Dezbaterea republicană din Tampa (Florida), 12 septembrie 2011

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    Dezbaterea republicană din Tampa, Florida, din 12 septembrie a fost pregătită de CNN și Tea Party Express. Moderată de jurnalistul de stânga Wolf Blitzer, întâlnirea s-a bucurat de participarea a 8 candidați.

    Michelle Bachmann – avocat, membru al Casei Reprezentanților din Congres;
    Herman Cain – matematician, om de afaceri;
    Newt Gingrich – istoric, fost președinte al Casei Reprezentanților;
    Jon Huntsman – fost guvernator al Utah, fost ambasador în R.P. Chineză;
    Ron Paul – doctor, membru al Casei Reprezentanților;
    Rick Perry – zootehnist, guvernator al statului Texas;
    Mit Romney– om de afaceri, fost guvernator al Massachussets;
    Rick Santorum – avocat, fost senator al statului Pennsylvania.

    The following two tabs change content below.
    „By accepting punishment, not for any sins, but for our virtues, we betrayed our code and made theirs possible. [...] Theirs is the morality of kidnappers. They use your love of virtue as a hostage. [...] Your enemies are destroying you by means of your own power. Your generosity and your endurance are their only tools. Your unrequited rectitude is the only hold they have upon you. They know it. You don't. The day when you'll discover it is the only thing they dread. You must learn to understand them. You won't be free of them, until you do.” - Francisco D'Anconia (Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand, p. 619)

    54 de gânduri despre “Dezbaterea republicană din Tampa (Florida), 12 septembrie 2011

    1. @roadrunner #1: call me crazy, da’ faptul ca e de formatie zootehnist mi se pare un plus 🙂
      Personal m-am saturat de lawyer-i si tot felul de doctori si PhDs care la o adica nu-s in stare de nimic.
      Un tovaras de pe CriticAtac zicea ca Americii ii trebuie un inamic pe masura cum era odata URSS-ul, ca sa se ridice iara.
      Pai inamicul este! E Obama cu socialismul lui si cum trage pe Democrati tot mai spre stinga. Islam-ul e nimica toata fata de cit damage aduce socialismul lui Obama.
      Totul e ca US sa-si dea seama cine e inamicul 🙂

    2. #2

      @roadrunner #1: call me crazy, da’ faptul ca e de formatie zootehnist mi se pare un plus

      That’s exactly what I said at the other debate!
      http://inliniedreapta.net/lave.....ment-55035

      Problema lui Perry este ca nu si-a practicat niciodata profesia. Nu am dovezi, nici nu voi sta sa le caut. Este doar un wild guess. Sint sigur ca-i corecta. Perry imi pare exact tipul celor care fac o facultate (nu conteaza ce) fara nici cea mai mica intentie de a-si practica profesia, ci doar pentru patalamaua cu care sa se lanseze in politica.

    3. #5

      Mda… articolele tale arata ca National Review si Red State si-au facut decizia. Bachmann is toasted! Which is not a bad thing… Cu cit dispare gagica mai repede din roster, cu atit mai bine. Pentru tara! 🙂

    4. @roadrunner 4: Nu si-a practicat-o, da’ macar are ceva autoritate daca o sa spuna: „Mai animalule!” 🙂

    5. Roadrunner.

      Problema lui Perry este ca nu si-a practicat niciodata profesia.

      Asta e problema ta, nu a lui Perry.

      Perry imi pare exact tipul celor care fac o facultate (nu conteaza ce) fara nici cea mai mica intentie de a-si practica profesia, ci doar pentru patalamaua cu care sa se lanseze in politica.

      Desigur, diploma de zootehnie este binestiuta ca o platforma de lansare in politica. Mult mai utila ca diploma in avocatura.

      Perry a absolvit zootehnia in 1972. Apoi a intrat Air Force. A pilotat pina in 1977, cand s-a retras cu gradul de capitan. Apoi a intrat in afacerile cu bumbac, impreuna cu tatal sau. Cariera sa politica a inceput in 1984. Sloganul electoral din 84: „Votati-ma, am patalama la mina de zootenist!’

    6. Republicanul Bob Turner – un intreprinzator din Queens – a invins in super-democratul district din New York (the Ninth Congressional District, care inca din 1920 a votat numai democrat), facand inca o bresa in aparent inatacabilul domeniu obamic al marilor orase cu vederi liberale. Iata ce a declarat invingatorul prezicand ca votantii il vor respinge anul viitor pe Obama:

      „Astazi am aprins o lumanare. Curand va fi un mare foc de tabara.”

      In alegerile speciale din Nevada a castigat un alt Republican, fostul guvernator Mark Amodei.

      GOP – Democrats: 2-0!

    7. # 7

      Right!

      M-am uitat totusi sa vad daca my wild guess was correct. It was. Exista o biografie pe site-ul lui „for president” si exista o pagina wikipedia. Pagina wikipedia iar m-a facut sa rid cu lacrimi, si asta o zic fara nici o rautate:

      In a 1989 interview he said that „I was probably a bit of a free spirit, not particularly structured real well for life outside of a military regime, I would have not lasted at Texas Tech or the University of Texas. I would have hit the fraternity scene and lasted about one semester.” Perry was a prankster in college: he once placed live chickens in the closet of an upperclassman during Christmas break and used M-80 firecrackers to prank students using the toilet.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

      Cel mai mult s-a apropiat de profesie cind:

      He left the Air Force with the rank of captain, returned to Texas, and went into business farming cotton with his father.

      De practicat nu si-a practicat-o. Farming cotton is different kind of fish than animal science. Dupa aia, pe la 30 si ceva de ani, s-a bagat in politica si n-a mai iesit de acolo.

    8. # 13

      The GOP Onstage, Again (Nordlinger)
      Debate Jars Perry Out of Sweet Spot (J. Goldberg)
      How Obama Could Win (T. Sowell)

      * Foarte bun articolul lui Jay Nordlinger: The GOP Onstage, Again. Cinic ca mine… :mrgreen: Imi place de el! Ii citez aici citeva linii mai savuroase:

      Rick Perry — total Marlboro Man.
      I liked that Romney kissed Bachmann, enthusiastically. You could hear the “mwah.”
      CNN and the Tea Party co-hosted a debate? Proof of the old adage “Politics makes strange bedfellows.”
      When Perry said “slam-dunk guarantee,” I couldn’t help thinking about George Tenet and Saddam’s WMD. (I didn’t mean for that to rhyme.)
      Santorum kept talking about all the “courage” he had shown in his political life — “I had the courage to” do this, “I had the courage to” do that. Ay, caramba, Rick. That’s for others to say, not you.
      He referred to himself as a “spokesperson.” I wish he had had the — what, courage? — to say “spokesman.” If a Rick Santorum waves the linguistic white flag, we’re all doomed.
      When Newt talked about all the “waste” in government, and how getting rid of it would take care of our budget woes, I almost ralphed. Every bad, dim, or dishonest candidate has said this since the beginning of time: waste, fraud, and abuse. And going after tax cheats. Newt knows so much better.
      It was an error to be so grudging about Perry’s record in Texas — “four aces” and all that. He need not be so grudging. If I were Romney, I’d say something like, “Rick is doing such a good job in Texas, I think we should keep him in that position.”

