Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Et tu, Vox Day?
December 20, 2005 10:13 PM   Subscribe

"...George Bush must resign. Failing that, he should be impeached. I have little doubt that this column will infuriate many Republicans and conservatives, millions of whom twice voted enthusiastically for George Bush. It is always painful to realize that one has been betrayed, and even more painful to discover that one has been made a willing accomplice in the destruction of that which one cherishes. You can continue to believe that George Bush is a patriotic American, though he is not. You can dismiss me as a liberal, a left-winger or a lunatic, though I am not." So says Vox Day, WorldNetDaily columnist, self-described Christian libertarian, and recent subject of MeFi interest for his views on rape.
posted by Artifice_Eternity (144 comments total)

 
Bravo. It's about time. Where are the honest conservatives? Here's one. No more delusions.
posted by digaman at 10:27 PM on December 20, 2005


[this is good]
posted by wakko at 10:28 PM on December 20, 2005


Who does that guy's hair?
posted by Balisong at 10:29 PM on December 20, 2005


The sound of one hand clapping sounds a lot like jerking off.

Who cares what this guy says? Other than being a data point in a really big pool of data that shows that the country might be slowly (glacially) returning some semblance of sanity, he's irrelevant.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:30 PM on December 20, 2005


Thank you for your report from the pit of inignificance, Doctor. Just outside of it, widely published voices are important, and I have been shocked to see how long it's taken true conservatives to realize that Bush is an impostor and a thief of liberty.

who does that guy's hair>

Data?
posted by digaman at 10:32 PM on December 20, 2005


This guy is a Christian? ewww, who cares what he believes?
posted by newfers at 10:33 PM on December 20, 2005


While the enemy of my enemy may be my friend, that guy ("Vox Day" *snigger*) really is still a creep.
posted by wilful at 10:34 PM on December 20, 2005 [1 favorite]


um, yeah. i'm with wilful.
posted by es_de_bah at 10:36 PM on December 20, 2005


Balisong: I tried so hard to figure out a way to work the haircut into the FPP...

Yes, he's a dork and a pseudo-intellectual (only pseudo-intellectuals brag about being members of Mensa). But the fact that he's a WND columnist is what interested me most about this column. There's obviously spreading discontent with Bush among many factions of the conservative base.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:36 PM on December 20, 2005


His real name is Theodore Beale, and he is not just a self-described Christian liberatarian, he is also:

"The author of the Eternal Warriors fantasy series based on what he calls "the Christian concept of spiritual warfare," as well as a former member of the industrial-techno band Psykosonik."

But I still don't know who does his hair. Or why he is interesting or important enough for an FPP
posted by blahblahblah at 10:38 PM on December 20, 2005



why he is interesting or important enough for an FPP

Because WorldNetDaily is one of the mainstays of the drippin-red-blood-meat-state Republican right.
posted by digaman at 10:44 PM on December 20, 2005


"Three Monkey Republicans."

I like that.
posted by homunculus at 10:44 PM on December 20, 2005


Vox Day is a bad pseudonym though considering his real name, its a toss up. But I liked this piece. Some nice turns of phrase, Three Monkey Republicans being one, and I definitely agree with his conclusion about Bush's violations against the oath he took when he entered office.

On Preview: homonculus, heh!
posted by fenriq at 10:48 PM on December 20, 2005


It's almost like Bush is trying to be impeached.
posted by odinsdream at 10:49 PM on December 20, 2005


LOL. Libertarian minarchist wankers. God love'em.

But first, can someone point out the textual basis for a constitutional right to privacy of communications, especially long-distance communications to a putatively hostile area?

Failing that, can one point out absolute common law rights to privacy of communications?

Prior to 1967, there was no constitutional right to privacy of communications, jurisprudence was based on the principle of not trespassing on private property.

But with the Katz decision, magically, the requirement for a bench warrant to effect search & seizure of persons and personal effects in one's home became a constitutional right to privacy of communications.

I agree that Bush has probably stepped in it by not actively getting Congressional sign-off and oversight on measures his government has taken to collect and analyze intelligence.

I do believe that Congress has rather strong powers, via the "necessary & proper" clause, to bundle laws and delegate powers to the executive to enforce these laws that fulfill constitutional mandates like providing for the common defense.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:51 PM on December 20, 2005


A Washington Times column by Bruce Fein also was surprisingly harsh: ...President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. ...
posted by amberglow at 11:10 PM on December 20, 2005


Day even knocks his koolaid drinking friends: ...America was founded on the principle that it is right to sacrifice blood for liberty. It is telling that the Bush defenders make precisely the opposite argument, that it is right to sacrifice liberty in order to avoid the shedding of American blood. In this they are, like the Dear Leader, avowedly anti-American.

That George Bush is in open and repeated violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is no longer debatable. ...

posted by amberglow at 11:12 PM on December 20, 2005


Bush on illegal wiretaps. mp3
posted by dobbs at 11:16 PM on December 20, 2005


that it is right to sacrifice liberty

what liberty is being sacrificed here, with private communications being collected and analyzed?

And I would note that we routinely sacrifice liberties every day: helmet laws, seatbelt laws, basically every law in the book.

It's a matter of balance -- the public interest without placing "undue burdens" on private liberty.

We gave our government a mandate to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...

We have inherent rights, but none of these are absolute -- we can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater for instance.

I understand peoples' fears of instituting the tools of totalitarianism -- cf. Hoover and Nixon, not to mention Soviet Russia.

But I believe the Constitution is, in fact, a piece of paper vellum, and our true human rights are secured with the (eventual) uprightness of our public servants and the spirit of communality of purpose among the citizenry wrt the American Experiment.

Though I've got to admit things have slidden pretty far down the hill the past 40-odd years.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:25 PM on December 20, 2005


Heywood, as far as I understand it (which ain't all that far), this is not an issue of murky interpretation or Constitutional law.

This is a matter of federal statue. As it stands now, you either get a regular warrant, you get a FISA warrant, or you do not surveil American citizens (if you are the NSA, CIA, or whatnot). There is no grey area: if you do something other than those three, what you are doing is illegal.

And the Bush administration has freely admitted to engaging in many such illegal cases of surveillance. Rule of law demands Bush be impeached for signing off on this.
posted by teece at 11:46 PM on December 20, 2005


But I believe the Constitution is, in fact, a piece of paper vellum, and our true human rights are secured with the (eventual) uprightness of our public servants and the spirit of communality of purpose among the citizenry wrt the American Experiment.
If that were true, we're well and trulier fucked than any of us knows. Fortunately, the Constitution contains certain limits on the lack of uprightness history and common sense suggest - nay, demand - we expect from our public servants. I just hope some of our other public servants have the cojones to honor their oaths of office.
posted by spacewrench at 11:46 PM on December 20, 2005


teece: I agree with that completely; I'm no scholar but IMV Bush does not have a mandate that exceeds what Congress (and the Constitution) has given him, and locking 8 representatives in a box for 3 years is not a Congressional authorization of war powers.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:52 PM on December 20, 2005


Can we please stop linking to Vox Day, no matter what he says in that column, I loathe to think that he profits anyway from links on the blue.
posted by afu at 11:56 PM on December 20, 2005 [1 favorite]


His haircut was no doubt done by someone who claims (honestly or otherwise) to have hung out with one of the guys from Skinny Puppy back in the day.

