Max Power is a clown (get a better Simpsons character )

Got this from a poster - 'max power', Max Power was a character in the Simpsons, it was when Homer decided it was a better name than Homer, and like Homer, this Max Power is just a clown.
Six clichés you are likely to hear constantly in the coming days, and why they’re false, by Yigal Walt. Published today, here.
1. “Israel’s response in Gaza is disproportionate.”
Since when is war a mathematical equation? The basic objective of any warring party is to inflict maximal damage on the enemy while minimizing its own casualties. Was there anything proportional about the US war in Iraq? Or about Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait for that matter? Or about Russia’s recent war against Georgia? Israel is doing exactly what any other country has done in the past. This is how war works.
Would a British citizen complain that “too few” British soldiers are being killed in Iraq? Probably not.
And on a more elementary note: Palestinian military inferiority is not an indication of moral superiority. Palestinian insistence on resorting to violence despite this military weakness is an indication of poor judgment perhaps – yet it is by no means an indication of moral virtue. Being militarily weak does not make the Palestinians right.
So effectively Max Power is suggesting a nuclear strike against Gaza wouldn’t be disproportional because since war is about maximum damage on the enemy anything you do to the enemy is justifiable. Max Power THEN tries to use America illegally invading Iraq based on a pack of lies as evidence that we allow disproportional war when the majority of the planet was actually against the US invasion in the first place partly because it was totally disproportional. Max Power hasn’t proven that Israel’s response isn’t disproportional or that disproportionate fire power is morally or ethically acceptable.
2. “But Qassams don’t kill.”
Actually, Qassams do kill. Not too often, perhaps, but dozens of Israelis were killed and wounded by rocket fire in recent years. Moreover, at this time the Palestinians are firing long-range Grad rockets with even greater explosive power. Such rockets killed 2 Israelis Monday.
Yet beyond the casualty figures, the psychological damage caused as result of living under an ongoing rocket threat is immeasurable. Would anyone in the West agree to have their family live under constant rocket attacks and be regularly woken up by sirens in the middle of the night? Would anyone living under such conditions appreciate being told that “these rockets don’t kill?” Probably not.
Oh come on Max Power, what are we talking about, 4 Israeli’s being killed by these glorified skyrockets, hey any life lost is a tragedy but to justify 4 Israeli deaths to the 460 Palestinian deaths or the 2750 that have been maimed as justification is simply absurd. Remember last time when Israel launched a war against Lebanon because two of their soldiers had been kidnapped and then it turned out that the Israeli’s had actually planned the war months earlier and were looking for any excuse to start the conflict – EXACTLY like this time. Israel planned this escalation for months and want to push their luck as far as possible before the new Obama Administration takes over and threatens the blank cheque Bush has handed Israel.
3. “It’s all because of Israel’s siege. Israel should allow aid into Gaza.”
Israel has allowed goods into Gaza regularly throughout the “siege”. Palestinians have been able to complement these deliveries with supplies smuggled through hundreds of tunnels (of course, they would likely be able to bring in even more food had they not used the tunnels to smuggle in missiles.).
The day before operation “Cast Lead” got underway, Israel allowed dozens of trucks carrying aid to enter the Strip. On Tuesday, another 100 trucks – double the normal number –are expected to enter Gaza after Defense Minister Barak approved the move.
In short, Israel is allowing aid into the Strip (but guess who has kept Gaza crossings mostly closed thus far? That’s right, Egypt.)
Oh nonsense, are you seriously trying to suggest the economic strangulation Israel has forced Gaza under since Hamas won hasn’t played a major part in this escalation? You have an incredibly selective memory
4. “Why didn’t Israel just agree to renew the Gaza truce?”
First, what truce? Terror groups continued to fire rockets throughout the lull, even if somewhat infrequently, and even if the world didn’t seem to care too much. Nonetheless, Israel clearly declared that it is interested in extending the truce. Our top officials made it clear time and again.
Yet Hamas leaders clearly declared that the truce has ended on December 19th, and proceeded to bombard southern Israeli communities with dozens of rockets daily. In short, it is no wonder that even the Egyptians are blaming Hamas this time.
This is a joke, why didn’t Hamas continue with the truce, oh that little thing called the economic strangulation of Gaza might be the reason, again your selective re-writing of recent history suggests you actually work for the Education department of the Israeli embassy.