      * Articolul lui Goldberg: nothing to see here, people, move on. Locuri comune pe care le gasesti oriunde.

      * Articolul lui Thomas Sowell: How Obama Could Win. Pe asta am dat prima data click, eram pe bune interesat! Chiar asa: How Obama Could Win? N-am aflat nimic, spre marea mea dezamagire.

      Articolul lui Sowell mi s-a parut o critica oblica (chiar foarte oblica!) la adresa unor candidati care se bat cu caramida in piept cu job-plan-urile lor, cu cite joburi au creat ei in statele lor (bine macar ca nu zic „created or saved”!), si cum el a creat mai multe joburi decit preopinentul. De parca guvernatorii si guvernele sint acelea care creeaza joburi. Sowell le aminteste delicat ca reteta de success este sa get the hell out of the way si ca sa-si bage planurile alea undeva. Aduce ca exemplu episodul Harding 1921. Intrebarea este citi din aia de pe scena, daca-i iei la scuturat, au auzit de Harding si de 1921.

    9. Pentru cei care nu sunt foarte pasionati de politica americana, articolele sunt f. bune. De altfel, cred ca sunt bune si pentru majoritatea alegatorilor, tinand cont ca nu toti sunt atat de interesati de tot ce misca in mediul politic, fie el si republican.

    10. Delicios: 🙂 So A Comatose Guy Walks Into A Bar … by Ann Coulter

      Following up on Brian Williams’ showboating questions at last week’s Republican debate about the execution of the innocent and starving children with distended stomachs, this week, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer launched his question about an imaginary comatose man without health insurance.

      As Rep. Ron Paul began to discuss the pitfalls of collectivism, Blitzer kept interrupting him, concluding with, „But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?”

      That’s when an audience member yelled out „Yes!” — allowing liberals to luxuriate in self-righteousness, the likes of which we have not seen since the Jersey Girls demanded a Homeland Security Department be created because their husbands died.

      Normal people are sick of liberals’ emotional stories that play to soccer moms, but always seem to pave the way for disastrous social policies that benefit only left-wing special-interest groups.

      Whenever liberals start loftily insisting on our obligation to our fellow man with these tear-jerkers, you know some heinous public policy is coming. As soon as the dust settles, you won’t see any innocent victims being helped, only trial lawyers, government employees and other Democratic constituencies.

      Obama campaigned for his national health care bill with a sad story about a campaign supporter who died of breast cancer soon after his election because — he said — she couldn’t afford health insurance, so she didn’t get a breast cancer scan in time to stop the disease.

      He somberly told embarrassed audiences: „She insisted she is going to be buried in an Obama T-shirt.” (As it looks like we all will, unless we get a new president next year.)

      As for Brian Williams’ grandstandy question to Gov. Rick Perry about Texas’ execution rate („Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?”): There is no credible evidence that a single innocent person has been executed in this country since at least 1950.

      There is, however, a lot of evidence that innocent people have been killed when murderers were not executed.

      Indeed, one of the most infamous cases of a former death row inmate being released and then killing again comes from Texas. Kenneth McDuff had been given three death sentences for kidnapping and murdering three teenagers, repeatedly raping one.

      But he was sprung from prison after the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty in 1972 and then Texas began releasing inmates to relieve prison overcrowding. McDuff went on to kill more than a dozen people, provably eight more. He was finally executed by Gov. George Bush in 1998, two decades after his post-death row rape and murder spree began.

      Someone ought to calculate the carnage liberals foisted on this country beginning in the late-’60s with their „compassionate” approach to rapists and serial killers like McDuff — consequences that liberals were fully immunized from in their safe, ivory tower neighborhoods. Let’s ask Michael Dukakis to run the numbers.

      Regarding Williams’ baby seal question about starving children in Texas with distended stomachs: No one is starving in this country. The only bloated stomach problem affecting America’s poor is a medical condition known as „obesity.”

      According to the General Accounting Office, in 2008, the federal government had 18 separate food programs that spent $62.5 billion each year to feed the poor. And that was before the Food Stamp President assumed office.

      I would venture to guess that the only children in America who have ever suffered from kwashiorkor, the condition that causes distended bellies, were victims of child abuse — at the hands of the sort of monsters Williams is so opposed to executing.

      People aren’t buying the left’s emotional appeals about imaginary victims anymore. The audience member’s „Yes!” was a way of laughing in the moderators’ faces for trying to pull that crap.

    11. # 19

      Delicios:

      Not quite! Tocmai i l-am terminat de citit. Recunosc ca a facut un pas timid, dar…

      Am discutat cu DanCanada despre Ann Coulter mai deunazi (unde-i DanCanada cind ai nevoie de el?). Ii atrageam atentia acum doua saptamini (http://inliniedreapta.net/inse.....ment-54756) ca Ann Coulter, in loc sa discute despre military adventurismul criticat de Perry(!), discuta, total irelevant, despre darwinism. As fi vrut din tot sufletul sa fiu contrazis in assesmentul meu… Ai vazut cu ce a venit ea saptamina trecuta? Cu Amanda Knox!!!!

      Sint satul pina peste cap de healthcare debate! Si de death penalty.Temele de healthcare le-am vazut la ea si in 2009, si in 2010. Alea de death penalty se pierd in negura timpului. A scris de ele despre ele de cind era fata mare. Am fost de acord cu ele (temele) la vremea lor, dar de cite ori vrea sa ma convinga? I got it! Devine, pur si simplu, plictisitoare!

      As vrea s-o vad discutind despre the elephant in the room: de military-adventurismul de care s-a luat Perry(!), de spinzurarea lui Bernanke pe care i-a promis-o acelasi Perry(!!), de auditul lui Federal Reserve pe care-l sustine Newt Ginghrich(!!!), de faptul ca nu trebuie sa aducem democratia in Afganistan de care a vorbit Romney(!!!!), si alte asemenea.

      Come on, girl! Show a little bit of courage! It won’t bite you!

    12. @roadrunner #20: Adevarat, Ann a fost mai acida in alte cazuri. Ca sa vorbeasca de ce zici, ar fi, vorba unui grup extrem de simpatic mie – „Fara Zahar”: „astea-s detalii ce nu merita discutate” 🙂
      Cu alte cuvinte, nu ced ca audienta americana medie e in stare sa evalueze fineturi politice.
      Am vorbit cu un prieten american-roman: baiat destept si simpatic, insa nici nu stia ca Obama e de stinga. Oricum, m-a asigurat ca there-s no chance in Hell ca Obama mai ajunge la un 2nd term…

    13. # 22

      Oricum, m-a asigurat ca there-s no chance in Hell ca Obama mai ajunge la un 2nd term…

      Nu zi vorba mare…!

      Multi americani sint really-really-really-really pissed off! Sint ca a doua zi dupa betie, mahmuri, si-i doare capul ingrozitor! Stiu ca n-au facut bine ca, in ultimii 10-15 ani, au tinut-o tot intr-o betie, si cauta sa inteleaga cum de a fost posibil asa ceva. Se intreaba ce s-a intimplat cu ei de s-au imbatat in halul asta, ca porcii. Sint dispusi sa-i asculte pe cei care le spun adevarul, chiar daca este neplacut. Nu mai sint dispusi sa-i asculte pe cei care i-au indemnat sa-si bea mintile. Iar cind ii aud pe Coulter, Krauthammer, et ejusdem farinae, ca le vorbesc de parca am fi inca in 2001, 2004, 5, 6, de parca nimic nu s-ar fi intimplat intre timp, li se pune pata urit de tot!

      De stinga, de dreapta, nu mai tine! Asta s-a fumat de mult! Iar republicanii, citi candidati au, tot asa de multe sanse au sa faca alegerea gresita. Lumea nu mai vrea sa vada campania Bush-Kerry. Nici macar pe aia Obama-McCain. Trebe’ altceva! Altfel, daca vom avea o reeditare 2004 sau 2008, iti garantez ca vom avea cel mai mic turnout din istorie. Lumea isi va baga picioarele si-i va lasa sa se bata intre ei. Pentru ca nu-i intereseaza nici Obama nici vreo sosie a lui Bush. Si atunci, nimeni nu va garanta rezultatul.

    14. @ DanCanada

      Following up ce am scris la #22, uite ce scrie unul:
      http://www.americanthinker.com.....obama.html
      In American Thinker, of all places! 🙂

      Nu agreez cu ideea generala din articol: compromising on principles to pander to certain segments of the electorate. Agreez totusi cu ideea ca a ramine incremenit in vechi pozitii nu-i reteta de succes. Una peste alta, omului nu i se pare nici lui imposibil ca the unthinkable sa se intimple: ca Obama sa fie reales.

    15. @roadrunner, #23: Adica referitor la discutiile GOP de pina acum: tara moare si baba se piaptana. Chuck Roger are dreptate si pot sa confirm cu ce s-a intimplat in Canada la alegerile federale din primavara asta si cu cele locale din Toronto.
      Dreapta a cistigat la nivel federal tocmai pentru ca a avut acest mesaj simplu: ECONOMY.
      Liberalii se dadeau de ceasu’ mortii ca ce-o sa faca Dreapta, ca o sa fie Armagedddon etc etc. Harper (seful dreptei) a tinut-o pe-a lui, simplu si la obiect: vremurile’s tulburi, hai sa avem grija de economie, sa pastram o stabilitate si daca tot suntem election time, ce-ar fi sa avem o majoritate ca sa nu mai frecam menta cu alegeri inainte de termen la fiecare doi ani. Si a mers! Baietii sunt majoritari!
      La fel si primarul de Toronto, tot de dreapta, a avut un mesaj foarte simplu: „stop the gravy train”. Adica fara sa arunci cu bani peste tot (tip Solyndra) dupa care sa ceri bani de la oameni prin tot felul de taxe locale. Si a cistigat! Si asta in Toronto care e prin traditie liberal.

    16. @ DanCanada

      OBAMA ON DEMS’ ‘NERVOUSNESS’: “Now, I know that, over the last couple of months, there have been Democrats who voiced concerns and nervousness about, well, in this kind of economy, isn’t this just — aren’t these just huge headwinds in terms of your reelection? And I just have to remind people that — here’s one thing I know for certain: The odds of me being reelected are much higher than the odds of me being elected in the first place.”

      The odds of me being reelected are much higher than the odds of me being elected in the first place.

      You know what? He’s right!

    17. Pentru cei care vor sa inteleaga starea de spirit din America. Postul asta are oarecum legatura cu #22-ul de mai sus.

      Cititi articolul http://www.americanthinker.com.....isans.html
      Apoi cititi comentariile. Este pentru prima data cind vad mai multe comentarii pro decit injuraturi.
      Si asta se intimpla pe site-ul lui American Thinker, nu pe cine stie ce blog obscur.

      Cum spuneam, lumea se trezeste, bombane, da din clantza si cirteste din ce in ce mai mult. Cei care au dirijat opinia publica de orientare conservatoare in ultimii 10 ani au pierdut controlul. Argumentele lor invechite nu mai tin. Si nici cu birfe, atacuri la persoana si apeluri la emotii nu mai au prea mult succes.

    18. roadrunner, mie, ca libertarian, mi se pare jenant Ron Paul de cîte ori deschide gura pe subiecte de politică externă. Este un om prea mic pentru o funcţie atît de importantă in fruntea unei puteri atît de mari, cel mai puternic şi mai militarizat stat din lume. Un pitic ce insistă caraghios să îmbrace haina unui gigant, cam aşa arată. Măcar dacă era negru şi homosexual şi ar fi fost mai băgat in seamă.

      Dacă vroia să fie ascultat, ar fi trebuit să confere o conotaţie pozitivă termenului militarism , asta dacă doreşte într-adevăr să ajungă preşedinte şi implicit comandantul acestei imense armate. Niciun candidat serios poate să aspire la această funcţie ieşind pe piaţă cu declaraţii de blondă pacifistă care vor atrage dispreţul întregului complex militaro-industrial pe care deja l-ai iritat cu critici puerile. Şi eu cred că războiul din Afganistan este stupid, contraproductiv, periculos pentru politica externă [nu este chiar inteligent şi nici aşa pragmatic să susţii o alianţă islamistă presupus moderată împotriva alteia presupus radicalizate, iar guvernul karzai a ilustrat mai frecvent ataşamentul său faţă de valorile şariei decît faţă de cele democratice], dar subiectul ar trebui pur şi simplu îngropat in preajma alegerilor pentru că este prea sensibil, oricum insignifiant faţă de chestiunile arzătoare. dar, in fine, probabil n-ar trebui să-mi pese prea tare, de aici, din Romania socialistă.

    19. # 27

      dar subiectul ar trebui pur şi simplu îngropat in preajma alegerilor pentru că este prea sensibil, oricum insignifiant faţă de chestiunile arzătoare.

      Iti recomand sa-ti mai citesti fraza de citeva ori, apoi sa te intrebi daca are vreun sens.

      Cit despre insignifianta, I don’t think so. Ai trecut prin comentariile alea? Subiectul este al dracului de sensibil! Daca n-ar fi n-ar mai urla toti de parca ar fi Linda Blair stropita cu apa sfintita.