And I'm surprised that his article didn't take his stance on date rape re: bush.

namely, blame the victim.

it's your fault america! next time don't be so fucking slutty with your vote!"
posted by shmegegge at 11:59 PM on December 20, 2005


I just hope some of our other public servants have the cojones to honor their oaths of office.

Right; that's where separation of powers come in. Only if Congress, the Executive, the Courts, and your particular state government is on tilt will your situation become well and truly fucked.

The Japanese internment, the McCarthy witchhunts, and I suppose Governor Reagan-era crackdowns at eg. Berkeley (& Kent State) are the major incidences of governmental slip-ups. Since then it has been relatively smooth sailing, hasn't it?

Ah, wait, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and asset forfeiture laws sorta extend the ring, don't they... can't forget Jose Padilla, either, I suppose...
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:10 AM on December 21, 2005


Heywood: Pace teec's comment, it's my understanding that this was a grey area -- at least to some extent -- prior to Watergate, and that Congress passed FISA specifically to make the limits of executive power in wiretapping explicit.
posted by spiderwire at 12:18 AM on December 21, 2005


spiderwire: I guess Bush is fucked then. Good.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:41 AM on December 21, 2005


Heywood: Why are you such a stinking pimp to the false notion that the Constitution limits our liberty? This is terribly juvenile and totally wrong. Any educated American would not put forth such a notion except to mislead the people into thinking their rights are granted by the government.

In the United States of America, the GOVERNMENT is granted powers by the Constitution. The list of rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights is explicitly stated as NOT being exhaustive. Have you read the document?

So, which are you, an uneducated fool, or an evil son-of-a-bitch that wants to con people into believing Government is master of the people, rather than the people the master of the government? I am curious to know which. It has the sound of the kind of shit foisted on us by Karl Rove and his lackeys.
posted by Goofyy at 12:52 AM on December 21, 2005


Washington Post story: U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation. Was
posted by Skygazer at 1:02 AM on December 21, 2005


was
posted by Skygazer at 1:04 AM on December 21, 2005


Visit his Web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader email.

Vox Popoli? Voice of the People? This guy makes some good points, but he sure is damn full of himself. Kinda fits with the whole pseudonym choice, though. I suggest referring to him by his pseudonym's initials; VD.
posted by mystyk at 1:20 AM on December 21, 2005


Goofyy. Dude. Take a Valium or something.
posted by spiderwire at 1:27 AM on December 21, 2005


Isn't the term Christian libertarian an oxymoron?
posted by johnny novak at 1:57 AM on December 21, 2005


What I don't understand is how he managed to get into Mensa if he can't spell vox populi?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:33 AM on December 21, 2005


It's easy and fun to rant on the year your man was inaugurated. Watch as Mr. Vox Day falls lock-in-step behind congressional republican candidates next year, and the vehemently supports the party presedential candidate in '08.

Wouldn't want to lose your punditry position after all.
posted by Firas at 3:07 AM on December 21, 2005


Why are you such a stinking pimp to the false notion that the Constitution limits our liberty?

eh? The constitution certainly grants powers to Congress to legislate limitations on our liberty (known as "laws"), subject to the "necessary and proper" clause, and hand these limitations off to the executive branch for enforcement.

Among other things, we have Constitutionally mandated to our government the preservation of public order and safety. Of course we have rights, both explicitly incorporated in the Bill of Rights and implicit and evolving common-law rights via the 9th amendment, but none of these rights are absolute in nature.

Instead, our individual human rights are held in balance vs. the needs of society via the "undue burden" test.

In times of extreme national emergency, the needs of society can in fact place heavy restrictions on individual liberty. This is, IMV at least, how such odious things as conscription can be justified.

Note that I believe Congress is the sole determiner, subject to judicial review, of the necessity of these laws (the Executive is charged in administering the laws, but is not above them).

Should the People grow dissatisified with these laws, they have the power of replacing their representives over a 2-6 year period, and the moral right to engage in insurrection should their Congress somehow suspend the Constitution.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:16 AM on December 21, 2005


We have inherent rights, but none of these are absolute -- we can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater for instance

Henry V, Prologue
CHORUS: O for a Muse of fire!

King Lear, Act III, Scene II
LEAR: Rumble thy bellyful! Spit, fire!

Pericles, Act III, Scene II
CERIMON: Make a fire within / Fetch hither all my boxes in my closet.

Coriolanus, Act III Scene III
CORIOLANUS: The fires i' the lowest hell fold-in the people!

Julius Caesar, Act III Scene II
CITIZENS: Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire!

Macbeth, Act IV Scene I
WITCHES: Double, double toil and trouble / Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Othello, Act II Scene II
HERALD: every man put himself into triumph; some to dance / some to make bonfires

Titus Andronicus, Act I Scene I
LUCIUS: make a fire straight / And with our swords, upon a pile of wood /
Let's hew his limbs till they be clean consumed.

Timon of Athens, Act II Scene III
SERVANT: like those that under hot ardent zeal would set / whole realms on fire!

Henry IV Part 1, Act III Scene I
GLENDOWER: The heavens were all on fire, the earth did tremble.

Henry VI Part 3, Act III Scene II
CLARENCE: As red as fire!

Merchant of Venice, Act II Scene IX
ARRAGON: The fire seven times tried this:

The Tempest, Act V, Scene I
PROSPERO: to the dread rattling thunder / Have I given fire!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:38 AM on December 21, 2005 [2 favorites]


Yes, because nothing is a better response to a judge's metaphorical explanation of a first amendment exclusion doctrine than a nitpicked list of quotes.
posted by Firas at 3:53 AM on December 21, 2005


The problem with accusing Bush is that this http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

suggests that both Clinton and Carter did exactly the same thing!
posted by Postroad at 3:57 AM on December 21, 2005


because nothing is a better ... etc

Mate, I thought it was just a irreverent brush-off when someone trots out the cliche that you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre: "Wait, that's how Henry V starts!"
posted by the quidnunc kid at 4:09 AM on December 21, 2005


The problem with accusing Bush...

is that poor Drudge has to sink his trashy reputation as a GOP tool even deeper into the toilet. Let's hope he got a Christmas bonus for the latest round of lies.
posted by digaman at 4:54 AM on December 21, 2005


What a shit post. Left wing right wing no wings, it's a really really crap post.
posted by peacay at 5:02 AM on December 21, 2005


How is it a really really crap post?

It's possible to tear yourself up trying to decide what to post or not, and some recent days that have been surprisingly light on FPPs signify, to me, that perhaps people are straying too much on the side of caution. Unblunted posthate does little except make people either indignant or wordshy, so at least try to quantify what you don't like about it.

Look at it this way: if Artiface_Eternity hadn't posted this, we wouldn't have been able to snicker about the guy's Hitler-moustache haircut.
posted by JHarris at 5:29 AM on December 21, 2005


This was the WND?

/my head asplode
posted by clevershark at 5:29 AM on December 21, 2005


"CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER...

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER..."

--Drudge Report, now.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:34 AM on December 21, 2005


Bush's behaviour is going to catch up with him. Not fast enough, but eventually.
posted by orange swan at 5:43 AM on December 21, 2005


You forgot this PP: NYT: SPYING PROGRAM SNARED U.S. CALLS; SOME EXCHANGES WERE DOMESTIC ON BOTH ENDS.... Headline taken from Drudge Report, now.
posted by clevershark at 5:53 AM on December 21, 2005


Fenriq: Not all Theodores hide their embarrassment with pseudonyms!
disclaimer: I, moonbird, may or may not be named Theodore.
posted by moonbird at 5:53 AM on December 21, 2005


Paris, you must have missed digaman's link, so I'll post the entirety of the ThinkProgress post here:

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –


What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
posted by jperkins at 5:55 AM on December 21, 2005


Though I've got to admit things have slidden pretty far down the hill the past 40-odd years.

I wouldn't ignore what awaits only slightly further down that hill nowadays, and would try mightily to arrest and reverse those slides if i were you.
posted by amberglow at 6:34 AM on December 21, 2005


JHarris writes "How is it a really really crap post?"

Single-link opinion piece regarding well known facts creamed with bilious editorializing.

It could have been ok I guess if there was some surveying of the relevant pundits to bolster claims that the right wing of the media is abandoning the adminstration. But jeezuss, this was just a rally call for the usual keyboard leftist MeFi hope squad, despite some interesting added links and conversation.

Um...that's why. Perhaps I should have resisted the 'post-hating' (yeah, I flagged it as 'noise') but I didn't think it was worth taking to the grey.
posted by peacay at 6:42 AM on December 21, 2005


let's see: pompous twit, pretentious name, stupid haircut. oh yeah, bush is a goner now.
posted by quonsar at 6:44 AM on December 21, 2005


Paris and Postroad,

If you have read the rebuttal to your comments, you know that the assertion that Clinton/Carter did the same thing as Bush is absolutely false.

I know that there's a lot of invective that's hurled back and forth on the Blue, but this is a clear-cut case of demonstrable error. You now owe the members of this forum, as weell as the principle of intellectual honesty, a recognition of that fact and an acknowledgment that you were wrong in your statements.

Will you do us this simple courtesy?
posted by darkstar at 6:55 AM on December 21, 2005


Also from the article skygazer linked, regarding the FISA jusge that resigned in protest:

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

The article goes on to mention:

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.
posted by darkstar at 7:00 AM on December 21, 2005


Cheney's take on such issues. Astounding. It's like an Ann Coulter book.

Paris. You're the leader in embarrasing yourself online. Proudly linking to nonsense. One day at a time.
posted by juiceCake at 7:02 AM on December 21, 2005


let's see: pompous twit, pretentious name, stupid haircut. oh yeah, bush is a goner now.
posted by quonsar at 9:44 AM EST on December 21 [!]


Too bad he isn't fat too, eh quonsar? Then your wonderfully persuasive argument could not be denied in anyway.
posted by juiceCake at 7:03 AM on December 21, 2005


That's any way.
posted by juiceCake at 7:03 AM on December 21, 2005


A Circuit Court Judge, Posner, stating that our govt. is not going far enough spyingwise, in the Wash Post: ...The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it difficult to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents unless they are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities. That is too restrictive. Innocent people, such as unwitting neighbors of terrorists, may, without knowing it, have valuable counterterrorist information. Collecting such information is of a piece with data-mining projects such as Able Danger.
The goal of national security intelligence is to prevent a terrorist attack, not just punish the attacker after it occurs, and the information that enables the detection of an impending attack may be scattered around the world in tiny bits. A much wider, finer-meshed net must be cast than when investigating a specific crime. Many of the relevant bits may be in the e-mails, phone conversations or banking records of U.S. citizens, some innocent, some not so innocent. ...


A sitting Judge, who thinks we shouldn't have protections. (At least he's admitting the FISA Act wasn't followed--but because he thinks it protects us all too much)
posted by amberglow at 7:06 AM on December 21, 2005


If this is the best "conservative" that can be found to call shame on Bush for this then we are in trouble.
posted by caddis at 7:09 AM on December 21, 2005


This writer, from what I recall from the last post, is a talentless heavy metal/pseudonym/unicorn enthusiast whose dad got him a job in an obscure corner of the right-wing-nutosphere. This column is, unfortunately, a huge non-event.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:17 AM on December 21, 2005


Resignation is no longer enough. Impeachment is no longer enough. Lifetime imprisonment is no longer enough. The only way George W. Bush can redeem any semblance of honor for himself and his family is to commit ritual seppuku in the White House rose garden on national television.
posted by bshock at 7:25 AM on December 21, 2005


All I can say is WOW!! Just Wow...never would have thought I would have seen this a year ago...
posted by UMDirector at 7:50 AM on December 21, 2005


Paris and Postroad,

If you have read the rebuttal to your comments, you know that the assertion that Clinton/Carter did the same thing as Bush is absolutely false.

I know that there's a lot of invective that's hurled back and forth on the Blue, but this is a clear-cut case of demonstrable error. You now owe the members of this forum, as weell as the principle of intellectual honesty, a recognition of that fact and an acknowledgment that you were wrong in your statements.

Will you do us this simple courtesy?
posted by darkstar at 6:55 AM PST on December 21

posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:52 AM on December 21, 2005


let's see: pompous twit, pretentious name, stupid haircut. oh yeah, bush is a goner now.
posted by quonsar at 9:44 AM EST on December 21 [!]

Too bad he isn't fat too, eh quonsar? Then your wonderfully persuasive argument could not be denied in anyway.
posted by juiceCake at 10:03 AM EST on December 21 [!]


*WHOOSH*

right over your pinched little cranium.
posted by quonsar at 7:59 AM on December 21, 2005


a talentless heavy metal/pseudonym/unicorn enthusiast

too bad he isn't fat. ROFL!
posted by quonsar at 8:02 AM on December 21, 2005


moonbird, nor was I intimating that all Theodores are bores, only that his particular combination of names made it easier for him to choose a bad pseudonym.

And anyone expecting ParisParamus to stop his harping and baiting is seriously delusional, he's not here to discuss anything, he's here to disrupt, derail and piss people off. How and why he retains a membership is truly beyond me, he's added literally nothing to the site and has almost certainly driven many members off with his assholery.

quonsar, it is significant that the rats are deserting the ship. It's heartening to see actually.
posted by fenriq at 8:03 AM on December 21, 2005


I can't believe WND published this.

That Cheney article...wow. Just wow.
posted by SisterHavana at 8:08 AM on December 21, 2005


q, it is good to see you back in form.
posted by caddis at 8:11 AM on December 21, 2005


Isn't the term Christian libertarian an oxymoron?

No. What makes you think it is?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:29 AM on December 21, 2005


Paris,

CLAP HARDER!!! As has so readily been pointed out, the Clinton/Carter talking point is bullshit.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:30 AM on December 21, 2005


If this was truly for our own good, and bigger and more important than our laws and liberties, then this is bigger than the need for these perps to keep their jobs.

If they truly believe it's the right thing to do, as they imply, a real hero might do it despite the consequences. But then they accept responsibily, and may have to lose their job or go to jail.

Let the unapologetically criminal-for-our-own-good President be regarded a hero after he's impeached. I can live with that.
posted by 31d1 at 8:46 AM on December 21, 2005


Coming in here late, sorry. His nom de keyboard is Vox Day? Presumably this a homonym of vox dei (voice of god, for the Latin challenged), if so, this guy is not so much a Christian as he is a blasphemer.

not that there's anything wrong with that.
posted by psmealey at 8:46 AM on December 21, 2005


ParisParamus: ""CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER...

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER..."

--Drudge Report, now.
"


LOL!
posted by 31d1 at 8:47 AM on December 21, 2005


Vox replies to "clinton and carter did it too"
posted by 445supermag at 9:10 AM on December 21, 2005


King George: One branch of government is so much more efficient than three
posted by homunculus at 9:10 AM on December 21, 2005


I suppose it's not more than healthy to scrutinize publishers, editors, authors and the like. And it seems as if some here consider the (self proclaimed?) novelist a one yucky looking fuckwit.

That apart - and I do think he saw it coming: "...try to keep in mind that railing against the messenger does not make the message any less valid." - what about the message itself? It's not the first time it's been voiced.

I can't really judge what's happening on your (the ones of you who are Americans) side of the border, but if there's just an ounce of truth in these words, that not solely comes from named writer, does it really matter if it's a left-wing / right-wing / neocon / liberal / democrat / republican / dictator / demi-goddess / smurf / on the throne? Is color, at that time, really so important?

I would suggest the more interesting part would be to try to verify this message being covered pseudo mainstream media from time to time, cos you know, it's quite scary shit, should it be true.
posted by psychomedia at 9:12 AM on December 21, 2005


The ritual sepukku thing had me rolling. Keep it up bshock.

Also Rude Pundit really nailed this topic yesterday. A must read.
posted by fungible at 9:13 AM on December 21, 2005


*WHOOSH*

right over your pinched little cranium.
posted by quonsar at 10:59 AM EST on December 21 [!]


Hardly.

But my cranium is little. Really, it is. Most hats just go straight down to my eyes.
posted by juiceCake at 9:23 AM on December 21, 2005


Vox has been critical of the war and Bush in a very consistant manner, so this is not some weather change over at WND. As to the surprise at WND publishing it, what is even more surprizing is their publishing his vicious (and funny) attacks on other WND columnists. Search the archives on Ben Shapiro ("the littlest chickenhawk") and Michelle Malkin (Me-So Michelle) on her pro-internment idiocy.
posted by 445supermag at 9:33 AM on December 21, 2005


Presumably this a homonym of vox dei (voice of god, for the Latin challenged)

Oh, good grief. And I thought it was just a stupid name.
posted by orange swan at 10:28 AM on December 21, 2005


Michelle Malkin (Me-So Michelle)

Ha ha, get it? No? She's Asian! Get it now?

Wow, this guy is a real prince. His views on any topic have about zero instrinsic worth, which, when multiplied by his audience of about zero, amounts to... well, not much in the way of influence.
posted by ibmcginty at 10:54 AM on December 21, 2005


"And I would note that we routinely sacrifice liberties every day: helmet laws, seatbelt laws, basically every law in the book."

Um - the keyword here is "laws".
posted by 2sheets at 11:19 AM on December 21, 2005


Mate, I thought it was just a irreverent brush-off when someone trots out the cliche that you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre: "Wait, that's how Henry V starts!"
posted by the quidnunc kid at 7:09 AM EST on December 21 [!]


Ah, sorry about that, lack of sleep = crankiness, broken humour sensor…
posted by Firas at 11:46 AM on December 21, 2005


Vox Day is out of his fucking mind, period. Run, don't walk, as far away as you can from this self-obsessed product of misguided nepotism...

Why does World Net Daily publish this jackass? Because his father, Robert Beale, sits on the board of WND and is one of their major stockholders. Robert Beale himself is a crooked bastard, who's mansion was seized by the Minnesota Department of revenue for failure to pay over 3,000,000 in back taxes. The elder Beale put up this website, which was designed by Vox Day/Beale the younger. Did I mention that Robert Beale believes he was sent by God to fight the Government?

So yeah, woo hoo, some rich guy's kid thinks Bush fucked up. He also thinks chicks in skirts are just asking for it...
posted by SweetJesus at 12:20 PM on December 21, 2005


Um - the keyword here is "laws".

As in PATRIOT?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:26 PM on December 21, 2005


Heywood -

I am neither a Constitutional scholar, nor a lawyer. However, my understanding of the 9th Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") is that new rights can be defined as they become neccessary.

It also seems to me that reasonable people could use the 4th Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.") to argue that their communications are a modern component of the phrase "their effects.
posted by Irontom at 12:37 PM on December 21, 2005


That was in reference to what you said here
posted by Irontom at 12:40 PM on December 21, 2005


Of course we have rights, both explicitly incorporated in the Bill of Rights and implicit and evolving common-law rights via the 9th amendment, but none of these rights are absolute in nature."

Reread the declaration of independence sometime, Heywood.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These rights are inherent and inalienable, not granted by any government.
posted by stenseng at 12:43 PM on December 21, 2005


The oldest American principle is that our rights are inherently granted by virtue of our existence as human beings, and the founding documents exist to delineate what GOVERNMENT can and cannot do, not what rights are inherently granted to citizens.
posted by stenseng at 12:45 PM on December 21, 2005


to argue that their communications are a modern component of the phrase "their effects.

In my cursory review over the past two days, it seems that jurisprudence is horribly muddled here, it's almost a constant stream of 5-4 decisions. Apparently, the penumbra right to privacy fades in distance from one's domicile, since the courts have granted stronger police powers to search peoples' cars, open fields (that are still private property), etc.

The plain reading of the 4th Amendment is that the People are protected from the police pawing through their stuff without a warrant from a neutral judiciary assenting to probable cause.

This strong, bright-line restriction makes sense from the human rights perspective the police going through one's property (including sealed letters!) is one helluva personal violation.

But, communications sent through the aether are a different issue. For one, anyone between me and my respondent can read my email. There is less, really zero, expectation of privacy here. Same thing with phone calls, especially cellular calls, the channel is pretty much open. Ya think the FBI & NSA can't grab cellular calls right out of the sky?

It's the potential ABUSE of this information that is the troubling aspect, not the act of collection per se, unlike the physical case of disturbing one's stuff & private space.

I'm pleased to see that in recent cases the SCOTUS has echoed my belief that police powers are relative to the present danger to public safety, and that individual rights need to be balanced against "necessary & proper" powers of government.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:56 PM on December 21, 2005


Michelle Malkin (Me-So Michelle)

Ha ha, get it? No? She's Asian! Get it now?

No, she an asian who whored her ethinicity by writing a book supporting the interment of Japanese during WWII. A lot of right-wingers wanted to put muslims in camps after 9-11, but there had been a lot of bad press about the Japanese internment. So she saw an opportunity to sell a lot of books, telling people that interment was OK, but its not racist because she's asian.
posted by 445supermag at 2:16 PM on December 21, 2005


Internment. They put them in camps. They didn't bury them.
posted by Grangousier at 2:37 PM on December 21, 2005


inherently granted by virtue of our existence as human beings

erm, that's not what it says. it clearly says "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

ergo, most mefites, lacking said Creator, have no rights whatsoever! zero! zip! nada!
posted by quonsar at 3:13 PM on December 21, 2005


No, their Creators were Mr. Unanswered Prayer, and Miss Lack of Foresight.
posted by cytherea at 4:26 PM on December 21, 2005


I'm pretty sure that if Jesus actually does return to Earth, he is going to beat the shit out of the guy that posts political articles under a pseudonym meaning "Voice of God."
posted by iron chef morimoto at 5:19 PM on December 21, 2005


yeah, cause jesus was always known for layin' the smack down on a motherfucker.
posted by shmegegge at 6:14 PM on December 21, 2005


Wasn't this guy in Depeche Mode?

anyhow, Me-So-Michelle is pretty funny you've go to admit...
posted by Skygazer at 8:27 PM on December 21, 2005


Jesus would be in Guantanamo before anyone even heard him.
posted by amberglow at 8:41 PM on December 21, 2005


"We have finally reached the constitutional Rubicon," Turley says. "If Congress cannot stand firm against the open violation of federal law by the president, then we have truly become an autocracy."
posted by homunculus at 11:04 PM on December 21, 2005


Bravo. It's about time. Where are the honest conservatives? Here's one. No more delusions.

WTF! Vox Day fucking 'honest'?? Many of you people are completely clueless, and are pissing me off. Vox Day is a fucking fascist, and I'm embarrassed for Metafilter that this link is on the FP.

Digaman (and others), are you that ignorant about the political spectrum? Have you ever picked up The American Conservative? Ever happened upon Antiwar.com, Vdare or Lew Rockwell? Ever caught the web Nazi view on Bush or Iraq? There are tens of thousands of Right-wingers who opposed Bush and the war just as strenuously, if not more so, than those on the left - they are known as Far Right wingers, you idiots. People who want the "best of both worlds" of Apartheid race-state and Taliban theocracy.

This post needs to be deleted. I am astounded that anti-Bushists are so shallow in their opposition that they will mindlessly align themselves with seriously racist, gay-hating, jew-ranting, pro-rape religious fundamentalist just because, gosh, he hates Bush too (Seriously, you've never seen a far-rightist oppose Bush and Iraq before!?? "Honest conservatives" indeed.)
posted by dgaicun at 9:55 AM on December 22, 2005


I am astounded that anti-Bushists are so shallow in their opposition that they will mindlessly align themselves with...

Well, I disagree with the implication that digaman et al are necessarily shallow Bush opponents, but I agree with the main point of your post-- that this "Vox Day" person is a complete crank, not an honest conservative.

This column is not new evidence of scales falling from the eyes of conservatives, it's the latest offering from a particular crazy person.

I don't blame folks who didn't know this fellow's back story for wishfully thinking that this column was evidence of conservatives coming around.
posted by ibmcginty at 10:28 AM on December 22, 2005


they will mindlessly align themselves with seriously racist, gay-hating, jew-ranting, pro-rape religious fundamentalist just because, gosh, he hates Bush too

And whose doing that?

I'm astounded that people equate discussing some person's article with full support for what that person stands for and what that person has previously stated in every way.
posted by juiceCake at 11:53 AM on December 22, 2005


And whose doing that?

Gee, how about the people linking Vox Day approvingly on the front page of Metafilter? The people praising him as an "honest conservative"?

I'm astounded that people equate discussing some person's article with full support for what that person stands for and what that person has previously stated in every way.

This is so specious I don't know where to begin. First of all, linking to somebody on the far right tail of the political spectrum as if their opposition to the War was a sign of an "honest conservative" converting their world view in response to evidence, just shows laughable ignorance about the political spectrum and the variegated world-views that inhabit it.

Second, even if this douchebag had been a mainstream conservative and did have an ounce of critical independent reasoning to question its tenets, um, couldn't you find a more high-profile, important, or intelligent figure to use as your example than some kooky Internet nobody? Hey there might even be some examples of real conservative conversions.

Third, stop playing dumb: yes people matter, in a way their isolated talking points don't. Yes this link was supportive. Yes some of the comments showed praise and approval. And yes that can't be completely divorced from the person you are praising and linking. Jesus as if I couldn't link to one of dozens of neo-nazi websites that are saying the same thing. Somehow I think you wouldn't be very happy to see that link, or be spouting nonsense about "honest conservatives", or making spurious points about "just discussing an "article"". V
posted by dgaicun at 1:45 PM on December 22, 2005


Sadly, the Vox Popoli [sic] coverage of "Clinton/Carter did it too" completely neglects the fact that they actually didn't.

Again, Clinton/Carter approved warrantless wiretaps per the FISA restrictions. Namely, restrictions which required that no US citizens were tapped.

Bush broke this law (or says he did) by approving warrantless wiretaps on US citizens.

I'l say it one more time and then shut up: we have the President of the United States who has just confessed to breaking a US law, and stating also that he continues to do so. I don't see how in the world Congress can leave this alone. The stipulated procedure is hearings, investigation and (if there's probable cause for believing a law was broken), then impeachment. And at this point, with the President confessing to having broken the law, how can you say that impeachment isn't very likely to be appropriate?

That's not being partisan, it's simply following the rule of law. Surely Congressman Hyde (R-IL), who so often trumpeted the phrase "rule of law" during Clinton's impeachment, would agree...
posted by darkstar at 5:26 AM on December 23, 2005


He didn't confess to anything. Duh.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:34 AM on December 23, 2005


Paris,

If you have read the rebuttal to your comments, you know that the assertion that Clinton/Carter did the same thing as Bush is absolutely false.

I know that there's a lot of invective that's hurled back and forth on the Blue, but this is a clear-cut case of demonstrable error. You now owe the members of this forum, as weell as the principle of intellectual honesty, a recognition of that fact and an acknowledgment that you were wrong in your statements.

Will you do us this simple courtesy?
posted by darkstar at 6:55 AM PST on December 21

posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:51 AM on December 23, 2005


I'll have to read up on tthe claims and counter claims. But there's a clear and overarching bias against President Bush on Metafilter, so allow me some time to analyse your claim. And if it's true, I will retract my assertion.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:54 AM on December 23, 2005


You could start your research here.
posted by caddis at 9:16 AM on December 23, 2005


Fuck that, start here. Read Section 1. End of research.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:39 AM on December 23, 2005


Bush's claim that the authority for secret wiretaps was inherent in the authorization to invade Afghanistan refuted. Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. The language was rejected. The legislature rather than authorize such broad powers, rejected them.
posted by caddis at 10:22 AM on December 23, 2005


What that means, caddis, is that Paris, being soundly refuted, is gone from the thread forever. Nice work, partner. :)
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:59 AM on December 23, 2005


This post needs to be deleted. I am astounded that anti-Bushists are so shallow in their opposition that they will mindlessly align themselves with seriously racist, gay-hating, jew-ranting, pro-rape religious fundamentalist just because, gosh, he hates Bush too (Seriously, you've never seen a far-rightist oppose Bush and Iraq before!?? "Honest conservatives" indeed.)

You've never watched FOX News, have you? That's their daily guest list, because they support Bush. That's why this is noteworthy--when Stormfront is on FOX, along with daily attacks on Jews for waging War on Christmas (and Christians), finding someone on that extreme who is speaking of law instead of hate is very important.
posted by amberglow at 12:40 PM on December 23, 2005


Optimus, Section 1 refers to Clinton authorizing searches without court order, for foreign intelligence purposes. It does not restrict things to non-US Citizens, or to searches outside the US.

So what is your point?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:02 PM on December 23, 2005


I would trust Bush over Clinton to play with fire, but that's beside the point. I promise that by Sunday night, I will respond.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:12 PM on December 23, 2005


Amberglow, what part of 'paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, neo-nazis, and associated ideologies at the right-tail of the political spectrum were always vehemently opposed to Bush and the War on Iraq' don't you understand?

What part of 'this column is fairly typical of a genre of talking points (i.e. Bush lied us into the war, is criminal, etc.) that can readily be found on far right, don't you understand?

Just a quick Google demo - here's a representative column from the crypto-white nationalist website Vdare from a year ago:
The dire consequences of the US invasion of Iraq go beyond a failed occupation and attendant war crimes. By making excuses for torture in public hearings, the US Senate has besmirched itself . . . President Bush lied America into war and continues to lie to keep us there.

Here is a representative column from the viciously Neo-Nazi website VNN (which openly advocates Jewish genocide):
My heart this week is with Cindy Sheehan, maintaining her vigil outside Bush's Texas ranch during his five-week (!) vacation. Mrs. Sheehan protests the fact that a draft-dodging and, ultimately, military-deserting president sent her son to die in the hellhole that Iraq has become. She cuts directly to the bone by pointing out that Bush lied at every turn
Your ignorance of the political spectrum is resulting in you praising a pretty typical psychotic fundy idiot for mythical conversion and commonplace opinion among certain segments of the right. For instance see Iraq Hawk David Frum's use of the far right's anti-Bushism and war opposition to stigmatize any moderate antiwar conservatives at the beginning of the campaign. Ironically your gushing over Vox Day, is predicated on the same ignorance Frum was banking on, and sadly probably has the same effect - scaring moderates who don't want to be mindlessly lumped with idiots like VD.
posted by dgaicun at 2:14 PM on December 23, 2005


Paris, section 1 can not be read in a vacuum. It limits searches to those where the AG makes the certification required under section 302(a)(1) of the statute. Section 302(a)(1) requires:
(i) the physical search is solely directed at premises,
information, material, or property used exclusively by, or
under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or
powers (as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
title);
(ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical
search will involve the premises, information, material, or
property of a United States person ...
Point being, the searches are not authorized for US citizens.
posted by caddis at 2:24 PM on December 23, 2005


I forgot the cite for the statute. Also, "section 302" is the numbering of the act, not the statute.
posted by caddis at 2:29 PM on December 23, 2005


again, I'm not answering anything here re the legality of the Bush Administration's endeavors, but the section you refer to pertains to "physical searches," which is not the same thing as electronic surveillance.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:29 PM on December 23, 2005


Read the executive order; it only authorizes physical searches.
posted by caddis at 2:43 PM on December 23, 2005


Paris, the point is that (and I can't believe it's necessary to keep saying this) neither Clinton nor Carter approved warrantless wiretaps on US citizens.

There is no evidence whatsoever that they ever did what Bush has done. The assertion you made to the contrary has been soundly refuted.

Now, my next question is a real puzzler to me: have there been comments deleted from that initial thread where I challenged Paris' statement to begin with? I don't see Paris' original comments there anymore, nor the initial comment I made asking him and Postroad to retract.

Postroad's comment withdrawing his statement is there, as is my thanks for that. But the other comments seem to have vanished...
posted by darkstar at 2:47 PM on December 23, 2005


I doubt it darkstar, that is not what usually gets edited. There are many threads about this and it gets confusing to keep track. Check out your comments from all the spying threads under your user page.
posted by caddis at 2:55 PM on December 23, 2005


Expectations of privacy are a lot different with physical searches than with electronic surveillance (lower with the latter; MUCH lower). Again, I will retract my statement if my research reveals the "they did it too" claim is false.

(which, of course, doesn't end the story, because if Bush alone did it, that doesn't make it wrong or illegal or unconstitutional)
posted by ParisParamus at 3:09 PM on December 23, 2005



Quite right, caddis...it was commented in this very thread, not the other one.

My mistake! These threads are starting to get confusing!
posted by darkstar at 3:14 PM on December 23, 2005


I will retract my statement if my research reveals the "they did it too" claim is false.


Two questions, Paris:

1. Just so I know what we're taking about, pray tell us what specific evidence would satisfy you that your claim is false? Because, you know, it seems like that's something you could never positively prove...

2. Why would you make the statement that "Clinton/Carter did it too" without any evidence to support the assertion? You should retract your assertion, given there's no evidence to support it, otherwise you're being intellectually dishonest.
posted by darkstar at 3:18 PM on December 23, 2005


(which, of course, doesn't end the story, because if Bush alone did it, that doesn't make it wrong or illegal or unconstitutional)

No, that Bush alone did it does not, per se, make it illegal. It's the clear wording of the FISA law itself that does that quite handily.
posted by darkstar at 3:21 PM on December 23, 2005


"1. Just so I know what we're taking about, pray tell us what specific evidence would satisfy you that your claim is false? Because, you know, it seems like that's something you could never positively prove..."

If neither Clinton nor Carter ever authorized electronic surveillance sans court order, I am wrong. As to the US Citizien/non-citizen variable, I'll also look into that.

2. Why would you make the statement that "Clinton/Carter did it too" without any evidence to support the assertion? You should retract your assertion, given there's no evidence to support it, otherwise you're being intellectually dishonest.
posted by darkstar at 6:18 PM EST on December 23 [!]

I read "my" assertion several places, including the Drudge Report. (the other sources are a bit more substantial)
posted by ParisParamus at 3:29 PM on December 23, 2005


If neither Clinton nor Carter ever authorized electronic surveillance sans court order, I am wrong.

Yes, that's what I understand. Now, please tell me what evidence you will consider to be acceptable to prove that they never did this. Because the way you have framed this, you can never "prove" they didn't do it. You can only hope to prove they did.

So I'm really curious to understand what you will accept as specific evidence that Clinton/Carter didn't engage in these actions, as you have said.


I read "my" assertion several places, including the Drudge Report. (the other sources are a bit more substantial)

The assertion Drudge made has already been fisked. If you have a substantial assertion based on evidence that Clinton/Carter actually authorized warrantless searches or wiretaps on US citizens, what's your evidence to back up that assertion?

If you don't have such evidence, then it is dishonest of you to claim that position when no evidence has been provided to support it.

You should retract your statement fully now, and we can agree that if you ever uncover evidence that Clinton/Carter did engage in these authorizations, you can come back to us with an assertion based on something, at least.

And again, if Bush authorized authorized warrantless wiretaps on US citizens, then according to the FISA, he broke. the. law.
posted by darkstar at 3:54 PM on December 23, 2005


Well the burden is on you Paris to establish that Clinton did such a thing. If you can't then a graceful retraction is best. Admitting error strengthens your credibility and enhances your persuasiveness in future debates. If only your man GW would learn this. If he just started talking straight his poll numbers would jump at least 15 to 20%. Humility is a strength, not a weakness.
posted by caddis at 4:35 PM on December 23, 2005


As I said, I will look into it, probably on Sunday, and report back.

Separately, there are three inquiries here:

1. Is what the President did unconstitutional?
2. Is what the President did illegal, i.e., in violation of some law that is more restrictive than what the constitution allows.

3. Did Congress know about and acquiesce in what the Bush Administration has been doing--until it was no longer politically expedient.

My hunch is NO-MAYBE-YES... Which is why I hope he keeps doing it (the "maybe" is yes until the Supreme Court says it's illegal).

I also applaud Sen. Sensenbrenner for forcing a quick up/down vote on the Patriot Act. Hopefully, it will be UP. The Patriot Act should become permanent law.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:21 PM on December 23, 2005


Caddis, admit I'm wrong when I am. Quit listening to my reputation, and start listening to my actual words.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:22 PM on December 23, 2005


This article puts the whole pseudo-polemic in perspective.

You know, you have, what, another three years or so to find some real dirt on President Bush...CAN YOU DO IT?!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:55 PM on December 23, 2005


Amberglow, what part of 'paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, neo-nazis, and associated ideologies at the right-tail of the political spectrum were always vehemently opposed to Bush and the War on Iraq' don't you understand?

That they may have opposed the War on Iraq but are overwhelmingly more likely to be found supporting other policies of his, like a border wall, or minutemen patrols or unauthorized spying on Muslims, or fighting same-sex marriage or pretty much everything else.
posted by amberglow at 8:40 PM on December 23, 2005


What point are you trying to make?? Does Vox Day support open borders and gay marriage?

Jesus, I feel like I'm trying to reason with a three year old. Just please stop being like Paris and admit your errors - linking to Vox was stupid, and the reasons given to justify it by you and others were uniformly and fundamentally mistaken.
posted by dgaicun at 11:01 PM on December 23, 2005


i don't know why you think we're all aware of all their hateful utterances, or should be fully knowledgable of their detestable stances--it's enough to us that someone on that side is speaking out. The more people who speak out of all stripes shows that it's not a partisan thing, and not just a liberal thing, and not just a Democratic thing--It's an American thing. There needs to be more of that and not just disregarding him.
posted by amberglow at 11:05 PM on December 23, 2005


i don't know why you think we're all aware of all their hateful utterances, or should be fully knowledgable of their detestable stances--it's enough to us that someone on that side is speaking out.

I've already debunked this entire chain of "reasoning".

And way to be proud of your ignorance - you are so authentically left-wing you refuse to even correctly analyse the right, lest you be sullied. If that results in saying ignorant shit and acting in error, or causing unintended harm, then all the better.

The more people who speak out of all stripes shows that it's not a partisan thing, and not just a liberal thing, and not just a Democratic thing--It's an American thing.

So the fact that nazis and far rightists have an intersecting viewpoint on Iraq with most liberals, is supposed to demonstrate to the moderate right that opposition to Bush is "not partisan" and is "an American thing"? Do you even listen to yourself?

Look, just because you see one big odious undifferentiated mass when you look at the right (as if Ayn Rand, Hitler, and Pat Robertson were all on the same continuum) doesn't mean they can't see the differences, or assign them strong ideological importance. Again, Vox Day isn't some bold free-thinker, he just subscribes to a political package you aren't familiar with, and people on the Right recognize that package just as readily as they recognize the "liberal package".

As the David Frum piece shows, people like Vox Day actually scare (and have been used to scare) the "moderate" Right into supporting Bush. When liberal websites do things like approvingly link to extremists as if they are fellow travelers and publish essays by David Duke just because he's agreeing with them on Iraq, this just allows neo-cons to propagandize about "Nazi-liberal" alliances and collect more of the undecided Right who define themselves morally as being opposed to both.

So this post is based on pure ignorance of the right, is damaging to the moral credibility of Metafilter, and attendantly doesn't demonstrate any of the "lessons" you believe it does (among other reasons).
posted by dgaicun at 11:55 PM on December 23, 2005


because some of the Right will use this post to trash (as they use every single thing, and some shit they just make up anyway when they don't have any actual examples at hand) is a reason to condemn it? wtf? we have less moral credibility according to who? that same Right again?

this guy is saying something. Trash him all you want, but don't trash us for reading it, and talking about it, and even agreeing with it. It's what we do here. Sometimes we agree with the author of something--for various reasons. Insulting us for the very existence of this post is weird and wrong.

language like "fellow travelers" and "Nazi-liberal" alliances helping the Right recruit has nothing to do with the subject of this post. We love seeing former koolaid drinkers wake up. And i believe that you're the only one worried about the existence of this post here sending more people to the Right. The Right is doing a wonderful job of ensuring that won't happen--whether it's DeLay's crimes, Libby and other's crimes in Plamegate, the spying scandals which are exploding, the neverending war on our rights, the neverending war on terror, etc.

This guy is right about Bush.
posted by amberglow at 2:05 AM on December 24, 2005


Gee, how about the people linking Vox Day approvingly on the front page of Metafilter? The people praising him as an "honest conservative"?

They may agree with this particular point-of-view in this instance. That doesn't mean they agree with everything he says, will say, and has said. Surely you must realize this.

I'm astounded that people equate discussing some person's article with full support for what that person stands for and what that person has previously stated in every way.

This is so specious I don't know where to begin.


Well that's the point. It was meant to be as specious as you're own argument. Congratulations. You can do it. Others can't. You're special mate.

First of all, linking to somebody on the far right tail of the political spectrum as if their opposition to the War was a sign of an "honest conservative" converting their world view in response to evidence, just shows laughable ignorance about the political spectrum and the variegated world-views that inhabit it.

It sure would be wouldn't it. This is hardly the flavour of this thread.

Second, even if this douchebag had been a mainstream conservative and did have an ounce of critical independent reasoning to question its tenets, um, couldn't you find a more high-profile, important, or intelligent figure to use as your example than some kooky Internet nobody? Hey there might even be some examples of real conservative conversions.

That wasn't the overall point of the thread. Hey, even this guy is saying this. Wow. Nothing more, nothing less.

Third, stop playing dumb

I'm not, but I'd greatly appreciate if you would. Specious is your middle name?
posted by juiceCake at 1:39 PM on December 24, 2005


because some of the Right will use this post to trash (as they use every single thing, and some shit they just make up anyway when they don't have any actual examples at hand) is a reason to condemn it? wtf? we have less moral credibility according to who? that same Right again?

Three year old redux. If you go back the reasons for objecting to this link were laid out here. You, in fact, were the one who tried to justify this post by alluding to its leverage with skeptical fence-sitters:

"The more people who speak out of all stripes shows that it's not a partisan thing, and not just a liberal thing, and not just a Democratic thing--It's an American thing."

My response was to show that if anything, this link would have the opposite effect than the one you were implying. The best reason not to link is still simply that MeFi doesn't need crappy links to scummy idiots based on faulty premises about their political alignments.

this guy is saying something. Trash him all you want, but don't trash us for reading it, and talking about it, and even agreeing with it. It's what we do here. Sometimes we agree with the author of something--for various reasons. Insulting us for the very existence of this post is weird and wrong.

Its "weird and wrong" to object to sympathetic and superfluous ideological fraternal links to StormFront on the front page?

language like "fellow travelers" and "Nazi-liberal" alliances helping the Right recruit has nothing to do with the subject of this post.

You're right, because that part had to do with your suggestion that fence-sitters would be swayed by the "conversion" of their ideological kin on the right. Of course there was no "conversion", just your ignorance. What those "kin" actually see is fraternity between their enemies to the right and to the left, if anything strengthening their pro-Bush resolve.

We love seeing former koolaid drinkers wake up

The biggest koolaid drinker I see is you, who still refuses to back down from the faulty conversion narrative. That of course has been a major point, that this post was based on a faulty, ignorant premise.

This guy is right about Bush.

I'm right that 2+2=4, does that mean I deserve a link on Metafilter? And if we are so impressed with the fact that 2+2=4 that we decide it would make a good link, what possible justification is there for linking the TimeCube guy discussing this fact instead of a mathematician? What message about us is communicated that we chose the former over the latter? And where does it stop - there are literally tens of thousands of people on the Internet who agree that 2+2=4, should we vow to link every one of them just because they are right?
posted by dgaicun at 1:41 PM on December 24, 2005


Paris, I think that article is flawed. The law only allows a warrantless wiretap when "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." However, US persons were party to the conversations under the order. That is what all the furor is about.
posted by caddis at 1:52 PM on December 24, 2005


dgaicun - Ever heard of MetaTalk?
posted by juiceCake at 2:24 PM on December 24, 2005


Since Sunday has long passed, I think we can assume that Paris has bubkes in regards to Clinton doing the same thing. I did have high hopes that he would just say so. Oh well.
posted by caddis at 5:33 PM on December 26, 2005


I accept Paris' silence as tacit agreement that he was in error.

In any event, an outstanding article on the whole warrantless wiretaps issue here by Suzanne E. Spaulding.

As Balkinization reported on Christmas Day:

If You're Going to Read Only One Thing About the NSA Spying Program it probably ought to be this piece by Suzanne Spaulding, former assistant general counsel at the CIA, general counsel for the Senate and House Intelligence committees, and executive director of the National Terrorism Commission (1999-2000).
posted by darkstar at 11:35 PM on December 26, 2005



Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

So, this establishes the motive for Bush to commit the crime of authorizing warrantless (bypassing FISA) wiretaps on US citizens.

The iron trap of justice begins to close around the leg of a wayward President...
posted by darkstar at 12:01 PM on December 27, 2005


From the article posted by Darkstar:

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.
(emphisis mine-sg)

It's getting difficult to understand this administration, within the lexicon (i.e. Constitutional) of this country's most fundamental founding principles. The following Kissinger quote via edverb in a concurrent mefi thread, sheds some light:

The distinguishing feature of a revolutionary power is not that it feels threatened...but that absolutely nothing can reassure it (Kissinger's emphasis). Only absolute security — the neutralization of the opponent — is considered a sufficient guarantee"


This leaves little doubt, in my mind that this country is drifting towards uncharted, perilous territory. And I say so be it, if that's what's required to survive this f*cked up new world realpolitik, but let's stop pretending the Republic is what it once was in terms of of it's founding principles. Let's come clean and make a new start and let's call it America II or the new Republic of the United States of America (as envisioned by George W. Bush and his merry band of Neocon utopianists and oil company men).
posted by Skygazer at 1:39 PM on December 27, 2005


« Older Almost exactly 40 years ago, on New Year's Day 196...  |  A rabbi, some snails, the colo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments