.
From The NationSecret evidence. Denial of habeas corpus. Evidence obtained by water boarding. Indefinite detention. The litany of complaints about the legal treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is long, disturbing and by now familiar. Nonetheless, a new wave of shock and criticism greeted the Pentagon's announcement on February 11 that it was charging six Guantánamo detainees with war crimes - and seeking the death penalty for all of them.
Now, as the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration's military commissions unfolds, a key official has told The Nation that the trials are rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees in an attempt to foreclose the possibility of acquittal.
When asked if he thought the men at Guantánamo could receive a fair trial, Davis provided the following account of an August 2005 meeting he had with Pentagon general counsel William Haynes - the man who now oversees the tribunal process for the Defense Department. "[Haynes] said these trials will be the Nuremberg of our time," recalled Davis, referring to the Nazi tribunals in 1945, considered the model of procedural rights in the prosecution of war crimes. In response, Davis said he noted that at Nuremberg there had been some acquittals, something that had lent great credibility to the proceedings.
"I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process," Davis continued. "At which point, [Haynes's] eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions.'"
The terrible irony is that even if acquittals were possible, the government has declared that it can continue to detain anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" for the duration of hostilities - no matter the outcome of a trial. And most of the 275 men held at Guantánamo are classified as "enemy combatants" while the hostilities in the "war on terror" could be never-ending.
Says ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner, "The trial doesn't make a difference. They can hold you there forever until they decide to let you out." The one person to be released from Guantánamo through the judicial process, Australian David Hicks, pleaded guilty. As Wizner wrote in the Los Angeles Times in April 2007, "In an ordinary justice system, the accused must be acquitted to be released. In Guantánamo, the accused must plead guilty to be released."
And for what it is worth, you or I or any other American could receive the same "enemy combatant" label from President Bush just as easily, in which event it won't be a matter of "extending our rights (to them/us)" as it will be "reclaiming the rights we have."
I suggest you look up this piece of 9/11 fruit, H.R. 1955 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Here is a taste:
The term "homegrown terrorism" means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possessions of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Note the vagueness. Note also the use of two words "force or violence". What are some definitions for "force" that should have you trembling?
P.S. You did not disappoint those playing Hee-Haw-ley's buzzword bingo:
Your fans are getting pretty snockered.
Hee-Haw-ley,
You're living up to the user name I've coined for you!
Aside from ascribing words to me that aren't mine and twisting what I say to insult a larger audience -- supposedly to get them on your side --, you tend to assign characteristics to me that are truly only yours.
Here's a good one:
"You just ignore anything I say that you don't like and can't disprove."
I provided excerpts and links. You didn't. I demonstrated there (and in the reading list below) how you could become an "enemy combatant," and thereby it would be a matter of getting "our rights to a terrorist." I even offer an updated website, www.maxbridges.us, where I collect abstracts and links to the body of evidence that helps me form my opinions.
Hee-Haw-ley, don't leave me now!
You still owe me a review on some 9/11 DVD that can be purchased from www.911tv.org for only $19.95 (or less).
Remember, you're supposed to detail why the 9/11 DVD is or isn't true. In the scorecard that you keep on each scientific point and logical argument, you are to rate it on a sliding scale from:
++++ "I have seen the light and now strongly agree with this point"
down to:
---- "I strongly don't agree with the specific assertion X based on Y; here is a relevant passage from Q, its link, and my plain text explanation for how Q debunks X and/or Y."
Here's a tidbit about your roof-surfing escapades that you might see from Kevin Ryan (a name to google) in one of those DVD's, where he discusses notes from the WTC designers.
Add this to your reading list: "The End of America, A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" by Naomi Wolf
It outlines ten steps that "fascist, totalitarian, and other repressive leaders [employ to] seize and maintain power, especially in what were once democracies.”
In the hopes that Hee-Haw-ley follows through with his generous offer of not wasting any more long replies on (me), let us leave him standing before a kick-butt fence with a song made popular by the Hee-Haw television show that serves as his namesake:
"Where, oh where are you tonight?
Why did you leave me here all alone?
I searched the world over
and thought I found true love.
You met another and
*Pffftht* you was gone."
P.S. In a short 109 word posting in less than 1/2 hour, the Hee-Haw-ley buzzword bingo scores went up by:
Your drinking fans are beyond beschwiptst!
You realize that Hee-Haw-ley isn't name-calling if, you know, it's your name... sort of.
Hee-Haw-ley, or just plain Hee-Haw, was a suggestion for your new user login instead of boring old "Craig Hawley". It probably won't get your family in as much trouble. I even have the perfect fence butt-kicking signature for you.