      N-au cum sa ingroape subiectul. Oricit ar vrea. De fapt nici nu se pricep sa-l ingroape. Toti comentatorii mainstream conservatori il aduc la inaintare cu aceleasi argumente rasuflate, lucru care nu face altceva decit sa-i enerveze si mai rau pe oameni.

    20. Roadrunner, hai sa ti-o zic pe aia dreapta: ala care il aplauda pe Rompol atunci cand spune 11 septembrie este opera Americii este:
      1. Tradator si
      2. Imbecil.
      Restul e bla bla.

    21. # 29

      Whatever…

      Chestia este ca lumea vorbeste. The cat is out of the bag, si miorlaie de-o auzi si din giurgiu.

    22. Da, miorlaie: Rompol e un cretin periculos, un idiot util care vorbeste precum Chomsky si Michael Moore.

      „We have been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for ten years”

      honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation.

      Ce bolovan.

    23. # 31

      The cat is out of the freaking bag! Uite ce vede americanul pe Fox News:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1NmzPpSggc
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGm1HyCx0w

      Acum 5 ani n-ai fi vazut asta pe Fox nici in vis. Tipul ala (Andrew Napolitano) nu este Chomsky, si nici Michael Moore. Nu-ti mai ramine decit sa-l faci idiot util.

      Da, da… the cat is out of the bag…

      Am pus pe forum la dezbaterea prezidentiala precedenta (MSNBC debate) o intrebare: de ce Rick Perry a pus problema lui „military-adventurism”. Daca opinia conservatoare majoritara ar fi ramas aia neoconservatoare din deceniul trecut n-ar fi avut nici un motiv s-o faca, nu-i asa? Extind intrebarea acum si la Fox News: de ce lasa Fox News astazi astfel de opinii… nu eretice, ci de-a dreptul blasfemiatoare?

    24. Esti penibil.

      Daily Paul citeaza articol de la The New American.

      Fox Business Channel host of Freedom Watch Andrew Napolitano has renewed a call for the indictment of former President Bush and Vice President Cheney for attacks on the U.S. Constitution in a July 12 C-SPAN interview with leftist consumer advocate Ralph Nader. “It was blatantly unconstitutional and in some cases criminal,” the former New Jersey Superior Court judge told Nader. “They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted, for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrant.”

      Napolitano, care se autoconsidera libertarian, il considera pe Ralph Nader un model si erou. Ralph Nader este un comunist care se autoconsidera un „consumer advocate” (mai recent: campaniile prezidentiale Nader din 2000 si 2004 au fost sustinute si sponsorizate de International Socialist Organization). Napolitano a fost considerat drept posibil viceprezidential pe bilet cu Ron Paul in campania din 2008. Cretinii se aduna in jurul acelorasi obsesii: Ron Paul, Napolitano, Ralph Nader. Libertacomunistii fata cu SUA, marele cancer imperialist.

      Apropo de Napolitano si „expertiza” lui juridica: ia si citeste un „cearceaf” si nu te mai entuziasma ca fata mare la maritis:

      Judge Not
      An ignorant analysis of the Lynne Stewart case

      A little background before we examine this commentator’s latest wade out of his depth. Napolitano was once a midlevel state-court judge in New Jersey. Assuming for argument’s sake that this experience is a sure sign of actual legal expertise, it would be an exceedingly narrow one: to wit, he might be thought an authority on the constitution and laws of the Garden State. Fox, however, has opportunistically chosen to ignore the „New Jersey” modifier in his former title and focus myopically on the „Judge” part. The network has adopted a convention whereby all Fox News correspondents refer to Napolitano on the air not by name but as „Judge.” He then proceeds to expound with glib certainty on all manner of legal issues, including matters of federal law, for which he appears to have little familiarity.

      That the „Judge” is out of his league in these areas is often painfully obvious (see, e.g., Ramesh Ponnuru’s dissection of Napolitano’s shoddy op-ed on the Patriot Act last March). Fox’s viewers, nonetheless, are led to believe they are recipients of pearls of wisdom from a jurisprudential giant. It’s a good racket and has recently landed the „Judge” on the bestseller list with a tome, tirelessly hyped by Fox, that is presumptuously entitled Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws. (Hint: He’s not talking about the government that sits in Trenton.)

      Napolitano’s latest op-ed should be called something similar. Maybe: „Chaos: What Happens When a Poseur Analyzes a Federal Prosecution.” This is a truly excruciating read. There are, no doubt, any number of highly qualified academics and defense lawyers who are sympathetic to the cause of Lynne Stewart — a defense lawyer convicted for actions arising out of purportedly providing legal services to a client — and who would have given their right arms in exchange for space in the New York Times’s vaunted opinion page. The Gray Lady, instead, managed to find someone nearly incapable of getting a single fact right, much less of explaining the relevant principles.

      Clearly, Napolitano was bent on attacking the prosecution (a „perverse victory in the Justice Department’s assault on the Constitution”) as a travesty that (surprise!) just happens to be the very kind of „chaos” you can read about if you fork up the 20 bucks for his book. That being the case, he might have done what all actual federal judges, all competent practitioners, and even most law students would have thought to do: He might have read the indictment.

      But that, of course, might have placed the facts in the way of the bombast. Not wishing to be so encumbered, the „Judge” maintains that Stewart was convicted of supporting terrorism and making false statements because of conversations with her client, the convicted terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman (a.k.a., „the Blind Sheik”), on which the government was able to eavesdrop because the notorious John Ashcroft unconstitutionally changed the law. As Napolitano puts it:

      Just after 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave himself the power to bypass the lawyer-client privilege, which every court in the United States has upheld, and eavesdrop on conversations between prisoners and their lawyers if he had reason to believe they were being used to „further facilitate acts of violence or terrorism.” The regulation became effective immediately.
      Of course, had Napolitano taken the few minutes necessary to read the indictment (which is freely available online), he might have learned that all of the conversations and actions that resulted in Stewart’s conviction took place about two years or more before the post-9/11 regulation (which the, er, Judge, in any event, mischaracterizes). That is: before George W. Bush was president, before John Ashcroft was attorney general, and before 9/11 ever happened. This investigation was very ably conducted by, and took place under the auspices of incontestably proper regulations imposed by, the Clinton Justice Department.

      As the indictment explains, and as those of us who actually followed the trial well know, Attorney General Janet Reno began curtailing the Blind Sheik’s prison privileges in April 1997 — i.e., a year-and-a-half after his conviction. She did this by placing what were known as „special administrative measures” (SAMs) on his confinement. The SAMs sharply limited Abdel Rahman’s ability to communicate with the outside world, which in his case was crucial to national security because of his unique ability to command the commission of terrorist attacks.

