« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
An Ode To Julian Smith and Free Speech
Half of what I say is meaningless
But I say it just to reach you Julian
Julian, Julian, freedom of speech, calls me
So I sing a song of loons, Julian
Julian, open eyes, snarky smile, calls me
So I sing a song of love, Julian
His posts of angry freedom are shimmering, glimmering
In the sun
Julian, Julian, TPM watch-guard, teach me
So I sing a song of recipes, Julian
When I cannot stop the spam
I can only speak my mind Julian
Julian, waking cut, silent paste, teach me
So I sing a song of truth, Julian
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/Julian%20Smith
(Forgive me, John Lennon, forgive me, please)
Advertisement
Comments (211)
I would just like to add to this by saying that what Julian Smith is fighting against is actually something we should all be fighting against.
What Julian Smith is fighting against, by cutting and pasting very long Loon Facts and Recipes into every post that we all disagree with, is blocking.
I think Julian makes a very good point, to be honest.
If you don't agree with a post, ignore it. Don't comment, leave it alone, let it die.
Julian is actually making sense here, folks. Of course, why Julian Smith didn't bother to post his long cut&paste diatribe to "make liu", I'll never know, but perhaps it's because Julian knows that NO ONE reads make liu's Rohan posts.
Julian, I tip my hat to you, and please know that I would never wreck John Lennon's song to his mother if I didn't have a reason to.
That being said, I think perhaps you should start your OWN blog (for once) about how people around here get spammed with Loon and Recipe comments and you don't like the blocking of free speech, versus hijacking their posts and copying and pasting your statement 3 times in each.
Peace, and good night.
June 16, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your friend, liam, just posted this over at David Perez's blog. Enjoy.
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Posted by liam
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Julian, liam's post on was on topic to that thread. Deep breaths, man...
June 16, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/obamas-fathers-day-message.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/good-news-and-awful-news.php
These are just two samples of the reason I wrote this post tonight. I'm sure Aunt Sam and cvilledem and others have had the same done unto them.
My point is, must one go and spam other people's posts from three days ago just to make a point today? Freedom of speech is our most sacred right, as far as I'm concerned, but hijacking to the point of harrassment, Julian, is another.
I like where you wanted to go with this thought of yours, Julian, and I agree with it to a point, but when you just get downright silly and abusive, you make the Loons spam and the Recipe spam make sense.
Okay, NOW I'm done. Peace, and good night.
June 16, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only cut and paste back the block posts other people put into the comment threads of people they don't agree with. I put liams loon post into yours because you thought it was funny when he did it to Seaton and Perez.
So here's the deal. I only do it to you when you do it to others.
I don't do it to people I "disagree" with. That's a misunderstanding or mischaracterization.
So if you don't want the block posts you put in other people's threads coming back at you, stop trying to suppress free speech.
Seaton and Perez have a right to post here and to try to find an audience and have a discussion.
June 16, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again, Lis. They haven't been block posting to screw up threads.
June 16, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
But liam has, and, since he's not posting himself, I'll just park it here until he does.
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Posted by liam
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Julian, you say you have
And you imply that
I disagree: you stand up for being right!
Your actions portray you as a true bully, as a control-needy vigilante.
Obviously, you believe that cut-and-paste responses are inapropriate because they block free speech. You are entitled to your opinion.
Obviously, some people think that cut-and-paste responses are just a form of free speech. They are entitled to their opinion.
Anyhow, to "protect" free speech, you go on to perpetuate the very sinful cut-and-past job that you condemn.
Puzzling!
Unless, of course, you think that free speech is not for sinners like Liam, kgb, Lis, Chino Blanco...
Here is the cut-and-paste job of my own comment to you (unacknowledged as of yet,) earlier today:
Everyone here has a right (whether you agree or not,) to interpret a blog as they wish; and to respond as they wish.
The job of censoring any abusive posting or punishing any poster is not yours; it is the site administrator's.
I was trying to understand and, given your tone-deaf response, now I do: This tantrum of yours brings you some kind of pleasure.
Carry on!
June 16, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for a laudable effort. And the author is as fair and generous as always.
June 16, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a lovely sentiment, Lis.
And I could only think last night that this Julian has way too much time on his hands. And is stuck in being the Middle School hall monitor who got no respect. Do you think he'll manage to recapture it here at TPM? :)
June 16, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does take time. Want to help? When you see someone trashing a thread by posting recipes and bird descriptions, instead of joining in, cut what they put into the thread and paste it back to their own posts.
Lis gets it. She ridicules it, but she gets it.
June 16, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Julian, don't make it bad.
Take a sad song
and make it better.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
June 16, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been inspired by the TPMers who put an end to that Obama monkey toy.
They showed that you can make a difference if you stand up for what's right. So far liam and kgb have been the worst offenders, egged on Chino, who came up with the "open thread" idea and a couple of people like Lis.
Of course, after defending Seaton, I have to scrape myself off and take a shower.
June 16, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand better than you might think.
You were worried about the slippery slope effect that did, apparently happen.
I've been there. I actually agree with your sentiments, I'm just not too thrilled with your methods.
I think you would have done better to stick to your excellent arguments and left it at that. Let people figure out that your point was valid, and your warning timely.
Now people see you as obnoxious, rather than level-headed. That's a shame.
June 16, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who has he actually done it to? I see a lot of threats and warnings, but, except for LisB, did he actually post somebody's spam back at them? Maybe everybody should back my call for bloggers being able to moderate comments to their own posts.
June 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check the links in LisB's second comment here, for starters.
June 16, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!
June 16, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lighting my Bic. Waving my arms.
June 16, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you never quite get it right, do you Lis? You didn't quite get the fact that I only do it to people who are doing it to other people so they'll see how it feels? And to people like you who should know better but encourage the clowns. You seem to be a nice person, but you should think before you post.
June 16, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even bother to look at the bottom of the loon comment to see who posted it in the first place?
June 16, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Julian, and I do get it. I got it the first time you did it. And I got it the second time you did it. And the third...and the fourth...
I laughed at liam's loon comment and told liam I prefer the apple pie recipe comment, and therefore you chose to go to my post from three days ago (make that four days ago, now) and copy/paste liam's entire comment into my post. You did this to everybody who participated in the "open thread", and while I applaud you for making the point about free speech (scroll up, I do believe I applauded you at some point up there), I am finding your whole "hall monitor" routine to be a bit silly and childish. Hence, my post.
I'm all for fairness, but I'm also not all for grown-ups treating other grown-ups as if they are children. Thanks.
June 16, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
We understand each other then. Play fair and you'll be all right. Otherwise, what goes around comes around.
June 16, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we all get it.
And now you're being sanctimonious and obnoxious.
What's your payoff here? Improving TPM Readers' Blogs? Or being morally superior?
June 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just like barbeque. Here's a recipe your friend kgb inserted into a thread yesterday.
Guess you forgot this one, dickhead. Or did you think it was gone. Here. Take it with you. But don't worry if you lose it again. I'll bring it around next time you post.
Source:
Rev. Frank Purvis of Hassel, North Carolina
Serves/Makes:1 quart plus
Ingredients
* 1 quart (950 ml) cider vinegar
* 1/4 lb (.1 kg). melted butter
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) onion, minced
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) tomato paste
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). soy sauce
* 2 cloves minced garlic
* 1 tsp (5 ml). freshly ground black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients, cook and stir over low heat for 15 minutes.
* Remove from heat and use as a basting sauce for grilling meats.
* Also as a dipping sauce when serving the meats.
-------------------------------
Description:
MUSTARD BASED BARBEQUE SAUCE
Source:
FARMER'S ALMANAC
Ingredients
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) yellow mustard
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) red wine vinegar
* 1/4 cup (60 ml) sugar
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) butter
* 2 tsp (10 ml) salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) worcestshire
* 1-1/4 tsp (6 ml) black pepper
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) Tabasco
Preparation
* combine ingredients in saucepan.
* simmer 30 minutes over low heat.
* Let stand 1 hour before using.
* Refrigerate unused sauce.
Comments
This is a little different than the normal barbecue sauce. In South Carolina this is the normal. I love it. My family eats it on everything from hamburger to ribs. If you dont like spicy you can leave out the hot sauce. ENJOY!!!!
---------------------------------------------
Source:
Chuck's Collection
Serves/Makes:3 cups
Ingredients
* 2 cups (475 ml) cider vinegar
* 2/3 cup (150 ml) ketchup
* 1/2 cup (125 ml) brown sugar
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Tabasco
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). lemon juice
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). butter
* 1 tsp (5 ml). red pepper flakes
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients.
* Cook for 30 minutes over medium low heat.
* Allow to cool before using
-----------------------------------------------
Source:
Terri Mckibbon
Serves/Makes:6 or more
Ingredients
* Ribs:
* 6 lbs (2.7 kg). pork baby back ribs
* 4 oz (112 grm). tap water
* 3 cups (700 ml) barbecue sauce
* Barbecue Sauce:
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) olive oil
* 2 oz (56 grm). Spanish onion, chopped
* 1 oz (28 grm). scallion, chopped
* 2 oz (56 grm). fresh green pepper, chopped
* 2 cloves garlic, minced
* 1-1/4 oz (35 grm). brown sugar
* 2 tsp (10 ml). chili powder
* 2 tsp (10 ml). dried oregano
* 1 tsp (5 ml). ground cloves
* 1 tsp (5 ml). cayenne pepper
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). paprika powder
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 2 oz (56 grm). lemon juice
* 3 oz (84 grm). Worcestershire sauce
* 3 oz (84 grm). red wine vinegar
* 1-1/2 cups (350 ml) crushed tomatoes
* 4-1/2 oz (126 grm). chile sauce
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). ketchup
* 3 oz (84 grm). grandma molasses
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). honey
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). Crystal Hot Louisiana sauce
Preparation
* Sauce:
* Heat oil in pot.
* Add onions, scallions and peppers and saute.
* Add garlic, sugar, and remaining dry ingredients.
* Add liquid ingredients and continue to stir.
* Simmer 3 hours, until flavor mixes well.
* Ribs:
* Remove back sinew of ribs and sear on hot grill, both sides.
* Place ribs in roasting pan.
* Combine water and sauce and pour over ribs.
* Bring to boil on stove and cover with foil.
* Place in 350 degree (175 C.) oven until tender, but not falling off bone.
* Cool before serving.
Comments
Serve with plenty of napkins.
Excellent Dish.
Posted by kgb999
June 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see this make the rec list.
For what it's worth, I don't think there's some gathering storm of incivility that threatens to wreck the feature of TPMCafé that this lowly commenter has come to enjoy most of all: reader posts.
At the same time, I do appreciate oceankat's concern, noted elsewhere, that certain responses to troll infestation wind up looking terribly misguided if the chosen response merely inconveniences our peers whilst nourishing our trolls.
I mention oceankat because oceankat is no troll. I know this because when I say something stupid in comments, oceankat's response is not to launch a campaign, but rather to coherently describe my stupidity in a scathing reply. That is at it should be.
I think it should also be the case that we be allowed to have a little fun here without fear of being called out as fascists. Jerk? Maybe. Fascist? C'mon, get real.