"Where, oh where are you tonight?
Why did you leave me here all alone?
I searched the world over
and thought I found true love.
You met another and
*Pffftht* you was gone."
But if you want to make "Hee-Hee-Haw-ley" your new handle, be my guest.
You want to know why we repeat things, Mr. AARP? It is because, in your words, "You just ignore anything I say." Now you've gone and made me repeat a third-time my request for your 9/11 DVD review from www.911tv.org
Step up to the plate.
Or are you scared of the truth and what it'll mean? Gonna strike yourself out before the ball is even set on the little league Tee, old man?
But I'll be! You've disappointed your Hee-Haw-ley buzzword bingo fan club. Not even one lonely lunatic "nut"?! Must have been difficult running those smilies through the spell check.
CSU SR,
Congratulations on demonstrating to the world that you know how to google. For your information, I site the appropriate links for my sources on my website, where the one for Naomi Wolf's book came from:
I didn't provide them here, because Hee-Haw-ley has as much as stated that he only uses what's in his brain right now.
Good to know that the Wikipedia link exists, but it isn't what I used.
Just because you can google, doesn't mean you can read, comprehend what you read, or extrapolate properly to our situation. I wrote:
"The book outlines ten steps that 'fascist, totalitarian, and other repressive leaders [employ to] seize and maintain power, especially in what were once democracies.' ... Gee, all 10 steps have already been implemented by the Bush Administration."
I'm glad that your education has enabled you to make the connection that Hitler had a fascist regime. (Seeing how you're so good with the Google and Wikipedia, kindly copy-and-paste to the forum what fascism means.)
Whether or not I implied that the "Bush Administration equals the Hitler Administration," your knee-jerk reaction means you don't really understand what is going on in this country or why so many true American Patriots are up in arms.
Don't look to Hee-Haw-ley for appropriate guidance in this matter, because he didn't learn the lessons of his generation when it comes to "questioning authority," nor has he bothered to research recent relevations about the false-flag Gulf of Tonkin incident that ultimately had him serve as a gunner in a helicopter in Vietnam.
But by all means, prove me wrong, or rather prove Naomi Wolf wrong. Prove that Bush hasn't made a fascist shift to our democracy.
You'll know what sources I'll be using.
And hey! Guess what? Spring Break is coming up for you. Order it now from Amazon (links in previous postings) and you'll have it in time to read when you aren't partying, hung-over, or examining the lint in your navel.
Grahamdog,
You are barking up the wrong tree with Hee-Haw-ley at least when it comes to having a well thought-out, well written, and respectfully discussed debate.
It kind of boils down to why I call him "Hee-Haw-ley." You can lead a horse (or donkey) to water, but you can't make him drink.
It doesn't matter whether the Constitution, the Holy Bible, and the Islamic Koran back up your arguments, along with excerpts from experts and working links for someone to follow in order to research the matter more thoroughly.
Hee-Haw-ley is not open to new ideas, alternative view points, or anything that will tilt his world view. And he sure as hell can't back up any of his statements with any substantiation beyond his modus operandus of name-calling, belittling comments, misrepresentation of your points, and strawman arguments. Where do you think his pitiful "the left want to give our rights to terrorist" statement comes from?
Hee-Haw-ley,
The truth finally comes out when you wrote:
"I speak from my own knowledge and mind not like a lot of Bloggers who have no intellect of their own so the cut and paste and Google"
That is your problem. You see, if you would use the Google, it would take you to places that have information and things you couldn't possibly know sitting in your underwear in your living room. Once there, you can use your noodle to read and understand what others are saying and substantiating.
But because you limit the scope of your MENSA thinking to your own knowledge and mind, you get no fresh inputs and no stimulation. You become old, stale, and noticable senile.
You may not cut and paste, but you do poorly retype and repeat. You tried to bring up the false argument with me yesterday:
"The left wants to give Terrorists the right to courts and due process."
How do you know they are terrorists? Have they been convicted? Have they been tried? Hell, have they even been charged? No, to all of the above in most cases. Your brush strokes are just a little bit too broad and unhinged.
How about if the left and the right would give "detainees" basic human rights guaranteed them by U.S. ratified international resolutions on such things, like the right to contest their detention, the right to an attorney, the right to see the evidence against them?
Here is another despicable line that you'll regret having written (and is worthy of being flagged as abuse):
"People Like CSUStupid are the same people that allowed Hitler to come to power."
Hee-Haw-ley, you have ~not~ been paying attention, now have you? Not to the news, not to what others tell you. Only to your own confused and cluttered mind under Mary-Jane's influence.
You go out and read "The End of America, A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" by Naomi Wolf
Or better yet, contact me at my website with your shipping address, and I'll make it a gift to you.
You read it, then you tell me who let what "Hilter" come to power. The book outlines ten steps that "fascist, totalitarian, and other repressive leaders [employ to] seize and maintain power, especially in what were once democracies.”
Gee, all 10 steps have already been implemented by the Bush Administration.
Pay attention, Hee-Haw-ley. The conversion of our once free democracy into a fascist state happened on your watch, with your vote, and with you lock-step marching.
Be that as it may, please, please, please follow your own advice given in the last line of your posting:
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be though a fool then to open it and remove all doubt."
P.S. Remember to perform your 9/11 DVD review. I'll be happy to send you a DVD as well, just to get you to step out of your damn ignorance.
Hee-Haw-ley,
You may read all the time, but you don't comprehend. Your short-term memory loss seems to be affected by your medical Mary-Jane.
Case in point, I used the dreaded copy-and-paste to get not one, but three of your quotes (except for the one about being thought a fool, which rightfully belongs to someone else like Lincoln or Franklin) so that I would not be guilty of putting words in your mouth. I use your words directly to highlight your intelligence level and your reasoning abilities, however meager they truly are.
I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. Mounds of evidence makes them probabilities of conspiracy, not mere theories. Unfortunately, evidence means nothing to you, because you "speak from [your] own knowledge and mind." You aren't open to letting anyone convince you of anything. For shame, for shame.
You, on the other hand, are a "coincidence theorist." Everything on 9/11 was by golly just a gosh-darn coincidence from A to Z, and not one speck of incompetence neither.
Please, please, please follow through with your threat and DO NOT respond to me. Bet you can't do it. Your inflated ego and overhyped sense of your own intelligence won't let you. But please, try!
CSU SR
Is Bush a Hitler?
You decide. Here is a repeat of a book to help you understand: "The End of America, A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" by Naomi Wolf
Not expensive. Not long. Well worth the read.
For the record, I did not say "Bush was a Hitler." That would be a frequent reich-wing technique used by Hee-Haw-ley to put words in my mouth and mischaracterize my position.
{I rarely post Mr. Hawley's full text. As I was enhancing this file, I came acrosss these original postings from him. Sometimes reasonable. Often times over-generalized extremes meant to egg on a fight. These are Craig Hawley's exact words.}
In my humble opinion any one that can't see there is a secular progressive anti Christian bias in this country now is just not in touch with reality.
Now thin about it. If you are trying to kick out God from this country would you be ignorant enough say so. What secular progressive would be dumb enough to say hey I hate God and all he stand for and would love to open our society to include every perversion and deviate on the planet.
FYI one reason that Islamic terrorists list as why they hate the west is decadence. They constantly talk about our country being a cesspool of anything goes sexual excesses. They say we do not embrace even our own God and are turning into a secular Godless nation.
The wilder and more extreme parts of our society do not fit into a Christian framework so to be accepted they are trying to kick God out. They cringe at people who actually have religious morals and ethics. They embrace a diluted version of anarchy where anything goes and anyone that objects to bad behavior is an intolerant bigot.
If saying profanity should not be tolerated in our press is intolerant then sign me up for the intolerant bigots club and I'll join proudly.
I am sick and tired of secular progressives trying to paint decent citizens as intolerant bigots for objecting to their perversions and filth.
Lastly this country was founded on Judea Christian principles whether any one else likes it our not. FACT! Ever since we have allowed secular progressives and Liberals to water down and legislate away our core values and Christian beliefs we have slowly gone down hill into the cesspool of immoral and unethical behavior that permeates this country.
Just recently I heard Americans supposedly at the top of our society say it did not matter that Bill Clinton lied to the nation and every child that lives here , as long a he did a good job. I have heard people here defend McSWane and petty theft.
What kind of a sick twisted country has this turned into when infidelity id glorified and said to be inconsequential along with profanity laden tirades for little children to read and glorifying theft and drunkenness as worth goal to be printed as a funny thing for kids to emulate.
The evidence is over whelming and any one that says it doesn't exist is either clueless or part of the movement that is destroying the moral base of this country.
And
I agree John McCain is an honorable man and I am voting for him.
Hillary. Please. This is the lady who had all those scandals and people committed suicide around. This is the lady that runs on her husbands experience as President as though she was , then will not release any of the documents under her control to show us the extent of this self appointed experience.
This lady decides whether she likes NAFTA depending on which state she is in not some moral compass.
Talk about phony. I watched as Hillary went into a black church and became a southern black woman before my eyes. She all of a sudden had a thick southern accent and tried to talk and sound like she was black.. How patronizing can you be. She only spoke like that in that church proving my point.
And finally she is the most arrogant and entitled woman on the planet. Staff from the White House have been quoted as saying that when she would walk down the hall in the White House she would not allow staff to meet her gaze as they were beneath her. I thought Lincoln freed the slaves.
Finally , people and nations from all over the planet give gifts to whoever is President and they are treasures to and for the nation.
Hillary for the first time I can remember in my ;lifetime assumed these gifts were for her the great Hillary and boxed them up to take with her when she left the White House.
This lady thinks we are all little twits and she is above all of us cattle.
But go ahead and vote for her and if she wins we will see how arrogant and dangerous she really is.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You wrote:
"Just recently I heard Americans supposedly at the top of our society say it did not matter that Bill Clinton lied to the nation and every child that lives here , as long a he did a good job."
Let us use Bill Clinton's lies about getting some action under his desk in the Oval Office as a measuring stick. Lied about it to his wife and family, and yes, to the nation. But by golly, he seemed to be doing a good job: the deficit was reduced; a surplus was created; housing prices meant something; jobs were plentiful.
Now let us be fair and apply that measuring stick to Bush and Cheney. "There are those in society" who believe that they did to the nation under the desk in the Oval Office what Bill C. did to interns. What sort of job has he been doing: the deficit exponentially exploded; the surplus was drained very first thing; the housing bubble burst; and where are the jobs?
Let's also not forget that Bush and Cheney lied us into war, and there is no disputing the documented evidence to this fact.
If the Republicans in Congress were willing to lock-step vote into impeaching Clinton for his deceitful lies to the nation about a personal infidelity, why aren't they willing to break with ranks to impeach Bush and Cheney for their high crimes and misdemeanors? This administration admitted to breaking the laws of the FISA Courts knowingly. In terms of the violation of Constitutional Rights using Richard Nixon's impeachment as the measuring bar, Bush and Cheney must be impeached. The irony here is that they instructed the big telecoms to break the law and listen in on all data traffic and were implementing it in March 2001. Pity that this technical ability didn't allow them to prevent 9/11, yet it was a high priority item for the USA Patriot Act as well as the manifestos of the Project for a New American Century that laid the plans that have followed, including a Pearl Harbor motivational factor.
Ask yourself, "where do I think the surplus and the housing bubble went?" Look at the stock market and loan ownership. Since Bush and Cheney took office, a whole bunch of wealth has changed hands. Tax breaks were implemented that benefited only the extremely top 1% wealthy, something that was predicted would happen, but not by those who actively sold it to us, the same ones who lied us into an illegal war of aggression. (Ever wonder why privatizing social security was such a huge priority with Bush and Cheney? Where do you think it would have gone?) War is the ultimate tool for getting wealth to change hands, and for entrepreneurial skills of war profiteers. But rather than outright taxing us to pay back those companies and countries that put them into office, they have the Federal Reserve print out more currency, thereby devaluating it to the lowest point in its history. For all Americans with even modest savings, wealth has been taken from you. Wealth was taken from Americans without savings by their indebtedness and finance charges appearing on their statements. Wealth was taken when we refinanced in the housing bubble and now find the actual market value of our home being less than what we owe on it.
Based on the above information, has Bush and Cheney been doing a good job, and if yes, for whom? For the average American, or for those corporations and countries who donated to the Bush crime family and given them a comfortable life?
What is it going to take to get the lock-step Republicans, like our very own Rep. (R) Marilyn Musgrave, to stumble and vote against party lines but for impeachment?
Would impeachment really be that big of a distraction from running two wars that have already gone badly despite encouraging talking-points from the administration to the contrary?
Historical precedent of enforcement is a tenant in law. If President Bush and Cheney get away with high crimes and misdemeanors, President H. Clinton (or President Obama or President McCain) can go unpunished for the same crimes or worse.
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"Lastly this country was founded on Judea Christian principles whether any one else likes it our not. FACT! Ever since we have allowed secular progressives and Liberals to water down and legislate away our core values and Christian beliefs we have slowly gone down hill into the cesspool of immoral and unethical behavior that permeates this country."
Judea Christian principles were certainly part of the make up of this country's founding, but they were also Pagans, Deists, and other religions and Masons. Their concern was that they didn't want one religion, or one church, unduly influencing and controlling the law. There were Christian fundamentalist and extremists groups (like the Catholics, the Pagans, and the Quakers) back then, too. Our founding fathers wanted the free practice of religion by all, but they wanted it separate from the government.
