Lee To Andy Card: Blow Me

“Lee To Andy Card : Blow Me”Perfect… those two little words say it all.

Lee,You are confusing me – trying to reconcile the church going with the language implied in the initials at the end of your post.

Viccan,Don’t feed the trolls.

I’m a semi-practicing Unitarian Universalist, so there’s no contradiction. I can ask Republicans to blow me….the only danger is if they do.

Its a lie, it’s a lie, it’s a FREAKING LIE!!!!I cannot take this bs much longer.PICTURE PROOF AT THE LINK.

As long as you don’t pray for them to blow you, I think it’s all good.

Sorry, Alaska. Caught off guard by Lee. Wasn’t thinking.

Alaska, just saying…The definition of troll is ‘someone who disrupt a discussion’….I post here as a regular, at the request of Bob. So I can’t be a troll, by definition.Whereas YOU….you could be.

Don’t let them Lee. They just turn into bj-deniers and find Jesus even harder than before. Heh-heh, I said “harder”…Why are they so on about this? I got $5 in my pocket that says George W. Bush probably thought George Washington sat in the Oval Office.With everything that’s going on, I can’t believe this is the biggest fish Andy Card has to fry. And a shit-stinky pox on any reporter that doesn’t ask him what the fuck his problem is.

Bush wearing the jacket only made his suit look more obviously empty.

Thank you Lee.

Thank you Lee.

Yes. Treating the office of president with respect is a terrible thing. It’s must more awesome to get BJ’s in the oval office, and dress down.

This just in, blog posts can be trollish in and of themselves.Also did you tuck the t-shirt into your denim shorts? Stay classy.

Dressing like a professional is SOO overrated.

Card must have a permanent stick up his butt. Where has he been living? To me, seeing Obama with his coat off indicates he’s up to some serious work. If he rolled up his shirtsleeves, it would be even better. There’s lots of work to be done, none of which will be better accomplished with a suit coat on. He needs to get a life.

Imagine if BushCo had treated the Constitution with respect…

Teh torturezzz? Am I right?

GM obviously needs some attention. Presumably, GM is either a wall streeter or a blue collar worker, as he doesn’t know that the president’s chosen attire is just about business standard for working professionals. An understandable mistake for GM, perhaps, but not for Andy Card who should know better.And, Lee, I don’t think you should tell the republicans (or Andy Card) to “blow you” – even as a UU. Telling them to STFU, is, otoh, perfectly reasonable. QT

Lee shots, Lee scores.Nice post Lee. I feel a bit stronger about it, but I’m an Atheist and lack compassion for the Reich Wing.

I can ask Republicans to blow me….the only danger is if they do.

There is no danger of that.They only blow corporate CEOs, CFOs, and board chairman. They also blow Rush, Bill, Sean, and Mark.So, unless you are one of those, you have no worries.

I just figured the post was Lee being sarcastic.

Just came back. My apologies earlier were offered because I thought Alaska was infering that my comment might incite the trolls. I didn’t read it as refering to Lee at all. [Whatever - not really pertinent to blog conversation now.]

Viccan,If any apologies are in order, they belong to me.I was acting out my frustrations with the way Lee has been handling some things lately.Of late, he’s expressed some wildly curious viewpoints but then appears upset when people try to argue against them.I think Lee is a genuinely good person, but sometimes I question his stability.

Alaska – I’m asking seriously…It’s ‘wildy curious’ to suggest that contraceptives may not fit nearly into a stimulus bill?Or to say that Obama hasn’t been calling for bipartisanism but civility? (I made the same point Bob made today, a few days ago.)If I said “I am opposed to birth control because the Flying Spaghetti Monster sez!!!” well, yeah – that’s curious.Other than that, I think you Orthodoxy Meter has hair trigger.

Lee,No.

Don’t back down Alaska, you’re on the right path

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with questioning the relevance of anything in any bill. It’s important to know every detail of something this massive. However, I tend to believe that the more the better. Even if something isn’t perfectly relevant if you were to make it a stand-alone proposal and try to see how it might create jobs, it may be a great part of a giant recovery package.My reasoning is that the more money infused into the economy, the more aspects of our country that feels the influx of cash, the more stable, the more relaxed, the happier people will be and that feeling leads to the confidence to spend.Not questioning things or people just because they’re on “your side”, that’s moronic.As far as what is worn in the Oval; if you’ve got time to worry about that, you’re not spending your time worrying about hundreds of thousands of people who lost their jobs last month; the people who are wondering how they are going to put any clothes at all on their children. I know the Marie Antoinette comparisons are getting a little tired, but wasn’t part of her downfall her obsession with clothes over her people’s poverty?

Fine then.Lee’s arguments against contraceptives being in the stimulus bill didn’t get me too bothered. It sounded just the same as all the Republican’s I work with. However, contraceptives being part of an ECONOMIC RECOVERY package? They most certainly should be in there.The wildly curious things I was more referring to was his comments about Sarah Palin being a step forward for women and Michael Steele being a step forward for African Americans. I find that extremely short-sighted and downright obscene.And I also disagree that the GOP isn’t affecting his agenda. They butchered the bill he wanted and he let them do it as a test of compromise. The results came back from that test and they punked the President. Trust is something you have to earn and they have a lot of earning to do now.Also, defending Rick Warren sucks.

Jesus, is it a full moon or something?As an atheist, and as a linguistic reconstructionist who appreciates the phrase “blow me” in the abstract, I’d like to think that Lee’s application of the phrase was purer than the finest Colombian.Like everything the Bush Administration did, they were wolves in sheep’s clothing. Look professional to compensate for the fact that they were not (I mean, seriously, the “record keeping” in Guantanamo?). Say you’re for something that you’re really against (liberty, f’rinstance, ‘cept when that pesky habeus thingee gets in the way).And, SillyGit, Republicans have been known to blow others. Tap tap tap…

@alaskaI may be mistaken, but I never thought that Lee was specifically defending Rick Warren or Sarah Palin or Michael Steele. My impression was that he was looking at them through a larger, certainly somewhat Pollyannish (no offense) lens. I like Lee’s idealism, and I don’t think it’s bad to defend the IDEA of opening a dialogue with Warren even if personally you loathe what he stands for. I don’t think it’s wrong to see that this country has grown when a black man can lead the Republican party even though I personally don’t believe for a second that the Republicans themselves are doing anything other than making a strategic move. It is narrow-minded to attack Lee over assumptions when he is clearly speaking in broader terms.Side note: don’t need feedback some of my good pals here who disagree with all of this. I already know how you feel. We’re not on the same page. We’ve gone through it already. There’s still love.

He most certainly did defend Rick Warren

I don’t think the country has grown because of Steele or Palin. Is going from ignored to exploited really progress?

Travis, there’s defending and then there’s defending. Lee starts every post with his statement of principles. Why not accept him at his word and then argue honestly on points where you honestly disagree? More than anything – the fundamentally dishonest debate tactic of making up your opponent’s position to argue against (see: strawman fallacy) is offensive and hurtful…and near guaranteed to push people away instead of drawing them in. People can discern the difference between honest and dishonest debate.For the rest, what camel54 said.QT

Travis, I’m surprised to hear from you. I never would have expected… okay, sorry, I was amusing myself. We’re never going to agree on that whole episode. I do not believe that he ever defended Rick Warren on his merits–his beliefs. I always felt like he defended the idea of Rick’s Warren’s right to believe those things without being labeled a bigot. And yes, he may have pointed out things that Warren has said or done that made him seem like less of a monster, but I just don’t think that’s the same thing as you believe it is. We could argue this till the end of time, but since the inauguration came and went and Warren’s presence amounted to precisely nothing, I just don’t care anymore.I will take open-minded toward things I disagree with over close-minded about anything any day.

Alaska, no, the country is not better off BECAUSE of Palin or Steele. The country has shown growth because of the possibility of those people. The fact that a woman can be a serious contender for the White House or another woman can be a serious contender for the VP and then of course, black president and black leader of the Republican party, the fact that those things are even possible even if some of those positions are filled by assholes, shows we are a very different country than we were 50 years ago. Being an asshat is no longer restricted to white men. Isn’t that progress?

Being an asshat is no longer restricted to white men. Isn’t that progress?

no

What Alaska said.Also, way to make it all about yourselves, QT and Camel. Where is Camel1-53 by the way?

Oh, I gotcha. I didn’t realize that when we allowed the women and the minorities to positions of power, we had to make sure that we agreed with their beliefs first. If I would have known that, I would have stayed quiet.

I never said that women and minorities had to share my beliefs to be in power.You asked if it was progress that being an asshat is no longer restricted to white men.I don’t think it is progress.More asshats does not a better world make.

When do we start praising black people who have ascended to the head of criminal organizations? What if an asian guy became head of the Flat Earth Society?

They disagreed with me so I had them eradicated.

Thank you Travis. That’s my point.

Quick someone grab the “EXTREMISTS!!!!!!” guy and the “I hate Thom Hartmann for slandering Regan” guy and lets have a party

Once again, and I wish I knew other ways to say this so maybe I could get through. It is my failing. We are not praising the individuals themselves who have risen to these positions.We are not praising the specifc man or woman.We do not support the beliefs of the particular individuals in all cases.We do not agree with them.I am glad that it is possible for a black man to be president or the leader of a major political party even if I loathe either of those men. The possibility is good because it means there is a possibility I will not hate them.Of course, I will not hate him as long as that SOB wears a suit in the right places.

One could surmise that the political color barrier was pretty well dented already since, ya know, a black dude is President.

*ding ding*

Exactly, man. I’m not saying the Reps are good for making Steele their leader, and I’m not saying Steele is good for being black and being a leader. I’m saying he is little more than a barometer and likewise so is Obama. We don’t hate one and like the other or like them both or hate them both because they’re black. We appreciate the fact that they are capable of being where they are and then we judge them according to their merits. That’s all I’m saying.

Honest question. Why are a majority of the posters here, and 99.9% of liberals opposed to waterboarding?

Except Obama was elected by a majority of voters and Steele was nominated by a floundering gaggle of bigoted troglodytes who were hot to prove they weren’t racist after the front runner for the job actually took the time to send out a mailer full of racist shit.Steele is nothing but a tool, and has been so since even before Ehrlich used him to get elected (for one term, might I add).

Honest question. Why are a majority of the posters here, and 99.9% of liberals opposed to waterboarding?Posted by: Chris at February 5, 2009 11:53 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Ak94LRfG4

Yeah, Travis, Steele’s a dick. Again, I’m not talking about the individuals. I’m talking about the possibility of his being in that position ten years go or twenty years ago or so on. Whatever, the important thing right now is to point out that Chris is not asking an honest question at all. I mean really.

Travis D–Why do you feel the need to put down everyone that doesn’t agree with you? It’s a little presumptious to think Steele was elected by bigots. I think he was the best man for the job. The most media friendly of the GOP chair candidates.Silly, pointless partisan lowers the level of political discourse.

[quote]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Ak94LRfG4[/quote]Care to give a serious answer?

>>Why are a majority of the posters here, and 99.9% of liberals opposed to waterboarding?Because the majority of posters here are law-abiding citizens who believe in upholding the US Constitution. Waterboarding is torture. Torture is outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, a treaty which we signed on to and which, therefore, is the law of the land.Moreover, a lot of us actually like GIthePotato and his fellow military personnel and would hate to have them be captured & subjected to that sort of treatment on OUR behalf because the asshats who invaded a sovereign country thought that torture & breaking the law was cool.Because we are DECENT human beings who don’t inflict pain based on a theory that has proven to be untrue.Now, your turn, why should anyone support torture, which, from the disparaging tone of your question, it appears you do?

[quote]Because the majority of posters here are law-abiding citizens who believe in upholding the US Constitution. Waterboarding is torture. Torture is outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, a treaty which we signed on to and which, therefore, is the law of the land.Moreover, a lot of us actually like GIthePotato and his fellow military personnel and would hate to have them be captured & subjected to that sort of treatment on OUR behalf because the asshats who invaded a sovereign country thought that torture & breaking the law was cool.Because we are DECENT human beings who don’t inflict pain based on a theory that has proven to be untrue.Now, your turn, why should anyone support torture, which, from the disparaging tone of your question, it appears you do.[/quote]You’re right, I do support waterboarding. We’re dealing with animals, therefore all options are on the table when American lives are on the line. They’re going to use their tactics regardless of what we do. These are people who’s ideology condones sending handicapped women into crowded areas to blow themselves up.Prisoners at Gitmo are not members of any military, therefore they should not be awarded the same rights…Regardless, I don’t think anyone should lose too much sleep over what happens to the type of people housed at Gitmo.

Especially that kid that’s been there since he was 16. Fuck that guy, right?

What I find most ironic about this whole angle is that one of the most common literary analogues for bush was The Emperor Who Wore No Clothes.

Chris -First, Steele.We found common ground. I also believe that Steele was the best candidate for the job (when considering that race is irrelevant, which I always do). History shows that the GOP does not consider race to be irrelevant, so that figures in there somehow but I’ll let it pass because I can’t provide evidence to support a suspicion. So I cede the Steele case to you.Second, Waterboarding.Waterboarding is torture. Without even invoking treaties such as The Geneva Conventions and the Conventions on Torture, both of which we signed, and both of which define waterboarding to be torture, there is a huge stack of legal opinions written by the U.S. DoJ spanning over 6 decades that conclude that waterboarding is torture. Only one legal opinion, written by John Yu, reaches the opposite opinion.If waterboarding is not torture, then we owe a huge apology to the families of the three Japanese armed forces members that we executed for war crames because they waterboarded U.S. PoWs.The only peopl on the entire planet that claim that waterboarding is not torture, are the right wing extremists in the U.S. The entire rest of the world considers it torture.Perhaps you missed the news that the EU is discussing how to have Bush and Rumsfeld brought to the Hague for a war crimes trial. We would be in clear violation of our treaty obligations if we do not turn them over.Perhaps you can explain why you think it is not torture?If ‘because John Yu said so’ is the best you have then you have nothing.

SillyGit >>Perhaps you missed the news that the EU is discussing how to have Bush and Rumsfeld brought to the Hague for a war crimes trial. We would be in clear violation of our treaty obligations if we do not turn them over.