May 14, 2008

All good

Maybe our democracy will make it afterall. This is one encouraging sign.
Surveillance. Rendition. Torture.

By many measures, the Bush administration has been bad for civil liberties.

Yet the past seven years have been particularly good for the American Civil Liberties Union. National membership in the organization, which fights for freedom of speech and religion, equal protection, due process and privacy, has doubled since Bush took office in 2001 - an extraordinary spurt of growth for the 88-year-old institution.


Newton had it right, for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

10 Comments:

At 5/15/2008 2:51 PM, Anonymous tiger woods said...

Isn't this wonderful news!?

Now they will have more money to defend the Constitutional Rights of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Pedophelia lives on! Yippy!

 
At 5/16/2008 7:47 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Yep, that's all they do.

You flaming asshole.

 
At 5/16/2008 1:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Atta boy Dope, you tell 'em! With comebacks like that, I don't know how anyone would ever disagree with you.

 
At 5/16/2008 4:42 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon,

Are you disputing that Mowen is an asshole? Are you saying that his posting some half-baked bit of right wing B.S. that was lame 15 years ago should be treated as anything worthy of respect?

Please! A 10 year old could come up with something less lame than that, for God's sake.

The guy spouts idiotic crap like a goose being fed with a hose.

Now I'm supposed to pretend he's NOT an asshole? Thanks anyway.

There's more than enough proof to convict him of that five times over on this blog alone.

If he could muster up a rational comment that didn't rely on false facts or assumptions and could argue based on facts and reality, it would be a different story.

Readers who possess the ability to actually THINK about what they read here in a logical manner probably do agree with what I write. (or at least admit I have a point.)

I only come to that conclusion because frankly, I've seen precious little from anyone who disagrees that amounts to anything more than childish gibberish, really lame cheap shots, or some regurgitation of the sort of bumper sticker idiocy they absorb from right wing shills.

(Now I've been fortunate enough to have a very rare and appreciated few who have disagreed with me in at a level somewhere beyond pre-school. I actually like this when I see it and welcome it, as it only adds to the discussion and makes everyone wiser. If I had a dozen comments of that caliber a day, I'd be a happier blogger. But alas, it happens far too rarely.)

I take the sort of thinking and attitude that is expressed by such dim-witted waste of time cheap shots as confirmation of the lack of any ability on these commenters part to make an intellectually honest argument refuting what I write.

I keep waiting. They can't do it.

Sure, you can make some dumb crack about Teddy Kennedy. That takes a lot of brains. You can write whatever stupid crack comes to mind that you heard on Limbaugh three years ago, again, that's pretty impressive.

Or you can insist that we debate some ridiculously vast topic like the entirety of the U.S. tax code by throwing out suspect facts and figures you got from some right wing front group established and financed by billionaires with the goal of eliminating all taxes on ... well... them.

Again, not too swift. You wanna argue a case for the rich getting richer at the expense of the other 99% of the population, knock yourself out.

But seriously, anyone who wants to argue we're not enough of a plutocracy already is out to lunch anyway.

They repeatedly come around my place, saying essentially nothing but crap, contributing absolutely zero to anything, and I'M the bad guy when I call them on it?

I see.

And when they've littered their comments here by the hundreds for months on end with the same sort of shallow mental refuse, I'm supposed to treat them with deference and respect because...... let me get this straight, if I don't, they won't agree with me?

Ahhhh. Good thinking.

I'm afraid you made two mistakes.

One is that you actually think I care if this bozo agrees with me or not.

And the other is mistaking my attempt to pursuede this jerk that if he can't do any better than that, he should take his nonsense somewhere else.

It's just my opinion, but I think your sympathies are sadly misplaced.

 
At 5/17/2008 9:16 AM, Blogger tiz said...

Hey now, Mark Foley (R-Florida) appreciates and fully supports any help the ACLU can provide to NAMBLA.

 
At 5/19/2008 10:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The dope wrote:"Readers who possess the ability to actually THINK about what they read here in a logical manner probably do agree with what I write. (or at least admit I have a point.)"

Wellsir, while I generally do agree with the side of the issue that you take, it remains that in all honesty I personally regard you as a flaming idiot right up there with fatass limbaugh.

A wacko democrat is equally repugnant as a wacko republican.
[signed] Conservative Demo

PS: It's a shame that this is so far down on the web page and won't get seen because I'd love to see some dialog over this comment.

 
At 5/20/2008 11:11 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

First of all, you're not a Democrat of any sort and are likely lying about that part.

Secondly, I'm sure others will find it as amusing as I do that you can somehow argue that you agree with me, but that my views make me a flaming asshole, begging the quesion, what does that make you?

 
At 5/20/2008 8:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conservative Demo here:
Please, let's clarify that I said ". . . . I generally do agree with the side of the issue that you take", I didn't say that I agree with you.

Secondly, didja ever notice that the honest man usually tends to take others at their words while the liar himself pretty much tends to believe that everyone else is also a liar?

Flaming asshole?, you said that. I said, "flaming idiot."

Finally, it's not your views which make you equal-to but no-different-than Rush Limbaugh, but rather your crude presentation.

Damn!, Dope, can't you put this dialog up-top where everyone can see you being beaten in the head game by one of your own party?

 
At 5/22/2008 2:46 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You're not in my party, and you're not beating anyone at anything.

If you think I have to be 'nice' to some idiot who insists on spouting lame, dumb-ass right wing slurs from decades ago, you're mistaken.

When a commenter is crude all the time, then yeah, I'm crude in return. Sorry it ruffles your feathers. But not much.

 
At 5/24/2008 5:56 PM, Anonymous non wussy Dem said...

Conservative Demo, you crack me up. You're obviously not a Dem, and you seem to have an odd little hang-up on the Dopester.

I might point out that Limbaugh has been making around $30 million dollars a year for the past decade and lives in a palatial mansion in Palm Beach.

Meanwhile, while Limbaugh and those like him were helping persuede millions of independents and Democrats to become Republicans, and helping the Republicans win complete and utter control over every branch of government, the Dems were busy being "polite".

I think you're supposed offense at the Dope's "crude presentation" is a joke.

First of all, Limbaugh lies all the time. He makes stuff up. I've read the Dope for years and don't recall him ever basing anything on false information or gross distortions of the truth.

It's people like you that attack those who actually have the guts to stand up and fight back that are the reason the Dems habitually lose races that are all but handed to them.

Grow up, get over yourself, and piss off.

Dope, don't change a thing.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home