Yet ANOTHER BLOODBATH IN CHICAGOLAND
- Thread starter Busybody
- Start date
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
How many people went to JAIL for this?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1ac.1.17.img.QYtFxUCX1as
or were even prosecuted?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1ac.1.17.img.QYtFxUCX1as
or were even prosecuted?
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Izzy in jail?
Wazze prosecuted?
Did the SS even show up?
NYC Welcomes GOP with 'Kill the President' Play
NewsMax.com ^ | Aug. 10, 2004 | Carl Limbacher
Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:43:32 AM by Carl/NewsMax
In advance of the GOP convention at the end of this month, New York City is being plastered with stickers that read, "I'm Gonna Kill the President" - supposedly an advertisement for a new off-Broadway play staged by the anti-war protest group United for Peace and Justice.
"It's the name of a new comedy to run in the East Village during the Republican Convention," WABC Radio's George Weber reported Tuesday morning.
Weber called the box office to find out what could be funny about the murder of an American president, and got this recorded response:
"Howdy," chirped a spokesman. "You've reached the information and instruction hotline for, 'I'm Gonna Kill the President - a Federal Offense."
The unidentified voice goes on to explain that that the play is the story of a young man's plot to kidnap the president in hopes of sparking a revolution that installs a puppet Democracy - featuring real puppets.
The play also includes an audience participation segment where theater-goers are supposed to crank call the White House to demand that President Bush end the war in Iraq.
"If you're some kind of law enforcement agent or official, hang up now," the information hotline concludes. "There's nothing illegal happening here. Just some old-fashioned, constitutionally sanctioned fun."
After Weber's report, WABC's "Curtis & Kuby Show" was deluged with callers outraged over the radical thespian stunt.
Even Communist lawyer-turned-commentator Ron Kuby sounded irked, explaining, "Generally speaking, you cannot directly threaten the president's life." While the play might be "on proper side of the first amendment," he said, "it's not by much."
Wazze prosecuted?
Did the SS even show up?
NYC Welcomes GOP with 'Kill the President' Play
NewsMax.com ^ | Aug. 10, 2004 | Carl Limbacher
Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:43:32 AM by Carl/NewsMax
In advance of the GOP convention at the end of this month, New York City is being plastered with stickers that read, "I'm Gonna Kill the President" - supposedly an advertisement for a new off-Broadway play staged by the anti-war protest group United for Peace and Justice.
"It's the name of a new comedy to run in the East Village during the Republican Convention," WABC Radio's George Weber reported Tuesday morning.
Weber called the box office to find out what could be funny about the murder of an American president, and got this recorded response:
"Howdy," chirped a spokesman. "You've reached the information and instruction hotline for, 'I'm Gonna Kill the President - a Federal Offense."
The unidentified voice goes on to explain that that the play is the story of a young man's plot to kidnap the president in hopes of sparking a revolution that installs a puppet Democracy - featuring real puppets.
The play also includes an audience participation segment where theater-goers are supposed to crank call the White House to demand that President Bush end the war in Iraq.
"If you're some kind of law enforcement agent or official, hang up now," the information hotline concludes. "There's nothing illegal happening here. Just some old-fashioned, constitutionally sanctioned fun."
After Weber's report, WABC's "Curtis & Kuby Show" was deluged with callers outraged over the radical thespian stunt.
Even Communist lawyer-turned-commentator Ron Kuby sounded irked, explaining, "Generally speaking, you cannot directly threaten the president's life." While the play might be "on proper side of the first amendment," he said, "it's not by much."
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Meanwhile Ted Nugent gets a VISIT from SS
The Perfect Storm of Hating Bush: Part I
Posted on September 29, 2004
by Victor Davis Hanson
This series written for Private Papers will appear in four parts.
