And, as is his wont since 1971, it's always the same side. You'll figure out which one.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Jean Francois takes sides
And, as is his wont since 1971, it's always the same side. You'll figure out which one.
And, as is his wont since 1971, it's always the same side. You'll figure out which one.
John Kerry Slams His Own Country At Davos
ReplyDeleteHis own countrey ? Oh, my ! Kerry doesn't see his role abroad as that of a cheerleader with pompoms and all for all things gringo?
Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”
How offensive! Time to repeal the first amendment.
With anonymous, we know the mouse by his squeak
ReplyDeletei am not trying to be anonymous: blogger has changed to its non-beta (buggy!) version and i am unable to log in - the damn browser (both safari & firefox) flickers uncontrollably every time i try & log in. Of course this is pepe.
ReplyDeleteSomething that might even give Pepe pause.
ReplyDeletegary was going to help with the blog? He just does web hosting as far as i know. Besides, if he reads this, he'll probably point every spammer on the face of the e-planet to y'all's e-mail boxes!
ReplyDeleteDeletion coward here! Naw, he went and got some cool linux open source software for the blog and then when I asked him some question he disappeared.
ReplyDeletei had no idea.i'll ask what happened. Poor guy got married & had a kid though - enough to get one off track into insanity
ReplyDeleteHow offensive! Time to repeal the first amendment.
ReplyDeletePepe, you don't seem to have your ducks lined up (am I using the right metaphor, JJ?) This is not a question of free speech. Your hero, JFK of Louisbourg Square, can blabber all he wants if he was just a gigolo and a private citizen. But he's a US Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, goddamit! As such, he should not go around kissing ass of every tinpot dictator or would-be nuker of Beantown -- maybe even a totally pinko gauchiste could crasp, just a teensie little bit, such a concept? Naahhh, forgeddabout it.
i am confused - as a us senator he should just stand by and clap ?
ReplyDeleteOf course you are "confused"---les gauchistes never grasp simple concepts, like not kissing the butt of the enemy (especially in time of war). One more time, let me try to run it by you, slowly: Mr. Kerry is supposed to represent his constituents, who don't much like being threatened by tinpot dictators to be blown up to smithereens, capisci? If he wants to be a friggin pinko-lefty and rant and rave against the US, let him do it --it's a free country -- but not in my name. Comprende?
ReplyDeleteai - you seem to confuse the role of a senator with that of the first lady. it's ok for laura's interactions with the public to be limited to supporting her husband and making statement about the benefits of readership. it really isn't kerry's role.
ReplyDeleteFor your information -- Laura Bush is not an official, John Kerry is (a little nuance that I know woulod escape an oh-so sophisticated gauchiste). An elected Senator swears (on the Bible) an oath of allegiance to the Republic. Again, I know that such concepts as upholding one's oath of office, and not giving comfort to the enemy in time of war are alien to lefties, but I'm old fashioned enough that they still carry weight with me.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally ai, the constituents that kerry represents don't seem to mind too much him doing so, do they - how many time has he been re-elected ?
ReplyDeleteYes, Kerry represents Blue all too well. And so we judge blue accordingly. As one does with Les Bleus and their remarquable monsieur Chirac
ReplyDeletethank you
ReplyDeleteand not giving comfort to the enemy in time of war
ReplyDeletecan a senator then ever oppose any arbitrary war ?
Laura Bush is not an official, John Kerry is
you are the one who seems to confuse the two - i am the one making a distinction that seems to escape you.
It's one thing to oppose a war, and another thing to give aid a comfort to the enemy. In case you haven't heard about it, there is something called the US Constitution, which has an article dealing with the issue. For someone who is sworn to uphold the Constitution against all foreign enemies, to go abroad and kiss their butt is rather rich.
ReplyDeletePS: The above link points to a kiddie version of the USC -- hopefully, that will be more understandable to someone who perhaps never heard of the concept. But, if a more complete version would be required, I can provide more links. Or, simply google it.
ReplyDeleteplease define providing aid & comfort. The way it sounds, kerry is soon off to the gallows.
ReplyDeletecan an elected representative ever voice an opinion against any arbitrary war and not demoralize the troops (and hence provide aid & comfort to the enemy)?
ReplyDeleteJust read the Constitution, and think about what it says. That's all I have to say.
ReplyDeleteai - it's been the tactic of the right since the beginning of this silly war to associate any criticism of it to "providing aid and comfort to the enemy", hence putting our "boys" lives at risk. It is little more than a convenient way to hush all opposition but it is grounded in bullshit: those that oppose the war have the same right - obligation- to voice their opinion than those that support it. I would argue that, given the history of deceit and repeat fiascos of this particular one, that statement is truer for the iraqi war than for any other in the past.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that, given the history of deceit and repeat fiascos of this particular one, that statement is truer for the iraqi war than for any other in the past.
ReplyDeleteI love these statements. It makes it sound as though Pepe has been in the archives for decades piling over primary source material from all of America's wars from 1776 and on. How do you find the time for this blog, Pepe?
is your general point that, since the spanish and the vietnam wars were also started under false pretenses, it is unfair to state that this one stands out in terms of being deceitful ?
ReplyDeleteWhat false pretenses are you talking about? At least in the case of Vietnam, the reason the US went to war were crystal-clear, and completely justified: to help a sovereign state (the Republic of South Vietnam), with which the US had a military alliance, resist Communist agression, done against all international laws. And the whole sitauation arose because the French capitulated ito those commies (of course!) in 1954, leaving to the US the duty to defend South Vietnam against attacks from NV commies, and their VC puppets in the South. So, once again, Pepe, you're talking through your wazoo. Just go back and study basic history before trying to peddle your pidgin-marxist blabber on these pages, wasting electrons, whose uses were invented by the way by those evil capitalists you so despise, not by your VC/AQ butt-kissing buddies, who never in a million years would invent even a better mousetrap, let alone the computer or the internet, which you take for granted.
ReplyDeleteWhat false pretenses are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteYou know very well what i am talking about: didn't you have to make up an attack in the gulf of tonkin to allow Johnson to start the Vietnam war ?
So, once again, Pepe, you're talking through your wazoo. Just go back and study basic history
Again, you're the one needing to hit the books, ai.
pidgin-marxist blabber on these pages, wasting electrons, whose uses were invented by the way by those evil capitalists you so despise, not by your VC/AQ butt-kissing buddies, who never in a million years would invent even a better mousetrap, let alone the computer or the internet, which you take for granted
ReplyDeleteai, you sound like you are transfering anger at life here. Have you heard about masturbation?
In the Dark Room, no one can hear Onan scream
ReplyDeleteSo, Dark Room, ya figure 911 or Kuwait or Rockets over Jerusalem was just our gunboat devotees flexing their Tonkins?
ReplyDeleteWhen your head hits books, laddie, you know you are unclear on the concept.