Friday, September 21, 2007

Right-wing armchair warriors: Whiny-ass titty baby edition.



[UPDATE: That's it, show's over. There's only so much hare-brained, right-wing idiocy I can handle, when people like Nonny can't seem to comprehend simple English. I'm sure he'll consider this a rousing moral victory for wingnuts everywhere. So let him wander back to the children's table and high-five the other nutbars, and we'll move on.]


If you only half-listened to the He-Man studs over there on the Right, you'd swear that they were the kind of dudes you just plumb didn't want to mess with 'cuz they would kick your ass from here to Iraq and back again.

Yes, there was superstud, jet fighter fly-boy George W. Bush with his steely-eyed "Osama, dead or alive" and "Fuck Saddam, we're takin' him out!" and "Bring 'em on!" and his latest testosterone-drenched "We're kicking ass [in Iraq]!". And right-wing web sites with macho-infused names like "Blackfive" and "Ace of Spades" and so on, replete with courageous graphics like "I support the troops!" and an endless line of patriotic patter about how those on the Right are the true heroes, while those on the Left are "cut and run defeatists" and the like. Which is all fairly hilarious because, quite simply, today's conservatives are the biggest bunch of whiny, snivelling cowards and pussies imaginable. And I say that with no disrespect to pussies anywhere.

You want proof? No problem.

As a quick refresher, feel free to reread Russell Jacoby's seminal piece, "The New PC: Crybaby Conservatives," in which one learns that today's conservatives really don't have much stomach for any kind of intellectual challenge. These are not people who have any interest in a free and fair exchange of ideas or philosophies. Rather, these are people who prefer to have their ideologies completely unchallenged, and have an annoying habit of running to Mama whenever anyone calls them on their bullshit. It's really quite unseemly, this childishness, but this doesn't even begin to plumb their depths of their whiny snivelitude, as two recent examples will demonstrate.

Consider, if you will, the latest brouhaha involving MoveOn's TV ad taking a swipe at General David Petraeus and questioning his credibility ("General Betray Us?"). Regardless of how you feel about that ad, one would think that this is the obvious consequence of supporting free speech: If people have the money, and they want to make an ad, hey, that's their right. And if you don't like it, then you can suck it up, and put together an ad as a rebuttal. In short, don't fucking whine -- if you disagree, then respond in kind.

Which is, of course, precisely what the Right did not do, as U.S. Senate Republicans actually put forth a motion in the Senate to condemn the ad. In other words, with buckets of more pressing issues, the GOP couldn't resist indulging in one monstrous, pathetic whine about how mean those MoveOn folks were. Pay no attention to those troops currently getting mowed down in Iraq like mice under a rotary mower. No, that's not as important as pointing at how those liberals are just mean bullies. And, of course, it doesn't end there.

The latest example of right-wing snivelitude involves Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement that he wanted to go to Ground Zero in New York to lay a wreath. Well, God in heaven, you'd think he asked to take a dump on the American flag or something, as the conservative outrage practically blistered the paint off nearby buildings. TPM's Josh Marshall expresses his embarrassment nicely:

Grow Up

Am I the only one embarrassed by the dingbat brouhaha over Iranian President Ahmadinejad's attempt to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath? Given relations between our countries I could see denying him a visa, but as long as we're hosting the UN that's not an option. Ahmadinejad now says he's "amazed" that such a visit would be insulting to Americans. Sen. McCain said that Ahmadinejad should be "physically restrained if necessary" from visiting the site. The National Review's Kathryn Lopez got worked up in such a lather that she begged Rudy Giuliani to "lead a human blockade keeping Ahmadinejad from getting to Ground Zero" -- thus demonstrating once and for all Rudy's true calling as the surrogate id of right-wing nerds everywhere.

So what's the problem exactly? Presumably we can be frank enough to acknowledge that the real issue here is that while Ahmadinejad is not Arab to most of us he looks pretty Arab. And he is Muslim certainly -- and pretty up in arms about it at that. And we officially don't like him. And we classify the country he runs as a state sponsor of terrorism. So even though he has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, when you put all these key facts together, he might as well have done it himself. And what business does anyone with the blood of the victims of 9/11 on his hands have going to Ground Zero?

That's basically it and don't tell me it's not.

Alternatively I guess it's that he's a very mean guy, said bad things about Israel or questioned the Holocaust? Is this man any worse than the various Soviet dignitaries who we feted and hosted around our country? Or is it simply that we've grown increasingly infantile as a country since the end of the Cold War, more and more obsessed and histrionic about minor powers like Iran and Iraq?

A president with some dignity and sense of the greatness of his country would say, good he should go there. Maybe he'll learn something about us and our loss.

If we as a country were a person, I'd say grow up. Act like a man*. Have some self-respect.

