Alec Baldwin Foolishly Claims Larry Craig Voted to ‘Censor’ Barney Frank

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | September 1, 2007 - 21:00 ET

If you needed any more evidence as to how little actor Alec Baldwin actually knows about politics, it was provided Saturday evening in the second sentence of his article at the Huffington Post (emphasis added):

"Even though [then Rep. Larry] Craig voted to censor Barney Frank for Frank's tryst with a male prostitute."

To begin with, Alec, the term is censure.

Adding insult to injury, a vote on censuring Frank never happened, for as reported by the New York Times on July 20, 1990 (emphasis added):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The House ethics committee voted today to recommend that Representative Barney Frank receive a formal reprimand from the House for his relationship with a male prostitute, Congressional officials said.

The committee's unanimous vote in a closed meeting ended months of deadlock among its 12 members over how harsh a punishment was appropriate, and the outcome was a stronger penalty than committee Democrats had wanted. One faction, led by Democrats, had pressed for a mild rebuke so the matter would not have to go to the full House. But some Republicans on the committee insisted on a stronger action, the officials said.

[...]

Although a reprimand is stronger than many members of the committee had wanted, it is not considered as severe as a censure or expulsion from the House.

In the end, the House voted in favor of the reprimand by a margin of 408 to 18, meaning, Alec, that virtually every member in the chamber agreed with the reprimand.

Regardless, this is just another example of liberal Hollywoodans knowing absolutely nothing about civics, even less about history, but feeling that their position as actors gives them the right to say whatever they want, regardless of accuracy, with total impunity.

Stick to acting, Alec, for your knowledge of anything actually important to anyone other than yourself is abysmally lacking.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

....Stick to Acting, Alex

Better yet, Alex....stick to keeping your promise to leave the country if Bush was re-elected.  You ain't for *%$^& as an actor.

neighb

Who is Alex?

The story is about his grammatical error, and I was about to post with "who's going to notice on this site anyway?" and then didn't have to. You proved it.

Actually, YOU proved MY point!

The poynt of my intensenal germattikal errer wuz juust to git a rize outta annuther lefty...an shore nuff it did!  Youse guys juust haffta stard litten up!!

 neighb

Gooooolly!

It sur es good tew no that their our sucht intillijint peephole on the NB whebsight - used tew bee that I kouldn't spel gradiate and now eye is won!

"Yeah, that's the ticket!" - Tommy Flanagan

goldun... and hear i thot

goldun...

and hear i thot i wuz awl bye my loansum....

The story is about his

The story is about his grammatical error...

First of all, censor versus censure is not a grammatical error, it is a spelling error.

However, the more important point is that Barney Frank was neither censured nor censored; he was reprimanded. In the in-house discipline structure of Congress these are two vastly different punishments, and so the story is that Baldwin (as usual) doesn't know what he's talking about because he couldn't be bothered to take 30 seconds to Google the difference between censure and reprimand.

Baldwin then further makes himself look stupid by making it sound as if Craig's vote was crucial in Frank being reprimanded, when in fact only 18 Congressmen voted against the reprimand. Craig could've abstained and nothing would've changed...

~~~

If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them!

Bat in the Hat

Perfect picture for a perfect idiot

Those who would expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it - Thomas Paine

Maybe one day he will come

Maybe one day he will come to his census.

Fairlight

FL,

Exactly. Or, at the very least, wake up and smell the coughing. :-) ns

Wonder if Obama makes him

Wonder if Obama makes him hot too?

Run, Alec, run!

Please!

For anything!

It would be interesting to see you actually wade into the arena of ideas.

--Mike

www.thebrattonreport.com

 

Mike

Mike,

"It would be interesting to see you actually wade into the arena of ideas."

Why? You like watching people drown? :-) ns

Right wing performers.

Are there any actors, singers, comedians etc that NB right wingers do like?

i

of course, aye

but enough about me, lets get back to the subject matter, is this the Alec you wish to defend?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

Yes, eyecare: Tom

Yes, eyecare: Tom Selleck

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln

Tom Selleck

"Selleck describes himself politically as ' a registered independant with a lot of libertarian leanings'." (Wikipedia)

But seriously.... what about real actors?

i-spy

you may find a Fred Thompson fan here

and your comment about 'real' actors? typical, just like Justice Thomas and Condi aren't black.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

Well, granted, Magnum P.I.

Well, granted, Magnum P.I. was a tour de force of acting, what with the ferrari and all. Then there was the majesty of Quigley Down Under, and...

:-)

 

funny Bal

Rocky now thats the ticket! 

Yo mick ya gotta cut me

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

How is Selleck not a real

How is Selleck not a real actor? Last time I checked, he was in more than one movie, and in a very popular tv series that lasted more than a season.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln

I know what you mean by real actors

John Voight is a supporter of the troops. 

EC

EC,

Tons. I love movies, music, and comedy. How 'bout you? ns

Me too, but most here seem

Me too, but most here seem to ridicule pretty much all actors.

Admittedly, free speech isn't supported on this site, so actors who speak out are condemned, but which ones DO fit the picture?

AYE

we ridicule the ones who open their mouths and say stupid things.  Did you check my link on this parent of the year?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

EC

EC,

Free speech isn't supported on this site? Really? Could you please tell me, as an associate editor, how your speech has been restricted here?

As always, I await your response with great antici......pation. ns

Gladly!

If I come on here with a name like "Killemalltwice", and say lots of "Yeah, LOL!, and all Liberals are better off dead" and then follow up with a closing quote like "Patriot Missiles are too good for 'em", then I will fit in; be accepted, and considered logical and intelligent.

If I happen to mention countries outside the US, or if I question the extreme opinions presented, then I am a troll.

That's not freedom of speech.

eyesore...

The very fact that you do not even know what FOS is could be a reason you are considered a troll. Work with facts from reliable resources and maybe someone will take you serious.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

Here we go. Banjo lessons

Here we go. Banjo lessons are finished for the day.

Eyesore babbles

Nice comment, Eye. Very insightful. Thanks for sharing.

No, really; did you mean

No, really; did you mean sources or resources? Did you mean "take you serious" or "take you seriously"?

Whenever you post, I can hear the "danga dang dang plunk plunk" in the background, but also the sound of ply panelling peeling off the walls of the trailer.

"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace"

and i nitpicks

grammer while his thoughts are void.  But you do have the 'i'm better than you fools' condescention down pat.  Bravo sir, to you the Oscar.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

eye...typical

I stand corrected...please forgive me. I am tired. In typical troll fashion, however, you changed subjects.

Do you have a playbook or does it come naturally?

Troll statement alert!!

What was that Eyecare???

"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace?"

Well, maybe just a piece at a time (no pun intended)

Japan was bombed into peace! Then, the world had peace.

History, my troll, history!

You can't Kumbaya the world into peace  - - - Sorry, it's true.

EC

EC,

Concerning your quote, "You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace," didn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually end World War II and result in peace? As such is the case, isn't your quote quite mistaken? ns

If any of you really knew

If any of you really knew about free speech, you would know that it wasn't my quote, but one of a famous song; banned in the US but played worldwide, about 3 years ago.

Noel, I assume you must be pretty ancient if you have those attitudes. Once your lot moves on, we can move forward.

You clearly love war. Tell us what arms companies we should buy shares in.

oh

it's from a famous song.  Damn the evidence to the contrary it must be true it's from a famous song!  Eye back to reality, just cause it's in a song (or a movie) doesn't say one whit as to it's validity.  Are you really as foolish as you make out to be?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

Well that post obviously

Well that post obviously demonstrates why you're too, um, "befuddled" to know why you were banned the first time.

Noel...I'm sure you're working hard on cleaning up that monitor!

Sheesh!  ROTFLMAO. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Troll alert 3 . . or is it 4?

"Once your lot moves on . . ."

Nice one, Eyecare. Hope your grandmother has a living will . . . .

But, I digress.

Nah! I'm older than Noel, and I will live until people like you are deported to the oppressor regime of your choice. Paid by my tax money, of course.

Arms companies you should buy? Don't trolls think Halliburton is a 'war' company?

Yee Haw! All of you. Just

Yee Haw! All of you.

Just wondering why you love war so much.

Freedom...

Freedom isn't Free!!!

Enough said.

Troll alert 5 . .or 6??

O-k, ok. We like war because it enables us to kill the nice folks who swore to kill us first.

And if they swore to kill you, Eyecare, we'd come down there and help you kill them so they won't kill you, too.

Now go potty and go to bed.

 

 

EC

EC,

You're an extraordinarily deluded, self-righteous liar, and it's quite obvious why you were banned:

If any of you really knew about free speech, you would know that it wasn't my quote, but one of a famous song; banned in the US but played worldwide, about 3 years ago.

This is from a Michael Franti tune called "Bomb the World" still available in America: http://www.amazon.co...

Go play with some folks your own age who believe the bilge you spew. I'm done with you! ns

 

Noel...

You beat me too it.

LK

LK,

This guy's a moron, and I now know what his previous SN was. Everybody should just ignore him until he gets banned, hopefully sooner rather than later.

As I'm sure you're away, we have fabulous relations with Australia. However, even our closest allies have America haters. Heck, we even have them here, and, contrary to what this cretin believes, we allow them to speak their vitriol wherever they want. In fact, in many instances, our tax dollars support their very expressions. :-) ns

Noel...exactly

God Bless Our Soldiers. The fight for our Freedoms. They fight for the Freedoms of the Iraqis. The fight for the Freedoms for Australians. Terrorists know no boundaries or borders...the next attack could be in Australia...God forbid. We are taking the war to the terrorists to avoid more tragic terrorist attacks.

 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

They only bombed us in

They only bombed us in Bali, and bombed London because of what GW Bush did.

We are only targets now because of the US. Don't make it sound like a favour!

Eye-diot

You show your ignorance. Like most liberals, you want to blame George Bush for all ill fortune. You view things in such a narrow-minded way. You cannot see the big picture. You truly are sad.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

Pathetic

Eyecare is a pathetic human being.  Nothing, not even his own political freedoms, are worth fighting for in his eyes.

His preferred response to the Bali bombings: instead of hunting down and killing those responsible, have all 19 million or so Australians sit on the ground and cry like three year olds for days on end, and have the government grovel and cave into the perpetrators as much as possible. 

I wonder if, wherever he lives in Australia, he campaigns for the disbanding of all law enforcement everywhere, because the ONLY reason people get robbed, ravished and pillaged is because governments even exist to begin with. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

They only bombed us in

They only bombed us in Bali, and bombed London because of what GW Bush did.

Right. George W. Bush was also responsible for the first bombing of the WTC in 1993.

</sarcasm> 

 

The whole reason I am here

The whole reason I am here is so that Right Wing Extremists don't start to think they are normal.

Australia is part of the Coalition, but opposition is similar to what it is in the US; about 70%. Luckily, we are free to openly dislike our PM.

Democracy kind of screws the pooch, doesn't it?

As soon as you guys get over your "America Haters" thing, you'll be better off. The whole problem in the first place was that you couldn't deal with the fact that someone actually attacked you.

IT WASN'T US OK? They hated your guts. We didn't.

Ummm, Eyecare!!

Ummm. Now don't get me angry!

I believe I told you to go potty and go to bed!!

You know how tired you are when you start posting things that are stupid and  . .

may I say . . .

trollish?

Now brush your tooth, kiss the poster of Fidel goodnight, and have sweet dreams of all those times you tapped your foot in a public bathroom stall and a cop wasn't seated next to you.

 

Oh right

we are not normal because some nut-job disagrees with us and calls us names.  Rather than worry about us, "You better free YOUR mind instead"

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

For Eyewhiner

"Luckily, we are free to openly dislike our PM."  You know, I kinda missed the time this past decade or so when the United States began putting people in the slam for political opposition.  Perhaps you can tell me when this happened?  For some strange reason, I can go into Barnes & Noble, no problem, and find much lit slamming the President, and even buy a calendar that counts down the days until 20 January 2009. 

And as for not dealing with the fact that someone actually attacked us...you may want to ask the Japanese what happened to them when they attacked us.  It sounds to me you are simply bitter because your country CANNOT act unilaterally.

Oh, and if this opposition to the war is about 70%, maybe you can explain why John Howard has been PM for the past eleven years, and this is in a country where the federal elections are held once every THREE years!   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

I've replied you on the

I've replied you on the other post as well.

I can't see much in this one that actually makes sense. Yes, we are free to openly dislike our PM. That's what is great about Australia. What's wrong? Are you jealous?

He won't get shot or anything, like he will in other less stable places in the world, where guns are glorified, and done so for anti government reasons.

Yes, you were attacked. No one denies that. As a Brit, 69 Brits died too. As an Aussie, my mate lost his brother in one of the Towers.

Why do you think we would deny it?

 

 But, who did you attack? You seem to need to think that Iraq attacked the US. Six years later, it's still not true.

As for your final point.... Opposition is the same in Australia i.e. 70%; as it is in your country. We hate Howard, and the US hates Bush. Difference is, Bush doesn't care. He's out at the end of his term. Howard can still get back in.

Australians vote mainly by economics, when all is well. Australian soldiers aren't dying in Iraq.

Oh, eyewhiner....

 I can't see much in this one that actually makes sense. Yes, we are free to openly dislike our PM. That's what is great about Australia. What's wrong? Are you jealous?  Eyewhiner, as the son of an eyeglass maker, you need some SERIOUS eyecare.  You may want to read the part where I stated that I can walk into a Barnes & Noble in the United States and get much anti-Bush literature; you can even buy a (get this!) a calendar which counts the days until 20 January 2009!!!  Do you know what that means?  Read VERY SLOWLY.  Apparently the Australian educational system sucks as much as ours does in the States.

Slamming and criticizing the President is allowed AND encouraged here.  Maybe you should actually TRY visiting the United States sometime and see for yourself.  You will most likely be deposited in Los Angeles or San Francisco, cities where any adulation of the President will be met with extreme hostility.  Indeed, I just visited a major Midwestern metropolis recently that is very far Left (Chicago), yet they are all perfectly free to disagree with the President on many issues, contrary to the illusions you puff yourself up with. 

So, are YOU jealous...of my literacy?  You should be. 

It seems you are quite scared of armed populations.  You must hate Switzerland then.  Did you know that unlike the United States, every able-bodied male is required by law to own one of two types of handgun?  Did you also know that in Israel, a heavily-armed nation, street crime is a rare occurrence?  Why is this?  A heavily armed population!  In TX, you will notice that the population is extremely polite by U.S. standards,especially when contrasted with the northeastern U.S.  Perhaps one reason for this is the fact that Texans can apply for, and be issued, concealed handgun permits.  It also tends to keep criminals at bay for some strange reason.  Yet, our political leaders feel safe.

But, who did you attack?  Afghanistan, Iraq, and just a few months ago, some terrorists in Somalia.   You seem to need to think that Iraq attacked the US. Did Germany attack the United States in December 1941, or anytime proceeding December 1941?  Six years later, it's still not true.  Again, did Germany attack the United States in December 1941 or anytime before that? 

As for your final point.... Opposition is the same in Australia i.e. 70%; as it is in your country. We hate Howard, and the US hates Bush. Difference is, Bush doesn't care. He's out at the end of his term. Howard can still get back in.  If Howard can still get back in, then your 70% opposition number is dubious at best.  Again, your talent at missing the point is amazing.  Howard first attained the Prime Ministership in March 1996.  Your PM faces more frequent elections than the U.S. President does; hence, your country has had multiple opportunities to evict Howard from office...yet, it has not done so. We should be talking about PM Beazley or PM Latham, yet, this simply is not the case.  Why is that?  Maybe you can talk to me about 70% opposition after Rudd wins the election (if that happens), scheduled for November IIRC.  Until then,maybe you should just hold the election, just in case.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

It's 70% opposition to the

It's 70% opposition to the war. I probably didn't explain it properly.

Also, I would love to visit the US. I have no issue at all with that.

I mentioned the bit about being openly allowed to oppose our PM because so many posters on this site have said that I should respect the POTUS. Fair enough, I shouldn't claim that that included you.

So many people here try to use the Germany WW2 situation to support Iraq, and you personally, surprise me because it is so flawed. No, Hitler hadn't invaded the US, but the US admirably went and defended countries that Hitler was invading. It was nothing like now!

This thing about me being anti Anti US is a myth. I'm like GW is finding at the moment at APEC  about Australia; very pro US; very anti Bush. Mind you, he didn't help his cause by calling it OPEC, and thanking the Austrian troops! You know I'll never be a fan of how he mangles the language!

Got to hand it to the Big Guy, though, he doesn't do anything by halves. 700 people in his crew. That's impressive!

He also has a certain charm. When he's not trying to make a speech, or sell the war, he's a hell of a lot more eloquent. His thanks to the Sydney population were genuine, as his his friendship with John Howard.

I just don't agree with the guys. That's allowed.

Did I miss any points?

PS, I read it very slowly, and I wrote back even slower. Jan 20, 2009 is the 100th anniversary of the disastrous Water Crib Fire in Chicago 1909. 60 men died.

Try and try again

So many people here try to use the Germany WW2 situation to support Iraq, and you personally, surprise me because it is so flawed. No, Hitler hadn't invaded the US, but the US admirably went and defended countries that Hitler was invading. It was nothing like now!  Just as the United States admirably went and defended countries that Iraq invaded (like Kuwait) and eventually removed a dictator that was slaughtering his own people.  Hitler used Zyklon-B, Saddam Hussein used nerve gas.  Sorry, the analogy WORKS!  Try again! 

This thing about me being anti Anti US is a myth.  You could have fooled me, by your very own posts. I'm like GW is finding at the moment at APEC  about Australia; very pro US; very anti Bush. Mind you, he didn't help his cause by calling it OPEC, and thanking the Austrian troops! You know I'll never be a fan of how he mangles the language!  You know, I will never be a fan of elitist snobbery either.  It amazes me how many people will happily vote for crappy leadership as long as he/she SOUNDS good (not that, surprise, I am the biggest Bush fan, which I am not). 

I read it very slowly, and I wrote back even slower. Jan 20, 2009 is the 100th anniversary of the disastrous Water Crib Fire in Chicago 1909. 60 men died.  Now, smarta$$, consult the 20th Amendment of the United States Constitution.   

Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. 

Bet that's the first time

Bet that's the first time you've ever heard of it, though. You didn't earlier. Be honest.

Michael recently toured Iraq, and played to the troops. He has never been popular with the US government.

Own up.

Michael recently toured

Michael recently toured Iraq, and played to the troops. He has never been popular with the US government.

Own up.

What does this have to do with your original lie that he was banned?  

 

Another lie from the eye-troll

The song is by Michael Franti and is available on Amazon. So much for it being banned.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

Amazon

Lyingthing, websites don't count, ok?

When you commit your next crime, your lawyer will organise a suppression order so that your name is protected in your state, but people will be able to find it on the internet.

Troll alert 7 . .8 or 9?

Why don't you tell Uncle Mica about your crime and some 'suppression' order those bad people did to you?

C'mon, Eyecare. I want to help.

eyesore...define banned

You claimed that this popular song was banned...how so? Do you care to define banned?

eye...facts got you again

What's the matter, Troll? Did getting caught in a lie hurt your feelings?

PM me

PM me

Why not?

Why do websites not count?  They are easily censored; just ask the Chinese.  Or the North Koreans, who are more than likely not even aware of the existence of the Internet (save Kim Jong-Il). 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Lyingthing, websites don't

Lyingthing, websites don't count, ok?

Fine. You can buy Franti's crap at a Best Buy store. But I assume that also doesn't count now since it torpedos your claim.

Eyecare, you are an idiot of the first order.

You clearly love war. Tell us what arms companies we should buy shares in.

Noel "loves" war"?

No sane person "loves" war, you mindless twit, but some of us realize that it is necessary at times, unlike you "peace at any price" types who would willingly live in slavery rather than fight for your own freedom, if not your very own lives.

You clearly support "peace at any price" and to hell with the consequences.

So did many French in the early forties.

You are an idiot.

Ruff!...Ruff!Ruff!Ruff!

-my schnoodle Oliver.

No sane person loves war

I think you are right. So, why is the Coalition there now? Because GW loves war. He wants to be like his "daydy" and wants to be a war president, so idiots happily send American kids to get killed for no reason, just because they believe an idiot they elected.

What really sh*ts me right now is that soldiers will continue to die through pure political arogance, for this idiot, even though public opinion clearly shows that the "war" is as popular as a turd in a pool, and will probably be over in a few months, so why kill the kids now?

 

What is "arogance"?

Is it what a condescending troll displays while making his own grammatical errors, or something?

Dave you are too kind

I'd say he's not above a third-order idiot

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

Dave R... He should be on

Dave R...

He should be on his knees thanking all of our and his Forefathers for the freedom he has to be able to express himself now....

Blood was adn is being sacrificed for ungrateful people like eye... and a mulitude of others.

Despicable...

but hey...that's just me. 

bt,

LOL-I agree.

See above.

Ruff!...Ruff!Ruff!Ruff!

-my schnoodle Oliver.

Painful reality check for eyecare

I don't love war.  I can't, because unlike whiners and complainers like you, I fight them (as do other posters on this board). 

But the reality is that violence DOES work and solve lots and lots of problems.  If sitting around whining and crying about evil in the world solved anything, please explain why the "SAVE DARFUR" bumper-stickers have NOT saved Darfur.  If talking to your enemies is 100% effective, please explain why we celebrate Churchill, not Chamberlain.  If violence doesn't work:

1) Please explain why Korea is not united under the Kim dynasty.

2) Please explain why Hitler left his conquered territories in Europe.

3) Please explain why King George III left the American colonies to their own devices in 1781.

4) Please explain why there is no such country today as Byzantium, with a capital at Constantinople.

5) Please explain what happened to Carthage (h/t to Heinlein).

By you last whiny remark, am I to guess that you lust to steal from Boeing, among others?   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Your best question was the

Your best question was the first one. Why aren't we in Darfur?

There is a clear reason why we should be, but no........ Iraq has OIL!

I squirm on this site every time some ignorant fart says "Look at how bad it was under Saddam" and I wonder if they even know where Iraq is, because that ignorant fart in 2007 seems to think that the people who did 9/11 came from Iraq.

I think most of you do too!

mores lies from eyes

and you don't know what a facade is?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

For Eyewhiner

Actually, Sudan does in fact have much oil and is exported in great quantity to China.

Also, never has the Bush administration ever made a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11/01. 

I realize you LOVE the idea of having your life completely micromanaged and totally controlled by the State (never mind the complete demise of such things as The Second World), but you have to admit that having a dictator that uses nerve gas on his own people is not a good thing.  Don't whine to me either about how the sanctions were "hurting the people" or whatever...because if Saddam decided to use the funds he was permitted to feed his own people, instead of enriching himself and stuffing his army to the gills, maybe his people wouldn't have suffered any. 

I also realize you believe yourself to be the smartest person on NB, but you clearly have not a clue of what you are talking about.  Instead of talking down to others and doing everything in your power to be as insulting as possible, I would suggest you study some more of world geography, history, human nature and politics, because you are clearly completely ignorant of them all from everything you have posted.

By the way, before you blame George Bush for everything imaginable, I suggest you start at home with another leader I have a great deal of respect for, PM John Howard (bet you have him and are aching to vote Labour/Kevin Rudd).

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Eyecare,

If I were you, I'd be in church tomorrow am, face down on my knees, thanking God Almighty that the US of A even exists as a nation.

Otherwise, at this very moment, you would be most likely speaking Japanese, driving around in a Toyota, and singing the praises of Tojo, while eating rice on a stick.

Ruff!...Ruff!Ruff!Ruff!

-my schnoodle Oliver.

You mean to tell us that

You mean to tell us that Michael Franti was banned in the US? Methinks someone better cite some sources, because Spearhead has been touring the US all summer, unless I am mistaken. Unlike Noel, I do not await a response with anticipaaaation, because I know Eyecare here has no response. Prove me wrong, you dill.

 

Franti

US radio stations won't play him. That's a ban. What's the point in being able to buy an album if you can't hear it first?

how's that eye?

we must be FORCED to listen to what YOU want or it's a ban.

you are the gestapo and a disingenous liar

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

US Radio stations also

US Radio stations also don't play In the Garden of Eden by Iron Butterfly. Even when one requests it 99 times out of 100 it won't be played. Figure out why.

I'm sure Air America would have it as their theme song. Oh wait, no one wanted to listen to them, so they bombed!

And just because your little song doesn't make it onto the airwaves doesn't mean it's the only song that liberals should be crying for "justice and equality" (which ends up being that the song is played 25 hours a day on all FM stations and over Rush/Sean/Gibson). Plenty of songs don't make the cut. There's an Offspring song I have in mind, but I can't remember the title (from the first album), that's talking about killing the president. That one NEVER gets played on the radio. Your pseudo national anthem of a song is not the only white man in the Apollo.

There's a reason why radio stations play hits or programs that are popular. If they took the socialist approach and tried to play everything equally, they would go out of business and fail, much like the whole idea of socialism to begin with.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln

Wow. You truly have a

Wow. You truly have a Hulk-like grasp of the record industry, dontcha, Sparky?

Stick to things you know about. I realize that would mean you will not have anything to talk about, but at least you will not reveal yourself to be a dumbass when you keep your mouth shut.

 

Bans

No, Eyewhiner, it is NOT a ban if U.S. radio stations will not play him.  That just means that U.S. radio stations will not play him.  By your logic, Dream Theater is a victim of censorship.

You may call them a ban ONLY if you can prove the government is ordering those radio stations not to play his music, which is expressly forbidden under the U.S. Constitution, if you have bothered to read it.

Back in 1987 or so, the band Simply Red released a song called "Money's Too Tight To Mention".  When U.S. audiences determined that it was a slap at Reagan (and it was), those audiences called the radio stations to request it not be played.  Now, that wasn't a ban, either, for the listening audience was taking their grievance to the radio stations and threatening them with a shutoff of radios.  There IS a difference between that and government intervention.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Noel, regarding EC ;Terms like Unconditional Surrender are not

 on his list of options ,with his stewpid quote..

UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER  as a strategy has not been used sinse WW II. 

 Where we really used ALL means possible, to end that war.

Man oh man  unconditional surrender really worked good, then.

And what about now ,we just kickin back waiting for 911 -2. 

Entitlement over infrastructure every SINGLE time.

 

Eye-spy

we ain't yet begun

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

Good one, Brucie. I think

Good one, Brucie.

I think I need to rent that for the Plasma.  Haven't seen it in years.  I love John Voight & Burt Reynolds in that movie. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive