Tuesday, 8/17/10, Public Square

56 Comments

Filed under The Public Square

56 responses to “Tuesday, 8/17/10, Public Square

  1. paulasayles

    Anchor babies have now morphed into Terror Babies! Check this out:

    • tosmarttobegop

      Hee I am kind of speechless for now!
      Those both seem kind of like the guy who craps his pants then stand by his statement that he meant to do it!
      The real sad thing is they can both go on Fox and the anchor will never ask for proof or if they do will leave it at a FBI source told me.

      Then suddenly there will be quite a few that will believe it as much as if they were the Doctor that delivers the babies that came out quoting Bin Laden.

      I keep saying that the Liberals could go on vacation, there is no work involved in making the Conservatives look bad. Simply play such videos and that is the end of the work day.

    • wicked

      Am I the only one who can see the “gaping hole” in Grohmert’s brain?

  2. prairie pond

    Oh, and btw, Gitmo is still open, the draw down in Iraq and target dates were set by bush, and Afghanistan is escalating and, uh, remind me how things are going over there? The military is still growing, the military industrial complex is still thriving, there have been no announced base closures or reductions in force since January, 2009.

    And the cat food commission, appointed by obama and loaded with cons just itching to destroy social security, is moving along apace.

    And what did the so called health care reform do to rein in insurance companies, big pharma, cover adult pre-existing conditions, and generally make health care more affordable?

    Crickets. It just make paying tribute to the insurance companies mandatory.

    Please point out the change in any of these areas. Seems like Bush, part 2, to me.

  3. prairie pond

    oops, sorry, wrong thread. Should be under “imagine”.

    Imagine a president committed to equality. Imagine how it would look, what actions would be taken, what would be supported.

    Then look at today’s reality. See anything similar?

    I thought not.

    • paulasayles

      “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you will join us, and the world will live as one.” (Couldn’t help myself)

  4. Probably these same people who are planning for the future by birthing “terror babies” were also responsible for the planning of Obama to become president. They had to get those notices in the Hawaii newspaper and…

    Debbie Riddle and Louie Gohmert — both Texans, both Republicans, both idiots — were duly elected by the people. Wonder if either is up for reelection?

    Yep on him and nope on her!

    U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert (TX-01) — Serving his third term in the United States House of Representatives, Congressman Louie Gohmert was first sworn in January 4, 2005. He proudly represents the First District of Texas which encompasses over 12 counties stretching nearly 120 miles down the state’s eastern border. He is up for reelection this fall!

    Debbie Riddle — Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives, serving House District 150, which comprises much of northwest Harris County was first elected in 2002 and is serving her 4th two-year term at the state level currently.

    • paulasayles

      There you go! Anderson Cooper was asking for proof and now we have it–Obama was the first terror baby!

  5. G-STIR

    If the Justice Dept cleared Tom Delay of any charges, why does he have a white stripe down his back and smell like Pepe LaPhew (sic)?

    • They didn’t clear him of anything, they ceased investigation without bringing charges. One part of his problems seems to have ended, he has several other hoops to jump through.

      • G-STIR

        I just heard he has to go to Texas regarding 5 year old charges of some sort. He’ll walk right out of it- he couldn’t get convicted in Texas for anything !

      • You’re right, he isn’t in any danger of having to face the music in Texas. Maybe his halo will be a tiny bit tarnished but in the short time it takes people to forget he can shine it up like new.

      • itolduso

        In other words, he is innocent.

      • paulasayles

        That’s correct. Tom DeLay is innocent. But that is only because he hasn’t been charged or prosecuted. Which is true of many politicians these days. You might argue that all politicians are innocent because they no longer get charged for anything. I believe the comments were directed at the fact that he would never be charged because of the fact that he has political connections. And apparently, that is A-OK with you.

      • I am innocent too. I also haven’t been charged, and like everyone else even if I was charged I am innocent until proven guilty.

        Wait a minute — everyone except President Obama, and Nancy Pelosi and …

        Yeah, they’re guilty and we certainly don’t need to wait for formal charges or evidence presented to know it!

        Oh yeah, all Muslims too — they’re guilty!

  6. G-STIR

    Courts either issue guilty or not-guilty charges. Not guilty does not mean innocent; it merely means the evidence presented did not suport a guilty verdict.

  7. The presumption of innocence (somewhat unusual in the scope of world-wide jurisprudence) applies; Mr. Delay is presumed innocent until convicted of a crime. In order to be convicted, guilt must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If no charges are brought, the presumption holds.