Exactly. Instead, we have countless whingers practically having kittens, sobbing over this and doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't happen. Jesus, but most six-year-olds are more mature than that.

Not surprisingly, the Ahmadinejad-inspired whininess isn't restricted to the U.S. Blogging Tory "Gay and Right" Fred practically bursts a blood vessel howling about ... well, just go read:

What was Columbia University Thinking????

How on earth could they invite Ahmainejad to speak???

Barred by police from visiting Ground Zero, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may find more of a welcome at Columbia University, where he has been cleared to speak on Monday at the school's annual World Leaders Forum despite outrage expressed by New York area Jewish leaders.


Whine. Whine, whine, whine. And one can't help but be amused by the overwhelming sniveliness of the Blogging Tories in general who, while full of bravado and bluster, have a disturbing number of members whose attitude towards readers' comments is that, well, they don't allow them, or they allow only moderated comments, or allow comments but reserve the right to delete any they don't like for any reason whatsoever or (my favourite) they'll delete any comments that use intemperate language. Poor baby. Here's an idea -- suck it the fuck up, or find a different hobby.

(And let us not forget Canada's own Lowest Common Denominatrix™ Kate McMillan, who lives in such pants-wetting fear of your humble scribe that, to this day, she does not allow redirects to her site from mine. Apparently, I am such a fearsome person that even pointing readers at her mind-numbing swill is enough to drive her and her obedient, leg-humping poodles into spasms of panic.)

Yes, these are a courageous lot, your modern conservatives, supporting every military adventure from the safety of their keyboards, and bursting into childish tears and calling everyone else a bully whenever anyone so much as looks at them the wrong way.

It is embarrassing, isn't it? The world's biggest collection of trash-talking warbloggers who soil themselves at the first sign of any disagreement. And while we on the Left might make fun of how most of them have managed to avoid serving, one can only hope that none of these people actually end up in the military. When you're living in close quarters or hunkered down in your foxhole, that pervasive aroma of terror and urine would get to be annoying after a while, don't you think?

HEE HEE
. There is no limit to the hypocrisy, is there?

THE HILARITY WAS UNINTENTIONAL, I'M SURE
: Commenter "nonny" figures we here at CC HQ are all talk and no action:

I'd like to see you give your thoughts to Blackfive's face, though, CC. You seem to complain about him enough. Why don't you engage him in a little debate? Even a debate on his blog would be worth something; I know you'd never dare do it in person.

For the uninitiated, that would be this "Blackfive":

Matthew Burden, a former Army officer who blogs under the name Blackfive, raved about how Bush slapped his hand and called him "brutha."

"The President was very intelligent, razor sharp, warm, focused, emotional (especially about his dad), and genuine," Blackfive wrote. "Even more so than this cynical Chicago Boy expected. I was overwhelmed by the sincerity -- it wasn't staged."

Yes, nonny, that's just the sort of mewling, sycophantic suck-up I'd invest my wit in dismembering. I'd probably suggest that he remove Bush's dick from his mouth first, otherwise the rest of us would have a hard time hearing him. If you catch my drift.

BONUS SUCKUPITUDE
: If you can possibly stand the schmaltz ...

98 comments:

Ian said...

Wow. How utterly idiotic. There are lots of good reasons to be unhappy with Ahmadinejad...but getting upset because he wants to lay a wreath?

I suppose it's part of that whole "need to dehumanise your enemies" philosophy. Maybe they are afraid that if the public gets to see even the slightest humanity in the Iranian leadership they might spoil the wingnuts wet dream of bombing Iran.

Chet Scoville said...

is it simply that we've grown increasingly infantile as a country since the end of the Cold War

Bingo.

Nonny said...

You make me laugh. Sure, go ahead: try and convince yourself that you're the tough guy. It just might work … but don't imagine for one minute that you'll convince anyone who can really think. It takes a special kind of mental capacity to imagine that Ahmadinejad "maybe will learn something" from a visit and wreath-laying at the WTC site, or that his intent in doing so is benign rather than self-serving. Yes, it sure takes "special" thinking but certainly not cojones.

I'd like to see you give your thoughts to Blackfive's face, though, CC. You seem to complain about him enough. Why don't you engage him in a little debate? Even a debate on his blog would be worth something; I know you'd never dare do it in person.

I've never seen someone try so hard to talk so tough as you. I truly love to meet you to see what it is you're hiding. In the meantime, stop pretending that your support for Ahmadinejad is bravery or anything other than a knee-jerk reaction against your personal enemies.

Sparky said...

Hey nonny--
Can you name one middle-east country and it's peoples that shared a moment of silence on 9/11 this year?
Betcha can name only 1
I wonder which country that was...
(give a hint--wasn't the saudis)

Mike said...

