Bhutto Follies: Part 4/4 - Conclusion: the Concludening

Final thoughts on the fractured Freeper fiesta:

· Obviously message boards usually have a great deal of spread of opinion. What was notable about this was the rarity of varied opinion on Free Republic, and the lack of people confronting each other about differing views.

· Lots of realpolitik here. People saying either Bhutto or Musharraf were OUR thugs. Thus, we need to continue to cozy up to Pakistan.

· The main factor dictating the position a thread would take was who was writing/being quoted. Conservatives were agreed with, while RINOS/Dems were disagreed with. This reactionary response is what Freepers do without their leadership.

· Finding people taking positions was difficult. Mostly Freepers were just sayin “right on” or “boy is Hillary/Obama/Huckabee stupid!”

· I see a narrative forming. Basically it is to maintain the status quo. Bhutto wasn’t all that, and we need to stick with Musharraf.

· Sorry, no links to the Free Republic pages this time. I just did a search on “Bhutto” and looked at the top 10 threads. And I’m too lazy to like to all the threads I posted to. You'll have to trust me

Bhutto Follies: Part 3/4 - Masharraf Forever!

Third in the series about the contradictory opinions freepers hold about the Bhutto assassination in Pakistan, without the guidance of Rush.

Here are those saying we need to stand by Musharraf. This is mostly from posts regarding Hillary’s saying Musharraf could have been in on the assasination:

If AQ gets pinned with this assassination, this crisis (at least in the short term) should resolve itself after Bhutto followers vent.

If Musharaff/Paki military gets pinned with this, it may very well spell the end of his rule and seriously opens the door to potentially very bad things happening. The Paki military is the only glue that holds that (nuclearly armed) country together. Take that away and India may not wait around to see who takes over when the dust settles. India is NOT going to let Paki nukes come under the control of some Taliban/AQ inspired regime . . . they will preempt.

Lots of posts like this: This is Serious Business. We should let the nuclear country fall into a military dictatorship. What could possibly go wrong? Also, if we don't India will nuke Pakistan presumptively, and there's no way to stop it. We need to kill the country so we can save it!

If Benazir Bhutto had managed to get the Western world to back a plan forcing Musharref to let her be elected president, she would have lasted no more than two or three days.

Mushareff is having a hard enough time keeping the lid on. She could never have done it.

Cause Bhutto never had to deal with Islamic radicals when she was a woman president of the country!

A key politician was just assassinated and Richardson wants Musharraf to STEP DOWN? You’d want to take extra measures and clamp down on security after something like this, not leave your post! If some big figure politician in the US was shot, would Bush step down? Uh, no.

So it's concluded: we need to encourage a police state in Pakistan. Control the populace with an iron fist. That always ends well.

Bhutto Follies: Part 2/4 - the quickening

Continuing in the series about the breakdown of conservative positions without their usual opinion leaders, here are the isolationist posts, holding that the assassination doesn’t matter:

My personal belief is that Bhutto was suicidal. She wanted to go out in a spectacular way, and she did.

Cool! Suicide by suicide bomber! Cause everyone who chooses to go into an area where death is a possibility wants to kill themselves.

This lady knew she was gonna be killed when she got there.

What is with that?

She was a proven corrupt liberal. Hmmmmmmm.

Hmmmm indeed. Culture of death...She killed herself to hurt Bush. Must be.

Is this the same Bhutto who promoted the Taliban as a pro-Pakistan force that could help stabilize Afghanistan? The same Bhutto who lied to Congress in the 1990’s about the extent of Pakistani military and financial aid to the Taliban?
Or perhaps the Bhutto who stole over a billion $ from her own people? The same Bhutto who was convicted by a Swiss court of taking kickbacks from a government contract with two Swiss companies?

She LIED to CONGRESS? Good thing she was killed then. I'm sure, since this death was just, there will be no repercussions.

Am I to presume from this that the U.S. is now responsible to protect ALL political opposition across the globe?

Umm, dude, did you forget the Carter-let-the-Shah-die meme? Get with the program!

She used to be Al Qaeda’s friend, but she turned on them so she had to go.

Not our thug, then, I take it.

The only hawks that want to invade Pakistan are the chicken-hawk democrats that would rather win an election than the war on terror.

Chicken-hawk Democrats?! That, sir, is genius! I expect to here it on Rush Limbaugh any day now.

Bhutto Follies: Part 1/4

Rush & co. aren’t working over the holidays, so the Bhutto Assassination has the Freepers all in a tizzy. They remain passionate of their view, but they’re not sure what it is. Thus, in different posts, there are widely differing opinions.

