Hard News: The March for Democracy
759 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 31 Newer→ Last
-
Obama's so cool, he just imagines he's there, and you'll think he was.
Chuck Norris would still kick his ass.
-
Frankly, Tim, I'm disappointed in you.
I thought he was actually questioning C Dempsey on his disapproval of Keith Locke? Stick, wrong end?
-
I thought he was actually questioning C Dempsey on his disapproval of Keith Locke? Stick, wrong end?
I think Russell was being supportively snarky.
-
Whoops, my bad, just getting out of bed, should open eyes,should stop trying o think let alone write on.. forgettit :)
-
Chuck Norris would still kick his ass.
Obama may be the leader of the free world, but Chuck Norris doesn't do press ups, he presses the world down.
-
I think Russell was being supportively snarky.
I wuz being ironical.
-
I wuz being ironical.
Smell you, Miss Morrisette! :)
-
I wuz being ironical.
Wish we had the emoticons Skpe has :)
-
Frankly, Tim, I'm disappointed in you.
A wonderful example of Poe's Law. Personally, and I'm sure many of you have noticed, I use the winky face to indicate that what I have said is not to be taken at face value. People that take things at face value are part of the problem, innit.
-
I'm more of a Philip Glass fan
Me too. Ain't he great?
-
So Keith Locke is homophobic because a refugee he supported through an incredibly dodgy security/legal process has never explicitly proven he's not homophobic? I guess that makes me homophobic too.
Zaoui is a muslim man, nay, a man of the Islamic Salvation Front, in Algeria, which last I heard,wasn't particularly enthused about human rights for gays and lesbians. Such attitutes tends to lead to the merry business of harrassing and murdering Gays / Lesbians, as so many straight muslim men are wont to do. Locke, Zaoui's greatest cheerleader and supporter, is remiss in not distancing himself from this. Whether that makes him homophobic or not I don't know, but it doesn't help endear him to me.
I'm not sure if you are indicting the 'incredibly dodgy security/legal process' or find it incredible that Zaoui could exploit it for this advantage, but from my viewpoint, the merry band of supporters that piled onto the bandwagon weren't thinking through and beyond their decision. I supported the principle that they were fighting for - namely that decisions about refugees shouldn't be a case of quiet decisions behind closed doors nudge nudge wink wink, but IMHO Zaoui was the wrong battle to wage that fight.
-
You could try reading a little of that Bernard-Henri Lévy, he'll have you feeling morally superior to just about anyone in no time. Personally, I believe that the vain and vacuous Levy richly deserves the multiple custard pie attacks he's received from entarteur Noël Godin.
I did do a little reading up about Monsieur Levy after I started the book. I guess he'd be the philosophy equivalent of Wodders. Still I think an important point is made by M. Levy - to think about what it means to be 'Left'.
-
I supported the principle that they were fighting for - namely that decisions about refugees shouldn't be a case of quiet decisions behind closed doors nudge nudge wink wink, but IMHO Zaoui was the wrong battle to wage that fight.
Trouble is, if you wait for the perfect one....
-
You wait for something that's more 'straightforward', dare I say.
-
...people like Keith Locke, anti-semetic and homophobic to boot...
Whether that makes him homophobic or not I don't know
You don't see any problem with these two statements? Not counting the bit where first off you were happy for Zaoui's apparent lack of comment to indict Locke, and in the second it's Locke's apparent lack of comment that may not be enough to indict him.
murdering Gays / Lesbians, as so many straight muslim men are wont to do
Personally I find Islamophobia about as endearing as homophobioa and antisemitism. How 'bout you?
And note I'm not defending the Islamic Salvation Front, just commenting on your casual comment.
-
I supported the principle that they were fighting for - namely that decisions about refugees shouldn't be a case of quiet decisions behind closed doors nudge nudge wink wink, but IMHO Zaoui was the wrong battle to wage that fight.
I get what you mean, but unfortunately, ideal battles don't come along to order and I'd be very disturbed if one had to be vetted for sainthood before being granted the full application of legal aid.
Quothe Graham Chapman: "Who among us can say that they have not burned down a large public building? I know I have."
Glass - yes, I'm in that fan club too... but will it have me as a member?
-
Sarko ENTARTE!!!Still I think an important point is made by M. Levy - to think about what it means to be 'Left'.
Yeah fair enough. Levy must hold some kind of record for entartements, having copped at least five to date. If Hone returns to Paris, someone should inform the entarteurs. They did a nice job on Bill Gates last time he was there.
-
Apropos Gage and co: I just had a rather distressing exchange with a colleague which prompted me to dig up this link, which may be of interest to people who find Gage and co persuasive.
It didn't take me long either. It puzzles me why people who are justifiably skeptical of official accounts won't apply the same skepticism consistently.
-
LOL Stephen, I especially like the 'faster than freefall' error. I hadn't heard that they referred to "pyroclastic clouds" either, if I'd been in any presentation and heard that I'd wouldn't have been able to avoid bursting out in laughter. It's a nicely evocative image of ridiculous hyperbole.
-
dig up this link, which may be of interest to people who find Gage and co persuasive.
And even if you don't, it's depressing but useful. The most interesting part comes from the bottom of the page, and is worth quoting in full:
As I said, until Gage and his followers stop making one major mistake, they will continue making the above mistakes again and again. They will be driven to do it because this one major mistake demands it.
And that is making the assumption that by attacking the common understanding of the 9/11 attacks, they will be able to undermine the rationale for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Notice that I said "common understanding" and not "official story." There is no single source controllable by any group of people on Earth from where we get our knowledge of what happened on 9/11. The nature of all these events were much too public, and even the event most sheltered from the public eye (the crash of United 93) was soon understood by the release of phone calls to loved ones, the information from the plane's FDR and CVR, and the combined witness of the hundreds of people who helped clean up that terrible site.
It is a fool's errand to attack these combined witnesses. Yet the 9/11 Truth Movement does so in its misguided attempt to resist the current Middle Eastern wars. Gage and his organization does their part, and their motivation is fairly dripping from their every presentation. Since they believe these buildings to have been controlled demolitions, and since al-Qaeda could never have set those charges, the implication of the current administration's culpability is clear. So they will continue to twist evidence, misunderstand statements, cherrypick their data, pretend a common cause with every other opponent of their chosen targets, and move the goalposts whenever it suits them and with barely any acknowledgment of having done so.
Or, to reduce it to a soundbite, not even the most worthy end justifies the shabbiest of means. Like, dare I say it, I doubt anyone would say reducing the world's supply of vile despots is a bad thing. But coming up with a fictional rationale for doing so is is a very bad thing indeed.
-
Or, to reduce it to a soundbite,
I think if controlled demolition = what a building will do with a plane or fire, would it not be cheaper to forget demolition altogether and just light fires at the top if a building needs to come down.
Thing I found annoying about that link (and don't get me wrong,I think there are many questions to be answered from a lot of the stuff out there) was the lack of transparency also.I had to go find the Author. They should get together and have a debate.Like all the buildings between building 7 and 1 and2 .There was 2 blocks worth that were fine. (gets tin foil hat and moves toward the exit :) -
And that is making the assumption that by attacking the common understanding of the 9/11 attacks, they will be able to undermine the rationale for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I find it bizarre that conspiracy over 9/11 is the thing you'd choose to undermine Iraq and Afghanistan.
As compared to the screw-ups that both wars have been, the complete lack of WMDs, the fact that the highjackers were largely from Saudi Arabia, the political mess of the Afghani elections, etc.
Why fight the bizarre and hard battle, when there's heaps more easy ones out there?
-
EDIT - Just 2nd and 3rd stages. Teach me to read the Herald more carefully.
----
Meanwhile, the Government today passed a private prisons bill under urgency. It was tabled, and then MPs were asked to vote on it before they could even read it.
It was introduced and then rammed through in hours. Boom, it's law.
No ability to have it debated in Parliament. No ability to have it sent to select committee. No ability to allow either Government or opposition MPs time to consider the bill and suggest amendments. No time to consider whether it should be passed at all. No time to have its impacts estimated by Treasury and other relevant departments. No time for submissions by experts. No time for submissions by the public.
By October the Government had passed 8 policy bills through all stages. By the end of this week it will be 10. There is little precedent for this kind of abuse of democracy - you have to go back as far the last time National got into power, in 1991.
Where the hell is our media in protesting these flagrant abuses of Parliament? Answer: chasing chickens around the grounds of Parliament.
-
This also puts makes obviously false the claim that they would not start privatising functions of the state in their first term.
I still can't believe anyone took that claim seriously. Well, anyone apart from the muppets in the press gallery.
-
Is that actually their [Gage et al's] stated aim, though?
It's stated as being so on the debunking website Stephen linked to, but I can't recall reading it on any of the 'truther' stuff which I've skimmed through.
I just find the whole mentality bizarre. Why a person would go so far as to concieve of a baroque, byzantine, horrendously over-elaborate conspiracy run by a shadowy cabal of puppet master conspiracists, rather than acknowledge any one of dozens of far simpler and more likely explanations, is quite beyond my comprehension.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.