New York Post editorial board member Ryan Sager complains that last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference was actually, gasp, conservative. I attended the conference and noticed that too. Perhaps it was the name of the actual event that initially clued me in. Sager noted that a pro-open-borders speaker got booed (I witnessed her absurd claim that since immigrants come here to work, the people who want to sponge off welfare and avoid work always stay in their native countries), and that a Log Cabin Republican faced hostile questions. Sager whines that "precious little libertarianism came from the stage, and what little did was seldom well received." Do libertarian conferences generally promote communitarianism? No. Do liberal conference generally promote conservatism? No. So why should a conservative conference promote libertarian aims that conflict with conservative ones?

I wanted to attend the conference, but actually didn't have the money. Perhaps if I would have budgeted myself more this month it would have been possible.

But the evil conservatives should have given me some welfare, so I could attend. That would be consistent with this writer's article; socialism and liberal handouts to all at a conservative event. Don't these people have any compassion?

:-)

Let's face it, the yo-yo president of the U.S.A. knows nothing. He is a dunce. He does what he is told to do, says what he is told to say, poses the way he is told to pose. He is a fool.

No. Nonsense. The president cannot be a Fool. Not at this moment in time, when the last living vestiges of the American Dream are on the line. This is not the time to have a bogus rich kid in charge of the White House.

Which is, after all, our house. That is our headquarters, it is where the heart of America lives. So if the president lies and acts giddy about other people's lives, if he wantonly and stupidly endorses mass murder by definition, a loud and meaningless animal with no functional intelligence and no balls.

To say this goofy child president is looking more and more like Richard Nixon in the summer of 1974 would be a flagrant insult to Nixon.

Whoops! Did I say that? Is it even vaguely possible that some New Age Republican whore-beast of a false president could actually make Richard Nixon look like a Liberal?

The capacity of these vicious assholes we elected to be in charge of our lives for four years to commit terminal damage to our lives and our souls and our loved ones is far beyond Nixon's. Shit! Nixon was the creator of many of the once-proud historical landmarks that these dumb bastards are savagely destroying now: the Clean Air Act of 1970; Campaign Finance Reform; the endangered species act; a Real-Politik dialogue with China; and on and on.

The prevailing quality of life in America-by any accepted methods of measuring-was inarguably freer and more politically open under Nixon than it is today in this evil year of our Lord 2002.

The Boss was a certified monster who deserved to be impeached and banished. He was a truthless creature of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, a foul human monument to corruption and depravity on a scale that dwarfs any other public official in American history. But Nixon was at least smart enough to understand why so many honorable patriotic U.S. citizens despised him. He was a Liar. The truth was not in him.

Nixon believed, as he said many times, that if the president of the United States does it, it can't be illegal. But Nixon never understood the much higher and meaner truth of Bob Dylan's warning that "To live outside the law you must be honest."

The difference between an outlaw and a war criminal is the difference between a pedophile and a Pederast: The pedophile is a person who thinks about sexual behavior with children, and the Pederast does these things. He lays hands on innocent children, he penetrates them and changes their lives forever.

Being the object of a pedophile's warped affections is a Routine feature of growing up in America, and being a victim of a Pederast's crazed "love" is part of dying. Innocence is no longer an option. Once penetrated, the child becomes a Queer in his own mind, and that is not much different than murder.

Richard Nixon crossed the line when he began murdering foreigners in the name of "family values"- and George Bush crossed it when he sneaked into office and began killing brown skinned children in the name of Jesus and the American people.

When Muhammad Ali declined to be drafted and forced to kill "gooks" in Vietnam he said, "I ain't got nothin' against them Viet Cong. No Cong ever called me Nigger."
I agreed with him, according to my own personal ethics and values. He was right.

If we all had a dash of Muhammad Ali's eloquent courage, this country and the world would be a better place today because of it. Okay. That's it for now. Read it and weep....See you tomorrow, folks. You haven't heard the last of me. I am the one who speaks for the spitit of freedom and decency in you. Shit. Somebody has to do it.
We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world-a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us... No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you.

Well, shit on that dumbness. George W. Bush does not speak for me or my son or my mother or my friends or the people I respect in this world. We didn't vote for these cheap, greedy little killers who speak for America today- and we will not vote for them again in 2002. Or 2004. Or ever.

Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill "gooks". They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are racists and hate mongers among us-they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. F em'.

Who the hell are you? Furthermore, why do you lack the ability to provide any evidence for your claims? Thirdly are you really such a poor debater that you can do no better than spit angry ad hominems instead of real arguments?

Ben-T. Who the hell are you? Furthermore, the evidence is right under your blind eyes. It is so abundant in fact, that it is manifested as your current administration. We are all one

Hey "truth",

If you knew how to prioritize information, you wouldn't have posted that the slurs in the "Gannon scandal" were in any way equal to Ward Churchill's now admitted description of himself as Native American. The two are very different.

Churchill is supposed to be an scholar. Scholars aren't supposed to lie publicly. They are supposed to be interested in the truth. And so are their institutions.

Gannon is whatever he is, amature gay porn star, perhaps; journalist, perhaps---but I seriously doubt that anybody was asked to consider him an authority on anything.

It was about Churchill fraudulently passing himself off as a native, to gain a thematic cachet among academia and the public on ethnic studies.

Frankly, I have a doubt that you have the truth, if you cannot ana-lyze and prioritize information any better than you have shown.

Besides, as vociferous as you were about Churchill, you disagree with Churchill's "scholarship" on the matter. In your story, the WTC destruction has nothing to do with retributions on "little Eichman" soccer moms and dads. So how are we to take the "scholarship" of a "scholar".

Churchill just represents a view that calls this country wrong, so you reflexively back him, because you believe this country is wrong. I'm not duped enough to believe that both Ward Churchill and you can be right.

As well, even Michael Moore would have to disagree with what you said. To support his 9/11 scenario, Moore would have to maintain that bin Laden is not innocent of 9/11--but Bush is complicit, in his representation. If he were suddenly to admit that your source was more compelling---even as obvious as you claim it is---Moore would then need to admit that he made a documentary despite all the evidence that you claim backs bin Laden's innocense.

So you, Moore, and Churchill all disagree, but I am somehow supposed to believe all of you. Because you all tell me that there is another source that I have to hear. Yours tells you Bush planned it without bin Laden, Moore's that Bush planned it with bin Laden, and Churchill that this is retribution for the U.S. "war crimes" in Iraq (and actually suggests that al Queda can be very interested in what happens in Iraq.)

Why don't you radicals get together, decide what is truth we aren't hearing, decide how obvious that scenario is, and then present something.