Have you seen this MP3 player yet?I'd like to get a hold of one of these puppies and fill it up with Ozzy, Black Sabbath, Slayer, Iron Maiden and Morbid Angel tunes... and then leave it in a church... with a note that said something like "To the person who finds this, it is your lucky day! Enjoy the music on this special MP3 player!"
It'd be fun to follow the person who finds it and watch their crazy little head explode as they listened to "Satanic" heavy metal on a cross-shaped MP3 player...
Posts
18 comments:
Maybe some Christian Death?
I will hijack this thread for a minute just to say, how many times have I posted about poking the sleeping Russian Bear and lo and behold the fucking bear is now awake, claws sharpened and hungry. Gee, Georgia looks tasty and that pesky Eagle is nowhere to be found. Fuck Bush and the elephant he rode in on. Dipshit!
But Bawdy, don't you know that the more important news story is about John Edwards' affair? At least it is if you watch Fox News.
i also wonder if mccain's antagonism toward da bear influenced events in any way.
regarding edwards, it makes me wonder: why don't they ever devote that much press time to the infidelity of republicans, like newt gingrich or john mccain?
You two must be kidding. All the Republicans and religious leaders who have been in compromising positions and have had them outlined in detail in the media the last few years and you still aren't satisfied? Granted the Edwards story isn't on par with what is going on in the Caucasus, but to say conservatives are getting a free pass is ludicrous. My suggestion is stop watching Fox, the entertainment choice of fools.
Edwards is in a world of trouble I do believe if he paid off his mistress while he was a candidate. I feel for his wife, she must be a saint.
Remember the coverage McCain got for an affair there was not even any evidence for? How foolish to claim Republicans get a pass. It took the National Enquire to being down Edwards. Our media is quite sad.
Bawdy, are you implying we should step in militarily in the Russia vs. Georgia conflict? It would seem to be a UN issue more than a US issue. Of course if McCain caused these events I suppose we should be held culpable.
anony,
My stance is one of a peace-loving libertarian. So I am not in favor of anyone getting militarily involved with the Russians, even the UN.
My position goes like this. In 1989the Soviet Union collapses and the behemoth is financially bankrupt. The Russians then decide to try to become a market oriented society, basically ready to join the rest of the world. And out of the kindness of our hearts, we tell the Russians we would be willing to assist and educate the Russians through their transformation. Only this was a lie. The Russians were naive and unprotected and we(with much European help) were going to make sure the Russians stayed down. We have had a hand in all the "Color" revolutions which tore Georgia, Ukraine, Krygystan(sp?)from the Russian periphery, what they call their "near abroad". Add to this the EU's appetite for many post-Soviet countries, the independence of Kosovo(and the Balkan War in general)and the basing of missle defense in Eastern Europe and you have a pretty pissed Russia. We didn't help economically like we said we would. We didn't take into consideration what the Russian's take would be on any important world issues. Which leads me to two more points...
If you(not you personally)are a Neo-Con or think like one, you might say, so what is the problem? The answer would be nothing, if you are willing to withstand whatever behavior Russia might produce as a counter(the war in Georgia?). You can't poke a sleeping bear and then lament when it takes your head off, in other words. These fuckers(the Neo-Cons)should have known what they had wrought, but are they willing to accept the consequences.
The second point is the culpability of this administration. With all this hogwash about the "sanctity of life" has anyone in the Presidency been so cavalier with the lives of people all over the world. Even though I believe we were justified to attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan(Iraq was a mistake of the most colossal proportions)and should have left the country totally after the Tora Bora debacle; taking advantage of Russian hospitality by using air bases in Central Asia to gain a foothold in Russia's near abroad is inexcusible. Using federally backed NGOs to rejigger post-Soviet governments to our favor is inexcusible and hypocritical. I am a big fan of spreading democracy by example only, not using subterfuge. So if we are going to use these means we can't tell others they can't, even Russia. This is why I blanch when some unknowledgable sort mindlessly states we are the best country in the world withour realizing what they are really saying. I do believe we are the best country in the world; we just have problems proving this lately, especially with the offal which resides in the White House.
Tried to post this earlier, but I guess I hit "preview" instead of "publish."
It was only about a month ago that the LA Times ran a front page story about John McCain's divorce... the one that happened 30 years ago. And I don't think Larry Craig feels like he got a "pass" from the media.
bawdy,
If memory serves me correctly, wasn't Bush pushing to admit Georgia into NATO, but the European nations rejected them? If they had been on the path to admission, I doubt that Russia would have been so bold. I hope NATO doesn't make the same mistake with Ukraine.
I'm not a starry-eyed Bush apologist, but I really don't think you can dump this one on his shoulders. Yes, the administration could have handled the situation better before it got to this point. But the eruption is due mainly to the weak knees in Europe, a healthy dose of stupidity by Georgia's president, and Russia's typical arrogance & aggression.
mouse,
Russia can unilaterally veto anything that comes up in the UN. So to leave it in the UN's hands is to basically resign to the fact that nothing will happen. While they aren't as impotent as the League of Nations was, situations like this show how little influence the UN really has.
RE: Georgia
The Russians would not likely be so aggressive if the US were not over-extended in an unnecessary war in Iraq. Not saying the US would necessarily rush to aid Georgia, but just the possibility of that increasing substantially if we were not in Iraq could serve to temper the Bear.
RE: Edwards
I think this story should be a nit in the news, but the people who should be most pissed off at him are all Democrats and not just his biggest Dem supporters. If Edwards has won the primary just think of the BFM (big fucking mess) that the Democrats would have on their hands?
Also, McCain is probably hoping that this blows over quickly since he has a similar blot in his past - he cheated on his 1st wife when she was ill. It makes Obama look like a saint by comparison if the Edwards story lingers in the news and people put 2 and 2 together.
Ok, let's see...about Georgia. Hmm. It seems to me that over the last 20 years (almost)the Russians have been in a state of political imbalance. Not chaos exactly, but imbalance and insecurity.
However, there was still apparently a large amount of looking askance at us and the Nato countries. This being the case, it could be said that all those former Soviet territories now acted as a sort of buffer zone between them and 'us'. All the violence in the former Yugoslavia wasn't a threat, because we weren't there imposing American ways and views.
But...the proposed missile bases and Nato memberships make the Russians nervous. Rather than let Georgia become 'ours', perhaps Putin decided that if it couldn't be trusted to remain 'neutral' then he'd make sure it was theirs.
Just some speculation
for the record, i never meant to implicate mccain in the actions taken in georgia, only in the timing. clearly, the conflict has been brewing for at least 2 years; maybe it seemed wiser to putin and medvedev to do this with dubya in office rather than chance interference from mccain should he win in november.
re: edwards, maybe i'm just sick of hearing about it. larry craig asked for extra scrutiny when he refused to resign. i didn't see the article in the la times that g referenced...but i guess i avoid the issue, if given a choice.
what irritates me is how edward's career is declared over now, but somehow it's ok for newt or john mccain to continue? personally, i don't think infidelity to your spouse should disqualify you from office all by itself.
Let’s compare Edwards & McCain. Edwards was recently a serious contender for the presidency, a former VP candidate, a Senator and may be investigated for using campaign funds to hush up his mistress. Not only that, the Clinton campaign knew what he was doing and kept quiet. His name also surfaced as Obama's VP running mate. This is recent and relevant and his career is over. Let’s not forget he lied about this repeatedly
McCain had an affair but none of these other circumstances were present. Big difference. If it was a republican I feel quite certain the DNC would be screaming from the hilltops. Like McCain, in 25 years we will no longer be talking about it.
I see Russia and Georgia as a simple scenario really. They have hated each other for years and Georgia has a large Jewish population. It has nothing to do with frustration and democracy. A limited democracy is what they have wanted all along. Russia has Europe over a barrel because of the black gold. The also know the US would not step in due to the potential political backlash. The UN is a joke and as G stated the most the UN can do is slap their wrist.
Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?
Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser.
Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. Iraq invasion.
There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which clearly was expected to produce a Russian counter-reaction. It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain's presidential campaign.
In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.
Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate's demonization of Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Hussein to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.
McCain gets to look tough with a new Cold War to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But it will provide the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.
What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that ramps up its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Joseph Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a "revanchist Russia" that should once again be contained. Although Putin has been the enormously popular elected leader of post-Communist Russia, it is assumed that imperialism is always lurking, not only in his DNA but in that of the Russian people.
How convenient to forget that Stalin was a Georgian, and indeed if Russian troops had occupied the threatened Georgian town of Gori, they would have found a museum still honoring their local boy, who made good by seizing control of the Russian revolution. Indeed five Russian bombs were allegedly dropped on Gori's Stalin Square on Tuesday.
It should also be mentioned that the post-Communist Georgians have imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What a stark contradiction that the United States, which championed Kosovo's independence from Serbia, now is ignoring Georgia's invasion of its ethnically rebellious provinces.
For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann's neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible.
Are you high, Mouse? The Clinton campaign knew about Edwards? Really? And they didn't work to eliminate him from the race? I don't believe that for one second.
Edwards immediate future is in doubt, but his career may be far from over. I don't care one way or the other - never much liked Edwards - but he should be afforded the same chances as other cheaters like Gingrich and McCain.
If an affair kills a career, then McCain should have been out of politics LOOONG ago. Read what you post before you post it. Doing so will highlight absurd contradictions like this, which appear almost right next to each other in your post.
I must say Thomas that seems to be an exercise in the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. I understand why some folks wouldn't like McCain but that is ridiculous.
CSM Howard Wolfson is on record that the Clinton campaign knew about Edwards and kept quiet about the whole thing. I wished they had spilled the beans. We would have Hillary instead of NoBama. Take it with him. Before you criticize you really should check your facts. That would be the reasonable thing to do.
Howard Wolfson is the guy who is saying that if the Edwards news had been made public that Hillary would have won. He is not saying that he, or Hillary's camp, knew the Edwards news. You should get your facts straight mousey.
Again Thomas cannot think for himself but is posting other folks' materials. See it here.
"In an interview released Monday, Wolfson also said that Clinton's campaign knew about the affair but kept quiet.
"Any of the campaigns that would have tried to push that would have been burned by it," he said."
I thought I would just quote the Yahoo article for you csm. You seem to be engaged in an act of futility.
My apologies, mouse. It seems Wolfson is being quoted as saying that. I still don't believe it, but you were right about him claiming that. If they "knew" anything it was rumors, not any hard evidence (I'm thinking).
I also do not think that Edwards exiting before Iowa would have made a lick of difference. Many polls show that the second choice for most of Edwards' supporter in Iowa was Obama, not Clinton. But I'd have been happy back then if Clinton had won because I was an early, ardent supporter of hers before Obama won me over.
Post a Comment