5. “But Hamas was elected democratically – why can’t Israel accept it?”
Although Hamas won the Palestinian elections, it took Gaza by force, in the process hurling rival Fatah members down to their death from high-rises and shooting others in the knees with the declared aim of maiming them. Some democracy.
In any case, Israel in fact “recognizes,” de facto, Hamas’ rule in Gaza, which is precisely why it is justified in attacking the Hamas-ruled Strip, recognizing that it is indeed being governed by a terror entity. Israel did not launch the operation because Hamas is in power there – rather, it did so because Hamas is a terrorist organization that has deliberately targeted civilians with thousands of rockets over the past 8 years.
Pffft – Max Power you are merely posting arse noise now, Israel has refused to acknowledge Hamas won and ‘put Palestine on a diet’ by economic strangulation. I’ve always found it hilarious that Israel brays so much about Freedom and democracy right up until a party wins they don’t like, then it’s a ‘terrorist’ organization. Hamas probably wouldn’t have won by such a massive landslide if Israel hadn’t brutalized Palestinians for 4 decades under a despicable occupation and had corrupted Fatah.
6. “Israel is targeting civilians.”
You mean to say that “one of the most powerful armies in the world” has been bombing Gaza for days, deploying massive air power, dropping hundreds of bombs, and ultimately killing a grand total of 50 civilians or so in the “most crowded place on earth?”
Yes that’s exactly what we are seeing Max Power.
There are two options here: A) The Israeli army is not targeting civilians, or B) Israeli pilots suck. We tend to go with option A.
Where as ‘we’ suggest that it’s C) The Israeli Army doesn’t give a fuck about civilian casualties.

Indeed, Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, by deploying precise ammunition and specialized techniques. In fact, nobody in the world does this better than the Jewish State.
Oh for the love of Christ, that last statement is so demonstrably wrong you have gone beyond farce. I think you need to pick a better Simpsons character Max Power, try Ralph Wiggum.








37 Comments:
I'll bite.
Firstly this notion of disproportional response.
You need to differentiate between the Political and the Military. The decision to engage is combat, pre-emptive or not, is a political one. Once the decision has been made, tactical decisions are left to the military.
"The military does not seek a level playing field, a "fair fight" as someone nowhere near the combat zone might put it. The battle of Antietam was a fair fight, by and large, and at the end of the day there were thousands of dead Americans littering the cornfields of Maryland. The United States has such vastly superior technology, and such better training in its fighting force, that any "fair fight" would represent a severe tactical blunder, a battle plan gone awry. "
By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 23, 2003; Page F01
To use a sporting analogy, if the All Blacks are to play a weaker side like say Japan, they dont play with say 10 men to give the Japanese a sporting chance - the goal is to win.
Once the military is ordered into combat, the goal is to win. However, there are political ramifications, hence there are restrictions of the force used (nukes for instance). I will deal with the civilian factor later in this post.
But now that we have established the military goal of victory, we need to consider the tactics used. However, to be clear, the political considerations do overlap with the military objectives. To be simplistic, the military goal is to stop the rocket attacks. In a broader sense, the goal is psychological, to remove the will to fight of those who wish to destroy Israel. The most effective way to do this is through the use of overwhelming force.
"Unrestricted force crushes the Arab people's and the Muslim army’s will to continue the war with Israel; skirmishes encourage them when Israeli public opinion demands further "humane" restrictions on war: one of the Arab military strategies to scale the war down to a level where Arabs can fight the Israeli Defense Force on equal terms, thereby prolonging Arab suffering and defeating Israeli wartime objectives."
Now this ties in with the Rocket attacks.
Hamas have moved beyond the Qassam rockets and now have use of the Grad Rocket. These appear to be of Chinese origin, which itself is concerning. They also have a longer range, and signify Hamas objective to step things up. It reinforces Israeli strategy, because it shows a willingness on the part of Hamas to source better equipment, or to 'step up' the fight with Israel, to which the Israelis must respond.
Civilian Casualties
Bombers ascertain that the Israelis dont give a damn about Civilians needs to be countered with
"The firing of rockets at civilians from densely populated civilian areas is the newest tactic in the war between terrorists who love death and democracies that love life. The terrorists have learned how to exploit the morality of democracies against those who do not want to kill civilians, even enemy civilians."
