Congress demanding answers about potential wrong-doing and a president stonewalling while claiming that executive privilege is being threatened, and so he’s trying to offer half-assed compromises that will leave his people the option of lying privately with no chance of consequences instead of lying publicly and facing perjury?
Am I the only person who’s flashing back to Nixon/Watergate?
Because if that’s really what we’re seeing here, then the next thing to happen should be that there’s a Deep Throat who conveys to a newspaper reporter/reporters a chain of evidence that leads directly to the President, i.e., that the President ordered the attorneys fired because they weren’t in lockstep with his policies and furthermore ordered his AG to lie about it. I think we’re going to see the questions being raised of just how much the President knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. And something tells me Bush doesn’t want us to know the answers to those questions.
PAD
• 
Have the Chinese presented political evil eye as a source of cancer in some manner I haven’t been made aware of?
Is China the only non-western society? Expand your horizons.
During the 2004 democratic primaries, I don’t specifically remember if former Marine and PBS NewsHour commentator Mark Shields used the words “electrifying” or “dynamite” to describe John Edwards campaigning to close the gap between the 2 Americas, but if you ask him I don’t doubt he would agree with you those words applied to him.
I don’t understand what you mean or how that relates to what I said. It seems to be saying that Mark Shields would agree with me that John Edwards is electrifying and dynamite. This puzzles me as I don’t recall describing him in those words or anything like him. I thought it was clear that I was describing Elizabeth Edwards’ role in the campaign. So I’m guessing I have missed your point.
My palette doesn’t have enough colors for you? I can do an inventory for you if you like.
Please allow me to rephrase:
During the 2004 democratic primaries, I don’t specifically remember if former Marine and PBS NewsHour commentator Mark Shields used the words “electrifying” or “dynamite” to describe John Edwards campaigning to close the gap between the 2 Americas, but if you ask him I don’t doubt he would agree with the notion those words applied to him.
Oooooookay.
G’night all.
I haven’t seen Boule’s(sp) comments in context either, but it does look it was over the line to say that Tony Snow’s job was causing his body to eat himself alive.
On the other hand, when Scott McClellan had the job, I’d often feel sorry for him as he struggled to sling this administration’s bull. He looked like he was developing a bleeding ulcer.
Let’s face it, press secretary is just about the most thankless job in even the best administrations. You’re the guy who has to face the cameras day after day and try to sell the administration’s positions, often when you don’t even know all the details yourself. And when the story doesn’t get it’s message out right, you’re the guy who gets blamed.
I’m betting that Rush doesn’t start making personal attacks because Snow hasn’t resigned yet to focus on his treatment.
Then again, why does this administration even need a press secretary when they have Fox “News”?
I’m a bit surprised that nobody has so far found an equivilant bit of nastiness from someone who was anti-Edwards(implying that Ms. Edwards illness was “payback” for Edwards successful lawsuits against doctors or some such rot). I’d be amazed if they didn’t exist; the blogosphere is a big place and lots of creepy people have made their home in the various moist corners.
Oh, yes…one of the pages I found when Googling for the complete quote was a hateful right-wing page that included slams against Elizabeth Edwards. (In response to the Bouley quote rather than out of nowhere, but still…) Mind you, it was the sort of circle-jerk site where people just spew bile about anyone they perceive as disagreeing with them (i.e. liberals, in this case), so the beam definitely hadn’t been removed from their eyes. (One of the posters said, referring to the left, “Venom and contempt is all they know,” thus proving that either irony isn’t dead or he wasn’t paying attention.)
Doug–well, the crazies never let us down, do they? As I alluded to earlier, the really awful people tend to be clueless at hopw they come off to those who are less afflicted with the rage virus. So they thought the Bouley quote was wrong and their response was…doing the same thing to Ms. Edwards? Wow.
Similarly, when Bouley says that being in a negative environment may give you cancer you genuinely have to fear for the lives of some of his commentators, right and left. Browsing through a Huffington Post coments section for a few minutes could be the carcinomic equivilant of a 2 day chest x-ray.
I didn’t find the word “payback” in Bouley’s or his commenters’ posts, and as far as Bush is losing in Iraq, the analogy to Mrs Edwards suffering from her husband’s success does not apply.
As “equivilant” is different from “identical” this is unsurprising.
I think that most hardcore Bush haters would argue that they think it’s his successes that qualify as truly “evil”. But if you want to argue that this sort of Falwellesque malice is somehow less spiteful when aimed at your political opposites go ahead. I think you’re kidding yourself.
At any rate, we’ve taken this as far as it can go and stay interesting. And then we went a bit further, it would seem.
Having caught up on a bunch of old threads recently and thus gotten a huge dose of the Unadulterated Exceedingly Literal One, I cannot help but be reminded of an exchange from waaaaaaaay back when, when I was reading the alt.fan.dan-quayle Usenet group in 1990-92.
In late ’92 (post-election), one character (also named Michael, oddly enough) tended to make one-line responses to lengthy posts. Those responses took individual lines from people’s posts and took them about as literally as they could be taken, making less than no sense on many occasions.
One exchange:
Michael Lurie:
“As for you, I really begin to wonder. Did your mom drop you on your head as a child, or are you this dumb naturally?”
Respondent:
“And you are living proof that siblings should never mate.”
Michael Lurie, and I am NOT making this up:
“I have no siblings.”
Seriously. Go over to Google Groups and check on the phrase “I have no siblings” if you don’t believe me.
Thanks for the great flashbacks, Mike. Hilarious stuff.
TWL
off to class
Wow. And just like that, Tim Lynch shows us how we should have been handling Mike all along: with concision and gently dismissive humor.
Tim W. Lynch, you are so the man. I bow before your rhetorical superiority!
Strawman.
And what comments on the left would the hypothetical nastiness to Mrs Edwards be equivalent to?
“In late ’92 (post-election), one character (also named Michael, oddly enough) tended to make one-line responses to lengthy posts. Those responses took individual lines from people’s posts and took them about as literally as they could be taken, making less than no sense on many occasions.”
In every generation one is born…
Y’know, poor taste or not, there is some evidence that stress and mental impacts to affect the physical health. That’s not to say that stess causes cancer, or that those that place themselves in stressful situations deserve to get cancer. But it suggests that those that have had cancer in the past working under stresseful conditions may be placing themselves at greater risk of a relapse. So, as for the Bouley comments, if Snow truly were guilt-ridden over the duties placed on him by his job, he may very well have contributed to his current condition.
Mind, I don’t think that’s anywhere near the case, as someone that would find themselves morally torn over being the Mouth of Bush wouldn’t take the job in the first place.
However, I don’t think there’s any evidence that working near evil really lends itself one way or another to an unhealthy life. Unless you’re working for Darth Vadar or another Sith Lord.
“However, I don’t think there’s any evidence that working near evil really lends itself one way or another to an unhealthy life. Unless you’re working for Darth Vadar or another Sith Lord.”
You can’t see it in the movies, but there is a warning from the surgeon general printed on Darth Vader’s suit.
“I think that most hardcore Bush haters would argue that they think it’s his successes that qualify as truly “evil”.”
I think I would be happy if Bush were successful in Iraq, but I wouldn’t think the invasion was right. I would consider it a case of good things coming from something bad.
However, I don’t think there’s any evidence that working near evil really lends itself one way or another to an unhealthy life. Unless you’re working for Darth Vadar or another Sith Lord.
I don’t think that generally leads to an unhealthy life … just a greatly increased likelihood of it being a very SHORT one.
And thanks, Bill — that may be the first time in my life someone has called me “concise.”
TWL
Now that I think on it further, that’s a badass reply to “you are living proof that siblings should never mate.”
If anyone can come up with a better reply, by all means, let’s hear it. Otherwise Michael Lurie is still the model of rhetorical superiority.
Well, other than the fact that the siblings in question would have been his parents, it’s perfect….
“And you are living proof that siblings should never mate” established no such fact.
“”And you are living proof that siblings should never mate” established no such fact.”
Mike, are you deliberatly trying to ape Mr. Lurie here? Because if so, you’re really being funny.
On the other hand, if, as I suspect, your statement is not made in jest, then would you please explain what meaning that sentence could have other than to say that the subject’s parents were siblings?
I think that most hardcore Bush haters would argue that they think it’s his successes that qualify as truly “evil”.
Bush had successes?
Now that I think on it further, that’s a badass reply to “you are living proof that siblings should never mate.”
Yyyyyyyyeah.
I’m fairly certain you meant “bad” rather than “badass” above. As the automated phone messages say when a number has been changed, “please make a note of it.”
TWL
agreeing with Bobb here
Tim, I’m fairly sure Mike meant “badass.” As in “a devastating retort.”
You haven’t been around for awhile, so let me fill you in on something: Mike will argue anything into the ground. Moreover, he’ll argue like a lawyer litigating a case. He takes it that seriously. He will demand that you “cite” this or that, and then when you do he will parse your statements and his ad nauseam so he can claim he didn’t say what he said, or that you said what you didn’t say, or that up is down or night is day, or whatever! And like a parrot I guarantee you he’s going to ask me to cite instances where he has done so. Which I won’t, because even when faced with incontrovertible evidence he’ll deny what he did. His mind is bound by neither logic nor intellectual honesty.
Moreover, he is of the misconception that we are obligated to prove to his satisfaction that he is wrong, as though he is the final arbiter of reality. As though his belief is required for a thing to be true.
Finally, he is so wracked by personal insecurities that he has no choice but to hate anyone with whom he disagrees and disparage that individual’s character. Trust me, he’s called me “predatory,” accused me of having a “taste for blood,” and ironically assumes that because I am a caucasian I am a racist (it’s kind of funny that someone who fancies himself an opponent of prejudice as Mike does would lack the self-awareness to realize that he himself is prejudiced).
By the way, Bobb, the phrase “siblings should never mate” can indeed bye interpreted to have a meaning “other than to say that the subject’s parents were siblings?” One could interpret it to mean that the object of the ridicule is married to his or her sibling, rather than the product of a union between siblings. That said, the obvious intended meaning of the phrase is to imply that the object of ridicule is the product of an incestuous union between brother and sister. It’s absolutely idiotic to play a verbal game of “gotcha” and say, “Well, you could’ve meant this and since you weren’t precise enough with your words I WIN I WIN I WIN I WIN I WIN I WIN!!!!!!!!” But that’s what Mike does.
And somehow people keep feeding him the attention he craves. Micha mistakenly believes it bothers or upsets me, which it does not. It’s your time, you can invest it how you wish. But it does baffle me.
I think I’ll make this my last word on Mike for awhile. The quality of discourse in this blog seems to be inversely proportionate to the number of posts by or about Mike.
Libel.
Tim, I’m fairly sure Mike meant “badass.” As in “a devastating retort.”
Thanks Bill, but I did in fact understand that, as well as your next two paragraphs. I think you more or less missed the nub of my gist on that one. 🙂
I’m glad you appreciated the “siblings should not mate” post, but I’m starting to regret having brought it up. I’d much rather talk about obscure Marvel villians — you know, like that guy blinded in some mystical ritual. What was his name again?
Oh yeah. The Shroud. That was it.
TWL
Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 29, 2007 04:45 PM
Thanks Bill, but I did in fact understand that, as well as your next two paragraphs. I think you more or less missed the nub of my gist on that one. 🙂
I do that. A lot. I think the appropriate word in my case is “dûmbášš.”
Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 29, 2007 04:45 PM
I’m glad you appreciated the “siblings should not mate” post, but I’m starting to regret having brought it up.
But it was funny and cut right through the bull! Don’t apologize for that!!!
Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 29, 2007 04:45 PM
Oh yeah. The Shroud. That was it.
You are SO the man. Welcome back, Kotter… I mean, Tim.
Except the Shroud was actually a hero, in the classic Green Hornet mold of the hero pretending to be a villian.
(Yes Tim, I do understand what you meant, but I’ve always had a fondness for the character in question, even as far back as his Super Villian Team-Up days. And I am a colossal geek….)
Huh?
Mike posted what?!?
That’s what Mike thinks of as badass?
I have no siblings. = Badass
Right now, I’d pay money to know a cop in Mike’s hometown just so I could get a copy of the, obviously one day inevitable, report that he would file with the police.
Mike: Officer, I need to report a mugging.
Officer: Yes, sir. Who was mugged.
Mike: I was. They took my lunch money.
Officer: Your lunch money? They actually took your lunch money??
Mike: Yeah. That’s all they asked for.
Officer: Ok. Can you tell me how many of them there were and give me a description of the subjects.
Mike: Yeah. There were three of them. Racist white males, blue-jeans, two had red t-shirts, one had a black t-shirt, all three had brown hair.
Officer: All right, sir. Can you give me their height and a rough idea of their build?
Mike: Yes, officer. They all had medium builds and I would guess that their heights were all around three six.
Officer; Three six? Oh, you mean six three.
Mike: No, I mean three six. I only say what I mean, officer.
Officer: You were mugged by midgets?
Mike: No, officer. I was mugged by six year old kids. I actually think the one in black was seven. And you shouldn’t use words like that when talking about little people.
Officer: Yeah, whatever. So, you’re saying that you got mugged by two six year olds and a seven year old?
Mike; Yes, sir. And they took my lunch money.
Officer: Ok. What kind of weapon did they have?
Mike: They didn’t have a weapon.
Officer: You’re telling me that you got mugged, for your lunch money, by a group of six and seven year olds…
Mike: I only think the one in black was seven. He could have been six as well.
Officer: …and they didn’t even have a weapon?
Mike: Yeah.
officer: Why in the blue hëll did you let three six year olds, and unarmed six year olds at that, mug you for your lunch money in the middle of a public street in broad daylight?!?!?!?
Mike: Well, the one in black, the one who told me to give them the money, had the words “I’m not Momma’s nice little angel” printed on the front of his shirt along with a smiley face designed to look like a devil’s face.
Officer: So?!?!?
Mike: Well, it was really badass and it scared me…
Except the Shroud was actually a hero, in the classic Green Hornet mold of the hero pretending to be a villian.
D’oh. I KNEW I should have checked that one before posting.
just so I could get a copy of the, obviously one day inevitable, report that he would file
No need to know a cop these days. The Smoking Gun website would probably have a report that entertaining inside of two hours!
TWL
Sigh.
I know I shouldn’t have posted that last bit. I just couldn’t help myself.
I’m putting myself back on the wagon and I promise that I’ll not skip my next MA meeting.
I feel so ashamed by my lapse.
Guys, this is getting close to being like the “A Smart Move” thread, which PAD had to lock down in no small part because of my lengthy sparring matches with and ridicule of Mike. I don’t think we want to see a repeat of that.
Just one of the reasons why I’ve been urging people to join me in shrouding Mike. (Although, technically, am I shrouding him if I speak ABOUT him? I haven’t read up on all the fine print.) It seems that conversations with him bring out the worst in everyone.
Anyway, I do NOT want to be part of a repeat. So I’m moving along. Nothing to see here. Mike who??? I dunno who you’re talking about.
Yeah, kinda had the same thought after clicking the “post” button. Thus my post right after THAT one. Not wanting to go there again.
Bush had successes?
Well, in the sense that he got a lot of laws passed that drive a lot of people right up the wall, yeah. I mean, the Patriot Act is a success in that he wanted it and got it, right? And that would probably bother the people who dislike him a great deal more than, say, his social security reform ideas that did not get made into law. That’s what I was talking about.
Tim, it is so nice to have you back. In all the times we argued, sometimes heatedly, I never once thought of you as anything other than an intelligent, decent guy. Nice to get a taste of that feeling again.
That’s what Mike thinks of as badass?
That’s how you challenge the leading reply to “you are living proof that siblings should never mate?”
Strawman.
Jerry
For Bobb Alfred–reading what you said about stress reminds me of something that I thought about when my Dad was fighting colon cancer. All the stress certainly wasn’t helping, but I don’t know that I’d call it a direct cause. But when you’re stressed, feeling hopeless, you’re not going to take the right kind of care of yourself(as evidenced by my gut) so THAT could increase your chances of a relapse.
I’m gonna hate myself in the morning, but what else is new? In response to Mike’s siblings post–perfect response–“Huh. Even THEY won’t claim you?”
Something to think about. Anybody else as surprised as I am that nobody around here has just gone and posted as Strawman? Word gets thrown around more than a big throwing thing.
Tim, it is so nice to have you back. In all the times we argued, sometimes heatedly, I never once thought of you as anything other than an intelligent, decent guy. Nice to get a taste of that feeling again.
Thanks — good to be back. I’ll cop to “intelligent” most days — nice to know that at least some people beyond my wife and daughter think that “decent” qualifies too. 🙂
TWL
long teaching day
Ok, so now we have to start the betting pool on the first appearance of Strawman, now that Sean has planted the seed. I give it 24 hours…
Is there an interpretation of this that doesn’t include the idea that siblings are an easy lay?
Considering you’re suggesting someone post here under two identities: I’m not surprised, but I guess I should be.
Well, in the sense that he got a lot of laws passed that drive a lot of people right up the wall, yeah. I mean, the Patriot Act is a success in that he wanted it and got it, right?
I guess you could consider that a success. I was thinking more in terms of things like, you know, making the world safer, preventing nuclear proliferation, making healthcare more affordable for Americans, reducing the partisan acrimony left over from the Republicans “get Clinton at all costs mentality from the 90s”, not getting us involved in a quagmire in Iraq, actually capturing bin Laden after promising to “smoke him out”. Silly stuff like that.
But even his legislative successes haven’t been anything to be proud of. We’re hearing more and more that the Justice Department couldn’t be bothered to abide by even the meager restrictions in the Patriot Act. NCLB is widely regarded as just another unfunded mandate and more pressure on schools to spend more time on standardized test prep instead of actual learning (and yes, I’ll let Ted Kennedy share the blame for that), the prescription drug benefit is a confusing boondoggle whose real costs were hidden until after it was implemented.
So, after six years, Bush’s “successes” have been boiled down to getting a handful of really, really bad laws passed.
Given his track record, we should be thankful that his Social Security initiative died on the vine.
BTW, I listened to part of his speech the other night. Jeez, he’s a petulent child when people dare to say no to him. I hope Laura gave him a time out.