You make a straw man argument by saying that secular progressives and those dreaded liberals watered down and legislated away our core values and religious beliefs.
While Bush and Cheney have been in power, they knowingly instigated torture in direct defiance to US and international law. They lied about it and still do, [George Bush] "The United States does not torture people." Nope, they only rewrite the definition of torture, explain that enhanced interrogation techniques is different from torture, render you to countries who do torture, or render you to US military prisons in other countries and hire private military contractors outside of the chain of command to interrogate you.
So tell me. Was it really secular progressives who watered down and legislated away our core values and religious beliefs, or was it neo-cons or neo-conservatives or lock-stepping bible-thumping "Christian" Republicans?
In addition, what is the correlation between decaying moral values and, say, Corporate Media -- sometimes called, main stream media or (MSM)? Follow the money.
An old saying suggests that we vote with our dollars. Advertising and marketing give us an appetite for having more and for thrills, from cinematic experiences to amusement parks.
Connect some dots. Those selling, distributing, and channeling media make more money than those who produce it. Graphically violent video games are probably decadently pretty fun to play, and they sell well and make money. However, they do probably desensitize you to what are acceptable levels of violence. The United States is involved in two wars; McCain says that we could be in Iraq 100 years; McCain also says that there will be other wars. Who is going to fight these future wars? How will those warriors be trained?
So is it really liberals who watered down and legislated away our core values and religious beliefs, or was it free-market stalwart Republican conservatives being conned by neo-cons?
Feed my sheep.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Don't spin my words, which evidently you didn't understand fully or didn't read. (How many times have we accused you of that?)
I am not parsing words or grading lies. You are.
You fail to apply equal standards and the same measuring stick from 1998 to 2008.
Case in point, you held President Clinton up as an object of moral shame for his lying in front of Congress and the nation. For this, he was hounded and impeached (although the impeachment was not ratified by the Senate).
President Bush also lied to the Congress and the nation. Has he been hounded and impeached? You established the measuring stick, yet you fail to apply it to Bush. Why is that?
You wrote:
"Either you condemn all lies or you make excuses in your lust for hanging people you don't like."
This appears to be exactly what you are doing with your backhand swipes at President Clinton and nary a word in opposition of our present commander and thief.
Bill Clinton was SO-ooo 1990's. Bush is now and has been for the last 7 years. How come you so actively ignore what is directly in front of your face in 2008? How come you stick to the neo-con talking points despite the evidence all around you of their "morally bankrupt" behavior? Why do you time-travel to the good years of Clinton and try to repaint them as bad, when we're living through our nation's worst downfall exasperated by the Bush/Cheney immoral leadership, and we haven't hit bottom yet?
Since you want to start grading lies, how indeed do President Clinton's lies compare to that of the Bush Administration? Who is the leader in deceit and damage to all aspects of our democratic society? Who has set standards to new lows? Who has led our nation towards fascism?
If you want to turn President Clinton's lies into the yard stick against which all Presidential lies are measured, then President Bush's lies start at one goal post and extend passed the other goal post right on out of the stadium through the parking lot to the nearest highway interchange.
Thus, I strongly disagree with your personal delusions that my posting made your case. In fact, your case has yet to have been made by even you. And you certainly haven't mounted an effective defense of the Bush/Cheney years. I'm still waiting for you to justify rendition and torture that were lied about even whilst the Bush Administration were approving such orders and assigning their sharpest legal minds to find flimsy and highly questionable loop-holes in law to cover their behinds for the crimes they knew they were committing or going to commit. How was any of this Christian, responsible, or accountable? Where is your damn measuring stick when you need it?
Thank you for bringing up 9/11 and JFK assassination conspiracy probabilities in an attempt to discredit me, but they weren't the topic of discussion, except that they are the elephant dot in the room just begging for wise Americans to connect with the rest of the ugly picture that depicts and doesn't explain a maze of improbably coincidences including the Project for a New American Century drafting the plans that Bush/Cheney have followed in the wars we've entered and the stripping of our freedoms.
P.S. Did you notice all of your missing/deleted postings to this corporate-owned free speech site? Did you get a warning email from the Coloradoan that mentioned how "the forums have been hijacked by a vocal few whose name-calling and bullying tone prevents others from participating." With 456 postings since January 22 at a clip of 10.6 postings per day, you are one of the vocal hijackers that they are talking about.
In case your morals are not acute enough to register it, everything from your smiley's down in your last posting is an example of bullying. I encourage you again to contact me off-list through my website if that is going to continue to be the tenor of your postings to me.