      At the end of 1997, however, the Sheik’s Egyptian terror organization brutally murdered 58 tourists in Luxor as part of a campaign to compel his release by extortion. Subsequently, the Reno Justice Department — again, entirely consistent with federal law — beefed up the SAMs, now prescribing that the Sheik would „not be permitted to talk with, meet with, correspond with, or otherwise communicate with any member, or representative, of the news media, in person, by telephone, by furnishing a recorded message, through the mails, through his attorney(s), or otherwise.”

      In addition, Abdel Rahman’s attorneys, including Stewart, were required in 1999 to sign an affirmation that they would abide by the SAMs. There was nothing novel about this given that, in May 1998, Attorney General Reno had required these lawyers to agree not to „use [their] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman.” There was also nothing controversial about it because Abdel Rahman’s case had long been over — he was no longer presumed innocent or meeting with lawyers to prepare his defense.

      In May 2000, moreover, Stewart willingly signed an affirmation for the Reno Justice Department in which she agreed „to abide by [the] terms” of the SAMs then in effect on Abdel Rahman. As the indictment spells out, „In particular, STEWART agreed that she would ‘only be accompanied by translators for the purpose of communicating with inmate Abdel Rahman concerning legal matters’ and that she would not ‘use [her] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman.'”

      Meanwhile, the meetings between Stewart and Abdel Rahman that became damning evidence in Stewart’s trial all took place in 1999 and 2000 — while John Ashcroft was still a senator in Missouri. Leaving aside his cluelessness about when the meetings happened, Napolitano inanely labels Stewart’s participation in them as „gibberish.” Actually, they were discussions with a master terrorist who had had a hand in murdering the last Egyptian president, and who had been convicted at trial of conspiring to murder the current Egyptian president, about the need to overthrow the current Egyptian regime. Specifically, they included consideration of whether the Sheik should call for the end of a tenuous ceasefire agreement — i.e., whether he should give the green light, as he uniquely could do, to a new round of terror attacks.

      Not exactly a „legal matter” — even if it’s the sort of thing that somehow strikes Napolitano as mere gibberish. It was only a month after signing the agreement not to pass messages from Abdel Rahman to the media when Stewart issued a press release announcing that the Sheik was „withdrawing his support for the cease-fire that currently exists.”

      If anything, Napolitano’s treatment of the relevant federal law is even more risible than his hopelessly inaccurate rendering of the facts. The post-9/11 Ashcroft regulation had utterly nothing to do with the Stewart case, but even had it been applicable, it is not, as Napolitano blathers, an instance of the Attorney General rather than Congress „writ[ing] federal criminal laws…with criminal penalties.”

      To begin with, neither the SAMs imposed by Attorney General Reno nor the post-9/11 Ashcroft regulation are „criminal laws,” and neither impose „criminal penalties.” I am not competent to explain to Napolitano how state government is organized in New Jersey, but in the federal system we have government that is tripartite. The branches interact („checks-and-balances”), but each has its own sphere of responsibilities („separation of powers”). When a branch is acting within its own sphere, as the Justice Department is with respect to the custody of convicted federal prisoners, it is permitted to make its own regulations subject to the restrictions of the Constitution (e.g., the Eighth Amendment, barring cruel and unusual punishments) and any proper legislation. This is why, notwithstanding the good Judge’s foot-stamping, Stewart and her very able lawyers were unable to get evidence of conversations with her client thrown out. There was nothing remotely unconstitutional about the Justice Department constricting the liberties of a convicted felon in the custody of its bureau of prisons.

      None of these regulations, furthermore, has anything to do with „criminal penalties.” Criminal penalties are Congress’s prerogative to define. Stewart was not convicted of violating a Reno or Ashcroft regulation. She was convicted of violating statutory offenses prescribed by Congress: the federal false statements law, and a federal law that forbids providing material support to terrorists. The penalties imposed at sentence will flow from those statutes, not from any Justice Department rules.

      But wait a minute, Napolitano insists. „[T]he Sixth Amendment…grants all persons the right to consult with a lawyer in confidence.” Well, maybe someplace, but here in America the Sixth Amendment applies only to „criminal prosecutions,” and guarantees the assistance of counsel to an „accused.” Abdel Rahman’s criminal prosecution ended with his conviction in 1995. It’s been nearly a decade since he’s been an „accused” (the judgment of conviction was entered when he was sentenced in January 1996, and his appeals were rejected in 1999). He did not have a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment at all when he was conspiring — not consulting — with Stewart in 1999 and 2000. It is probable that, consistent with the Constitution, he could have been entirely barred from meeting with attorneys. As it is, however, the Justice Department determined to allow him that privilege and was well within its authority to impose reasonable restrictions on it.

      Moreover, even when the Sixth Amendment does actually apply and where the attorney-client privilege is at issue, the attorney must be acting as an attorney to enjoy the benefits of confidentiality. Federal law, like the law of most states, has long recognized what is known as the „crime/fraud” exception to the privilege. Attorney-client communications lose their protection if they are in furtherance of an ongoing crime, as Stewart’s clearly were.

      Not so fast, splutters His Honor. What about the First Amendment? Napolitano inveighs that the prison regulations:

      also violate the First Amendment’s right to free speech. Especially in a controversial case, a defense lawyer is right to advocate for her client in the press, just as the government uses the press to put forward its case. Unless there is a court order that bars both sides from speaking to reporters, it should be up to the lawyer to decide whether to help her client through the news media.
      Ms. Stewart’s constitutional right to speak to the news media about a matter of public interest is absolute and should prevent the government from prosecuting her….

      It’s hard to figure where to begin… First, yes, Judge, the Sheik, and Ms. Stewart were once in a controversial case together. But it ended ten years ago — perhaps you read about it. Second, lawyers involved in a federal case do not, under the First Amendment, have an unqualified right, let alone an „absolute” right, to advocate for the client in the media or to opine generally about „a matter of public interest.” Even when a criminal prosecution is ongoing, the U.S. Supreme Court has, for many, many years, held that participants in the litigation may be tightly regulated in what they may disclose. Thus, most courts, including the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Abdel Rahman was tried, have widely known local rules which restrict what counsel may say publicly. Lawyers may not be admitted to the bar of those courts without representing that they are familiar with and understand such rules.

      Further, no one, including lawyers, has an absolute right to communicate freely with the press. A lawyer, for example, who learns of classified information in a litigation and reveals it to the press commits a serious felony. Similarly, a lawyer who disseminates information covered by a gag order may be jailed for contempt of court. And, most pertinently, an individual who happens to hold a law license but who is in fact functioning as a contributing member of an ongoing criminal conspiracy may be prosecuted — including for acts that further the conspiracy, such as communicating messages from a terror kingpin to his murderous underlings.

      That leads us directly to the most breathtakingly moronic assertion in Napolitano’s litany: „[S]ince when does announcing someone else’s opinion about a cease-fire — as Ms. Stewart did, saying the sheik no longer supported one that had been observed in Egypt — amount to advocating an act of terrorism?” Well, ever since, Judge, there has been a „someone else” who runs a criminal enterprise and whose „opinions” are known to be the triggers of barbarous actions — in this instance, indiscriminate mass homicides.

      Maybe Napolitano hasn’t noticed lo these last, oh, 25 years or so, but when Abdel Rahman’s opinions get announced, people somehow always manage to end up dead. Indeed, after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden told the press that the actions of Mohammed Atta and company were justified by a fatwa issued by the self-same Sheik from jail. Maybe we should let bin Laden alone, too. I mean, sure, 3,000 people were slaughtered, but, after all, he was just announcing someone else’s opinion.

      The Times ought to be embarrassed. Fox News ought to be more embarrassed.

      Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

    25. Roadrunner, de parca trebuie sa fii neoconservator ca sa iti dai seama ca este iresponsabil sa:
      1. afirmi ca armata americana bombardeaza si ucide irakieni de 10 de ani
      2. 11 septembrie a avut loc datorita ocupatiei (?!) americane din Orientul Mijlociu
      3. retragerea din Afghanistan cu coada intre picioare = recunoasterea infrangerii = prestigiu puternic afectat = o America mai slaba.

      In sfarsit, da, este adevarat, Rompol vorbeste precum Chomsky si Moore.

      Michael Moore

      “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win.”

      si o groaza de articole si interviuri, inclusiv de pe site-ul propriu.
      Noam Chomsky

      the nature of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq

      si mai multe articole.
      Asadar, sorry to brake it to you, indiferent de cat de dus cu capul e Rick Perry, Rompol este mult mai rau: 100% idiot util.
      P.S. Ia uite ce spune nenea Chosmky:

      I admire Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich much

      Vai, are ceva in comun cu tov. Napolitano.

    26. # 33

      De acord, fiecare isi face parerea despre Napolitano dupa cum gindeste, dupa convingerile proprii, etc.

      Intrebarea mea precisa era: De ce la Fox News? 😉
      Chestia cu diversitatea de opinii, cu Fair & Balanced nu cred ca tine, in caz ca vii cu ea ca explicatie. Acum citiva ani Fox n-ar fi dat asa ceva nici picat cu ceara. Motivul este in alta parte.

    27. # 34 @ Vlad M.

      2. 11 septembrie a avut loc datorita ocupatiei (?!) americane din Orientul Mijlociu

      Am ales punctul 2, pentru ca este cel mai „sensibil”. Ca sa nu zici ca le evit pe celelate, am sa le acord cite un rind:

      1. „afirmi ca armata americana bombardeaza si ucide irakieni de 10 de ani” – pai sint la razboi acolo: ce ne asteptam sa faca cu puscoacele alea?
      3. „retragerea din Afghanistan cu coada intre picioare = recunoasterea infrangerii = prestigiu puternic afectat = o America mai slaba” – America este deja slaba si nu mai are ce prestigiu sa apere in Afganistan. Trebuie sa cut down the loses and leave! La urma urmei, l-am terminat pe Bin Laden.

      La punctul 2:

      Este un fapt ca America si-a stabilit o baza in 1991 Arabia Saudita. Bin Laden a pus-o pe asta prima pe lista in proclamatia pe care a dat-o la inceputul anilor ’90. Pentru ei Arabia Saudita este Holy Land. A fost foarte clar in a enunta ceea ce-l deranja. Celelate, cu palestinienii, etc. au fost ralying points pentru musulmani in general. A fost politica. Tipul n-a fost doar un batut in cap religios, a fost si un politician bun si s-a folosit de orice mijloc propagandistic din panoplia unui politician.

      Sa tinem de asemenea cont ca 15 din cei 19 din 9/11 au fost sauditi. Pentru palestinieni au facut ei 9/11? The Saudis don’t give a shit for the palestinian cause. Ceea ce i-a motivat a fost religia – legata strict de Holy Land-ul lor. Istoria cunoaste cazuri nenumarate de motivatii religioase legate de vreun Holy Land, nu cred ca trebuie sa insist.

      Motivul lui 9/11 a fost ca aveau un issue cu prezenta americana in Orientul Mijlociu, in Arabia Saudita in particular.

      Acum, nimeni nu zice ca americanii ar fi trebuit sa le satisfaca imediat doleantele, doar pentru ca Bin Laden a dat o proclamatie! (btw, doleanta principala le-a fost satisfacute imediat dupa 9/11 cind Bush a inchis baza din Arabia Saudita)

      Insa a lua nota de issue-ul lor si a-l ignora, in pofida faptului ca-i vezi ca sint damn serious si ca se apropie, si se apropie, si se apropie (WTC 1993, ambasadele din Kenia si Tanzania, USS Cole), asta este iresponsabilitate crasa! Asta este, de fapt, unul din punctele principale ale lui Napolitano din clipurile pe care le-am pus.

      Iar dupa 9/11, a spune ca they hate us because of our prosperity and our freedoms, a repeta ad nauseam nonsensul asta timp de 10 ani, a continua sa-l repeti si astazi, asta nu mai este iresponsabilitate! Este… ma abtin sa zic ce este pentru ca nu vreau sa ma enervez… 🙂

      Domnule, as accepta ideea ca ei au ceva cu Western Civilization daca i-as vedea ca, noi nefiind acolo, vin ei peste noi din senin, din iarba verde, si ne ataca. Altfel, nonsensuri nu cumpar. Accept explicatii rationale.

    28. „Motivul lui 9/11 a fost ca aveau un issue cu prezenta americana in Orientul Mijlociu, in Arabia Saudita in particular.”
      asta e ca si cum ai spune ca motivatia lui ahmadinejad de a face bombe e ca israel e putere nucleara

      ai zis ca osama era bun politician; atunci poate ar trebui sa cauti motivatia mai adinc decit primul sau punct de propaganda; iti recomand un articol al lui barry rubin
      http://pajamasmedia.com/barryr.....-11-wrong/

    29. # 38

      Citatele sint din articolul din pajamasmedia adus Liviu Craciun.

      1)

      First, Paul misses the number one complaint of bin Ladin at the time, which was the U.S. sanctions on Iraq which bin Ladin claims was killing millions of Iraqis.

      I’m fine with that! Okay, I move this one in the list in the first place, and lower the Saudi Arabia base to the second. Autorul tau zice clar: U.S. sanctions on Iraq. Exact ce zic si cei care nu accepta decit argumente rationale: prezenta americana in OM.

