Ooo es muy macho?

January 11, 2006 12:37 PM

Ooo es muy macho libertariadadista? (Ricardo Mantelban es muy macho! Pero es libertariadadista? Yo no se. Quién sabe? ) El Presidente Bushista esay: “Queiro preguntas muy macho” Quein es ooo preforma en la supportidad de la guerra en terror?Diez preguntas.
posted by Smedleyman (55 comments total)

From the SNL sketch. Yes.
(Bill Murray: Ooh es mas macho? Ricardo Mantelban, orrr.... Desi Arnez?
Guest: Ricardo Mantelban?
Murray: Ay-yi-yi. No. Ricardo Mantelban es muy macho, si, pero Mistah Roarke canceles out-a Khan. Pero Desi Arnez con "Babbaloo" est immortales! Desi Arnez es macho muy bien! Desi Arnez est mas macho. Si, si, Desi Arnez. Nexte questione!)

The only one I’m iffy on is number 5.
It’s Bush’s speech that raises the questions - what are the limits? Indeed - what questions should be part of the debate?
posted by Smedleyman at 12:40 PM on January 11, 2006

The answer here is quite simple. The question is not how much they are willing to compromise their core beliefs on being "so called libertarians" (who are just conservatives who like pot - don't know who to credit that too - suddenly more and more people are saying, "Wait, I'm not a republican"), but at what point can they can refute the Bush position as dangerous without having to admit they were wrong (about his policies, or limit on the power of the executive branch or congress in general, about his fiscal policies, the Great War on Terrror, Iraq, etc.).

There is only one possible answer. They were lied to.
posted by rzklkng at 12:50 PM on January 11, 2006

Jokes aren't funny when you have to explain them right after.
posted by furtive at 12:51 PM on January 11, 2006

Lloyd Bridges
posted by Pressed Rat at 12:52 PM on January 11, 2006

Bush, Fox News, LittleDoltFootballs all respond:

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. Hell yes
5. yes
6. yes
7. yes
8. yes
9. yes
10. yes
posted by caddis at 12:52 PM on January 11, 2006

Es tut mir Leid, aber ich verstehe nicht. Koennen Sie es auf Englisch schreiben, bitte?
posted by alumshubby at 12:53 PM on January 11, 2006

alumshubby: Nein.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:01 PM on January 11, 2006

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

Waterboarding?
posted by Keith Talent at 1:01 PM on January 11, 2006

Waterboarding is a brutal and inhumane harmless and effective method of torture information extraction.

And for what it's worth, I have to answer "yes" to the first half of question 4.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:04 PM on January 11, 2006

"Jokes aren't funny when you have to explain them right after." -posted by furtive

Just noting the reference. I do feel like I'm living in a banana republic lately though.

From the Sun times article:
"Bush argued that irresponsible discussion harms the morale of troops overseas, emboldens insurgents and sets a bad example for Iraqis trying to establish democracy."

What the hell is irresponsible discussion?


The 10 hypotheticals:

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?
posted by Smedleyman at 1:06 PM on January 11, 2006

Oh, and I think we heard that whole "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" line once before, during a prior unpopular overseas expedition known as Vietnam, most commonly referred to as a quagmire. Perhaps the "conservative" baby boomers can get a little righteous indignation up and march somewhere and do something.
posted by rzklkng at 1:09 PM on January 11, 2006

Smedleyman: fair enough. Indeed you had me scratching my head at first.
posted by furtive at 1:09 PM on January 11, 2006

Aber klar alumshubby, das ist ein Witz vom Amerikanischen Fernsehen. Amerikaner finden es kaum zu glauben daß es andere Sprachen gibt. Die klingen ja so komisch. Warum spricht nicht die ganze Welt english?
posted by jouke at 1:10 PM on January 11, 2006

Wiki Waterboarding

So if the terrorist downs, they're innocent, but if they don't they're a real terrorist and sent to Gitmo?
posted by Keith Talent at 1:13 PM on January 11, 2006

"Indeed you had me scratching my head at first."

Welch says in the article: "I bring this up not necessarily to criticize supporters of George Bush's Executive-Power grabs, nor to play quien es mas libertarian..." I figured I'd riff on it.

And it's a good point.


Apparently people are enjoying the Geringlish more though.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:13 PM on January 11, 2006

Bush: ... warned Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Tuesday to watch what they say or risk giving 'comfort to our adversaries''

U.S. Code collection § 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

It is roundup time.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 1:30 PM on January 11, 2006

and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years

kind of a strange "or," eh?
posted by rxrfrx at 1:31 PM on January 11, 2006

What happened to all the people here who used to defend Bush? They can't all be over in Iraq fighting for what they believe in.
posted by wakko at 1:34 PM on January 11, 2006

Сунь хуй в чай.
posted by languagehat at 1:38 PM on January 11, 2006

Are Welch's "pro-war friends" responding to his questions? I too would be curious.
posted by grobstein at 1:44 PM on January 11, 2006

Where's the goddamn SAP button on this thing?
posted by fet at 1:54 PM on January 11, 2006

What am I missing about #6? It doesn't seem like a tough question to answer "yes" to.
posted by jepler at 1:56 PM on January 11, 2006

Should I try straw man? no.
false dichotomy? no.
Oh, how about an exception that proves the rule?

Nice jepler.
posted by caddis at 2:04 PM on January 11, 2006

Re: waterboarding and torture et al.

Perhaps others have already commented on this in other threads, but i have a really simple question: If these interrogation techniques are /not/ torture in the eyes of this administration, would they be willing to subject themselves or one of their family members to it?

I'm not asking this with any sense of hyperbole, i really mean it. i would assume that the average prison warden who believes that he is treating his prisoners fairly would be willing to spend a night in a cell to prove that point, so if you will allow me that assumption, i ask again: If these forms of interrogation are not torture would you be willing to have someone demonstrate them on you or one of your family members?

Is this not reasonable?
posted by quin at 2:17 PM on January 11, 2006

I have the same question as jepler. Can anyone explain why giving anti-terrorism cops the same tools are regular cops is a bad thing? (I am genuinely asking)
posted by Tullius at 2:26 PM on January 11, 2006

I can't speak for the whole world, but here on MetaFilter, I'm accustomed to English.

Irony ain't your strong suit, is it?
posted by alumshubby at 2:42 PM on January 11, 2006

“What am I missing about #6?” - posted by jepler

“Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?”

I’m reading it to mean - should the cops who can use anti-terrorist tools be able use those tools even in non-terrorist cases.

I didn’t write it tho. You could ask the author what he meant: [e-mail]

But of course, this entire discussion could be giving comfort to the terrorists.So I ask all Mefites to hold their posters to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our community weblog, not comfort to our adversaries.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:42 PM on January 11, 2006

They won't answer Matt. They stopped honestly answering even the libertarians long ago.

Oh, and Instadumbit? Fake libertarian. It's pretty clear by now it's nothing more than a pose.
posted by dhartung at 3:00 PM on January 11, 2006

I’m reading it to mean - should the cops who can use anti-terrorist tools be able use those tools even in non-terrorist cases.

i read it that way as well, but i can see how jepler and tullius might have read it to mean that anti-terror operatives should have the same tools as non-terrorist law enforcement agents.

is anybody else chilled to the bone by this admin's repeated instances of calling for an end to criticism and genuine discussion of its actions?

i mean that i'm bothered not just in a "god, what a fuck face. this admin can't end quickly enough for me!" way but in a "this administration frightens me, and i'm worried about starting a family in a place where the majority of people venerate this kind of man" way
posted by lord_wolf at 3:12 PM on January 11, 2006

bush shi yi-ge huai dan.
posted by delmoi at 3:14 PM on January 11, 2006

Metafilter: common scolds?
posted by monocyte at 3:19 PM on January 11, 2006

que es mas macho? lightbulb, o schoolbus? uh, lightbulb? no!
posted by joeblough at 3:24 PM on January 11, 2006

I don't see where the problem is -- Bush is in deep shit now, and as he always did since the 2000 primaries when he finds himself in deep shit, he attacks. savagely.

so now it's "aiding the enemy", the stab in the back, etc.

the way he, a de facto draft dodger, and Cheney, the Deferment Man, destroyed a real veteran like Kerry over Vietnam. attack, attack, attack-

you know what? it works. maybe it'll work again next November. don't overestimate American voters' BS detector. so many people did in '04, after all.
posted by matteo at 3:48 PM on January 11, 2006

Was thinking the exact same thing joeblough, It's Sharkys day today
posted by edgeways at 4:28 PM on January 11, 2006

The way things have been going with this administration and Cheney's idea of the unitary executive, along with calls on Righty Blogs for people to be hung for sedition and for being traitors, I am beginning to realize how important gun rights may actually be. I got something for any MF wants to 'waterboard' me.
posted by UseyurBrain at 4:35 PM on January 11, 2006

"this administration frightens me, and i'm worried about starting a family in a place where the majority of people venerate this kind of man" way

I too have had the same thoughts (it certainly started with Reagan, though), although my lack of funds (and unwillingness to scrape, beg, and steal more) is more of a disincentive to breed, not to mention the whole overpopulation issue.

On the other hand, it's still fairly easy to find places in America where not everyone is so "conservative," i.e. Northeast and Northwest.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:26 PM on January 11, 2006

It's pretty clear by now it's nothing more than a pose.
posted by dhartung at 3:00 PM PST on January 11 [!]


Metafilter: it's nothing more than a pose.
posted by semmi at 5:30 PM on January 11, 2006

I know more than a handful of conservatives who are upset about the Imperialist Jesusistanification of America.

Fuck these guys, they aren't Republicans. Hell, they're only American in the most technical sense.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:23 PM on January 11, 2006

jouke, merk dir das dieser FPP ist auf spanisch gescreiben. Mas o menos.
posted by cali at 6:33 PM on January 11, 2006

Sorry to be a downer, but can someone explain to me the in joke (or whatever) with the spanglish?
posted by wilful at 6:36 PM on January 11, 2006

I speak spanglish, and that's as close to spanglish as the swedish-chef's bork-bork is to swedish.
posted by signal at 7:11 PM on January 11, 2006

FUCK GLENN REYNLODS_tia
posted by Paris Hilton at 7:12 PM on January 11, 2006

Will they agree to the same terms when Hillary's president?
posted by fungible at 7:31 PM on January 11, 2006

Who is Glenn Reynlods and why should I fuck him?
posted by Wolof at 7:44 PM on January 11, 2006

What's this "Ooo" thing? The SNL bit was QUIEN ES MAS MACHO.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:59 PM on January 11, 2006

If these interrogation techniques are /not/ torture in the eyes of this administration, would they be willing to subject themselves or one of their family members to it?

One of the things about torture is not the pain, or distress you feel at the moment it happens. The real torture is knowing that it will never end.
Army SERE training "tortures" soldiers to show them what it feels like. But it really isn't the same, because these soldiers know that once the training is done, they can put it all behind them. It's not the same for a Marine to say he's been "waterboarded" and survived, so it's not that bad.
The torture is knowing that you will be waterboarded, or beaten, or electroshocked... forever.
The fact that we are holding people, and abusing them, indefinately, with people arguing that they should never be released, is the real torture.
There is no recourse or avenue to persue if you are there wrongly. The torture happens daily. You are told it will never end.
Torture has never been about gaining information. It is about breaking wills. It is about abandoning hope.
What does it get you to have prisoners with broken wills that will never be released? nothing. It is just for sick pleasure that we torture people.
posted by Balisong at 12:25 AM on January 12, 2006

I give it 5 years before liberals and libertarians realise they have more in common than the first 5 letters and a bong.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:10 AM on January 12, 2006

Sorry to be a downer, but can someone explain to me the in joke (or whatever) with the spanglish?

I think it was meant to deflect trolls.
posted by dhartung at 3:14 AM on January 12, 2006

Los señores de imigracion es mas macho que Lloyd Bridges, no?
posted by planetkyoto at 5:08 AM on January 12, 2006

I still can't read #6 in the way others have suggested (Should police havein all investigations the same powers as anti-terror investigators). But I'd answer that one "yes" too; if there's a power we shouldn't give regular police, I doubt we should give it to anti-terror investigators.
posted by jepler at 7:38 AM on January 12, 2006

Matteo: Bush is in deep shit now, and as he always did since the 2000 primaries when he finds himself in deep shit, he attacks. savagely.

so now it's "aiding the enemy", the stab in the back, etc.

Dolchstosslegende

The Dolchstoßlegende or Dolchstosslegende, (German "dagger-thrust legend", often translated in English as "stab-in-the-back legend") refers to a social mythos and persecution-propaganda and belief among bitter post-World War I German nationalists, that laid blame for the loss of the war upon non-Germans and non-nationalists.

Many Germans who supported, fought in, or had otherwise known people lost in the enormously costly war, believed the causes for the German/Austrian involvement in the war were justified. They had hoped it would bring a restoration of past glory and a unified German nation-state. Instead, the war caused the deaths of 1,770,000 German soldiers and 760,000 German civilians, devastated the economy, and brought losses in both territory and national sovereignty.

Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders sought others to blame. The common scapegoats were Weimar Republic politicians, socialists, communists, and "international Jewry" — a term referring to Jews with a perceived excess of wealth and influence. These "November criminals", nationalists alleged, had "stabbed them in the back" on the "home front," by either criticizing the cause of German nationalism, or by simply not being zealous-enough supporters of it. In essence the accusation was that the accused committed treason against the benevolent and righteous common cause.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:55 AM on January 12, 2006

(Joeblough, Edgeways: Me three.)
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:55 AM on January 12, 2006

Si - pineapple es mas macho que knife

“I am beginning to realize how important gun rights may actually be. I got something for any MF wants to 'waterboard' me.” - posted by UseyurBrain

Welcome on board.

“Sorry to be a downer, but can someone explain to me the in joke (or whatever) with the spanglish?” - posted by wilful

SNL sketch with Bill Murray called “Quien Es Mas Macho” in which various hispanic personages were compared to each other as to who was more macho. It was done in B.S. Spanish - mostly using sound alike spanish words in English. Kinda Chico Marxish.


“What's this "Ooo" thing?” - posted by ParisParamus

Direct translation from the bit, not the script. It’s what Murray said a bit. I’ll have to rewatch it though.

“I still can't read #6 in the way others have suggested.” - posted by jepler

Fair enough. It’s not very clear I’ll admit.
But I think your response is pretty libertarian.

“Dolchstosslegende...” - posted by Artifice_Eternity

Excellent comment.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:48 AM on January 12, 2006

“Sorry to be a downer, but can someone explain to me the in joke (or whatever) with the spanglish?” - posted by wilful

And let me add that Matt Welch in the piece says: “I bring this up not necessarily to criticize supporters of George Bush's Executive-Power grabs, nor to play quien es mas libertarian...” (which is what I riffed on and agree to in that it the argument is not who is more a libertarian)

And Welch continues:
“But rather, I'm interested in breaking the cycle for a moment, stepping back, and asking the Glenn Reynoldses and Thomas Sowells of the world one question: How far is too far in the War on Terror?”

Which is set in the context of Bush warning critics of his Iraq policy to watch what they say or risk giving “'comfort to our adversaries.”

Versus Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) saying that “Patriotic Americans will continue to ask the tough questions because our brave men and women in Iraq, their families and the American people deserve to know that their leaders are being held accountable.”

Which strikes me as somewhat hollow because I really haven’t seen any tough questions being asked particularly those ten. I might have phrased them differently or added a few, but they all seem to be plucked from current events, some of which - indeed, I suspect all of which - have been discussed here in the blue. Number #9 for example - I posted something on a woman on a bus passing through government land being arrested for not showing ID.
Well - having a national ID and giving the LEA to demand it of you at any time is not that much of a leap.

They are broad general questions, but very much to the point - what then are the limitations if we cannot even debate the issues?

The B.S. spanish is purposefuly obfuscating (and self-referential) to that end.
If we can’t discuss things clearly without worrying about what we say - or even from the Dem’s POV using the negative of the already framed debate - then it does become a hard to follow matter of simply who delivers the loudest message.
It becomes as puerile as debating who is more macho - Ricardo Montalban or Desi Arnez, and the supportive points devolve into self-commentary and ultimately self-parody.
As much as getting competative over who is more a libertarian would be.

Which’d be the joke. Bit more of wry black humor than anything witty tho.Indeed, if humor it is at all.
Fuckers are talking about who loves freedom more without actually doing anything to stop the juggernaut of power from rolling blindly on.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:09 AM on January 12, 2006

Thanks for the response Balisong, my problem is this:

One of the things about torture is not the pain, or distress you feel at the moment it happens. The real torture is knowing that it will never end.


i agree with this statement completely. But the people arguing for things like waterboarding and the like are claiming that it's not torture. To me this indicates that they should be willing to undergo it at least once, especially when taken in the context that they know it won't last forever. Obviously i'm being a bit cynical here. i don't agree with these methods because they don't work and it's pointlessly cruel.

What i want is for someone to make the people advocating this, not the soldiers who are being hardened by their training, but the soft administrators in suits who keep trying to twist the word 'torture' to mean something other than torture, i want someone to ask them point blank "if it's not torture, can we do it to you?"
posted by quin at 3:09 PM on January 12, 2006