Michael Moore came to town

30 Sep

And all the College Republicans could settle on doing about it was to wear some lousy t-shirt.

I think this group of paragraphs is absolutely precious:

Leading up to the speech, UB’s chapter of the College Republicans contemplated mounting a protest outside the event but later decided against it, citing respect for the institution and a distaste for the act of protesting itself.

“It’s absolutely absurd that they would bring somebody like Michael Moore,” said Brad Latone, president of the UB College Republicans and a junior political science major. “His movies aren’t factually based, he doesn’t always tell the truth in his movies, and I just don’t think it’s the right person to bring to a distinguished speakers series.”

In preparation for Moore’s appearance, students had planned to dress up a classmate as Moore and embark on a guerrilla “mockumentary” crusade across campus. But the plan was reduced to a T-shirt with the phrase “Liberal Fascist” and a crude caricature of Moore wearing an undersized T-shirt bearing the slogan “No Fat Chicks.”

It doesn’t get more Pythonesque than that. Really, this could be in the Onion.

UPDATE: The article isn’t worded quite that well, but it appears that the college Republicans weren’t the ones who thought of the stunts & t-shirts. It was just “students”.

Advertisements

113 Responses to “Michael Moore came to town”

  1. hank kaczmarek September 30, 2007 at 11:10 am #

    Time spent listening to Michael Moore is time you can’t get back.

    Under Hillary’s Socialized medicine he wants so bad, the Government would have him on 1000 calories a day, and walking 5 miles a day, and if he ate a snickers he’d be in jail.

    Just a liberal rabble-rouser, if you will not much different than Ann Coulter, just that Moore’s much fatter, uglier, and says what comes to his mind to say, truth or lie.

  2. Eric September 30, 2007 at 2:02 pm #

    Hank:

    Please tell me how fat Michael Moore is because in every pathetic Republican argument against him, I never heard about his weight…
    /sarcasm

  3. Tatonka September 30, 2007 at 4:45 pm #

    Facts aren’t a big concern to Hank.

  4. Robert Harding September 30, 2007 at 5:25 pm #

    Glad to see the UB College Republicans are already training to be the future fearmongerers and bearers of truth in this country.

    When I saw that Michael Moore was coming to UB, I actually was going to go. I’m going to attend Ishmael Baeh’s appearance and Steven Levitt’s as well. But I forgot to buy my tickets.

    Only those who are close minded would do something like that (protest Moore’s appearance). Has he taken us to war? Has he created our health care woes? Did he ignore the signs that 9/11 was going to happen? No. He’s just addressed those issues in his films.

    But this is just another case of the GOP’s hacks saying that because they don’t agree with what Moore says, Moore should shut his mouth.

    Sorry, this is STILL the U.S. And you’re still Republicans…

  5. Robert Harding September 30, 2007 at 5:34 pm #

    “Time spent listening to Michael Moore is time you can’t get back.”

    Oh Hank, how I miss debating you… What do you think of Rush calling our finest men and women who might disagree with the war effort “phony soldiers?” After all, we only hear from Michael Moore whenever he has a movie coming out. But we get Rush on the airwaves in his drug-induced state five days a week.

    “Under Hillary’s Socialized medicine he wants so bad, the Government would have him on 1000 calories a day, and walking 5 miles a day, and if he ate a snickers he’d be in jail.”

    Of course, this isn’t true. And what is socialized medicine exactly? Why is it okay for government officials to receive taxpayer-sponsored health insurance but not our country’s citizens? And don’t say that they don’t.

    My county, Orleans, pays full health insurance benefits to three of our legislators. It costs about $34,000 every year to pay for these three to have health insurance. Not a single dime of that is taken out of their $11,287 salary every year. So we pay them a salary and we cover their health care. Most people I know (at least in private enterprise) has their health insurance deducted from their paycheck.

    “Just a liberal rabble-rouser, if you will not much different than Ann Coulter, just that Moore’s much fatter, uglier, and says what comes to his mind to say, truth or lie.”

    As a heterosexual male, I would much rather have sex with Michael Moore than Ann Coulter. There really isn’t much to distinguish. Both are men anyway… aren’t they?

  6. Tom September 30, 2007 at 5:45 pm #

    Any barcoded republican clones who voted for W the second time isn’t allowed to have political opinion anymore. You’re all banished. (I should probably mention I’m not a Democrat)

  7. Tom September 30, 2007 at 5:46 pm #

    *typo: aren’t*

  8. Size Nine September 30, 2007 at 7:51 pm #

    “Precious” is absolutely the best way to describe those timid little college Republicans. If they’d gone ahead with the Moore costume and mockumentary, he’d have enjoyed the stunt as much as everyone else and they would probably have a YouTube hit.

    I can’t wait for them to grow up and _not_ protest Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage, single-payer health care, and Keynesian economics.

  9. Mike In WNY September 30, 2007 at 8:01 pm #

    I don’t subscribe to mainstream Republican or Democratic ideology. I will say that Michael Moore’s movies and positions are nothing but Utopian ideals with no chance of ever delivering what is promised.

    John Stossel, on 20/20, blew away Moore’s slanted, obtuse and incorrect views about health care.

  10. Kevin Pritchard September 30, 2007 at 9:26 pm #

    I know, shame on those punks for not being obnoxious, dipshit assholes.

    If only they could be more like the cool kids from MoveOn.

  11. Kevin Pritchard September 30, 2007 at 9:36 pm #

    BP’s article if the kids had protested:

    “UB’s college Republican’s followed in the footsteps of their fascist leader George Bush’s footsteps last night, attempting to shout down the controversial left-wing activist Michael Moore.”

    Obligatory sarcasm such as: “And Democrats are accused of stifling free speech?” Or “Like there aren’t any fat Republicans?”

    Yes, yes. Thanks for putting words in my mouth and yadda yadda yadda. I hear you.

  12. dougk September 30, 2007 at 9:57 pm #

    moore’s an obese, ostentatious, poster boy for birth control

    i’m listen to his fat-ass opine on health care…when pigs fly out of my butt!

  13. Robert Harding September 30, 2007 at 10:02 pm #

    “I don’t subscribe to mainstream Republican or Democratic ideology. I will say that Michael Moore’s movies and positions are nothing but Utopian ideals with no chance of ever delivering what is promised.”

    Utopian? I think not. They are simply documentaries. They aren’t policies. You make it sound like he should be presenting some new theory or ideal. He’s a filmmaker. He investigates, films and displays his movie. That’s all he is.

    “John Stossel, on 20/20, blew away Moore’s slanted, obtuse and incorrect views about health care.”

    Of course a Stossel cheerleader would say such a thing. Stossel has said that the health care system is a “mess,” but there’s “a lot that’s great about it too.” If it’s a mess, how can there be “a lot” that’s so good about it? Our health care costs are tops in the world, but our quality of care is 37th. That’s a HUGE problem.

    That’s like paying $30,000 for a car with no engine, wheels or seats. You’re doling out the cash, but getting very little in return. If we have the most expensive health care in the world, we should have the greatest health care system in the world. That is not the case.

  14. jack fate September 30, 2007 at 10:41 pm #

    Leading up to the speech, UB’s chapter of the College Republicans contemplated mounting a protest outside the event but later decided against it, citing respect for the institution and a distaste for the act of protesting itself.

    them are sum tough sum-bitches right thar. though free speech and dissent haven’t been hallmarks of right-wing ideology for a long time.

  15. mike hudson September 30, 2007 at 11:52 pm #

    seems these same college republican weenies now afraid to protest are also afraid to go to iraq, where their fearless leader thinks all patriotic young americans who aren’t related to him or his friends by blood should go. and hearing right-wingers prattle on about michael moore’s weight, which is about the same as that of rush “i had a pimple on my ass so i couldn’t go to vietnam” limbaugh’s head is always good for a laugh.

  16. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 5:56 am #

    So staging a protest – i.e. exercising your free speech rights – equals “being obnoxious, dipshit assholes”? Pfft.

  17. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 6:58 am #

    Perhaps if they’d rushed the stage and thrown food like some have done to Coulter, then they;d get a little respect. Or may just charge the stage en masse like Columbia “Freedom of Speech” University did to Jim Gilchrist? Would that make them cool?

    The irony of calling those that disagree with Moore closed minded is staggering. “You don’t think like me, therefore your mind is closed” You really can’t get more closed minded than that.

    “What do you think of Rush calling our finest men and women who might disagree with the war effort “phony soldiers?” Are you serious? I’m not a big fan of Rush, but try googling Jesse Macbeth. Limbaugh was not talking about legitimate soldiers who oppose the war on rational grounds (as, for example the half dozen senior NCOs from the 82nd Airborne who got their anti war op-ed published in the NYT), but this laundry list of deserters, liars and criminals who ran out or never served but get propped up by the MoveOn/ANSWER crowd.

    Next you’ll be telling me you’re convinced that Bush thinks Saddam killed Mandela.

    When you take money from person A to provide a government run benefit to person B, that benefit is socialized. Hillary can put whatever lipstick she wants on that pig, but it does not change. Arguing that since a NY politico gets it for free from the government is not exactly best yardstick to use for expanding that benefit.

  18. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 7:11 am #

    Hello? If you read the story, the CRs “contemplated mounting a protest outside the event“. It doesn’t say “shouting Moore down”, throwing food at him or anything like that. It says that they decided not to hold a protest outside the event, “citing distaste for the act of protesting itself” (and “respect for the institution”). So they went with the “Liberal Fascist”/”No fat chicks” T-shirt instead.

    As for Limbaugh, if you read the transcript, you can see that the “phony soldiers” comment was made during a conversation about politicians and soldiers opposed to the war. Limbaugh only brought up Jesse Macbeth later in the show. If you want to believe his explanation, go ahead – I sure don’t.

  19. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 7:51 am #

    Also, you refer to “this laundry list of deserters, liars and criminals who ran out or never served but get propped up by the MoveOn . . . crowd.”

    AFAIK, Macbeth was not promoted by moveon.org. (I know nothing about “ANSWER”.) Since there’s supposedly a “laundry list of deserters, liars and criminals” who’ve been propped up my moveon.org, can you identify a few of them?

  20. mike hudson October 1, 2007 at 8:20 am #

    mandela’s dead?

  21. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 8:44 am #

    Kevin, I’m sorta surprised.

    If the kids had protested, I probably wouldn’t have posted anything at all about it. What was so funny about it was their hemming and hawing about what was politically correct for them as young Republicans to do. The idea that a demonstration is something they’re fundamentally against is sad – if they want to demonstrate, then they should, provided it’s not being disruptive to the event itself – a type of protesting I’ve never, ever condoned.

    Plus, I don’t think Bush is fascist. I think he’s an imbecile.

  22. Haterade October 1, 2007 at 9:02 am #

    Being called “fat” by Hank is like being called a chickenhawk by Dubbya (or in the interest of fairness – a drunk by Ted Kennedy).

    Anyway … as physically repulsive as Moore may be ….. Coulter is still worse, hands down.

  23. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 9:07 am #

    Hello Tatonka. Long time no argue-all is well I hope.

    First, you asked:
    “Hello? If you read the story, the CRs “contemplated mounting a protest outside the event“. It doesn’t say “shouting Moore down”, throwing food at him or anything like that”

    Which is exactly my point. They didn’t shout him down or throw food or harrangue those that wanted to hear him speak. What kind of quisling fascists are these young Republicans, anyway?!?! Why, they’re so closed minded that they won’t even interfere with someone they disagree with!!! My point was, that at liberal institutions it is not uncommon for those speakers that are unpopular with liberals to be shouted down, pelted with food and run off the stage by a subset of those same, oh-so-tolerant liberals. Coulter and Gilchrist were simply two examples of that, and the Gilchrist example is particularly telling because he was physically assaulted and run off the stage at the same institution that welcomed Ahmendinijad.

    Protestors are annoying-I did it once and felt all dirty afterwards.

    Then, the Rush Limbaugh transcript

    Snipped from Media Matters:

    “CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

    LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

    CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.

    LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined —

    CALLER 2: A lot of them — the new kids, yeah.

    LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

    CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.”

    Now the very next exchange, which MM decided was not worth including in their copy of the transcript:

    RUSH: The phony soldiers.

    CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

    RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

    CALLER: A lot of people.

    RUSH: You know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

    CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I’ve done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they’re using in their IEDs. They’re using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn’t know what they were using, they didn’t do it right, and so it didn’t really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It’s a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we’re never going to find it.

    RUSH: Well, that’s a moot point for me right now.

    CALLER: Right.
    RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We’re there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that’s moot. What’s more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It’s frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

    Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a “corporal.” I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn’t his Purple Heart; it wasn’t his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: “We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.”

    Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn’t an Army Ranger, never was. He isn’t a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven’t even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven’t heard much about it. This doesn’t fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don’t look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth’s lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can’t find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
    END TRANSCRIPT”

    I made sure to copy both transcripts to capture the overlap. It’s pretty clear what Rush meant when you read the whole thing. Of course, MM is a leftist organization and isn’t going to try and portray this as it actually was, but rather to ensure that the left gets its own “Betrayus” moment of indignation.

    Now to the laundry list, but first this disclaimer: There are a large number of anti-war groups of various sizes and I can’t keep them all straight. Things that I have attributed to MoveON and ANSWER may very well have come from any one of the other groups like Vote Vets, Code Pink, and the others. I don’t have the time to match each deserter/liar to their respective organizations, and for that I apologize. What follows is a list of folks that have been held up by some faction of the left as heroes for their lies or desertion.

    Of course, the top ouf our list is Jesse MacBeth, followed closely by veteran fabricator Scott Beauchamp.

    http://codepink4peace.org/article.php?list=type&type=152

    has codepink supporting desertion in general, and anti-war poster child Ehren Watada.

    Pablo Paredes (being touted by not in our name as a hero here:http://www.notinourname.net/troops/pablo-paredes.htm)

    Jeremy Hinzman: Deserter, lionized by this individual as a hero: http://www.duckdaotsu.org/070704-hinzman.html

    Jimmy Massey, anhother liar who falsely accused fellow Marines of fictitious atrocities: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={F8F5C135-409F-4623-A2DC-F6F87F3BDE22}

    Amorita Randall, who claimed she was blown up and raped in Iraq never actually went to Iraq: http://www.regrettheerror.com/2007/03/source_deludes_.html

    So, yes there is a laundry list of fakes and deserterws held up by the anti-war movement, and it is these individuals that Rush was refering to.

    Back to you, T

  24. hank kaczmarek October 1, 2007 at 9:10 am #

    Robert- There’s a difference between REPORTING news and MAKING news. The latter is all you see today. Documentaries are supposed to be reports on historical events, not picking your topic (anything to make the Republicans and/ or Bush look bad), then going out to find the evidence. That would be classified (if every moore movie wasn’t some kind of witch hunt) as an investigatve report, NOT A DOCUMENTARY.
    People who make Documentaries, like Ken Burns, Study their subject deeply, then make an unbiased study of the facts they find.
    Moore is just a rabble rouser, picking subjects that he thinks makes the people who hold the opposite political opinion HE does, and twisting any factoid or lietoid into supporting his argument. He doesn’t report history. He makes it up as he goes along.

    That’s shoddy journalism, if indeed journalism it can be called. He’s just a political troll with a movie camera. And you should know better.

    Do you think that this REAL Fat F**K, ( I would drown in his clothes) didn’t hurt the party by being showcased at the 2004 Democratic Convention? Well, did Kerry win or not? There’s your answer.

  25. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 9:11 am #

    Mike,

    Mandela’s not dead. In a recent speech, Bush was talking about Iraq, and made a comment to the effect that Iraq does not have it’s own Mandela, becasue Saddam killed him. Next thing you know, many left bloggers are touting this as another example of Bush stupidity-“He thinks Saddam killed Mandela, but Mandela is still alive. Hahahaha what a jackass.”

    It’s a case of the speaker being taken out of context to make a point- a favorite trick of Malkin, Media Matters, Rush and Franken.

  26. hank kaczmarek October 1, 2007 at 9:11 am #

    BTW Robert, one should not pontificate about homosexual activity if one is not biologically pre-disposed. Makes people think oddly about you.

  27. Jon Splett October 1, 2007 at 9:18 am #

    What shocks me is that the news bothers to run a story on something that DIDNT happen. How is a bunch of students NOT doing something newsworthy? I didn’t commit any murders today because I have a distaste for the act of killing people, should we print that too?

    That being said, I’m about as close to a card carrying pinko commie as they come and I’m no fan of Moore for the reasons most republicans hate him. He bends facts, comes off as a pretentious douchebag and spouts as much bullshit rhetoric and Papa Bear or Rush do. It would be nice if the left didn’t bring itself down to that level but douchebaggery manifests itself on both sides of the spectrum. Most of Moore’s issues are relevant, but when he presents them in such an intellectually dishonest way, he does more harm then good and makes it easy discredit the cause he’s advocating.

    As for Hank being worried about Hilary’s health plan, I couldn’t agree more (but for very different reasons). If Hilary -care manifested itself we’d be just as fucked as we are now. All her plan would really do is force Americans to pay insurance companies for coverage which as far as I’m concerned, is basically a tax I’m paying to a for-profit company. Sadly, all the mainstream democratic candidates advocate cupping the insurance companies balls while the government blows them instead of pushing for a REAL single payer social health care plan. Kucinich and Gravel seem to be the only two guys with the stones to actually advocate a full overhaul of a broken system but neither has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination.

    People can scream until they’re blue in the face about how ‘awful’ social medicine would be and how the lack of coverage is ‘exagerated’. All I know is in 6 months, I’ll have a college diploma, a mountain of student loan debt breathing down my neck and a job with a starting salary well below what it would take for me to afford to buy insurance. If I get sick or injured, I’ll basically be fucked. If thinking my government, the one that keeps telling me its the ‘greatest nation in the world’, should care enough about me as a citizen to hook me up with a doctor makes me some social parasite then so be it.

    If they can come up with the coin to fight some retarded holy war in the middle east they can come up with the cash to take care of their own citizens.

  28. Russell October 1, 2007 at 9:23 am #

    I think if they were pushed for more information, you’d find out that the College Republicans are not actually opposed to protesting. I think what they detest is what protesting has come to be today. In these kids’ minds, it’s not the high-minded, civil discourse of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi. It’s not the 60’s anti-war type or the mass uprising that has brought down governements in Europe and Asia that they have a problem with. It’s the closed-minded, mob-rule antics of the anit-globalization folks or the stifling discourse actions of MoveOn.org that they do not want to be associated with.

    It’s just a sad commentary on what public discourse has been reduced to in our times.

  29. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 9:35 am #

    Regarding the College Republicans – As BP just pointed out again – it was obvious in his initial post anyway – no one is criticizing the CRs for not disrupting the event – you and Kevin Pritchard are raising a total red herring. The point is that the CRs apparently thought that a non-disruptive protest would be “distasteful”, and instead decided to make stupid T-shirts. Your (and KP’s) “logic” seems to be: the CRs should not be criticized or mocked for believing that a non-disruptive protest would be distasteful because other people have conducted disruptive protests. Huh?

    Regarding Llimbaugh – Well, as I said, if you want to believe him, go ahead. I don’t. And Media Matters DID post the entire transcript – Limbaugh is the one who edited it, to remove the stuff that came between the “phony soldiers” remark and the reference to Macbeth, so as to make them appear closer in time. See here And the “phony soldiers” remark was part of a discussion with “Caller 2” in which the supposedly “phony soldiers” were contrasted with “a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.” Sounds to me like the phony soldiers are the ones opposed to the war, whio don’t think we should be in Iraq. Again, Macbeth came up later, after the discussion of WMDs and the Iranian president.

    I’ll read the rest of your links (about truly phony soldiers) as soon as I get time.

  30. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 9:48 am #

    “the stifling discourse actions of MoveOn.org”

    Such as?

  31. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 9:56 am #

    T,

    I guess maybe I’m a bit obtuse-I really didn’t see BP’s point that way. I guess I see protesting in the fashion that Russell describes above. Generally obnoxious, mostly pointless and always useless.

    As far as Limbaugh goes, no I did not see the clipped center section. After reading it, I don’t think it changes much, it still appears to me that MacBeth was on his mind. The MM transcript I posted (from your link way above) went right to the end of what they posted. I had assumed that neither transcript had been edited for content, just truncated at different points. I guess people will see what they’re predisposed to seeing.

    Cheers

  32. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 10:08 am #

    Re Limbaugh – maybe. I guess “real soldiers [who are] proud to serve, [and] want to be over in Iraq” – again, this was the immediate context of the “phony soldiers” remark – could have been in contrast to deserters (?) rather than simply anti-war soldiers. But Macbeth wasn’t a deserter.

  33. Haterade October 1, 2007 at 10:14 am #

    I agree with LC. Bush is a brilliant speaker, and all of his alleged mis-cues are obviously taken out of context.

  34. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 10:26 am #

    I think he actually said something like “Saddam killed all the Mandelas”, and it was clear that he didn’t really think Nelson Mandela was dead. None of the lefty blogs I read tried to make hay out of this remark – let’s face it, with Bush there are many other other options – but I’ll take Scotty’s word for it that many “lefty bloggers” (whatever that means) did so.

  35. Robert Harding October 1, 2007 at 10:45 am #

    One such “phony soldier” said the following: “While our Representatives take the time to debate a partisan newspaper advertisement, no one is debating how to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its reckless course in Iraq. No one is debating how to better train our soldiers and provide them with the equipment they need to keep safe. No one is debating how we can best address the needs of our veterans when they return home.”

    That was said by Jon Powers, who put the current situation with this war in the perfect context. You have a president that’s never cared and a Congress that’s not focused.

    As for Limbaugh, anyone who listens to him is an idiot. If you’re a conservative, listen to someone else. I have listened to a whole three hour show of Limbaugh’s recently and didn’t learn a thing. All he does is spread hate around equally to everybody who isn’t on his side. When I listen to Randi Rhodes, she criticizes the other side for their views, but she doesn’t make them seem un-American for it like Limbaugh does.

  36. Robert Harding October 1, 2007 at 10:48 am #

    I heard the Mandela comment but it was so miniscule compared to his hatred for MoveOn that is slipped under the rug. It wasn’t like his “childrens” comment when discussing No Child Left Behind. Or No Childrens Left Behind, whichever.

  37. mike hudson October 1, 2007 at 10:52 am #

    l.c. scotty, if what you say about bush’s mandela remark is true, he’s even stupider than i thought. the republicans supported apartheid in south africa for many years. mandela fought in an armed struggle against it. the gop opposed every economic sanction directed against the white minority government in pretoria. so there would have been a “mandela” in iraq if saddam hadn’t killed him? one could make a far better case arguing that the “iraqi mandela” is currently busy crafting roadside bombs designed to kill american soldiers and bring down the puppet regime now in control (kind of) of his country.

  38. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 10:53 am #

    I guess maybe I’m a bit obtuse-I really didn’t see BP’s point that way. I guess I see protesting in the fashion that Russell describes above. Generally obnoxious, mostly pointless and always useless.

    Tell it to the people in Myanmar.

    Demonstrations are the purest form of democracy. In one fell swoop, you take care of two fundamental freedoms – speech and assembly.

    The obnoxiousness of any demonstration generally grows in direct proportion to one’s disagreement with the point the demonstrators are advocating.

    A picket line of placards calling Moore a liar or a fat liberal fascist liar (whatever the fuck that is) would have been just fine. Maybe even some “hey hey, ho ho, Michael Moore and his movies that take some factual liberties have go to go”.

  39. mike hudson October 1, 2007 at 10:58 am #

    and, aside from in shakespeare, the only place i ever heard of macbeth was in some moron’s overly long post above. i’d like to hear rush talk about that pimple on his anus that kept him from putting the fear of god into those godless vietnamese.

  40. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 11:26 am #

    “Moron” is untotally uncalled for, and in any case LC Scotty posted that list because I (basically) challenged him to.

  41. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 11:26 am #

    “Untotally”??? LOL. I meant “totally”, of course.

  42. Russell October 1, 2007 at 11:28 am #

    BP, as I tried pointing out in my post, there is a huge difference between protests like those in Myanmar and protesting a speech by Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. Just because something is a fundamental right of democracy does not mean that every expression of itit is fundamentally democratic. Throwing food at Ann Coulter does not rise to the same level of innocent Monks being shot in the streets for wanting basic human rights. I think the obnoxiousness is directly related to the tactics taken relative to the cause being fought for. A protest to stifle someone else’s free speech in a free and democratic society is not all that admirable. Using juvenile tactics to accomplish that is obnoxious and low-brow.

  43. Russell October 1, 2007 at 11:30 am #

    And shame on you for trying to equate Myanmar with “A picket line of placards calling Moore a liar or a fat liberal fascist liar…or some “hey hey, ho ho, Michael Moore and his movies that take some factual liberties have go to go”.”

  44. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 11:37 am #

    A concept apparently lost on the previous poster.

    And by the way, equate does not mean “mention in the same paragraph as”.

  45. Russell October 1, 2007 at 11:43 am #

    No, but the comment “Tell that to the people of Myanmar” means a little more than just mentioning in the same paragraph. No one here may be as intelligent as you, Tatonka, but that does seem to rise to the level of “equate”.

    And I think we should be calling it Burma rather than Myanmar. It was explained to me that entities that do not recognize the authority of the dictatorship still refer to it as Burma since they do not recognize the ligitimacy for them to change the name.

  46. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 11:50 am #

    Uh, no, it doesn’t. “Tell that to the people of Myanmar” was in response to LCS’ claim that protests are “mostly pointless and always useless”. Absolutely nothing in BP’s post suggests that the hypothetical (and almost certainly sarcastic) Michael Moore protests described in his post were being “equated” with the real Myanmar protests.

    Imputing a claim to someone that he didn’t in fact make, and then “shaming” him for it, is a bit obnoxious.

  47. starbuck October 1, 2007 at 11:59 am #

    Where’s any direct quote from the CR’s about “a distaste for the act of protesting itself”?

    That wording in the article was how reporter Colin Dabkowski decided to characterize their views.

    Based on his past writing, Colin is strongly anti-GWB so without a direct quote I’ve no reason to believe that’s what they said.

    It does sound like a very strange thing to say.

  48. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 12:08 pm #

    Given that several conservatives in this very thread have expressed basically the same view, it doesn’t sound strange to me.

  49. Russell October 1, 2007 at 12:09 pm #

    Tatonka, why do you have such a hard time with reality? This ranks up there with policies of 1984 effecting 1981 and your problems with Con Law I, II and III. LC Scotty’s comment, as quoted by BP, clearly states, “protesting in the fashion that Russell describes above.”

    Try again.

  50. Russell October 1, 2007 at 12:10 pm #

    And, Totanka, who has expressed bascially the same view?

  51. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 12:21 pm #

    I leave it to Russell to be the arbiter of everything I should and should not say, coupled usually with a remark about the fact that I’m running for office and what his expectations of a candidate are.

    Tatonka said it better than I could have.

    And like I said, if the college republicans had protested, it wouldn’t have even been a story. It was (if you’ll refer again to the original post) downright Pythonesque. A mockumentary would have been funny and gotten their point across. A picket would have gotten their point across.

    Wasn’t Ann Coulter invited as part of this series last year? Was she pelted with anything? Seems to me as if UB is pretty good about getting all sorts of different people to speak on campus about issues. Which is, ultimately, sort of the point of college.

    As to Myanmar / Burma – really, do I need a lecture on what to call it? Really? According to Wikipedia, the name of the country in its native language is “Myanma”. Only its name in English has changed from “Burma” to “Myanmar”.

    The Myanmar comparo was, indeed, directed to Scotty. The examples of what the Moore protesters could have done were tongue-in-cheek. But there is something to equate as between Burmese (is that ok, Russell? I just want to make sure because I don’t want to make you tear up) monks taking to the streets for democracy, and college Republicans expressing their displeasure at Michael Moore.

    While the latter is obviously more trivial than the former, they are both expressions of opinion and will, for which anyone in a democratic society should be proud and honored. When a Burmese crowd tries to take down a government, they are taking advantage of a right that has long been denied them, time and time again. Some college Republicans have nothing better to protest than the identification of a “distinguished speaker” and they find protesting distasteful, so they wear funny t-shirts. Chacun a son gout.

    I think that a lot of people, particularly some UB republican students, take for granted the freedoms that they don’t have to fight a military junta in the streets to obtain.

  52. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 12:24 pm #

    Robert,

    As I understand Rush’s meaning (see above, please) , and certainly to my mind, Jon Powers is in no way a phony soldier. I may disagree with his positions, but he served honorably, and has not dishonestly distorted his service or his experiences to score political points. That is in sharp contrast to phony soldiers like MacBeth or Beauchamp.

    Mike,

    Not supporting sanctions against the apartheid SA government was wrong. We can go back and forth all day about shitty policies supported by both parties (Democrats fillibustered the Civil Rights act, for example) and in the end we’ll realize something I’ve said over and over again. Neither party’s electeds is really very good. Both are populated with corrupt scoundrels, bigots and hypocrites.

    I was not commenting on the validity of Bush’s analogy, simply using as an example of people taking things out of context to make a point. Since the folks making ieds are the same ones that gleefully chop off peoples heads for myriad reasons I think maybe your Mandela analogy is at least as flawed as you perceive the president’s to be.

    My post was long because I was trying to ensure my response to Tatonka was well documented. No need to start name calling.

    BP,

    I really think there is a vast gulf between the protests in this country and what is happening in Burma.

    “The obnoxiousness of any demonstration generally grows in direct proportion to one’s disagreement with the point the demonstrators are advocating.”

    True, that-Call it Bedenko’s law?

    In this country we see a bunch of people screaming about our fascist government, sporting signs with swatikas and Hitler moustaches on Bush and Cheney, but nobody in jackboots ever comes to haul off these truth-to-power heroes. Why is that? Could it be that we really don’t live in a fascist country? It basically amounts to a temper tantrum, and the behavior exhibited at our demonstrations is infantile.

    In Burma, not so much. Gunning down unarmed people because they’re noisy and disagreeable is reprehensible. The folks in Burma know that they can and likely will be really persecuted, jailed and possibly murdered for their acts. That is a level of courage that I can’t imagine.

    Tatonka-thanks for the backup.

  53. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm #

    I didn’t have any problem with reality or with Con Law I, II or III – go read the thread. Want to re-debate whether the Serbia resolution was “not even arguably among Congress’ enumerated powers”? I’d be glad to.

    What LC Scotty clearly stated was “I guess I see protesting in the fashion that Russell describes above. Generally obnoxious, mostly pointless and always useless“. He was referring either to protesting in general, or at minimum to protesting in this kind of context (a college speaker). Kevin Pritchard seems to agree and, based the News story, so do the UB College Republicans.

    Clear enough?

  54. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 12:41 pm #

    52+ comments in a thread that doesn’t invole Mr. Illuzzory. It must be fall in the air or something.

  55. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 12:42 pm #

    Russell,

    This conservative had indeed expressed the idea that demonstrations are pointless. I did fail to take a wider view and consider Burma, or Tianemen Square and many other places where the protest was not pointless and infantile, but rather courageous, inspiring and maddening.

    I think you could probably lump Kevin P’s statement in with mine, but I don’t want to put words in his mouth.

    BP- I do see your point about this non-protest being Pythonesqe. I didn’t at first but like I said, I’m obtuse sometimes. I’m glad that folks I disagree with can demonstrate, protest and have their drum circles without getting hauled away, but maybe I suffer from a bit of projection. I find a lot of their antics sophomoric, and I guess I feel that most people view them this way.

  56. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 12:44 pm #

    Btw – I have no idea what “the policies of 1984 effecting [sic] 1981 refers to.

  57. Mike October 1, 2007 at 12:48 pm #

    I guess just ignoring the poor and dying aka Karina is’nt the same as shooting them down in the streets, but wait were’nt guns used to turn back the hoards at the bridge to the burbs?

  58. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 12:49 pm #

    And LOL at “drum circles”.

  59. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 12:56 pm #

    Agreed. But sometimes even obnoxious sitins and the like can help raise awareness for important things.

  60. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 1:09 pm #

    Nice thread! Good to talk to you again, T.

    OT: To BP and all commenters/lurkers Have you considered the Dec 8th date for a blogger get together? I know that All things Jenifer and Byzantium’s Shores and myself are most likely in.

    How about it, Haterade? Tatonka? Come on out and have a few frosty beverages?

  61. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 1:14 pm #

    You too, Scotty.

    And sure – assuming “frosty beverage” means B – E – E – R.
    🙂

  62. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 1:16 pm #

    You betcha!

  63. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 1:20 pm #

    Scotty – AFAIK, 12/8 will probably work, but i have a trial starting that Monday so it might be iffy.

  64. Russell October 1, 2007 at 1:21 pm #

    A protest to extend or protect rights is admirable and honorable. A protest to stifle rights is not. Stopping someone from speaking in a free and democratic society is not admirable, especially from a purely democratic view.

    BP, I’m not concerned with how entirely concerned with how a typical candidate should behave. I am concerned, however, with one that has labelled himself a pundit and a progressive. Your status quo hackery has been disappointing from a candidate that seemed to have so much to offer. It’s been sad seeing someone that had so many great ideas and had already accomplished a number of good things for our community sell out. You appeared to be a fresh face that would do things differently, but you ended up jumping in line with the rest of them. So far you have offered nothing new in your campaign other than a different name. If you don’t care what I have to say, that’s fine, but when you entered the race I did care what you had to say and offer–not so much anymore.

    And Totanka, you didn’t know that the House does not handle any aspects of foreign relations according to the Constitution. And you stated a number of times that Reagan’s trade policy killed the steal industry. Your stats showed the death came in 1981, but Reagan’s policy was enacted in 1984.

  65. Russell October 1, 2007 at 1:22 pm #

    sorry about the typos

  66. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 1:35 pm #

    http://byzantiumshores.blogspot.com/2007/09/christmas-in-blogistan-part-quatre.html

    Possible details and contact info there.

  67. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 1:43 pm #

    Russell:

    A protest to extend or protect rights is admirable and honorable. A protest to stifle rights is not. Stopping someone from speaking in a free and democratic society is not admirable, especially from a purely democratic view.

    I agree. I don’t see where anyone said that was a swell idea, so I’m missing your point.

    BP, I’m not concerned with how entirely concerned with how a typical candidate should behave. I am concerned, however, with one that has labelled himself a pundit and a progressive. Your status quo hackery has been disappointing from a candidate that seemed to have so much to offer. It’s been sad seeing someone that had so many great ideas and had already accomplished a number of good things for our community sell out. You appeared to be a fresh face that would do things differently, but you ended up jumping in line with the rest of them. So far you have offered nothing new in your campaign other than a different name. If you don’t care what I have to say, that’s fine, but when you entered the race I did care what you had to say and offer–not so much anymore.

    That’s your prerogative. Have you run for office before? It’s really not easy. It’s not easy on my professional life. It’s not easy on my personal life. It is very difficult to do and maintain a full time job and also be a husband and father. As for my views, none of them have changed. If you think I’m a hack, whatever – that’s your prerogative. There is little I can offer as a legislative candidate except voting in a way that I think is in the best interests of my constituents. Sure, there may be some things here and there that can put a damper on the ill effects of $900 million in state mandates, which is among the reasons I’d like to save the county some money viz. delinquent lien collections.

    As for voting the right way, I’m sure Ranzenhofer believes the same thing, but I think that many of his past votes have been wrong. I don’t, for instance, think he covered himself with glory during the Giambra years. I don’t, for instance, think that having the same guy in office for 18 years during the steep decline of this region is something that should be further perpetuated.

    I don’t know what hackery you’re accusing me of; Xspand? Keane/Clark/Collins?

    I do know that the reason I’m running is that I want the county to run properly.

    Am I progressive? I think so. I’m also pragmatic and take a conservative view of some things and a liberal view of others. I don’t think I can easily be categorized as an “___ist”. Am I a pundit? When I took the name, it was tongue-in-cheek, because it seemed as if everyplace had a ____pundit, and since no one had taken Buffalo’s, it was all mine.

    You’ve been on my ass about Keane/Clark, about decrying the pervasive and harmful nature of sometimes predatory school loans, and that’s about it. You didn’t even start commenting on this site until late July, and not once – not once have you expressed one single, solitary word in support of me or my campaign, and now I’m supposed to all of a sudden believe that you’re a disillusioned ex-Bedenkiac? I have no clue why you’d go with that bullshitty little explanation, because your past comments don’t even remotely back it up. So, spare me.

  68. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 1:50 pm #

    As far as I recall, I have never said a damn thing about Reagan’s trade policies or the steel industry even once, let alone “several times”.

    Re: the Constitutional issue – you claim that “the House does not handle any aspects of foreign relations according to the Constitution”.

    Really? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Cuz it will come as a big surprise to the guys and women on thism Committee.

  69. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 1:52 pm #

    Which Ron Paul serves on.

  70. Russell October 1, 2007 at 2:11 pm #

    Totanka, show me in Article I of the Constitution where any of the powers of the House include foreign relations. It doesn’t matter what committees exist now or powers that exist from other ways. That was not the discussion.

    BP, I do know the rigors of campaigning very well, including the long hours and stress on every aspect of your life. Perhaps your views have not changed, but your ways of expressing yourself have. Your stating that Keane and Clark both disgusted you but you were willing to endorse which ever one won was bothersome and I thought surprising from you. You could have just not said anything as far as endorsements go. And I have offered support and advice, some of which you even appeared to take. I was reserving monetary support ’til I learned more about you and after I did I decided not to send it along, but I did offer some comments and tips about your website, fundraising and minor campaign strategy. It wasn’t huge, but it was something. I still think you and your potential constituency would be better served by you running for State Assembly, but I know that’s probably not possible with your current demands.

  71. Robert Harding October 1, 2007 at 2:15 pm #

    Robert,

    As I understand Rush’s meaning (see above, please) , and certainly to my mind, Jon Powers is in no way a phony soldier. I may disagree with his positions, but he served honorably, and has not dishonestly distorted his service or his experiences to score political points. That is in sharp contrast to phony soldiers like MacBeth or Beauchamp.

    Maybe you misunderstand what I’m saying. No soldier is a phony soldier. Rush said this in the context that if you dissent against the war, you’re a phony soldier. If you LISTEN to the audio (don’t read the transcript), you can get the tone in which he said this. He said this AFTER a soldier called in to the show. Then, another guy gets on there to attack this soldier and Rush came out with it: “phony soldiers.”

    If my grandfather was alive today, I can just imagine what he would say to the likes of Rush Limbaugh. He served in World War II and received many accolades for doing so, including a Purple Heart, which symbolizes that he received some sort of proof that he went to war. Based on knowing the man, he would hate this war. It’s not like the reasons why we went to war with Japan or Germany in WWII. We went to war for strictly political reasons.

    Remember, there’s no such thing as a phony soldier. Only phony politicians.

  72. hank kaczmarek October 1, 2007 at 2:17 pm #

    “No one here may be as intelligent as you, Tatonka,”

    And in Tatonka’s mind, NOBODY IS.

    At Least Haterade’s come out from behind his handle, several times, and told everyone his name.

    Unlike Ade, who has to be one kind of person in the joint working and another outside, and a handle comes in handy,

    What’s Tatonka hiding behind a handle for? The Mind Boggles.

    On local issues, I find Alan and I agree on quite a bit, and I think he sees that too. On national issues, I can agree to disagree with him.

    I respect him for what he’s trying to do by getting in the race. Just the fact he mentioned above that
    he’s conservative on some issues and liberal on others shows his honesty, and anyone who’s been reading his posts for more than a few months knows it.

    Besides, even if Alan was a blithering buffoon, which he certainly isn’t, he could do no worse than the morons that sit in the legislature as we speak, and those that have filled those chairs over the last 50 years. And he lacks the baggage that the incumbents have.

    At least Alan will answer your e-mails, more than his opponent did for me.

  73. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm #

    LOL at Russell. I’ve already cited and quoted the applicable provisions of the Constitution that grant several types of authority with respect to foreign affairs to Congress. Article I doesn’t generally assign powers to either house specifically. On the other hand, you’ve cited exactly nothing. Repeating the same (incorrect) claim is not evidence.

    “It doesn’t matter what committees exist now or powers that exist from other ways”.

    That’s funny. The fact that the House has a Foreign Affairs Committee – on which The Great Man of Principle sits – “doesn’t matter” to the issue of whether the House has any Constitutional authority with respect to its stated jurisdiction (“Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally”, see here). Oh, OK.

  74. hank kaczmarek October 1, 2007 at 2:29 pm #

    Robert
    If you go to boot camp, last 40 odd days and get thrown out,
    then go nationwide about your adventures in Combat, if you’re not a Phony–in the military called a “Poser”, then what are you exactly?

    Just because he says what you want to hear doesn’t make him a Combat Veteran.

    The military is currently investigating 14 men who have claimed to have won the Medal of Honor, and there’s no supporting documentation.

    One man was recently arrested because he was fool enough to wear ribbons showing he won the Navy Cross, the Air Force Cross, and the Army Distinguished Service Cross.

    These are the medals awarded when the MOH is not, for various reasons, like there aren’t 3 living witnesses to the act of heroism. What do you think the odds are of someone doing an act of heroism at the risk of their lives in the Navy, Air Force, and Army? Ever meet anyone who served in 3 different branches? POSER. He’ll be going to prison for it.

    There’s plenty of posers out there. We catch them all the time. I had a white guy about 40 years old. tell me he went to Marine Boot Camp at Camp Lejuene, NC. Only one problem, the only time there was any boot camp at Lejuene was for black Marines only, from 1942-1945 at Montford Point. If you didn’t go to boot camp at Parris Island, SC or San Diego, CA, and you’re over 70 years old and black, then you’re a POSER…..FOLLOW?

  75. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 2:36 pm #

    Russell:

    BP, I do know the rigors of campaigning very well, including the long hours and stress on every aspect of your life. Perhaps your views have not changed, but your ways of expressing yourself have. Your stating that Keane and Clark both disgusted you but you were willing to endorse which ever one won was bothersome and I thought surprising from you. You could have just not said anything as far as endorsements go.

    And I haven’t endorsed anyone, although I do confess I went to a $10 Keane fundraiser to say hi to people and hit them up for money. I am not thrilled with either Collins or Keane, but am stuck with that choice. We’ll see how the race plays out, no?

    And I have offered support and advice, some of which you even appeared to take.

    You offered advice – not support. Not ever. In fact, your first comment on this site was negative towards me, so WTF am I supposed to do with that?

    I was reserving monetary support ’til I learned more about you and after I did I decided not to send it along, but I did offer some comments and tips about your website, fundraising and minor campaign strategy. It wasn’t huge, but it was something. I still think you and your potential constituency would be better served by you running for State Assembly, but I know that’s probably not possible with your current demands.

    I’m not running for Assembly, but I am hoping to organize a Vaffanculo Day 2008 hopefully with a march on Albany.

  76. Mike October 1, 2007 at 2:39 pm #

    Hank,
    Check Ebay, they have lots of nice metals.

  77. Russell October 1, 2007 at 2:53 pm #

    BP, giving advice is not supportive? How often do you advise people you don’t want to see succeed or couldn’t care less about? And you’ve never had a difference of opinion with anyone you’ve supported? If you support someone, you see and say nothing negative about them? Oh, and you did take the advice and even thanked me for it, if I remember correctly.

    And what I gave you shit for was you saying you were going to endorse him. It helps that you haven’t and I hope you don’t, but my comment was on what you said you were planning to do.

    You comment more on State issues and we all know that would get you much closer to the root of the problem. I’m just saying it’d be a better fit for you and put you in a position where you could make more of a difference. That could be a fun/good idea, but don’t make yourself a farce. You’re gaining political capital, don’t turn it into a joke when you can make a difference.

  78. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 3:02 pm #

    Taken within the context of your other comments, I thought your advice was of the, “hey, dipshit, you should…” kind of thing. Sorry if that wasn’t the case, but I’m somewhat cynical. Especially since you’ve never uttered an “attaboy”, or “go get ’em” or, say, sent a private email indicating any of this, which is what most people did who support me.

    Also, I’m not really that concerned with political capital. When all this is over, win or lose I’m going to take a break from everything except the blog. I think V-Day would be fun, because I think that humor could help get a mass movement to Albany to protest its ineptitude and lack of responsiveness.

  79. Russell October 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm #

    You didn’t seem to take it as a “hey dipshit” kind of thing at the time and I don’t really think there was anything to indicate it was said in that way, but if you want to repaint the past, go ahead. And I didn’t see much to say “attaboy” about. I was waiting for that kind of moment to send you some money, but I never saw it. That’s why I’ve been disappointed. I thought about sending you an email, but I posted the advice once you brought the subject up. I didn’ tknow the standard was to keep support a private, secret thing. That’s an odd kind of support you’re looking for.

  80. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 3:35 pm #

    You didn’t seem to take it as a “hey dipshit” kind of thing at the time and I don’t really think there was anything to indicate it was said in that way, but if you want to repaint the past, go ahead. And I didn’t see much to say “attaboy” about. I was waiting for that kind of moment to send you some money, but I never saw it. That’s why I’ve been disappointed. I thought about sending you an email, but I posted the advice once you brought the subject up. I didn’ t know the standard was to keep support a private, secret thing. That’s an odd kind of support you’re looking for.

    It’s the support of the people on this site, many of whom I consider to be friends in the real world. I don’t fish for compliments here or elsewhere, but when people learned that I was running, they offered their congratulations in a nice email. That’s not any kind of standard – just what nice people with a nice sentiment tend to do from time to time.

    As for not seeing much to say “attaboy” about, I’m not interested in it from you or anybody else, for that matter. My point was that you claimed to offer me support, but you didn’t. You offered me advice. I think what I believe for and stand for speaks for itself in the 5,000+ posts on this blog.

    If you don’t support what I stand for, then I don’t want your money, I don’t want your kudos, I don’t want your advice, I don’t want your support. But you could stand to be a tad less dicky to me. That’d be swell.

  81. hank kaczmarek October 1, 2007 at 3:40 pm #

    Hank,
    Check Ebay, they have lots of nice metals.

    Mike thats MEDAL.

    This is a big part of the POSER Problem. You can download a fake DD214 (discharge papers) online. You can buy Medals and certificates for them on eBay.

    The problem is someone who served can easily poke holes in your story. Especially the guys who say they were in Nam and weren’t. They end up looking like Eddie Murphy’s character in Trading Places did with the Philly PD.

    I have a National Defense Medal that is in my record and my DD214, but I entered active duty after 31 may 75(Fall of Saigon) and I wasn’t supposed to get it. Buffalo AFEES (Armed Forces entrance and exam station, now called MEPS for military entrance processing station) used Vietnam forms with the medal already written in, and they stamped it 01dec75, the day I enlisted. When I re-enlisted it was on my forms and I told them this is wrong, I don’t rate this. The Chief personnel clerk told me it would take 2 years to correct my record, and even then they might leave it the way it was. He handed me the medal and ribbon and said YOU RATE IT NOW, PUT IT ON. But if this was a commendation or valor medal, that would NOT have happened.

    Just don’t get caught. The FBI comes for you if you’re wearing them and didn’t earn them. The “Stolen Valor Act” comes into play. They take it real seriously. Right now they can’t track silver or bronze stars, too many issued. But if you’re sporting one of the Crosses or the MOH, you better have earned it or federal time looms.

  82. mike hudson October 1, 2007 at 3:45 pm #

    scotty…..you win. the last dodge of the conservative dead enders, whenever they’re proved beyond doubt to be the war profiteering, racist, homophobic, misogynist class warrior scum that they are, is all of a sudden to sound reasonable and say, “well of course there’s good and bad in both parties.

    we weren’t talking about both parties. we were talking about republican president geo. bush shamelessly invoking mandela’s name, and the republican presidents, senators and congressmen who supported the apartheir regime that kept him imprisoned for the better part of his life.

    bush’s statement was ridiculous and indefensible. and i repeat, if there is a mandela in iraq, he’s with al qaeda.

  83. Russell October 1, 2007 at 3:54 pm #

    Ah, I see, you mended your dicky ways in order to run for office, so now you think everyone should follow your change of heart. And I don’t mean to be a dick. I’m just commenting on what I see. You might need some thicker skin. I also don’t think I’ve said anything about or to you that’s any worse than things you’ve said about plenty of people right here on this blog. In fact, you’ve said much worse.

    I still don’t see how offering someone advice is not supportive. And I’ve never agreed with everything anyone has stood for, but I’ve still supported them. I’ve even supported my fair share of Democrats. I’m not saying I don’t support what you stand for. I said I was disappointed because you seemed to stand for something you weren’t delivering on. I offered the advice that you welcomed because I did support what you stood for based on what I read from you and about you. It’s too bad that you have such a narrow concept of what support is. If someone doesn’t use the specific words in a private email the day you announce, then I guess it doesn’t count to you. Oh, and you must consider that person a friend.

  84. Buffalopundit October 1, 2007 at 4:06 pm #

    Russell, I haven’t been dicky to _you_, so I don’t understand your dickiness towards _me_, which you displayed quite literally from day one.

    What, exactly, do I stand for that I’m not delivering on? Tell me. Keane/Collins? Then your standards are sort of shallow, since I have to vote for one of them, no?

    Your advice was to update the “endorsements” part of my website and have a fundraiser in the district. Yeah, I thanked you for your thoughts. Thanks again.

    If someone doesn’t use the specific words in a private email the day you announce, then I guess it doesn’t count to you. Oh, and you must consider that person a friend.

    No, you’re playing a game of make-believe, and now you’re being petulant. I scanned your past comments and I’m loath to find one where you’ve expressed agreement with me on much of anything. And now I’m supposed to just buy that you’re just a disappointed supporter?

    Stop pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.

    BTW, I was offering examples of how people who truly do support me provided it, not using CAD for a blueprint.

  85. LC Scotty October 1, 2007 at 5:28 pm #

    ohhhh noes!!11!!1!! A guy who can’t capitalize his sentences thinks I’m a poopyhead.

    That hurts, Mike.

  86. Tatonka October 1, 2007 at 6:09 pm #

    I know how you feel. I’ve been told I have trouble with “reality” because I can’t quite understand how Ron Paul had to vote against the Serbian genocide resolution, because his steely principles would not permit him to exercise a power (with respect to foreign affairs) that the House of Representatives obviously lacks (It’s “Con Law I”, you see), but those same principles don’t prevent him from sitting on the . . . House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    Yeah, it’s a mystery why people don’t take you more seriously, Russell.

  87. Kevin Pritchard October 1, 2007 at 11:07 pm #

    Please do not refer to me as “conservative”. As a supporter of gay rights, gay marriage, legalized drugs, abortion, and a slew of other socially liberal issues, I think that is terribly unfair.

    Otherwise, rocking good show in comments today. Too bad I was in Cleveland all day!

  88. Size Nine October 1, 2007 at 11:10 pm #

    FWIW, when it comes to “dickiness” (is that really a word?) it sure looks from the sidelines like BP can dish it out but can’t take it.

  89. Haterade October 1, 2007 at 11:24 pm #

    Bedenkiac ?? WTF is that – like a “Hulkamaniac” ?

    Whatcha gonna do when Punditamania runs wild on YOOOOUUU ?

  90. Mike In WNY October 1, 2007 at 11:57 pm #

    but those same principles don’t prevent him from sitting on the . . . House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    Sitting on the House Committee on International Relations is not tantamount to advocating foreign entanglements. We need more people like Ron Paul to bring some sanity to Congress.

  91. hank kaczmarek October 2, 2007 at 12:40 am #

    Ah, just what this thread needed, a RonPaulista.
    Keep that crap over on your blogs where it belongs mike, I’ve been checking comments, and you’re averaging about 1.5 per post. That must be when one of the four libertarians comments on what one of the others wrote. Wikipedia will be coming by to use you as their example to “preaching to the choir.”
    Then there was this:
    scotty…..you win. the last dodge of the conservative dead enders, whenever they’re proved beyond doubt to be the war profiteering, racist, homophobic, misogynist class warrior scum that they are

    I don’t mind a good fight, but I’ve never made a dime off war, except the regular military wage. 820.00/mo sure ain’t profiteering. I don’t mind being white either, but I don’t hate anyone else because of their skin color. Homosexuals are born, not made. Why blame them? Misogynist? Aint every guy one to some degree? “Class Warrior Scum?

    Conservatives don’t incite class warfare, that’s a Liberal guise to raise taxes. Poor people are poor. They don’t care that 28% of the population pays nearly 80% of the taxes, they’re still poor. And liberal social policy only holds them down and keeps them at subsistence, and have to vote Democrat to keep getting it.

    Nice rant though. Clean all the Bullshit off of it you might have a chick pea sized pellet of information.

  92. Buffalopundit October 2, 2007 at 5:14 am #

    Sizenine: I can take it just fine.

    About 90% of Russell’s comments on here have been in the nature of a troll, and his sudden profession of admiration for me after months’ worth of dozens of backhanded insults rang a bit false.

  93. Tatonka October 2, 2007 at 5:56 am #

    Mike in WNY said: “Sitting on the House Committee on International Relations is not tantamount to advocating foreign entanglements.

    I never claimed otherwise. That’s at least a legitimate argument and, if I had to guess – not knowing much about Ron Paul – that’s probably why he voted against the genocide resolution. It is not, of course, the argument that the two Constitutional scholars Russell and Ike made – they claimed that the House has no Constitutional authority or power with respect to foreign affairs. Which is ridiculous.

    It’s a small point, but it illustrates a larger one – most wingnuts simply can’t admit they’re wrong, even when the inconvenient truth is staring them in the face, pointing its bony finger and laughing. Hank (“Howard Dean called Colin Powell a house slave”) is another good example on this board, and you could argue that the continuation of the Iraq war is the gravest example of this out there in the real world.

    Anyone can make a factual mistake; it’s how you react when you’re shown to be wrong that shows the lind of person you are.

  94. Tatonka October 2, 2007 at 6:07 am #

    . . . kind of person you are.

  95. Russell October 2, 2007 at 7:22 am #

    BP, as I said, if you want to take it that way, fine. What I had a problem with was you saying numerous times you were disgusted by both Keane and Clark, but you were going to endorse one of them. You seemed like a breath of fresh air for politics in our area. Someone who got things accomplished on his own, but then here you were playing the politics as usual card. You do have some choices on the race. First, you do not have to vote for anyone if you’re that disgusted by them. Skipping that race could show that people are disgusted with the candidates. Second, you certainly do not have to endorse anyone or state you will. That goes way beyond voting for someone. It’s giving someone very strong support and seems hypocritical if it were for someone that disgusted you.

    There are many people, especially in politics, I’ve admired or pulled for that I’ve never told them so in person. And I have even differed with them on many or even most issues. Sam Hoyt is a friend of mine. I admire his principles and convictions but I’d be hard-pressed to find a single issue we agree on. We have had differences of opinion, but I have also supported him. I was a huge fan of Duke Cunningham, a war hero who served his country in many great ways. I was horribly disappointed and disillusioned by his disgraceful actions. Am I not allowed to say that because I never sent him a letter saying how much I liked him before the bribery scandal?

    And again, my advice was given out of support. I offered it as a little way to provide some assistance. Sorry if it wasn’t big enough for you or stamped with a huge wet kiss. I have admired your convictions and principles and your devotion to this community. Sorry I haven’t said that before but I didn’t realize the extent of our relationship. As I said, I thought you were going to be a different kind of candidate, but then you did things like any other politician. There was a lot of buzz around you. You were the first of your kind, the first to use this medium as a springboard into the public arena. I think a lot of people anticipated some innovation and fresh thinking from you, whether they said it aloud or stayed on the sideline and hoped it for our community’s sake. I’m disappointed because I don’t think you have offered anything new or innovative in the end. You say you don’t care about that and that’s fine, but you have spent an awful amount of time debating this with me and researching everything I’ve ever said to you.

    It does seem like you can’t take it like you give it. There are a whole lot of people you’ve criticized without ever saying anything good about. Even worse, there have been a ton of bad things you’ve said about people that would never have the chance to defend themselves, many people within this community, but when some of us try to offer defenses for them, you turn on us. I’ve offered my criticism to you in a forum you control where you can respond and much of it has only been to ask you to be fair and carry yourself like the public official you are aspiring to be. I have not cowardly attacked and criticized people behind their backs so they cannot respond.

  96. hank kaczmarek October 2, 2007 at 7:24 am #

    Anyone can make a factual mistake
    Except Tatonka, who hides behind a handle, is never wrong, and always right.

  97. Tatonka October 2, 2007 at 7:30 am #

    Nope, I make mistakes, and when I do I admit it. As, in this very thread, with respect to LImbaugh’s “phony soldiers” remarks. You and Russell and your ilk are the ones who can’t. It’s more than a little pathetic.

  98. Russell October 2, 2007 at 8:21 am #

    Show me where I made a mistake and didn’t admit it or correct it.

  99. Buffalopundit October 2, 2007 at 8:22 am #

    Russell:

    1. There’s not a whole lot a legislator can do that’s all that innovative. I’m in favor of a county manager, but not a hybrid. In the alternative, I’m in favor of a county executive whose deputy is akin to a county manager with the same qualifications and experience. I am not in favor of a county executive hybrid if the CE is entitled to maintain a patronage deputy post. I’m in favor of performance based budgeting, which the county voted in favor of as part of the charter revision package, but has been blocked by our overly political, nominally professional control board. I’m in favor of a comprehensive audit of every task that the county handles -whether mandated or not – to determine whether the $900 million isn’t something that can’t be whittled away, and to make sure the 100 million that’s discretionary is being spent as efficiently as possible. I’m in favor of a system whereby candidates for county jobs are assessed in a way that is somewhat anonymous, looking only at their qualifications and test scores, and that disregards their identity and connections. As for the county executive race, it hardly matters what I say or whom I endorse because when I win I’ll be stuck with either one and will want to work with him constructively.

    As to the second point:

    It does seem like you can’t take it like you give it.

    That is so patently false I don’t know where to begin. How many times have people come on here and given me shit and I haven’t responded at all. I have chosen to engage you in this discussion because your little comment about Xspand the other day pissed me off. (Getting pissed off about something, and then calling you out on it does not, incidentally, mean that I can’t “take it”.)

    There are a whole lot of people you’ve criticized without ever saying anything good about. Even worse, there have been a ton of bad things you’ve said about people that would never have the chance to defend themselves, many people within this community, but when some of us try to offer defenses for them, you turn on us. I’ve offered my criticism to you in a forum you control where you can respond and much of it has only been to ask you to be fair and carry yourself like the public official you are aspiring to be.

    First of all, whom have I attacked whom you’ve defended? Second of all, this blog represents one thing and one thing only: my opinion. If you don’t like it, the comment section is right here. People use it quite frequently, I might add, to disagree with me, call me names, criticize me and my criticisms, and other stuff. What you and “sizenineshoes” tend to overlook is that I have a general practice to let commenters say what they want without rebuttal from me. There are exceptions – this one being one of them – but usually, I let the post speak for itself. How is “taking it” and not responding, “not taking it like i give it”? I don’t know how defending myself is “not taking it like I give it”? You were being obnoxious. For the first time in months, I called you on it. Until this week, I’ve never replied to you in an obnoxious fashion. So what’s the ratio? About 50:1? Seems like I can “take it” just fine. You don’t like that I called you on it is all.

    I don’t know whom I’m supposed to have “criticized without ever saying anything good about” – Tom Reynolds? BFD. Reynolds is a big boy and he and his minions can not only come right here and defend him, but call me a fatass too. And they’ve done so. Seems pretty fair a forum to me.

    I have not cowardly attacked and criticized people behind their backs so they cannot respond.

    “Behind their backs?” This is a pretty visible spot in the local political internet world, and anyone can leave any non-libelous comment they want.

    As for “turning on [you]”, for the most part, I don’t budge from the opinion originally raised in my original post, so I will occasionally – when I choose to engage in the comment section at all – defend them against friend and non-friend. And sometimes I even acknowledge when I’m obviously wrong and someone points it out to me.

    In the end, this is a place for discussion. If I think Mary Kunz Goldman writes foolish things, or Tom Reynolds is a disaster of a failure as a congressman, or that politics in this town is poison, that’s my opinion. I expressed them in this forum when no one at all read it, and I continue to express them now. I am not a perfect person, nor ever claimed to be. Some of my opinions might be wrong. Some of my facts may be flawed. Some of my writings might have been made in haste or in an intemperate fashion. That’s why people comment and check me, and each other.

    Your comments, however, have been – with a couple of exceptions – relentlessly hostile and often obnoxious. Yeah, I know I can be hostile and obnoxious, too. I very seldom attack people based on their personality or their personal lives. I will attack people if I think things they have done or said are silly, and I fully expect and hope that people will disagree with me on it. If you don’t think I’ve been attacked plenty in the almost 25,000 comments I’ve received on this site since April 2005, you’re wrong. I almost never respond.

    So, you got a reaction out of me. I’m defending myself. If you see that as me being a bully who can’t “take it”, then I fear that you fail fundamentally to grasp how this place works.

  100. Tatonka October 2, 2007 at 8:39 am #

    Russell – Are you joking? Your mistake was in claiming that the House of Representatives has no Constitutional authority with respect to foreign affairs – or “does not handle any aspects of foreign relations according to the Constitution” (a verbatim quote of your words in this thread). This is factually wrong. The fact that there is a House Foreign Affairs Committee, the stated jurisdiction of which includes “relations of the United States with foreign nations generally”, conclusively demonstrates this. Why is this diffcult to understand?

  101. Russell October 2, 2007 at 9:31 am #

    Tatonka, it is not one of the powers enumerate the House of Representatives in Article I of the Constitution. That is what the discussion was about and you have not shown me any evidence to the contrary. It doesn’t matter what committees exist now and what their expressed goal is. That is not what we were discussing. BP even stated that the Senate has power to ratify treats, but that’s it. All foreign relations powers, according to the US Constitution, are reserved for the President. Show me something from Article I. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

    And BP, I get what you’re saying now, once you got past the advice vs support bickering. I could tone it down because my speech does sound similar at times to what I was saying before on how public speech has deteriorated into base, low-brow name-calling and garbage throwing. Rather than informed discussions our message can be lost in how we say things. Most of the times, my writing has gone that way out of frustration, like having to explain to Totanka numerous times the difference between the Constitution and standing committees of the House, or what I perceived as ridiculous or hypocritical statements from you and others. You have provided a good forum for discussion. When I was planning on returning to this area, it actually provided me with a good sense of what is going on and also gave me some hope that things have finally changed a little and perhaps the region had started to turn the corner.

  102. Tatonka October 2, 2007 at 9:38 am #

    OK, Uncle Leo, I won’t waste any more time on this issue with you. As I said, like most wingnuts, you just can’t admit when you’re wrong.

  103. Russell October 2, 2007 at 10:03 am #

    Is it just me or is anyone else getting this?

  104. Scott Nichol October 2, 2007 at 2:16 pm #

    I would just like to inform everyone that the UB College Republicans did not infact make the T shirts referenced in the posts above, nor did they in anyway sponsor such activities. I know this for a fact as I share an office at UB with the College Republicans and their President Bradley Latone. I would hope in the future you would make less assumptions and gather some amount of credible evidence before making such claims.

  105. Buffalopundit October 2, 2007 at 2:27 pm #

    Hey, Scott. Welcome to the party.

    The t-shirt quote is right out of the Buffalo News. That’s all the credible evidence I need. If it’s false, I’ll wait for the News’ retraction and post an update. Until then, cheers.

  106. hank kaczmarek October 2, 2007 at 2:36 pm #

    Alan Wrote:As for the county executive race, it hardly matters what I say or whom I endorse because when I win I’ll be stuck with either one and will want to work with him constructively.

    That was a big mouthful. And he’s RIGHT. When the current disaster of a mayor was running, my friend Joe Golombek told me he would endorse and support BB. And I almost flipped. But as a wise pol, he advised me. “He’s going to win. and if I went against him, my district would suffer”. He was right too.

    Don’t have to go back too far to remember all the lifeguards and park workers in Riverside were from south buffalo because that’s where the Mayor was from.

    I think Alan’s showing good foresight as he runs for the Legislature. Anyone who reads here knows I don’t agree with him on lots of stuff, but on local issues I like what he says and how he looks at things. I can overlook the things I disagree with him on Russell, and you should too.

    Forget about a straight answer from Tatonka, a lawyer can dance around a question for days and weeks without ever answering. OTOH, Alan IS answering, and IMO spending more time explaining himself to you than I would have. Consider that before your next comment.

  107. Tatonka October 2, 2007 at 2:50 pm #

    I answered the question regarding the House’s Constitional authority, with citations to applicable provisions, in the Ron Paul thread. Twice. I could do so again, here, but what’s the point? Russell just prefers to put his hands over his ears and repeat his same bullshit.

  108. Scott Nichol October 2, 2007 at 4:23 pm #

    Hello Buffalo Pundit,

    Whether the Buffalo News posts a retraction or not it is in fact false. The reference to the T shirts is in a paragraph that does not mention Brad or the College Republicans, rather it mentions general students. I personally know Brad and have at most occasions attended his meetings. There was never a discussion of such activites being planned. They did discuss possibilities, but for the reasons mentioned in the article declined to do anything. And if you are questioning my motives for posting I am the President of the College Democrats at UB and only post to defend him as my friend and wish to keep the messages about him correct. I do not nessecarily agree with his view on Michael Moore speaking at the University but detest people making slanderous claims against others and hope members of my party or political ideology would not to resort to such behavior.

  109. Tatonka October 2, 2007 at 4:32 pm #

    Thanks for the correction. You’re right – it doesn’t say that the CRs were behind the T-shirt idea.

  110. Buffalopundit October 2, 2007 at 8:33 pm #

    Upon re-reading it, it sure sounded like it was the CRs who planned the stunt & t-shirts but it was attributed to students generally. Shucks. It’s not as funny this way.

  111. Haterade October 2, 2007 at 11:44 pm #

    Okay, that’s settled … now back to Illuzzi !

    P.S. Scott Nichol – I thought you were still playing for the Nashville Predators ….

  112. Russell October 3, 2007 at 2:22 pm #

    I like that. The kid felt like he was being attacked for defending someone who had no voice here. He had to let it be known he was a card carrying member of the Democratic party before you’d listen to him. And after that, you actually did go back and read the article and realize he was right.

    Maybe we’ve all learned a lesson in this.

  113. eddy eddy ded October 12, 2007 at 6:28 am #

    I IS A G with binladin

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: