Misha is full of shit

You… are trying to take on MISHA???

Little one, let’s put it this way:

You= amoeba
Misha=Godzilla

Two scenarios – 1) either Misha ignores you, which is likely since you are less than the waste of pond scum to Him, or 2) ... “Thinking Meat” will soon be “Thinking BBQ.”

Just an FYI… Misha could be a quadriplegic moron with an IQ of 10, with a blindfold and a gag, and He would still run rings around your attempt at reason without breaking a sweat.

Oh, I almost pity you…
—Kat

i’m tanned, rested and ready to go…wander over to my site or just wait for the radio version of “Release The Hounds!”...

...by the way, if the program was not classified, why did the editor of the NY Times have a series of discussions with administration officials re whether to disclose it? is he a “screechmonkey” as well?

The details of HOW they do it was not revealed, this was just one more misguided attampt to hurt the President, but it only hurts the war on terror. Now they will try and change the way they move their money. It is not that difficult to use some brain cells now and then.

For instance if it isn’t a story and everyone knew about why would the NYTs run a front page story on it?

He dose not need a judges approval for doing this program. What is it strike three now for you people?

Heck even Dirka Dirka Murtha Jihad asked them NOT to print the story.

There now you have your answer.

Tell me why the program would need judicial oversight? Are you shooting for a system that is ran by judges as the final authority?

Not only will I not retract it, I will further assert that the accusations of treason are not based on the wimpy “finances” issue, but the greater “menu” the NYT has been hawking for quite some time.

Us noisy winger hysterics continue to believe that any opportunity the NYT finds to RE-STATE to the American people things going on in the bacground, and ADD specifics that are classified, only serves to remind the bad guys to be careful about their business, and further, that offers up the opportunity for you nutcases on the left to stamp and scream about “anything Bush” as automatically presumed to be bad and at your expense. Your soapbox here leaves out a fundamental reality of your side of the debate-you have a serious short term memory loss problem. If it didn’t happen yesterday, or you’re not still pissed off about it tomorrow, then it didn’t happen.

Remember 9/11? Or was that just an anomaly? Remember Menchaca and Tucker and Babineau…or maybe Funkhouser? Or was that “old news” as well…irrelevant in the argument of today which suggests the NYT is reporting “old news” that “EVERYONE with half a brain already knows”?

What continues to escape my feeble-because-I-am-a-conservative brain is how you square the release of information that is defined as classified, but given on condition of anonymity because of the nature of the secrecy of the information, as an acceptable practice. If it is secret, we are not supposed to know about it. If the SWIFT program has been known for years, then why was the specifics of this piece of it released the other day considered classified? Because, smarter than I oh great one, these pieces of it were NOT public knowledge.

And if you don’t care about that, where are you with the NYT giving up classified details on the Casey plan to draw down the troops?

That common knowledge too?

Meat… head. Meat head. Meathead. Idiot. Yes you.

“It’s meat! And it wants a cracker!”

sigh I did try to warn you…

Futility and irrelevance, thy name is “Meat.”

Others have already answered the question you’ve asked of me – soundly and well. You simply refuse to see the facts of the case. Fine. I simply hope you haven’t inflicted this blindness on any children.

TM, you are so far out in Left field that, really, all I can do is sit back and enjoy the train wreck you’re inflicting upon yourself. I’ve got the popcorn and soda ready, and I’m going to enjoy the movie.

ROLL FILM!
—Kat

Meatbrain????? it should be mushbrain!!!!

Misha is THE MAN!!!

Thinking Meat ???? it should be Sucks Meat

Misha IS the Man

Kindly present the legal foundation for prosecuting an individual or an organization for treason on the basis of a “greater ‘menu’”. What you “noisy winger hysterics continue to believe” is not sufficient for such a prosecution. Only facts would be sufficient.

Well, let’s look at a few facts. Treason is defined in Wikipedia as

“only levying war against the United States or “in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. This safeguard may not be foolproof since Congress has, at times passed statutes creating treasonlike offences with different names (such as sedition in the 1789 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) which do not require the testimony of two witnesses, and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason.”

Now, since facts are an obscure concept to many on the left, I assume you will not consider this a “fact” because it does not support your claim that the NYT was just doing what Journalists do: reporting old stories that everyone already knew, but for us wingnuts on the right, this expansion of data offered as far back as the late 90’s, with the addition of naming WHO we use to collect the data, what data we collect, and HOW we collect it (all of which was classified before the report) the NYT has given aid and comfort to the enemy by helping them understand the covert operations against them and giving them levels of detail otherwise unknown until now. You can call it another day in the world of Journalism, you can call it an exercise of free speech, protected in another section of the Constitution, and you can downplay its significance until the cows come home. Us crazies on the right consider it treason because if ever there was an organization out there giving info that is useful to, and offers aid and comfort to, our enemies…it would be the NYT.

But, I digress…reality based facts as opposed to emotional “feel-good” facts are irrelevant and useless to you wingnuts on the left…unless they further the “remove Bush regardless” crowd.

Actually Misha pointed out that the report YOU mentioned had the info in paragraph 31.

Are you telling me that terrorists get teh copy of obscure reports and pore over them for intel?

Especially when the UN does release literally millions of pages of stuff a week?

Gimme a break meathead.

You stepped up to the plate against a much superior player, and you struck out little boy.

A wise man would shut up at this point and recognize his better…luckily for us you aren’t anywhere in the neighborhood of wise and we can count on you to continue to get smacked up and knocked down on a regular basis.

Damn, I probably should pay you for the entertainment value of your screed….this is funnier than anything else I have read in ages.

So, haystack, I see that you know how to use cut-and-paste. But are you actually capable of understanding what it is that you pasted? Or how about figuring out the fact that “treason” is a very narrowly-defined act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, which have been long since repealed, notwithstanding. Basically, treason is limited to actually working to overthrow the US government, or providing aid to those working to overthrow the US government. I see that none of you wingers have managed to actually support your assertions of treason, so I’m left to conclude that, besides cutting-and-pasting quotes that fail to prove your case, you have nothing that actually supports you. Disappointing, yes, but not really a great surprise given the right’s demonstrated inability to handle actual facts.

Putting into the public sphere information that had already been disclosed on several occasions by the President of the United States can, by no stretch of the imagination, be considered treasonous. Hell, even SWIFT, the agency that was providing the information to the Bush Administration had published that these activities – the monitoring of banking transactions – were going. You really can’t get into trouble for reporting on a “secret” that is already open to anybody and everybody who cares to look it up.

Even had the existence of this program been a secret (which it wasn’t), to consider reporting on the program treason you would have to show that the reporting amounted to: “actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow the government.” [Ex parte Bollman]. I challenge to to actually show this to be the case. Simply saying something the government doesn’t want you to say is not treason, regardless of what ann coulter. Show me which terrorist this article actually helped and you might to a long way to demonstrating that you have some credibility. You can’t, though because you would have to assume that the terrorists weren’t aware of this [not really secret] program, which is an absurd notion on the face of it.

As to your definition of Journalism: what the hell do you imagine you’re talking about? “Reporting old stories everyone already knew,” might be the sum and extent of what the right calls “Journalism,” since most right-wing “journalists” are incapable of doing any investigative work on their own and simply comment on work that real journalists have already done. But, and someone needs to point this out to you, what the rightinistas like to call “Journalism,” is what I like to call “mental masturbation.” They take a few quotes they don’t actually seem to understand and, based on the position they think they’re supposed to take (righties such as yourself aren’t known for doing any real intellectual power-lifting), make up an argument which, by and large, bears no more than a passing resemblance to actual logic.

Oh, and I’ll take this moment to point out the usual assertion by the that you rightists use facts while we lefties use only emotional arguments. You even goes so far as to create this mythical dicotomy of “reality-based facts” and “emotional “feel-good” facts,” which is basically your way of proving that you don’t have a clue what the hell you’re talking about. Facts are facts and facts are what you are extremely short on. Simply saying that you are using “reality-based” facts doesn’t automatically mean that what you are presenting have been actual facts, it means that your argument is so flimsy that you can’t support it with any real facts.

But don’t feel too unique, haystack, you’re not alone in rightwingistan in not actually being able to provide a real defense of your arguments. I mean, look at your compatriots here who, with every post show over and over again that their entire strategy for defending their arguments is simply to duck, dodge and hide any demand that they actually show evidence of their claims. If you actually had a solid case, you lot would be presenting it, but you’re not, so, by implication, you don’t.

Well, Robert, I am touched and amused all at once. Not much will be gained by responding but since you called me out directly I have little choice but to respond.

You offer no new facts in your dissertation. You get defensive at the notion I suggest the media is doing what your own defense of them suggests.

The original thesis of this left-right diatribe was that the NYT was only being a journalistic outlet, and simultaneously, that they were not telling us anything new…that this story pre-dates 1998. So, when I re-state your OWN side’s argument that Journalism then is just restating old news you get your undies all in a bundle. You further try to dismantle what I consider facts, and in believing yourself successful, decide for the viewing audience, that I offered no facts in the first place. Well, the facts remain; treason includes providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Asking me to give a terrorists’ name that benefitted, and short of that, that no aid or comfort occurred is very convenient, but a fools endeavor…and one that requires no response.

Here’s a hard-on for you Mr. Big…you win. No terrorist benefitted from leaking what has been reported by the NYT themselves as classified information. No comfort to the enemy was provided. No aid has been given that would help them re-direct their efforts in such way as to better their chances for survival. Bush Lied, and should be impeached.

What is your address so the terrorists that did not in any way gain from the actions of the NYT can come visit you and thank you for setting us crazy bastards on the right straight?

Well, I followed the link to Misha’s site, the words that immediately came to mind were “circle jerk.” That impression has only been born out by the sycophants who’ve been posting here defending Misha’s prolonged brain fart. They forget that just using a string of insults doesn’t show you to be a great thinker or arguer, it simply make you a loudmouth.

But then, since the likes of Kat and Kender and their little “friends” have demonstrated none of what I would consider to be intelligence, I have to wonder what it is that makes them think they are qualified to judge the quality of someone’s argument. They consider anything to be a good argument if it matches what they wanted to believe anyway and confuse the ability to string invectives together as a sign of strong debater. It isn’t, it’s just a signal that Misha hasn’t the foggiest notion about what he speaks beyond what wingnut outlets have told him. Basically, Misha is all bluster and no content. I know, I know, it’s not nice to point this kind of thing out to the likes of Misha, since apparently no one told him when he was growing up but tough, them’s the breaks kid.

Oh, and Kat, your hero worship, “kinda pathetic,” if you want to know the truth.

Ah, sad, sad little haystack, the only undies that seem to be getting bunched around here are your own. I strongly suggest that you take up that whole “reading for comprehension” thingy, it would do wonders for the quality of your so-called “argument.” Not that most of your ilk seem terribly well-suited or willing to actually undertake such endeavors, but maybe you’d like to be different from the rest of you wingnuts.

Here’s a fact for you, son, your “restatement” of what you claim is “our” argument is nothing more than a strawman. You should look the concept up, maybe in Wikipedia, where it is listed under “logical fallacies.”

What you call facts consist of one cut-and-paste job, the contents of which you obviously didn’t understand, and a series of assertions, which do not, in any form of reality outside of wingutistan, qualify as facts. Your cut-and-paste simply shows that you can cut and paste, not that the pasted block was meaningful. The simple fact of the matter is that you presented no facts that bolster your argument.

Since you asserted that the article helped terrorists, it is on you to show that this is so. I already provided the context in which treason is defined, and it does not encompass reporting on information that was not a secret in the first place. If simply mentioning this program is treasonous why aren’t you and your ilk going after Bush, since he was talking about this program for years before the NYT article. Oh, yeah, that’s right, Bush is a rightie while the NYT isn’t.

Your refusal to try to show that an enemy actor actually benefitted as a result of this article is telling, since that is what an accusation of treason, the word your lot like to throw around, requires. That you refuse to produce facts to bolster that the NYT article of a program that was not secret is truly indicative of the fact that you have no facts with which to support yourself. Declare that you don’t need to produce these facts all you want, it simply shows how wanting your argument actually is.

[quote]

Here’s a hard-on for you Mr. Big…you win. No terrorist benefitted from leaking what has been reported by the NYT themselves as classified information. No comfort to the enemy was provided. No aid has been given that would help them re-direct their efforts in such way as to better their chances for survival. Bush Lied, and should be impeached.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree with me. But I didn’t say anything about impeaching anybody. Maybe you should change your brush-size. Maybe you should get a grip. But, then again, if it wasn’t for strawmen, implied threats and bald assertions, you wouldn’t actually have an argument, would you, since you really haven’t the slightest bit of a clue about what you’re talking about.

[quote]

What is your address so the terrorists that did not in any way gain from the actions of the NYT can come visit you and thank you for setting us crazy bastards on the right straight?
[/quote]

Ah yes, the normal refuge of the winger on the run. It’s funny how you like to claim that your arguments are so strong, and yet, you seem incapable of making an argument that doesn’t eventually wind down into “Oh, yeah? Well the [insert boogeyman here] is coming to get you.” Truly pitiful, haystack. Maybe you should go back home and let real people talk.

This has its major impact outside your country. It is NOT just about yanks.

Public domain info, eh? Well I guess Hambali and Noordin Top did not realise this was in the public domain, then. remember them? They did the Bali bombing. 202 killed. This system was how we nailed one of those murdering mongrels and rolled up their organisation.

Now we cannot use this intelligence method against Jemaah Islamiya thanks to that American newspaper editor. He has just cost us a lot. So much for the financial intelligence system, eh. So much for disrupting the last 3 or 4 attacks JI planned. The next one may well succeed now. Nice. Wonder how many backpacking western kids in their 20s will die in the next bar or disco in Indonesia or the Kra when JI next hits us?

BTW, the system was actually MOST useful in the fight against transnational crime, especially people traffickers, paedophiles, methamphetamine clandestine laboratory financiers and narcotics bulk-shippers. Every ten kilos of ‘ice’ or ‘yaaba’ we or the Flips or Indons got because of this system saved AU$9 million in public health costs and about 3 lives. It was a reason WHY the Phillipines Police broke up the organisations running the huge clandestine laboratories arounf metro Manila over 2003-2005. Most of those were 200-500 kg-per-week labs, sunny jim. You do the arithmetic in human life.

Every kiddie-diddler on the run in South-east Asia and the Pacific is turning handstands right now about this. The people traffickers are partying as well. So much for the inroads we were making in to the sexual slavery trade in Asia.

Blowing it is going to cost a LOT of lives and make opposing transnational organised crime that much harder. It is going to get a lot of kids raped by paedo’s, a lot more women kidnapped and sold to brothels, and the next JI attacks stand a much better chance of working.

Nice job.

Hope that worthless yank editor bastard chokes on his fucking pulitzer.

MarkL
Canberra

Sooooooooooooooooo…how’s come even governments are just starting to whine about the program NOW ???

Pray link us to your archives on the subject.

And don’t worry Flesh…all your traffic will dwindle back to obscurity in no time at all.

robert, meatbrain, et. al. I came back, left, came back again…decided to reply with an apology for letting myself get worked up and speak ill or out of place. We all have our trip points after all…I apologize for losing control over mine.