      2)

      In other words, this was not some American action but an international action in response to Iraqi behavior, and could have been lifted at any moment if Saddam had wanted to do so.
      Nonsense! Autorul ne insulta inteligenta venind cu „comunitatea internationala”. Stim foarte bine cine impingea la inspectii si sanctiuni. Si stim foarte bine ca orice ar fi facut Irakul ca sa dovedeasca contrariul propaganda cu WMD ar fi continuat. Cine a fost ala care spus adevarul si cine a impins la propaganda s-a vazut de-abia dupa ce Bush a intrat in Irak in 2003.

      3)

      Second, Paul is dead wrong when he attributes the September 11 attack to al-Qaida’s anger at U.S. policy toward the Palestinians.

      First, this is a lie! Pe pagina asta sint clipuri cu dezbaterea care demonstreaza clar ca Paul nu a atribuit el asa ceva! In dezbatere Paul explica americanilor suficient de inteligenti sa priceapa o fraza din doua sau mai multe propozitii ca asta este ceea ce a zis Bin Laden.

      La doilea, am zis-o si eu ca problema palestiniana nu a fost motivatia. Bin Laden couldn’t care less of the palestinians. Aia a fost doar politica.

      4) Si ajungem cu articolul aici:

      But Santorum and Gingrich are obviously wrong also. Why should Islamists attack the World Trade Center because “we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists”? Why should they possibly care?

      Exactly! Santorum and Gingrich are wrong! Why should they possibly care?

      Explicatia care urmeaza este asa de convoluta, dezlinata si lipsita de sens incit am renuntat la un anumit punct s-o mai urmaresc. Macar explicatia cu they hate our freedoms este simpla, chiar daca-i nonsensicala. Asta insa… e si nonsensicala si lunga. Punctul in care am incetat s-o mai citesc a fost cind a ajuns la Guam si la Wake Island. Ia stai putin, domle? mi-am zis. Pe unde ma plimba asta? Cine-i prostu’ aici? Ala care scrie sau ala care citeste? Vorba aia: nu-i prost care cere, e prost care da!

      Domnule, ce vrei sa iau eu din articolul asta? Faptul ca el concede punctele cele mai importante ale argumentatiei mele? Copitele pe care i le trage lui Ron Paul? Incilceala din a doua jumatate a articolului?

      Eu nu inteleg, pur si simplu nu inteleg, cum oameni inteligenti, care au facut scoli inalte, care si-au trait pina cum viata satisfacator, cu realizari mai mari sau mai mici, accepta fara nici un fel de indoiala, fara nici un fel de simt critic insailari precum asta de mai sus? De ce oare? Cu ce-i Barry Rubin (autorul) mai destept decit noi? Din articol nu rezulta ca ar fi. Doar pentru ca el scrie pe pajamasmedia iar noi pe un blog oarecare?

      Majoritatea scribalailor astora sint niste amariti care umbla cu camasile cirpite si impusca si ei francu’, un franc amarit si vai de kooru’ lui, facind ceva ce eu n-as face nici in ruptul capului, pentru ca nu stiu sa faca altceva! N-au nici o alta meserie, si nici la aia pe care o practica nu se pricep. Fac si ei niste amarite de sute de dolari pe saptamina dind copite tintelor stabilite de sefii lor, cu argumente aberante, si asta-i tot.

      Hai sa dovedim ca avem putin self-esteem, ce dracu’!

    30. I.

      1. “afirmi ca armata americana bombardeaza si ucide irakieni de 10 de ani” – pai sint la razboi acolo: ce ne asteptam sa faca cu puscoacele alea?

      😆 Stai prost cu manipularea, roadrunner. Armata americana nu e in Irak la ucis irakieni. Daca era, nu mai ramanea piciorus de arab in toata tara aia, da’ na, pentru a pricepe asta trebuie sa fii ceva mai mult decat un simplu libertarian rompolist. Greu, stiu.

      II.

      3. “retragerea din Afghanistan cu coada intre picioare = recunoasterea infrangerii = prestigiu puternic afectat = o America mai slaba” – America este deja slaba si nu mai are ce prestigiu sa apere in Afganistan. Trebuie sa cut down the loses and leave! La urma urmei, l-am terminat pe Bin Laden.

      😆 a doua oara. OMG, cut the losses and leave!! este moto-ul Partidului Democrat, „invingatorul” din Vietnam. Daca iti place atat de mult ideea, iti sugerez sa-ti schimbi partidul si sa te muti cu mic si mare in tabara stangista, alaturi de Rompol, Moore si Chomsky. Un om de dreapta ar fi fost revoltat de mizeriile debitate de idiotul asta sinistru; numai un stangist ar fi aplaudat frenetic „curajul” de care a dat dovada. In loc sa te delimitezi clar si ferm, ai preferat sa ii reiei aberatiile, in incercarea de a justifica nejustificabilul. Trist.

      III.

      Este un fapt ca America si-a stabilit o baza in 1991 Arabia Saudita. Bin Laden a pus-o pe asta prima pe lista in proclamatia pe care a dat-o la inceputul anilor ’90. Pentru ei Arabia Saudita este Holy Land. A fost foarte clar in a enunta ceea ce-l deranja. Celelate, cu palestinienii, etc. au fost ralying points pentru musulmani in general. A fost politica. Tipul n-a fost doar un batut in cap religios, a fost si un politician bun si s-a folosit de orice mijloc propagandistic din panoplia unui politician.

      Sa tinem de asemenea cont ca 15 din cei 19 din 9/11 au fost sauditi. Pentru palestinieni au facut ei 9/11? The Saudis don’t give a shit for the palestinian cause. Ceea ce i-a motivat a fost religia – legata strict de Holy Land-ul lor. Istoria cunoaste cazuri nenumarate de motivatii religioase legate de vreun Holy Land, nu cred ca trebuie sa insist.

      Motivul lui 9/11 a fost ca aveau un issue cu prezenta americana in Orientul Mijlociu, in Arabia Saudita in particular.

      😆 a treia oara. Tipic pentru rompol si secta lui pentru a da citatele din Bin Laden care convin. E curios cum va scapa, dragi tovarasi si pretini libertarieni, ca acelasi OBL a spus ca se afla intr-un razboi feroce cu necredinciosii si a cerut, in repetate randuri, convertirea la Islam. Asta n-ati mai retinut-o, doar contrazicea mantra chomskiana care defineste „viziunea” rompolista in plan extern: USA = Satana, restul planetei = victimele ale Satanei. Holy Land-ul mentionat de OBL e o perdea de fum numai buna pentru aruncat in fata ochilor stangistilor si aliatilor lor strategici din partea „dreapta”. Adevarat, Bin Laden era si un bun politician, stia ca se poate bizui pe aia din Vest in lupta sa pentru o lume islamica. Intotdeauna se va gasi un bolovan care sa ii dea dreptate.

      De aia vi se spune Paulbots. Sunteti doar tovarasi de drum, aliati vremelnici ai Revolutiei mondiale. La prima cotitura vi se ia gatul.

    31. roadrunner
      you’re funny; nu vreau sa-ti rapesc placerea de a descoperi singur cine e „scribalaul” Barry Rubin, dar iti dau un hint: nu s-a remarcat „impuscind francu” la pajamas media; acolo scrie doar de 1-2 luni

    32. Liviu, pare-se ca pe roadrunner il impresioneaza doar scribalai care cer, asemenea bandei de stangisti turbati, impeachment pentru Bush, respectiv demonizarea Americii si retragerea fortelor americane din lume si din istorie. Aia-s scribalaii care conteaza. Toti ceilalti sunt niste idioti.

    33. Ceferist asa cum este, e cu 2-3 ligi deasupra lu’ rompol si sectei sale. Cu alte cuvinte, nu „nimereste” tot, dar ceva tot prinde, spre deosebire de Rompol Revolușiăn!!!!!

    34. To: DanCanada

      L-ai citit pe asta de azi? Articolul lui Ann Coulter adica: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46347
      Tot cu death penalty. I s-o fi parut ca saptamina trecuta nu ne-a convins indeajuns.

      Rush Limbaugh are o vorba simpatica: Do I know these people or do I know these people? O foloseste cind se refera la democrati/liberali, in sensul ca sint predictibili, adica stii ce vor scoate pe guritza inainte de a-i auzi.

      Asa si eu cind ii citesc pe articlerii mei conservatori. Do I know these people or do I know these people? Tine cont ca este a patra saptamina (de cind numaram noi!) in care Coulter dezbate sexul ingerilor in loc sa-si dea cu parerea (si sa ne-o comunice si noua!) despre ce zic candidatii republicani la presedentie. :mrgreen:

    35. Roadrunner: îmi pare mie sau faci (încă) o fixație? – de aia cu RP știam, sînt curios dacă și asta cu Ann Coulter o să te țină la fel de mult :mrgreen:

    36. Ce telepatie, dom’le! Pina si Alin Fumurescu pe Contributors are un text exact pe aceeasi tema.
      Bineinteles, articolul lui Fumurescu e asa, cum sa spun? mai pe stinga oleaca.
      Ceva tearjerkers, mai o strimba despre Tea Party, mai citeva filozofeli…

    37. @ pataphyl: Nu, Mr. Tea Party, nu este fixatie. It’s bragging (just a little bit). Stii cum e: studiezi un fenomen, formulezi o teorie, faci predictii pe baza teoriei si-apoi iti vezi teoria confirmata de faptul ca predictiile se intimpla in realitate exact asa cum le-ai prezis. Chestia asta iti da un sentiment asa… de satisfactie ca ai judecat o situatie data in modul corect. Cine nu s-ar lauda, doar un pic? 😉 Wouldn’t you?

      Ann Coulter va avea viata grea in anul care va urma. Se va lega de toate trivia (Darwin, Amanda Knox, Troy Davis), numai ca sa evite sa scrie despre lucrurile „alea”. Cosmarul ei este ca nu cumva sa vina vreo saptamina fara nici un side show care sa-i ofere o scuza. Dar va gasi ea ceva si-atunci.

      @ DanCanada: De personajul asta, Alin Fumurescu, am aflat de pe forumul asta, inainte habar n-aveam ca exista. I-am citit un articol pe Contributors, apoi pe-al doilea, dupa care am luat hotarirea ferma si definitiva de a-l ignora. De acord cu estimarea ta: teajerker, strimbe, si filozofeli de trei lulele, nimic de substanta. E pierdere de vreme sa-ti bati capul cu el.

    38. Roadrunner

      Păi dacă nu-i fixație, mută-ți pata și gata! 🙂 Și un succint comentariu la:

      Stii cum e: studiezi un fenomen, formulezi o teorie, faci predictii pe baza teoriei si-apoi iti vezi teoria confirmata de faptul ca predictiile se intimpla in realitate exact asa cum le-ai prezis. Chestia asta iti da un sentiment asa… de satisfactie ca ai judecat o situatie data in modul corect. Cine nu s-ar lauda, doar un pic? Wouldn’t you?

      Ia să iau un exemplu: m-am uitat la dezbaterea candidaților republicani din seara asta, nu fac mai mult decît o observație: cam prea au tras toți în Rick Perry (cu excepția lui Herman Cain și a lui Newt, prea inteligenți să-și dea cu tesla peste articolele genitive) ca treaba să nu dezvolte un anumit damf… Afară de cei numiți plus Bachmann și RINO Romney, ceilalți sînt de umplutură acolo. (Luap Nor nu va fi nicicînd mai mult decît o rotiță care scîrțîie întotdeauna în contratimp). Bachmann a fost în contratimp mai tot timpul, Romney (cam toți îl declară cîștigătorul dezbaterii) e alunecos și după părerea mea principalul pericol al conservatorilor. Newt, scînteietor în replici, a fost de departe cel mai dur cu Hussein: normal, știe că nu e eligibil, are „bagaje” grele de cărat, Santorum e un tip ca lumea dar e total lipsit de charismă, iar Huntsman e o glumă împotriva naturii…

      Decantarea candidaților abia începe, aștept comentariile tale lucide, adică nelovite de fixația Ronpolistă. Eu asta încerc să fac, tehnic vorbind candidații „direct” Tea Party sînt Bachmann și Cain, hai să încercăm să ne dumirim, da?

    39. # 51

      Asa, pe americaneste: Perry is so full of shit, he’s got brown eyes!

      Toti il declara cistigator pe Romney? Care toti? Vedetele de pe Fox?

      Afară de cei numiți plus Bachmann și RINO Romney, ceilalți sînt de umplutură acolo.

      Pai astia ar fi cinci (Perry, Cain, Newt, Bachmann, Romney). Uite, iti mai fac o predictie: daca vreunul din astia 5 este pus fata in fata cu Barack Obama, vom avea the second term. Mark my words!

      Despre umplutura mai e timp sa discutam. Uite ultimul Gallup Poll:
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....50467944/1

      Perry: 31
      Romney: 24
      Paul: 13

      Bachmann: 5

      Inteligentii:
      Gingrich: 5
      Cain: 5

      Santorum: 2
      Hunstmann: 1

      Pe undeva ai nimerit-o cu umplutura. E o gramada pe-acolo.

      Eu asta încerc să fac, tehnic vorbind candidații “direct” Tea Party sînt Bachmann și Cain, hai să încercăm să ne dumirim, da?

      Iar imi vii cu Tea Party! Nu stiu, domle, dumiriti-va voi acolo, la Tea Party a voastra, ce-mi pasa mie? Tineti sedinte, vedeti, orientati-va.

    40. Sunt din Ro, venit de la servici (facultate si master) de 16 ore platit ca dracu. Citesc acest forum din curiozitate printr-un simplu search pe „goagle”. Vizitez multe forumuri, voi scrieti lb. romana corect! Bravo voua!

    Lasă un comentariu

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.