Message-ID: <20051219004204.D13015@ubzr.zsa.bet>
Date: Mon Dec 19 07:16:39 2005
From: measl at mfn.org (J.A. Terranson)
Subject: [Clips] A small editorial
	aboutrecentevents.(fwd)


On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Jamie C. Pole wrote:

> You just hit the nail right on the head!

All of this diversionary bullshit of yours doesn't change the fact that
you started down this (weird and unrelated path) by attempting a blanket
"George did nothing wrong" position.

Despite the fact that the only reason for this diversion is to pull away
some of the heat for your utterly non-sensical statements, let's go ahead
and destroy your straws as well...



> You CANNOT blame everything on 1 person - including George W. Bush.

Nobody is attempting to "blame everything on George W. Bush".

We are blaming him for IGNORING THE LAW in his recent rash of
wiretaps.  He had a special court ("FISA") available solely for the
purpose of OK'ing these very requests, and yet he was too fucking
inconvenienced by "that goddamned piece of paper" (the rest of us refer to
it as the American Constitution) to go ahead and ask for the warrant that
would have made it all legal.

This is especially troubling in light of the fact that the FISA court is
renowned for issuing these very types of wiretap orders on the flimsiest
of pretexts.  Even though the thought of them turning him away is almost
inconceivable, he felt it was necessary to go around them on DOZENS of
occasions?


> Our "system" absolutely did fail - there is no excusing that fact.
> There is also no excusing the ignorance of people that want to blame
> all of the world's woes on George W. Bush.

Please stop redirecting your auditory hallucinations from your head to our
mouths.  "We" are blaming George for the things that george gas done, not
for things he has not done.  If George has found himself performing
illegal acts over and over again, then he SHOULD be attacked for it
repetitively.

Things I Blame George For:

(1) Illegal Wiretaps;
(2) Deliberately lying about an Al-Q and Saddam connection;
(3) Needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and over
2100 US soldiers;
(4) Creating and maintaining secret prisons;
(5) Actively creating and maintaining a policy of TORTURE;

I could go on, but this is enough.  And I know you will disagree with each
of them - despite firm, incontrovertible evidence being in front of your
nose.


> As far as the reason it failed (using the hurricane example that you
> brought up), let's examine some history.  Prior to World War I, there
> was a country-state called Bavaria - you might know where it is.
> Bavaria had its own king, it's own military, and its own laws.  What
> would have happened if some German leader invaded Bavaria to solve a
> problem?  Now, in modern days, we have a state called Louisiana.  It
> has its own governor, its own military, and its own laws.  Louisiana
> had a natural disaster, and their governor refused all help from the
> Federal government.  The governor's staff also refused all offers for
> help.  The Federal government did not invade Louisiana because the
> governor and her staff flatly denied that they needed any help.
> Meanwhile, the governor of Louisiana and her staff were allowing
> their constituents to die.

Hrmmm...  Let's take a look at the actual timeline, shall we?  There are
any number of places you can look (Google "katrina timeline" for a buffet
of identical sources ;-)

The Governor of Louisiana declared a State of Emergency at 11:00pm on
Friday, 26 August.  This was well before Katrina actually came ashore.

The mayor of NO followed suit at 5:00pm the next afternoon (27 August).

Katrina finally became a Category 5 storm a day later, at 7:00AM on 28
August.  Shrubbery announced his intentions to help fsck-up the works at
11:30 the same day - at Blanco's specific request.  From this moment
forward George is responsible, although indirectly, through the complete
and utter incompetence of his golden boy, Brown.

The next day is when the first major fuck up hit: George's appointee,
Brown[noser], dispatches 1000 FEMA employees - a full five hours AFTER
landfall - with instructions to be on-site in NOLO "within 2 days".
Riggghhtttttt.... At this point NOLO is already under 8 feet of water, and
both Blanco and George have publicly stated that the feds were
"responding".  They just forgot to mention the word "slow" ;-)


> If you are complaining that the Federal government violated the law
> and conducted illegal wiretaps, please explain why it would have been
> okay for the Federal government to break the law by invading
> Louisiana and taking over relief operations?

In dabate this would be known as a "Straw Argument".  In English, one
argument (illegal wiretaps) have nothing to do with the second argument
("invading" louisiana0.  There is NO RELATION BETWEEN THEM.

Nevertheless: (1) The feds would NOT have been breaking the law or
"invading" as they had already been asked in (and publicly responded in
the affirmative); (2) Illegal wiretaps are illegal whether or not George
decides to "invade louisiana", shit in his pants again, pick his nose in
public again, or ask Condi for permission to pee.

Illegal wiretaps are illegal because George is too put off by "that
goddamned piece of paper" to be bothered with asking a COMPLIANT court for
a warrant.


> Sorry if this seems simplistic to you,

Thats OK - we expect it.

> but if the action saves lives,
> I'm not really going to cry too much about the government breaking a
> few occasional laws.

And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between you and the rest of us.
We understand that a government which is not bound by laws is not
concerned with it's citizenry, and cnnot be allowed to exist.  When the
government decides it is not bound by the law, then the citizenry should
be taking up arms against that government - with an eye towards quickly
killing the so-called "president" advocating such a position.

> I don't like it, but I understand why it is
> sometimes necessary.

The law which covers this understood that it would "sometimes be
necessary" as well - and made explicit provision for such events.  Bush
chose to ignore those as well.  This should scare the shit out of you -
but it doesn't?

> And by the way, I believe that President Bush
> should have militarized New Orleans when the mayor ignored the signs
> that the hurricane was going to strike his city.

Oh, OK.  First it was wrong to "invade", but it's OK if you think it's
"necessary".  The end justifies the means, eh?


> The mandatory
> evacuation should have been enforced by the military, and quite a few
> less people would have died.

We agree it should have been enforced.

> And had he done that, the liberals

HELLO!  Wake up kid - this isn't just "liberals" complaining anymore.
George's own teammates are starting to run scared.  That little angry
midget is out of control.

> would very likely now be asking
> whether or not it was legal for him to have done so.

Since it didn't happen, we'll never know - despite all of your
speculatory zeal.

>  For the people
> that hate President Bush, nothing he does or does not do will be
> acceptable.  It's as simple as that.

Agreed.  And for those that blindly follow him (that's YOU we're talking
about now, so pay attention) without stopping to ask if he's actually
"doing the math" before scribbling down a random answer, will get exactly
what they deserve - unfortunately, along with the rest of us who didn't
deserve it.

Fascism is ugly - regardless of the flag flying it.

> Jamie


-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@....org
0xBD4A95BF


	Just once, can't we have a nice polite discussion about
	the logistics and planning side of large criminal enterprise?

	- Steve Thompson

Powered by blists - more mailing lists