I have done enough “skimming” around the web…caselaw in fact, and will suggest that perhaps given the intentional difficulty for making a case for treason, you get to call the victory for your side. I am happy for you guys-the NYT did not, to the extent they would ever be successfully convicted and held over on SCOTUS appeal, commit treason. And, while your repeated assertions that they did not give any news that was not already out there in the public domain may have merit, they say in their own piece that they were reporting from sources who could not be named on condition of anonymity on facts surrounding the BUSH administration’s use of the SWIFT program. Implicit in that assertion is the notion that “new” information was being brought forward.

Us right wing zealots, like our counterparts on the left, tend to overreact to news if we think it runs counter to our agenda…you guys and us guys are both guilty.

We part in disagreement about whether these types of news outlets and the stories they report are helpful or harmful to the American people, but we can agree they are not treasonous by American Case Law standards…

I still believe it to have been unnecessary, and purely from a paranoid partisan perspective, believe it has the potential of being harmful. But that is just me, and I am a crazy little boy

I figure if the NY Times need not worry about the laws against Treason, then I do not have to worry about the laws against homicide.

Yes, you should worry, Keller.

OK, let’s make sure we all understand the basics here. NY Times devotes major time and effort to break a story that’s already common knowledge? No knew info, just stuff everybody already knew? (yeah it’s an incomplete sentence). Therefore: 1) Bush administration shouldn’t care that it was published, 2) there’s no benefit to Al Qaida or any of their kindred, 3) treason on the part of the NYT should not be an issue.

So, why did the NYT bother publishing it in the first place? Why did both Democrats and Republicans ask the Times not to publish it? Isn’t there a disconnect here?

TM,

I posted the following over at Misha’s site, but I thought you might like the information here as well.

wherever crossed the line is simply by divulging the FACT that the U.S. Government was engaged in a TACTIC to track terrorist funding.

Yes DJ I know, I know…they ALREADY KNEW that we were …but did they really?

Probably, since the TACTIC (in this case SWIFT) had the audacity to openly blab and brag about these details on their own website, and in far greater detail than the gloss-over the Times et al have done.

Then we have Operation Green Quest which is publically published on the Treasury Department’s own website. An article by Shane Harris in Government Executive interviews Marcy Forman, the Director of Green Quest back in December of 2001, where she details much of what the NYT “dared” to print as a “secret program”. There is more here and here

Even the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) can’t keep from blabbing all about this.

This thread is another shining example of the fact that not only does Dave not get it, he doesn’t want to get it.

Oh, I think I “get it” quite well. You choose to single out a publication that you don’t like and vilify it for a manufactured reason (while completely ignoring the fact that Conservative organs like the WSJ has published the same information over the years).

Just because you are shocked that a paper would dare to print details that you personally didn’t know about doesn’t mean that these details haven’t been publicized by our own government and others for several years now. You only jump on this now because Rover has made it a political issue in an effort to frame things up for the upcoming election.

How can you be so blind? This is a TACTIC—a political one.

I am not sure whether your site handles html or not—if it doesn’t, I apologize.

Good, I see it DOES support html.

You might also check out what RS Janes over at my site has written about this.

If the NYT’s does not fight back Bush and Cheney’s smears and intimidation of the press,it won’t be long before the press is going to the government for their stories out of fear. Why do republicans hate American values so much?

I bet Hillary would love it if we changed the Pledge of Allegience to “And to the GOVERNMENT for which we stand…”. But then, Hillary always was a narcissistic socialist pile of batpuke.

If I have to hear that awful, cackling, screeching voice come from that fat ugly face of hers I may vomit all over my tv screen. Let’s hope the American public has enough sense to vote for someone else.

What’s sad is that meatbrain feels threatened by opinions which differ from his. Hillary got whipped, meatbrain. Now it’s Obama’s election to lose.