    As pointed out, one may be guilty as Hell, but if there is not sufficient admissible evidence to convict, the individual is not (hopefully) convicted. Similarly, if the prosecution is unable to amass sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case, then no charges are to be filed (although charges can be filed, and sometimes are if the prosecutor is acting in bad faith), even though the individual may not be “innocent”. And yes, this is the way I approach each case intellectually when crimes are alleged. I’m not singling Mr. DeLay out.

    • paulasayles

      I believe that the presumption of innocence is an American value and one that I hold dear. When it comes to legalities, I have always been one to wait until the verdict is in. The thing I find disturbing in today’s society is that it appears as though if you have enough money or enough friends in high places, you never even get charged. There is enough public evidence right now to start an investigation into war crimes committed by the CIA in conjunction with the former administration and perhaps even the current one. Yet, no investigation is forthcoming.
      THAT is my beef.

      I don’t even know what possible charges in regards to DeLay were being referred to. Legally, I fully support Mr. DeLay’s presumption of innocence, but as a citizen of a country whose justice system has seemingly become very suspect, I would not doubt for a minute that he may be guilty of crimes for which he will never be prosecuted, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

  8. itolduso

    “I believe the comments were directed at the fact that he would never be charged because of the fact that he has political connections. And apparently, that is A-OK with you.”

    I wouldn;t make assumptions if I were you. If you do, make them sweet because you often have to eat them yourself.

    • paulasayles

      If I am making incorrect assumptions it is only because the comment you made was so vague that it is hard to tell exactly what the intent of your comment is. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comment. Perhaps you would care to expand your thoughts?

      • itolduso

        Mr Delay is innocent. That is the expansion of my thought. An investigation went on for years, no charges were brought. They could apparently find no evidence, or at least enough evidence, of a crime to have even presented a case. Therefore, he is innocent of any criminal wrongdoing. Just as you are, or anybody besides Delay who is investigated and no charges are ever filed.

        Is that clear enough?

      • itolduso

        Yeah, that

        “in other words, he is innocent” is really vague

      • paulasayles

        Yes, in response to the fact that they were discussing allegations that he was to face charges in Texas and they were doubting any charges would be brought because he has political connections. And your reply was that he was innocent. I would say that was a fairly vague response to the point of the comments that were made.

  9. itolduso

    fnord
    August 17, 2010 at 9:54 am
    I am innocent too. I also haven’t been charged, and like everyone else even if I was charged I am innocent until proven guilty.

    Wait a minute — everyone except President Obama, and Nancy Pelosi and …

    Yeah, they’re guilty and we certainly don’t need to wait for formal charges or evidence presented to know it!

    Oh yeah, all Muslims too — they’re guilty!

    ***********************************

    Since the above was presumably posted in response to mine, as it appeared directly under it, and I was the one stating that Delay was “innocent” I shall respond in kind:

    Yes you are innocent, even if charged, until proven guilty. In fact, after a lengthy investigation (years) no charges were apparently there (or at least evidence to prove the charge) therefore, he is innocent.

    As far as I know, Obama is not guilty of any criminal act. I do not like his politics, and I do not believe that they are in the best of interests of the country. In my opinion, he is guilty of being on the opposite side of the political fence . No more. As far as I know, he is not guilty of any legal wrongdoing. If you can point out anywhere, and you can look in the other place, that I have accused him of a crime, bring it. If not, let’s not make such inflammatory statements, eh?

    The same goes for Pelosi, although there is some questions about some of her behavior, and some tax questions if I remember correctly. However, she is innocent, obviously, as no charges have been brought.

    As for ALL THE MUSLIMS… My life was once saved by a Sufi Muslim. If you can find any post, anywhere, by me indicating such, please do so.

    Thanks for the opportunity to address your post

    • itolduso,

      When an entire comment is directed at anyone, I use their nic. Sometimes a comment will spur an opinion and I will post it.

      But, whatever you choose to take personally, go right ahead.

    • itoldyouso,

      Usually comments I make are part of the conversation several people here are participating in. As I’ve told you before, it gets real boring and tedious very quickly when your sensibilities must always be thought about instead of just simply blogging like everyone else does.

      I don’t attack people! Never have, never will, I may disagree but try with all my might to do that agreeably. I don’t think my opinions fit everyone, and certainly don’t think any other person is less than another just because they hold differing opinions.

      • itolduso

        I explained, in detail, why I believed and continue to belive your post was directed, or in response to mine.

        Doesn;t have anything to do with “taking it personal”

        Has to due with the evidence at hand.

      • Gotcha.

        Whatever. I said it wasn’t. Now, we have to agree to disagree about what I was thinking? May we?

  10. itolduso

    itolduso
    August 17, 2010 at 9:30 am
    In other words, he is innocent.

    **************************************

    fnord
    August 17, 2010 at 9:54 am
    I am innocent too. I also haven’t been charged, and like everyone else even if I was charged I am innocent until proven guilty.

    Wait a minute — everyone except President Obama, and Nancy Pelosi and …

    Yeah, they’re guilty and we certainly don’t need to wait for formal charges or evidence presented to know it!

    Oh yeah, all Muslims too — they’re guilty
    ********************************************

    fnord
    August 17, 2010 at 10:01 am
    but, but, but — just upthread itolduso contends that DeLay is innocent!

    ************************************

  11. itolduso

    fnord-

    And I never claimed you “attacked” anyone. You posted in response to my post, I posted in response to yours. That’s not an attack, even if we disagree.

  12. itolduso,

    How much more boring can a blog get when we dissect comments, and even after a person says, “no, that isn’t what I was doing,” the disagreement continues because…

    Here’s how — I wasn’t thinking about YOU. I should have been. Could have saved a bunch of silliness if I had only considered that each word needed to be carefully directed here and there and clearly couldn’t leave room for misinterpretation because someone here might be inclined to show me how what I wrote could have easily been interpreted differently — even after I said that wasn’t my intent.

    • itolduso

      Yes, fnord, whatever.

      You must be right! I will gladly be wrong if we may stop discussing whatever you think I was thinking about.

  13. itolduso

    On far more important matters:

    Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said he didn’t see “any signs whatsoever that President Obama would make the necessary decision” to strike Iran’s nuclear reactor, speaking in an interview with Israel Radio Tuesday.

    Bolton claimed Israel has only three days to strike before Russia “begins the fueling process for the Bushehr reactor this Friday,” after which any attack would cause radioactive fallout that could reach as far as the waters of the Persian Gulf.

    In an interview with Fox Business Network earlier Tuesday Bolton had said the deadline was eight days, but he revised it to three in the Israel Radio interview, saying Iran and Russia had announced they would begin fueling on Friday.

    “It has always been optimal that military force is used before the fuel rods are inserted,” Bolton explained. “That’s what Israel did in Osirak in 1991, and when they attacked the North Korean reactor built in Syria.” Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, and a Syrian reactor in 2007.

    http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=185060

    .
    **************************************

    While I see no good coming from Iran possessing Nuclear technology, people of all faiths, and none, should pray or whatever that Isreal does not attack this reactor.

    • indypendent

      John Bolton is hardly a nonpartisan expert – so why go by what he says?

      Did you happen to notice that big arms deal the US recently made to Saudi Arabia in the last few weeks?

      In case you forgot, all but one of those 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

      But we are too busy fighting the right of Muslims to build some mosque in New York because that is too ‘insensitive’ to Americans.

      BTW – We are all presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

      That does NOT mean we are innocent.

      Just because charges were not brought, does not mean there was no crime – it simply means the prosecutor felt there was not enough evidence to convict.

      Those are two entirely different animals.

      • indypendent

        If you do some independent research on the the US miliatry arms deals recently – you will see that Israel follows closely.

        Yeah, that’s a smart idea – let’s arm the Saudis and Israel.

      • itolduso

        “John Bolton is hardly a nonpartisan expert – so why go by what he says?”

        Because he makes sense. If it is going to happen, it has to happen before the nuclear material is loaded. If you read the article, you will notice that he did not say it was going to happen, but if it did, it would have to happen soon.

        “Did you happen to notice that big arms deal the US recently made to Saudi Arabia in the last few weeks?”

        Why Yes I did.

        “But we are too busy fighting the right of Muslims to build some mosque in New York because that is too ‘insensitive’ to Americans.”

        Agreed. While I don;t like it, what matters is the law, not my feelings. If they are in compliance with the zoning laws and local ordinances, they must be allowed to build their mosque or whatever else they want.

        “That does NOT mean we are innocent. ”

        In the eyes of the law it does.


        “In case you forgot, all but one of those 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.”

        I have never forgotten, have you forgotten that they were all Islamic?

      • I’ve not forgotten that they were members of a sect of Islam – Wahabi (I think that’s correct). An analogy (rough as it is); though I recognize that itoldyouso isn’t saying this, is it appropriate to deny the construction of a synagogue in a neighborhood in New York City populated by Palestinian refugees due to the actions of e.g., the Zionists against their compatriots? To hold an entire religion responsible for the actions of a certain group within that religion is, to me, just wrong.

        While it seems insensitive, so long as the plans, etc., are in compliance with zoning and other restrictions, there is no legal reason to oppose it. That should be the only inquiry.

  14. indypendent

    I have never forgotten, have you forgotten that they were all Islamic?

    ——-

    To follow your logic, then we should hate all military-trained, anti-government, Christian white males because Timothy McVeigh was the domestic terrorist in Oklahoma City bombing?

    Is that really what you are trying to say?

    And the presumption of innocence does not mean the person is innocent.

    That’s pretty basic to understand.

  15. itolduso

    “To follow your logic, then we should hate all military-trained, anti-government, Christian white males because Timothy McVeigh was the domestic terrorist in Oklahoma City bombing?”

    What are you talking about? I have NEVER said to hold all Muslims responsible. What “your logic” are you referencing

    You can consider innocence whatever you want. I really don;t care. I am sure you are right, whatever it is you are trying to say. I must be wrong, otherwise you would agree.

    • itolduso

      Never mind. Don’t bother. This conversation is no longer about ideas, but apparently, about who wins.

      You win, I quit

  16. itolduso

    Indypendent-

    You win, however you define it. Bask in the glory.

    Whatever.

  17. This kind of blogging makes me sick to my stomach. It’s not necessary and it doesn’t advance any understanding, it’s hateful and childish. It reflects poorly on everyone. That I participated makes me even sicker. I dug out my rules for blogging and I commit to all of you to be a better blogger citizen. I am sorry I didn’t follow my own rules and will work harder toward following them!

    Three simple rules —

    1. Control your desire to respond, there is NO need for a rebuttal. If you are criticized, that is someone’s opinion, not who you are.

    2. Everyone has an opinion, and every opinion is as good and as useless as the next.

    3. Recognize a pissing contest as quickly as possible and get out!

    L I D G T T — F T A T I M

    Again, I’m sorry I didn’t show greater respect for myself, each of you and the PPP blog.

  18. prairie pond

    Ya know, the 9/11 murderers were all Saudi, too, werent they?

    WHY TF are we selling more arms to Saudi Arabia? And why do we continue to hold hands with them, just like shrub?

    WHAT TF is america thinking?

    • indypendent

      That was exactly my point in posting that link about the military arms deals the US is engaged in.

      With all the trouble in the world, do we really need to be arming everyone with military weapons?

      But, I’m sure these arms deals will be justified because – after all, the sacred cow of the military industrial complex beast must be fed.

      In fact, if I remember correctly – it was stated in the article that the Saudis would just go somewhere else to buy arms – so why not sell them the arms?

      WTF????

    • tosmarttobegop

      “WHY TF are we selling more arms to Saudi Arabia? And why do we continue to hold hands with them, just like shrub?
      WHAT TF is america thinking?”

      The Imam who is wanting to build the community center in question made the statement shortly after 9-11. That though America did not desire the attack it did contribute to the cause of it by supporting and bolstering the repressive regimes of the Middle East.

      Oddly Glen Beck had said the same thing before he used a part of the statement from the Imam to indict him as a radical Islamic.

      It has been one thing that bugs the heck out of me, we always seem to end up supporting and holding up individuals that otherwise we would be fighting against.
      Two bit dictators and repressive regimes in the name of fighting for over all freedom.
      In a Rumfieldistic fashion, “We do not always ally with the people we like we ally with the allies we find.”.

  19. OK, now this is truth! We need a lot more people like her! 😉

  20. One more fun one, and I’ll stop —

  21. indypendent

    Interesting little fact that is not noted in this article is the fact that the Fox News parent company has a large stockholder that happens to be a Saudi Prince. And since Saudis are Islamists, does this mean that Fox News is palling around with terrorists and are the Islamists going to run our politics on the Republican side of the aisle?

    Where is the outrage from the ‘real’Americans disguised as Republicans

    http://www.salon.com/news/fox_news/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/08/17/newscorp_donates_to_gop_group_fox_news