Cuban Defector

Not as interesting as Kasparov being attacked by a flying penis...

http://www.nycresistor.com/2008/05/19/robotic-flying-penis-assaults-gary-kasparov/

"A rare Eev Trifecta"
:)
Hehe

OK, that's get's my vote as weirdest/funniest thing I've ever read in chess. Guess you could say Kasparov got the shaft...

Kasparov attacked by penis... I'm still laughing! ROTFLMAO!

hahaha, that's hilarious, poor Kaspy, he is so serious talking about something important and *BUMP* a flying penis gets flying in, hahaha.

Mig, don't you think Kaspy attacked by a penis deserves a separate post?

Posting the YouTube link of the Kasparov incident (http://youtube.com/watch?v=vbnySBqioB0) would be to dignify this in a way it no wise deserves.

If I covered every piece of stupid Putinjugend provocation against Garry, and some would be funny were I on the other side, I'd hardly have any space for chess material. This sort of thing happens all the time. In most places, such guerrilla tactics and street theater are entirely reserved for the marginalized opposition against those in power. In Russia today, like so many things, that has been turned on its head by the incredibly aggressive campaign by the state to attack any and all forms of opposition in as many ways as possible.

They see youth groups and street action having success in Ukraine and Georgia (some of it assisted by the West) so they form their own well-sponsored loyalist youth groups and street actions. You'd think being paid Kremlin cash to perform such stunts would take the fun out of acting like a rebel, but apparently not enough.

For those interested, when it happens, Garry says "We have to be thankful for the opposition's demonstration of the type of discourse we can anticipate. Also, apparently most of their arguments are located beneath the belt." Someone in the audience says, "Finally the political power shows its face!" and Garry says "Well, if that's its face..." to laughter from the audience.

hi Mig, have you seen this @#$% attack on Kasparov!&http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article3720115.ece

Mig, now that the presidential elections are over, why is Kasparov still touring Russia? Are there any other opportunities to protest - provincial elections etc?

I think after the rape of Russia by Western interests with full cooperation from Yeltsin, the Russian people have become aware of the nature of Western Capitalism. It is only natural that they prefer somebody who promises to uphold the interests of Russia.

Kasparov is seen as a mere pawn in the hands of those who would rape Russia yet again. Therefore, he is extremely unpopular in Russia, but is the darling of the Western media, the same Western media that believed Bush on Iraq's WMD, and seems to be willing to prtray Iran as worse than Hitler!

Good or bad, the Kasparov/flying penis video is hugely popular at places like youtube and myspace. great, a whole new generation of people can think of kasparov and say, "isn't he the guy who got attacked by a flying penis?"

Thanks for saying what has to be said, Anon.

Hey Mig, any Info on Garry's reaction after being attacked by the flying P, also know as the "P-Copter".
HAHAHAHA

that penis-copter sure added the necessary weight to kasparov's political speech... mad respect to the state tactics, they know how to handle a situation - whether with radioactive poison or flying phallus

Boy, that sure made Kaspy look like a diick

Especially when what has to be said is such facile nonsense. I love how people toss around phrases like "Kasparov is seen" without thinking about what they mean. Ask *why* Kasparov is seen that way and you start approaching the problem correctly. Nobody who "sees" him that way has ever heard him speak for himself. Non-stop Kremlin propaganda through state-controlled media is hardly an open discussion. Kasparov and everyone else who has anything critical to say about the Putin regime is blacklisted from the media. (One radio station being a tenuous exception.) So the vast majority of Russian opinion about his political career, where there is one, is based solely on what those who are trying to discredit him say. Again, how would most Russians know what Kasparov says about politics? From the papers and tv, all run by Kremlin loyalists? Only a fraction get news from the internet.

Kasparov doesn't talk about opening Russia to the West. This isn't 1990. Russia is already open. The looting is being done by Russians, not westerners. There are already more Russians than Japanese on the Forbes list of billionaires. This is not due to business acumen or the success of domestic industry. It is due to the state-managed funneling of assets into private hands, a few hands friendly to (or actually part of) the ruling clique.

As for the "interests of Russia," turning it into a corrupt KGB-run petro-state with an oligarchy rich beyond the dreams of anyone around Yeltsin doesn't seem to fit the bill very well. Only the sky-high price of oil and gas has stopped the internal weakness of the Russian economy and infrastructure from collapsing. Fundamental things like food production have fallen to record lows in the last eight years. And if you want to look at the false friend of macro numbers, even with the incredibly high energy prices, in Putin's era Russia's economy has grown at a rate slower than all but two other former Soviet republics.

Routine "strong Russia" blather is easy and fun and requires nothing more than accepting the loss of personal freedom. Kasparov wants a strong Russia too. That would include not having to import half its food, not relying on Soviet-era defense technology, and not having banking and education systems near collapse from negligence. Bullying weak neighbors and trashing Yeltsin shouldn't doesn't serve as policy, unfortunately. That Russians are better off now than in the USSR doesn't mean they don't deserve free and fair elections, a free media, and an independent judiciary. These things are not, as the Kremlin would like you to believe, incompatible with a strong and stable country.

As for the West and those in it who support Kasparov, there were similar comments about western support of the Soviet-era dissidents. Of course they wanted to weaken the Soviet state, the traitorous bastards. Hating the Putin regime doesn't mean hating Russia. (This is the same tactic Bush has used, equating dissent against his policies with a lack of patriotism. Though pretty much every politician does this to a certain degree.) Wanting a democratic Russia doesn't mean thinking Yeltsin was a paragon.

The flying penis will of course be quite a hit on YouTube, but as I said above, it didn't really make much of an impression at the time. They're used to it. It would only be a surprise if there weren't a disruption.

Thanks for saying what has to be said, Mig.

Incidentally, dont get so wound up about acirce's comments, he believes Sweden is a police state... Enuf said eh?

Perhaps russsians prefer a state that doesn't pretend so hard that it is democratic. Maybe they understand that a free media is not really free just controlled by oligarchs rather than the state (same thing different hair cut). Alot of today's political systems are legalised and deceptive forms of corruption. Take the US campaign donation's pay for policies any who looks at what really happens know's that's true! They just hide that under the pretense of a real democracy.

Great comments on Russia, Mig.

A question on your single comment on the U.S., though: "This is the same tactic Bush has used, equating dissent against his policies with a lack of patriotism." Can you point out a single example of anything he has done or said that can in any way be interpreted as "equating dissent against his policies with a lack of patriotism"?

I don't question Kasparov's patriotism or his commitment, but I do wonder whether a Wall Street Journal columnist ("capitalist tool," if you will) is the best emissary for political reform in Russia.

But that's a strategic and not a moral question.

Please remember Victor Jara in the Santiago Stadium.

I am not really going to get involved but it should be said that anyone who thinks Putin's economic nationalism is good for Russians (as opposed to good for Russia-qua-the-State) doesn't know anything about Russia.

Also, Yeltsin's policies were (to the extent they were bad) facilitating a kleptocracy by Russian billionaires, not foreign interests.

Of course (and this is Kasparov's problem) Russians don't think of what-is-good-for-Russians and what-is-good-for-the-State in nearly so dichotomous terms as do those of us who grew up on the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, and Voltaire.

Kasparov is a WSJ columnist because he is an agitator for reform, not the other way around. Of course, he is also the author of business books.

I don't think there's any serious question that Bush has equated failure to support his policies with lack of patriotism. Witness John Kerry's vote against funding the Iraq war. Again, to echo the previous poster, this is a strategic, not a moral question. All strong chief executives use patriotism as a whip.

this deliberate mistranslation has some humor value

http://youtube.com/watch?v=haRZxPw0JYg&feature=related

Let's see if I got your logic right, gmc. John Kerry voted against continued funding for the Iraq war, therefore Bush accuses those who disagree with him of being unpatriotic. Case closed!

If we are going to have kasparov spouting by MIG on Russia lets at least get some balance and not assertions unsupported by data

"food production [has] fallen to record lows in the last 8 years"

Actually agricultural policy has been much better under Putin than Yeltsin or Gorbachov.
Between 1999 and 2005 , agricultural production increased substantially and the sector become more stable. Although these improvements are a part of Russia’s overall economic growth, it has been convincingly argued that it has been facilitated by the policies of the Putin administration.

"In Putin's era Russia's economy has grown at a rate slower than all but 2 other former Soviet Republics"

Russia ended 2007 with its ninth straight year of growth, averaging 7% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. Although high oil prices and a relatively cheap ruble initially drove this growth, since 2003 consumer demand and, more recently, investment have played a significant role. No former Soviet republic can match this average over the last 9 years.

Banking near collapse through negligence? - do you do any research to back up this stuff at all MIG or just recycle Gary's polemics?? Please tell me when the banking system in Russia was better than it is now. Under the soviets what system?? Under Yeltsin? It was virtually completely run by organised crime. Putin is a fascist but distorting the facts is not going to help.

Pawn star Garry Kasparov checkmated by flying penis

Russia Years Ahead Of Us In Remote Control Flying Penis Technology

This is not funny!

Finally McCain has the campaign issue he's been casting about for!

A (flying penis) Missile Gap!

Come to think of it, maybe Hillary will grab this issue and ride it (I couldn't resist that one) before McCain does, in a last-ditch bid to save her campaign.

Distant echoes of the 11th-hour issue that won the 1960 election for JFK (Or, was it the Nixon camp that drummed up the "missile gap"? Assuming it referred to ballistic, i.e., nuclear-armed missiles, then in 1960 there would have been a huge gap between the US and USSR - in favor of the US, of course.)

I did not think it was controversial that the campaign issue made out of the vote against the war ("John Kerry doesn't support the troops, etc.) was a patriotism issue.

Note, again, that I don't blame anyone for this. I just provided an example of "unpatriotic" labels being tossed around by the administration.

Concrete evidence supporting at least one portion of Mig's comments - identifying which group (the Russian population, or a Yeltsin-era-style cabal of favored flunkies) benefits from Putin's autocracy:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3972979.ece

gmc, you make up a quote that doesn't use "unpatriotic" and call it a concrete example of the administration tossing around "unpatriotic" labels. Even if you seriously looked for a real example, you would not find it because GWB never said anything of the sort about John Kerry (or anyone else, I'd bet).

In the campaign he did talk a lot about national security. "Here is what John Kerry says and does about national security. Can we afford to elect someone with those views?" There was never even a hint about a "patriotism" issue from the Bush campaign, but there was quite a lot of questioning of Kerry's judgment.

I thought this was a chess blog?
Does anyone know the dates for this year's Mainz Chrss tournament? I'm going to be visiting family in Germany this August and am hoping to catch it.

This is a "How Life Imitates Chess" blog. And mucho vice-versa. On that score, today's comments have seriously given me new thoughts about how to extend chess to make it more computer-resistant, a task a certain friend of Mig told me I should dedicate my life to.

Inspired by double-bughouse, we can make certain pieces "helicopterable". Now helicopters were originally invented by Nature for maple trees. For what purpose...ah! We can give a new meaning to the term "mate" on a chessboard! I don't mean the idea of coupling Knight-Bishop and Knight-Rook to produce the pieces in "Gothic Chess", but real fertilization, birth, and growth. E.g. when a "Rookie" is born, it can initially move only 1 square, but after 2 moves it can move 2, then as a move-teenager it can move freely but has to stay on the home side of the board; only 21 moves after birth can it set off on its own and mate. To mate a piece must move off the board thru the opponent's back row, then at a later move it can helicopter onto any piece it chooses.

A Rook (elephant) plus a Knight give birth to a, hmmmm... Finally and most important, when a draw offer is accepted the peace is consummated by an arranged marriage of opposites, giving birth to mestizo pieces controllable by either side, and (like with Mordred in Arthurian legend) the battle resumes...

Hey Dan,

"Can you point out a single example of anything he has done or said that can in any way be interpreted as "equating dissent against his policies with a lack of patriotism"?

Where to start? In your next post you backed down right away, shortening the demand to what was said and not also what was done. But to respond to both:

Bush spoke these words on national television: "Either you're with us or with the terrorists."

Then came Ari Fleischer's press conference longeurs regarding the unpatriotic act of speaking out, always prefaced with "The President believes..."

There followed the hearings on the Patriot Act, during which AG Ashcroft called potential congressional opponents of the Act traitors -- and remember this was a pre-emptive strike, a warning against the possibility of an unwelcome thought expressed regarding the Act, not yet a response to active criticism.

This was policy straight from the top and enforced down through the executive and only a tiny bit of what Mig rightly points out is a swagger stick for all politicians. Have you been outta town since the 2000 election?

Thanks for at least attempting the challenge of finding ANY evidence that GWB ever called John Kerry or anyone else "unpatriotic" for opposing his policies. But even you must admit the attempt is pretty lame.

As for GWB's words on national television a few days after 9/11/01, a tiny bit of context helps:

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

That is clearly not calling his domestic political rivals "unpatriotic" or anything like it. Nations that harbor and support terrorism are acting against the U.S.

And regarding Ari Fleischer and John Ashcroft, what specifically did they say? Did they say that rival policies would be harmful to the country [i.e., political rivals have bad ideas]? Or did they say that rivals are deliberately harming the country [i.e., political rivals are unpatriotic]? There is a world of difference between the two, and the administration has bent over backwards to focus on rival policies and not on rivals' motives.

It is completely legitimate for the President (or other politicians, of whatever stripe) to say to his political rivals, "Your policy ideas are stupid and would harm the country." On the other hand, it would be slimy to say, "Your policy ideas are stupid; you want to harm the country." I don't think you'll be able to find an example.

"There is a world of difference between the two"

You created the "two" from whole cloth, and you won't dictate terms to obfuscate the record. This is chessninja, not a fallacious-logic audition for the National Review Online (but all the same, it's good of you to leave in the applause break for us ROFL).

However what Fleischer and Ashcroft said is very much on the record for you to search on LexisNexis, as is the president's official policy -- the same one dusted off and and redeployed for the swift-boat demolition of Kerry's candidacy.

Such robotic and tautological arguments should have gone out with the betamax and women who won't go down. You're called out. Now let's send this forum back to chess where it belongs.

Amonatov rocks.

A helicocker?

felipe, you suck

Crackity,
"Patriotism" means love of country and doing things with the intent of helping it. There is a clear difference between doing something stupid that harms the country (poor judgment) and doing something to intentionally harm the country (unpatriotic). The administration is capable of understanding the distinction and, as far as I can tell, have wholly refrained from any accusations of "unpatriotic".

Is the distinction important?

An analogy: If a train kills a drunk who was sleeping on the railroad tracks, we don't charge the engineer with murder. And when GWB says that John Kerry's policy proposal is a train wreck, it would be wrong, deceptive, and slimy to accuse him of calling Kerry a murderer.

Your attempts at misdirection are painful to watch, Dan. You can keep grooming your strawman all the way to a stylist diploma, but this remains a chess forum (politics too, but restricted to Kasparovian political theory); so why not find a chess issue to cloud up? There's plenty of those here.

Crackity, are you clubfoot?? I am impressed by your vocabulary as well as your writing!

Helicopterable pieces; birth, fertilization, and growth...we need vagina, womb, placenta, and fetus as new pieces to accompany Mr. Penis, with blasto-Americans as pluripotent pawns. Let the fertility rites begin!

Semi-seriously: maybe the Putin "critique" of Kasparov is more primal (Blut und Boden, with all that implies) than is apparent?

Seriously: I already suck at classical chess, and now you're going to make it harder?

Dalthorp: You've hit the Trifecta, managing to be obtuse, pedantic and naive...all at the same time. It's true that Bush has rarely indulged in direct attacks against the patriotism of political opponents; he has plenty of surrogates, PR flacks and political flunkies to articulate those type of attacks more directly.

Bush himself relies more on suggestion and innuendo, for a more subtle type of plitical smear.

Apparently, you are satisfied being one of the Bushies' "Useful Idiots". Well, have fun!

"...the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." [Bush remarks in Trenton, New Jersey, 9/23/02

BUSH ATTACKED PATRIOTISM OF SENATE DEMOCRATS

President Bush Implied That Senators Who Disagreed With Him On The Structure Of A Homeland Security Department Were Not Interested In America's Security.

Speaking in New Jersey, the president referred to the Senate's consideration of a bill creating the Homeland Security Department. Bush declared, "I asked Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time so we can better assure America we're doing everything possible. The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." [Bush remarks in Trenton, New Jersey, 9/23/02, emphasis added]

=====================================
During the debate over President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, two Republican senators are the latest members of their party to suggest that dissent encourages the enemy and hurts the troops. John Cornyn said, "To offer nonbinding resolutions which encourage our enemies and undermine our allies and deflate the morale of our troops is, to me, the worst of all possible worlds." And Jon Kyl stated, that "[t]he worst thing would be for the Senate by 60 votes to express disapproval of a mission we are sending people to lay down their lives for." I've added their statements to my timeline of GOP attacks on dissent since 9/11, which is below the fold.

December 2001: In response to Democratic plans to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration's anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

February 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expresses mild disagreement with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror "is still somewhat in doubt." In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country."

May 2002: After the disclosure that President Bush received a general warning about possible Al Qaeda hijackings prior to 9/11, Democrats demand to know what other information the administration had before the attacks. In response, White House communications director Dan Bartlett says that the Democratic statements "are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do."

September 2002: Campaigning against Democrats who did not support his legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security (a department whose creation he had previously opposed), President Bush said that "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

September 2004: As John Kerry steps up his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and the war on terror, Republicans repeatedly suggest that he is emboldening the enemy. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) says that "while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." President Bush says, "You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message... You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages." And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claims that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry," adding that Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."

In addition, South Dakota GOP chair Randy Frederick attacked Senator Tom Daschle, saying "Daschle's three years as Complainer in Chief have brought shame to the honor of his office, concern to our men and women in uniform, and comfort to America's enemies." When asked about this comment, John Thune, Daschle's opponent, cited Daschle's statement that President Bush "failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war" before the invasion of Iraq, saying "What it does is emboldens our enemies and undermines the morale of our troops," adding, "His words embolden the enemy."

July 2005: Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something "done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Presidential adviser Karl Rove responds by suggesting that Durbin and other liberals seek to put US troops in danger, saying that "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

November/December 2005: With critics of the war in Iraq growing increasingly vocal, Republicans lash out, suggesting that Democrats are encouraging the enemy and want to surrender to terrorists. President Bush says that "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) states that "Many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender" and Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) says that "[T]he liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies."

After DNC chairman Howard Dean says "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," Republicans reiterate the same line of attack. House Speaker Dennis Hastert says Dean "made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender" and GOP chairman Ken Mehlman says Dean's statement "sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people."

January 2006: President Bush suggests that "defeatists" on Iraq are disloyal by contrasting them with a "loyal opposition," stating that the American people "know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

March 2006: Senator Russ Feingold introduces a motion to censure President Bush. In response, Republicans suggest that he is harming national security and endangering US troops. RNC chairman Ken Mehlman says that "Democrat leaders never miss an opportunity to put politics before our nation's security" and that they would "would rather censure the President for doing his job than actually fight the War on Terror," refers to "repeated Democrat attempts to weaken these efforts to fight the terrorists and keep American families safe," and states that "Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind." Senator John Cornyn adds that the resolution would "make the jobs of our soldiers and diplomats harder and place them at greater risk."

June 2006: In response to Democratic calls for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, President Bush suggests that Democrats want to surrender. "There's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done," he said. "They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world will be worse off." However, Bush adviser Dan Bartlett is unable to name a single Democrat to which this description applies.

September 2006: During a press conference the day after the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11th, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said, "I wonder if they [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people," adding, "They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them." When asked if he intended to accuse Democrats of treason, Boehner replied, "I said I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists... They certainly don't want to take the terrorists on in the field."

After Democratic House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said the capture of Osama bin Laden would not make the US any safer, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said "Where do your loyalties lie?" while standing next to a poster depicting Pelosi and her statement.

Senator Rick Santorum also attacked Democratic minority leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, saying, "If you listen to the Democratic leader, our lesson is: . . . Let's put domestic politics ahead of the security of this country. That's the message."

October 2006: In emails to GOP supporters, President Bush asserted that Democrats "will wave the white flag of surrender in the global war on terror" if they win the 2006 election; RNC chairman Ken Mehlman used Democratic opposition to the Military Commissions Act to suggest they do not want to interrogate terrorists, stating that "84% of the Democrats in the House voted against interrogating terrorists, as did 73% of the Democrats in the Senate"; and Senator Sam Brownback claimed Democrats "want to ... weaken our ability to fight an effective War on Terror."

January 2007: Defense Secretary Robert Gates denounces a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, saying, "I think it's pretty clear that a resolution that, in effect, says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries. I think it's hard to measure that with any precision, but it seems pretty straightforward that any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks. And I'm sure that that's not the intent behind the resolutions, but I think it may be the effect."

Appearing on "Meet the Press," Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says that "I think that's a dangerous position to take, to oppose a sitting commander in chief while we've got people being shot at on the ground. I think it'€™s one thing to have a debate and a discussion about this strategy, but to openly oppose, in essence, the strategy, I think that can be a very risky thing for our troops." Senator John Cornyn said, "To offer nonbinding resolutions which encourage our enemies and undermine our allies and deflate the morale of our troops is, to me, the worst of all possible worlds." And Senator Jon Kyl added that "[t]he worst thing would be for the Senate by 60 votes to express disapproval of a mission we are sending people to lay down their lives for."

You know Doug, that wasn't really necessary, sledge to a fly and all that.

Moreover, of the nearly 2,000 words in your post, not one is "chess", which appears at least once in this post.

Crackity J and DOug,
In DOug's defense, he didn't spend undue time or effort on his post. After the litany of insults and name-calling in the opening section, the rest of the post was just copied and pasted from elsewhere. [He didn't cite the source, but possibly it is from http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2007/02/kyl_and_cornyn_.html]

And DOug, the issue is whether GWB employs a political tactic of "equating dissent against his policies with a lack of patriotism." The challenge is to find even a single instance of Bush accusing anyone of being unpatriotic. In Nyhan's article, I found two Bush quotes.

1) After handily passing in the House, the Homeland Security bill got bogged down in unions-inspired job tenure arguments in the Senate. The president was frustrated that the debate had strayed from national security and said, "The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." Although they were indeed spending a lot of time and energy worrying about "special interests in Washington" instead of thinking about national security, it was unfair for Bush to say that the Senate was "more interested" in pleasing the special interests than in enhancing national security. This falls short of calling someone "unpatriotic" or implying it, but it is closer than I thought you'd be able to find. Instead of trying to be a mind-reader who pretends to know the interests and motives of Senators, he should have stuck with, "This bill is important for national security, but it is bogged down in the Senate over domestic special-interest politics."
2. In response to a question regarding John Kerry's accusations of "colossal failures of judgment in Iraq" and having failed to level with the American people about how tough it is there, GWB reponded: "You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message... You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages." This is more of a charge of "careless stupidity" (a charge that is common and expected in politics--if you don't think your ideas are better than the other guy's, there's no point in being in politics at all), rather than "unpatriotic" (which would be to accuse Kerry not only of emboldening the enemy but doing so in order to harm the country--an accusation that Bush never made and took great pains to avoid making).

"an accusation that Bush never made and took great pains to avoid making"

Is this guy on the pipe? He creates an unwinnable challenge and then claims he won??! The only thing the president ever took great pains to avoid was a stroke of avoidable reflection.

The administration that regularly accuses its detractors of treason is the one whose legacy will be the mainstreaming of torture, and this guy wants to play Bush-is-a-gentleman games?? This sure is one diverse blog.

...and when you can't back up an argument with fact and your position is indeed untenable, go ad hominem!

"Is this guy on pipe?"

"...a sledge to a fly"

"obtuse, pedantic, and naive"

"useful idiot"

etc.

bd vodka, the challenge is to back up Mig's accusation with evidence, and I think you hit the nail on the head by saying that the challenge is unwinnable.

Dan, your forlorn response to go-neg comments will not jaw-snatch victory from defeat. Your laughable strawman argument was a stillborn loss, just like Taimanov and Larsen in the 1971 Candidates. Yet you continue to claim a win.

btw Dan, the 1971 Candidates were a series of chess events. That's a chess event. Chess, that's it.

Chess.

This troll gets no more gummy bears from me.

Crackity J,
I certainly can't compete with your ability to hurl insults, just as you can't compete in the realm of rational debate without losing the thread...getting confused over simple distinctions (like between straw man and analogy, between intentional harm and unintended consequences).

I'm sad to hear that your supply of gummy bears--all sweetness and light--is going to dry up. Sigh. ;D

Hey DOug, have you tried googling the Bushie troll instead? You'll get a sketch of some sorta Buddhist neo-fascist, which I bet is far more entertaining than taking the time to beat down a weak argument. Consider the source, right? He's claiming perception doesn't really exist, so you're free to draw immediate and enduring conclusions from such a search and call it the truth. Have fun...

Clubfoot,
Buddhist neo-fascist?! How could you miss entomologist, musician, karate expert, car salesman, statistician, classical Greek scholar, Christian apologist, engineering advisor, university administrator, and chess coach? You should be able to put together an interesting profile by googling...

My mistake: Buddhist neofascist with multiple personality disorder.