Variety’s Peter Bart Attacks Limbaugh
Posted by Dirty Harry on Tuesday, July 8th, 2008
The green-eyed monster rears its cowardly, anti-intellectual head:
And then there’s Limbaugh, who managed in the course of twenty years to rise from a $12,000 a year disc jockey to a $38 million a year (his numbers) political “commentator.”…
Unfortunately, his politics emerged full-blown from his home town, one of the arm pits of our country called Cape Girardeau, Mississippi, where his family were small town lawyers and judges. As a college dropout and an unmotivated student, Limbaugh’s ideas on the world have never evolved beyond his Mississippi roots, but, by God, he became a star and shows no desire to deviate from the winning message.
Rarely does the left dare go after Rush Limbaugh in any kind of thoughtful or intellectual manner. The prospect terrifies them. They know the man who emerged from “one of the arm pits” of America would shred them to pieces in a mano y mano battle of ideas.
To live knowing this — to live knowing one man spends 15-hours on the air each week proving your ideology intellectually, morally and historically bankrupt requires heavy doses of denial. So they write Limbaugh off as a clown and showman, a huckster raking in millions at the expense of the knuckle-draggers out there in flyover country.
Peter Bart’s ad hominem attack proves only to be an insightful look at Peter Bart.
Filed in General |
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:39 am 1I think it’s kind of funny how he, and Hannity, and O’Reilly like to criticize the media elite when in fact they are just as much a part of the media elite.
But please, Limbaugh is only a tool of the Republican party. He’s even getting on board with McCain, whom he has historically been at odds with because McCain is too maverick. At the end of the day he’s just another talking head with a huge contract and gives the opinion his bosses tell him to give.
JimmyCon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:41 am 2So the cities in which people might disagree with Peter Bart’s politics are the “arm pits” of this country. Classy.
And yet Rush is considered the intolerant one.
Johnon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:43 am 3That idiot Peter Bart doesn’t even know what state Limbaugh is from. He’s from Missouri not Mississippi.
Drewon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:43 am 4“Cape Girardeau, Mississippi”?
Um, it’s Missouri, isn’t it?
I guess one “armpit” looks like all the rest when you are a fabulous writer for Variety.
Stephen Lodgeon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:50 am 5More Hollywood Liberal BS.
JimmyCon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:50 am 6Why is he a “tool” of the Republican party, Christopher? Because he agrees with the GOP’s point of view and is willing to say so? It’s funny how people in the media who agree with the Dems are just “expressing their point of view”, but people who agree with the GOP are “tools”.
He’s getting on board with McCain because he has no choice- McCain is the nominee, for better or worse, and he’s still a much better choice for this country than Obama.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:55 am 7Wow, all you can do is criticize Bart on his getting Rush’s birthplace wrong? Granted, as a journalist, he ought to get his facts straight. But that’s more embarrasing than anything else.
And Rush is not really that conservative. If he were a conservative he would be encouraging people to vote for Barr or Baldwin. Instead he’s hopped on the McCain bandwagon because that’s what his bosses at Republican HQ want him to do.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:01 am 8He’s a tool because historically he’s opposed McCain. But since McCain has become the Republican nominee, he’s had to abandon that position.
I don’t like McCain, and I really don’t like Obama either. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. And I really don’t listen to what either side’s talking heads have to say about their particular candidate. Instead, I actually think for myself, and view things in light of the Constitution and the principles on which this nation was founded. Remember the Constitution? It’s that document that Bush has continually ignored (not getting Congressional permission to invade a sovereign nation, spying on citizens communications without a warrant, etc).
And there are better candidates than McCain. Vote for McCain, and our right to free speech will be taken away, and our borders will disintegrate. There is Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. I myself am voting for Barr.
Christian Totoon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:02 am 9A really ugly attack … Bart is a bright fellow, but he’s a really inferior blogger so far. Am hoping time+experience improves his game. He’s so well connected … he should use that to his advantage in his blog.
Tommy Von 08 Jul 2008 at 9:03 am 10I think we have a reader here who prefers Michael Savage to Rush.
As for me, I will always take optimism over anger.
blackhawk12151on 08 Jul 2008 at 9:05 am 11Wow…all Christopher Cole can do is claim Rush Limbaugh is a tool of the Republican Party. Care to offer any real substantive criticism of Rush’s views or ideas or is that a little out of your league?
I’m having a hard time believing you actually listen to him. Rush has been very critical of McCain. I am a regular listener and he has spent more time criticizing McCain than praising him. I actually cannot remember a specific instance of Rush giving any kind of praise to McCain.
Anyone who really listens to Rush knows that he is above all a conservative, not a Republican stooge. He’s not encouraging people to vote for Barr and Baldwin because his show is about his view on current issues, not encouraging people to vote one way or the other. Also, Barr and Baldwin are both dipsh!ts
Full Metal Deer Platoonon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:05 am 12Say what you will about Rush, but is one great tie he has on!
PerfectTommyon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:07 am 13So Christopher, did Rush’s Republican Overlords insist he disagree with McCain and Bush when they were pushing for comprehensive immigration reform?
Do they ask him to mock McCain’s positions on drilling in Anwar?
Do they ask him to continue to do his imitation of McCain as Captain Queeg?
Rush continues to make it clear that he doesn’t like the choice of McCain, but as he has always opposed liberal Democrats he opposes Obama. He has consistently said a third party vote is a vote thrown away.
He seems much more independent to me then most of the press that continues to vote for Democrats 90% of the time according to polls and reports in a way consistent with their voting records.
Davidon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:10 am 14Christopher,
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but I actually listen to Rush whenever I get a chance in the day, and all I’ve heard in relation to McCain is frustration that he is our guy an almost defeated attitude when weighing that he’s the only choice against a much, much worse Obama(especially where the judiciary is concerned).
Rush constantly rips McCain. Just yesterday he ripped him over Global Warming and the RNC’s new ad on the subject, and he fretted that we could be drawing such a sharp contrast with the left during this election if only we had a better candidate.
In fact, Rush gets all kinds of calls accusing him of hurting McCain by being so tough on him, and thus helping to get Obama elected. Rush replies that it’s not his job to get McCain elected.
He has also been extremely critical of the RNC over the past several years on many fronts.
I don’t know where you’re getting your information about Rush, but it’s obviously not from listening to him. Whoever you’re getting this from is just wrong, and leading you the wrong way in terms of their portrayal of Limbaugh, because he is hardly a good friend of McCain or the RNC…
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:11 am 15I don’t listen to Rush, but my dad does. He and I discusss these emerging viewpoints often.
And I will say it again, if you are actually a conservative, seeing what Bush has done to the Constitution should make you cringe and wince in pain. McCain would only do more of that.
Oh and blackhawk, thank you for your brilliant analysis on Barr and Baldwin. With political insight like that, it’s no wonder you have to listen to Rush to get your opinion.
blackhawk12151on 08 Jul 2008 at 9:14 am 16Perfect Tommy
Those are all good points. However, hatred of Rush Limbaugh is rarely susceptible to logic or solid arguments so I’m guessing they will fall on deaf ears. As Bart and Cole have demonstrated criticism of Rush is confined to snide comments about his hometown and/or dreamed up allegations of his Republican Overlords
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:15 am 17And yet David he’s probably going to vote for McCain.
Answer me this though, why would he spend so much time trying to get Hillary to be the DNC nominee knowing full well that McCain would be the RNC nominee if his job is not to tell people who to vote for? I mean, if he’s really not that thrilled with McCain, why would he encourage his listeners to vote for the candidate McCain would probably match up best against?
blackhawk12151on 08 Jul 2008 at 9:15 am 18Cole
If the shoe fits…
blackhawk12151on 08 Jul 2008 at 9:16 am 19And I’ve yet to hear any brilliant analysis from you. Apparently you get all your opinions from your dad
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:19 am 20You have failed to realize that I made the point about Rush’s defense of the Bush administration when, if he were indeed a conservative, he would be highly critical of Bush and his treatment of the Constitution and working outside its boundaries.
In the end, Rush will probably vote for McCain. I of course do not know this for certain, but since he spent so much time trying to get Hillary to be the DNC nominee so that McCain would have a better matchup, it seems as though he would.
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:26 am 21Are you kidding me? Hey Peter you idiot…you uneducated moron..its MISSOURI! NOT MISSISSIPPI! You lose your entire Hate speech right there. Get it right. What a moonbat troll!
GTO Bobcaton 08 Jul 2008 at 9:27 am 22Another good one was when Nosferatu, a.k.a. Vanity Fair contributing editor Michael Wolff — seriously, they gotta be twins at least! — was on CNBC last week and said that Clear Channel Communications made a huge error when it signed Rush Limbaugh to a big, 8-year-long extension. Apparently Wolff has never taken a look at Limbaugh’s ratings, which are HUGE and remain so. Wolff’s argument was that Obama was gonna win in November, proving that America is a left-wing country forevermore, and Limbaugh’s audience will then dry up. Wolff has obviously never looked at Limbaugh’s ratings during the Clinton years, which were among Limbaugh’s best. As a result, one could argue that a leftist being in the White House is actually a good thing for Limbaugh, ratings-wise.
As for Limbaugh being a college dropout, Glenn Beck made a good point on this issue on his TV show last week. Beck said that oftentimes people need to fail before they can succeed, need to know what not to do before realizing what they must do. As for Limbaugh being “The Creature From Arm-Pitsville,” wasn’t it Peter Bart who, back in the early ’00s, was forced by his bosses to attend diversity training for having disparaged minorities, gays and women. My goodness, and I thought Mr. Bart was nothing if not the perfect, utterly P.C. leftist. Tsk-tsk, Mr. Bart.
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:27 am 23And Christopher please, your playing in the big leagues and your faux intellectual hooey makes cow dooky seem like a gourmet buffet.
Joe Melnickon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:28 am 24Um, can you say ‘troll’? Please stop giving CC all this attention. His comments make it clear he doesn’t have his own opinions and no first-hand knowledge of the topic.
amzarakon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:30 am 25A person that rises from making 12K a year to 38 million a year should be celebrated as role model. Bart makes it sound like it’s something bad. Typical, I guess.
Troyon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:30 am 26Christopher… it’s called strategery…. It does no good to back Barr — who is a member — as Michael Medved calls them… the Losertarian Party. McCain is more conservative than Comrade Obama so he backs the lesser of two evils. Take a Logic 101 class at your local community college or better yet… listen to your Dad.
Wittanzyon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:30 am 27Cole, you obviously get YOUR talking points from the Dems. Bush didn’t shred, trample or otherwise disrespect the Constitution. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had the approval of the Congress. They didn’t declare war, probably as a political hedge, so if things went south they could say “we didn’t do it” (as we saw almost all of the Dems and a few GOP’ers say the past 4 years). But they DID vote on it and they voted FOR the invasions.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:34 am 28Oh right, this is a neocon place. Sorry, but there are conservatives, and then there are neoconservatives. The two are not interchangeable, never have been, never will be.
But it seems to me you cannot answer my simple question. If Rush is so highly critical of McCain, and mourning the direction that the RNC is going, why would he put so much effort into trying to get Hillary to be the DNC nominee, making it easier for McCain? If you can’t answer that, then I understand.
Second, if Limbaugh is such a conservative, why has he not been critical of the Bush administration’s lack of submitting to Constitutional boundaries?
To me these seem like simple questions. But hey, if you can’t answer them, then that’s answer enough.
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:41 am 29Chrissie why don’t you go back to living under the sordid rock from whence you came. Yeah I know we are feeding the tool troll however he is sitting here spewing crap about a subject he knows diddly POO about. Chrissie, Rush supported Mitt Romney. He doesnt even like McCain. He and McCain have been going round and round for years in fact. You would know that if you ever listened but apparently your teeny tiny narrow mind couldn’t take having a different view point. Hell my Golden Retriever, no genius he is better informed than this idiot.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:41 am 30Pick the lesser of two evils Troy and you’re still picking evil. Everyone only gets one vote, and I am not going to waste it on a candidate I don’t believe in. A vote for Barr is not a vote for Obama. A vote for Barr is a vote for Barr.
And Wittanzy, the Constitution still outlines that there needs to be a formal declaration of war, which you admitted Congress did not do. Sure they may have authorized some military action, but by stopping short of calling it war, they acted illegally at the behest of the Bush administration. The fact that the Bush administration acted on bad intelligence doesn’t make it any better.
But you are also forgetting that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government has the right to spy on people without a warrant. When the Bush administration wiretapped citizens’ phonelines and other communications, he acted illegally.
Robert Lindseyon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:42 am 31Um, Cape Girardeau is in the Boot Heel, not the arm pit. Armpits are about San Francisco and Washington D.C. Why is commentator in quotes? He comments.
Bill Gates is a college dropout. Loser. Michael Dell and Steve Jobs also. Not just computer guys. F Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner and libs favorite Edward Albee. Warren Betty and Dustin Hoffman. Peter Jennings was a high school dropout. Obviously, these people have no business doing anything other than joining the military or handing out fries.
Max Poweron 08 Jul 2008 at 9:42 am 32Wow, Christpher talks with his “dad” who happens to listen to Rush. Um….OK.
Politics aside, Rush is paid this much because he entertains people. More listeners=more ad revenue=higher salary.
Hope that helps.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:44 am 33Stephanie, since you cannot answer the question of why Rush would encourage his listeners to vote for Hillary in order to give McCain a better shot at the White House, I will take that as answer enough.
And since you also could not answer why Rush would not be critical of Bush when he has gone well beyond the boundaries of Constitutional rule, I will take that as an answer as well.
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:45 am 34Christopher talking to your daddy about Rush isn’t teh same as lisenting to him. And if Daddy is telling you Rush supports McCain he is lying to you…..get it? God what a moron. Do we actually graduate people with such low iqs in this country?
GTO Bobcaton 08 Jul 2008 at 9:46 am 35Mr. Cole, I consider myself a conservative and am giving serious consideration to voting Libertarian in November, as “Maverick” McCain gives me serious pause. Having said that, I might find myself in that voting booth in early November and ultimately do the “pragmatic” thing, pulling the lever for the Arizona senator.
As for G.W. Bush allegedly damaging the U.S. Constitution by refusing to extend American civilian rights, like habeas corpus, to foreign-born combatants who break the codes & norms of warfare by pretending to be foreign civilians (a.k.a. terrorists), my response is: yawwwwn. Never in American history have American civilian protections been extended to those who make war on the U.S. and its military personnel. (Not until those leftist dopes on the U.S. Supreme Court decided to do so a few weeks ago.) During WWII, the U.S. transported thousands upon thousands of German POWs to U.S. soil and held them in POW camps until the end of hostilities — and not one loopy ACLU lawyer went running to the Supreme Court, arguing that those thousands of Germans should be treated according to the American civilian code of justice. And had such an ACLU lawyer done so, he’d have been laughed outta the courtroom by all nine justices (which is a measure of how crazy the federal judiciary has become over the intervening six decades).
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:46 am 36“I don’t like McCain, and I really don’t like Obama either. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. And I really don’t listen to what either side’s talking heads have to say about their particular candidate. Instead, I actually think for myself, and view things in light of the Constitution and the principles on which this nation was founded. ”
Christopher… so what are you doing at Dirty Harry’s Place? Perhaps you are a trypical “drive by” as Rush points out every day on his radio show.
“I don’t listen to Rush, but my dad does. He and I discusss these emerging viewpoints often.”
Yea right… that’s a good one.
CC: You will undoubtedly move on to another site now that you feel superior to us. We were all VERY impressed…
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:47 am 37Chrissie…I wasn’t reading your crapola but this stupid question you asked about Rush having his listeners vote for Hitlery has to be answered. IT WAS TO CAUSE TROUBLE FOR THE DEMOCRATS! TO KEEP THE INFIGHTING GOING WHICH WAS GOOD FOR AMERICA! IT IS CALLED STRATEGY…do you need it drawn in crayon? Good God! What an imbicile. Like I said my dog is more intelligent. He gets it once.
Tommy Von 08 Jul 2008 at 10:01 am 38He does not seem to know what a conservative is, he doesn’t seem to know what a neo-conservative is, he thinks either Bob Barr is a libertarian, or he himself is not a Libertarian but he’s voting libertarian in the fall anyway, he doesn’t know anything about the “warrant-less” wiretapping, the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief, the war-powers act, or the precedent established over the last 200 years of treatment of POWs.
And he thinks Rush Limbaugh is a McCain fan.
This guy has nothing to add to this conversation.
Why are we talking to him?
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 10:04 am 39GTO, there is a difference here between German POW’s of WWII and what we have today. First in WWII, there was a formal declaration of war. Those Germans we captured were not suspected Germans. They wore uniforms, had rank. It was one nation fighting another nation. That’s what war used to be.
Today we have an action that was undertaken by bad intelligence, and we are fighting an ideology. Many of these “combatants” may not even be terrorists, yet they are being held without charge, and in some cases bad evidence. Habeus Corpus as a principle predates the Constitution, making it not exclusively an American right, but something that all of humanity should be afforded.
Magoo, what’s a trypical drive by? I happen to like discussion, and I was hoping to find some conservatives here. Unfortunately I have found mostly neoconservatives, which is hardly the same thing.
And Stephanie, you have still missed the point (surprise). By causing chaos in the Democratic camp, the theory went that McCain (who was revealed to be the GOP nominee) would have an easier time being elected President. However it went beyond that, as Rush (and this I actually did catch) wanted Hillary to be the nominee as he believed McCain would match up better with her than with Barack. So either way it’s still supporting McCain, something you say Rush does not do. If he didn’t why cause all that commotion? What purpose would it serve?
Maybe you need to have your dog explain it to me.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 10:14 am 40Hi Tommy!
A conservative would be someone who adheres closely to the principles on which this country was founded on. Belief in restoring the Constitutional boundaries, not wanting government to get too big or overarching, not using deception as a means to get your way, those sort of things.
A neoconservative pays lipservice to such things, however they are more about putting our noses into places where it doesn’t belong, and if that means fudging the Constitution, then so be it.
A Libertarian is someone who wants to restore government to its Constitutional size, and adhere to its guiding principles. This seems to be the main push of Libertarians, as there are a very wide range of Libertarian beliefs.
Bob Barr was a Republican congressman who was one of the leaders of the Clinton Impeachment. He left the Republican Party when he rightly said that Bush had gone outside Constitutional authority by endorsing the Patriot Act, and thus he became a Libertarian.
blackhawk12151on 08 Jul 2008 at 10:23 am 41CC
Your questions have been answered several times. You are either too obtuse to realize that or you don’t like the answers. Whenever someone starts ranting about neocons its a sure sign that they do not know what they are talking about and would prefer to label their opponents rather than respond.
How about you go to the nearest libertarian blog and make some new friends. You can talk about you incredibly vague understanding of the constitution and try to convince yourself that you are not helping Obama win the election
Kensingtonon 08 Jul 2008 at 10:25 am 42Oh, for crying out loud…
Christopher, Rush (and I, and many others) will vote for McCain because he is the lesser of two evils. Either Obama or John McCain will be the next president. Those are the options. I’m not happy about McCain getting the job, but I really don’t want Obama to get it.
Consequently, even though I don’t like McCain, I will vote for him, holding my nose the whole time. Voting for Barr or Paul or any other fringe character is voting de facto for Obama. That’s why Rush is “supporting” him yet still criticizing him heavily and constantly, day after day.
As for Bush himself, Rush has criticized him all along whenever the president has failed to govern conservatively. So if someone tells you that Rush doesn’t criticize him, they are giving you bad information.
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 10:32 am 43They are lying. Apparently Chrissie likes being lied to. Typical leftwing moonbat. LIE TO ME!!! TELL ME STORIES! I CAN’T HANDLE REALITY! Isn’t that correct Chrissie?
Tommy Von 08 Jul 2008 at 10:32 am 44Cole:
Your definition of a conservative and libertarian seem strikingly similar. I don’t know anyone else who thinks they’re quite as similar as you.
Your definition of a neo-conservative seems convenient for your point that you don’t like them, but no other point that I can think of.
Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act.
I’m curious why you think there is a “wide-range” of liberterian beliefs but you don’t extend that courtesy to conservatives or neo-conservatives. Might they have a “wide-range” of beliefs too?
I’m also curious why you think anyone who calls themselves a conservative must root for Obama to win in order to earn their conservative street cred against McCain. For me, I would say this disagreement could easily fall under “wide range” of conservative beliefs, with this particular one being an extreme minority.
Look, I’ve been in your spot before. I started typing before I was thinking and all of a sudden I was in a furious online discussion and people were challenging me and I felt obliged to answer back. My pride was heavily invested and my defenses were up and I’d laugh at the “stupid” people who disagreed with as I argued my way into logical knots all in an attempt to keep my ego afloat and keep the obvious at bay: I had an opinion that wasn’t based on fact and I spoke up about it with a certainty that just dared people to respond. Instead of correcting myself I doubled down and the next thing I knew I couldn’t even keep my own arguments straight.
But all it is ego. That’s all trolling is: ego run wild. Asserting yourself in an attempt to feel superior. Trying to impose your thoughts to muster the feeling of being “right” and others being “wrong” instead of just sharing, talking and listening.
I’m sure you’ll say something like, “thanks for the analysis” or something defensive like that to keep up the pose for a little while longer. But like i said, I’ve been there before, and I know what I just wrote hit home and will sink in later on.
The human ego is an incredibly destructive thing and nothing will make you unhappier quicker.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 10:33 am 45Interesting response, especially since I have had my IQ questioned. You have already done more name calling than I have. I stated I believe that Rush is a tool, and I backed it up. And the answers you gave simply don’t make any sense.
It also seems to me that the Constitution was written in such a way that the uneducated, the farmers out in their fields, would be able to understand it perfectly. When the Constitution says that any formal declaration of war must be approved by Congress, silly me I actually believe that any formal declaration of war should be approved by Congress. Not military action based on bad intelligence.
And when the Constitution says that the government is not allowed to spy on its citizens without a warrant, I actually believe that. So Bush spying on private citizens without gaining warrants to do so is, how do I say it…ah yes…illegal.
Sorry if I am not a sheeple, who will follow the President blindly. It seems to me that dissent with the government and its policies is a foundational right granted in that part of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.
Cambiason 08 Jul 2008 at 10:37 am 46Chris, for a “libertarian” you sure sound like a tool of the Democrats.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 10:40 am 47I know Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act. He did so with the stipulation that civil liberties remain intact. When they didn’t he regretted voting for it, and has since matured.
And yes, there is a striking similarity between true conservatives and libertarians. Regan was thankful for the libertarian leaning wing of the Republican party, as he believed it kept the Republicans honest to their values. But there are also some key differences which prevent confusing true conservatives with libertarians.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 10:46 am 48Just because I don’t like that the U.S., the country I love, invaded a sovereign country based on bad intelligence and then had no follow-up plan as to how to work our way out of it? And I don’t like that our civil liberties have been suspended, that we are living in an age where our freedoms are being sacrificed in the name of security, and as Ben Franklin put it, brings about neither, nor are we deserving of either should that happen?
If that puts me in league with democrats then wow, where can I get what you have been smoking.
Carolynon 08 Jul 2008 at 10:53 am 49Ohmigod - ‘Pamela Troy’ took off her dress in mom’s basement, put on dad’s stinky overalls and now she’s ‘Christopher Cole’. (Thought I wouldn’t notice how you keep using first and last names in your moniker, huh? No way. I’m a high school graduate.)
Come on, Pam/Chris - you can find better things to do with your time. Trust me, gainful employment isn’t THAT scary. I’m certain it will only take you a few hours alone in your bathroom to memorize the lines ‘do you want fries with that?’.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 10:58 am 50“Ohmigod - ‘Pamela Troy’ took off her dress in mom’s basement, put on dad’s stinky overalls and now she’s ‘Christopher Cole’. (Thought I wouldn’t notice how you keep using first and last names in your moniker, huh? No way. I’m a high school graduate.)
Come on, Pam/Chris - you can find better things to do with your time. Trust me, gainful employment isn’t THAT scary. I’m certain it will only take you a few hours alone in your bathroom to memorize the lines ‘do you want fries with that?’.”