Also, next time, spend more than a mere 29 minutes between reading someone's words, digesting them, and [off-line] writing [editing & reviewing] and posting a response. The quality will be so much better. Take your time. Although I might check this forum once before bed, I know I won't be responding before tomorrow morning.
DOC_SLS, I am curious where you got your quote. Were those the writings of another person in this forum or some so-called expert?
Let's use it as a measuring stick, someone's assertion that Bill Clinton's tenure may have inflicted irreparable harm to those institutions you name: America’s military forces, sovereignty, moral values, and judicial system.
Weren't those the same institutions that President Bush had at his disposal when he went into office and promptly politicized, putting in party loyalist over and above seasoned and experienced veterans and professionals. This is true from FEMA to the Justice Department to their nominations and appointees to the Attorney General and the Supreme Court.
We have our National Guard units no longer located in our states and being available to help us in an emergency. Instead they are pulling multiple tours in the illegal war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, whose sand does irreparable harm to National Guard equipment. Who do we have available to give us steady and assured assistance and guidance in the event of emergency? Why, private security contractors who aren't beholden to the US military chain of command. They are the very same companies that have exasperated the situation in the wars, committing crimes that they can't be held accountable for. I recall hearing that nearly every state of the union has been building large super prisons. I believe ours is out in the plains of Colorado somewhere.
So now tell me. Who has inflicted irreparable harm to our institutions?
Craig Hawley wrote:
"John McCain is an honorable man and I am voting for him."
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Ron Paul are all also honorable people. Therefore, we have to look beyond that single issue and see the complete picture.
McCain might as well start spelling his name "McBush".
What I find most honorable in McCain is that he endured torture while in service to the United States, and then he continued to serve our nation through elected office. I admired his initial position on torture stemming from his personal experiences in the matter, that torture was bad; it did not produce reliable information. McCain did not advocate torture. Yet when push came to shove on a torture bill in Congress, McCain flip-flopped from his hard won view to that of the Bush Administration: the United States needs the ability to perform enhanced interrogation techniques on its enemies.
By the way, is this the honorable McCain you are referring to?
Here's what honorable military veterans really think of McCain, and it isn't support:
Feed my sheep.
{This is another posting from Craig Hawley on Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:26 pm.}
Interesting. Illegal War? I guess after today when all who voted for this illegal war are jailed , then Barrack Obama will be about the only person left in our entire congress and the current administration.
I am guessing that Billary and the other Democrats that voted to authorize it would not support the Illegality of it.
No one is in jail or will be so saying something that you can't prove in a court of law is just sour grapes and irrelevant sniping , as convictions in the court of public opinion are not legal.
Our system requires us to presume innocence until we can prove illegal activity in a court of law. That keeps us from tearing each other apart with conjecture and innuendo as is being done here.
To all Bush haters. The day he or anyone that you think is at fault for the war get convicted I will come back here an admit to the world I was wrong. Until that time you just look like a bitter small group of people that still are hung up on the Democrats losing the last two elections.
Character. McCain yes. Obama yes ( but his inexperience is glaring in his foreign policy positions and we can't afford an amateur right now learning on the job ). Ron Paul Yes , but completely irrelevant as he never had a chance of even being seriously considered let alone win anything.
Hillary Clinton HELL NO. She is a power hungry , scorched earth liar. I guess people forget that it was Hillary that helped drive the Clinton Machine that called all those women that Bill , did not have sex with ( BS ), as either crazy or liars. We now know that Bill was a lying , perjury committing scoundrel , and Hillary was busy trying to destroy the lives of good women that had been destroyed by her husbands complete lack of self control. This bull about all men cheat and he had to is just bunk. I have been with my wife for fifteen years. I have never cheated on her nor have I even thought of it. You see I love and respect her and would never put the best thing in my life in jeopardy for a role in the hay with a woman that would have no character if she would sleep with a married man.
Hillary has had people actually commit suicide rather than face humiliation in court thanks to investigations launched against both Bill and Hilary.
Bill lied under oath and in a court of law when some one does that the judge instructs the jury they may not believe the entire testimony. Following this principal , Bill Clinton as far as I am concerned is guilty of sexual assault in at least one case we know about.
Many ill informed and confused Liberals worship Clinton as a God. Last time I checked God does not sexually assault women. Clinton is nothing but a misogynist punk. If that woman had been related to me I would be in jail right now. I would have showed Bill how I feel about men who sexually assault women.
I can't wait to hear a Liberal support sexual assault.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Your posting from Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:26 pm is a model of right-wing double-standards, hypocrisy, unsubstantiated smear, innuendo, and guilt by association.
I have written (and re-written) a more lengthy response to address it point-by-point (available upon request). My decision to not post it wasn't based on the inverse correlation between long posts and your tested reading comprehension. In writing it, it dawned on me that a point-by-point rebuttal -- much of it repeated and that you didn't get the first time -- does not address what the underlying goals of your mischievousness tries to accomplish.
McCain is your man, and you say one word -- character -- sums up why he is better than the rest. Of course, you give no examples other than that one word and then proceed to downplay Obama & Paul and to rake Hillary Clinton over the coals.
At this point, it should be mentioned that on several occasions including here you made a big dog-and-pony show of your core beliefs that we're presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is given as your reason why you won't knock the Bush Administration now for obvious crimes. Yet out of the other side of your mouth in the same posting, you say "Bill Clinton as far as I am concerned is guilty of sexual assault" and try to make Hillary complicit in his infidelities. Where were their trials and convictions?
The true reason you wait for an unlikely event (public trial) to condemn President Bush/Cheney for breaking the laws of this land and completely disregarding the oath of their offices in upholding the Constitution is that you want President McCain to be able to do the same. And by then, we'll have historical precedence for seeing his crimes but not being able to do anything about them.
Let us look into the character of McCain who you champion.
Mr. Hawley, because you grew up in the 60's, you probably saw "Star Trek" before it went into syndication. You might appreciate this analogy.
There is an old Star Trek episode (or movie) where reference is made to Captain Kirk being the only cadet in the Space Academy's history who beat some simulation that was designed (unknown to the cadets) to have no winnable outcome. Later, Spock revealed how Kirk did it. Kirk changed the rules and programming of the simulation before he took his test.
Bush/Cheney took these lessons seriously. Every step of the way, the Bush Administration has gone out of its way to game the system, to circumvent the established process, and to cover their backsides legally for crimes they committed, were committing, or knew they were going to commit.
We can call Bush a criminal without a trial, because we have many instances where President Bush has admitted to breaking the law (for example, FISA Courts) and where he has signed signing statements on laws specifying which parts of the law he'll enforce or his interpretation thereof.
================
BUSH DEFIES CONGRESSIONAL LIMITS. President Bush declared (1/28) that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill, Charlie Savage reported in the Boston Globe (1/30). Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them. “Provisions of the act ... purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief,” Bush said. “The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”
Democrats took issue with the signing statement. “I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. “His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law — every part of it — and I expect him to do just that.” In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.”
WHITE HOUSE CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT GONE. In 2004, upon recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, Congress established the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board “to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered” by the president “in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies” related to national security. The board was also charged with determining “whether guidelines designed to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being followed.” But the board was not sworn in until March 2006, due to inaction by the White House and Congress. Now, the board is officially vacant, as the terms of the original members expired on Jan. 30, 2007, but no nominations have been sent to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which must approve appointees for the five vacancies. This leaves the board without any members, even as Congress prepares to give the Bush administration extraordinary powers to wiretap without warrants inside the US, Ryan Singel noted at Wired.com (2/4).
================
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com noted:
“[I]n almost every significant case, what ‘bipartisanship’ means in Washington is that enough Democrats join with all of the Republicans to endorse and enact into law Republican policies, with which most Democratic voters disagree. That’s how so-called ‘bipartisanship’ manifests in almost every case... [T]he proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants."
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I stand by accusation that you have reading comprehension problems.
Example 1: I referred you explicitly to your posting from Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:26 pm, where you make only the one word support -- character -- of McCain.
Example 2: I wrote that you "proceed[ed] to downplay Obama & Paul and to rake Hillary Clinton over the coals." I did not say that you raked Ron Paul over the coals.
Example 3: You wrote:
- "you can't help your self with the personal attacks."
- "I will not respond to your rants or name calling." (But you did.)
- "So call me names write 1000 page posts."
You also wrote:
- "I'll say goodbye now max as you probably won't be here much longer unless you knock off the name calling."
No where in my posting did I call you names, Mr. Hawley. I did call what you wrote on the date and time mentioned "a model of right-wing double-standards, hypocrisy, unsubstantiated smear, innuendo, and guilt by association." That is not name calling. And it is a fair description of your posting.
Example 4: What is name calling and personal attacks is what you wrote:
- "All here have seen that you are not coherent or lucid most of the time."
- "A man that believes every debunked conspiracy theory ever heard of back to Adam and Eve."
- "It must be horrible to live in your mind in a paranoid world where every shadow is out to get you."
- "Max just says what he fantasises I said not what I actually said."
You can get all in a tizzy over Hillary Clinton. It wouldn't have mattered who she was for me to step in and defend her honor for your unsubstantiated smear, innuendo, and guilt by association. I am not her biggest fan, mostly because I know that if she is elected president, she is going to have a real tough time getting things done... Primarily because there are people like you who can't stand her and will say and write anything to attack her. She is a divisive figure who brings out the worst in people like you. Your posting from Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:26 pm is no exception, neither are your postings from today.
McCain is not, however, our salvation from Clinton. The fact that he was in a POW camp does not necessarily qualify him to be the next president. If you limit yourself to a single issue, single qualifying instance, then you should follow the links in my posting to find recent single instances of his character that give one pause about voting for him; lots of quotes from his fellow Republicans who he has rubbed the wrong way.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You do not know me well enough to use my Christian name. Mr. Bridges shows respect.
As for your quote supposedly from Sen. Clinton, I did not even look it up to find its context. Evidently, you didn't either, because you can't even site a link.
I have valid reason to ignore it. You wrote:
"Now let's see Max defend the statement Hillary wrote. He won't even acknowledge it as there is no defense to such a statement. She is right up there with Al Gore who we all know invented the Internet."
The Al Gore reference is false; he never claimed he invented the internet. Look it up. So if you are going to be so bold as to tie a known false supposition to an unknown, obscure, and out of context quote from Sen. Clinton, I'm not even going to waste my time. It is probabably false, too.
And in a further example of your poor reading comprehension, I wrote:
"I am not [Sen. Clinton's] biggest fan."
So what do I care? Why should I be bothered by something that, taken in context of the Presidential race, means nothing.
While you are firing up Google to substantiate yourself, how about looking up what I referenced on McCain... No, wait! It is even easier than that. The URLs in my posting are converted to working links and only need to be clicked on.
P.S. "McCain's POW experience showed his character"... yes, I agree, from over 30 years ago. My quotes and links, however, show his character over the last 7 years. They are a much better benchmark and give a clearer indication of what he'll be like as president, someone who will say or do anything if it benefits his corporate sponsors.
{Mr. Hawley wrote:}
yada yada hate Bush yada yada Hate Bush : repeat
Why Mr. Hawley, that has got to be one of your finest, best written, well-thought, concise postings ever.
And with your statement -- "hate Bush" -- I am glad to see that you have finally come around. Does this mean you are going to go through the archives and amend all of your other postings where you are the torturers Bush & Cheney biggest cheerleader? How is this sudden conversion going to affect your unflagging support for McBush, ... I mean, McCain?
P.S. Just got news from Amazon that my order may be delayed. Estimated arrival date: 03/20/2008 - 03/27/2008.
{A couple of minor messages were exchanged relating to asking for and receiving permission to send Mr. Hawley some reading material to his home address, or what I could deduce from the internet.}
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 2: Registered 420 Jimmy
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 4: 9/11 Christian Science Treatment
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 5: Mind Your P's & Q's
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 6: Q Dots
Choice Quotations from the Hee-Haw-ley Himself showing his God-given character & charm:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
* 52
* 53
* 54
* 55
* 56
* 57
* 58
* 59
* 60
* 61
* 62
* 63
* 64
* 65
* 66
* 67
* 68
* 69
* 70
* 71
* 72
* 73
* 74
* 75
* 76
* 77
* 78
* 79
* 80
* 81
* 82
* 83
* 84
* 85
* 86
* 87
* 88
* 89
* 90
* 91
* 92
* 93
* 94
* 95
* 96
* 97
* 98
* 99
* 100
* 101
* 102
* 103
* 104
* 105
* 106
* 107
* 108
* 109
* 110
* 111
* 112
* 113
* 114
* 115
* 116
* 117
* 118
* 119
* 120
* 121
* 122
* 123
* 124
* 125
* 126
* 127
* 128
* 129
* 130
* 131
* 132
* 133
* 134
* 135
* 136
* 137
* 138
* 139
* 140
* 141
* 142
* 143
* 144
* 145
* 146
* 147
* 148
* 149
* 150
* 151
* 152
* 153
* 154
* 155
* 156
* 157
* 158
* 159
* 160
* 161
* 162
* 163
* 164
* 165
* 166
* 167
* 168
* 169
* 170
* 171
* 172
* 173
* 174
* 175
* 176
* 177
* 178
* 179
* 180
* 181
* 182
* 183
* 184
* 185
* 186
* 187
* 188
* 189
* 190
* 191
* 192
* 193
* 194
* 195
* 196
* 197
* 198
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Echo Chamber, Registered Independent:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Superior Officer, Sgt. Asshat:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
Quotations from Jesus H. Christ:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
Quotations from others:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21