"Even Hamas sources have acknowledged that the vast majority of those killed have been Hamas terrorists, though some civilian casualties are inevitable when, as BBC's Rushdi Abou Alouf – who is certainly not pro-Israel – reported, "The Hamas security compounds are in the middle of the city.""
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School.
is this the same sdm who was posting on this site during the Lebanon war, I'm surprised you are posting again on the topic, you went very quiet once it was revealed that Israel had planned the whole thing didn’t you sdm?
FREE Movies, TV Shows, Music, Games, Virtual Worlds, and College Educations @ InternetSurfShack.com
I thought this was about Gaza...
Sam/Muppet.
What is it that you dont like about my post?
Bleeding r's poepl have opinons and sometimes they are worng shit happens does taht mean no-one's entitled to an opinon anymore...STFU and let the discussions carry on blog nazi!
What is it that you dont like about my post? SDM
The fact that you're a denialist, and a puffed up self proclaimed know it all dickhead who lives in some alternate wack-job ideological reality - that's all...
Well done MaxPower. Not many posters get a blog dedicated to them. Must've hit a real nerve.
Well done MaxPower. Not many posters get a blog dedicated to them. Must've hit a real nerve.
Not a raw nerve, more just tired of hearing the same old bullshit
Indeed, Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties
Cluster bombs.....
"Wasn't Buchannan leftwing."
Well Anonymous if you consider "Liberatarian" left wing - I guess he could be, but Libertarian mixed with NeoConservative Ideology is about as far right as you can get without completing the circle and heading into radical Left territory!
Scot's hero is far from "left" even in it's most radical elements.
Sam - to call Buchanan a neo-con is the equivalent of suggesting that black is actually white.
Never let the facts get in the way huh?
Sam - to call Buchanan a neo-con is the equivalent of suggesting that black is actually white.
Never let the facts get in the way huh?
Sam I have a lot of aroha for you, and as much as it pains me to have to agree with SDM, but he's right - Paul ain't a neo-con or a libertarian.
Sam - to call Buchanan a neo-con is the equivalent of suggesting that black is actually white.
Please pin point where I called him a Neocon Scoty me boy.. I suggest you practice what you preach in terms of checking your reading comprehension skills ..
I did however call him a Libertarian with heavy lashings of Neoconservative Ideology thrown in, and Bomber, I think you might be letting Paul Baby off the hook a little lite here in suggesting he's not a Libertarian Conservative. He certainly qualifies, if all other labels fail, as a Racist- Conservative Dick-weed of grand proportion that has been planted to achieve certain goals in the indoctrination of New Zealand Youth to the vicious side of American-style right wing Politics with Rovian technique thrown in for good measure.
As for your comment Scot, regarding Black is White - that's a Technique perfected by Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and Karl Rove for the Republican Party in the US, and of which is being widely practiced by John Key, Nick Smith, Jabba the Brownlee, and Uncle Fester - Hyde - remember , your newly elected "changling" pals -Scotty me boy!
All this has taken us off track here unfortunately as to Israel's intentions of targeting Civilians in Gaza. I believe this is exactly what's occurring there! I believe this not because I'm an Anti-Semetic, which I suppose I am to a certain degree though I rather think of myself as a Pro-Humanist, but rather I have watched this whole show since the time I can remember Truman and every other U.S. President (who hasn't been assassinated in office, or at least shot to bring them back in line like Reagan when he momentarily strayed from the Zionist Party line) protecting Israel and fending off the Arab neighbourhood "dog's" with their big sticks while Israel attempted to secure larger and larger chunks of other Sovereign State's territories to please their Master's (Britain / US) at solely the expense of the original Inhabitants, and over their dead or exiled refugee bodies.
To use the weak semetic excuse for this most recent action in trying to say Israel only target's Hamas, when Hamas is the legitimately elected governing body in Palestine and has every right to arm and defend itself against Invader's and Occupyer's is pretty absurd and twists the logic - in a Rovian / Buccannan style. That is, In my humble opinion of course! If it pleases you sai-scoty!
If "Hamas" ARE the representatives of the Majority of Palestinian People, then it would logically be fair to say that Israel is only targetting Hamas- would you not agree?
Israel doesn't give 2 flyin fucks about killing all the Palestinians, Hamas or otherwise as long as they don't have to admit that they're in this game for the real estate and don't intend to give up their current holdings taken by force, that by the way don't belong to them anbyway, knowing they have the blessing of their Uncle Sam and former Cousin Tony in order to maintain their story line of fighting Terrist's!
So go ahead and keep moaning Scot, you've sounded like a squeeky little broken record for years now repeating the same party chorus lines, and I'm used to it.. You don't sway me, or anyone else...
"He certainly qualifies, if all other labels fail, as a Racist- Conservative Dick-weed of grand proportion that has been planted to achieve certain goals in the indoctrination of New Zealand Youth to the vicious side of American-style right wing Politics with Rovian technique thrown in for good measure."
Who planted him here?
Who plant Zionist and Rovian-style Right wing groups or individuals inside all U.S. and U.S. wannabe country's for insidious purposes of distract, divide, and disrupt Political advantage Scoty?
You seem to know Buccannan quite well. You answer the question lil fella. Who are his mentor's?
I know Buchanan. I consider myself fortunate to do so. I can tell you know he isn't a plant, he isn't even right wing FFS.
What I do know is that there has been a concerted campaign in NZ to defame Paul, one that has been carried out largely on this blog in the comments section.
Tell me, who was the only white academic in NZ to defend Ahmed Zaoui when he arrived?
Mentors? Paul has an independent mind.
That Ralph Wiggum sounds like a good candidate; think I'll vote for him - at least he isn't likely to bomb the crap out of anyone.
To respond to a couple of the Max Power claims:
1. Disproportionate response - Israel's response is disproportionate not because Israel has a more powerful army, but because they are lashing out and killing vast numbers of Gazan civilians to stop rocket attacks that have caused under 20 deaths ever. UN law requires warring parties to avoid 'disproportionate civilian deaths', so Israeli army decision-makers and politicians should face international arrest and charges.
2. Yes, the Hamas rockets can injure and kill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21#Gaza_Strip
What is your point Max Power? You would expect an occupied people to try and step up the effectivenes of their guerilla warfare when negotiation with madmen like Sharon never worked, right?
3. Israel controls all but 1 Gaza border crossing; it was Israel who shut Gaza port and airport. UN would love open border crossings, and Egypt only closes border crossings under pressure from Israel squeeling about missile smuggling. Oh, and the little fact that Israel refuses to let any international media in to Gaza tends to show who is lying.
Get the message Zionists - no peace for th Palestinians means no peace for you. And eventually a war crimes trial with any luck - I expect Max Power will defend himself...
Damn. I missed this one. Here's a direct quote from the "left wing" Buchanan.
“Sometimes it is necessary to curtail domestic freedoms in order to thwart those who would take liberties with liberty....
..........The key to success is to specify targets with absolute certainty, act decisively and without equivocation, and only in the instance of absolute mistake, apologize and compensate.
Read differently: if you are hanging out with the wrong crowd and a Delta Force squad ruins your day, your survivors need to remember that you were only as good as the company you kept.
The inevitable lawsuits over mistakes can be dealt with by legal limits on liability for actions undertaken in combating the terrorist threat and a whole lot of “sorry.”
Unfortunately, this is not what the US government has been doing.
The US will have to accept the fact that it must make these changes if it is to prevent repeat attacks on the US mainland. It also must admit the possibility that it will have to respond in similar kind to atrocities, perhaps with some measure of decorum in order to maintain some type of ethical supremacy in the eyes of its own people and world opinion.”
(emphasis mine)
Too broad for Scot to understand Brewer. He's Geopolitically challenged, and unless you put it into simple "Stratfor" terms it goes over his head.
Question though Scot, do you know why "Paul" took an interest in Zaoui? Another question - What is Zaoui's deeper background inside the Libyan, Algerian political spectrum? What's the connection between your pal "Paul" and Ahmed other than your assumed humanitarian issue?
You claim some intimacy with Buccannan Scot, however you still haven't answered the question I posed to you with regard to WHO his mentor's were. Do the initials "CIA, NSA" mean anything to you in relation to "Paul"?
Would be nice to eventually get back to the topic here, but if this is going to be taken sideways let's do it quickly eh?
Brewer/Sam
At the end of the day, what you say is not only false, it is defamatory. As observers will note, there was a concerted campaign to do damage to Buchanan's reputation around the time of his unjustified dismissal.
People on this blogsite and others (but mainly here) tried to imply as Sam has that Buchanan was a CIA/NSA plant. Of course they offered no evidence for their claim, instead preferring to damage an innocent victims reputation.
Your implication is actually absurd. Why would an intelligence agency plant someone like Buchanan, and then allow his background to become so public? Its clearly nonsense.
The real problem here is the likes of you Sam, Brewer, Karlos and anti-flag who spread this bullshit in a variety of forums, on and off line. And for that, I think you are scum.
So does that mean you won't answer my questions Scotty me boy?
What does your little "Info-8-Ball" say - Not likely today? Seems improbable? Definitely yes?
You're a joke Scot!
"At the end of the day, what you say is not only false, it is defamatory. As observers will note, there was a concerted campaign to do damage to Buchanan's reputation around the time of his unjustified dismissal."
This is the sort of crap that annihilates any claims you make to being analytical.
My criticism of Buchanan began 11 months before before his dismissal and centred on his frequent assertions that (a)Iran was developing a nuke and that it was imminent, (b) that the Lebanon war was provoked by Hezbollah and (c) that the above statement is disgusting in that it calls for extra-judicial assassination, the suppression of civil rights and a government agency to be immune from the due process of law.
(a) and (b) have proved to be the crock of shit that I asserted they were and (c) is self-evident.
At no time has Buchanan commented on any of these points.
" This is the sort of crap that annihilates any claims you make to being analytical.
How does it do this? I am defending the guy. Whats wrong with that?
Why should buchanan have to lower himself to defending himself against lies posted on tumeke?
Criticise Buchanan's ideas if you want, he always struck me as someone happy to debate - but just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a 'CIA plant'.
When you look at the number of people who have defended him, like Keith Locke, then you really do have to wonder what planet you inhabit.
How does it do this?
You state:
"there was a concerted campaign to do damage to Buchanan's reputation around the time of his unjustified dismissal."
You cannot even tell the time let alone analyze. My criticism began a year before his dismissal and was based solely on his written statements.
This:
"When you look at the number of people who have defended him"
...demonstrates more dimwittedness. Do you really think that veracity of a proposition is relative to the number of people who believe in it?
Brewer - Paul acknowleges that the barbarism essay does not deal with morality
"Numerous well-intentioned peace loving people feel that the US should refrain from
further retaliating against bin-Laden and the al-Qa’eda, or think that the September 11 attacks
have justification. Indeed, we could dwell on the excesses of Western imperialism or the
downside of globalization when rationalizing the September 11 attacks. Instead, this essay is
morally circumspect and the focus is limited to the objective of fighting irregular wars (i.e.
counter-value wars without rules or ethical constraints), which is to demonstrate the futility of an
opponents’ engaging in it."
You write
"My criticism began a year before his dismissal and was based solely on his written statements."
True - but there was an organised campaign.
"Do you really think that veracity of a proposition is relative to the number of people who believe in it?"
So you claim an insight that others dont have?
Case in point Scot - "Unjustified Dismissal" - Ruling based on a technicality from the Tribunal... His dismissal was certainly justified in any "Moral" sense of "Natural Justice".
And, the questions I asked you that deserve an answer scot, are 1. Who does he represent, and 2. who is his Mentor?
Buccannan is an American Conservative Republican Ideologist scot - he spreads the same venom that has kept humanity at war throughout time. The Venom of hatred, disruption, division and distraction. Same ploy as Zionism, and Neoconservatism. In your very own terminology - "Black is White".
As far as just deserves under Natural Justice - he deserved to be sacked for his actions against the Sri-Lankan Student. Later the ruling was overturned based on a technicality in how it was carried out, NOT that it was unjust, or un-called for... just carried out contrary to Employment Law. Buccannan is a snake, and you've been charmed lil fella.
Once again you are wrong. Its a habit you have.
His dismissal was not justified in any sense - moral or otherwise. Unless you consider due process immoral, then how can you say that.
Justice for some, seems to be your mantra. "just carried out contrary to Employment Law." like it doesnt matter.
"the Sri-Lankan Student"
You know so little you even have that wrong.
