Midweek Open Thread
Time for some more chit-chat. Again, sorry I haven’t been posting anything interesting. I do hope that changes soon. I was able to catch the whole show today, live, and thought it was pretty good. The Jesse Ventura thing was very interesting, though I agree with John from Cleveland (I think it was him) — those segments were a little ass-kissy. But the thing you’ve got to keep in mind about Pete is he’s not fake about any of this shit. What you hear on the radio is how he really feels about someone or some issue. He didn’t pretend to be Ventura’s equal or superior the way some hosts would.
There I’ve gone and babbled. Like I’m the one with the notoriously big mouth…
It wasnt me who called him on it. It was true, but for a reason.
Pete has a show to run and being hard on the interviewees at this stage would be counter productive at this point.
OR:
The Gov told him that he would kill pull his heart out of Pete’s chest if he was a dick at all to him.
Has anyone heard BO’s new spiritual advisor Senator James Meeks speak? after listening to the Glenn Beck Show today I see a pattern . Anyone agree?
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/8564/
I missed the beginning of the Ventura interview and was bummed. It is great to hear him speak. I read his first book when he was running for Gov. When he won I believed his next step would be running for President. I was looking forward to helping with his campaign. It is too bad he has moved away from the political arena (for now).
If Pete believes Obama is as honest political figure there is out there I don’t know what he would say about Ventura. In my opinion Ventura is head and shoulders above any political figure in terms of speaking his mind and being honest.
I also would like to make a suggestion for the show. I get a chance to catch at least a few minutes every day on my way from teaching to coaching lacrosse. Several times there has been topics being discussed that I am fired up about and want to call but do not have the chance to call. Is it possible to make a show every couple weeks “listener generated” where listeners can call in to discuss a topic that had been discussed on a show but didn’t get a chance to call in that day?
Does that make any sense.
I just heard the replay (couldn’t help tuning in for when Todd insisted GW’s unit went to Vietnam and was getting ready to deploy again when he signed on the dotted line, LOL). Anyway, it was Todd who colorfully accused Pete of having his nose up the governor’s ass. Sorry, John.
And it appears that Todd is having some sort of love affair with Bush. Todd, is it fair to criticize those who favor Obama or Ventura or anyone else when you can’t help defending Bush when anyone criticizes him? By the way, if you have been keeping up with the latest polls, you are among the minority who still support our dear president. Frankly, I can’t stand the site of him. I know that sounds harsh, but each time I look at his beady little eyes, I feel that he is lying about whatever it is he speaks.
Well, I missed it, but I can tell you my recollection at the time was that Bush’s guard unit was a tactical fighter wing and was in rotation to be called up. I’m sure I didn’t relay it well because I was recalling information I’d read almost 4 years ago and was not where I could go fact check. I trust my memory and do not mind getting it wrong, even on a national radio program.
I did not, however, ‘insist GW’s unit went to Vietnam and was getting ready to deploy again’, considering my understanding at the time as stated above. It was that his unit could be called up. In reading the articles in the pro-Bush press from 2004, I see where I got that false impression.
During that campaign, much was said about Bush being privileged and joining the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) to avoid the danger in Vietnam. What those articles show is that service in the TANG was not weekend assignments at a desk, it involved extensive training and an extended commitment to the Guard. I think it is an insult to the lives of National Guardsmen who have traditionally been called up in US conflicts to act as if service in the Guard automatically indicates a dodge of dangerous service.
Pete and Jesse were both guilty of perpetuating a myth about Bush avoiding difficult service while Kerry did not. I was wrong. WAY WRONG about Bush’s unit be in rotation - it was, as all NG units were, eligible to be called up, but I GOT IT TOTALLY WRONG ABOUT ROTATION.
But that doesn’t change the fact that fighter jet pilots are an elite subset of aviators and it does a disservice to the truth and the many pilots who risk their lives as Air Guardsmen to insist Bush was somehow LESS than Kerry for his service in the TANG.
Finally, did you not also hear the echoes off the walls of Jesse’s rectum as Pete was talking? Did he look like he won a puddin’ pie eatin’ contest after the interview? Did his whiskers tickle The Body’s naughty bits?
Mary,
I know I sound like a staunch Bush defender. I really hate being in this position. I think there are many, many legitimate areas in which to criticize George W Bush.
However, I think most of the ‘popular knowledge’ about Bush’s crimes against the constitution is just wrong.
So I don’t mind being in the minority and don’t mind defending Bush to the extent that I’m speaking out against falsehoods. It sucks that Pete and you and many others almost exclusively parrot Bush’s partisan enemies, especially where claims on the war and civil liberties are concerned.
I can, however, point to what I’ve learned in my attempts to make sense of the truth of any given matter. Some things are clearer than others. Since Pete and his guests bash Bush almost daily with many accusations I know to be false, I feel I’m left little alternative but to correct the record. Pete does bill himself as open to all points of view.
Finally, I hope you noted that Pete could not produce one example of Bush’s violations of our rights when I challenged him. He got nasty and irritated when I pointed out that he responded to a serious challenge with a joke, subsequently hanging up on me when I wouldn’t stop talking over him (though he has a mute button he has used before, so I don’t buy the “I wouldn’t let him talk” excuse).
Well, I was irritated too. Here Pete has a national platform which is routinely uses to trash GW Bush with serious accusations that he hasn’t the goods to back up when challenged point blank!
There is a reason the Democratic Congress has not impeached George Bush and it has nothing to do with their political courage. It has everything to do with a lack of EVIDENCE.
Hey, Todd, here’s a website for you to check out:
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061
The articles of impeachment were drawn up by Ramsey Clark, former Atty. Gen. of the U.S., someone who knows a bit about the law of the land. Granted, Pete wasn’t able to point you to this while he was on the air, but I’m surprised you haven’t been able to find it yourself–it took me about 2 mins. on Google. And if you don’t agree that any of the listed offenses are impeachable, how on earth did Congress manage to put Pres. Clinton through the wringer for something that certainly didn’t end up seeming like “high crimes & misdemeanors” to most of the American people. Have you seen a film called “Getting Frank” which focuses on the Clinton impeachment & uses a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that didn’t make it to the major media? Check it out before you respond to this, OK? BTW, I don’t want you to think Pete’s family is all of one mind on all the issues–e.g., I need to have a serious talk with Pete & Brian about Obama’s speech on race, about which I was less than impressed. Maybe they read something in it that I wasn’t able to find. And Pete, I was surprised at how much of what Gov. Ventura said today that I agreed with. Hmmm.
Unca,
I’m familiar with the various impeachment websites, including this one. I’m very familiar with the claims against Bush and also familiar with the law & constitution. I’ve also read countless Supreme and Appellate court rulings on constitutional matters. I read the Starr Report. I’ve read every court ruling related to Clinton’s legal battles.
{I am by no means saying I know more than Ramsey Clark about the law or the workings of the Dept. of Justice. Clark’s experience, however, is not a supporting argument for the AoI)
My point in challenging Pete (and anyone else who irresponsibly claims Bush has violated their rights, for that matter) to come up with an example is to demonstrate a lack of spot knowledge either of what constitutes a right or specific violation of said rights.
As for the allegations on the site you linked, check the background notes link, which lists the following as the first 3 impeachable offenses:
The first 2 involve deposing the Taliban, which had widespread bipartisan support. The 3rd one references a policy (the so-called “No Fly Zones”) put in place under Bush41 by UN mandate after Hussein was booted from Kuwait and began to massacre ethnic groups in northern and southern Iraq. The Clinton administration continued this policy during both terms.
And on the page itself, the first article listed states: 1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.
I didn’t see any links to any evidence supporting this claim. Contrast this to the first article against Bill Clinton:
There was literally a room full of supporting evidence for Clinton’s impeachment (by the way, my recollection of that time was that not a single Democrat visited the room to review the evidence)
To sum - the accusations against Bush are so thinly supported, one has to accept key assertions as fact without any strong evidence.
Todd, now you’re lying outright not about something you recall from 4 years ago, but about something from Wednesday afternoon. I listened to your call twice, and you ABSOLUTELY INSISTED that Bush’s unit had JUST RETURNED from Vietnam and that it was SCHEDULED to go back. Now you want to claim that all you said was that it “could be called up”? You are so full of shit it’s just amazing, Todd. You keep lying and lying and inventing shit, knowing that nobody has time to point out all of the holes in all of the vacuous statements you make.
While you’re ranting about shit, maybe you can tell me where the UN mandated the US/UK-imposed no-fly zones. That one should keep you busy for a while, since it’s an invented argument that you’re just regurgitating as a Republicrat talking point. I believe that you don’t know you are lying, but to me it’s still a lie, because you’re definitely smart enough to know better.
In truth, the no-fly zones over Iraq were NEVER authorized by the UNSC, and several attempts to get them banned were merely blocked by the US and UK. We regularly operate in the gray area between crime and impunity, thanks to our much-abused Security Council veto power. (That’s why we can use Article 51 [war of aggression rules] against nations like Iraq in 1990 but violate it ourselves against nations like Iraq in 2003.)
(And Clinton should have gone down for his illegal invasion of Serbia in 1999, as long as we’re talking about unconstitutional wars that violate the UN Charter. At some point, under some administration, it would be nice to live in a country that obeys the bare basics of the rule of law it pretends to uphold.)
Hey Brian,
I may be wrong - I’d have to listen to the replay over the weekend, if it makes it.
As I stated, that was my recollection.
You can call me a liar all day, it just makes you look like an asshole.
And if it wasn’t by UN mandate - the no fly zone - then it was justified on humanitarian grounds to protect the northern Kurds and southern Shia from Iraqi air assaults.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 does not explicitly authorize ‘no-fly zones’, but does:
Given how feckless the UN has been stopping all manner of oppression (Darfur, anyone?), I find the US, French and British response - to keep Iraqi air power grounded over these populations - appropriate responses to the humanitarian crises declared in the above quoted resolution.
Iraq did not meet demand #2 until the no-fly zones were established.
Is that true or false?
Brian wrote,
Was Iraq in material breech of UNSC res 687 (the cease fire agreement which set up the UNSCOM inspection regime) in 2003?
But as you know, Todd, it’s not justified under international law unless the UNSC approves it. Hence very few resolutions have passed against Israel’s egregious violations of human rights and the Geneva Conventions in the Occupied Territories, including countless votes in which only the US defended Israel’s flagrant flaunting of international law. No action can be taken, by the Charter that we signed, unless there is UNSC approval of the action. Hence, it’s illegal to invade another country or patrol sovereign airspace without explicit UNSC permission. So you can call it “justified,” but you should also admit it is illegal.
But that just puts those actions in the proud tradition of US violations of international law, such as US activities in Nicaragua in the ’80s and invasion of Panama in ‘89.
The BIG STORY today has got to be Artie leaving the Stern show: http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities_blog/2008/04/artie_lange_walks_off_the_howa.html
Hopefully you can get him on for an exclusive, Petey-boy…but if not, HOPE you can talk some sense into him!!!
The Stern show is the greatest gig on the planet for a comedian, and it’d be a shame for him to blow it over bullshit
Todd, this is really dumb. I understand that maybe you don’t get how International law works, but the comments section of a talk-show blog is not the place to pick it up. Violating a UNSC resolution — which Iraq has done numerous times, as have countless US allies such as Israel and Turkey — does not automatically trigger authorize a military response. Your argument is moot.
Oh, and in your selective quoting of UNSC 688, you conveniently forgot the following:
That was definitely not suggesting no-fly zones were acceptable. Nor did any part of the resolution authorize the use of force by any party. Sorry, Todd, you’re just dead wrong on this. I’m sure you’ll keep trying, because you’re like the energizer bunny on meth, but really maybe you should go do some basic reading from sources that actually respect international law before you come religiously defending one of its biggest violators, ironically trying to use international law in your defense. This is kind of like a circus — a gong show, if you will — involving one pathetic act of misguided argument after another.
Just because you have a shovel, Todd, doesn’t mean you need to keep digging a hole for yourself.
And for god’s sake, can you at least wait till I respond before you keep posting? Do you think quantity/frequency of posts earns you some kind of points? Chill out, dude.
“I ain’t got time to bleed”
Hi there ! I just want to throw a question out there about Jesse Ventura. I’ve always looked up to him and I find myself agreeing with a lot of the things he said on the show.
NOW on Breuer unleashed yesterday he talked in great length about why he thinks 911 might be an inside job : towers falling too fast, steel structure melting and so forth. I don’t buy into conspiracy theories but coming from Jesse Ventura it made me think twice. What do you guys think of Jesse’s comments ? Is he a kook ?
Stern SUCKS…he’s not replaying today’s show!!!
To Mike from Geneva: My mother lives five minutes away from what was then Stewart AFB, and to get to her house [by bus] you got to go pass West Point too. Once going up there i was the only one the on bus when we got to West Point, and the driver was ahead of schedule, so he asked me if i wanted a tour since he was bored, and i said sure.
There’s a WHOLE LOTTA SHIT there…serious military capabilities…and since the official story was that they flew down the Hudson by sight, they’d have to pass TWO MAJOR MILITARY FACILITIES!!!
It was at that point i started believing the conspiracy theories
Todd, I asked you to watch “Getting Frank” before you responded to my post, but you didn’t. However, I can’t blame you for that because the actual title is “Let’s Get Frank”–my bad!–which has a lot of stuff on Barney Frank as the first openly gay congressperson but also shows all that behind-the-scenes action I mentioned re the Clinton impeachment process. It contains a lot of footage from the committee hearings, which might help to reinforce your recollection. BTW, Oliver Stone is working on a new film about Dubya that may provide additional evidence that hasn’t made it to the major news media outlets. And even though filmmakers may not be any more reliable than the major news media, Stone & others often incorporate historical footage from the events themselves, & the truly discerning viewer who bothers to follow up on some of the “uncovered” material is often able to make some pretty interesting discoveries about what actually happened. I checked the “background notes” before I posted my message to you, but I’m wondering why you only chose the 1st 3 to “support” your point of view. And I’m also starting to wonder if the only sources you investigate thoroughly are the ones you find supportive of your own beliefs. Are you really looking at all the aspects of the issues you write about before you write? You’re obviously an intelligent, articulate person, but there are many perspectives on most controversial questions, & you need to check out those you don’t like as thoroughly as you check out what makes you feel good, & when you’re doing that, try to give them a “fair shake” instead of just looking for ways to fault them. In other words, play “the believing game” not just “the doubting game”–you might be surprised that you actually agree with some of those other perspectives, & you might even change your own slightly as a result. Big Bro’s legitimate request that you wait for responses before you post more indicates to me that you’re often more interested in airing your own opinions than listening to those of others. Get back to me after you watch “Let’s Get Frank”–I’d really like to know what you think.
Brian,
Please get the MP3 of my call yesterday. I want to hear exactly what I said. Again, the whole point of my recollection was that his unit had already served (before he was in it) and was slated to serve.
After reading the articles which defended Bush on this score, I realized the source of my error. One author wrote that F102 fighters were the first called up (or deployed) in Vietnam. Bush flew F102s. Another said a fellow pilot recalled he and Bush seeking to join a program (later scrapped) which was to use F102s in the conflict. I believe this is where I got the erroneous claims I made on the show.
I refer you both to Factcheck.org: New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)
Bush A Military “Deserter?” Calm Down, Michael
Democratic Group’s Ad Revives “AWOL” Allegation Against Bush
Pete - read these links and tell me your opinion on Bush’s service is based on iron clad evidence.
Unca,
If I could go back and edit a post, I’d add the additional information to it. Regardless the goings on in Congress (I watched almost every minute of committee hearings, bypassing CNN entirely), Clinton was impeached for violating laws in an attempt to evade a law enacted by his pen.
Pete -
You stated point blank that there was loads of proof Bush got out of military service. Can you point to some of it?
Unca,
I’ll respond to the rest of your post later. I have to get back to remodeling my neighbor’s bathroom shower stall.
Oh yeah, Brian,
In addition to kissing my ass, you can suck my balls.
That was completely uncalled for. You are proving everyone’s point that you are being a total douche right now. If you had a chance of getting any assistance from any of us, that just went out the fucking door there.
It blows my mind that John can broadly agree with Todd on many things (in terms of the issues), but for apparently two major reasons he doesn’t annoy any of us the way Todd does. First, John isn’t reflexively pro-Bush or anti-Left or whatever. He seems to believe what he does because he arrived at the view after some thought, not because it’s a party or partisan principle that has to be rallied around at all costs. I think Pete gives Todd WAY too much credit on this account. Frankly, I’ll never understand it.
Second, John remains calm and respectful — more so than Pete or me, actually — even when faced with an avalanche of opposition. He doesn’t seem interested in inventing facts or weaseling out of things (we all weasel a bit, and I busted him doing it once, but John came clean without caveats). It’s just a world of difference between two people who share more viewpoints with each other than they do with me.
Also, as much as John participates here, he seems to realize that it’s not actually his blog. He even got off the phone the other day voluntarily when Pete offered him a chance to talk but wanted to move on — even though John hadn’t gotten to his original point yet. So much can be said for civility and humility, and it seems to have very little to do with one’s actual stance on a matter at hand.
Todd,
Now that I’ve read your last comment to Brian, don’t bother responding to me in any way. That’s the kind of immature, “If I don’t get my way, I’ll kick & scream” response I expect from the Dubya you seem to adulate, not from someone I earlier called intelligent & articulate.
It also blows my mind that Todd thinks it’s still his place to come into this forum and demand that Pete provide evidence for ANYTHING. After getting busted as badly as Todd just did, he has the gall to do anything but put his tail between his legs and lay low. Todd, callers and commenters have been clear: your tactics and attitude are unappreciated.
I am not pro Bush at all. I just think of the South Park episode where the students had to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich as their mascot when I think of how he got re-elected.
The episode was an obvious representation of the ‘04 election. Both candidates sucked! I feel that the ‘08 election is shaping into the same thing.
HERE IS MY REQUEST:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE… Pete, Bryan, Joe, and Hot-Sounding-Chick-Who-Answers-Phone, there needs to be a live show the night of the election. NO HOLDS BARRED. People can call in and either rejoice or vent their frustration. Hell, since my political views are known, I wouldn’t mine being on the air getting told to “suck it” from other callers if Obama/Clinton wins (not like I am worried, heh). It could easily be co-produced and aired on Raw Dog as well.
I know you’re not pro-Bush, John. Didn’t mean to insinuate that. I don’t get the feeling you rally around anyone, and no matter how much we disagree, I’ll always respect you for that.
Hey, I am a republican that believes in Gay Marriage and a Woman’s right to choose… I am just not a normal guy.
All right chill out people. I thought this thread was about Jesse Ventura not Todd in Florida. I had never listened to conspiracy theorists but Ventura is somebody I look up to and he definitely got my attention. There are just so many details, like what EminemsRevenge pointed out, that make me uneasy.
Like I said I don’t believe 911 was an inside job but can anyone give me an irrefutable argument to dismiss Jesse’s claims ?
Hey everyone, here is something interesting. As we are discussing the airplanes on air today, someone mentioned that its cheaper to buy an new airplane rather than fix it. You can buy a plane for $181, seriously, in the US, the cheapest was $1000, thats less than a car….interesting to ponder.
Mike from Geneva, this is an open thread so we can talk about whatever, just for the record.
I think your point about the 9/11 stuff is just not that controversial anymore. I don’t believe ANY of the conspiracy theories — including the official one in the 9/11 Commission Report — but I definitely am curious about some of the questions.
The problem with the theories is that they wrap the facts around a narrative they want to push, and they ignore or distort things that aren’t convenient to their preferred version. Same goes for the official version. I don’t think Ventura has put forth any actual theories — he’s just saying there are questions that need asking. You don’t need a conspiracy theorist to know that.
Some of the changes Airlines are doing to cover Fuel prices.
http://www.delta.com/travel-agency/whats_new/policy_changes/index.jsp
Remember Cory Lidle ? I know the Yankees are not a hotbed for Islamic radicals but how easy would it be for a terrorist to get a Cessna and fly the way I do in flight simulator (meaning crash) ???
hey, speaking of how stretched our troops are for this war, I read today from the paper (via cell phone) that Powell said we have over 140,000 troop in Iraq, and 25,000 in Afganistan.
Approximately 1,426,713 soldiers are serving active duty and an additional 1,259,000 in the reserve componant. So we have roughly 10% of our military in Iraq alone. In addition to those numbers, don’t forget we have many soldiers on tour in other countries, such as South Korea, Germany, Kuwait, etc.
Also, on another front we have a record high of suicide attempts for soldiers.
Via military.com:
As many as 121 troops committed suicide in 2007, an increase of some 20 percent over 2006, according to preliminary figures released in January.
If all are confirmed that would be more than double the 52 reported in 2001, before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks prompted the Bush administration to launch the war in Afghanistan.
America’s Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
American Revolution (1775–1783)
Total servicemembers 217,000
Battle deaths 4,435
Nonmortal woundings 6,188
War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Total servicemembers 286,730
Battle deaths 2,260
Nonmortal woundings 4,505
Indian Wars (approx. 1817–1898)
Total servicemembers 106,0001
Battle deaths 1,0001
Mexican War (1846–1848)
Total servicemembers 78,718
Battle deaths 1,733
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 11,550
Nonmortal woundings 4,152
Civil War (1861–1865)
Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union) 140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881
Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown
Spanish-American War (1898–1902)
Total servicemembers 306,760
Battle deaths 385
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061
Nonmortal woundings 1,662
World War I (1917–1918)3
Total servicemembers 4,734,991
Battle deaths 53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114
Nonmortal woundings 204,002
Living veterans fewer than 251
World War II (1940–1945)3
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846
Living veterans 3,242,0001
Korean War (1950–1953)
Total servicemembers 5,720,000
Serving in-theater 1,789,000
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,833
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,672
Nonmortal woundings 103,284
Living veterans 3,086,4001
Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Total servicemembers 8,744,000
Serving in-theater 3,403,000
Battle deaths 47,424
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,785
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000
Nonmortal woundings 153,303
Living veterans 7,286,5001
Gulf War (1990–1991)
Total servicemembers 2,225,000
Serving in-theater 665,476
Battle deaths 147
Other deaths in service (theater) 382
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565
Nonmortal woundings 467
Living veterans 1,852,0001
America’s Wars Total
Military service during war 43,185,893
Battle deaths 653,708
Other deaths in service (theater) 14,560
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,930
Nonmortal woundings 1,447,281
Living war veterans 17,835,0004
Living veterans 23,976,000
Global War on Terror (as of Sept. 30, 2006)5
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide) 1,384,968
Deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan 165,000
Battle Deaths 2,333
Other Deaths (In Theater) 707
Non-mortal Woundings 21,649
Living Veterans 588,923
That is crazy. Also, we have people shooting themselves to try to get out of the war. (I know of a Sargent (not sure if thats his actual class) who had one of his soldiers have a friend shoot him and claim that they were shot by a sniper to try to get home. Not only are we straining by simple number, but also by emotional standards.
Sorry about that Brian. It IS an open thread :/
I don’t think Ventura was just speculating and being curious. You don’t go on national television and talk about “never before has kerosene melted steel” unless you have something in mind.
Mike,
Re. Lidle and getting in a plane. The answer is more difficult than before 9/11, but not impossible. Getting said plane in a highly populated area could be described as fairly difficult and in a rural area only moderately difficult. The things is, even if you could get your hands on a high end private jet, you would not do enough damage to to recreate the level of damage of 9/11.
I remember talk around the time that the towers were designed to withstand a crash from a 737 (757s crashed into the towers). I believe it was a claim made by the architects of the towers.
Todd, yesterday you responded rather civilly to my criticism and today you offend me with your vulgar and immature responses. While I don’t wish to interfere with anyone’s freedom of speech, I do wish ALL bloggers would consider who is reading and participating in this blog and be a bit more respectful of others.
Also, it is so refreshing to read comments from the newer bloggers instead of the same “I am right, you are wrong” rhetoric of those who wish to dominate this blog with continuous comments. Don’t let the nonsense of some keep you from joining the blog. And, Todd (sorry about the bashing here but you brought it upon yourself), as I listen to the show I hear many callers complaining about your calls and comments. You need to come out of denial and realize that you are creating a great amount of animosity toward yourself (maybe that’s your goal) and making yourself look ridiculous. I give Pete a lot of credit for accepting your calls and Brian credit for not blocking you from the blog when clearly, many listeners are opposed to allowing you those opportunities. It’s okay to disagree with the views of others; we need people from all perspectives, but as John said, if you want people to support you, you need a different approach. Give it a shot. Your “Pete doesn’t like me” business yesterday was way out of line and truly immature. If you don’t change your attitude NOONE is going to like you. We all need to be liked.
Mary,
Your son called me a liar and both your sons interrupted and talked over me. He’s been insinuating I’m a liar since I started posting here!
Now, I told him he could suck my balls in the spirit of South Park. How else to respond to the (very typical leftist) tactic of character assassination?
As for “Pete doesn’t like me” yesterday, he did say that. When I challenged him he told me nobody liked me. So I was playing along.
John,
See my comments above. I’m not TRYING to be douche, I just get seriously pissed when I’m called a liar by a mean little man who sneers his way through arguments. Look at our early exchanges on media bias. This jerk knows nothing about statistical regression, but smugly claims a serious academic work has been rebutted by an left-wing, pro-Clinton outfit like Media Matters!
Both Pete and Brian cut me off on several occasions and when I tried to make the point about the left in general and Brian and Pete in particular calling Bush a liar (or misleader or whatever), we ran up against a break and I was left hanging.
I’m going to take Brian to court and get a judge to order him to suck my balls.
I don’t know what tactics you refer. Defending myself against your bullshit tactics? You do know hurling accusations such as ‘you are a liar’ straight off the bat is a classic leftist tactic?
It is clear you a quite familiar with Alinsky’s rules for radicals:
Enough, Todd. Are you never going to see the light? I’m not even referring to your political arguments, but rather the way you go about expressing your views. I will ask you again to be respectful of others. Your vulgarity is totally unnecessary and unbecoming. Stop complaining about being interrupted during your call. That’s the pot calling the kettle black for sure. People are sick of hearing your whining and you interrupt as much as they do. Pete interrupts everyone so don’t feel “special” that way. If he didn’t interrupt you we would all have to listen to your ranting way too long and it has become so tiresome. I taught 4th and 5th graders how to be respectful and considerate. It seems you could use a lesson in the same. I’m done begging you. I’m sure if you continue in this manner I won’t be the only one to skip over anything you have to say.
I think Todd now lives to be the leading antagonist on this board and on the show. You are claiming to use television quotes here. I may know the TV show ‘South Park’, but many don’t. So, why don’t you take a lesson from every speech/comedy writers book and not only make the subject matter relevant but also so your audience can understand it.
In the case where you claim to seek a court order for Bryan to taste your obviously-shrivled rocky mountain oysters, maybe one in twenty knew where that line came from. Again, you find a way to further make yourself utterly douchlicious.
At this point, I want to honestly not ever be compared to you… thoughts, beliefs, etc. Bryan, I know you had your heart in a good place, but I have absolutely no desire to be shown as the good dissenter that Todd should strive to be. Let’s let everyone else who listens decide for themselves what is appropriate any more. We obviously heard from 2:28 until about 3:00pm what people think.
I’ve eaten mountain oysters…tastes like a really, really tender chicken-fry.
Does anyone else have a boner???
Yes, Todd, calling people a liar is a leftist tactic. Conservatives never do it. Oh, how you have exposed me. Character assassination is also a leftist thing; no conservatives have ever done it. You, of course, never posted a link here to the ultimate character-assassination website, DiscoverTheNetwork, which draws implied “connections” between American liberals like Al Sharpton and Al-Qaeda members. You are so far above the fray, Todd.
You have no character to assassinate, Todd, so I wouldn’t know where to start.
Brian; doesn’t one have to HAVE character, before it can be asassinated???
Really, any tactic that works can be considered the tactic of the people you oppose, and therefore automatically evil and disingenuous. It’s a fairly lame and transparent attempt to defuse a debate you’re losing.
Todd, I’ve told you times too numerous to mention that it isn’t your point that people have an issue with as much as the way you make your point. The sanctimony in your delivery and you’re almost automatic dismissiveness of any differing opinion is really off putting. Rather than tell people what you Know, you might try telling people what you think about what you’ve heard or what you believe. Then we can talk about it.
When you say “This is how things are and anybody who says dif