Some believe Bhutto was a saintly figure killed by Musharraf. Thus, we should commence bombing. But not an invasion, cause that’s what Obama said:

Thanks for putting this out...I am beyond outraged, and I would love for our govt to demand that Musharraf condemn this assasination and once and for all go after the Taliban, take a very strong stance against the terrorism that is raping any peace efforts there. I believe she would have been elected into the postion of Prime Minister and would have cleaned house...thus the taliban ordering and carrying out her assasination! frickin cowards..among other dispicable things I just won’t say right now.

Yes! Demand a condemnation! That's the kind of brave action the UN might do! Wait...maybe you want to rethink. Bombing is more the Freeper Style. Except Obama already preempted that...what to do, what to do?

she was OUR thug.
remember, the mistake of the carter administration?
of removing OUR thug, the shah?
now, we’ve got islamic thugs in charge of iran.

Whoa. Dropping a Carter on us. This must be serious business. Also, not sure if Bhutto was our thug to the extend Musharraf is.

We threatened to bomb Pakistan into the stone age if they didn’t help us destroy al-qaeda. It’s well past time to face the fact that they are not helping us get the job done. Are the threats of the USA hollow, or do we really mean it when we say “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Dude, that's not the party line, since Obama said we need to be firmer with Pakistan. "Cooperation" is the order of the day. Didn't you get the memo?

And Now This Word From Outer Space

Obamapocolypse edition:

"will there be a cia if obama is elected?"

Sure there will. However, it will be turned against Americans to investigate "hate crimes" and gun owners; even though it's not supposed to bother American citizens. But laws have never stood in the way of the determined self-righteous American Left. Meanwhile, foreign terrorists will own the streets.

Saturday Pix

Christmas Edition. I hope you like the joke, cause they only make 1.

See, the Liberals would make laws apply to Santa. Conservatives totally wouldn't! That's the difference between the two parties.

See above.

See above

Wow! An original joke! Normal Rockwell also hated Hillary! Cause it's the American thing to do!

AIDS is so gay

Many Freepers either don't care about AIDS or think it is caused by irresponsibility, not some virus.

If I may be so bold....I hope that there is no vaccine.

Because, with all of the hype and hyperbole involved, the gov't would make it "mandatory". Or, would make, for instance, your employment contigent upon it.

Right now, I have a 0% chance of contracting the disease. That's good enough for me.

Who cares if people who aren't me are dying? And mandatory vaccines are just another example of nanny-stateism! If only we could have smallpox back like in the good old days.

Then there are the anti-scientific "lifestyle disease" people:

And yet prostitutes are plying their trade just like they have for millenia. If HIV were actually the cause of AIDS, they should all be dead by now.

Yeah! Same goes for Syphilis! And everybody breathes, if Tuberculosis were really caused by a bacterium, everyone should be dead!

HOW TO RESOLVE THE DEBATE

A relatively simple set of tests would quickly determine, once and for all, whether HIV (or any virus) causes AIDS:

1) The virus should be chemically active in more cells than the host can generate.

2) The symptoms of the disease should occur within weeks or months after infection.

3) The disease should spread relatively randomly among its potential hosts, rather than being confined to highly specific groups.

4) Antibodies produced by the immune system should be able to fight or completely neutralize the disease.

5) A controlled study, in which a group of people with the virus should be compared to a group without, to see whether those with the virus develop the sickness. The groups should be matched for all possible health risk factors: equivalent types and amounts of drug use, use of antibiotics, use of AZT, exposure to previous diseases, hemophilia, etc.

HIV, of course, already fails points (1) through (4), and we have little trouble anticipating the result of a controlled study.

1) so no viruses have a latency period, ever? Herpies, anyone?
2) See above. Also Lyme disease.
3) AIDS follows the standard STD transmission patterns, as far as I've heard
4) Cause Viruses never defeat the immune system! That's unpossible!
5) The latency issue would makes this a bit trickier, I'll bet no one without HIV gets AIDS...

The NIH keeps finding excuses as to why they won’t go along with Duesberg’s offer for them to inject him (and some other scientists, btw) with HIV to prove HIV does not cause AIDS. If Duesberg is so dangerous to public health, surely they should go along with his human experimentation proposal to put this thing to rest once and for all. But they won’t do it. Why am I not surprised?

Having a theory doesn't mean you ahve to be so convinced of it's correctness you'd stake your life on it! But I guess this issue is political enough, some people will do anything for publicity. If this Suesberg character really wants to, I'm sure he'd get enough press without the NIH.