Wouldn't have mattered, Article 88 only applies to commissioned officers. But then you knew that, right?

I've been a full civilian since 2001. I'm trying to forget that stuff.

I know. As Allen pointed out, that was Charles.


I don’t think he was saying the phrase wasn’t used in connection with Abdulmutallab. The point is Obama used it as a rhetorical flourish, in the context of contrasting the actions of an enemy agent in your midst with the “alert and courageous citizenry” that can help identify them. Whereas, what you claimed was that the public found out after the speech that Abdulmutallab wasn’t isolated. That’s rubbish: Obama said clearly in the same speech that they were still looking for all who were involved. Heck, even in the very paragraph that contains the phrase that so irks you, Obama referred to “Those plotting against us”. It’s obvious he wasn’t suggesting Abdulmutallab wasn’t at all part of some wider movement/network/organisation.



For what? I haven’t bombed anyone, authorised the bombing of anyone, or voted for anyone who’s done so. I don’t need excuses.

This is just me but, even if you aren't about to bomb someone, maybe you ought to figure out an excuse just in case you get accused.

Hey, Stephen,

What are the crazy nutwingers like Chris all about in New Zealand? Similar issues, or do they have their own particular frothy-mouthed conspiracies?

Hey, Charles,

Does using phrases like "crazy nutwingers" and "frothy-mouthed conspiracies" help you dismiss ideas that make you feel bad, like the war and stuff?

Also, was Article 88 of UCMJ what you were talking about, or did you have something else in mind that would stifle freedom of speech?

Weemie, I know this'll be tough to wrap your head around... but when people call you a frothing nut, it's not because they want to dismiss your brilliant ideas. It's because your posts are very similar to those that would be produced by a mental patient with rabies.

It's sort of like when you were little, and your mom assured you that the other kids were just jealous of how special you were?

They weren't really jealous, Weemie. They weren't jealous at all.

Probably not as much as focusing on being called such helps you dismiss the perfectly valid counterarguments being presented to you. And don't kid yourself: you're the one arguing about the definition of "is," here. If you read the statement in the context of the speech it is delivered in, it's obvious to anybody not obsessed with milking imagined motives from sound bytes that Obama is simply being honest that they don't yet have all the answers and are still investigating whether it was someone acting alone or someone with a tangible tie to a terrorist organization, acting on orders. You're referred to as frothy-mouthed because of the way you so adamantly fight and wrangle such a minor, stupid point of contention. I get that you do not believe Obama's rhetoric about terrorism (Islam-rooted terrorism, anyway) is bold enough. And I understand that this bothers you because you feel it does an injustice to the importance and breadth of the terrorism issue as a whole, undermining its relationship to the war. If you just said that, people would disagree, probably including me; but at least you wouldn't sound like a squalling talk radio parrot. Your tack here reminds me of that bit in The Office, when Jan leaves Michael a voicemail message saying "I guess I missed you, give me a call back," and he spends the entire morning listening to it over and over, struggling to convince himself that she literally means that she misses him personally.

K

"was Article 88 of UCMJ what you were talking about, or did you have something else in mind that would stifle freedom of speech?"

Not exactly, I was asking about right-wingers' opinions on soldiers (or even the Dixie Chicks) expressing views which undermined support for the President. Of course, I knew perfectly well that right-wingers only hold the presidency or even soldiers sacrosanct when the President or soldiers are right-wingers. Morality, logic and tradition have nothing to do with it.

NZ wingnuts have an excessive focus on what they label “political correctness gone mad”, which often goes to the level of conspiracy. When the Labour Party (roughly = Democrats) under the leadership of Helen Clark was in power, there was the “dictatorship of Helengrad” and “lesbian conspiracy” model championed by the likes of Investigate Magazine.

Examined further here:



Similarly, we have Destiny Church, who buy into such thinking. ‘Tamaki regards the lack of male leadership in New Zealand, including the leadership over one's family, as "the work of the devil".’ They organised the “ Enough is enough ” rally, largely against the passing of Civil Union legislation.

Anyway, all that’s hardly changed now that a John Key lead National are running the show.

Example: recently, morning TV breakfast show host Paul Henry, who had in the past made mildly controversial comments, was forced to resign (essentially due to commercial backlash) after making racist remarks. The wingnuts ludicrously spun it as a conspiracy by Labour and the Green Party. For example, see the comments here at Kiwiblog*.

Actually, the comments section of Kiwiblog is where you can see many examples of NZ wingnuttery in action. Especially the hilarious Redbaiter**, as seen here on the Henry resignation:

"[It's] a victory for FASCISM.
What a stinking miserable despicable little country.
I detest you poisonous socialist scum."

.

*David Farrar, who runs Kiwiblog, while clearly right-leaning, is no right-wing nutbar. In fact NZ poli-nerds would do well to follow his blog for a right-perspective with good insider info. But as for many of the posters in his comments section, whoa...

**Later in that same thread, Redbaiter and the other conspiracy theorists get shot down by liberal-centrist media commentator Russell Brown.