I'm a jerk, but I don't post more than once per day. Those who do, well, I think you're asking for whatever comes your way. Sure, maybe you've got multiple fresh daily insights to share. If so, rock on. Post. If not, and you still post, and then get hit with an open thread, well, that's just one way of saying 'thank you' for providing a bit of functionality that TPM has, until now, so far lacked. In other words ... Rock on, 'dominickdesid' and 'make liu' and and 'testing' ... thanks for the open threads ... but please understand that, while I enjoy the chance you provide to socialize with my peers, I also continue to harbor resentment toward your disregard for the commons.
I'm a jerk, but I don't use a fresh post to grandstand or complain about how well or poorly previous posts of mine were received. If a post is lauded or panned, TPM affords the author a window of opportunity for replying to commenter views before the post slips into oblivion. Use it. Don't show up with the same post 3 times in a row and expect the response to improve. And, yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Seaton. If Larry Johnson was still posting here, you wouldn't have to feel like a special case, but he's not, so you are.
I'm a jerk, and I comment, and I drink. Not always in that particular order, and usually in reverse order. If you have the misfortune of knowing any heavy drinkers in your life, you'll know we love to apologize for our antics. I'm no exception. I've regretted several comments I've made here at TPM, but that just makes me a drunk, not a fascist, and certainly not someone who regrets whatever can of whoop-ass gets opened up on those who truly show no regard for what's goin' on here, which is mostly all good.
June 16, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fair comment. And I thought about it before I tried to intervene. But it's started spreading. First they went after Seaton, then they went after Perez. I figure you didn't think through the implications of what you were setting off when you came up with the "open thread" idea as a way of shutting down bloggers you think of as trolls. It didn't even take one day before people started doing it to bloggers they don't like or who they disagree with. There are apparently still people here who are promoting Clinton, for whatever reason. Some of them are promoting her by pointing out gaps in the Obama candidacy she fills. Others, like Seaton, are just tearing Obama down. It's not that easy to tell the difference.
June 16, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of fact, look at Seaton's post this morning.
June 16, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did look at Seaton's post this morning. I read the entire thing, read all the comments, and then posted my own comment, and then recommended his post.
Yes, Julian, we can all play fair sometimes.
I suppose it depends on the post.
June 16, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Julian,
You have legitimate concerns, but truth be told, plenty of decent-minded folks here attempted to engage your concerns in comments, and you didn't give them the benefit of the doubt.
This is not mydd. This is not dKos. That's why I'm here. I don't like cliques. I don't speak for anyone else. That's part of the reason I like Chino Blanco to keep up the brusque manner. It's why I don't bridle when others are equally brusque. It's why I'm here. I don't need others to tell me how to think, and I appreciate the opportunity to be proven wrong.
I'm willing to get real and knock off pretending to be Chino Blanco for this comment. I'm here because Josh got me hooked years ago when he appeared as an utterly decent voice in this new media. I believe in the Zionist project, but understand all the tension that that belief brings. It's the same tension that obtains in every situation where decent, ethical, hopeful, intelligent folks are asked to plot the way forward at the same time we cannot unlearn the painful awareness of what's gone on before. So, here we are.
I might think Josh got it wrong on Iraq, but once he got it right, I knew it wasn't just because he saw where things were headed - it was because he takes his politics with a healthy dose of humanity. And with that humanity, comes the acceptance that we all make mistakes. Do we run? Do we hide? Do we create new domains that our supporters can flock to? No. We deal.
So, my question to you is: am I, are we, allowed to make mistakes here? And if you allow me that - if you allow us that - how much effort do you really think is required to bring your objections to our attention?
My simple answer is: not as much as you suppose.
I had an idea. You launched a campaign. Let's call it a day and get on with making this place worth visiting.
If I admit I could've qualified my idea with some useful caveats, will you admit that perhaps your campaign has been just a little bit over the top?
One last thing, Seaton is not being attacked by anonymous mean-spirited commenters.
If you wanna know who I am, just ask. Here's some pics of my family:
http://pantaohui.blogspot.com/
Choose your battles wisely. Fratricide sucks. If you think that's unfair, well, that's Chino talking. As for me, I'm outta here.
June 16, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a deal, as long as the behavior stops.
June 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that's the rub, isn't it? I don't get to decide when behavior starts and stops. That's up to everyone involved. Or not. As if I know how this is all supposed to work?
That bit of uncertainty on my part notwithstanding, I still believe this all somehow gets worked out in the end, especially if we're willing to take a breath, take a walk, and then come back here assuming the best, rather than the worst, about our opponents.
I mean, go figure that we all see things slightly differently. So what? As long as the difference is informative, who's complaining? You and your army of one? Or does Seaton make two? C'mon. It's only when it stops being informative that any of us pipes up to suggest that we call it a day and just enjoy the fact that we find ourselves here. Hence the 'open thread' suggestion.
As a commenter, I'm no different from you, except that in my case, I seem to understand that I'm simply a nobody with an opinion, whereas you seem to think your appeal to authority is somehow gonna cow me into shutting my trap, or coolin' the goofin' off, or whatever, because you're somehow carryin' a directive from HQ by mentioning Josh's name.
Fuck that. I'm a relatively old fart who's not forgotten being told that when the revolution comes, we'd all have strawberries and cream. Problem is, back before I became an old fart, I was already the asshole in the back asking "what if I don't like strawberries and cream?" ...
And now you're the asshole tellin' me, well, when the revolution comes, you'll learn to like the strawberries and cream.
No. I won't. And I probably won't even learn to like workerbee before this election cycle is over, either. But I've already learned enough here to know that I should grow up and reserve some respect for a commenter like workerbee, even if it's just the respect that comes with showin' up for the job. Workerbee's earned it, I won't deny it, now back to the fray. Can we move on now, or do you refuse to be satisfied until the entire community has weighed in on your campaign?
Julian, you've earned nothing and you've flaunted plenty. Chill out and you'll be welcome here. Keep it up and you just might provide the fuckin' unity that's been in such goddam short supply around here. As if we ever needed unity. We don't. We're here to describe what unity might look like, not faint for your amusement when it doesn't happen.
And yeah, that's all Chino talkin'. Lord knows I wouldn't have the balls to lay it out for you like that. Prick.
June 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw! Your family is beautiful.
I enjoy your comments and posts, Chino. They're intelligent, down-to-earth, witty, and genuine.
June 16, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded. Hear hear.
June 16, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In defense of Loons and Recipes...
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the idea of adding nonesensical stuff to a "troll post" was in lieu of arguing with the "troll" ("feeding"). It was meant to be a benign way of recognizing troll spam and replacing the attendent "bickering" with something humorous.
It was not an anti-free speech move as the original poster was not prevented in any way from making his or her point. The post exists, the poster makes his or her point, they were not censored.
What is different is that "troll-bashing" is replaced with something less caustic and -- in most cases -- more fun. I'd rather see recipes and loon narratives than expletive laced personal attacks.
No one is precluded from posting. Dominickdesid still brings us his LaRouche ads. He gets his moment in the sun, posts his ad, and instead of raising our blood pressure we get a laugh. And one that is not at the expense of the "troll".
June 16, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
In defense of Loons and Recipes...
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the idea of adding nonesensical stuff to a "troll post" was in lieu of arguing with the "troll" ("feeding"). It was meant to be a benign way of recognizing troll spam and replacing the attendent "bickering" with something humorous.
It was not an anti-free speech move as the original poster was not prevented in any way from making his or her point. The post exists, the poster makes his or her point, they were not censored.
What is different is that "troll-bashing" is replaced with something less caustic and -- in most cases -- more fun. I'd rather see recipes and loon narratives than expletive laced personal attacks.
No one is precluded from posting. Dominickdesid still brings us his LaRouche ads. He gets his moment in the sun, posts his ad, and instead of raising our blood pressure we get a laugh. And one that is not at the expense of the "troll".
June 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the double posting... damn software!
June 16, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posting blocks of text to shut down the thread of someone you consider "a troll" is the equivalent of shouting the poster and anyone who might want to engage him or her down. You can easily find examples of posters who "deserve" that kind of treatment. I don't think Seaton and Perez do. But the real point is all you have to do is not respond to or recommend the posts. I don't even read the ones you're talking about. But if another Larouchean happened to wander in, they have a right to talk here, without us shouting them down with recipes and other crap. At least that's how I see it.
June 16, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed.
I think what people were objecting to was the volume of posts. If the Larouchies post 5 times a day they knock other deserving posts off.
I think that is why this started, no?
June 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. But a good point. Posting recipes does nothing to keep them from posting five times a day, though. Does it? As a matter of fact, since it acknowledges their existence, it makes it more likely they will post five times a day. At least that's how I see it.
June 16, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which came first? The chicken recipe, or the egg recipe?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
June 16, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if it doesn't make it less likely, so what? At least it becomes an opportunity to exchange recipes. That's at least something, isn't it? Something a sight bit better than suggesting we all STFU and allow unworthy posts a dignity they don't deserve.
Seriously, what's your damage? And who are you in all this? Have you ever even fucking posted anything here? "Jeebus cripes on a crisp" (see, I read and pick up funny shit like this around here) ... Post already, get over yourself, and you might be surprised at how well you're treated.
June 16, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or was that "Jeebus gripes on a crisp" ?
Either way. I'd argue there's never enough newfangled blasphemy to warrant splitting hairs, but admittedly may have totally misremembered this one.
June 16, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as someone who has posted here, I guess I should weigh in. If you want to exchange recipes, why not open a blog to exchange recipes? We opened one yesterday to exchange some music. Now we're looking for Jason of the Argonauts.
Seems fair to me that if we crap on people's threads we shouldn't whine when they crap on ours. As just about everybody who reads my comments knows, I think bloggers should be able to moderate their comments.
I've managed to strike quite a few mutual ignoring deals with people I don't like. And, to me, the essence of the deal is we really do stay away from one another. I don't comment on their threads, they don't comment on mine, and, if we meet on some thread, we don't reply to one another. Great peace of mind. At least for me. And I hope for them, too.
June 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because, if you wrote a post specifically for exchanging recipes, you'd necessarily be knocking another (presumably more topical) post off the front page.
Because, as there is no 'open thread' functionality here, why not make do with the detritus at hand?
But mostly because a herpes outbreak and a smallpox epidemic call for different responses. This ain't the pox, it's a flare-up: Herpes Simplex J. Whatever lifestyle changes might be called for are temporary.
June 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems simple enough. Anyone can start an open thread that can easily last the whole day. Ask people not to recommend it so it doesn't take up a rec spot. I doubt anyone would mind it taking up one spot on the list of 25 recent posts, and when it falls off the list, people can still easily find it.
I get the motivation between the open thread idea. But it is a can of worms, because we know people will abuse it. I stopped by a post yesterday. I didn't agree with it at all. Wanted to argue. Thought it was something worth discussing. Someone else apparently decided it was a troll post, so I left pretty fast realizing no conversation could ever really take place around all that.
June 16, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fair. I agree that the best days of the copying-and-pasting fad are probably behind us. It was fun, but conversation is ultimately what we're here for. At the same time, what's the big deal about navigating around a German Potato Salad recipe? I'm no gourmet, but it looked damn yummy.
That said, damn if I'm gonna sit still when a character like Julian arrives on the scene actin' like he's sportin' some kinda badge that gives him the right to make a hash of otherwise very worthwhile posts.
Particularly when this is a character who's never even bothered to produce a single post of his own.
Until it posts, we're just talkin' in circles here, 'cuz absent a post, trying to debate the finer points of sharing this space is just masochistic. Post, Julian, post. Otherwise, fuck off.
June 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems fair to me that if we crap on people's threads we shouldn't whine when they crap on ours.
And that's the kicker in all this.
Nobody ever crapped on Julian's threads because he's never had any threads to begin with.
It'd be something like me deciding my job was to defend your posts by infesting everyone else's threads.
In the end, that would embarrass me and you both, wouldn't it?
I mean, I don't know you from Adam, but I sure as hell don't presume to play Guardian Angel for the 'vulnerable' Billy Glad. As if. From what I've read, I'd be an idiot to think you're not capable of standing up for yourself, and that leads me to believe that you've got enough self-respect that you'd tire of my "spare Billy" routine very, very soon after seeing my first comment trying to running interference for you.
Seaton, on the other hand, is quite eager to let Julian know that he appreciates the assist, while at the same time Seaton himself never deigns to get involved in any other threads, other than his own, and even then, only to drop the most obvious of sarcastic remarks.
I'm about done talkin' about this, but, damn, what a crazy episode.
June 16, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just personal advice, Billy, from past experience as a moderator. take it or leave it.
The increasing use of avatars and user names to role play here was a sign the site was going in the adolescent gamer culture direction. One member here a couple of weeks back said something like "part of blogging is playing with people's heads." That theory is in direct conflict with the idea of a forum where people come to discuss things "in good faith." I don't care how sophisticated the role play is, mho, it is destructive to the intent of thoughtful discussion or learning anything other than what role playing can do, and it belongs more in pyschologists' offices.
You seem to like part of that game, you participate in it if you feel the opponent is up to your standards. By doing that, you reinforce the game, that it's all about game and not content. It's destructive to good discussion and content try to psychoanalyze other users and not to stick to the actual content of their writing, to take it as being written in good faith, or ignore, don't feed, if it is trollish. If you don't expect good faith posting, you won't get it, you'll just get gaming and the gaming will take over the content.
You might enjoy that part of it. But my experience is that many are dragged into it as an addiction, get real personal, and wake up a year or two later bummed out that they spent all this psychological energy on anonymous people on the internet, to the detriment of using that energy in their life in the real world, and didn't get much knowledge out of it. It happened to me, and I saw it happen to other on the site I moderated.
If you don't like people getting personal, don't get personal yourself. Asking others to stay away is just taken as a challenge if you are still participating in the game.
I understand the thrill of being trained to communicate better with all kinds of people by trial and error. But consider stopping at the door of getting into psychoanalysis, stay focused on the original reason, the content.
June 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you and appreciate the advice. I've noticed that the people who don't like me pretty much settle for a shot here and there now and then. I'm trying to ignore them completely now. We'll see how that goes. I'm getting pretty busy these days anyway. I appreciate your concern a lot. I'm going to stay out of this now, too. It really is TPM's problem. Not mine.
Agree about the avatars. After spending months here as Kyle Reese, I went back to my diary and tried to write about the experience. Empty.
June 16, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Nothing good from the Kyle Reese angle? Surprising.
Avatars are fascinating things. I like to watch how one's avatar affects how they are received. Particularly in conjunction with how their words either mesh or conflict with them.
Kyle definitely had an effect on people.
June 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate speech is not free speech, you twit. Seaton has posted outright racist comments on TPM for several months. You can hug a KKK type all you want to, and proclaim that they should not encounter any protests, or resistance. I have learned from history. You coddle that sort of vermin at your peril. Never again. I love the scene in the Blues Brothers where they drive through and scatter the American Nazi demonstration.
June 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you don't intend to stop.
June 16, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can not handle the truth. You are one of those sanctimonious hypocrites who are always ordering others to do as you say, but not as you do. After all your holier than thou protestations yesterday, you then turned around and did exactly the same thing yourself. You even went further. You just copied posts made by others, and transferred them to an other thread.
The world is full of holy phonies like you. We have seen how the Pastor Ted Haggards, Jimmy Swaggerts, and their ilk operate. They tell others how to behave, but the rules do not apply to them. You are just like them.
June 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam. Fine. Take Julian out of it. I've posted and I haven't spammed others posts. You don't have to agree with his method of protest to see that others here don't like the development.
This is the fastest path to a flame war I can think of.
June 16, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd advise the rest of you to stay clear of this dickhead.
June 16, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just sent this to Andrew.
Andrew or Whom It May Concern:
Apparently, a small group of readers at the user blogs has decided to start spamming threads of bloggers they don't like by block posting long recipes and descriptions of birds, car repair, etc., to the comments, essentially filibustering the thread. They started by targeting David Seaton, known for some extreme views, and moved on to target a Hillary supporter named Perez.
The main offenders post anonymously under the names liam and kgb999. Others are joining in and applauding their efforts, of course.
I've intervened by posting their spam back to their own blogs, but I don't have time to police a community that doesn't care about free speech and thinks it has a right to decide who gets to post and engage in conversation with their audience on their own blog thread and who doesn't. Apparently, you have unwittingly nurtured a bunch of juvenile fascists in the reader blog space. I actually find it pretty disgusting.
Making you aware of a major downturn in the quality of the reader blog space.
Julian Smith
Maybe TPM will intervene to resolve this issue.
June 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a piece of work, aren't you, Julian? Instead of taking it upon yourself to police the place, why don't you join the party and post?
Just curious:
Is it that you dislike parties or that you don't like posting?
Or is it that you just enjoy being the distraction du jour?
Whatever it is, please know that I'm truly disappointed that I got no mention in your letter to Andrew. Talk about a slight. After so many attempts to antagonize you, you couldn't even be bothered to mention me to HQ? Bummer.
June 16, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd call posting something like this to David Perez's blog juvenile. No?
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Posted by liam
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
JS, Seriously. You're not the only one in here trying to talk about this. Knock it off.
June 16, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The time to talk has passed. No prisoners!
June 16, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright JS. That one made me laugh. I can see you quite well.
June 16, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the link to Andrew Perez' blog;
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/obama-campaign-there-will-be-n.php
In it he lies about Senator Obama's position on Iraq.
I think that the best way to refute such a lie, by Mr. Perez, is to post what Senator Obama has actually stated about where he stands on Iraq.
Folks;
This Julian Smith guy just blew in here recently, but he seems to have a great deal of knowledge about who to send complaints to etc. Looks like one of the old racist trolls just assumend a new name and is now trying to run interference for the remaining racist, and right wing trolls.
This Smith guy has no original posts about anything other than his ploy to soften up the opposition to his fellow hate mongers. He is a Trojan Horse Troll, playing the outrage card so that his fellow Arse Trolls can spread their smears, without any one daring to challenge them.
I have news for you, Mr. Julian Arse Troll Smith, you are not going to intimidate me; I will never stop fighting hate mongers and their fellow travelers, such as yourself.
June 16, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've nailed it, Liam. He behaves an awful lot like "Present."
June 16, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget your recipe.
Guess you forgot this one, dickhead. Or did you think it was gone. Here. Take it with you. But don't worry if you lose it again. I'll bring it around next time you post.
Source:
Rev. Frank Purvis of Hassel, North Carolina
Serves/Makes:1 quart plus
Ingredients
* 1 quart (950 ml) cider vinegar
* 1/4 lb (.1 kg). melted butter
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) onion, minced
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) tomato paste
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). soy sauce
* 2 cloves minced garlic
* 1 tsp (5 ml). freshly ground black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients, cook and stir over low heat for 15 minutes.
* Remove from heat and use as a basting sauce for grilling meats.
* Also as a dipping sauce when serving the meats.
-------------------------------
Description:
MUSTARD BASED BARBEQUE SAUCE
Source:
FARMER'S ALMANAC
Ingredients
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) yellow mustard
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) red wine vinegar
* 1/4 cup (60 ml) sugar
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) butter
* 2 tsp (10 ml) salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) worcestshire
* 1-1/4 tsp (6 ml) black pepper
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) Tabasco
Preparation
* combine ingredients in saucepan.
* simmer 30 minutes over low heat.
* Let stand 1 hour before using.
* Refrigerate unused sauce.
Comments
This is a little different than the normal barbecue sauce. In South Carolina this is the normal. I love it. My family eats it on everything from hamburger to ribs. If you dont like spicy you can leave out the hot sauce. ENJOY!!!!
---------------------------------------------
Source:
Chuck's Collection
Serves/Makes:3 cups
Ingredients
* 2 cups (475 ml) cider vinegar
* 2/3 cup (150 ml) ketchup
* 1/2 cup (125 ml) brown sugar
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Tabasco
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). lemon juice
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). butter
* 1 tsp (5 ml). red pepper flakes
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients.
* Cook for 30 minutes over medium low heat.
* Allow to cool before using
-----------------------------------------------
Source:
Terri Mckibbon
Serves/Makes:6 or more
Ingredients
* Ribs:
* 6 lbs (2.7 kg). pork baby back ribs
* 4 oz (112 grm). tap water
* 3 cups (700 ml) barbecue sauce
* Barbecue Sauce:
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) olive oil
* 2 oz (56 grm). Spanish onion, chopped
* 1 oz (28 grm). scallion, chopped
* 2 oz (56 grm). fresh green pepper, chopped
* 2 cloves garlic, minced
* 1-1/4 oz (35 grm). brown sugar
* 2 tsp (10 ml). chili powder
* 2 tsp (10 ml). dried oregano
* 1 tsp (5 ml). ground cloves
* 1 tsp (5 ml). cayenne pepper
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). paprika powder
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 2 oz (56 grm). lemon juice
* 3 oz (84 grm). Worcestershire sauce
* 3 oz (84 grm). red wine vinegar
* 1-1/2 cups (350 ml) crushed tomatoes
* 4-1/2 oz (126 grm). chile sauce
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). ketchup
* 3 oz (84 grm). grandma molasses
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). honey
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). Crystal Hot Louisiana sauce
Preparation
* Sauce:
* Heat oil in pot.
* Add onions, scallions and peppers and saute.
* Add garlic, sugar, and remaining dry ingredients.
* Add liquid ingredients and continue to stir.
* Simmer 3 hours, until flavor mixes well.
* Ribs:
* Remove back sinew of ribs and sear on hot grill, both sides.
* Place ribs in roasting pan.
* Combine water and sauce and pour over ribs.
* Bring to boil on stove and cover with foil.
* Place in 350 degree (175 C.) oven until tender, but not falling off bone.
* Cool before serving.
Comments
Serve with plenty of napkins.
Excellent Dish.
Posted by kgb999
June 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your David Perez spam.
Here's your David Perez spam back.
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Posted by liam
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Julian Smith guy just blew in here recently, but he seems to have a great deal of knowledge about who to send complaints to etc.
---------------------------------------------------
Personally I support Julian's actions though I have no inclination to join him. I have no time for those sort of games. But it does seems its the only way to get you morons to pay attention. And he quite clearly has it now, he's not so easy to ignore as my simple comments to you were. My complaint is not really with you, its with Josh for allowing you to turn this site into a teenybobbers play ground.
June 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't leave. They're done now and I'm done. The only one left is liam, and it will stop now that the gang has withdrawn its support. I'll just zap it's threads with its own crap if it block posts any more. Thanks for your support.
