mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

June 28, 2005

Right Beliefs

Filed under: Politics — mlah @ 11:53 pm

Kristin Madpony

if y’all don’t read tony pierce from time to time, you need to head over and check him out. not only does he present ‘the other side’ of the political spectrum (for me) in an intelligent series of arguments, but he usually dresses his posts with pictures of hot chicas.

and i do like the ladies.

he recently wrote a post in which he expressed more than a little dismay at the refusal of conservatives to accept the truth (as liberals see it). you can check out this post here

i want to try and make a few points for him. try to shed a little light on the conservative mindset for him. i’m not trying to flame him. i just had too much to say in the comment section of his blog, and who the hell am i kidding? i’m a comment whore, and the prospect of having skads of liberals *express* their disagreement here. well, i’m looking forward to it.

tony expresses the desire to write a book. good on him. i’ll probably buy it same as i did his most recent effort. i bought a hoodie too, but the neck hole was too small for my giant cranium, and i gave it away. he has some reservations about his upcoming book because part of his subject matter will be conservative bloggers. and he just doesn’t understand us. he lists a few specific points. i will try to elaborate on these for him.

we claim the media is liberal without sarcasm.

yes tony, it is true. we really do believe the media is leftist. you cite (apparently) moonbats from berkely as leftists and claim to have never seen them in a tv studio. are you claiming that is evidence the media is not left? then you claim that you desire an unbiased tv station that will out politicians of both parties. you then give examples. your examples are karl rove, and then abc news for not decrying karl rove’s antics. liberal. content. only! and maybe you are and you are confortable with that. and your blog is of course yours. but that is exactly what we SEE on the networks. all day, everyday. think about it, who was karl roves counterpart in the clinton administration? do you know his name? does anyone? did he get the same press rove did? i’ve never seen anything printed about rove but conspiracy theories.

3 schoolgirls at Halloween

U.S. admission we have tortured in gtmo, afghanistan, and iraq

no tony, i still don’t believe it. first off, the links are to press articles from an unnamed u.n. source. let him come out of the shadows first. we have some direct questions to ask him.

and we all know how reliable the u.n. is.

such as. what specifically did we admit to? and please don’t say torture. therein lies the nature of the rub. what one person calls torture, another may not. so we have to have a common definition. and most recently, various groups like AI have been trying to expand the definition to include previous things NOT listed as torture.

in example. yes, the u.s. has admitted to playing christina aguilera songs to detainees. as much as some people would like to list her music as torture, there has never been an international agreement citing music as torture. yes, the u.s. has admitted to providing internees with ac. bastards that we are. it is NOT torture. food? fuck their food. they eat better than you and i. yes, we have admitted to providing internees with clean sheets, clothes, and working toilets. not torture either. so tony, the difference, the basic reason for the gulf between us on torture rests on the fact that we do not perceive the same things as torture. the shit that detainees are exposed to is not enough in my mind. we’re not even close to the line.

i claim the u.n. rep is citing activity i would not deem as torture, and that the u.s. report he is citing as admission does not regard the activity it lists as torture. let’s see the report.

the detainees in gtmo should get trials

Jenny Lund

i’m laughing at this. again it is a difference of perception. the detainees at gtmo were not arrested as criminals, who are entitled to trials and attorneys and even to appeals if need be. the yahoos in gtmo were captured on the battlefield as soldiers. our conduct towards them is clearly delineated by the genf conventions. it includes the climates they may be deatined in (seriously), food, and the square footage of their cells. it never says anything about attorneys or trials. therefore they are not entitled to them. it may be a difficult concept for you to grasp. but we really believe they are NOT entitled to them. the alternative is that they were rebels. and rebels may be treated by whatever laws apply in the country they are rebeling against. how do you think the afghanis would treat rebels? either group, taliban or northern alliance?

the detainees should be kept. in gtmo. until the governing body of alqaeda steps forward, negotiates a peace treaty with us (osama declared war on us in ’92 i believe). when negotiations are concluded we have to repatriate their captured soldiers.

tony, we really do read the treaty, understand it and follow it. they are combatants. not criminals. they are not entitled to trials.

we launched this war because of wmds and failed to find them!

two points about wmds in iraq.

1. yes, it is true we have failed to find the anthrax, plutonium, or sarin. but we did find shit-tons of pesticide. the eu and the un dismissed the pesticide as agricultural only. right, enough for something like 200 years of agriculture! and there are more than a couple of jews who can tell you about the effectiveness of pesticde on people. ever heard of zyklon b?

2. we invaded because of wmds? didn’t colin powell cite 17 reasons before the un genreal assembly? the liberal media hypes the wmds because it is the one single nugget they have. violations of our peace treaty? check. manufacture and development of ballistic missiles with a range greater than 75km? check. expulsion of weapons inspectors? check. illegal oil transactions? check. (and don’t get me started on the bribes saddam was paying to the security council members voting against us)

in the end, assuming the left continues to suspend belief. to hide their heads in the sands of iraq, and refuses to accept the oversupply of pesticides as the chemicals weapons they are, well then, on that one single case, we were hoodwinked by saddam on the issue of wmds. but not only us. putin told bush days before combat commenced that the russian nkvd knew iraq had wmds. jordan and egypt told colin powell the same thing. the brits had the same belief. so did the french. wow. and you expect us to condemn the war as unjust because there weren’t any wmds?

not a chance.

and tony, the people you think are painting the fence white, only because it is their job to paint the fence white….. well, we think the people who are painting the fence black, they are only doing it because they like to paint the fence black, not because there are actually any blemishes that need to be covered.

that is the crux of your misunderstanding. we see the same marks and spots on the fence you do. we just accept them as normal weathering.

i would prefer the same shade of behr cedar stain i used on my fence.


  1. mlah,

    i appreciate your great comments and the way you framed how you approach this subject. i will give you the same respect in my blog with my rebutal.

    again I really liked this post and perhaps I will interview you in my book instead of the ones that drive me crazy.

    this post has given me hope.

    Comment by tony — June 29, 2005 @ 1:56 am

  2. Awww… see? We can all get along! Hear that Gus?? We can have *mutual respect* for each other and our different opinions! Wow. I like this Tony guy. Good luck on your book man.

    Comment by medium john — June 29, 2005 @ 9:18 am

  3. Let’s add to the list China trading missiles for oil with Saddam…I’m sure that wasn’t some humanitarian effort.

    It’s easy to understand us conservatives!

    Comment by Mdm Butterfly — June 29, 2005 @ 9:32 am

  4. as a liberal American, let me envelop you in the crushing grip of reason:

    FUCK YOU, you fascist fuck. Stop ruining my country.


    Comment by police and thieves — June 29, 2005 @ 6:50 pm

  5. ah, just as we were beginning to get along…

    Comment by medium john — June 29, 2005 @ 10:08 pm

  6. wow, his reason IS clear. it’s so obvious who is the fuck.

    Comment by mlah — June 29, 2005 @ 10:15 pm

  7. Mlah on liberal media– “that is exactly what we SEE on the networks. all day, everyday”
    Bullfuckingcrap. Most of the media is straight news: who, what, where, when, and sometimes why. Appreciable political slants are rare in the vast majority of outlets, the vast majority of the time. You’re not being credible with this ridiculous, hysterical exaggeration. Will you admit that you may have mispoken? It’s obvious to everyone. But you won’t, because that’s the kind of thing you (and this administration) rely on– just keep repeating what you want people to believe and many dumb clucks will eventually accept it without giving it any thought whatsoever.

    “and we all know how reliable the u.n. is.”
    Yeah, the UN is pretty fucking reliable. It employs 61,000 people worldwide, successfully providing humanitarian and develpment assistance (at the risk of repeating myself) the vast majority of the time. But by all means keep slagging it because Bushco can’t stand not having it under its thumb. Remember when it was found that the US was bugging diplomats’ offices before the Iraq war. What the hell was that? Now we’re considering not paying our dues again. Yeah, a few folks will get nailed for the oil-for-food thing. But you can’t just write the rest of it off, ya big baby. What is so outlandish about that article and a “UN source”? It seems totally straight-forward and I don’t recall Team W denying it. It also says: “Scores of US military personnel have been investigated, and several tried and convicted, for abuse of people detained during the US-led campaign against Islamic terrorist groups.” Why is that so hard to believe. I’m sure it’s verifiable, too. We know our guys killed some detainees in Afghanistan, haven’t you heard that yet? Maybe some of the stuff is a matter of one’s definition of “torture”, but not the dead detainees! It doesn’t take an America-hater to doubt that each and every low-level service member did the right thing at every moment, esp. in the early days of Afghanistan.

    “the yahoos in gtmo were captured on the battlefield as soldiers”
    Then why aren’t they considered POW’s? Even the US Army’s interrogation Field Manual FM 34-52 of 1992 states that “Captured insurgents and other detained personnel whose status is not clear, such as suspected terrorists, are entitled to [Prisoner of War] protection until their precise status has been determined by competent authority.

    Pesticide, ooh scary! And did Saddam ever hurt anyone with pesticide? That’s quite the reach to call that WMD. No harm, no foul– sorry, bucko. And you’ve never given me a good reason for the RUSH to invade, like we had to pee really, *really* bad, we just couldn’t hold it in anymore and let UNMOVIC do its job. Hmm, could it have been because we just wanted to invade anyway and that we knew no one would find any WMD? That’s what I have to assume. It was never about WMD. It was never about gassing the Kurds, that happened with gas they bought from US manufacturers and Rumsfeld went to see Saddam to give him a little tut-tut and that was the end of that, since they were fighting Iran (our enemy at the time).

    You don’t listen. You don’t learn. You shut your eyes and close your mind to reality.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — June 30, 2005 @ 1:16 am

  8. will i admit i have mispoken? if i had mispoken, i would, but i have not. i meant it, and i stand by it. the media is so extremely slanted to the left that i’m surprised my tv doesn’t fall over. we do not get the straight news, we get the news as the news casters see fit.

    the un. you forgot to mention that is full of pedofiles. and you also forgot to mention that they fail at the majority of their peacekeeping missions, unless we take the lead. i cite the balkans. total mess, til we went in. at least it is a non shooting mess now.

    what is so outlandish about a un source? they have an interest in seeing the us fail, so i do not believe them. if they wanted to be credible, they would release the document citing the torture for examination in the light of day. they haven’t and won’t because they can’t. eventually, the liar/slanderer will be brought to light and forced to resign for his lies and slander.

    bugging diplomats offices is called espionage. we do it. it’s called the cia, ass. what do you think they do?

    being treated as a pow requires a country to claim you as their army.

    pesticide ooh scary! i know of about 6 million jews who would beg to differ with you there genious!

    that 10 year rush to war? there was no rush

    there was no torture. even you admitted in your comment that any ‘citations’ of torture were events in which a servicemember acted inappropriately, not the state sponsored whipping and electrodes to the testicles you crave so badly.

    the war was not launched because of wmds. even you admit it!

    but you will refuse to admit any of this because that is what you and your kind do. just keep repeating what you want people to believe and many dumb clucks will eventually accept it without giving it any thought whatsoever. you are the party of fear. do what we say, or those bad guys will use the patriot act to come and get you! and your little dog too!

    you. just. never. learn!

    Comment by mlah — June 30, 2005 @ 7:44 pm

  9. Just got back from lunch of fresh calimari overlooking the beach and critiquing beach attire (for example, why must European men wear those deamned speedos? and holy crap look at that woman’s bikini!). Gosh, life in the Med is sooooo terrible. Anyway, figured I’d check up on my old pal Mlah. Still poking hornets nests with sticks, I see.

    So Mlah asks who Carl Rove’s counterpart under the Clinton administration was. I believe in his first term, it was George Stephanopolis? The same one who is now an “unbiased” political reportrer and analyst for the major networks? Who gives us the political news of the day and tells us what it all means, that guy?

    Any questions?

    Comment by yup — July 1, 2005 @ 9:52 am

  10. “the media is so extremely slanted to the left that i’m surprised my tv doesn’t fall over”
    Fine, be that way. I opened up the front page of the Washington Post online just now to test your hypothesis. “O’Connor to Retire…” “Hunt Goes on for Missing Troops” “Papers Shredded Before Search: Federal agents searched the homes of Rep. Randy Cunningham and a Washington businessman” “A Chapter of Vietnam Closes: The war’s last enlisted active-duty Marine prepares for his return to civilian duty” “Parliament Votes Out Coalition: Schroeder pleads to dissolve his government”. Eeeuw, the partisan stench! Seems pretty damn factual to me.
    There are certainly editorial pages and opinion columnists, but they are not to be confused with reporters. I always thought my local paper was on the liberal side because it chose certain stories that appealed to its readers in a fairly liberal town. But then its editor decided to endorse Bush for this past election, which pissed off a lot of people. Moral of the story: most media don’t have opinions so much as a bottomless need for eyeballs (a/k/a The Bottom Line).
    George Stephanolpolous’s bias is no secret, nor are the biases of many people on shows. But they are NOT called reporters, who are obviously the bread-and-butter of any news-gathering organization.

    Comment by f'in-cheney — July 1, 2005 @ 11:43 pm

  11. While we’re talking like this, the blog you link to In DC made a fabulous post along the same lines:

    Comment by f-in_cheney — July 2, 2005 @ 8:24 pm

  12. I don’t have an opinion worthy of more than one or two paragraphs. However I must agree with f-ing cheney in that I have never found the media as it is available to me as being biased to the left or right. I watch CNN and CTVNews Net up here and all I see is the media lunging at any story that will get viewers so they can say things like “You saw it here first” or “A CNN exclusive”. I’m also tired of hearing about missing rich white chicks. It’s sad but DAMNIT! I’m sure there are tons of people missing… why the hell don’t we have a Missing People channel if it makes for such good ratings?

    Comment by Sean!!! — July 3, 2005 @ 4:11 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress