Wherein he blogs.

[nacktman]

I must have hit on something with my Blogs they are two of the most viewed on Blogger for the past two months not bad for a couple of newbie Blogs.

In checking with the 'hits' stats I see where there are 1800 IP addresses 'hitting' the Blogs daily .. the same ones so I have that many steady readers and three times as many 'new hits' a day.

All with only a dozen or so 'invited' guests from these forums almost as my only promotion of the Blogs - I have mentioned them herein as well and nowhere else even on other forums I participate in.

So a note to Elendil - Keep up your Blog it will grow because you write some good stuff.

Thanks to all here who have stopped in to check out the Blogs and thanks for those who continue to read them.

[hm0504]

Oh nacktman, you are much too humble! ;-)

C'mon, you must post a link to your blogs so people know where to find your stuff.

[nacktman]

Just for you Albinus:

Carolina Naturally (http://carolinanaturally.blogspot.com)

[URL=[/URL] URL deleted by CFF Moderator

Despite the titles neither is solely about being a nudist.
The first is a general blog for general audiences about the life and times of man.
The second is a general blog for mature audiences (NC-17 ... no porn so the link may have to be removed from these forums) about the life and times of man.

PS., Albinus there are some things concerning Canada in the forums, ask Still_Boreas where to find them.

[Elendil]

So a note to Elendil - Keep up your Blog it will grow because you write some good stuff.

Will do thanks!

http://nudefreedom.blogspot.com/

[MoonShadow]

Hey nacktman, was not aware of this until I got a PM. I was not aware that you and usmc are owners of this forum. Do you have a place for us to send suggestions and ideas about the forum?

Thanks!

[nacktman]

Originally posted by MoonShadow:
Hey nacktman, was not aware of this until I got a PM. I was not aware that you and usmc are owners of this forum. Do you have a place for us to send suggestions and ideas about the forum?

Thanks!

?????http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif?????

Moonshadow, I am afraid the information you received was in error vis-a-vis ownership of this forum and its relationship to myself. Whom ever provided that information to you was/is either horribly misinformed or maliciously prepubescent, or both.
While I cannot speak to the true relationship between the ownership of this forum and usmc1, I am confident that it would be the same as mine and as such the information you received regarding that relationship was also in error.

[Naturist Mark]

I believe the owner of this site is Corky Stanton. I very much doubt that nacktman or usmc1 are Corky's sockpuppets.

Nacktman is the owner of several blogs in the Blogger system. I myself have a small political blog over there to which I infrequently repost some of my better essays.

-Mark

[usmc1]

Originally posted by MoonShadow:
Hey nacktman, was not aware of this until I got a PM. I was not aware that you and usmc are owners of this forum. Do you have a place for us to send suggestions and ideas about the forum?

Thanks!

Let's see. There's a bit more to this post than first meets the eye>

You got a pm from someone about Nacktman's post encouraging people to visit his blog. so who's stalking whom? Your cohorts snivel constantly in threads that they are being stalked. Here's the proof that it is they doing the stalking--and you, the simple tool that you are, join in

You launch an unprovoked and uncalled for personal attack utterly out of context to anything in this thread against two people who did absolutely nothing in this (or any, for that matter) threads to justify such scurrilous, unfounded and snide comments.Once again proof of what others have suggested about your cohorts: that they jump into threads with personal attack and attempt to inflame posters and then wail to the moderators about being bullied when the posters respond with force to such stupidity.

Your unprovoked, baseless, and cattily snide comment certainly removes you from your previous hypocritic posturing as an agent of peace, moderation and fairness.Hah, damned old truth will just out, won't it

You looking for a place to send your suggestions. Bend over, grab your ankles and look up! That'll work!

[MoonShadow]

Thank you, nactkman and Mark. I, obviously, was misinformed.

usmc, I don't even know what to say to your post. I have no clue as to what you are referring to as an attack and what all this "your cohorts" is about. I asked a simple question and nacktman and Mark responded informing me otherwise.

I will only say this: your post is offensive, unwarranted and vulgar.

[LamontCranston]

Shake it off MoonShadow. No harm, no foul.
USMC1 is at times paranoid. This isn't his first rant out of left field. He thinks everyone is out to get him.

Maybe he ought to lay off the steroids for a while.... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

[usmc1]

Originally posted by MoonShadow:
Thank you, nactkman and Mark. I, obviously, was misinformed.

usmc, I don't even know what to say to your post. I have no clue as to what you are referring to as an attack and what all this "your cohorts" is about. I asked a simple question and nacktman and Mark responded informing me otherwise.

I will only say this: your post is offensive, unwarranted and vulgar.

Yeah right. The context of your post disproves your innocence. Do I need to break it down any further for you? OK! I will.

Nacktman posts about his blogs encouraging others to visit. You post some insipid and snide remark about him and I having some sort of special relationship with the owners of this forum. I had not posted in this thread, nor have I at any time, anything about my having a blog--so, there was absolutely no reason for me to be cited in your post. You attributed your knowledge of Nacktman's post to a PM from "someone" and then you came into the thread and tossed your idiot bomb. So, blink your big blues all you want, I ain't buying it!

You initiated it and can't handle the blow back.

Which again is proof of what I and others have been saying about you and your cohorts. You come into threads, make some wild-assed remark about someone, completely OTP to the thread, and when the blow back comes you and your cohorts pile on and then whimper and pule about being bullied.

Yeah, Nacktman and Mark displayed marvelous forbearance in their replies. They're nicer people than I apparently. Yes my reply was offensive and maybe vulgar---but I don't think so, but unwarranted?, not at all!

You push--expect a shove back!

[LamontCranston]

Uhhh.. USMC1, let's do some math.
2,285 posts since November 2005. That's a sustained 100 posts a month or 3-4 per day over two years. Same numbers for Nackty only longer.

Maybe that's why some folks think you "own" the forum. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[usmc1]

They don't have an anchor on their butts preventing them from posting as much or more.

What is this <STRIKE>fascination</STRIKE> obsession you have with me and my posting history. Particularly since I have utterly no interest in you and yours. Except to swat away some of your more egregious buzzings.

What pray tell do any of your posts in this thread have to do with the original topic?

You'll note please, that I did not enter this thread except to respond to some snotty comment by one of your cohorts.

But, in a way it has been good, because it has been clear, demonstrable proof to the fair-minded of how you people operate. Leap into a thread with some provocative off-topic comment involving personal attack or accusation. Pile on with self-serving commentary and back and forth when the inevitable strong response comes. PM each other to come help, and then whimper, whine and pule with sniveling complaints about being bullied and picked on and then ultimately moderators come in and shut down the thread. Thing of it is, people are wise to youse guys and it ain't working that way no more!


2286 now, I suppose. But, the number of GIs your buddy Bush has gotten killed is a larger and much more telling number.

[LamontCranston]

What pray tell do any of your posts in this thread have to do with the original topic? Well nothing.. but then again neither do yours.

And I'm not obsessed with your posts. I ignore most of them. I just took an opportunity to point out that anytime anyone logs into this forum they see usmc1 - nackty - mark - usmc1 - nackty - mark. Others come and go in between.

It's not hard to see how someone might think you "own" the forum.

MoonShadow isn't a cohort. I've never written to the gentlemen. You're paranoid that we're all out to get you.

Relax, man. Nothing here is important enough to raise the blood pressure.

As for this topic --
I sent Nacktman a PM about how much I enjoy his Nude & Nekkid blog. We're often at odds, but his blog is quite good. I said so to him and I'm saying so to you. Check it out.

[LamontCranston]

Also.. this kind of comment should stop right now today --
But, the number of GIs your buddy Bush has gotten killed is a larger and much more telling number.

President Bush isn't my buddy. I despise the man and his policies and haven't listened to or read a word he's said in months... longer.

Your buddies in Congress came into office on a promise of action and after 9 months they've failed. A weak, ineffective, unpopular president is still able to trump both Houses of Congress.

Why? Are the Democrats really that lame or are they complicit behind the scenes while only making noise up front. Focus on that.

[Naturist Mark]

Why? Are the Democrats really that lame or are they complicit behind the scenes while only making noise up front. Focus on that.
I think they really are that lame.

After years of the despostism of the Republican leadership - keeping bills bottled up in committee, not allowing ANY oversite hearings, painting the Democrats as undemocratic devils when they even considered using the filibuster to block some of the most heinous appoints to lifetime judicial positions in American history, the now minority Republicans have used the filibuster nearly 50 times since January, a legislative record, to block nearly every single bill, meanwhile the Democrats refuse to return in kind, they refuse to abuse the power of the leasdership as the Republicans did as a matter of course.

Sorry, there are some fights worth fighting even if you lose. Lockstep Republicans can block impeachment, but they can't stop the hearings and the investigations. Even the PROCESS will be a cleansing experience for the body politic, and will serve notice that lawlessness will not go unchallenged.

Look at Bush's speech last night. He defied the wishes of the American people, he defied the wishes of the Iraqi people, he defied the wishes of Congress, he defied reality itself. He is confident that he can continue to do whatever he pleases and no one will even try to stop him.

I wish he was wrong.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

Look at Bush's speech last night. He defied the wishes of the American people, he defied the wishes of the Iraqi people, he defied the wishes of Congress, he defied reality itself. He is confident that he can continue to do whatever he pleases and no one will even try to stop him.

If he is really defying the American people, then why aren't the American people taking to the streets en masse and protesting until the situation changes. Why do the American people remain so silent? Since we live in a (more or less) democracy, politicians who wish to remain in office will respond to and do whatever the people demand of them. If the majority of people do not voice their opinions, take an active roll in their government, and insist that there be certain changes and keep up the pressure until those changes occur, then nothing will change. No one can blame the government for what we have now. We have what we have now because the majority of people do not seem to be willing to pay the price for the changes that they say that they want. Government is ultimately the responsibility of people.

[Naturist Mark]

Why do the American people remain so silent?
Who says they are being silent? Just because the corporate media doesn't report it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Remember this post (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/9910002424?r=9600099474#9600099474)?

-Mark

[usmc1]

Tomorrow, September 15, 2007, Saturday, should be interesting in D.C. as American's from all across the nation and from many demographies converge on the Capitol.

It will be revealing to see how the Capitol police gun thugs and billy club goons and armed military guards respond to the demonstrators.

If it takes eight of them to gang tackle and beat down one middle-aged African-American minister trying to enter a hearing room wearing an "I Love Iraqis" button, imagine what we'll be treated to when they freak at what's in store for them tomorrow.

[nimrod]

Part of the problem is that it is less a government of the people, and more a government of corporate greed. Our voices are being drowned out by the sweet whispering rustle of dollar bills slapping together. Also the media was told not to show coverage of the flag draped caskets because it was not condusive to gaining suport for the war, I can imagine what else they were asked to ignore and for some reason do.

By the way, Nacktman, I like your blogs.

[nacktman]

It's been a long strange trip - the course of this thread so far.

I truly must have hit on something for those who have consistently been diametrically opposed to my stances as well as those who have been if not supportive at least understanding and non-committal, both have stated they like my Blogs ... who knew?!
Just goes to show you never know ...

[Sanslines]

Who says they are being silent?

The majority of the people are not making enough noise to make much of a difference. Also if so many obvious crimes are being commited by the Executive Branch, and the Congress fails to do what is necessary under such circumstances ie conduct impeachment hearings, then how can we, the voters, trust any candidate regardless of party to be worthy of being President. If they can't even deal properly with our President, how on earth will they be able to deal with foreign enemies?

BTW Nacktman, your blogs are nice and interesting.

[usmc1]

Not all candidates are members of Congress. So there are viable options if that is your single-issue test of a candidate.

While there are very, very strong arguments for impeachment. There are some valid reasons why it may not come about---and, I think the primary one is that politicians are genetically disposed to following consensus and taking the safe route. Otherwise they do not get reelected.

Truth is we are responsible for that mind set.

As to large public outcry against the war there are several reasons why it has not risen to Vietnam era level.

1. The Republicans did a masterful job of painting war disagreement as "unpatriotic" and doing a disservice to the "troops" and giving aid and comfort to the "enemy".

It is only in the past six months or so that significant numbers in this forum have shifted their comments from that stance to one of disagreement with how the war is conducted.

And, you'll hear and read many people couch it in terms of, I support our troops, but...

2. There are still way too many people (Republican and Democrat) in this country who believe that Iraq was behind the terrorism of 9/11. I think those of us who haven't bought the party line, know why that is.

3. Recent polls show that roughly 30% think we should stay the course, to stop them over there before they come over here in canoes in the dead of night to yank us from our beds by our ankles.

The other 70% are almost evenly divided between three options:cut bait and haul ***, set a timetable and draw down according to that, or set benchmarks and draw down according to those.

So when you hear that 70% are in opposition to the war, it does not mean that they are in consensus. And it is this that speaks to why you're not yet seeing en masse public upheaval and civil disobedience.

4. Many people are truly fearful of what might happen to them if they speak out publicly. Remember right after 9/11 voices of caution were sometimes physically beaten down while others were verbally assaulted as traitors. There is a residual to that.

5. And, we still have our "leaders" telling us that the blood and treasury we spend in Iraq is a <span class="ev_code_red">"small price to pay"</span> for stability in the region.****

As this is being written, things are in motion in D.C. that will shift some of those mindsets.

***Boehner, J. Republican, Ohio

[Sanslines]

As a brief aside to this topic, I watched Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS last night. The topic was the 9-11 and the events leading up to the attacks on the trade centers. This program pointed out the evolution of terrorism in the 90's during the Clinton years and his responses to those threats. The sad and catastrophic event was his involvement with Monica and the resulting impeachment hearings. His impeachment hearings more or less crippled his presidency. There was at least one documented instance of where he could have authorized the elimination of the chief terrorist but ordered the CIA to stand down. Clinton's rational was that if there was collateral damage ie the death of innocent civilians, then Clinton would have been seen as a reckless president who was out of control. Impeachement hearings do more damage to a president and his ability to function then most people realize. Perhaps some of the politicians in power realize just how much damage was done to Clinton and that 9-11 could have been prevented if Clinton was not distracted and crippled by impeachment hearings. Perhaps this is also one major consideration for not conducting impeachment hearings for Bush.

[LamontCranston]

Clinton's rational was that if there was collateral damage ie the death of innocent civilians, then Clinton would have been seen as a reckless president who was out of control. Where was this on the timeline compared to the combat losses in Somalia?

And you're aware there were dozens of air strikes during the No Fly Zone era -- many killing Iraqi civilians -- throughout the Clinton presidency.

But for the record, I don't like these protracted congressional hearings. Iran-Contra and Clinton's Impeachment were both a disservice to American citizens.

It's almost like two entire branches of government suspend operations so they can holler back and forth about who's not a liar.

We all know they're ALL liars. Only some get caught.

[Naturist Mark]

Where was this on the timeline compared to the combat losses in Somalia?
Gee ... are you saying that Clinton should never have sent US combat troops into Somalia? What could he have been thinking?

[LamontCranston]

Gee ... are you saying that Clinton should never have sent US combat troops into Somalia? Well yes, that's what I'm saying.

But my point is that foreign policy is quite complex. Seems Mr. Moyers, according to the paragraph above, is pointing to the impeachment and civilian casualties as the problem. In fact, as Commander-in-Chief, Clinton is responsible for casualites -- both civilian and combat troops -- so the point about shying away from them is lost on me.

Clinton executed the duties of his office many times without concern for the news cycle.

I'd have follow-up questions, but I'm sure Mr. Moyers just took it as fact and went on.

I'm criticizing Moyers here, not Clinton.

[Sanslines]

Where was this on the timeline compared to the combat losses in Somalia?

This was during the height of the Monica Lewinski affair investigations and impeachment hearings when Clinton was preoccupied with these events. During these events, Clinton had his hands somewhat tied, had to be extra cautious about whatever he said and did, and also could not focus exclusively on the nation's business (as he had his hands full with defending himself).

Moyer's focus was an update on the establishment and expansion of all of the terrorist activities and events that took place during the '90's that led up to the World Trade Center destruction on 9-11. Events such as the USS Cole attack, the bombings of the US Embassy in Africa, the almost successful attempt to blow up 10 fully loaded 747's that were travelling from Manilla to LAX, and the bombings of the World Trade Center were elaborated upon.

[Naturist Mark]

Geez ...

December 1992 - President George H.W. Bush sends US troops into Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope

January 1993 - Bill Clinton inaugurated as President.

October 1993 - Black Hawk Down - The Battle of Mogadishu

June 1995 - Monica Lewinsky begins White House Internship

January 17 1998 - Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's office conspires with Paula Jones' attorneys to set a perjury trap for Clinton in Paula Jones harassment lawsuit depositions.

January 20 1998 - the Lewinsky story breaks into the national media when a Washington Post story is leaked on the Drudge Report.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

There was at least one documented instance of where he could have authorized the elimination of the chief terrorist but ordered the CIA to stand down.

U.S. Didn’t Target Bin Laden in 1999 Because He Was Meeting With UAE Royal Family (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/bin-laden-uae-royals/)

[LamontCranston]

Thanks Mark...

Here are some more details on the incident from the 9/11 commission. Here’s Tenet’s March 24, 2004 testimony:

MR. TENET:…The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I’m sure entered into everybody’s calculation in all this
That's quite different than "collateral damage ie the death of innocent civilians." It would have been an act of war... Sounds like an executive decision based on intelligence briefings, limitations of executive power and an objective evaluation of facts.

Sometimes the news media overestimates their influence in decision-making. Except when they are being used.

Also sounds like Moyers is re-writing history a bit.. good thing Al Gore invented the Internet.

[LamontCranston]

January 17 1998 - Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr An evil man.. how would the GW Bush vs. A. Gore election have turned if Congress didn't engage in their two year fetish and instead governed the country?

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by LamontCranston:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">January 17 1998 - Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr An evil man.. how would the GW Bush vs. A. Gore election have turned if Congress didn't engage in their two year fetish and instead governed the country? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Objectively, I'd guess that Bush might have won fair and square, instead of by judicial coup.

One of the results of the hunting of Bill Clinton was widespread dissaffection with the Republican party - as seen in the Democratic resurgence (but not enough to regain a majority) in the 1998 midterm elections (just before the Lewinsky scandal broke, but long after all the Whitewater, Travel Office, Wiley, Flowers, and Socks the Cat investigations and hearings). Had the Republicans devoted half the effort to legislation that they did to sniping at Clinton they might have been able to win for real.

On the other hand, the present Congress should 'snipe' at the president more. Meaningful legislation is blocked by the lockstep Republican filibusters (Nearly 50 filibusters since January), but hearings can air out a lot of felonious acts - in an age of unprecedented government secrecy a massive dose of sunlight would be cleansing.

-Mark

If the government has nothing to hide ... why are they hiding everything?

[hm0504]

When Bush came into office, the CIA told him that they needed to have an urgent meeting with him with respect to Al Qaeda; the White House postponed that meeting for nine months. I don't know if I can find the source; might have been Mike Schreuer (CIA anti-Al Qaeda head).

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There was at least one documented instance of where he could have authorized the elimination of the chief terrorist but ordered the CIA to stand down.

U.S. Didn’t Target Bin Laden in 1999 Because He Was Meeting With UAE Royal Family (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/bin-laden-uae-royals/) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read this link and this adds a bit to what Bill Moyers stated last night in his report. He stated that best chance we ever had to eliminate Bin Ladin was in the Afghanistan camp. The reason that the missiles were not launched was that Clinton was crippled by his Lewinski problems and could not afford to be wrong and kill innocent civilians. Moyers never mentioned anything about Bin Ladin meeting with any UAE Royal Family members at this time. It appears that at least one of the innocent civilians that could have been killed could have been a UAE Royal Family member.

[Sanslines]

This was during the height of the Monica Lewinski affair investigations and impeachment hearings when Clinton was preoccupied with these events.

To clarify, my use of the word 'this' refers to the planned missile attacks in Afghanistan. 'This' does not refer to events in Somalia.

[oldbob]

Originally posted by hm0504:
When Bush came into office, the CIA told him that they needed to have an urgent meeting with him with respect to Al Qaeda; the White House postponed that meeting for nine months. I don't know if I can find the source; might have been Mike Schreuer (CIA anti-Al Qaeda head).

You are probably thinking about Richard Clarke. He was Clinton's counterterrorism chief who kept that job in the Bush administration. Go to Consortium News (http://www.consortiumnews.com) and do a search within the sight on Clarke. You'll find a lot of articles describing George Bush's inattention to the terrorist threat and people's attempts to get his attention.

Bob

[hm0504]

Originally posted by oldbob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
When Bush came into office, the CIA told him that they needed to have an urgent meeting with him with respect to Al Qaeda; the White House postponed that meeting for nine months. I don't know if I can find the source; might have been Mike Schreuer (CIA anti-Al Qaeda head).

You are probably thinking about Richard Clarke. He was Clinton's counterterrorism chief who kept that job in the Bush administration. Go to Consortium News (http://www.consortiumnews.com) and do a search within the sight on Clarke. You'll find a lot of articles describing George Bush's inattention to the terrorist threat and people's attempts to get his attention.

Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I think you are right.

[jon71]

Clinton did send missiles to kill Bin Laden. Unfortunately he moved and wasn't hit, they missed by minutes. Clinton also destroyed an Al-Qaeda chemical weapons plant and when he did Republicans APOLOGIZED to Libya for it. They pretended to believe the incredibly thin cover story that it was a pharmaceutical plant. If you believe in national security the only real choice is the Democratic party.