"Buccannan is an American Conservative Republican Ideologist scot - he spreads the same venom that has kept humanity at war throughout time. The Venom of hatred, disruption, division and distraction. Same ploy as Zionism, and Neoconservatism. In your very own terminology - "Black is White"."
I've known him personally for nearly 7 years. What qualifies you to comment?
Sam, SDM is right on this one - I followed the case very closly, your attacks on Paul aren't justified.
One has to wonder about the mental state of these Buchanan-haters. For supposed lefties their joy at his dismissal is arse-backwards because they are siding with a money-grubbing management elite against one of the few people who stood up to them in public. Plus, as noted earlier, he is the only political scientist in the country to support Zaoui and denounce xenophobic attacks on NZ muslims (to the point that he was invited to help introduce George Galloway at the anti-Islamophobia conference a year or so ago, something that I understand Sahar was opposed to BEFORE he got fired). The point is simple: although he is no angel and can be hard to work with as a student, he is not the CIA-Zionist anti-muslim racist he is made out to be by some of the commentators on this blog. People need to be honest about him and move on.
Look Bomber, I respect your intercedence , but I followed this case as well. Maybe you can let me know what is wrong in my point's about Buccannan.
To listen to Scot's reasoning that he is close to him does nothing to sway me as to the Character of the Man. Hell, I imagine a lot of people were close to Charles Manson and didn' believe he planned the carnage that he sits in prison for today - Scot has no credibility with me whatsoever, you do however.
I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, and I'm certainly not one that is afraid to admit it when I am wrong.
Am I incorrect in that the Student that Buccannan racially scathed with personal attacks and email bombings that led to his sacking was Sri-Lankan? Am I incorrect in that the Tribunal reversed the decision to sack him and reinstated him over a technicality not necessarily that his actions didn't warrant dismissal?
As far as his Ideological view points - It's going to be difficult, near impossible, to convince me the guy is anything other than a dyed in the wool Neo-leaning far right American - Reaganite conservative - his policy statements on Middle Eastern Affairs, and in particularly Iran speak for themselves. I view him as a danger to our youth!
We live in a vicious world - and over the past 30 years Religion, and Ideology have taken truth to a whole new level of meaning - far from anything I could ever use as a benchmark.
I come from the same "neck of the Woods" as Buccannan, and I have witnessed first hand the damage that has been done to Democratic Governance by these Party Line - Ideology spewing Reaganite's. We are seeing an evolved version of these people today in Israel with Zionism, the U.S. with Neoconservatism, Britain with Imperialism, Australia with White Supremacy, and right here at home in NZ with Tumaki, The Bretheren, ACT, and the Core of the National Party.
So please enlighten me where I might be incorrect in my stand with Buccannan.
To say I need be corrected isn't enough Bomber - I suppose I have to ask you to dig through your archives and provide some substance my friend. Sorry, I know this is like a homework assignment!
Best,
Sam
" This is the sort of crap that annihilates any claims you make to being analytical.
How does it do this? I am defending the guy. Whats wrong with that?
Why should buchanan have to lower himself to defending himself against lies posted on tumeke?
Criticise Buchanan's ideas if you want, he always struck me as someone happy to debate - but just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a 'CIA plant'.
When you look at the number of people who have defended him, like Keith Locke, then you really do have to wonder what planet you inhabit.
Sorry for posting the above a second time.
"am I incorrect in that the Student that Buccannan racially scathed with personal attacks and email bombings that led to his sacking was Sri-Lankan? Am I incorrect in that the Tribunal reversed the decision to sack him and reinstated him over a technicality not necessarily that his actions didn't warrant dismissal?"
The Student was from the UAE, not Sri Lanka. There was no racist slur, and Buchanan apologised for the email a few hours after it was sent.
The tribunal ruled that the dismissal was unjustified, the punishment didnt fit the crime in other words. So you are mistaken in both your assertions.
I have no care for your personal feelings towards me. Whether you respect me or not is of no concern, suffice it to say I dont need it. But my friend, on Buchanan you are wrong.
Why don't you familarise yourself with Buchanan's thoughts, maybe start with the Alt TV interviews or the one on Tumeke from 2006.
"We live in a vicious world - and over the past 30 years Religion, and Ideology have taken truth to a whole new level of meaning - far from anything I could ever use as a benchmark."
I totally agree - hence the total failure of neoconservatism.
"The Student was from the UAE, not Sri Lanka." Sorry, I was wrong on the Geography!
"The tribunal ruled that the dismissal was unjustified, the punishment didnt fit the crime in other words. " Who's "other words" scot? Your's???
That's it - ??????????? That's all you've got??????????
Jebus Scot you're even Dummer than I have thought all along!
I know it pains Bomber to have to stand up for you, but he's your only salvation at this point with any credibility to save your drowning ass here!
Funny how you denounce Neoconservatism now that their policies and plans, that you have so admired and sold in your smug way over your Strafor-following years of Geopolitical interest (yeah right), have blown up in their faces and now you're trying to distance yourself from them like a bad smell.. Funny indeed!
Maybe you could talk Bomber and Tim into putting Buccannan on for a panel discussion here on Tumeke, so Brewer and I, and anyone else who see's the Lauri-sized holes in your defense of thim, can chew on him for a while over Coffee and Donuts. Yum!!!
Sam, are you an certifiable idiot
He was fired from his job. He took the UoA to court, and won with a ruling that the university was unjustified in its actions to dismiss Paul. What is so hard to understand about this? According to NZ law, Paul should not have been sumarily dismissed for sending the email.
"(the authority) concluded that a fair and reasonable employer would not have dismissed Dr Buchanan for the reasons it did and the circumstances that then prevailed."
"I know it pains Bomber to have to stand up for you, but he's your only salvation at this point with any credibility to save your drowning ass here!"
No sir, it is you who lack any credibility on the matter. First of all you suggest he is a CIA plant - but offer no insight apart from your mate Brewer, who has shown himself in the past to be bordering on delusional. Then you go on to suggest his dismissal was fair, even when a court has ruled that it wasn't. Then you say that I am the one whose ass is drowning. Are you high?
"Funny how you denounce Neoconservatism now that their policies and plans, that you have so admired and sold in your smug way over your Strafor-following years of Geopolitical interest (yeah right), have blown up in their faces and now you're trying to distance yourself from them like a bad smell.. Funny indeed!"
I've never been a neo-conservative. A realist, perhaps, but never a neo-con.
"Maybe you could talk Bomber and Tim into putting Buccannan on for a panel discussion here on Tumeke, so Brewer and I, and anyone else who see's the Lauri-sized holes in your defense of thim, can chew on him for a while over Coffee and Donuts. Yum!!!"
Why the hell would Paul waste time on clowns like you?
Like I said scot, a technicality in employment law, which differs greatly from the natural justice in the matter that was first excercised - the guys a snake and no matter how much you wriggle and moan it doesn't change the fact in this matter for me.
With regard to proving that he is a CIA, NSA , or Neocon plant, I agree that would be difficult or impossible to discover without a confession, but his policy statements leave one questioning why he is here in NZ influencing our young minds. I inferred, not directly accused as you seem to think my Thimble-minded little Gherkin pal - maybe I planted a seed that grew rapidly in your overactive Geo-political imagination.
As for Brewer and I being dillusional, from a Stratfor or a Rovian point of view we would so be considered. I think we would be called "Moonbats" by O'Reilly or Hannity ( a couple of your other hero's in "Black is White" American (John Keyzowitz) Neo-Moralist Philosophy). I've got to hand it to you though Scotty me lad, you jump around more than any Mexican Jumping Bean I've ever seen in order to attempt to cover your slippery single sided ass and defend "Paul".
I'll reverse your last question, and accept your "Clowns" label to ask you - Why wouldn't he agree to a panel discussion here if he were just appearing to clear his ass with "Clowns" like Brewer and myself? I assure you it wouldn't be a waste of his time if we are so incompetant and ill advised as you insist! Hell, he'd probably rip us two ill informed dilusional Clowns to bits and give you one heck of a good laugh!
This has probably gone on long enough my little Stratfor dummy - You see, I don't have the time or patience to continue trying to further convince you or anyone else on Buccannan's skin texture. Suffice it to say, you won't influence my thinking in his regard, nor probably anyone elses who is of like mind.
Tis fitting though that the word identifier for this final response to you should be "SkyLlama" which is the picture of you that I have in my dilusional "Clowns" head! TTFN-
I'm just talking shit because the voices in my head tell me to! - Why are you talking shit Nemesis?
Post a Comment
<< Home