Friday, June 24

Reprinted without commentary from Alexandra Walker's TomPaine.com article at
http://www.tompaine.com/uncommonsense/index.php#5338

Because this says as much as needs to be said.




The White House is feeling the heat over Iraq and Guantanamo, so Karl Rove tries to change the subject. With public disapproval about Iraq growing and more lawmakers willing to step up and criticize Bush's war and human rights record, Rove reaches into his diversionary bag of tricks and pulls out the worn, dog-eared accusation that liberals are pansies. In ridiculing groups like MoveOn for counseling "moderation and restraint" in the days following 9/11, Rove must never have expected a 9/11 widow to come to the wimpy liberals' defense.

At 30, Kristen Breitweiser lost her husband in the World Trade Center attacks. She says the attacks left her with "no faith in my government." The tragedy transformed her into a citizen activist—-well-known for her efforts with the other "Jersey Girls " to hold the government accountable for investigating 9/11. Four years later, Breitweiser has become the most credible kind of advocate for sanity after 9/11—-she has the authority as someone who has befallen great tragedy to advocate against policies based on revenge and fear.

And she is no less than outraged about the choices the United States has made since the attacks. I heard her speak recently about these choices at an awards ceremony where she was honored for "truth-telling." She condemned the Bush administration's choice to pass the PATRIOT Act rather than open up and restore trust in government. And the choice to invade oil-rich countries instead of pursuing alternative energy resources to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. To read her powerful speech, click here . [EDIT: sorry no link; you can find it in the original on TomPaine.com --MWS]

Yesterday, on HuffingtonPost, Breitweiser unleashed on Rove for exploiting 9/11 once again for political gain. Here are some excerpts.

-- Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive.” Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run,” and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.

-- Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that “moderation and restraint” don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I digress.)

-- More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.

-- It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home — be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs — you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.

-- For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."

-- Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)

-- Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?

[SNIP]

-- Karl, if you “understand 9/11”, then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?

-- Finally Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.

-- It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

-- Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?




Bravo, Kristen. Way to keep Karl on topic.


--Alexandra Walker | Friday 11:21 AM

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Supreme Court just ruled that Big Business can steal your house...pave over a poor person's house for a Wall-Mart...and you choose to bitch about EVIL-ROVE.

You sir, are no Mace Windu.

Chris said...

The internet's an easy place to hide, eh, anonymous... get some balls and post your name.

Who is this Rove guy, Matt?
(Incidentally, I always comment that Bin Laden looks more like bin loungin' on his videos. I think he's in Spain...)

Chris said...

Haha! So I decided to do my research. It's amazing how the first link in Google can be so enlightening:

"Education: Attended nearly half a dozen colleges without getting a degree.

Profession: Teaches graduate students at the University of Texas."

... sweet irony!

Anonymous said...

I just got a splinter in my pinky finger and I'm not sure who to blame, Rove or George W. It hurts real bad, anyone want to protest with me?

ARP said...

There are few persons on the internet who are as stupid as you. Have ewe ever thought about thinking? About reasoning? Yet a stupid person like you now understands that the left wing Supremes are stealing our land and are not offering a single constitutional reason other than that government can do what it wants when it whants to!

MWS said...

Lecture me about thinking when you can fucking read, asswipe.

MWS said...

And as for the Anonymous pinhead above:

It's Wal-Mart.

And it's not Big Business. It's local government.

And I'm not bitching about EVIL-ROVE. The poor fucking widow is bitching about EVIL-ROVE.

I'm bitching about idiots like you.

Anonymous said...

Dude, those book covers are just to die for!

I thought reading and spelling comprehension were prerequisites for (aspiring) authors.

Anonymous said...

"Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora...."

And exactly who witnessed this?
----

"and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner."

The "not too worried about..." comment may very well be to marginalize him. What was that old Hollywood saying, that it is better for someone to say something bad about you rather than saying nothing at all?
As far as his appearance, that may not be as relevant as what he said.
It sounded to me like "Stop hitting back! I need someone to bully!"
------

(on UBL in Iran) "maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you."

Perhaps taking him out will be at a time and place of OUR choosing, not anyone elses.
------

"“Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war?"

How about dismantling the Taliban, then proceeding to dismantle regimes, such as Saddam's Iraq that both used WMD (remember the gassing of the Kurds at Hallabja?) so that WMD's would not end up targeting US cities?
The Duelfer report stated only that WMD were not in Iraq @ the time of the post-war survey. Where was the mention of the cyclosarin found by the Polish troops?
Intelligence cannot be perfect every time.
Prior to Gulf War I Saddam had an unfueled nuclear device; he expelled the weapons inspectors at the peak of the Impeachment trial. Were these the activities of an individual who wanted to convince the world that he didn't have WMD? Who shed tears over the passing of the abomination that was his regime?
------

"For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy." "

September 11th was perpetrated courtesy of 11th century barbarians who breed in countries like Iran, Saudia Arabia and yes, Iraq.
The link between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence has not been conclusively disproved to my satisfaction; Saddam was too dangerous to be trusted; and don't you think that the chances of another attack decrease if the people of the Middle East have at least a chance of building a representative democracy?
-----

"there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed"

Fly paper strategy. Who better than to eliminate them than the US Military?
------

"America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world."
Prior to 9/11, during 9/11 and after 9/11 the world hated America, and there is little reason to suspect that the nation experienced any genuine "sympathy."
-----

"Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq"

What proof do you have of this? Reports from the head of Al-Queda's HR? It would be difficult to determine with any degree of certainty the staffing of Al-Queda.
But many have ended up in body bags.
------

"Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget?"

Did Karl Rove have actual budgetary authority over the commision?

-----

"Karl, if you “understand 9/11”, then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists."

Technology that provides the same level of output with less (or ideally no) fossil-fuel inputs are not commerically available, nor are they likely to be in the near future. Over time, efficiency will increase (good) odious regimes *may* fall and be replaced with democratic administrations (better) and the technology to provide energy without burning fossil fuels may actually become economically feasible (best). But these require investment, risk, wide spread adoption and of course TIME.
-----

"Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil."

To turn Machiavelli's pondering on its head, 'Is it better to be despised for weakness, or for strenght?'

The Jihadis hate us regardless of what we do; stomping them (after 12 years of Saddam mocking the WORLD by starving his people via the oil-for-palaces scandal) is better than being stomped by them (yes, I know that I am using 'them' in an inclusive sense, but it appropriate in this context).

Remember, this hatred is central to the mindset of 11th century barbarians. Rational thought is not part of the equation.
-----

"Finally Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased."

Alternative explanations deserve a place in the debate.
Is it possible that the attacks occurred because for years the USA pursued a policy of restraint (with regards to terrorism) that was interpretted as weakness, and that after 9/11 the gloves came off?

Is it possible that no attacks have occurred since then due to an agressive posturing? Is it possible that the "fly paper strategy" may actually be working, keeping Al-Queda occupied in Iraq (and with their record of brutality against Iraqi citizens, it should be painfully obvious who is trying to 'occupy' Iraq) is better than letting them target America?

Again, I know little about Al-Queda recruitment, but I doubt if failed to swell; I doubt if likely Al-Queda 'candidates' would see global showings of 'sympathy' and say, "Hey, America ain't so bad. Perhaps we should dry their tears and sing folk songs..."
More likely want to kick us while we were down.
Like when the Palestinians were dancing in the streets (I know they are not likely Al-Queda operatives but actions certainly indicate they sympathized).

In conclusion, I am not too fond of what Karl Rove said, because of the partisan tone. Yet, I agree with it; the opposition grows less loyal with likes of Durbin, Kennedy et al. making comments that inaccurately describe the troops who are doing the VERY difficult job of helping the Iraqi and Afghani people build a representative democracy; facing an enemy that wears no uniform, adheres to no law, observes no conventions and deliberately targets non-combatants in a manner that sickens rational people. Focus, not bickering, is needed. If you disagree with the Administration's handling of the war, save the negative commentary until after the Iraqi and Afghani people no longer need a lengthy US military presence (this applies to both sides).
Victory will be evident when the FREE people of the Middle East no longer fear speaking out against their government, assemble peacefully, settle differences without violence and trade profitably with their neighbors. And don't forget to thank the troops.

MWS said...

You clearly know little about a great many things, including the functioning of democracy.

The Al Quaeda recruitment assessments are from US Intelligence estimates, bubba.

Um, dickhead?

The only people Saddam was worried about were the Iranians. Who DO have those WMD. And who have a grudge . . .

THAT's why he didn't want the world to know he had no WMD program.

Like I said: Learn to read.

And by the way?

I sign everything I write.

In what you so confidently assume is a free society, anonymity is the aegis of cowardice.

Pussy.

Chris said...

>> "Fly paper strategy. Who better than to eliminate them than the US Military?"

Oh yes. They're doing a fine job of it aren't they. Sicut.

fishi said...

Reminds me of today's Pearl's Before Swine


Fly paper strategy. Who better than to eliminate them than the US Military?

America has a very impressive military indeed, but it did fuck all when someone decided that "plane + building = fantastic idea", didn't it? You can't just bomb the shit out of everything.

Hmmm that was a random thing to respond to. But all the rest of what you said was idiocy too.

Anonymous said...

"People who try to tell you that life is about the struggle between Good and Evil are either 1) fooling themselves, 2) lying to you, or 3) both. As Caine himself put it, "When somebody starts talking about good and evil, better keep one hand on your wallet."

The black-and-white approach of most fantasy is bullshit. It's laziness. By positing a Force of Supernatural Evil, the writer is relieved of the necessity of motivating his antagonists. "The Devil made me do it!" Or his protagonists, for that matter. "Of course they must be destroyed! They're EEEEEvil!"

*** THESE ARE YOUR WORDS MATT. Yet all you do is whine about EVIL-ROVE and Darth Cheney and the Dark Lord Bush. Nothing worse than seeing an author up close and knowing, from then on, his words were never real but HYPOCRITICAL SHIT.

-- A former Democrat (a true liberal)

Anonymous said...

I don't recall Stover saying that Bush or Cheney or Rove or anyone else is doing what they're doing because the Devil told them to....

When Stover tells a story, he gives it an honest look, and while characters may have formed their opinions about people or things, the story doesn't tell the reader what to believe. The mistake you're making is you're calling Stover a hypocrite because of what he wrote in regards to a fantasy STORY telling the readers what to believe, and Stover talking about real issues on his personal blog, where he's able to express his own personal opinions. Maybe he expresses his opinion strongly, with solid judgments and the knowledge to back his opinions up, but I don't really see where you get off trying to anonymously "prove him wrong" by putting words in his mouth and twisting quotes around on unrelated subjects.

In my limited experience with Stover--outside of his stories--when he tells you something, he makes it sound like it's fact, whether it could be fact or is clearly an opinion, but he never tries to actually fool you into thinking his opinions are facts. He's just not the type of person to leave any weakness in his statements. If he gives you his opinion, he just gives it to you, he doesn't bother with any bullshit to pat you on the head and let you know "It's okay if you can't argue my point because you're a fucking moron, because this is only my own opinion." He doesn't hand-job you like that. If you want to disagree with him, on his own turf, on his own blog--essentially, if you want to get into a dog fight with him, sharpen your fucking teeth, as Stover might say.

But certainly, if you're going to disagree with him, and the ammunition you're using against him in this little war was manufactured in a bullshit factory, and you're going to twist his words into absolutes, or even fucking pull somebody else’s words that Stover quoted and pretend like Stover said it himself, and then judge him based on the crap you MADE UP... well, it's little wonder why you've decided to omit your name from your arguments.

Anonymous said...

And because the TAB key doesn't indent on these comments and I type faster than this piece of shit seems to be able to keep up with me, I'll add that my name is Shane, and while I have been a long time fan of Stover's, he and I have traded a few emails, and he's said a few things that I haven't agreed with... and hey, y'know what? That's all right, because Stover doesn't criticize you for having a difference of opinion. You just need to be able to back up that opinion with more than fabricated, twisted statements or something equally lame like "Well that's just my opinion."

--Shane

Mike Horn said...

You know, I was planning on staying out of this until I saw that the dork decided to quote something from one of Matt's books and use it against him. That's just asinine. Shane already said a lot of what needed to be said, but I just wanted to throw in my support as well.

I may not agree with everything Matt says, but I do have a huge amount of respect for him as a person and a writer. To come here on his site and call him a hypocrite because of something he wrote in a fuggin FANTASY book simply because you couldn't come up with a decent argument to back up your point of view just completely discredits anything good you might have said in any other post...which from what I can tell hasn't been much.

As far as him being anonymous goes: Personally, I could care less about the retard's name. Going by anonymous or throwing out a random name that's just as likely to be fake anyway is pretty much the same thing in my book. Therefore I suggest we just make up a name for him. I vote for Dick. It seems appropriate.

Christopher King said...

This isn't about good and evil, and, as far as I can see, Mr. Stover has never done anything to indicate that it is. Stating an opinion is not the same as saying, "I'm Good and you're Evil." Stating facts in support of your opinions (as Matt has done) should only diminish whatever false perceptions of that great moral struggle readers may have had to begin with.

I can't speak for Matt (and he certainly doesn't need me to), but for me, this isn't even about politics. It's not about liberalism vs. conservativism, and it's not about left vs. right. Nor is it about religion or morality or economics.

To me, an article like the one Matt reprinted here is about only one thing:

People.

Maybe you're familiar with such things? They're also known as human beings, to some more technical types. The fact that all of us belong to that species, I've got it into my head that people actually matter.

The people I know certainly mean a great deal to me. If my mother and father were shot in the cross-fire between insurgents and soldiers, I would care. If my brother was blown into a dozen bloody pieces by grenades, I would care. If my sister was being treated in a hospital when it was bombed by an invading army, I would care.

Is there something wrong with me? Because somehow, that, to me, means that I should care if YOUR mother and father and brother and sister are slaughtered. Because I can imagine what that would be like, and it would destroy me.

I guess citing some facts won't really help matters much, but for the sake of our former-Democrat, I will throw them out there anyway:

An estimated 22,560 Iraqi civilians have been killed in America's war. This does not include, I believe, the insurgents and other fighters.

Nearly 2,000 American soldiers are dead.

Maybe to you they're just numbers, but try to use your imagination for a moment: these are all people. These are all mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. All these people had families who now will never see them again.

If this idea doesn't bother you, then I strongly urge you to encourage all your friends and family to join in and fight the war. After all, their sacrifice would be worth it, wouldn't it? They would be claiming more precious oil for the country, and they would be helping to free the oppressed people of Iraq. And apparently, no one would miss them. Sounds like just the sort of people the U.S. Military would love to hear from.

Unfortunately for me, I have a difficult time seeing things that way. And I feel that any government that initiates this kind of devastating slaughter, unprovoked, does not have any right to be in power.

Add to this the fact that this same government lied to its own people in order to enter such a conflict, and has used the deaths of the 3,000 Americans who died on September 11, 2001 as a springboard for their selfish and destructive conquest . . .

To me, this isn't even an opinion.

It's a reality.

I find it encouraging to read that someone like Matthew Stover, who in writing and reality is always honest and intelligent, is standing up against this sort of government.

Thank you all for your time.

Cheers,

Christopher King

Shevchyk said...

And remember: Jesus loves Dick.

And anonymous? Consider the meaning of the word "euphemism."

Now for one of my favourite contemporary quotes:

"Which path do you intend to take, Nell?" said the Constable, sounding very interested. "Conformity or rebellion?"

"Neither one. Both ways are simple-minded. They are only for people who cannot cope with contradiction and ambiguity."

Neal Stephenson, "The Diamond Age"

But as you seem to approve of Desert Storm II: The Sequel, perhaps you would not mind my purchasing you a ticket post-haste?

Anonymous said...

It is clear Stover is trapped in the Good/Evil view of the world. He sees Bush as Evil, as do his devoted diciples. I just think it's sadly pathetic.

"And it's not Big Business. It's local government."

YOU ARE WRONG. You are either incorrect or a liar. The ruling says local goverments can empower private developers to steal private property. In the particular case, it is Big Business stealing the homes of middle-class people.

You sir, are an idiot. The slave morality personified. Sad.


PS: You don't know my politics or opinion on Iraq. But the fact you think you do says more about your small-mindedness than anything I could say.

- Dick, a former Democrat (but still liberal)

Shevchyk said...

So you're not just failing to read the above posts (see: euphemism), but now you're making generalisations and judgements about his readers?

Scroll back up. Re-read.

MWS said...

Jeez, Dick, when did I ever say Bush was evil?

Or even Rove?

Lying sacks of shit, yeah.

Evil? I don't use the word.

Lying sack of shit is also a phrase I would use in my characterization of you.

Why are you still posting here? Do you have an argument? Do you have a fact? A shred of dignity?

Stand up.

What the Supreme Court said is that the the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution does not prohibit local governments from using the power of eminent domain to seize private property when doing so is manifestly in the public interest (including expanding the civic tax base). They are, in fact, still required to do so by due process of law, and to provide just compensation, and IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, GO VOTE YOURSELF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT WON'T DO THAT KIND OF SHIT, INSTEAD OF WASTING YOUR TIME WHINING ABOUT IT HERE, YOU STUPID SACK OF SHIT.

Eric said...

A couple of things ...

Hey Big Red One good to see you back ...

Julie berated me for doing the Chicken Little thing just as you did in the last post ... heh ... and there are folks who say I have not married well ... someone in my family has to have the facts at hand ... sure ain't me ...

as for "anonymous" ... Rove is evil ... he is someone for whom power is everything and anything can be sacrificed to it. Close enough to a definition of evil as I can think of at the moment ...

Oh ... and what they all said ... if you aren't willing to post at least your first name in your mis-informed rants ... you are too much of a pussy to be listened to

MWS said...

Hey, Eric.

You're always welcome around here.

As is everyone else who signs their name, or their recognizable pseud . . .

Chris said...

Cheers, Matt, it's a fun party.
Mr Head - Dick, if I may? - you are a fool. Do you really think you know this fella if you can say...
"It is clear Stover is trapped in the Good/Evil view of the world."
...? You are a fool. I can't even think that you are interested in Matt's fiction, so why the hell are you here? 'cos you agree on his politcal stances? 'cos you are a fan of intelligent literature? (I'd be surprised if you can read more than a single sided republican propoganda pamphlet)
I've read most the work Matt's written, I've had a plethora of email conversations with him on various subjects and discussion via our favoured forums about every ideal and debate under the sun, hell I probably coula have had a few beers with him if I'd managed to sort my time out better while I was in Chicago.
I think I am qualified to say you are abouts as far from the truth as you can be, Dick, and making yourself look more the fool with every post. Grey's Fallacy is a beautiful concept, and one that you can probably put Matt down as a firm supporter of. Y'know why? It's reasonable. Argumentative little penis' (how appropriate, judging from your attitudes) like you would not understand, nor do I expect you to. It'd be easier and more fun if you just crawled back under whatever rock you slunk here from...

Why the hell are you here, anyway? Expecting to convert a few of us to the Government Side of The Force? Geez..

You're still here? It's over. Go home.

Anonymous said...

Christopher Hitchens destroys the "Poor Widow"/"Chickenhawk" meme...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121674/

Go chew on that, you Manichean moonbat piece of shit. You are slave.

- Dick, a former Democrat (still liberal and NOT A SLAVE)

"The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself," and this No is its creative deed. This inversion of the value-positing eye-this need to direct one's view outward instead of back to oneself-is of the essence of ressentiment: in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile world; it needs, psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all-- its action is fundamentally reaction."

Anonymous said...

I AM ALSO NOT A REPUBLICAN, YOU STUPID FUCKS!

- Dick

MWS said...

Nobody said you're a Republican, Dick. They're all just saying you're an idiot. Which you continue to confirm by you're obsessive-compulsive need to keep on returning where you are not welcome.

One definition of neurosis is to compulsively repeat a failed action in the assumption that the outcome will be different "this time."

Who's the slave, and to what?

Shevchyk said...

What I'd like to know is: Why is fucking Chris Hitchens being cited here as argumentative support?

That just strikes me as a bad idea, if firm intellectual ground is what one is seeking.

Chris said...

Is... is there a clan of weirdos stalking this blog? I see... at least we are on your side. They must have too much free time...

Erm, so a large part of the argument against that mother is that she's a Christian? Right, gotcha... solid argument that is. I mean, forgive me for skim reading what was clearly a sack of crap from the outset, but...? Surely there's more intelligent arguments than that.

Mike Horn said...

His name was actually Dick? Hahahhaha. Oh sweet irony.

banzai cat said...

Mmm... looks like you guys got a troll here. Don't feed it, that'll just encourage 'em.

Speaking of which, my SO gave a quote that I thought was interesting:

Mencius (371?- 289? BC, China)

"The people are the most important element in a state; the spirits of the land and the grain are seondary; and the sovereign is the least."

banzai cat, a.k.a. DeCeive

Shehzad said...

And I have a Schiller quote:

"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."

I vote for cessation of troll-feeding activites.

Anonymous said...

Hey Matt,

How many troll do you have in your camp now? I mean from the angry StarWars fanboys, those who didn't read their history arguing about Iron Dawn, and now this those from that can't have a logical debate and go straight to the name calling, gees, you must have an army of them following you around.

To paraphrase one of your works “If a man is to be know by enemies, you must find yours truly lacking.”

I don’t agree with every thing you have to say but this is your space to say what you want to say.

Thamos