http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri1b8j8gG5A

Fun Bob Basso doing his one man play as Thomas Paine. Basso uses Paine's words from over 200 years ago and applies them to the modern world, proving them ever relevant. In this one, Paine as the fiery orator.

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54830/

Science on the silver screen :The Scientist [10th July 2008]

Shared via AddThis

Festooned with jiggling eyeballs, threatening skeletons, and impaled floating heads, Feo Amante's horror thriller website seems an unlikely place to catch up on science.

http://www.feoamante.com/Stories/Reviews/DEF/Dark_...

DARK DELICACIES III: HAUNTED book review

Shared via AddThis

David Whitman reviews Del Howison and Jeff Gelb's anthology, DARK DELICACIES III: HAUNTED, featuring stories by Simon Clark, Heather Graham, Richard Christian Matheson, Chuck Palahniuk, Clive Barker, Kevin J. Anderson, and Axelle Carolyn

http://www.feoamante.com/Movies/MNO/Nobody_Loves_A...

NOBODY LOVES ALICE movie review

Shared via AddThis

This micro-budget Horror Thriller indie movie by Roger Scheck, is slowly gaining momentum.

http://www.feoamante.com/Movies/DEF/DragMe_toHell....

DRAG ME TO HELL movie review

Shared via AddThis

Sam Raimi jumped back to directing Horror Thrillers over the summer, and now the DVD is here for Halloween. But is it worth it?

http://www.feoamante.com/Movies/PQR/PA.html

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movie review

Shared via AddThis

E.C.McMullen Jr. reviews PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, written and directed by Oren Peli. Starring Katie Featherston, Micha Sloat, and Mark Fredrichs

http://www.feoamante.com/Movies/STU/trickr_treat.h...

TRICK 'R TREAT movie review

Shared via AddThis

Terrence Kelsey reviews Michael Dougherty's TRICK 'R TREAT starring Leslie Bibb, Tahmoh Penikett, Anna Paquin, and Brian Cox

HUMANZEE! Is LIVE Now! - James Gunn's MySpace Blog

When James Gunn first showed HUMANZEE, Microsoft XBox told him to get lost.

Spike TV said "No thanks, loser!"

People called James self-destructive.
They called him stupid.
They called him mysoginistic and even though they were saying it, they still spelled the word wrong.
I called James Gunn and he told me I wasn't important enough to call him.

So for those of you who actually waited all this time to see it, I present James Gunn presenting his creation: HUMANZEE!

..

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog...

From the folks who warned us this would happen under George Bush, come the very same people who actually WANT this to happen now.

I had a conversation with some folks on Facebook who think they're better than other people - not because they've actually done anything, but because they decided to join a group. Membership in the group (which will accept anyone who signs up) is what makes them better than those who don't belong - like Star bellied Sneetches. Maybe they think they're better than you. They think that, if they belong to this group, then the very act of joining instantly makes them more moral, smarter, superior, and so forth. I didn't believe that was the case and I said they were no better than anyone else. They insisted that they were. So I asked them why, and beyond saying the equivalent of "Because I said so", they didn't really know.

The conversation below is provided virtually verbatim, only spelling corrections have been made. Because it was on facebook which sets a maximum of words per post, I've added a couple of FeoNote parentheticals to avoid confusion. Lastly, all names were changed except my own. If any of them want their names - or facebook names - with their post, I'll be happy to provide that.

HOW FACEBOOK WORKS:

Facebook is a public forum. Anyone can see what you are saying who is your FB friend. Or if you post a comment at your Facebook friend's page, anyone can see it who is THEIR facebook friend. Moreover, Facebook provides a SHARE button so all of those FB friends who joined in the conversation can then spread it to other FB friends. that can also crosslink to Twitter, here at MySpace, right back to Facebook again, and so on.

Because of this, pretty much anyone, anywhere can, does, and will have their FB conversations and posts repeated across the Internet, from digg to Stumble to virtually everywhere, virtually eternally. Sometimes, Facebook posts actually make the news.

This is the way of Social Networking.

I've even had people argue with me on THEIR MySpace blogs without letting ME know they were arguing with me (and secretly defriending me first so I wouldn't find out - how did I stumbled upon it? Hellooo Google!)
SOMEONE WANTS A FLAME WAR

THE SET-UP

There are five people involved here. FB FRIEND and his friends, FB FRIEND 1 through 4. I list myself as Feo Amante because everyone here knows me by that nickname. The four FB Friends are FB FRIEND's, "friends", and not mine. I'm only FB Friends with FB FRIEND. Got it? Good. Here we go. The post begins with FB FRIEND on his FB page. Other than making posts there, I have no other control except to post and delete my own posts, I cannot delete or alter anyone elses' post. Only FB FRIEND can do that.

FB FRIEND:

Mmmmm-Hmmm

Yeah, absolutely. Crazy people on both sides. Can't argue that. Democrats and liberals said some awful things about President Bush. Yeah, got you there.

Why, I'm sure you can name any number of cases where democratic lawmakers in office during the Bush administration stood before their constituents and praised the ones who called themselves "terrorists," or laughed with the ones who made remarks about being issued hunting licenses for the shooting of the President.

http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/08/27/news/local_state/169498.txt

Mmmm-hmmm.

Yeah.

FB FRIEND 2:
careful now, they'll start crusading at you!!

Feo Amante:
Wow. "Butch" Otter. That's a name you don't run across everyday.

Just so I understand your criteria: Any Republican politician, anywhere in the U.S., even in a place called Magic Valley, Idaho, is representative of all
Republicans?

So that means that, if I find any Democrats anywhere in the U.S. in the last 8+ years, they are representative of all Democrats everywhere?

And are you asking for something so precise and specific that it could only be this one singular thumbprint moment in all history, or are you talking about the general hate involved here? (I understand that it was an offhand joke and the Repug was being sarcastic) I just want to know the parameters here.

FB FRIEND 3:
Oh, but the Left _has_ to be equally crazy. Otherwise, the Right would be deprived of making the "everybody else was doing it, you just hate _me_ !" excuse.

Even if they have to reach back to Bill Ayers or Sacco and Vanzetti to find "equivalents."

FB FRIEND 2:
oh no, I love me some young gay republicans don't get me wrong, it has simply been my experience that the majority of crazy religious folk I run into are republican, (not that "all republicans are crazy religious folk") I'm thrilled to add an atheist to the repub count.

FB FRIEND 2:
hooray Freedom Socialist Party/Radical Women!!

Feo Amante:
Hey FB 2 and FB 3. I know how you feel. I grew up around Dixiecrats in the South. You know, the kind who wear their fine white robes at night - like Sen. Robert Byrd used to do. Anyway, still wondering what the criteria here is before I provide new sources to all of those folks on the left I'm sure you'd like to forget.

FB FRIEND 2:
America hails to the church of oil, green party aside. Not to send everyone off into conspiracy theorems, after all you can't believe everything you read or watch. You may however want to take a gander (if you can find it) at a little film dubbed Zeitgeist. Its not the answer to everything, or anything, depending on your personal opinions, but maybe take a dip.

I stopped getting distracted by the petty finger pointing of any political group awhile ago. stress stress stress. Let's all just farm again. (partially
serious but MAN would I be screwed without a microwave)

FB FRIEND:
Am I saying that this guy is representative of all Republicans? No, I am not. If you don't get that from the things I have been saying on facebook all along, you haven't been paying attention. My notes are available. Read them. I have always said, somewhere in the text, that it is possible to be a sane person and still disagree with everything Obama stands for. Just as it is possible, in my view, to be a liberal on my side of the fence. and a shrill asshole with no understanding. I bend over so far backwards to acknowledge that, that my spine needs re-alignment.

But I am also saying that the water-the-tree-of-liberty-with-the-blood-of-tyrants stuff as applied to Obama, and the Obama-isn't-really-President stuff, is now so close to the mainstream that lawmakers are winking at it, and TV personalities are hammering it, and that, Feo, is what's pissing me off. As I've said, this is not about Birthers or Truthers, but about Boothers.

Feo Amante:
Cool. Because I do this all the time with both sides. Neither party wants to admit that they are different sides of the very same coin, both with their
whacked out extremists, and both can be as nuts as the other. But Yes They Are!

FB FRIEND:
Except, Feo, you continue to miss the point. Crazies on both sides...but on one side they're extremists, on the other they're running the debate.

During the Administration of Dubya, the figure many regarded the worst President of all time, people on the left said, "We need to investigate this guy; we need to indict him for his crimes; we need to impeach." The most extreme lawmakers protested the man's policies, and sometimes assaulted his character (I would say with justification, but that's within the realm of argument).

Currently? With Obama? Republican lawmakers -- not just crazies, but lawmakers -- playing along with the vicious birther meme? Smiling and laughing along with jokes about terrorism, and going after the President with guns? Encouraging rhetoric about taking to the streets to seize our country back from the side that won the election? Citing "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants?" Lawmakers? Really?

Feo Amante:
"playing along with the vicious birther meme?"

So you are being thumbprint exclusive here?

In that case I agree with you. While the Left has their extremists even in Congress (Durbin calling our armed forces Nazis, etc.), no, nobody ever questioned whether or not Bush was born in Hawaii (to my knowledge). Of course, there IS a reason why the Birthers are being compared to the Truthers, and yes, there are Democrat lawmakers who played along with that.

"Smiling and laughing along with jokes about terrorism, and going after the President with guns?"

Yep, of course, back with Bush, they brayed about their right to free speech. And Bush agreed with their free speech rights and didn't concern himself about their say. We aren't seeing that affected "grave concern" over free speech now that the left is in charge. Now it's all outraged caterwauling with breast beating sturm und drang. Things are different now. This is a DEMOCRAT they are talking about here!

FB FRIEND:
Again: name the Democratic lawmakers who made jokes in public about killing President Bush. Name the democratic lawmakers who used coded language advising people to take the streets to reclaim the country with violence. Please.

FB FRIEND 2:
Ding for the left, any takers? And, Blackwater's ARE fricken nazi's, we only have half as many troops over there as we have privately funded security teams.

But lets all just IGNORE THAT in light of winking, namecalling, and more terrorrrr,rr rr. Don't worry FB FRIEND, all will soon be distracted again by Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan flashing her crotch to the paparazzi.

And, yes the lawmakers suck. I'm still sticking to my relatively happy middle independent ground though.

Feo Amante:
Hey FB FRIEND,

Okay, there's Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear and him joking that Bush should be shot. This was back in May of 2008.

http://www.beloblog.com/WHAS_Blogs/PoliticalBlogger/2008/05/did-beshear-say-cheney-should.html

Or how about October 2006 when John Kerry joked about killing Bush?
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/10/video-kerry-jokes-about-killing-bush/

And amazingly enough? NOBODY on the left had a problem with it. It was Free Speech! It was Constitutionally protected! It was comedy! It was just joking!

These Facebook boxes can only hold so much text, how many more links to how many more sitting Democrat lawmakers would you like? Or have I proved my point?

FB FRIEND:
No, Feo, you have not. I do agree that Kerry's joke in particular was as ill-advised as the ones under discussion, but he made it on a late-night comedy show in an ill-advised attempt to match the tone, and that's not the same thing as standing in a town hall meeting where people are calling for the President's head and laughing that issuing a hunting license for him would be a good idea.*

(*here it must be noted that FB FRIEND has abruptly changed the rules as it suited him. You'll recall from above that his rule originally was:
"name the Democratic lawmakers who made jokes in public about killing President Bush. Name the democratic lawmakers who used coded language advising people to take the streets to reclaim the country with violence. Please."
I did that, so now he wants a thumbprint.)

One is an ill-advised and offensive joke; the other is participation in whipping up the lynch mob. The undeniable fact that some democrats have said bad things and stupid things and that they have been indulged in them by their  partisans is not the same thing as the current overwhelming concerted effort on the part of the Republican party and its voices in the media to whip up hatred, actual hatred, when it has nothing else to offer, as counter to the

"terrorist," "communist," "muslim" who "isn't even really President."

(continued)

FB FRIEND:
The one Presidential thing John McCain during his campaign was take the microphone away from the woman who called Barack Obama a "terrorist," and tell the crowd that Obama was a decent man; it was also the occasion for the biggest boos he ever received. Not from Democrats. From Republicans, who resented their candidate's (brief) refusal to participate in the hateful narrative. I have any number of problems with McCain, but I think he saw, in that moment, the face of the beast.

FB FRIEND:
Incidentally, if you think I always nail Republicans for what they say while forgiving Democrats, I hereby mention one Republican who got a bad rap: the congresswoman who said that her party is looking for a "great white hope" to unseat Obama. It was a spectacularly tin-eared and unfortunate choice of words, but I utterly reject claims that it was a deliberate appeal to racism. I believe her when she says that she did not know the provenance of the phrase, because I didn't either, not for years after I first heard it.

Feo Amante:
"No, Feo, you have not. I do agree that Kerry's joke in particular was as ill-advised as the ones under discussion,"

Of course. In Kerry's case, it was merely "ill-advised". Of course. Naturally. He was merely "matching the tone". Was it a hateful tone? Of course not. Where O' Where is my sense of humor? Don't I believe in free speech and the Constitution?

But how about my other reference? I did list two.

Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear and him joking that Bush should be shot. This was back in May of 2008.

http://www.beloblog.com/WHAS_Blogs/PoliticalBlogger/2008/05/did-beshear-say-cheney-should.html

Feo Amante:
Of course, naturally, you ignored this. You didn't give a reason for ignoring it, you just did.

Perhaps it didn't fit your thumbprint exclusive template? After all, it only took place at a DNC fundraiser. And how the crowd LAUGHED. So the thumbprint is slightly different and that's all the wiggle room needed it seems.

Feo Amante:
It was just that wonderful Democrat humor again!
It's only hateful when the party that DIDN'T create the KKK says it.
It's only hateful when the party that DIDN'T create Jim Crow laws says it.
It's only hateful when the party that DIDN'T say "Segregation now! Segregation forever!" says it.
It's only hateful when the party that - as a majority - voted to PASS the 1964 civil rights act says it.
It's only hateful when the party that DIDN'T repeatedly vote in members and former members of the KKK into congress says it.
It's only hateful when the party that DIDN'T protest against bussing in Boston says it.
It's only hateful when the party that DIDN'T repeatedly vote a former member of the KKK into President tempore, not once, but three times says it.
It's only hateful when the party that DIDN'T lionize the death of a Senator who got away with murder says it. The Senator whose family member have been arrested - repeatedly - for rape and murder - says it.

Feo Amante:
Which is my point exactly. It didn't matter to you because it was a Democrat doing it to a Republican (there's a word for this type of mindset actually).

You have a problem with "Republican party and its voices in the media to whip up hatred, actual hatred, when it has nothing else to offer, as counter to the

"terrorist," "communist," "muslim" who "isn't even really President."

Wow! Now WHERE on EARTH have I heard - for the past 8+ years - a party using it's voices in the media to whip up hatred, actual hatred, when it has nothing else to offer, as a counter to the Nazi, Hitler, Fascist, who isn't even really President?"

Feo Amante:
But of course, that can't POSSIBLY matter to you, can it? It doesn't exactly, precisely, fit the thumbprint, does it? It allows for wiggle room, re-parsing, revising and rationalizing the irrational until you can feel good about it again. After all, that other side isn't really human - like you - no they are inferior. The thick greasy irony of your statement doesn't even raise a flag, does it?

And then you revise history by saying this:

"...that's not the same thing as standing in a town hall meeting where people are calling for the President's head and laughing that issuing a hunting license for him would be a good idea."

Feo Amante:
When what was reported was this,
After an audience member shouted a question about "Obama tags" during a discussion on wolves, Rammell responded, "The Obama tags? We'd buy some of those."

Rammell, a veterinarian and former elk rancher from Idaho Falls, said his comment was a joke and he would never seriously talk about President Obama that way, although he doesn't support anything Obama's done as president.

"I was just being sarcastic. That was just a joke," Rammell said. "I would never support him being assassinated.

"She kind of caught me off guard, to be honest with you."
http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/08/27/news/local_state/169498.txt

But that's obviously not the word you want to get out.

Feo Amante:
And after the 8+ years of ugliness that we witnessed from the Democrats, that started in 2000, onward through 2001, 2002, before we went into Iraq, you actually say without the slightest bit of shame,

"...it was also the occasion for the biggest boos he ever received. Not from Democrats. From Republicans, who resented their candidate's (brief) refusal to participate in the hateful narrative. I have any number of problems with McCain, but I think he saw, in that moment, the face of the beast."

Yes, the face of the beast that we watched for 8+ years. He heard booing from a base that was told by the left that they were stupid, inferior, racist, nazis, ignorant, fascists, terrorists, babykillers. And when they had a chance to sling all of that right back at the left. John McCain said he wouldn't tolerate it. And so they booed.

And then you end it with the old leftwing patronizing, "some of my best friends are..." bit.

"Incidentally, if you think I always nail Republicans for what they say while forgiving Democrats, I hereby mention one Republican who got a bad rap:"

How LEFT of you FB FRIEND. How very LEFT.

FB FRIEND:
I didn't ignore it, Feo. I just didn't specifically comment on it. There's a difference between those two things.

(sigh) You know, I fear the day will come when the folks setting the tone of our national discourse will get what they want in the form of a bullet fired through Barack Obama's head by somebody who believes the characterization of him as enemy of America; and when that happens, his body will not have hit the floor before the hard-hitting answer will be to point at Lee Harvey Oswald and say, knowingly, "So what? Liberals shoot Presidents too!"

FB FRIEND:
Oh, and as for KKK, Jim Crow, and the Segregation laws -- yes, those are deep shames of the history of the Democratic Party, but let's be honest here.

Between the 1960s, when the Kennedys saw the handwriting on the wall, and the early 1970s, when Nixon implemented his southern strategy, the Dixiecrat base was encircled and absorbed by the Republican party, a demographic victory that transformed the South from a Democratic stronghold into a Republican one. It is the chief reason the Republicans have been so hard to beat since about 1968. As with the GOP, the Democrats may have plenty of corrupt organs in their body politic, but the flesh that fueled that particular one's been wholly transplanted into the other party -- which wanted it, which campaigned for it, and is welcome to it.

Feo Amante:
"I didn't ignore it, Feo. I just didn't specifically comment on it. There's a difference between those two things."

Not in this case. Because in this case you said you didn't accept my proof. And then you stated the reason WHY you didn't accept my proof by going on about John Kerry's misguided sense of humor.

And then you continued on as if Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear didn't exist and as if I never brought him up.

So as you say, you didn't ignore him. You saw him there, you just chose not to comment on it.

Which continues to justify my point.

FB FRIEND:
It proves no point except the admitted one that in that context, I had nothing of particular value to say.

Feo Amante:
"It proves no point"

But it does. You said:
"Again: name the Democratic lawmakers who made jokes in public about killing President Bush."

So I did. I did what you asked. And since it negates your issue here:
http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/08/27/news/local_state/169498.txt

That what happened is somehow exclusive to republicans - and all of the foulness you see among them, you just don't want to comment on it. Or even admit that this is something the left do as well as the right.

"Between the 1960s, when the Kennedys saw the handwriting on the wall, and the early 1970s, when Nixon implemented his southern strategy, the Dixiecrat base was encircled and absorbed by the Republican party, a demographic victory that transformed the South from a Democratic stronghold into a Republican one."

Well I know that's the revisionist history.

I know that Democrats choose to believe in fairy tales and magic - or at least say they do.

In this regard.

That a couple of Democrats, when they saw that the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed, said, "Well I'm going to be a Republican so that won't happen anymore!"

And like MAGIC, Al Gore Sr. became a Republican!

Oh wait. He didn't. Instead, his son goes around to specifically black neighborhoods and tells the people there how his father SUPPORTED the Civil Rights act!

But still like MAGIC Robert Byrd became a Republican!

Oh wait. He didn't. But he DID continue to use his office to harrass in the press, Martin Luther King Jr. And when MLK died? This digusting excuse for a human being went after Coretta. And how did his own party of Democrats treat this former Klansman for his craven bigotry? Why, they lionized him. Made him president Pro Tempore (three heartbeats from the Whitehouse) on THREE different occassions, the last one being 2007. Or is 2007 too far in the past here? And Teddy Kennedy considered him one of his BEST friends!

As for all of those other Democrats turned Republican?

According to the revisionist history of the left, they went back to their states, became Republicans, and WON Republican elections!

Now, why on EARTH, (at that period of history) would a bunch of racist Democrat voters, want to vote for a turncoat turned Republican (which again, at that point in history were very progressive on race matters), when there were already OTHER racist Democrats to vote for? And why would those racist Democrats vote for any Democrat who was progressive on matters of race?

Unless *BY MAGIC!* All of those Southern Democrats saw the light and ALSO became progressive on race!

And why on EARTH, (at that period of history) would a bunch of Republicans (which again, at that point in history were very progressive on race matters), want to vote for a clearly racist RINO who was trying to destroy the foundations of their party?

Unless *BY MAGIC!* All of those Southern Republicans entered the lands of Mordor and ALSO became racists!

Gosh! It must have all been MAGIC! Perhaps an evil wizard was involved. Democrats are known for loving their Wizards and their Camelot.

You say,
"It is the chief reason the Republicans have been so hard to beat since about 1968."

(FeoNote: The 1964 Civil Rights acted was voted on in, of all years, 1964)

Really? Since 1968 all of those Democrats turned Republican In The South, have been so hard to beat? Then why was it not until 1994 before Republicans even gained control of either house of Congress? 26 years is a pretty long wait for a bunch of unbeatable Democrats turned Republican.

Or are you referring to Nixon? He wasn't from the Southeast, he was from California. But that's okay, we're talking *MAGIC* here.

Or are you referring to Reagan? He wasn't from the Southeast, he was from California. But that's okay, we're still in revisionist *MAGIC* mode.

Or are you referring to Bush 41? Really? 20 years to serve one term in office? MAN those Southern Republicans are hard to beat!

(DEEP AFFECTED SIGH) You know, I fear the day will come when the folks setting the tone of our national discourse will get what they want in the form of a bullet fired through George Bush's head by somebody who believes the characterization of him as enemy of America;

Movie - DEATH OF A PRESIDENT (a movie about Bush's assassination and how it happened. Written in 2003, 2004. Made in 2005. Released in 2006)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5333220.stm

BOOK - CHECKPOINT: A NOVEL by Nicholson Baker (on how to assassinate George Bush. Written in 2002, 2003, published in 2005)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13374-2004Jun28.html

Still on sale at amazon!
http://www.amazon.com/Checkpoint-Novel-Nicholson-Baker/dp/1400079853/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251585170&sr=8-2

BOOK - THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER by Vincent Bugliosi (no fixed years of being written but finished in 2007 and published in 2008)

Still on sale at amazon!
http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/B001IWO88O/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251586963&sr=1-7

BOOK - THE MADNESS OF GEORGE W. BUSH: A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis by Paul Levy

Still on sale at Amazon!
http://www.amazon.com/Madness-George-Bush-Reflection-Collective/dp/142590744X/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251586042&sr=1-17

THE LIES OF GEORGE BUSH by David Corn

Still on sale etc.!

... and when that happens, his body will not have hit the floor before the hard-hitting answer will be to say, "So what? He was a Republican! A stupid, cunning, evil, moron, racist, fascist, nazi, puppet, Hitler, demon, Republican!

FB FRIEND:
One by one, starting with your last couple of posts.

1) Thought the ASSASSINATION movie crossed the line; considered the conceit disgusting even if it was more about what would happen if the assassination took place, than encouraging it to happen. Still thought it functioned, de facto, as wishful thinking, and was vocally against it for that reason. The same conceit would have been better served by offering up a fictional President, not a real one whose safety could be compromised by offering images of his death. In any event. Either way, anybody who watched this film or referenced it by cheering the assassination, or who called it a comedy, etc, was as much a pig as the folks clamoring for Obama's head now. Said so at the time.

FB FRIEND:
2) I am not familiar with the Nicholson Baker book or the Paul Levy book; it is clear what editorial position they take from their titles, but I do not know
the caliber of their arguments and do not know the degree, if any, to which they cross the line from legitimate political accounting of their cases against Bush to rabid hatred. I note that the "National Madness" one seems more likely to be the kind of thing you're talking about, as that rhetoric's getting a bit florid. But I can take no informed position on either.

FB FRIEND:
3) I did read the David Corn book and the Vincent Bugliosi book. I barely remember the David Corn book, but I seem to recall it attempting a sober fact-check of Bush's various pronouncements. I remember the Bugliosi book very well, and am amused by its inclusion and the corollary assumption that the veteran prosecutor is an out-of-control screaming liberal, something he addresses in his very chapter.

(continued)

FB FRIEND:
...or the "death book" (which is similarly not a death book and which was in wide use during Bush) or the "thumbprint" that seems to be tiring you, the
birther stuff that Republican lawmakers and media figures continue to champion.

FB FRIEND:
Beyond that, if you can argue the harm in the policies of any President, including Obama, or go further and say that he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors, if you can back that up, then you have the duty to say so, and I have ALWAYS paused to say that, in my discussions of the lunacy.

FB FRIEND:
This is part of the body politic. This is unavoidable. Presidents deal with major issues that affect lives, and a case can be made for the criminality of every President of the twentieth or twenty-first century; when dealing with historical fact, it is a duty to put out the case.

In the specific case of that fringe liberal Bugliosi (please, make me laugh), THE PROSECUTION takes the position that the deliberate cherry-picking of
intelligence in the windup to Bush's wars amounted to an agitation for war for any cost, that it was fraudulent, and that Bush can be seen as legally liable for all who have died as a result. It is, as you can guess, an angry book. It is, as the title makes clear, an argument that enough evidence exists to prosecute. It presents its case, and I recognize that many would present equally eloquent arguments against the case.

FB FRIEND:
But it's not called THE TRIAL OF. It's called THE PROSECUTION OF. Bugliosi was not arguing for a street revolution or for George Bush to be assassinated (thus making its inclusion with the Assassination movie, and its use as an argument about public calls for W's head ludicrous). He was simply arguing, rightly or wrongly, that W should have been held legally accountable. In the unlikely event the nation had listened to Bugliosi and brought his legal arguments to court, the Prosecution would have been faced with a Defense. Without that, you don't have a trial.

(more)

FB FRIEND:
I was impressed by Bugliosi's book. I concede for argument's case the possibility that he's full of shit and that I am full of shit for being impressed. But THE PROSECUTION OF is a far cry from hysterical arguments that Obama's a manchurean candidate, that he wants to destroy America, that he's secretly planning to kill grandma, that he wants to deny health coverage to republicans in particular so that only liberals are left, that America needs to be "taken back" by force if necessary from this guy who has been chief executive since January -- all arguments that have **actually been made* by the pundits and politicians on the right. Bugliosi's book was an appeal to law, even if you want to argue that it was bad law. It is certainly not the hysteria we've been seeing.

That's it for now. I am not done. I still have to address earlier points. But I will later.

FB FRIEND 4: (FeoNote: Understand that I'm now debating with 4 different people, whereas FB Friend is only debating me)
FEO - It seems you're suffering from selective memory.

Bush, and Cheney for that matter, seem to be guilty of -- at the very least -- treasonous acts against the American people. I say "seem to" solely because all evidence has not been presented in a court of law.

I am personally astounded that the Conservative movement, which presents the public face of being "The Party of Law and Order", scrambles for the bushes (no pun) and blocks every single attempt to bring light to the Bush/Cheney White House. If there's nothing to hide, let's have it proven in a court of the people, by the people and for the people.

Otherwise, rumors will continue to be batted around for generations and the GOP itself called into question for hiding the truth.

(Then again, the party IS developing a reputation for hypocrisy, obfuscation and outright dishonesty far and above anything seen in generations -- maybe the 1950's McCarthy Hearings?)

God said: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Works BOTH ways...

FB FRIEND 4:
And, to be fair and even-handed, I am impressed that the South Carolina legislature, which is a large majority Conservative, is taking the Governor to task.

It ably demonstrates that there isn't a single meme covering all Republicans. They are outraged and speaking out. Good on 'em.

But where are the dissenting Republican voices when Limbaugh calls for jihad against Obama? Where are the dissenting voices in the Republican Party saying "yeah, a public option is a good idea" (an idea Christ would have endorsed, btw); where are the Republican voices saying "let's get together and negotiate a true compromise in running this country"?

You can deny all you like, but Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck ARE the Republican Party to the general public. And, apparently, to the Republican Politicians who just continue to play one-upsmanship games with justice, health and freedom of speech.

The current GOP in Congress need a lesson in the Constitution, and what it means to be an American.

Feo Amante:
Facebook Friend,
"But THE PROSECUTION OF is a far cry from hysterical arguments that Obama's a manchurean candidate,"

The same thing that was said against Bush before he even entered office (various sources including Salon.com). The same thing that was said about John McCain while he was running for office (Harry Knowles, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann)...

"that he wants to destroy America,"

Same thing said about Bush.

"that he's secretly planning to kill grandma,"

That was the interpretation of many who heard what Obama said in this video and taken entirely in context.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw

(and remember that ABC was attempting to cast Obama in the best possible light)

Feo Amante:
"that he wants to deny health coverage to republicans in particular so that only liberals are left,"

Standard party posturing, the same thing the left says from their side, ALL of the time, so why bring it up like its something unique to the right when you know it isn't?

"that America needs to be "taken back" by force if necessary from this guy who has been chief executive since January -- all arguments that have **actually been made* by the pundits and politicians on the right."

Yeah. And these are all arguments that have **actually been made** by the left for the last 8+ years and you KNOW that. You haven't been reading and watching the news all of this time to not know it.

"Bugliosi's book was an appeal to law, even if you want to argue that it was bad law. It is certainly not the hysteria we've been seeing."

Feo Amante:
Would you say that more people have read the book than seen the title? I'd say that more people have seen the title than read the book. That breathless tabloid title, THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER.

It fits in with the other titles I mentioned. I'm sure Bugliosi did a wonderful job in presenting the prosecution's argument against an alleged defendent. I'm sure it was a sober analysis. But he was thinking tabloid title for big book sales and it didn't matter to Joe if he was feeding into all of the other book titles pandering out the same spew.

Feo Amante:
All of which gets right back to my point that the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. Moreover, you haven't shored up your original statement yet.

I've been the one providing links to the contrary - and when I do, you suddenly "remember" that such books or movies existed and you even read or spoke out against them.

Well if you knew of their existence and you even read or spoke out against them, then why are you suddenly posturing like what you are hearing now is an outrage that comes only from republicans and you have never in all of your days witnessed anything like it. You Have! You admitted to it. So what is the point of your original post? You admit that you knew this stuff existed, that it came from the left LONG before Obama even ran for president. So what credibility is left for your original Mmmm-hmmm post?

This isn't getting me angry, btw. This is my idea of fun!

Feo Amante:
Hey FB Friend 4,
"I am personally astounded that the Conservative movement, which presents the public face of being "The Party of Law and Order", scrambles for the bushes (no pun) and blocks every single attempt to bring light to the Bush/Cheney White House. If there's nothing to hide, let's have it proven in a court of the people, by the people and for the people."

I have no idea where this comes from.

Rove WANTS to go to trial and has publically said so many times over.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/05/exclusive-rove-warns-trial-says-dems-love-barbecued/

Cheney WANTS the interrogation memos released.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/20/cheney-calls-release-memos-showing-results-interrogation-efforts-1862515294/

Even agenda driven liberal left-wing sites like TPM are putting the blame at Obama's feet on this matter.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/more_obama_secrecy_--_this_time_on_cheneys_plame_i.php

Feo Amante:
And btw? You should be "personally astounded" that the Liberal movement, who under Obama claimed that this would be the most transparent government ever, is actually more secretive. You should be, but you're not. It only matters when a Republican does it. How very selective.

FB FRIEND:
Two of my posts typed here in the last five minutes have vanished. I am pissed off by this. I confess that Feo has been, to use the legal term, "papering me under" with his arguments, which is to say that I have not had the time to catch up with everything he continues to say, let alone address the older ones; which is not to say that he's necessarily won (or lost) but is the same phenomenon as burying the opposition under the sheer tonnage of words.

Two points, though, before I have to go back, for a while, to living my life.

FB FRIEND:
1) Feo and I have only recently made an acquaintance. He has not known me for longer than a year, and has not been reading online posts that go back as far as (I kid you not) 1979, on an embryonic system known as Plato, before I moved on to Compuserve, Genie, Sff.Net, and now Facebook. His assumptions about things I've suddenly remembered and the kind of behavior I've always tolerated are not based on long-term knowledge of my character. But Facebook has kept my many essays posted as notes, and it's hard for anyone not blind to avoid observing that just about every complaint I've had about the rhetoric being flung in Obama's path takes pain to acknowledge the capacity for idiocy on both sides. I have done this even when it was a pain in the ass to do it. (Next)

FB FRIEND:
2) Feo's acknowledgment that he's "sure" Bugliosi's PROSECUTION probably "did a wonderful job" at presenting its case in an intelligent manner, only to
complain again about the "breathless tabloid title," establishes that he cited the book in his list of allegedly loony and abusive titles without any real knowledge of its contents; which means that he seized upon it as an anti-Bush book, without really bothering to see whether it was as abusive as some of the things I've been talking about. This is par for the course. He also finds it significant that more people have seen the title than read the book, and believes that Bugliosi provided the title for commercial reasons. This is nonsense. First, Bugliosi is not responsible for the preconceptions of people who DON'T read his books, and second...(next)

FB FRIEND 4:
Feo -
"You should be "personally astounded" that the Liberal movement, who under Obama claimed that this would be the most transparent government ever, is actually more secretive. You should be, but you're not. It only matters when a Republican does it. How very selective."
...is even more selective. It simply isn't true -- more information has been released regarding Guantanamo alone in the last six months than the entirety of Bush's Presidency. Yes, info is being withheld regarding interrogations because -- surprise! -- it makes us LOOK BAD before the rest of the world.

But, using the usual tactic, you sidestep the original issue and bring up a new one.

Dishonesty is dishonesty, but the overt lies and obfuscations to US by the Bush Administration is so counter-Constitutional as to have been treasonous. If you ignore their crimes, you yourself deny the most fundamental of American virtues: no one is above the law.

FB FRIEND:
...(continued) what other title would better summarize the book's thesis, which is exactly what the title promises? Should he have given it a romance title,

"Love's Infinite Bounty?" A horror title, "The Forking?" A generic title, "One Lawyer's Blathering?" A "tabloid" title? For "sales"? When multiple number-one bestseller Bugliosi had difficulty getting ANY mainstream publisher to even look at it?

FB FRIEND 4:
FB Friend (FeoNote: here FB FRIEND 4 is addressing FB FRIEND) -- If the response to your points is to delete them, then the debate itself is irrational. Very V for Vendetta-ish. Scary, and repulsive, but it's a tactic used repeatedly between 2000 and 2009.

Feo Amante:
"His assumptions about things I've suddenly remembered and the kind of behavior I've always tolerated are not based on long-term knowledge of my character."

Exactly so. They are based entirely on what you wrote here. Where you acted like what we are witnessing from Republicans right now NEVER happens on the left.

Except when I provide proof that it does. Then you either have no comment or knew it all along.

And of course, if you knew it all along, then what credibility is there to your original post here in the first place?

You seem to want a divergence, hanging onto the Bugliosi book as if that was the true point of this ongoing debate, when it isn't. You are ignoring the fact that all of the other titles I mentioned certainly support the idea that the left is just as bad (in this case even worse).

Feo Amante:
You wring your hands over the "Vicious Birther meme" while you ignore the nearly 8 years of the Truther meme. It doesn't matter if you are aware of the Truther meme (far more vicious than the birther meme by any rule. Truthers like to go to where the families of those who died gather and shout at them to admit they are part of the traitorous 9/11 conspiracy).

The reason it doesn't matter is because you are now pretending that what the republicans are doing is far worse than anything seen coming from the left, and you only admit to having knowledge about what I post WHEN I back it up. And even then you won't accept it into the discussion. You just give a "Yeah, yeah, I know." attitude. Or ignore it.

And then you grasp onto Bugliosi's book, post after post, as if that is the only thing I've said? One example out of 4 titles?

Feo Amante:
Hey FB Friend 4,
"But where are the dissenting Republican voices when Limbaugh calls for jihad against Obama?"

Link please? Because I searched

Limbaugh calls for jihad against Obama

and I found plenty of articles about Obama's jihad against Limbaugh, and the media's jihad against Limbaugh. None of what you're talking about.

And while you are looking for that -

Feo Amante:
Where are the dissenting Democrat voices when Air America called for the executions of Bush? Well, one of them stole an election and became a senator, that's clear.

Or when the leader of the free world tells the GOP who they should and should not listen to?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/23/obama-gop-limbaugh/

Where are the dissenting voices against all of the tripe that spewed from the mouth of Keith Olbermann? Wonkette?

Feo Amante:
How about the rap community at World Star Hiphop where they joyfully posted this video.
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh1bv10u1Jvw9Is0M6

Someone purposefully crippled the mind of an 8 year old child into saying this. They were far too gutless to say it themselves, obviously.

How about two of the most popular liberal jockey's in the U.s. laughing over and acting out, them personally, brutally, raping Condoleeza Rice? Adding Barbara Bush to it.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=450

And don't give me this garbage about "Yeah, yeah, I once wrote about that in my day. Moving forward" Not when you are puffing up about how personally astounded you are, and the dramatic breast beating you are having, over the lack of dissenting republican voices.

Feo Amante:
And FB FRIEND, if you still defend the credibility of your original post after this, then there is nothing more to discuss is there? You willfully turn a blind eye to the filth on the Left, even while you castigate the Right for doing the very same thing.

How unabashedly hypocritical can you get?

Or out of all of the evidence I've presented, do you still hope to make hay over what title Bugliosi should have given his book?

Feo Amante:
Finally, it doesn't matter whether you choose to accept my proof or try to squirm and dodge around it.

You wrote:
"Why, I'm sure you can name any number of cases where democratic lawmakers in office during the Bush administration stood before their constituents and praised the ones who called themselves "terrorists," or laughed with the ones who made remarks about being issued hunting licenses for the shooting of the President.

Mmmm-hmmm.

Yeah."

And I did. And you either admitted that you knew about them all along, or you chose "not to comment." Period.

FB FRIEND 4:
Feo - It's senseless to continue to respond to a virtual spam-war of arguments all across the board. The shear fact you claim to have actually "searched" for the words Limbaugh/ Jihad/Obama suggests you're more interested in screaming loudly in a public forum rather than a legitimate debate of the facts. Your sources are hardly unimpeachable and fair.

(Would I make progress in your eyes if I cited Huffingtonpost.com as my fair and balanced source? I rather doubt it.)

When you shout down the debate, it isn't free speech, it's dictatorship. Volume does not replace facts. Biased sources will always be off when it comes to fair comment..

You quote rhetoric nicely, and talking points precisely -- but you're not here for reasonable debate, you're here to shout ATC down. Welcome to Berlin, circa 1938.

FACEBOOK FRIEND:
At this point, Feo, you are saying more deeply offensive things *per flurry of notes* than I have the time or inclination to dispute per thread; you are even repeating things, like drawing conclusions from my "refusal" to discuss books I explain I haven't read (while you have no problem doing the same). This is like shoveling against a tidal wave with a thimble. I see no point in continuing, and if you want to assume victory from that, go ahead, but note my observation that I think you would anyway. I just don't have the time for it.

Feo Amante:
Hey FB FRIEND 4,
"The shear fact you claim to have actually "searched" for the words Limbaugh/ Jihad/Obama suggests you're more interested in screaming loudly in a public forum rather than a legitimate debate of the facts. Your sources are hardly unimpeachable and fair."

Shame that the book list at Amazon.com, ABC news, BBC, etc., hardly seems "unimpeachable and fair." to you.

I searched so I would know what in the world you are talking about. I found nothing, and you refuse to submit anything. The fact that I can present evidence supporting my argument is hardly shouting anyone down. That is reasonable debate. The fact that you offer nothing but victimized paranoid fantasy to support your fiction, shows you for what you are. There are no "dissenting Republican voices when Limbaugh calls for jihad against Obama?" because it never happened.

It's more of your delusion and the general belief in ***MAGIC***.

Feo Amante:
Adrift and without the ability to present your false charges reasonably or rationally, you scurry away mumbling "Welcome to Berlin, circa 1938." aka "Nazi!"

Amazing! How can I possibly shout down the debate when I'm debating 4 people to one? Me being the one? You equate Facebook message board posts, where anyone can have a say, with Nazi Berlin? Would it even be interesting to ask how you come to that ridiculous assertion?

I was hoping for something intelligent or progressive, you've offered neither, only cowering, passive aggressive preening.

FB FRIEND 4:
This is really a solid example of why the country is dissolving -- the right believes any kind of attack is acceptable, just be relentless and angry. Doesn't matter the substance, just attack, attack, attack.

"The fact that you offer nothing but victimized paranoid fantasy to support your fiction, shows you for what you are. There are no "dissenting
Republican voices when Limbaugh calls for jihad against Obama?" because it never happened. It's more of your delusion and the general belief in ***MAGIC***."

Sorry, FACEBOOK FRIEND, this is a waste of time.

--------------------------------------
And thus the debate ended. Now it's up to you, MySpace Friends, to have your say.

Amazingly enough, I opened my hotmail today to find that I had an email from MySpace. What's more, my zombie image was in the email. I had somehow not only sent myself an email (that I never sent) but whoever did this put my image in the email to make it look legit.

The email also has an attachment which it encourages you to open. Safe right? MySpace, Feo Amante, what could go wrong?

Well unless this is a whole new thing that MySpace is doing, I may receive notices about the latest MySpace messages and such, but never attachments that I should open.

So let me say this loud and clear to all of my MySpace friends I DIDN'T SEND THIS EMAIL. DO NOT OPEN THE LINK/ATTACHMENT!

What happens if you open it? It takes you to what appears to be Myspace and asks you to log in. It ASKS for your password.

Since I was already at MySpace I just refreshed. Did I have a message? Nope. Not even from myself? Nope.

I'm keeping this email for future reference and possible law enforcement help.

http://www.feoamante.com/Movies/DEF/District_9.htm...

DISTRICT 9 movie review

Shared via AddThis

Pretty damn good for a first feature! If you like my review, why not Digg it? It's Del.icio.us! Stumble it even (if you are so Firefox inclined!

Imagine, a few of America’s founding fathers and mothers - pick your favorites - suddenly come back to life in the middle of a Democratic townhall meeting. Finding themselves in the midst of a heated discussion, it would appear to them that nothing much had changed in America in nearly two-and-a-half centuries. Instead of listening to what people were arguing about, however, they’d begin attacking people and eating their flesh.

That's the way of the world when it comes to zombies. Who knows why they go  cannibal? There doesn't seem to be any reason to it.

I mean, there is a whole world of living, dead, and somewhere in between foodstuffs out there for them to munch on. And let's be honest, even if they came back to life in a freaking convenience store, would they go after the Twinkies, Ho-Hos, or the Ding Dongs? Not unless they were between the unwashed thighs of the store clerks & customers.

Yes, our founding fathers and mothers would slowly attack and destroy the people gathered at the townhall, successfully killing all the liberals first, since the libs don't believe in guns (as we've seen in the videos, they prefer to gang up on individuals and beat them to the ground).

Those gun toting conservatives - at least the ones who failed to recognize Thomas Paine and Betsy Ross, and so registered the least disorienting surprise - would make short work of the founding zombies. All conservatives - especially gun-toting conservatives are huge fans of George A. Romero's first three Dead movies. In fact, those first three dead movies are used for the Gun-toting conservatives annual Worst-Case Scenario training weekend.

So that is what the aftermath of a Democratic Townhall meeting would be like, if our founding fathers and mothers came to life in the middle of one. A handful of conservatives still standing over the bloodbath of a zombie massacre. Sweaty, filthy, exhausted, and low or out of ammo, but having successfully dropped every god damn, gut-munching, founding zombie in the place. Victory goes to the gun-toting conservative!

At least until the freshly undead liberals begin to stir.
-------------------------------------------------------------


I apologize to all of the liberals and conservatives who might be offended by this.

No wait. I don't.

Sorry, I go off on tangents here. This tangent was inspired by a column at EWRoss.com.

BTW, if you like this, then please Digg it! Del.icio.us it! MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and all that other stuff! Go wild!