Oh sparky! Was it the ONLY ONE that also had spontaneous candle-light vigils after 9-11, when places like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the other so-called US allies did nothing?

Gosh, that's going to be a hard one...

Oh and nonny, be careful what you wish for....

M@ said...

Why are you so afraid, Nonny, of a foreign leader walking around New York?

I'll go ahead and hazard a guess: if he is allowed to seem like a real human being, then the myth that you and your ilk are trying to promote--that he's an Israel-eating monster bent on world domination--will crumble to pieces.

The people who cherish this myth are afraid of it being destroyed. Those of us who do not are unafraid of the guy walking around public areas in New York.

I do hope he wears a tie for once, though. Frankly, the free 'n' easy cruise-wear look only goes so far.

Ti-Guy said...

is it simply that we've grown increasingly infantile as a country since the end of the Cold War.

Ayup. Look at Nonny...he sounds like a 12 year-old, mouthing off to the kids next door: "Oh yeah...you think you're so tough! Why don't you come over here and say that!!"

It's pathetic and embarrassing.

I think it's perfectly within the rights of Americans to say that, for whatever reasons (as fabricated and hysterical as they may be), they believe Ahmadinejad's visit to Ground Zero would be inappropriate (but still, if someone's allowed into the home of the free and the brave, it seems a bit fascist to try and restrict their movements), but it's the histrionics that are being engaged (by people who want to be taken seriously, no less) that are laughable.

What a laughing stock the USA has become. As John Ralston-Saul once remarked, "a country prone to grandiloquent folksiness and infantile fury."

Anyway, after Iran, who's next on Miss America's "Oh, I so hate that bitch!" list?

Nonny said...

M@,

Brave, brave M@. Unafraid of Ahmadinejad. But ... who on the right is afraid of his walking around Downtown?

No one: We simply find it insulting and disgusting.

He supports terrorism.

He arms and trains the enemy in Iraq and is responsible for killing US forces. These in themselves are acts of war.

He supports the annihilation of Israel and looks forward to a world "without America."

His country is flouting international law with his pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. His country has consistently lied to the world about it. He has negotiated in bad faith with the Europeans.

He was instrumental in the taking of American hostages in 1979.*

The US has no diplomatic relations with his country. If it weren't for our agreement with the UN, he wouldn't even be allowed in the US.

But you tell me he's no monster, CC tells me he might "learn something," others tell me that some good deeds by some Iranians should be imputed to this nutjob. You are all telling me that you think he's just fine. Well, he is most definitely NOT fine. He is the enemy of the United States. You like to think our disgust with the nutjob means we fear him. That is YOUR problem. That is the projection of your own fears.

The Left has never met an anti-US totalitarian whose ass it would happily kiss. I guess that's why you people smell so bad.







___________
* That ought to set you off.

Nonny said...

Ti-Guy,

I think your complaints about false bravado are best directed at CC.

I am sure you disapproved of Giuliani's "histrionics" when he gave your other hero, Arafat, the old heave-ho from the Met ... oh, my ... so long ago, it was pre-9/11. What a fascist!

Nonny said...

Oh, gee, CC I was waiting for your update addressing me. Thanks for being so predictable.

Now is about the time that you kick me off.

Nonny said...

"Invest your wit," CC?

As I said, you do make me laugh!

Ti-Guy said...

Ah...the multi-posting has started. Right on cue.

I am sure you disapproved of Giuliani's "histrionics" when he gave your other hero, Arafat, the old heave-ho from the Met ... oh, my ... so long ago, it was pre-9/11. What a fascist!

I'd barely even heard of Guiliani before 9/11. I tend to avoid getting too caught up in domestic American issues, as they're usually quite irritating and stupid. In fact, one generally becomes dumber when paying attention to them.

The Seer said...

I'll tell you something else that's disgusting and insulting. That same guy who can't understand why we can't just let the Iranian A-guy lay his silly wreath on hallowed ground carries a tale from Vincente Fox — that south-of-the-[American] border Stephen Harper — that Dear Leader is scared of horses! http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/vicente_fox_cowboy_bush_is_scared_of_horses.php
Like, who's going to believe the Leader of the Free World is scared of horses? You lefties are crazy!

Nonny said...

"I'd barely even heard of Guiliani before 9/11. I tend to avoid getting too caught up in domestic American issues ..." -- Ti-Guy

You silly dope, Ti-Guy. Giuliani's throwing Arafat out of the opera is no different than Bloomberg's doing the same to Ahmadinejad's in his attempts to go to ground zero.

Since these are presumably both domestic issues, please refrain from commenting on this most recent one any more.

Ti-Guy said...

Since these are presumably both domestic issues, please refrain from commenting on this most recent one any more.

I only commented on it because a) it's another 'stupid American elite' story, and as a Canadian and a democrat, it's my duty as a citizen to comment on the stupidity of any elite, especially the one in charge of that loony-bin to the South and b) it involves the slowly-evolving propaganda campaign to support an attack on Iran, which has both domestic and global repercussions.

I'm actually in favour of the US invading Iran, Nonny. I think it will be a watershed moment for the USA.

Sparky said...

Yep, just as predictable, nonny goes off and states that 'we' absolutely adore Iran and other fascists.
Nuance isn't part of nonny's vocabulary, obviously.
That's it in a nutshell, really--nonny lives in a world where we're 'the good guys' wearing white over here, and they're the 'bad guys' in black over there.
Everything 'we' do is good and Just and right, and everything 'they' do is bad and evil.
And if someone points out that 'the bad guys' did something compassionate ro something, well then!! Isn't that someone as bad as the bad guys!!!
Truly, grow up nonny. The world's a complex and nuanced place to live. For us living in reality, we have to deal with what *is* there, not what you're seeing with your little black and white worldview.

M@ said...

He supports terrorism.

Please, Nonny, educate me. I understand that Al Qaeda is the big problem in Iraq these days. What has Iran done, before Ahmedinijad was elected or since, to support this terrorist movement? I didn't see Al Qaeda in your little list, there.

His country is flouting international law with his pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. His country has consistently lied to the world about it.

You mean Iran might have just as many WMDs as Iraq did?! Did Iran get yellowcake uranium from Nigeria too!?!?

Truly, Ahmadinejad is a monster! Why did no one think of invading Iran in 2003? Was there a typo on someone's orders or something? I know I always attack my most insulting enemies first.

Nonny said...

Sparky,

For terrorist-excusing, totalitarian-loving, Ahmadinejad-supporting lack of nuance, meet M@.

Nonny said...

M@,

Are you saying that Ahmadinejad is innocent of the terrorism-supporting charge? Or are you saying no one has proved it? Or are you saying that you are ignorant of the charges? Or are you saying that only al Qaeda are terrorists? Or are you just faulting me for failing to lay out the evidence?

Regardless, M@, your creepiness is confirmed. Good work, stud. You should write a book to broadcast your sheer brilliance. You are a foreign policy genius; that's what you are.

Paladiea said...

Someone needs to clean the spittle off the floor...

Nonny, Do grow up.

Ti-Guy said...

Are you saying that Ahmadinejad is innocent of the terrorism-supporting charge? Or are you saying no one has proved it? Or are you saying that you are ignorant of the charges? Or are you saying that only al Qaeda are terrorists? Or are you just faulting me for failing to lay out the evidence?

Not one declarative statement in that whole mess. *tsk*...Such bad faith.

CC said...

Has anyone else noticed how quickly Nonny changed the subject, and has adamantly refused to address a single issue in my post?

Nonny said...

"Has anyone else noticed how quickly Nonny changed the subject, and has adamantly refused to address a SINGLE issue in my post?" [Emphasis added] -- says CC.


Has anyone noticed that it took so many words for CC to say, "Complaints about Ahmadinejad's visit to Ground Zero are immature girly whining?

What's there to say in response except, "Some projection, CC?"

As to the imagined "issues" in your post, CC, please point to another one and I'll be happy to address it.

Nonny said...

Pal,

Long time no see. I see you haven't changed. Still no original or creative bone in your body. Puberty sucks, doesn't it? You stop growing. ("Spittle"! Jeez, that's old. Lame too. Pathetic, really. "Paladieaish," I'd call it, if I could pronounce it. Why don't I just call it, "Ti-Guyite"?

Get back to school, dear; you're missing important lessons.

Ti-Guy said...

Has anyone else noticed how quickly Nonny changed the subject, and has adamantly refused to address a single issue in my post?

Yeah, but I don't think that's intentional. It's how all wingnuts argue these days.

It's all you can do when you have no actual evidence to support what you believe.

Paladiea said...

Pal,

Long time no see. I see you haven't changed. Still no original or creative bone in your body. Puberty sucks, doesn't it? You stop growing. ("Spittle"! Jeez, that's old. Lame too. Pathetic, really. "Paladieaish," I'd call it, if I could pronounce it. Why don't I just call it, "Ti-Guyite"?


*yawn*

There's only one thing I see here. Pointless name calling. And you call me unoriginal? Goodness. My advice stands. Grow up.

The Seer said...

Hah! How would youse guys like it if George W. Bush laid a wreath at Vimy ridge? Eh?

The Right is Where its At said...

CC you don't have a given right to go to another country even if they have the un there.

Ground zero is not part of the un if Americans
don't want thee Iranian
Pres. there then its there right to do so.

I do understand their
sentiment! Who are you
to criticize who should be going to the U.S. anyways!!

Whether or not the UN
is there is irrelevant.

Nonny said...

"It's all you can do when you have no actual evidence to support what you believe."

I have tons of evidence that Leftist smell.

M@'s poop-covered nose, CC's foul and Ahmadinejad butt-kissing mouth, Ahmadinejad's left hand, Yassir Arafat's ... well everywhere, but especially his "beard," Rosie O'Donnell's ___________, hippies ...

I could go on, if you'd like ...

Castro's teeth, ratty uniform, and Depends, Lenin (like formaldehyde), Johnny Depp (just ask any other actor), the French, Matt Damon's mushy brain, Michael Moore and especially his bedroom (just ask his maid) ...

Ti-Guy said...

Hah! How would youse guys like it if George W. Bush laid a wreath at Vimy ridge? Eh?

Wouldn't bother me one bit.

Ti-Guy said...

I could go on, if you'd like ...

You'll go on whether anyone likes it or not.

I didn't think they had trailer parks on the Gold Coast.

The Right is Where its At said...

Nonny 1:03 PM

What are talking about
thats funny good one.:)

Paladiea said...

CC I thought you got rid of these morons. High fiving because one of them said that lefties smell? Wow.

Anyhow, Ahmainejad, if he's on a diplomatic visit to the US, can go anywhere he pleases right? It is a free country last I checked...

If they don't let him into the country then that's their right, but I believe he's free to travel anywhere once he's in the country.

Ti-Guy said...

Hey Nonny...you impressed the guy who has to wear a hockey helmet all the time.

...you must be proud.

The Right is Where its At said...

Paladiea he is free
to travel to the UN not
where ever he wishes get it.

Did you know that even
the ambassadors of countries have to be approved by the country
they are about to go.

If not they can't be
ambassadors in that country. Please look it up and you will see.

Nonny said...

Seer meant to say that Bush's laying a wreath at Vimy Ridge, France, was like Ahmadinejad's laying a wreath at ground zero, USA, because Bush and America support the enemies of Canada in the same way that Ahmadinejad supports terrorism and the killing and kidnapping of US soldiers and citizens ... or not. It's kinda hard to figure out what Seer is trying to say.

Seer you what to ... ah ... clarify your thoughts a bit? That comment and the "Bush is afraid of horses" one are a tad opaque.

The Right is Where its At said...

Correction i think he
needs to have permission
even to travel to thee UN
if I'M not mistaken.

CC said...

The Right is Where its At expounds:

"Paladiea he is free to travel to the UN not where ever he wishes get it."

In the first place, Ahmadinejad is not simply an ambassador, he is the president of Iran. And, secondly, I find it hard to believe that, once someone has a diplomatic visa to enter the U.S., they can still be restricted from going places that are openly accessible to the general public.

Would anyone who has a clue like to comment on this?

Paladiea said...

Did you know that even
the ambassadors of countries have to be approved by the country
they are about to go.

If not they can't be
ambassadors in that country. Please look it up and you will see.


Thanks for that bit of enlightenment, really. However you seemed to have missed my point. If he's already approved to go into the country, he can go anywhere he wants.

Nonny said...

"Anyhow, Ahmainejad, if he's on a diplomatic visit to the US, can go anywhere he pleases right? It is a free country last I checked... If they don't let him into the country then that's their right, but I believe he's free to travel anywhere once he's in the country." -- Pal

I believe even Ti-Guy is cringing at that one, oh ignorant one.

Please refrain from practicing US law and UN diplomacy, Paladiea. This one is not just Paladieaish; it is Paldieaissima!

To put it simply, dim donna, Mamoooouud is not free to go anywhere in New York or anywhere else in the US that he wants.

Helpful hint, dear: Don't post if you have the slightest hint of a belief that you might not know what the hell you are talking about.

The Right is Where its At said...

CC did you know that they can refuse him entry.

Nonny said...

"If he's already approved to go into the country, he can go anywhere he wants." - Pal

Good God; she's gone and done it again.

Stop, please! For the love all that is good and right, stop being so dense!

Paladiea said...

To put it simply, dim donna, Mamoooouud is not free to go anywhere in New York or anywhere else in the US that he wants.

Helpful hint, dear: Don't post if you have the slightest hint of a belief that you might not know what the hell you are talking about.


If only you would follow your own advice! I suppose that's too much to ask.

My point, for the third time is that if he is approved to enter the country, he can go to any public venue that he so desires.

His status as of right now is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Do you want me to use smaller words? Or are you ok with that?

Paladiea said...

Stop, please! For the love all that is good and right, stop being so dense!

how bout this Nonny, put your money where your ego is and point me to a site that says that if someone is allowed entry into the country, they must stay in a certain area of said country (unless there are restrictions by state, but last I checked, the UN and NYC were in the same state).

How bout it? Care to actually do some work?

Nonny said...

All you use are small words, Paladiea.

The Right is Where its At said...

Paladiea it all depends
on the countries laws!!

I'll give you an example
you invite someone to your place,does that mean
that person then has the right to go to your bedroom?

CC said...

A total cementhead writes:

"CC did you know that they can refuse him entry."

Refuse him entry to what? The country? Of course they can, no one was disputing that.

What some of us are taking exception to is your claim that, once his visitor's visa has been granted and he is in the U.S., he can still be restricted from going places that are accessible to members of the general public. Is that the claim you're making?

See? I'm being polite and not describing you as a bone-dense retard. Isn't that mature of me?

The Right is Where its At said...

Paladia 1:40 PM

Your are talking as
tourist not official visit.

Paladiea said...

I'll give you an example
you invite someone to your place,does that mean
that person then has the right to go to your bedroom?


That's irrelevant to the topic of conversation. Privacy laws are different from immigration laws. I want to see some sort of document that says that people are restricted to move within the country. I think that a visa allows open access to public venues unless specifically stated. Prove me wrong.

CC said...

Ah, TRIWIA (one of the most stunning appropriate acronyms you're ever likely to run across) is now inventing wildly irrelevant analogies, comparing entry to the U.S. to inviting someone into your house.

No, TRIWIA, we're not interested in your stupid analogies, so here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to ask you to substantiate your claim that a diplomat, once he has entered the U.S., can still have his movements controlled as you're suggesting.

If you respond in any other fashion, I'm going to delete your comment. This is apparently the only way I'm going to get a straight answer out of you, one that doesn't involve random bullshit and tap dancing.

The ball is now in your court.

The Right is Where its At said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ti-Guy said...

Ok, Johnny...sweetie...be quiet now for a bit while Nonny looks up the relevant information on restricting the movements of visitors with diplomatic visas.

I've had diplomatic visas, and although you can have full or partial immunity, you are also subject to conditions regular visitors aren't. So...

Nonny said...

Pal,

Why should I have to "point you to the sites"? One, you should do your own work. I'm already wasting too much time here (though I enjoy it). Two, how 'bout some examples?

- Guiliani kicked Arafat out of the Met when he was Mayor.

- Diplomats are kicked out of the country for simply the suspicion of being spies or otherwise breaking the law. No due process for them.

Mamooouud is not a US citizen. He is not a legal resident of the US. He is not a diplomat. He is the head of a state which is a member of the UN. The US has an agreement with the UN to allow any head of a member state to travel to New York to attend the UN. The agreement stops there. Mamooouud can pound sand. Inshallah.

There's your stinking law, senorita. You don' need no stinking leenk.

CC said...

Nope, sorry, TRIWIA ... I said no stupid analogies. Point us at specific and explicit immigration law which describes possible restrictions on diplomatic travel and when those restrictions can be applied.

The Right is Where its At said...

Paladiea no i don't have a link to prove to you.
Can you prove it that I'm
wrong show me the link!!

The Right is Where its At said...

CC it concerns you too
prove that I'm wrong!!
Show me a link and then I'll believe you period.

CC said...

And on that note, after posting something that unforgivably stupid, TRIWIA is shown the door.

Say hi to the rest of the dimwits at the Blogging Tories for us.

Paladiea said...

- Guiliani kicked Arafat out of the Met when he was Mayor.

- Diplomats are kicked out of the country for simply the suspicion of being spies or otherwise breaking the law. No due process for them.


The Met is private property. People pay to go there. Their services can be refused at whim.

Your second point is also irrelevant, unless wreath laying is now a crime.

So, care to actually argue the point I made?

Ti-Guy said...

I'm already wasting too much time here (though I enjoy it).

How can you enjoy being such a bitch? Is that was passes for manners where you live?

...actually, as I recall, it does.

The Right is Where its At said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CC said...

Dear TRIWIA:

What part of "piss off" do you just not get?

Nonny said...

"The Met is private property. People pay to go there. Their services can be refused at whim."

Are you saying the Mayor has the right to evict a person from someone else's private property, unasked? You want to rethink that comment, Pal?

"Your second point is also irrelevant, unless wreath laying is now a crime." -- Pal again.

You missed my point. (1) Mamooouud lacks the rights that US citizens have. (2) Who do you think owns the property he wants to visit? Go ahead. Look it up.

No praise for the first to answer....

Nonny said...

"Your second point is also irrelevant, unless wreath laying is now a crime." -- Paladiea

No but sheep laying is. So, reason enough.

Ba-da-dum

Paladiea said...

Are you saying the Mayor has the right to evict a person from someone else's private property, unasked? You want to rethink that comment, Pal?

Obviously it was with the collaboration of the museum. Unless you're willfully misconstruing my point.

You missed my point. (1) Mamooouud lacks the rights that US citizens have. (2) Who do you think owns the property he wants to visit? Go ahead. Look it up.

1) It doesn't matter. The point of the whole argument is whether or not visitors to the states have free access to public areas unless specifically stated otherwise.
2) I've been to ground zero, the construction makes it pretty much impossible to walk on the property directly, instead you have to lay wreaths on the sidewalk. Which is public property.

Paladiea said...

No but sheep laying is. So, reason enough.

Ba-da-dum


Is that some sort of attempt at humour?

Nonny said...

And Ti-Guy calls me a bitch ...

Nonny said...

Pal,

The OPERA house did not ask Giuliani to evict him. Stop making stuff up.

That's MY job.

Nice try though.

Paladiea said...

The OPERA house did not ask Giuliani to evict him. Stop making stuff up.

The Met is the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Or the Metropolitan Opera. Be more specific next time.

And I think you have it backwards. If Giuliani wanted to kick someone out, then all he had to do is ask the establishment, and they'd comply. Especially if he was mayor at the time.

Nonny said...

I think I know the WTC site very well, Palaieda.

Besides, who owns the sidewalks? Right. So who tells whom whether they can stay or go? Do you know why? If you've been there, there is only one reason to be on that sidewalk, and "just passin' through and minding my own business" ain't one of 'em. Remember, too, Mahmooouud is no citizen and he won't be going there alone.

Think, child. Think REAL hard.

CC said...

Nonny, you're avoiding the question and you're about to get turfed, too.

The issue here is quite simple -- does someone who has a visa to enter the U.S. have the same rights to access publicly-accessible property as regular American citizens?

No bullshit about who owns the sidewalks or "passin' through" or crap like that. If a regular American citizen can do it, can someone with a visitor's visa do the same thing. Yes or no? Answer the question, or stop wasting everyone's time.

Nonny said...

"Be more specific next time."

Read my comments more carefully next time. I made it clear earlier on what I meant.

"If Giuliani wanted to kick someone out, then all he had to do is ask the establishment, and they'd comply. Especially if he was mayor at the time."

Good grief! You just can't resist making up your own facts! Stop! You are trying to say that he DID something by couching the assertion in the subjunctive mood: "If he wanted, he could have ...." This is dishonest.

Paladiea said...

So cities have the right to forcibly remove people from the streets at whim?

Sounds like fascism to me.

And what exactly is this mechanism that the city has to go through to evict people from the sidewalk? Doesn't a visa exempt you from this treatment?

Nonny said...

CC,

It is Pal that is drawing this out. The fact of the matter is that Mahmooouud was JUST prevented from doing what he wanted. If you want proof, there it is.

Besides, what the heck is the point of all this nonsense? Why do you care whether he can do it or not? What bearing does this have on the issue at hand, viz., you say righties are scared girly-men and I say everyone knows lefties are, which is why you are doin' the accussin'

CC said...

Pal, don't start expanding the circle of inquiry here -- all it does is allow Nonny to start wandering off on tangents.

We've already determined that TRIWIA is a complete blockhead. Now it's Nonny's turn, and there's a question on the table.

Either he answers it or he gets the boot. I just don't have the patience for this kind of sloppy right-wing thinking and gibberish and tap dancing.

Phyl said...

CC, don't you find it kind of gratifying when the whiny-ass titty-babies come in and pretty much prove your point?

I do love how they come in making big claims, and then yell loudly, "No, you prove that I'm NOT right!"

Gotta love the intellectual work, there.

Paladiea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paladiea said...

Alright. I'll stop. The point is that if he had access to the country, he's allowed to lay the wreath if he pleases, unless specifically stated otherwise.

That's where it stands unless someone prove that statement inaccurate.

Nonny said...

"And what exactly is this mechanism that the city has to go through to evict people from the sidewalk? Doesn't a visa exempt you from this treatment?" --Pal

I don't know, Paladiea. Why don't you kidnap and kill Americans, threaten Israel with nuclear annihilation, and give terrorists training, material, and cash, and then come on down to NYC, hang out in front the the WTC, and find out?

The Right is Where its At said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paladiea said...

Now you really are going off on a tangent... Answer the question instead of avoiding it with rhetoric.

Ti-Guy said...

Why don't you kidnap and kill Americans, threaten Israel with nuclear annihilation, and give terrorists training, material, and cash, and then come on down to NYC, hang out in front the the WTC, and find out?

Notice how Nonny doesn't mention the American-led overthrow of the Iranian government back in 1953 and the condemnation of Iranians to almost three decades of rule by a monarchical tyrant.

...they always conveniently forget that, don't they?

The Right is Where its At said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paladiea said...

Um, since the States is a supposedly free country, travel is presumed to be unlimited unless otherwise stated. Since you're insisting the opposite is true, please provide evidence for your position.

Nonny said...

Ti-Guy,

Notice how Ti-Guy fails to mention Carter's late 1970's support for Khomeini, courting of Iran, and encouragement to the Shah to step aside.

Smelly Leftists always conveniently forget that, don't they?

CC said...

Please do not respond to TRIWIA. I have no further patience with him and will be deleting his comments. If he wants to rant like an imbecile, he has his own blog for that.

Adam C said...

The New York Philharmonic concert at Avery Fisher Hall was sponsored by the New York City Host Committee, a private group organized by Mr. Giuliani to sponsor several events surrounding the anniversary...

The Mayor said yesterday that when he was told that Mr. Arafat had entered the concert hall, he told his chief of staff, Randy Mastro, to ask him to leave.

"Randy told him that he wasn't invited, he wasn't welcome, and we would prefer that he leave," Mr. Giuliani said. "He stayed for awhile, then he left."


You guys are lazy today. Giuliani could kick Arafat out because it was Giuliani's private party.

At any rate, Marshall's point still stands that it's childish and cowardly to get all upset that this dickhead wants to lay a wreath at a memorial.

Paladiea said...

Ok, but here's the relevant policy since no one else bothered to look it up. There are no restrictions to travel in the general restrictions to getting a visa. If they wanted to they have to specifically state that you can't go to certain places.

Here

Nonny said...

"It's childish and cowardly to get all upset that this dickhead wants to lay a wreath at a memorial."

You missed the reason why people don't want him there, Adam, even though you said it right there. There is less than zero evidence that people are "afraid" of Mahmooouud's laying a wreath, a bouquet, or a sheep in front of Ground Zero. We don't want him there because, as you said, he's a "dickhead."

And why is it childish to want a "dickhead" to stay away? It seems to me to be quite rational and grown-up to want nothing to do with a "dickhead."*

At least be honest like M@, Adam. And admit that the enemy or your enemy is your friend.

____________

*That's why so many people ignore Ti-Guy.

Ti-Guy said...

Notice how Ti-Guy fails to mention Carter's late 1970's support for Khomeini, courting of Iran, and encouragement to the Shah to step aside.

I didn't forget it; the Shah was a tyrant. And everyone was encouraging the Shah to step aside.

As I read this weekend (Timothy Garton-Ash in The Globe and Mail with regard to that other foreign policy disaster called Iraq) when you make lousy decisions, you end up with crappy options.

No use crying about it now, Nonny.

Ti-Guy said...

You missed the reason why people don't want him there, Adam, even though you said it right there. There is less than zero evidence that people are "afraid" of Mahmooouud's laying a wreath, a bouquet, or a sheep in front of Ground Zero. We don't want him there because, as you said, he's a "dickhead."

You're a real piece of work, Nonny.

...hearts and minds, eh?

Crabgräss said...

The Right is Where It Sat:
I'll give you an example
you invite someone to your place, does that mean that person then has the right to go to your bedroom?


They're actually obliged to go to my bedroom, you silly ass.

Nonny said...

Gee,

That's nice, Paladiea. Thanks. But, one, it doesn't apply to Mahmoooouuud's case; he doesn't even need a passport, much less a visa to enter under the UN rules, and, two, it says nothing about travel. What were you expecting, "Muslim terrorists seeking to lay anything or anyone in front of the old WTC may not do so"?

Adam C said...

Nonny:

I didn't say "afraid", I said "childish and cowardly". If you don't want your memorial to be public, don't make a public memorial.

Crabgräss said...

Oops, sorry CC. Ignore... good idea.

Nonny - it's spelled "Mahmoud". You can always copy & paste if it's tricky to remember.

Paladiea said...

That's nice, Paladiea. Thanks. But, one, it doesn't apply to Mahmoooouuud's case; he doesn't even need a passport, much less a visa to enter under the UN rules, and, two, it says nothing about travel. What were you expecting, "Muslim terrorists seeking to lay anything or anyone in front of the old WTC may not do so"?

Hence the specifically stated part? And if you can do better, please bring up the relevant information.

Nonny said...

Oh, Ti-Guy, I welcome your new-found sensitivity ... or is this an example of "hypocrisy," so derided by people like Paladiea, the left in general, and ... oh ... you?

Nonny said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonny said...

Adam,

You said, "I didn't say "afraid", I said "childish and cowardly".

Hmmm. I'm sure this makes sense to you. Tell me, though, how you can be a coward without being afraid? Isn't the former a prerequisite of the latter?

If it's a memorial at all, you are right it was certainly made by the public. (Have you been there? It appears not.) But then the builders, the public, can tell any head of state to screw off. And they have.

Thanks for your thoughts.