Part One
The new candor about killing George Bush
The American Left has become increasingly hysterical since September 11th. The symptoms of a new, disturbing extremism are manifest in a variety of forums that transcend legitimate political opposition to the war or grassroots politicking to vote out an incumbent party. Last year the comedian Rick Hall played to full houses abroad, performing his newest composition, “Let’s Get Together And Kill George Bush.” As the Republicans assembled for their August national convention in New York, a pacifist group known as “United For Peace and Justice,” nevertheless announced its sponsorship of a rather violent-sounding, off-Broadway “guerilla comedy” entitled, “I’m Gonna Kill the President.”
The 2002 winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award, Nicholson Baker, just published Checkpoint. It is an extended dialogue about killing (in a variety of strange ways) George Bush. Jay, the protagonist of the novel, characterizes the potential targeted President as a “drunken oilman.” Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are portrayed as “bog creatures” with “grubs scurrying out of their noses.” Such venom filters down. Sue Niederer, the mother of a soldier recently killed in Iraq, recently scoffed in an interview: “I think if I had him in front of me I would shoot him in the groined area. Let him suffer. And just continue shooting him there.”
Currently in Britain there is released a made-for-television movie of the 9-11 mass murdering—but told from the point of view of one of the 19 suicide-murderers, one Ziad Jarrah who took the controls of Flight 93 and crashed the plane and its occupants into a Pennsylvania field, when the brave passengers aborted his effort to incinerate either the U.S. Capitol building or the White House. The show’s producers—British television’s Channel 4—assure that their “whole ambition was to find out what makes these people tick, rather than to be judgmental.” And being non-judgmental is apparently assured when you hire an ex-terrorist, the IRA convicted murderer (later freed on appeal) Ronan Bennett as the drama’s chief writer.
There are always extremists, Left and Right, here and abroad. Yet, what is now different is that the public and unabashed fantasy of liquidating a sitting President, whether in comical or allegorical fashion, does not earn much censure from the mainstream Left. Instead, it seems to understand why some would wish George Bush dead. To the new critics of American conservatism, such public detestation is not an outrage, but seen as valuable and legitimate discourses of dissent against the “dominant paradigm.” Alfred Knopf, for example, is promoting Baker’s book as a cri de coeur—“in response to the powerless seething fury many Americans felt when President Bush decided to take the nation to war.”
Michael Moore was seen on television at the recent Democratic convention, prominently seated next to the party’s elder statesmen—like ex-President Jimmy Carter. Democratic legislators were said to have delayed their Congressional votes to have attended the Washington D.C. screening of Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11, a film whose litany of distortions and creative editing puts it into the same genre of propaganda as Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of Will.
Moore’s rhetoric is far beyond the pale, and in its vehemence firmly entrenched in the American demagogic tradition of Huey Long, Joe McCarthy, or Jerry Rubin. Americans shuddered when after September 11th Moore lamented that those who perished in the World Trade Center at Ground Zero were primarily Democrats, and thus not all that suitable targets for the sworn enemies of George Bush. Recently, Moore, the self-proclaimed populist and favorite of the “people’s party,” scoffed of Americans that, “They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet,” emphasizing that, “Our stupidity is embarrassing.”
Moore furthermore declared of the insurgents who blew up and beheaded Americans in Iraq, “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.” Again, what is different about such boilerplate extremism is the near absence of censure from the mainstream Democratic leadership whom Moore embraces. Unlike the John Birchers of the 1950s who were chastised by Republicans or the Yippies of the 1960s who were kept out of the 1968 Chicago Convention, Moore is praised and brought into the fold—witness Wesley Clark’s recent Presidential bid—precisely because of the utility and resonance of his weird pronouncements and political propaganda. Thus the Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe gushed of Fahrenheit 9-11, “I think anyone who goes to see this movie will come out en masse and vote for John Kerry. Clearly the movie makes it clear that George Bush is not fit to be president of this country.”
Yet such rhetoric emboldens rather than embarrasses Moore’s sponsors. If we examine the vocabulary of the stalwarts of the Democratic party—a Tom Daschle, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, or Terry McAuliffe—then we learn that the current President or Vice President of the United States is at various times to be labeled as “a traitor,” “coward,” “deserter,” or “AWOL.” To Al Gore, Bush uses “digital brownshirts;” for Michael Moore the President is a “a drunk, a thief, a possible felon, an unconvicted deserter, and a crybaby.”
Adjectives like “worst” color their speeches, as in “worst” administration or “worst” decision or “worst” example—often amplified by tacking on “in history.” Bill Moyers says the Bush presidency means “the deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America.” Sometimes a Ted Kennedy assures us that Mr. Bush has simply reopened the Abu Ghraib prison “under new management” to continue the mayhem, torture, and killing of Saddam Hussein. Janet Reno evokes the holocaust at Dachau to warn us of the new Bush Gulag—a term coined from Al Gore. And the ubiquitous Terry McAuliffe rants about the President’s “dictatorial approach;” meanwhile Julian Bond assures the nation that Bush is from the “Taliban wing” of American politics.
Both Left and Right have discovered the paperback pulp market that offers big print invective and crackpot conspiracy theory. But the anti-Bush genre is singular for at least two reasons—the sheer number of titles and authorship by mainstream Democratic journalists, television talking heads, Clintonites, and public figures. Examine a sampling of the often hysterical titles: Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George Bush (John Dean); Big Lies, (Joe Conason);The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (David Corn); Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of George W. Bush (Jerry Barrett); Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush (John Bonifaz); The I Hate George Bush Reader: Why Dubya is Wrong About Absolutely Everything (Clint Willis); American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush(Kevin Phillips); Bushwhacked: Life in George Bush’s America(Molly Ivins); Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy (Robert Kennedy Jr.);Cruel and Unusual: Bush and Cheney’s New World Order (Mark Crispin Miller).*
Why does the Left hate Bush so? Some answers tomorrow when “The Perfect Storm” continues in “Part Two: Why the new hysterical hatred?”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Perfect Storm of Hating Bush: Part I
Posted on September 29, 2004
by Victor Davis Hanson
This series written for Private Papers will appear in four parts.
Part One
The new candor about killing George Bush
The American Left has become increasingly hysterical since September 11th. The symptoms of a new, disturbing extremism are manifest in a variety of forums that transcend legitimate political opposition to the war or grassroots politicking to vote out an incumbent party. Last year the comedian Rick Hall played to full houses abroad, performing his newest composition, “Let’s Get Together And Kill George Bush.” As the Republicans assembled for their August national convention in New York, a pacifist group known as “United For Peace and Justice,” nevertheless announced its sponsorship of a rather violent-sounding, off-Broadway “guerilla comedy” entitled, “I’m Gonna Kill the President.”
The 2002 winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award, Nicholson Baker, just published Checkpoint. It is an extended dialogue about killing (in a variety of strange ways) George Bush. Jay, the protagonist of the novel, characterizes the potential targeted President as a “drunken oilman.” Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are portrayed as “bog creatures” with “grubs scurrying out of their noses.” Such venom filters down. Sue Niederer, the mother of a soldier recently killed in Iraq, recently scoffed in an interview: “I think if I had him in front of me I would shoot him in the groined area. Let him suffer. And just continue shooting him there.”
Currently in Britain there is released a made-for-television movie of the 9-11 mass murdering—but told from the point of view of one of the 19 suicide-murderers, one Ziad Jarrah who took the controls of Flight 93 and crashed the plane and its occupants into a Pennsylvania field, when the brave passengers aborted his effort to incinerate either the U.S. Capitol building or the White House. The show’s producers—British television’s Channel 4—assure that their “whole ambition was to find out what makes these people tick, rather than to be judgmental.” And being non-judgmental is apparently assured when you hire an ex-terrorist, the IRA convicted murderer (later freed on appeal) Ronan Bennett as the drama’s chief writer.
There are always extremists, Left and Right, here and abroad. Yet, what is now different is that the public and unabashed fantasy of liquidating a sitting President, whether in comical or allegorical fashion, does not earn much censure from the mainstream Left. Instead, it seems to understand why some would wish George Bush dead. To the new critics of American conservatism, such public detestation is not an outrage, but seen as valuable and legitimate discourses of dissent against the “dominant paradigm.” Alfred Knopf, for example, is promoting Baker’s book as a cri de coeur—“in response to the powerless seething fury many Americans felt when President Bush decided to take the nation to war.”
Michael Moore was seen on television at the recent Democratic convention, prominently seated next to the party’s elder statesmen—like ex-President Jimmy Carter. Democratic legislators were said to have delayed their Congressional votes to have attended the Washington D.C. screening of Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11, a film whose litany of distortions and creative editing puts it into the same genre of propaganda as Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of Will.
Moore’s rhetoric is far beyond the pale, and in its vehemence firmly entrenched in the American demagogic tradition of Huey Long, Joe McCarthy, or Jerry Rubin. Americans shuddered when after September 11th Moore lamented that those who perished in the World Trade Center at Ground Zero were primarily Democrats, and thus not all that suitable targets for the sworn enemies of George Bush. Recently, Moore, the self-proclaimed populist and favorite of the “people’s party,” scoffed of Americans that, “They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet,” emphasizing that, “Our stupidity is embarrassing.”
Moore furthermore declared of the insurgents who blew up and beheaded Americans in Iraq, “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.” Again, what is different about such boilerplate extremism is the near absence of censure from the mainstream Democratic leadership whom Moore embraces. Unlike the John Birchers of the 1950s who were chastised by Republicans or the Yippies of the 1960s who were kept out of the 1968 Chicago Convention, Moore is praised and brought into the fold—witness Wesley Clark’s recent Presidential bid—precisely because of the utility and resonance of his weird pronouncements and political propaganda. Thus the Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe gushed of Fahrenheit 9-11, “I think anyone who goes to see this movie will come out en masse and vote for John Kerry. Clearly the movie makes it clear that George Bush is not fit to be president of this country.”
Yet such rhetoric emboldens rather than embarrasses Moore’s sponsors. If we examine the vocabulary of the stalwarts of the Democratic party—a Tom Daschle, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, or Terry McAuliffe—then we learn that the current President or Vice President of the United States is at various times to be labeled as “a traitor,” “coward,” “deserter,” or “AWOL.” To Al Gore, Bush uses “digital brownshirts;” for Michael Moore the President is a “a drunk, a thief, a possible felon, an unconvicted deserter, and a crybaby.”
Adjectives like “worst” color their speeches, as in “worst” administration or “worst” decision or “worst” example—often amplified by tacking on “in history.” Bill Moyers says the Bush presidency means “the deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America.” Sometimes a Ted Kennedy assures us that Mr. Bush has simply reopened the Abu Ghraib prison “under new management” to continue the mayhem, torture, and killing of Saddam Hussein. Janet Reno evokes the holocaust at Dachau to warn us of the new Bush Gulag—a term coined from Al Gore. And the ubiquitous Terry McAuliffe rants about the President’s “dictatorial approach;” meanwhile Julian Bond assures the nation that Bush is from the “Taliban wing” of American politics.
Both Left and Right have discovered the paperback pulp market that offers big print invective and crackpot conspiracy theory. But the anti-Bush genre is singular for at least two reasons—the sheer number of titles and authorship by mainstream Democratic journalists, television talking heads, Clintonites, and public figures. Examine a sampling of the often hysterical titles: Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George Bush (John Dean); Big Lies, (Joe Conason);The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (David Corn); Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of George W. Bush (Jerry Barrett); Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush (John Bonifaz); The I Hate George Bush Reader: Why Dubya is Wrong About Absolutely Everything (Clint Willis); American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush(Kevin Phillips); Bushwhacked: Life in George Bush’s America(Molly Ivins); Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy (Robert Kennedy Jr.);Cruel and Unusual: Bush and Cheney’s New World Order (Mark Crispin Miller).*
Why does the Left hate Bush so? Some answers tomorrow when “The Perfect Storm” continues in “Part Two: Why the new hysterical hatred?”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U