June 16, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's your David Perez spam back. Take it with you.
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Posted by liam
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy cow! I'm the main offender after 2 posts? I wasn't even the main offender for Sunday!
Don't get me wrong - I would not be unhappy to be the main offender, but that sure makes this guy look (a)like he's never actually been to this site before yesterday (the first day I ever played) and (b)like he can't count.
Hell, I've never even started one up(yet). :-)
June 16, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've already sent in a similar e-mail, before you got involved, as soon as I saw the spam on Seaton's thread.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in tit for tat with the kiddies. But I won't be a part of a site that condones such behavior.
Not that anyone really cares, but if Josh et al don't do something I won't be coming back here anymore.
June 16, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't leave. They're falling apart like the trash they are.
June 16, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're on the run! I'm spammin' their asses!
June 16, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Narcissism:
DSM Criteria
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1)has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2)is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3)believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4)requires excessive admiration
5)has a sense of entitlement
6)is interpersonally exploitative
7)lacks empathy
8)is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9)shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
You need help, Julian.
June 16, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm fairly new here. no clue as to TPM history (which is kinda nice in ways.....) but in my world(s), i gotta lotta time for debate - with republicans, radicals, shit-disturbers, you name it.
but here's what i don't see. y'all gotta a good site here. i ain't dumb, and this is genuinely good. (though some got music taste that's appalling. that zimmerman boy? sheesh.) but how are you SUPPOSED to handle things, during an election campaign now opening to the wider world than than HRC vs Obama. and me.... i know there's long-timers, but newbies seem to be to be not a bad thing.
so..... how do you function if you get: 3-5 larouche's a day plus seaton reporting the same damn thing plus.... what if there's organized people who just wanna bury you in shite? cause i really don't wanna have to sort and sort and sort through complete dross. and yeah, i can now recognize a few faces, and that helps. but - not wantin' to be tetchy here - what about others who come in new? as the shite/fertilizer ratio rises, they'll just bounce off. which long-timers might prefer, but for me..... not so much.
so what procedure should be followed? chucking recipes at larouche struck me kinda funny - and yeah yeah, i'm into free speech. probably a bad idea if it spread, agreed. i'm just looking for what the "official" tpm response to this is. and might just nudge up the charts the idea that maaaaybe something more IS needed.
and can we be creative if the larouche stuff keeps coming? like maybe leave the loon and the recipes out of this, take some of those old "fractured fairy tales" and post 'em up, piece by piece? ok, bad idea.
June 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
just kiddin' on the zimmerman crack, ok? the man from hibbing rules. don't wanna be stuffed with recipes for the next few weeks.
June 16, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sense is that this is a self-correcting problem. If you were familiar with the folks posting the repetitive stuff, you'd know that they're also capable of generating worthwhile content. These folks will have their fun, will in good time respond to random comments asking for a new schtick, and life at TPMCafé - such as it's been, such as most folks would like it to be - will go on.
At this point, I don't see much need to take the focus off Julian. The rest of us - the good, the bad, the ugly - are at least participants here. Julian's participation, on the other hand, has been entirely limited to waging a campaign against everyone at TPMCafé whose last name is not Seaton. At least that's how it feels. Indiscriminate. Wanton. Pointless.
June 16, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're probably right about it self-correcting. At least, I hope so.
And Lis, I think you for writing this post. This is how its supposed to work. We all come in here, hash it out, and then its fine.
June 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should stick to music. Thanks for this one. I'd forgotten this kind of energy was possible.
http://www.imeem.com/eamane/video/HqLiuE-P/mary_j_blige_u2_mary_j_blige_u2_one_music_video/
June 16, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you come here for forgiveness
Have you come to raise the dead
Have you come here to play jesus
To the lepers in your head
Did I ask too much
More than a lot
You gave me nothing
Now it's all I got
We're one
But we're not the same
We hurt each other
Then we do it again
You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt
June 16, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that video, Billy. There are certain videos (like this one) that, when I watch them, my eyes can't help but tear up. Maybe it's the way a song builds up that perfect moment and then keeps going, going, going, and then quiets down again.
Then again, I tear up over freakin' commercials lately.
But, I digress. Carry on.
June 16, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was personally really bummed to see the tactic of ganging up and spamming threads, it's a new low for the TPMCafe website, derived from adolescent male video-game culture, one I thought I would never see as a site that started out as an alternative to places like DKos and Atrios.
It's not so much the free speech issue for me, as I am all for edited and moderated sites. It's the juvenile playground behavior, i.e., "let's all gang up on this guy." It's totally the opposite of the principle of not feeding trolls, it feeds a gang culture, rewards bullying.
I've lost all respect for those members who participated, some surprised me. I've also lost more respect for TPMCafe management for not nipping it in the bud, in addition to the respect I lost for them by choosing a software program that encourages majority gangs to take over content.
Yes, I'm still using the product. That's because there are still some users and contributors here that I respect and value input from and interchange with. But their number grows ever smaller. And it's really, really sad to see TPM sink to these depths.
Those defending doing this who don't know its history and results in forums don't realize how much it discourages intelligent lurkers from posting, how much it squelches grownup participation. Unchecked, you eventually end up with a high school mindset echo chamber, often with a couple of "alpha males" heading them up. Anyone with any grownup individualistic bent flees, not out of fear, but out of a reluctance to be dragged back to high school.
That's without even going into the particulars of the two most recent cases. The results with both David Seaton and with the LaRouche supporter are counterproductive to any possible motive. The LaRouche guy doesn't give a damn, it's not going to stop him. With David Seaton, the gang is reinforcing his beliefs about Obamabots and the infantile nature of current American culture.
I gathered some comments I liked as I saw it happening:
June 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you thought it was a new low back when I called Seaton out for referring to Obama as a jive-ass. Whatever.
June 16, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lis and Chino:
Lis, everything you write is always so heartfelt and spot-on; thanks for posting.
Chino, your post to Julian was concise, sensible and mature.
And of course after that, I had to see you and the beautiful kids and family. And the note to Nana. And your lovely pup.
Jullian, I hope you consider the well-reasoned thoughts posted by ChinoB and honor that he is willing to make himself personally vulnerable as a means to make his point that TPM, as with family, is too valuable to trash.
Maybe - give it a try? Just for a bit? You don't have to even say anything publicly. Then, those of your posts that had and that again contain reasoned arguments will again be what people remember.
June 16, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thoughts. But I'm not the one who is trashing the TPM reader blog threads. liam and kgb are doing it mainly, at Chino's instigation. And the Larouche crap is not the issue here. If they are going to post it they are going to post it and we can't stop them. The issue is are we going to let these people shut down Seaton and Perez? I'm not going to let them. You do what you want. I'm going to keep making sure what goes around comes around.
June 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Mr. Smith for confirming this:
You can not handle the truth. You are one of those sanctimonious hypocrites who are always ordering others to do as you say, but not as you do. After all your holier than thou protestations yesterday, you then turned around and did exactly the same thing yourself. You even went further. You just copied posts made by others, and transferred them to an other thread.
The world is full of holy phonies like you. We have seen how the Pastor Ted Haggards, Jimmy Swaggerts, and their ilk operate. They tell others how to behave, but the rules do not apply to them. You are just like them.
June 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's your David Perez spam back.
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Posted by liam
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the link to Andrew Perez' blog;
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/obama-campaign-there-will-be-n.php
In it he lies about Senator Obama's position on Iraq.
I think that the best way to refute such a lie, by Mr. Perez, is to post what Senator Obama has actually stated about where he stands on Iraq.
Folks;
This Julian Smith guy just blew in here recently, but he seems to have a great deal of knowledge about who to send complaints to etc. Looks like one of the old racist trolls just assumend a new name and is now trying to run interference for the remaining racist, and right wing trolls.
This Smith guy has no original posts about anything other than his ploy to soften up the opposition to his fellow hate mongers. He is a Trojan Horse Troll, playing the outrage card so that his fellow Arse Trolls can spread their smears, without any one daring to challenge them.
I have news for you, Mr. Julian Arse Troll Smith, you are not going to intimidate me; I will never stop fighting hate mongers and their fellow travelers, such as yourself.
June 16, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Acting as TPM's personal wheel of karma seems to suit you. Do as you wish, but leave my 3-day old posts alone in future. I don't know a damn thing about loons and I don't cook so I haven't a recipe other than 1. Put in microwave, 2. Heat for 2 minutes. 3. Turn. 4. Heat for 2 more minutes. Careful! HOT!!
Therefore, I won't be trashing any of your friends' posts. If I laugh at someone who does, forgive me for having a sense of humor. I'll try to keep it stifled for your overly-sensitive benefit, but I might sneak out a little "lol" now and then. Get over it.
TPM is a nice place with a lot of intelligent and thoughtful posters. I wouldn't know about the way you post, as I haven't yet seen you post, but it's my hope that I get to see you post a post post-haste. Have a nice day, karma-dude,
Lis
June 16, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
LisB
I am hurt that you can still say that you don't know a damn thing about loons, after all the research I did on the subject just to try an bring you up to speed on those fascinating birds.
June 16, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm Shiva! The God Of Spam!
June 16, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're just an asshole. End of story.
June 16, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could use more microwave recipes, so please join in.
If Mr. Smith thinks that cutting and pasting is an effective measure to control folks who are trying to use creative "non-violent" means to control the "pest" population, he's failed -- at least in my book-- because now he has become one of "them."
When you exclude Mr. Smith's cutting and pasting, there was a real discussion happening here, in a obtuse, tangential sort of way.
I look for your microwave recipes on Julian's blog. Oh yeah... he doesn't post.
June 16, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but, when and IF (and IF is the big question, of course), IF my dear friend Julian Smith ever posts his own post, I will be the very last person to go and spam it. Trust me.
That being said, I have learned that with older microwave ovens, it's best to add about 10 minutes to the proscribed cooking time to whatever I am heating up.
Take those quesadillas and quesadilla rolls from TGIF that are now available in frozen form courtesy of your local grocer. Wrap them well in paper towel -- not loosely -- and the tortilla will remain soft the way it is supposed to. If you have an older mike, add 5 secs. cooking time to the first 2 minutes of cooking time on the first go-round. Cook at 50% power. Then, when the mike beeps, take the paper towel off carefully, turn that little sucker over on the microwaveable plate, wrap the paper towel tightly over it again, and cook it at 50% for an additional two minutes and 5 additional seconds.
Perfection, every time.
June 16, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. I meant 10 seconds. Not minutes.
God forbid you all try MY recipes!! See? This is why I don't cook.
June 16, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! I was thinking - hmmmm, 10 minutes and you're gonna have a mighty crispy tortilla there.
June 16, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
At my what? At my instigation?
At this point, you've already had more interaction with liam and kgb than I've ever had, and probably ever will. I assume they're grown-ups who can look after themselves. Sorry, but now you're just talking crazy.
Regarding Seaton and Perez, have you checked the Recommended Reader Posts list lately? Seaton's right up there.
If we're all out to get him, if he's being stifled, then how the hell did that happen? I'd guess it's because he decided to post on a fresh topic. But maybe that's too non-crazy an explanation for his sudden popularity. Must be some kinda conspiracy ... bahaha ...
I'll tell you what I'm thinkin'. I'm thinkin' you're either 12 or 42, and in either case still livin' with Mom. Nothin' wrong with that, but please post or go away before your next birthday, which my sources inform me is comin' up next Thursday. No word yet on what Mom's plannin' to get you, but I've already asked her to consider getting you a life. Just for kicks.
June 16, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you drunk now?
June 16, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
(raises hand)
I am!! I am!!! Pick ME!!!!!!! Pick ME!!!!!!!
June 16, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lis, you're naughty! I like that! ;-)
June 16, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Julian,
Plenty of folks tried to engage you on this thread, and you end up copying-and-pasting. Congrats on establishing your MO and good luck with your battles.
June 16, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free speech? Fascism? Oh, brother.
Come on, let's be real. This is Josh Marshall's site. We blog here because he provides the venue.
From what I've seen, this place does a pretty good job of self-moderating; however, if Josh decides to start regulating content here, he'll make that decision for himself. Until then, Seaton and the LaRouche guy are free to post whatever the hell they want, and the rest of us are free to comment whatever the hell we want.
My advice to julian is to postpone judgment, observe the interactions here for awhile, and get used to the culture here before engaging in a battle like this.
June 16, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't tell me what you thought of kgb's recipe.
Guess you forgot this one, dickhead. Or did you think it was gone. Here. Take it with you. But don't worry if you lose it again. I'll bring it around next time you post.
Source:
Rev. Frank Purvis of Hassel, North Carolina
Serves/Makes:1 quart plus
Ingredients
* 1 quart (950 ml) cider vinegar
* 1/4 lb (.1 kg). melted butter
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) onion, minced
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) tomato paste
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). soy sauce
* 2 cloves minced garlic
* 1 tsp (5 ml). freshly ground black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients, cook and stir over low heat for 15 minutes.
* Remove from heat and use as a basting sauce for grilling meats.
* Also as a dipping sauce when serving the meats.
-------------------------------
Description:
MUSTARD BASED BARBEQUE SAUCE
Source:
FARMER'S ALMANAC
Ingredients
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) yellow mustard
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) red wine vinegar
* 1/4 cup (60 ml) sugar
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) butter
* 2 tsp (10 ml) salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) worcestshire
* 1-1/4 tsp (6 ml) black pepper
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) Tabasco
Preparation
* combine ingredients in saucepan.
* simmer 30 minutes over low heat.
* Let stand 1 hour before using.
* Refrigerate unused sauce.
Comments
This is a little different than the normal barbecue sauce. In South Carolina this is the normal. I love it. My family eats it on everything from hamburger to ribs. If you dont like spicy you can leave out the hot sauce. ENJOY!!!!
---------------------------------------------
Source:
Chuck's Collection
Serves/Makes:3 cups
Ingredients
* 2 cups (475 ml) cider vinegar
* 2/3 cup (150 ml) ketchup
* 1/2 cup (125 ml) brown sugar
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Tabasco
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). lemon juice
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). butter
* 1 tsp (5 ml). red pepper flakes
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients.
* Cook for 30 minutes over medium low heat.
* Allow to cool before using
-----------------------------------------------
Source:
Terri Mckibbon
Serves/Makes:6 or more
Ingredients
* Ribs:
* 6 lbs (2.7 kg). pork baby back ribs
* 4 oz (112 grm). tap water
* 3 cups (700 ml) barbecue sauce
* Barbecue Sauce:
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) olive oil
* 2 oz (56 grm). Spanish onion, chopped
* 1 oz (28 grm). scallion, chopped
* 2 oz (56 grm). fresh green pepper, chopped
* 2 cloves garlic, minced
* 1-1/4 oz (35 grm). brown sugar
* 2 tsp (10 ml). chili powder
* 2 tsp (10 ml). dried oregano
* 1 tsp (5 ml). ground cloves
* 1 tsp (5 ml). cayenne pepper
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). paprika powder
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 2 oz (56 grm). lemon juice
* 3 oz (84 grm). Worcestershire sauce
* 3 oz (84 grm). red wine vinegar
* 1-1/2 cups (350 ml) crushed tomatoes
* 4-1/2 oz (126 grm). chile sauce
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). ketchup
* 3 oz (84 grm). grandma molasses
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). honey
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). Crystal Hot Louisiana sauce
Preparation
* Sauce:
* Heat oil in pot.
* Add onions, scallions and peppers and saute.
* Add garlic, sugar, and remaining dry ingredients.
* Add liquid ingredients and continue to stir.
* Simmer 3 hours, until flavor mixes well.
* Ribs:
* Remove back sinew of ribs and sear on hot grill, both sides.
* Place ribs in roasting pan.
* Combine water and sauce and pour over ribs.
* Bring to boil on stove and cover with foil.
* Place in 350 degree (175 C.) oven until tender, but not falling off bone.
* Cool before serving.
Comments
Serve with plenty of napkins.
Excellent Dish.
Posted by kgb999
June 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling me a dickhead. Nice. Well, that's a first.
Kid, you're on your own. You're off to a terrible start.
June 16, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Oh thanks for all that in-group info. You having trouble following the discussion? You're on the wrong side of the argument. How did that happen? Your little clique threatened? Try to leave people alone. Especially people you don't know.
June 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF? You have no sense of irony, do you? You've made a BIG DEAL so that you can get a LOT of attention, and you're going to give me this defensive "leave people alone" bit?
By the way, have you read many of David Seaton's posts? Why don't you take some time to read his posting history, and perhaps you'll understand things a little better.
Or don't. Actually, I don't care all that much.
By the way, contrary to what you might think you've accomplished here today, I doubt any of us are leaving. I doubt any of us feel like we've gotten our asses kicked (as you've been going around bragging you've done). Honestly, my impression is that you're a sanctimonious pain in the ass. But I don't feel threatened or shamed by you.
And I'm not anonymous. That's my real name and my real picture. I'll stand by my posts and comments.
June 16, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must remind him of his mother. A female authority figure. You're triggering a fear reaction.
June 16, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's the fact that your picture is in black and white, Laura. Makes you look sort of, um, 1950's Home and Gardens, which turns this guy off because his mother paid more attention to her home and garden than she did to him.
Or, maybe it's the fact that you make sense all of the time, and he just didn't know how to deal with you.
Hmm. If I was a betting woman, I'd bet it's the latter. But I'm not a betting woman, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Either way, the dude is mad as a hatter. I'm sure that we can all agree on that matter.
June 16, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, actually "dickhead" is a little grownup for him. I expected "poopy head."
June 16, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO There is balance. I disagree with cutting and pasting huge pieces into threads. And indeed, I have not done so. I also disagree with intentionally spreading disinformation, and I seriously disagree with spamming the Reader Posts(a-la-LaRouche). The two recent instances are the "Damocles" guy and the LaRouche guy. The first exists to intentionally spread a fabrication, the second has never actually responded to one thing I've ever posted to him.
Typing an original bit of prose or having a different topic of discussion does not prevent anyone else from discussing the topic they feel appropriate for the thread. Indeed, despite fuck-nut's best efforts, this discussion is still occurring.
If you want to discuss LaRouche, my discussing a beehive that reminds me of LaRouche sure doesn't stop you. Indeed, the first message this clown bitched at me for was backing up another poster who had gotten grief for mentioning LaRouche. So saying I'm "shutting down" anything is bullshit. It is a valid and non-aggressive protest. If you wish to protest my protest, I await your well-thought out and original prose or verse. If you chose to cut-paste junk, you certainly can not say you are responding in kind.
Habitual abusers who can't justify their own actions(Julian!) tend to go overboard enough so that the problem usually takes care of itself.
June 16, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmm...yes, those who wear their asses upon their heads usually become visible to the community. Julian started out appearing to have a viable point. He quickly proved himself to be an asshat.
June 16, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess you forgot this one, kgb. Or did you think it was gone? Here. Take it with you. But don't worry if you lose it again. I'll bring it around next time you post.
Source:
Rev. Frank Purvis of Hassel, North Carolina
Serves/Makes:1 quart plus
Ingredients
* 1 quart (950 ml) cider vinegar
* 1/4 lb (.1 kg). melted butter
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) onion, minced
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) tomato paste
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). soy sauce
* 2 cloves minced garlic
* 1 tsp (5 ml). freshly ground black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients, cook and stir over low heat for 15 minutes.
* Remove from heat and use as a basting sauce for grilling meats.
* Also as a dipping sauce when serving the meats.
-------------------------------
Description:
MUSTARD BASED BARBEQUE SAUCE
Source:
FARMER'S ALMANAC
Ingredients
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) yellow mustard
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) red wine vinegar
* 1/4 cup (60 ml) sugar
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) butter
* 2 tsp (10 ml) salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) worcestshire
* 1-1/4 tsp (6 ml) black pepper
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) Tabasco
Preparation
* combine ingredients in saucepan.
* simmer 30 minutes over low heat.
* Let stand 1 hour before using.
* Refrigerate unused sauce.
Comments
This is a little different than the normal barbecue sauce. In South Carolina this is the normal. I love it. My family eats it on everything from hamburger to ribs. If you dont like spicy you can leave out the hot sauce. ENJOY!!!!
---------------------------------------------
Source:
Chuck's Collection
Serves/Makes:3 cups
Ingredients
* 2 cups (475 ml) cider vinegar
* 2/3 cup (150 ml) ketchup
* 1/2 cup (125 ml) brown sugar
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Tabasco
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). lemon juice
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). butter
* 1 tsp (5 ml). red pepper flakes
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients.
* Cook for 30 minutes over medium low heat.
* Allow to cool before using
-----------------------------------------------
Source:
Terri Mckibbon
Serves/Makes:6 or more
Ingredients
* Ribs:
* 6 lbs (2.7 kg). pork baby back ribs
* 4 oz (112 grm). tap water
* 3 cups (700 ml) barbecue sauce
* Barbecue Sauce:
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) olive oil
* 2 oz (56 grm). Spanish onion, chopped
* 1 oz (28 grm). scallion, chopped
* 2 oz (56 grm). fresh green pepper, chopped
* 2 cloves garlic, minced
* 1-1/4 oz (35 grm). brown sugar
* 2 tsp (10 ml). chili powder
* 2 tsp (10 ml). dried oregano
* 1 tsp (5 ml). ground cloves
* 1 tsp (5 ml). cayenne pepper
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). paprika powder
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 2 oz (56 grm). lemon juice
* 3 oz (84 grm). Worcestershire sauce
* 3 oz (84 grm). red wine vinegar
* 1-1/2 cups (350 ml) crushed tomatoes
* 4-1/2 oz (126 grm). chile sauce
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). ketchup
* 3 oz (84 grm). grandma molasses
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). honey
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). Crystal Hot Louisiana sauce
Preparation
* Sauce:
* Heat oil in pot.
* Add onions, scallions and peppers and saute.
* Add garlic, sugar, and remaining dry ingredients.
* Add liquid ingredients and continue to stir.
* Simmer 3 hours, until flavor mixes well.
* Ribs:
* Remove back sinew of ribs and sear on hot grill, both sides.
* Place ribs in roasting pan.
* Combine water and sauce and pour over ribs.
* Bring to boil on stove and cover with foil.
* Place in 350 degree (175 C.) oven until tender, but not falling off bone.
* Cool before serving.
Comments
Serve with plenty of napkins.
Excellent Dish.
Posted by kgb999
June 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Julian Smith = David Seaton?
June 16, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The nail on the head.
June 16, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am new to posting on this board but I have a read a lot of reader's posts in the past few months. I enjoy the give and take between posters. The question I have is where did this Julian guy come from? I've never seen such a mess before. Is there any way that this stuff could be stopped?
June 16, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Tell your friends to stop block postings like this one from liam.
Here's your David Perez spam back.
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Posted by liam
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
*whistles*
Karma
it keeps TPM dry
Karma
it tastes like ribs and fries
Karma
*puts on Barbra Streisand accent and crosses eyes*
It's a real charmer!!
So kiss your Karma
OUR Karma
Goodbye
June 16, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really wish I knew what you were talking about.
June 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're ALL getting to that point, Raider11. It's okay. Don't let a few folks here turn you off. TPM is a cool place where everybody carries on intelligent discourse about politics, for the most part. Meaning that, for the most part, it's intelligent discourse, and that, for the most part, it's about politics.
In either case, carry on.
June 16, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You won't find out by asking these people. The grownups here are artappraiser, oceankat and hilary. Watch what they do and you'll grow up strong.
June 16, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got a really cute sense of humor, I have to admit.
C'mere. Let me sniff you. Wanna hug?
June 16, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
We get crazies like this now and again. They burn out and move on. Or go way over the line and Josh makes them disappear.
June 16, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really did try to read through it, liam, but after a while I just kept thinking of Kate Hepburn for some reason. Was it "African Queen" when she sees those birds and she does that dead-on impersonation of their call? What kind of bird was it, I can almost remember....oh wait, it wasn't birds, it was calla lilies. "Oh, the calla lilies!". Wasn't that from "African Queen"? It sure as hell wasn't "The Lion in Winter". See, this is why I couldn't finish your loon post. I get so distracted, so easily, these days.
But, I digress. Carry on.
June 16, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. That was supposed to be in reply to liam, asking me -- way, way up there, up thread somewhere, keep scrolling up, you'll find it -- why I didn't read through the loon comment.
But, I forgot to click the "In reply to liam" box. Carry on.
June 16, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
LisB,
Here is where the quote is from.
In 1937, Hepburn faced off against fellow RKO contract player Ginger Rogers (right) in STAGE DOOR, the screen adaptation of Edna Ferber and George F. Kauffman's play about a boarding house of aspiring actress who match wits to mask their fears and disappointments. It is in STAGE DOOR that Hepburn delivers her famous line about the calla lilies (see Memorable Quotations below).
Isn't Julian Smith turning out to be a very amusing Arse Troll. He really has gone into full blown tantrum mode, now that he has not been able to persuade us to give his fellow Operation Chaos trolls a free pass.
Poor Julian, he was born with a sniveler's head up his Arse!
June 16, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, liam. My goodness but you ARE a wealth of information! I thank my lucky stars -- no wait, I thank KARMA for giving me friends like you who are so very clever. I used to have a lot of friends, once, but they weren't very clever. Or was it me who wasn't clever? I forget. I am just so easily distracted these days.
But, I digress. Carry on.
June 16, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it is her wonderful entrance speech in the "play rehearsal" scene in Stage Door. Loads great actress in that one, including Lucille Ball, Ginger Rogers, Eve Arden, and more...
"The calla lilies are in bloom today, Such an unusual flower..."
June 16, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, I've run forums since they were called BBSs (and ran on TRS-80s). There are actually several levels of moderation issues to this.
The one level is how to maintain legitimate content in the top-level reader posts. Those actually set the tone of the site. If this is not correctly maintained, the user-comments level doesn't even matter.
If you check the terms of service, users agree not to:
I would argue that if those LaRouche posts were emails that came into my box they would be considered SPAM. If the guy who posts them has had discussions with someone else - I sure haven't seen it; so it appears to be SPAM to me.
Additionally, by posting you agree not to post anything:
that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, false or inaccurate, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
This pretty much covers the Damocles guy. So first let's be clear that this is not occurring on posts that don't violate the terms of use.
The question is, does TPM have the resources to police the user posts 24/7 for violations? And do we even want them to? My proposal for both is actually not. There are benefits had by both users and administrators if the users can be self-policing.
Equally important, there is nothing in the terms that indicates having an in-thread discussion is off limits. IMO, is a pretty good method for users to respond to posts that are frankly in violation of the terms of use.
Another interesting note that applies to Mr. Smith is this:
Interestingly enough. I am actually the copyright owner of the material that Julian Smith chose to duplicate on additional threads without my permission. While TPM and it's authorized agents CAN utilize this material with specified limitations, Mr. Smith can not.
Again looking at the terms of agreement, we find that you agree not to:
you also agree not to
I would say that by singling me out individually, Mr. Smith is indeed stalking me.
In short, I can clearly see why certain Reader Posts were in violation of the terms of use, I also see how Julian Smith's current actions in the comments are. What I fail to see I how having an in-thread discussion is.
Please enlighten.
June 16, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crap, this is a response to artappraiser upthread.
June 16, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is in response to your ribs recipe spam.
Eat it.
Guess you forgot this one, kgb. Or did you think it was gone? Here. Take it with you. But don't worry if you lose it again. I'll bring it around next time you post.
Source:
Rev. Frank Purvis of Hassel, North Carolina
Serves/Makes:1 quart plus
Ingredients
* 1 quart (950 ml) cider vinegar
* 1/4 lb (.1 kg). melted butter
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) onion, minced
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) tomato paste
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). soy sauce
* 2 cloves minced garlic
* 1 tsp (5 ml). freshly ground black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients, cook and stir over low heat for 15 minutes.
* Remove from heat and use as a basting sauce for grilling meats.
* Also as a dipping sauce when serving the meats.
-------------------------------
Description:
MUSTARD BASED BARBEQUE SAUCE
Source:
FARMER'S ALMANAC
Ingredients
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) yellow mustard
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) red wine vinegar
* 1/4 cup (60 ml) sugar
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) butter
* 2 tsp (10 ml) salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) worcestshire
* 1-1/4 tsp (6 ml) black pepper
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) Tabasco
Preparation
* combine ingredients in saucepan.
* simmer 30 minutes over low heat.
* Let stand 1 hour before using.
* Refrigerate unused sauce.
Comments
This is a little different than the normal barbecue sauce. In South Carolina this is the normal. I love it. My family eats it on everything from hamburger to ribs. If you dont like spicy you can leave out the hot sauce. ENJOY!!!!
---------------------------------------------
Source:
Chuck's Collection
Serves/Makes:3 cups
Ingredients
* 2 cups (475 ml) cider vinegar
* 2/3 cup (150 ml) ketchup
* 1/2 cup (125 ml) brown sugar
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Tabasco
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). lemon juice
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). butter
* 1 tsp (5 ml). red pepper flakes
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients.
* Cook for 30 minutes over medium low heat.
* Allow to cool before using
-----------------------------------------------
Source:
Terri Mckibbon
Serves/Makes:6 or more
Ingredients
* Ribs:
* 6 lbs (2.7 kg). pork baby back ribs
* 4 oz (112 grm). tap water
* 3 cups (700 ml) barbecue sauce
* Barbecue Sauce:
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) olive oil
* 2 oz (56 grm). Spanish onion, chopped
* 1 oz (28 grm). scallion, chopped
* 2 oz (56 grm). fresh green pepper, chopped
* 2 cloves garlic, minced
* 1-1/4 oz (35 grm). brown sugar
* 2 tsp (10 ml). chili powder
* 2 tsp (10 ml). dried oregano
* 1 tsp (5 ml). ground cloves
* 1 tsp (5 ml). cayenne pepper
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). paprika powder
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 2 oz (56 grm). lemon juice
* 3 oz (84 grm). Worcestershire sauce
* 3 oz (84 grm). red wine vinegar
* 1-1/2 cups (350 ml) crushed tomatoes
* 4-1/2 oz (126 grm). chile sauce
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). ketchup
* 3 oz (84 grm). grandma molasses
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). honey
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). Crystal Hot Louisiana sauce
Preparation
* Sauce:
* Heat oil in pot.
* Add onions, scallions and peppers and saute.
* Add garlic, sugar, and remaining dry ingredients.
* Add liquid ingredients and continue to stir.
* Simmer 3 hours, until flavor mixes well.
* Ribs:
* Remove back sinew of ribs and sear on hot grill, both sides.
* Place ribs in roasting pan.
* Combine water and sauce and pour over ribs.
* Bring to boil on stove and cover with foil.
* Place in 350 degree (175 C.) oven until tender, but not falling off bone.
* Cool before serving.
Comments
Serve with plenty of napkins.
Excellent Dish.
Posted by kgb999
June 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by Julian Smith
June 16, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you ask me how to make German Potato Salad, I'll tell ya.
You ask me for BBQ, I'll let ya know.
But that's not the only stuff you cut-pasted.
Again. Do what you will. But ultimately, it won't work. See, the LaRouche guy hasn't shown up all day and the Damocles dude has actually changed his tune and is having a nice discussion.
You seem to get your jollies playing games. But the thought that it might bother me amuses me. As someone else mentioned, you seem like a 12 year old.
June 16, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hardly a violation of your copyright to stick your own post up your ass. I'm not taking it from you, you see. I'm giving it to you. And you and the reverend are duly cited. Try not to squirm. It will go in easier.
June 16, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Angry rampage. Is your little tantrum spent yet, Julian? Nappy time?
June 16, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Storming like a mofo here in Westchester, NY, right now, so if I suddenly disappear, it's because my power has been shut off. Or, it's because I'm frantically running around closing every one of my many windows due to the change in the wind's direction.
In either case, carry on.
June 16, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Storming here in New Haven, CT, as well! (I don't even want to think about the power going anywhere... Where are my candles??)
June 16, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me? or is the copying and pasting MORE TROLL-LIKE? Has Julian found a new way to troll by disguise? Pretending to be concerned about the mistreatment of trolls by becoming one himself?
"#45,678 on Amazon.com: Troll Like Me by Julian Smith. The true story of the one and only protector of the endangered Troll species. You'll be on the edge of your seat as JS goes undercover to expose the "rampant anti-trollitude" pervading TPM. Watch him deftly cut and paste his way out of dangerous blog posts. See how swiftly he can fill a comment space with the vile words, nature rants and inane recipes of teh Anti-Trolls. If you love free speech, you'll get a lot of verbiage for minimal coinage."
--- Wait a minute! there's a hilarious blog post in there...
At least the recipes and loons and "Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey" style comments were infinitely less annoying and led to some pretty funny asides.
June 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you say recipe? Here's the one kgb likes to post.
Source:
Rev. Frank Purvis of Hassel, North Carolina
Serves/Makes:1 quart plus
Ingredients
* 1 quart (950 ml) cider vinegar
* 1/4 lb (.1 kg). melted butter
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) onion, minced
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) tomato paste
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). soy sauce
* 2 cloves minced garlic
* 1 tsp (5 ml). freshly ground black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients, cook and stir over low heat for 15 minutes.
* Remove from heat and use as a basting sauce for grilling meats.
* Also as a dipping sauce when serving the meats.
-------------------------------
Description:
MUSTARD BASED BARBEQUE SAUCE
Source:
FARMER'S ALMANAC
Ingredients
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) yellow mustard
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) red wine vinegar
* 1/4 cup (60 ml) sugar
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) butter
* 2 tsp (10 ml) salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) worcestshire
* 1-1/4 tsp (6 ml) black pepper
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) Tabasco
Preparation
* combine ingredients in saucepan.
* simmer 30 minutes over low heat.
* Let stand 1 hour before using.
* Refrigerate unused sauce.
Comments
This is a little different than the normal barbecue sauce. In South Carolina this is the normal. I love it. My family eats it on everything from hamburger to ribs. If you dont like spicy you can leave out the hot sauce. ENJOY!!!!
---------------------------------------------
Source:
Chuck's Collection
Serves/Makes:3 cups
Ingredients
* 2 cups (475 ml) cider vinegar
* 2/3 cup (150 ml) ketchup
* 1/2 cup (125 ml) brown sugar
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Tabasco
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). lemon juice
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). butter
* 1 tsp (5 ml). red pepper flakes
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients.
* Cook for 30 minutes over medium low heat.
* Allow to cool before using
-----------------------------------------------
Source:
Terri Mckibbon
Serves/Makes:6 or more
Ingredients
* Ribs:
* 6 lbs (2.7 kg). pork baby back ribs
* 4 oz (112 grm). tap water
* 3 cups (700 ml) barbecue sauce
* Barbecue Sauce:
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) olive oil
* 2 oz (56 grm). Spanish onion, chopped
* 1 oz (28 grm). scallion, chopped
* 2 oz (56 grm). fresh green pepper, chopped
* 2 cloves garlic, minced
* 1-1/4 oz (35 grm). brown sugar
* 2 tsp (10 ml). chili powder
* 2 tsp (10 ml). dried oregano
* 1 tsp (5 ml). ground cloves
* 1 tsp (5 ml). cayenne pepper
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). paprika powder
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 2 oz (56 grm). lemon juice
* 3 oz (84 grm). Worcestershire sauce
* 3 oz (84 grm). red wine vinegar
* 1-1/2 cups (350 ml) crushed tomatoes
* 4-1/2 oz (126 grm). chile sauce
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). ketchup
* 3 oz (84 grm). grandma molasses
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). honey
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). Crystal Hot Louisiana sauce
Preparation
* Sauce:
* Heat oil in pot.
* Add onions, scallions and peppers and saute.
* Add garlic, sugar, and remaining dry ingredients.
* Add liquid ingredients and continue to stir.
* Simmer 3 hours, until flavor mixes well.
* Ribs:
* Remove back sinew of ribs and sear on hot grill, both sides.
* Place ribs in roasting pan.
* Combine water and sauce and pour over ribs.
* Bring to boil on stove and cover with foil.
* Place in 350 degree (175 C.) oven until tender, but not falling off bone.
* Cool before serving.
Comments
Serve with plenty of napkins.
Excellent Dish.
Posted by kgb999
June 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're going to spam me with a recipe at least use my own for "Delicious Cinnamon Toast."
And you call yourself Spam Police.
Speaking of Spam, did you know that Hawa'iians eat more Spam per capita than any other Americans?
Delish!
June 16, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooohhh...I forgot about the Cinnamon Toast. Please share again!
June 16, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade, that was priceless ;D
June 16, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was. I enjoyed that. Any one else getting hungry, or is it just me? I'm in the mood for....hmmmm....
"I want my baby-back
baby-back
baby-back
I want my baby-back
baby-back
baby-back"...
RIBS! That's it! Too bad it's raining or I'd get my roomie to cook some up on the grill. Oh wait, we don't have a grill. Damn.
Oh well. I digress. Carry on.
June 16, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go Lis. Use your imagination.
Source:
Rev. Frank Purvis of Hassel, North Carolina
Serves/Makes:1 quart plus
Ingredients
* 1 quart (950 ml) cider vinegar
* 1/4 lb (.1 kg). melted butter
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) onion, minced
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) tomato paste
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). soy sauce
* 2 cloves minced garlic
* 1 tsp (5 ml). freshly ground black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients, cook and stir over low heat for 15 minutes.
* Remove from heat and use as a basting sauce for grilling meats.
* Also as a dipping sauce when serving the meats.
-------------------------------
Description:
MUSTARD BASED BARBEQUE SAUCE
Source:
FARMER'S ALMANAC
Ingredients
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) yellow mustard
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) red wine vinegar
* 1/4 cup (60 ml) sugar
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) butter
* 2 tsp (10 ml) salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) worcestshire
* 1-1/4 tsp (6 ml) black pepper
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) Tabasco
Preparation
* combine ingredients in saucepan.
* simmer 30 minutes over low heat.
* Let stand 1 hour before using.
* Refrigerate unused sauce.
Comments
This is a little different than the normal barbecue sauce. In South Carolina this is the normal. I love it. My family eats it on everything from hamburger to ribs. If you dont like spicy you can leave out the hot sauce. ENJOY!!!!
---------------------------------------------
Source:
Chuck's Collection
Serves/Makes:3 cups
Ingredients
* 2 cups (475 ml) cider vinegar
* 2/3 cup (150 ml) ketchup
* 1/2 cup (125 ml) brown sugar
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Tabasco
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). lemon juice
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). butter
* 1 tsp (5 ml). red pepper flakes
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients.
* Cook for 30 minutes over medium low heat.
* Allow to cool before using
-----------------------------------------------
Source:
Terri Mckibbon
Serves/Makes:6 or more
Ingredients
* Ribs:
* 6 lbs (2.7 kg). pork baby back ribs
* 4 oz (112 grm). tap water
* 3 cups (700 ml) barbecue sauce
* Barbecue Sauce:
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) olive oil
* 2 oz (56 grm). Spanish onion, chopped
* 1 oz (28 grm). scallion, chopped
* 2 oz (56 grm). fresh green pepper, chopped
* 2 cloves garlic, minced
* 1-1/4 oz (35 grm). brown sugar
* 2 tsp (10 ml). chili powder
* 2 tsp (10 ml). dried oregano
* 1 tsp (5 ml). ground cloves
* 1 tsp (5 ml). cayenne pepper
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). paprika powder
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 2 oz (56 grm). lemon juice
* 3 oz (84 grm). Worcestershire sauce
* 3 oz (84 grm). red wine vinegar
* 1-1/2 cups (350 ml) crushed tomatoes
* 4-1/2 oz (126 grm). chile sauce
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). ketchup
* 3 oz (84 grm). grandma molasses
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). honey
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). Crystal Hot Louisiana sauce
Preparation
* Sauce:
* Heat oil in pot.
* Add onions, scallions and peppers and saute.
* Add garlic, sugar, and remaining dry ingredients.
* Add liquid ingredients and continue to stir.
* Simmer 3 hours, until flavor mixes well.
* Ribs:
* Remove back sinew of ribs and sear on hot grill, both sides.
* Place ribs in roasting pan.
* Combine water and sauce and pour over ribs.
* Bring to boil on stove and cover with foil.
* Place in 350 degree (175 C.) oven until tender, but not falling off bone.
* Cool before serving.
Comments
Serve with plenty of napkins.
Excellent Dish.
Posted by kgb999
June 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this guy a Democrat or what? I don't see the point.
June 16, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that these guys were spamming a another blogger and I caught them doing it and I'm kicking their asses. They're whining about rules they were breaking themselves when they spammed the guy. I'm giving them a taste of their own medicine.
June 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
julian baby, you're not kicking our asses... just making one out of yourself. I'm reading this thread and it is more and more hilarious as we go...
worse for you is that we're all laughing and you're "mad as hell, not gonna take it anymore" angry. You're so mad you can't laugh at the absurdity of the posts.
It is fast approaching Kafkaesque proportions: the more you post, the more we laugh and egg you on, the madder you get, the more you post, the more we laugh...
Did someone mention eggs? Got any good recipes for Eggs Benedict? (Wait here comes the "Eggs Benedict Arnold joke in .... 3....2....1....)
June 16, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Deviled Eggs?
Another great summertime recipe. Can't have a picnic without those!
June 16, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I have to go. You take over. Don't let them spam anybody with block posts.
June 16, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to go? Did the attendants finally notice that you were on the computer? They should really watch you more closely.
June 16, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody have the entire text of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest handy...
Nurse Ratchit... Julian is the one frantically cutting and pasting... Pssst... he sees Spam People!
June 16, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Muttering to himself, "I am Shiva!"
June 16, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he certainly doesn't seem to be an INDEPENDENT.
(ba da bum)
Get it? Independent? (khee khee khee kheeee kheee - that's a Smedley laugh. You remember Smedley, that dog from the Penelope Pitstop cartoon? The one that would put his paw over his mouth and go khee khee khee kheeee kheeee? I suppose a lot of you are too young to remember that cartoon...but, I digress). Carry on.
June 16, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smedley ROCKS!
June 16, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Muttley... Dick Dastardly's dog...
I know because my brother and sisters used to kid me about having a Muttley "wheezy" laugh...
June 16, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick Dastardly! LOL! Ah yes, The Wacky Races.
Now, that was good children's programming, my friends. That and a nice big bowl of cocoa puffs to start off a Saturday morning juuussstt right!
June 16, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't much point really. Some of us had an off-topic-discussion regarding several subjects including a father's day BBQ and some other stuff at the bottom of a "Reader Posting" that by all definitions is SPAM (the 5th post by a phantom poster publishing LaRouche news releases).
Happy boy here doesn't like it. So he thinks by acting like a putz he can dictate who talks about what and where. The funny thing is that this has been a meme around here for over a week, and I probably participated less than most
This kid is a turd, but at least he actually made a couple of token posts on some threads so he appears to be a participant. So he's moving in the right direction.
June 16, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lie. liam was spamming david seaton and david perez.
June 16, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you were watching them for me, kid.
June 16, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking to yourself now? Do you hear voices?
June 17, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here you and liam are spamming David Seaton after I warned you not to. And your buddies egging you on.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/the-called-me-everything-but-p.php#comments
Now you're a spammer and a liar.
June 16, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm baby-sitting my thread tonight. I started it, I can damn well take care of it.
Drink, Julian?
(jumps behind the bar)
What's your pleasure? A Seaton Iced Tea? It's similar to a Long Island Iced Tea, but gets you even more fooked up. A LaRouche LaDouche? That's a new one I just learned how to mix last week. You take a few great liquors and some really sour lemons, and you mix them all together.
What's your pick?
Or, maybe, you'd like to give me your OWN recipe? Your OWN post with new drink ingredients listed?
(stands behind the bar and waits)
(takes towel off shoulder and starts whistling the tune from "Bridge Over The River Kwai" whilst drying off dry glasses)
Your drink of choice, Julian? I've got other customers, you know...
June 16, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
LisB, while I generally agree with you so wholeheartedly that the best I can usually come up with in response to your posts and/or comments is a respectful silence, I've gotta raise my hand on this one.
Shouting down one's opponent is a time-honored and respected tradition. And if dominckdickhead ever posts here again, I fully intend to do my best to RUIN his idiotic post with the most abusive, dismissive, disrespectful bullshit I can possibly cut and paste. Some people seriously need to be run off the property with a baseball bat.
I agree that what Julian Smith is doing is totally jackassy (and sorta funny sometimes), but there are some people who, when presented with the gift of a sock in the nose, should simply say "thank you" and then shut the fuck up. Dominickdickhead is one of those people.
June 16, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused (and it has nothing to do with the fact that you're a rabbit and a cat, and not necessarily in that order). How does Dominick factor in?
What time of day (and was it last night, or today) did I say what you say I said? Oy, my head.
June 16, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been given retroactive credit for the entire situation now. You and your &^%$ Veggie Vandeloo (or whatever). :)
June 16, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, hush! Gore is about to endorse Obama!!
Never mind, the talking heads are still talking.
I'll come back in when Gore hits the stage.
Carry on.
PS: What's a Veggie Vandeloo? It brings to my over-imaginative mind a stripper who wears corn husks and celery leaves in very strategic places.
June 16, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I can't shake the image of celery-clad strippers! Geez it's like a bad flashback to my Las Vegas days (as a resident NOT stripper BTW!)
"Veggie Vandeloo" is a poorly spelled reference to a post earlier in the week.
June 16, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor thing. She must be anorexic.
June 16, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say that she EATS the leaves off as she strips. I'm sure the girl gets NY Strips. She's cushie in all the right places.
Shh. Al is on. Al is saying cool things that are making all those Obamabots raise their "Yes We Can" and "Change" signs every time he pauses to take a breath.
Wait until he (gasp) sighs!!!
Just kidding. He's making a damn fine speech.
June 16, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG!! He just mentioned the T in BLT's!!!
Al is STALKING my POSTS!!!!!!!!!
I'm having an orgasm, I swear to god...
Just kidding.
June 16, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't that be a Goregasm? Hard to imagine. Perhaps Mr. Al is actually the source of global warming, and he just needs to cool down his own tropical regions.
June 16, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mistake. Very sorry. She uses giant ears of corn and celery stalks to conceal her naughty bits? What is her stage name; Vegan Greenfield?
June 16, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was so busy waiting for Al....sigh......AL...OMG did you see that he mentioned the salmonella tainted tomatoes????
Anyway, I was so busy waiting for Al that I mistakenly typed "celery leaves" when I really meant iceberg lettuce leaves. And corn husks, the corn husks still stand.
But, I digress. Carry on with your anorexic vegan stripper in Vegas, as you seem wont to do. Me, I'm just digressing. And carrying on.
June 16, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL yeah, baby!! HELL yeah, baby!!
Gore is telling it like it IS!!!
June 16, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I refuse to get pumped about Al. He waited too long to endorse.
June 16, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a point there. He could've done it three weeks ago. Or he could've waited until the convention. But I'm just glad that he did it.
He made the speech all about "green" when we have so much going on, on this planet today, that's scary, and for that, I thank him.
June 16, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this was great. It gives the media something to chew on during what is really a political lull where their idle hands can do much mischief. Especially after the last news cycles have been mourning Russert, this recasts the next week's coverage in a direction positive for Obama.
Obama didn't need to spend this endorsement to win the Primary, so it now adds to momentum in the general.
June 16, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...maybe we could get some discussion going about oil dependency? Nah...it was a crazy thought. Why would we want to talk about that when we could be wondering whether Hillary is over her loss yet?
June 16, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, a distraction.
So I just learned, today, that our government already owns the leases to lands where we can be drilling here in America -- yes, already -- and yet the new Republican meme is to push for unleased lands that now harbor wildlife.
I don't get it.
June 16, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that - an excellent blog, that was. Coming from my States very own Chris Van Hollen (who I was also in a snit about because he was dragging his feet on the endorsement issue). I take these things a little personally. :)
But, yeah. We need to really start digging into some of the policies that are being proposed - particularly in regards to energy and the economy.
June 16, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I'm talking about, baby.
Politics.
Not who can say what in who's comment section. Not who can do what in where. Not who can play along within rules made up by who knows. Not who can handle non-responsiveness. Not who can handle too many responses.
Politics. Just politics. 24-7, baby.
Politics.
June 16, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell yeah! :)
June 16, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, yet again, I digress.
What I'm supposed to be doing is getting hit over the head by karma. My own karma. Hitting me over the head. 'Til I'm dead. Gory and red. Except, I'm not dead. My posts are still being read. Which means that somewhere....(thump, thump), somehow (bump, bump), my karma with it's broken wheel limps towards me even now. To offer recipes on how to cook cow. What do I do now?
Finish my beer and go to bed, is one thought. Go donate another $25 to Obama is another thought. Go call my sister and discuss Obama is yet another. Hmmm. Choices, choices.
But, I digress. Carry on.
June 16, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donate and then call your sister. It's about serving your country. But, first you should finish your beer.
June 16, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sister Mary Frances! What the hell happened in here? I've been a cab for thirty-seven years, and I've never seen a mess like this!
June 16, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Toons. Gets em every time.
June 16, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did somebody say tunes??
I'm listening to Pearl Jam's "Yellow Ledbetter" right now, as I type. Just getting to the guitar solo...oh...
Excellent song.
June 16, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like as good a thread as any to ask -
how do I get a picture?
June 16, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey VT! Up on the top of the screen, you'll see "Your profile (edit)" Click on Edit. Scroll down a bit and you'll see a box for your picture with a browse button. Click on the browse button and you can upload your picture for your avatar. It can't be bigger than 64 pixals, so edit the picture down to a small size first before you upload it.
June 16, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! Can I make it smaller with regular photo editing software? Do some pictures work better than others? Sorry. I'm slow on this stuff.
June 16, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I use Microsoft Photo Editor, but you can use just Paint, if you want. Anything that will work with a graphic image and let you resize it.
June 16, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one I have I just found in a Google image search. Anything will work if it has good enough resolution.
June 16, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is reply to ViaTerra. This is somewhat amusing but also somewhat insane. I'll bet if you just got here it looks crazy but it also looks crazy from the inside. Maybe if everyone gets a good nights sleep things will look better in the morning. For those that posted about the storms going on please send them down to Charleston SC we need the rain. Thanks
June 16, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Opens south-facing windows)
Here, let me blow on the rain clouds and send them on south to you.
(Puts lips together)
(And blows)
Any minute, now. Get your storm shutters ready. Any minute, now.
June 16, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They went through the DC area mid-afternoon. And cooled things down quite a bit.
June 16, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'm coming in in the middle of a game, but I thought the whole thing was a riot!
June 16, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sort of ironic that this turned into one of the most commented on threads in quite some time.
I just don't believe it got this many recommendations. Cool.
June 16, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, half the comments here were from Julian. Scratch that. 75% of the comments here were from Julian. So they don't really count.
But the rec's? Priceless.
June 16, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question is: Who was recommending it? Probably Julian, in his manic frenzy.
June 16, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear kgb,
I'm just astonished and appalled that your being ever so kind in publishing those recipes I requested has caused such a furor. I thank you for your efforts and commend you on being a gentleman of the finer arts of life and living.
I think your theme song should be, 'Hey Good Lookin', whatcha got Cookin'?'
I apologize to any who were offended. As Jade so eloguently stated, 'the idea of adding nonesensical stuff to a "troll post" was in lieu of arguing with the "troll" ("feeding"). It was meant to be a benign way of recognizing troll spam and replacing the attendent "bickering" with something humorous.' (Hey Jade, please write another blog soon - u r so good!) Your theme song: 'RESPECT' (You've already got it!)
LisB. - YOU ROCK! (and ROLL!).
And Cricket - Great equation, obviously you need some 'Blue Suede Shoes' to go with your dress. What a lady!
Oops, I digress - There was never any intent to create divisiveness or ill-will - just the opposite. At least until Julian came on the scene. Mr. Smith, better you should have posted a blog and published your views - open it up for discussion - you know, like Grown Ups! Ironically, I most likely would have read, commented and perhaps endorsed the base sentiment.
Julian Smith's theme song, now what should it be?
C'mon Lis - your thread, your choice.
June 16, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm tempted to go with the Supremes' "Stop! In The Name of Love". But that's too easy. Let me think of this one.
June 16, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this one just popped on in my iPod as I type this, so maybe it's Karma?
Tusk - Written by Lindsey Buckingham, and performed by Fleetwood Mac and USC's notorious band.
Why don't you ask him if he's going to stay?
Why don't you ask him if he's going away?
Why don't you tell me what's going on?
Why don't you tell me who's on the phone?
Why don't you ask him what's going on?
Why don't you ask him who's the latest on his throne?
Don't say that you love me!
Just tell me that you want me!
Tusk! tusk! tusk! tusk!
Tusk! tusk! tusk! tusk!
Tusk! tusk! tusk! tusk!
Tusk! tusk! tusk! tusk!
Tusk!
June 16, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but now it's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" that's playing, and the lyrics THERE make sense too.
Choices, choices....
June 16, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lis - C'mon - you can do better! Remember, 'He's so Vain - I bet he thinks this blog is about him!'
June 16, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!
He walked in to the party
like he was stepping onto a yacht
LOL!! Good choice, Aunt Sam!!
But...let me take one more spin on my iPod shuffle's karmic merry go round dial, here, and see if, perhaps, the right song hits and fits...
June 16, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, the next song that played was Cake's "It's Coming Down".
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's raining outside
You've nowhere to hide
She's asking you why you think it's funny
It's coming down
It's coming down
She's leaving your house
She had to get out
She's mad and she'll take her mattress with her
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
(I will have you all know, I'm transcribing straight from my iPod during this incredible bridge here in this song -- GREAT song, btw)
Hey!
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
You lie on the floor
She's slamming your door
She's gone and she's wearing your RED sweater
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
(thank God for these breaks)
Oh, no, it's coming down
It's coming down
It's coming down
Hey!
(From Cake's "Nugget" album)
June 16, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, Sam, maybe you were right. My iPod is tired, my fingers are tired, my brain is tired, and I think I want to go to bed. Something tells me I can leave my thread. With no thoughts of dread. Perhaps something will be said. But I want to sleep, instead. So off with my weary head, to sleep in bed, perchance to dream.
Love you all for having such fun with Me and Mr. Smith tonight. It was, honestly, a real fun kick! Peace, and good night,
Lis
June 16, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmmm. Cake. Got a recipe?
I like the band too.
June 16, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any preferences? Chocolate, carrot, coffee-cake, rum-cake, and the list goes on...
I'm thinkin' kgb would have a killer recipe for us!
June 17, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just laid my head down on my pillow and then had a weird thought. What if Julian Smith is really PIRATE PEET?
Nah. Forget it.
June 17, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Baby take off your coat
Real slow
Take off your shoes
I'll take off your shoes
Baby take off your dress
Yes, yes, yes
You can leave your hat on
You can leave your hat on
You can leave your hat on
(Yes, I'm transcribing again)
Go over there, turn on the light
Turn off the light
Come over here
Stand on that chair
Yes that's right
Raise your arms
yeah, yeah
Now shake 'em
You give me reason to live (4 x -- my hands are tired)
You can leave your hat on (several x -- they are really tired)
Too tired to keep wondering who the hell Julian is. No longer care. He was a blast. That's what counts.
Night, all!
June 17, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
No way, there would be an inkling of a sense of humor buried in there somewhere.
June 17, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pirate Peet has a great sense of humor. You must really be tired! Sweet Dreams!
June 17, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're both right. I'm just sleepy.
Sweet Dreams!!!! xoxo,
Lis
June 17, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment