Have you read the complaint and researched the rights of action under the Lanham Act and the Washington DC common law right of/to publicity? Are you an experienced attorney even capable of doing the above? Somehow, I would make a rather large bet the answer to all these questions is no. Your article here is a heck of a lot closer to being frivolous than the Chamber complaint. You have no idea in the world what you are talking about, but flap your lips anyway.

To those guys, lawsuits are only considered ‘frivolous’ when ruthless businessmen are the target.
Another case of the Reich Wingers declaring themselves the victims of actions they perpetrate on others.
The ‘Chamber’ is just another elitist organization that needs to be drained and the ill gotten wealth confiscated and put to work for the public. ‘OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!’

As if we needed more evidence of criminality and an intent to keep the hostilities going to make themselves ‘useful or necessary’…

http://www.nytimes.com /2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel .html?hp

CIA becomes a major player in the opium trade and the enforcer for a well connected druglord/warlord. Do they not realize that by doing that they are actually helping the enemy? In a war, that is high treason, isn’t it?
If it’s a real war on terror shouldn’t we start with our own terrorists? Isn’t that the premise behind ‘take the log out of your own eye before you presume to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye’?
Perhaps the global war is not really on terror but on TERRA and its species, particularly the humans.

A frivolous suit? The Yes Men clearly violated fraud and impersonation laws. You cant go around claiming to speak for some entity, and then cause them to lose business/money, just because you think its hilarious. At the least its in bad taste, at worst, slander and defamation. The first amendment allows you to say what you want, but not to impersonate someone else and cause them personal harm, including economic harm.

This case is not frivolous, but a very serious one about identity fraud, which can do real damage to one’s personal reputation.

Methinks you would not think it so frivolous if the Yes Men impersonated Tim Dickinson making wild claims and slandering your reputation…it’s always frivolous when it affects someone else, right?

Jed Clampett

It wasn’t done for it’s hilarity, even though it was pretty funny to see ‘The Chamber’ scrambling to prevent the world from hearing they might have decided to do the right thing. This was lobbying the public to call attention to ‘The Chamber’ preventing the necessary progress away from practices that damage our environment. It is a protected for of expression; after all the lip service you’ve provided to protecting ‘free speech’ when it was favorable to your side even though it was deceitful, I’m glad to see you making such statements. It just one more way in which you prove your hypocrisy.

Fraud implies monetary gain, it is done to extract money in the form of fees and other forms of payment. Wall Street conducting transactions with imaginary as.sets is a fraud. That fraud destroyed what was perceived to be a vibrant economy but was really based on trading in imaginary as.sets. This practice still continues, but I’ve heard nothing from you protesting such brazen, widespread and all consuming fraud.
I wonder why that is?

Jed– Free speech is fine so long as it doesnt infringe on someone elses reputation, or causes them harm. What the Yes Men did, i.e., impersonating a Chamber of Commerce Official, making detrimental statements about the Chamber, and causing harm to said Chambers reputation crosses the line.

Had they been protesting outside the Chamber, or simply said upfront that they were a parody, then I would have no problem with it. But to impersonate someone and to impugn their character is something else entirely, and falls under slander and defamation, which is why those statutes exist. So to clarify, the Yes Men speaking their peace as the Yes Men is fine…the Yes Men impersonating someone else, and disseminating said viewpoints through that persona which then in turn damage the reputation of those being infringed, are not. Surely, even one as dense as you can see the difference, yes? If I remember correctly, I’ve never been the one who has called for denying rights to anyone, though YOU have (anyone who disagrees with you, it seems)…and I’m the hypocrite?

Besides, Jed, you’re so full of cr@p your eyes must be brown…I’ve done nothing but rail on lack of regulation and bad business practices. In a true free market system, this scheme would have crashed and burned, and we would have moved on. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be as enamored with the architects of the crash as Bush was, putting them into high ranking positions…yet YOU have not said a word about that…I wonder why that is?

So, if you have proof otherwise Jed, please produce it…oh wait, you wont cuz you never do. Its much easier to pull grand, unsubstantiated statements out of your @ss…

So you don’t think calling someone a secret Muslim harms their reputation?
Or using a major media outlet to question their nationality?

You are either really stupid or blinder than a bat.

‘Free speech is fine so long as it doesnt infringe on someone elses reputation, or causes them harm’… followed by …’even one as dense as you can see the difference’… …’you’re so full of cr@p your eyes must be brown’…

It’s funny because he’s too numb to realize he does that all the time. He doesn’t realize he’s accusing others of doing what HE always does because he’s not really in control of himself, or rather, he doesn’t understand self control or any of the tenets of civility and intelligence. Hey, are you comfortable in there?

That’s a far cry from ’sacred’ as you were calling it when Beck was being targeted for defaming and impinging on the president’s reputation… oh yea, you racist folk don’t like the guy with skin tone in the white house.

That’s what happens to people when they don’t believe in anything but power to the wealthy and derision to the poor, they get stupider by the minute.

Did it make you angry or is that your natural state? OH yea, another sign of the retarded… quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
That’s because they can’t see past their nose or hear past their hair line.

Love the term “Reich Wingers” it is SO appropriate.

Not only was US C of C roundly punked, now they’re squealing about it like little children.

Abbie Hoffman would be proud.

“it wasn’t so long ago.. ”

It was over 5 years ago, not exactly last month!

Incredibly Inept– To answer your question, doubtful. You’d have to prove damages, and on down the line. Besides, those views were soooooo widely reported, werent they? I mean, those claims had so much credibility, its a shame that the Obama campaign was derailed and McCain elected…oh, wait, thats not how it happened at all. Obama, and his reputation, have much more to worry about than the ranting of a few nuts who’ve gotten, at best, sparse media coverage.

Besides, you’re missing the point. Its not what was said, but how. What the Yes Men said is irrelevant…its the fact they impersonated an entity to deliver false information is where their fault lies. You can say whatever you want, so long as you represent only yourself, or someone who has willingly allowed you to speak for them.

Anonymous– How is your post any more or less civil than Mujrkelwlekkjre? It must be fun to be the pot calling the kettle black…

Anon (Jed)– I notice you didnt answer the question, you just immediately went back to insulting my intelligence. Just dont post if all you’re going to do is insult…its a waste of posting space and reveals you to be a petty human being. At least insult with an actual point…insults on their own make you no better than the spoiled kid on the playground who as to pick fights with everyone cuz mommy didnt hug him enough or something…

Name a single thing Beck has said that is untrue or slanderous. One thing. Name how Obama is suffering therein. Show damages, actual malice, intent. Can you? Obama is cause of, and solutions to, his own problems. Beck is just a convenient whipping boy for the left who have to have someone/something to blame for Obama’s own lack of actions. After all, its NEVER the dear leader’s fault, now is it…Not to mention that Obama, as a public figure, is far more open to criticism than a private citizen. If he doesnt want to deal with the bad press, he shouldnt have run for office…and, again, all of this rings incredibly hollow as you didnt utter a single peep during the Bush years when far more venomous, far more enraged, far more slanderous things were uttered. So, please, dont mind me as you continue to wallow in hypocrisy. Get off of your high horse.

Besides, what happened to the rhetoric of the previous 8 years, of dissent being the highest form of patriotism? I guess that only flies when your own isnt in power? Again, the difference between Beck and the Yes Men is that Beck doesnt impersonate someone else and distribute false info…he just does it straight up (that is, if you find his info false…but that for you to prove and defend, if you can).

So Anon/Jed, read this next part REEEAAALLLY slow so that you actually understand it this time: You, as yourself, can say whatever you want, pending on certain factors. You CANNOT pose as someone else, and then spread false information while claiming to be that person, as any bad effects do not effect you, but the person you’ve assumed a false identity of. There, read it again, just to make sure you’ve got it…are we clear now? It really not that hard a concept…

Point of fact, The Yes Men didn’t punk the Chamber — they punked the media. You’re the ones they lied to, Mr. Rolling Stone.

But I guess you don’t mind as long as the story is juicy enough and you sympathize with the pranksters.

I suspect that if it had been the Chamber who had pulled a stunt like that, you’d be shrieking until you vomited up blood and setting yourselves on fire in protest.

The Chamber of Commerce is an irrelevant organization that represents neither business nor its best and brightest. It’s a canker long in need of removal.

They did what they needed to do to make themselves ubiquitous in the media and express their view, their message. Therefore, it is a protected form of lobbying the congress and the public, the true holders of power, to bring to attention an incredible wrong being perpetrated on the world by a few wealthy individuals.

Under that criteria you so snidely expound there’s no way anyone can prove that ‘The Chamber’ was harmed in any way unless it completely looses all it’s members. Not likely to happen as it is obvious there are too many idiots that love money more than life. ‘he with the most toys when we kill the planet wins’, and they are desperate to kill the planet while they still hold all the wealth. Quite the ‘intellectual’ point you make.
A few of the true patriots that were sent to kill and die over and over again would be held as heroes if they started an elimination campaign to protect the planet from THOSE terrorists.

“it’s not what was said, but how.”

Amazing, that is exactly the opposite case than what you were making for Glenn Beck and Limbo the hillbilly heroin dealer.

How am I not surprised that you would flip that easily on a flop. oh yea, you roaches accuse others of having your most reprehensible traits. I bet you have a cult of personality as well.

Like you say, you’d have to prove the Yes Men damaged anything ‘The Chamber’ is involved in. Since so many companies were leaving ‘The Chamber’ already, it will be hard to prove.

As for your childish Obama point; thankfully, there are more intelligent people and people fed up with the tactics employed by people such as yourself and the political right that they overwhelmed even the doctored computers doing the voting for us. Isn’t it interesting that the companies that make ATMs can’t provide a secure, non compromisable voting system that gives a receipt showing how you voted?

Incredibly Inept– Probably. But the C of C a valid point, but not a real winable lawsuit. So who knows. Again, its not what was said, but how. You can yell fire all you want, but not in a crowded theatre, right?

Childish point about Obama? All I did was sarcastically refute your even more childish assertion. Those claims about him being either muslim or foreign were not widely discussed, but they were widely, and near universally, disproved. No one in their right mind believes said claims. Obama soundly won the presidency, and his reputation is more or less intact. So, YOUR comment was the inane, childish one.

Isnt it interesting that Libs always yell and carry on about freedoms and rights, until they disagree with them? Only for certain people (i.e., those you agree with), right? How the tactics employed by people like yourself and the political left prevent people from voting, prevent people from exercising free speech, freedom of assembly, telling you what you can eat, drive, flush, smoke, and on down the line? You guys sure love soft tyranny, dont you?

Incredibly Inept, you’re a riot!

I was once a victim of a frivolous lawsuit by a former employer, which was dismissed as frivolous. I think the big question for the Yes Men is whether this was parody/satire. If so, they might be protected.

It will also depend, I think, on which state the lawsuit is filed in. Every state has a different laws regarding slander, libel and product disparagement.

Regardless, I stand by the Yes Men. The US Chamber of Commerce is a rat hole.

Despite all the back and forth here, no one has been willing or able to come up with one thing that Beck has said that is untrue or slanderous. Just saying.

Despite all the back and forth here, no one has been willing or able to come up with one thing that Beck has said that is true or newsworthy.
Just blind.

you should watch a few episodes of the daily show, he’s made a good living out of exposing the lies and deception of that whole network.

One thing?
All 32 czars are not confirmed by the Senate. REFUTE PLEASE.

Czar Nicholas was never confirmed by the Senate. Shoot some poop please.

Jed Clampett

“Despite all the back and forth here, no one has been willing or able to come up with one thing that Beck has said that is untrue or slanderous.”

You mean that when he was saying Obama is a racist, this president has shown a hatred for white people, you believe he was being honest and in no way attempting to slander the president or try to inflame the rednecks, clansmen or other loonies like himself? You actually think the president ‘hates white people’ even though his parental lineage is white?

If that isn’t considered inflammatory, slanderous speech and the equivalent of yelling fire in a theater, then I’m not sure anyone can say what would meet the criteria other than literally yelling fire in a theater. It’s nothing less than a cop out… like feigning to have forgotten the most important events in your life though you don’t have Alzheimers.
A desire for increased ratings should not be taken as an excuse to put out messages that could lead the mentally insane to acts of violence or give the selfish and excuse to revolt.
It’s like hiding stupidity behind the banner of ’sarcastic jest’.

Jed– Theres a big, big difference between the Beck statement and yelling fire in a crowded theater. Beck said, if memory serves, that his policies, not the man himself, “appear” racist. An outlandish statement, in bad taste? Absolutely. But illegal/dangerous speech, no. He called policies racist, but didnt call anyone to arms. Any and all protests against Obama, save the G20, have been peaceful and orderly. So the facts seem to bely your fears.

And, I hate to keep harping on this point Jed, but your hypocrisy on this matter is the 800 lb gorilla sitting in the room. The left, for 8 years, said much, much more hateful things about Bush and Cheney (and in fact, YOU still do). Bush was labeled as a racist, fearmongering, murdering puppet of special interests and big business. He was mocked as being a dumb, illiterate redneck and Joy Behar and Gore Vidal both recently stated that they had murdered Bush when the had the chance. Movies were made about an a.ssa.sination attempt against him. He was compared to Hitler at every turn. He was turned, nightly, into the living personification of evil by the likes of Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and any other leftist talking head.

But where was your concern then? Where was your pompous decrying of hateful speech? For 8 years it was just fine, and now you want to get up on the high horse, after all the mudslinging and slandering that you and your ilk propagated for the past 8 years? The left started this trend of hateful speech, and now you’re offended that the other side is using it against you…can you blame them? I mean it worked all too well for you and your ilk…

So please, spare us Jed. You’ve had 8 years of contrary behavior that make your sudden concern about messages that “could lead the mentally insane to acts of violence” laughably hypocritical. You never espoused these concerns when much, much more hateful things were said about the previous admin. But, I suppose then it was alright, because it was the left slinging the insults and not receiving them, huh?

Part of Rep. Pelonsi’s health bill:

“Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.”

Tort reform could save $54 billion a year according to Sen Reid who also doesn’t want tort reform.

One also might want to ask why the Democrats had to hide the latest hate crime bill in the military budget. Is it the Democrats that are the real gay and minority bashers?

Gimme a break.

This is fair use easily.

Either way, Making fun of the right-wing chamber is clearly tansformative and therefore is more valuable than the Chamber’s image.

Art is art after all.

If truth be told, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of parody, which the Yes Men appear to have engaged in. In the case of a public figure or institution, like the C of C, SCOTUS previously ruled that parody is protected by the First Amendment. One thing the Chamber of Commerce would have to prove is actual malice in order to prevail. Good luck with that; it’s been tried. Look up Hustler Magazine vs. Jerry Falwell (86-1278)(1988)
That case set the bar for actual malice so high it is practically out of sight, especially in the case of a public entity.
Parody or satire is protected speech. To allow this speech to be punished would be to fly in the face of our Bill of Rights, and effectively neuter the First Amendment and all its ramifications.
Don’t believe it?
Look it up; I did.

Jed Clampett

I realize you are not very intelligent and are determined to simply refute anything anyone else present merely as entertainment for your sykophantic mind, merely attempting to impress yourself with your loyalty to inhumanity.
But perhaps even you would realize they have to do things in a surreptitious manner to avoid immediate prosecution. Have you not read ANY history about the Reich and Nazism? Oh wait, you probably have a library full, but you read it for pointers on how to behave in order to feel powerful for a short time.
Thankfully, the majority of the American people are not so ignorant of what is happening around them. Every time Beck and LimpBought make one of their outrageous statements, they might attract and incense a few radicals, but they alienate moderates and centrists by the thousands. Perhaps you should read Goebbels deposition and find out why and how they did what they did, wait, you probably shouldn’t, seems obvious O’realy and friends have and are copying it to a tee, you would probably do the same and not even realize it.

Jed– Of course, rationalize it away. The right does the same thing for Beck and Limbaugh. Whether or not you agree with someone or what they say is immaterial to whether speech is protected or illegal.

The fact is, you were fine with it for the previous 8 years, but now with someone you agree with/support in the Whitehouse, you take a different tack. So, either you were disingenous then, or you’re being disingenous now. For 8 years it was nothing but criticism and outrageous statements. But you made nary a peep. Now, you label anyone who doesnt go with the flow or accept anything Obama does without questioning as racist and “reich wingers”…how is that any different from the Right labeling those on the left unpatriotic during the last admin?

Which is it Jed? Whether or not the former administration is guilty of anything or not is not the issue, despite your poor attempts to dodge the question…the deafing sound of your hypocrisy drowns out any of your attempts to dodge pertinent questions. The issue is your stance on “hateful” speech…you’ve only come out against it since a liberal has been in the Whitehouse, after being strangely silent previously.

You condoned and participated in outrageous speech for the past 8 years, so sorry Jed, either answer for your apparent about face or, admit you only care about freedom of speech when you agree with it. Or not, and let your contradiction of actions speak loud and clear for you. You must have some serious cojones to even comment on anyone else’s hateful speech, seeing how you’ve slung plenty of your own…

Jed Clampett

You can’t possibly make the willfully blind see, however, those who have faith and wish to see start opening their eyes and awakening. It’s time.

Bush was a totalitarian, he penned people up to silence their dissenting voices. He deregulated every business he could think of so that his cronies could have a free hand into the public’s pocket and mismanage corporations that are ‘too big to fail’ into destroying the economy. He lied through his campaign knowing full well they would be going into Iraq by saying he wasn’t interested in ‘nation building’, in second thought, he was being honest, all he did was destroy. He faulted Clinton for his concern with Al-Qaeda, the group the CIA had abandoned under Bush Sr., then pulled all resources from monitoring their activities and when the inevitable strike happened, he blamed it on the previous administration. Subsequently, he took advantage of the attack and used it to grab power never intended to be bestowed upon one single man in this country. Over and over their insensitivity to their fellow human beings was demonstrated and with the power of the presidency, enacted. The constitution he swore to uphold and the duties of prime law enforcer became cause for ridicule within his administration, much like his interest in the religious right he manipulated into supporting him so he could get to be president and destroy confidence in government.

All the anti-christian things we saw from the German leadership of the 30’s were duplicated in the Bush admin. Right down to their feigned religiosity. So it was well placed to make the comparisons, particularly at the time, as it was clearly evident while they were doing them.

What the Reich Wing is doing today, is merely deflection and vengeance. Par for the course for the irreligious and demented, no base in truth or reality, totally driven by negative emotion and lack of self control. With lies, deceit, innuendo and inflammatory speech they wish to destroy the source of their impediment to total control, government and the will of the people. This, sir, are the traits of evil, whether you understand what that means or not, whether you are capable of recognizing it or not, that is what it is, and if you were intelligent enough to at least pay attention to the warning of the past, you just might recognize what it’s true intentions really are… greed doesn’t even begin to explain it. Are you ready to give up your home? I think it’s obvious you’ve already surrendered your temple.

Jed– How is what the “Reich” Wing doing in terms of vengeance and deflection that drove the left in the wake of Clinton’s failed impeachment and Bush’s “stealing” of the election in 2000? Btw, you jack@ss, if Bush was so totalitarian, how was it that he was just voted out of office? With the lowest approval ratings of the modern era? The the media hounding him on his way out? Bush, by totalitarian definitions, has to be the worst totalitarian dictator ever, in that he didnt keep an iron grip on the media or dissent, he didnt crush the protests, and that he was peacefully voted out of office. The man was certainly incompetent and bent the norms for human rights abroad, but EVERY President since McKinley has done so. Your ridiculous hyperbole is a slap in the face to people who have actually endured totalitarian regimes and have lived to tell about it. Gulag Archipelago the last 8 years were not, despite overblown liberal hyperbole to the contrary.

The speech is the same, in tone content, and consistency. The only difference is that its now coming from the right against a Liberal president as opposed to vice versa. Bottom line Jed, you were fine with the vitriol then, and you’re making lame apologies now. So dont complain when others use your own tactics against you. Free speech is free speech, whether you think someone deserves criticism or not is irrelevant. So quit dodging the question by projecting on Bush, because Bush and his crimes are not the issue. The issue is the left being hypocritical by doing the same thing for 8 years to Bush what is not being done to Obama. For 8 years the phony concern wasnt there, for 8 years, dissent was the highest form of patriotism…now the shoe is on the other foot, and you and you ilk are proving to be more totalitarian, trying to silence anyone who is even remotely critical to your dear leader…

So, no matter how hard you try to explain it away Jed, you’re being loathesomely hypocritical…methinks you’re rankled because you’re being called on it.

Hey genius, who was voted out of office? You mean the guy who couldn’t run another term and thought better of escalating the war to stay in power? Did you notice they were making noises that he could suspend elections if the situation became too unstable? Were merely lucky he wasn’t as brazen as Stalin or Hitler, but then again he would have had one hell of a civil war on his hands if he did, and civil war is not good for business.

Anon– Hmm, he left power willingly and peacefully. His chosen successor failed to win. He was openly criticised by the media, the left, and his own party. He never lifted a finger against dissent. He never fostered a cult of personality. There were no mass imprisonments, no mass rounding up of people, no concentration/re-education camps. He never brought the economy under his total control. People never praised his likeness…school children in NC were not saying “George, W, Bush…hmmm, hmmm hmmm!” You were still free to speak your mind, still free to protest, and, after corrections by the Supreme Court, were able to recieve due process of law (even if you werent a citizen)…

Seems Bush was as bad at being a dictator as he was at everything else…which is why to make such a statement is patently ridiculous, and is an insult to those who’ve actually had to live under real dictators.

Hmm!! interesting, the guy has to rise to the level of Stalin or Hitler or Mao or Mugabe to be recognized as a totalitarian by your kind. No wonder that by the time they are recognized as such, it is too late. But you see in the current president those qualities even though in reality quite the opposite is true.
I guess when you live in a fun house of mirrors, all the views get distorted. Too bad you can’t see your own reflection in there. Then again, it might just scare you like them horrible migrants that make their children have to work.

Anon (Jed)– No, I dont see the qualities in the current prez, and have never said anything remotely close to that point. I didnt see the qualities in Bush either. Only morons who dont know what they’re talking about make such comparisons.

But its ridiculous for you to compare Bush to any of those people. Hitler killed 20 million, Stalin 50, and Mao 80-100, depending on the numbers. Mugabe has allowed millions of his people to starve. It does a great disservice to your cause when you compare Bush to any of them, as it makes you look like a loon who has no concept of real tyranny or a real dictatorship. Its personally insulting to myself, having had relatives live under an Eastern Bloc dictatorship, and anyone else who has lived under real tyranny, to have the term casually thrown around for political points. Again, it makes you sound like an idiot when you try to claim the last 8 years were the Gulag Archipelago…

It’s a wonder anyone takes what you say seriously anymore…if you cant see the difference between Bush and a Hitler or Stalin, then you’ve got some serious issues…not to mention a clear lack of understanding of real tyranny, which apparently you have no concept of.

Gliebe(DWM,poopsayer, cco) I guess you’re right, we’ll never know for sure how many Bush murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether directly or indirectly, the estimates are pretty high, I guess it’s sad that he didn’t get the benefit of knowing the exact numbers to carry with pride.

You always take a statement make a straw man argument out of it and attribute it to whomever you are talking to, now you don’t expect it to be done to you? Didn’t you understand anything from Mills’ On Liberty?

Can’t see the difference between Hitler and Stalin and bush? talk about hyperbole. another straw man argument I suppose, wouldn’t be you if you didn’t have that as your only recourse; I used to think you had trouble understanding, but now I recognize it’s the only way you can support your arguing. Sure there are differences, Bush and his cronies had to be more subtle in their fascism, but they have learned from their mistakes and adapted their methods over time, the results are still the same, make war for profit. Had they been as honest as Hitler was about their imperialism they would have lost the support of the military. Had they been as heavy handed as Stalin, they would have faced a revolution. But you don’t have to wait for evil to envelop you completely to recognize it, unless you’ve already succumbed to it.

I would fully support the sacking of the entire congress and their transfer to Guantanamo to find out the extent of the corruption and collusion against the American public. Unfortunately, the haters are firmly in control of this population and it probably would be best to just leave and watch the snake eat itself from afar.

Anon– I’m laughing so hard at the hypocrisy in your post that its almost tough to type this…

I build up straw men?…just what is it you do whenever you rant about “the Rich,” or the “Reich Wing”? Whenever you harp on warmed over class warfare cliches, arent you always setting up some fictional straw man who’s wronged the working class, or your demigod de jure, be it Rife, Tesla, whomever? Let me guess, you’ll rationalize it away…its always fine for you do to others what you accuse them of doing, the consumate do as I say, not as I do, eh?

Again, if you’re so far out there that you can even begin to compare Bush to Hitler and Stalin, then you seriously have no concept, whatsoever, of tyranny or fascism. To suggest otherwise demonstrates an innate lack of historical and realistic understanding of what real tyranny is…not that Bush doesnt have blood on his hands, but to compare the man to Hitler and Stalin is why no one takes you at all seriously anymore. Some good reading On Liberty did for you, perhaps you need to read it again more closely?

Keep laughing pal, be confident in your truthiness and that everyone believes you and your ‘noble’ intentions, just like the political party you work for.