=================================================
?
GTO Bobcaton 08 Jul 2008 at 11:03 am 51Cole, if you think habeas corpus should be extended around the globe, fine. Go the U.N. and make a motion to do so. This is the U.S., not the U.N. Also, as was addressed earlier, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan WERE declared; the U.S. Congress gave the President the authority to wage them — and the Congress continues to approve the President’s authority in this area every time they grant the further funding of the wars.
As for “innocents” being at Gitmo — what, like the innocent Afghans and Pakistanis that we turned loose who then went back to shooting at American and NATO forces in Afghanistan? As for WWII, the Nazis created a terrorist force called the Werewolves, whose sole purpose was to fake being European citizens in nations lost by the Nazis and to then launch rear-guard attacks on the Allies. Do you know what happened to these Werewolves when captured by American or British military personnel? They were lined up in a row in a field and summarily executed by firing squad. As far as I’m concerned, that’s what we should do with captured Al Qaeda, Taliban, Fedayeen and other jihadi terrrorists. And if that offends your delicate, “rights”-sensitive sensibilities, too bad. This is war, and war is hell.
As for the Patriot Act, the one part of it that I opposed from the beginning was the provision that allowed g-men to break into a suspect’s American home, rummage through his papers and computer hard-drive, put everything back as it was, depart and act as if they’d never been there. If that isn’t un-American, I don’t know what is. But don’t worry about it, Cole. With the Democrats gleefully trying to eliminate the entire Patriot Act, even the worthwhile portions, we’ll be back in no time to the good ole Clinton era days, when we paid no attention at all to jihadi terrorism.
Avery Bullardon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:12 am 52Missouri/Mississippi. All those Gentile places seem the same to people like Bart.
Avery Bullardon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:15 am 53The Iraqi government has now called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. I guess that means (from a neocon viewpoint) that the Iraqi government is made up of ‘Surrendercrats” who are want the U.S. to lose!
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:20 am 54In Perry Biddiscombe’s book “Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944–1946″ the allegations that the movement endured which you are describing is debunked.
And authorizing military action is not the same as a declaration of war. Authorizing military action is too far reaching in what it could mean. A declaration of war is quite simple. Still, we invaded Iraq based on faulty, even purposefully misleading, information. War or not, that’s not the way to go about trying to be a leader globally.
As for the U.N., I have no use for it. That does not mean that I don’t believe there are certain rights and certain principles which hold true for all of humanity, Habeus Corpus being one of them. What we have is a situation where we did not declare war, we invaded a sovereign nation, we took suspected terrorists and detained them without charging them. It makes us no better than the terrorists we are fighting. The Nazis we captured in WWII were not suspected Nazis, they were known to be Nazis. There was a formal declaration of war so by capturing and detaining them until war’s end was justifiable.
The Patriot Act is an affront to all that this country was founded on. You cannot trade freedom for security, and by doing so you don’t deserve either.
Carolynon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:27 am 55“?”
——
Chris, Chris, Chris - it means that you’re a troll. You know? Just like your last reincarnation as ‘Pamela Troy’. Only that didn’t work out so well because, I dunno, I guess mom donated that ratty sofa you sleep on in her basement and snoozing on the cold concrete just gave you the idea to reinvent yourself as a guy this time and, while you were at it, what the heck, mom could switch sex too and become ‘dad’ and because Pam got exposed badly last time for knowing diddly squat about anything, you thought you’d cover yourself this time by telling us that your, uh, ‘dad’ listens to Rush and….and…and….
Oh, come on, Pam/Chris - give it up. You can do better, much better. I mean, TRUST me. “Do you want fries with that?” is so much nicer a way to spend your time than this.
JimmyCon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:28 am 56Avery,
It’s no surprise that you can’t tell the difference between victory and defeat. Let me explain:
A victory in this war would be defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq, achieving stability, and leaving the Iraqis to govern themselves. That’s what the troops want, it’s what Bush wants, and it’s what us dirty, dirty “neocons” want. So if the Iraqis believe that that stability has been achieved, and they want us to put a plan in motion to leave them to govern themselves, then this would be in line with achieving that goal.
A defeat, on the other hand, would be us pulling our troops out before stability is achieved, and allowing Al-Queda in Iraq to move in and cause much more death and oppression against the Iraqi people. This is what the liberals are supporting when they call for a troop pullout before stability has been achieved, which is why we “neocons” disagree.
That is the key difference between those who “are want the U.S. to lose” in your words, and the Iraqi government’s calling for a withdrawal timetable.
I hope I have clarified things for you.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:32 am 57Carolyn, I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. Who is this Pam character? I don’t even know any Pam’s.
But I assure you, I do know enough about the Constitution to know that Bush has trashed it, and that any real conservative would denounce that action.
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:33 am 58First off Chrissie your not a libertarian….I am….and guess what Chrissie I know libertarians and you are def. not one of us.
Also you don’t love this country so stop trying to snow people under. You don’t give a flying fig for the people died on 9-11 or the fact our country was invaded taht day. What an idiot. Your just anotehr sign carrying loser hippy with a lap top.
And Carolyn, your post made me spew my soda dammit HA HA HA!
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:34 am 59And Chrissy you know diddly poo about the US Constitution. Get it NADA!
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:38 am 60Trying to achieve political stability in a region that has been dominated by 1300 years of tribal warfare is not likely to happen, and this is just one of the reasons why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place (not to mention we invaded a sovereign nation, something the U.S. had not done up until this point).
We should never have gone there. Too many lives have been lost, and for what exactly? So that we could bring an end to a dictator and leave a power vacuum behind, making things much worse than they needed to be? Imposing a form of government on the people that they have no concept of and, as long as the tribal warfare continues, will not be possible?
Afghanistan we had a legitimate reason to go into. Iraq we didn’t. By going into Iraq this war has been extended much farther than it needed to go. It has taken up too many resources, cost too many lives. WWII had a purpose. What’s the purpose of this police action?
Spacebasson 08 Jul 2008 at 11:48 am 61In the past, I have enjoyed his program ‘SHOOTOUT’ on AMC… now I will definitely look at this guy differently.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:49 am 62Well gee Stephanie, thank you for setting me straight. Apparently I don’t know that criticizing the President is grounds for immediate dismissal of my Patriotism card, although the 1st Amendment to the Constitution explicitly states that the government cannot take away my right to criticize it, and even provides me an avenue of voicing my grievances. If we elect McCain that little bit of Constitution won’t be in there anymore.
Oh, and coming out of nowhere to insinuate that I don’t care about what happened on Sept. 11, why that’s a play right out of the Republican book.
You certainly have set me straight Stephanie. Go Bush. Blow up the Middle East! More dead suspected terrorists! More civil liberties taken away! Less privacy! WAR IS PEACE! FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
Audietooon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:51 am 63Chris, You’re stinking up the place. PLEASE, pack up your ignorance and your lies and go back to whatever ultra lib hole you crawled out of. I quit arguring with low-grade morons like you 45 years ago.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:53 am 64“Trying to achieve political stability in a region that has been dominated by 1300 years of tribal warfare is not likely to happen…”
Shall we start discussing Biblical prophesy and the end of times? Maybe a stable Iraq will be a step towards armageddon and Babylon becoming the center for the kingdom of the anit-christ? I bet that would really liven things up!
Tommy Von 08 Jul 2008 at 11:55 am 65I like Rush Limbaugh
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 11:59 am 66That’s in Israel, not Iraq. Wrong country that begins with an I.
Oh and Audietoo, so because I don’t swallow what Bush says and what the government says, that makes me a purveyor of lies? It was lies that got us into this mess in the first place. Should Bush declare that 2 and 2 makes 5, would I be wrong in saying it makes 4? You see, freedom is the ability to declare that 2 and 2 makes 4. Once that is established, all else will follow.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:00 pm 67BTW CC:
Re: your first post, Rush has always maintained on his program, which your “dad” should have mentioned, that he HAS never and WILL never accept freebies from anyone. He always pays his own way to avoid anyone accusing him of being a “tool” of anyone. (If you don’t believe me, call into his show and ask him yourself.) So I doubt that he is considered a media elite.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:01 pm 68Who said it was in Iraq? Read the post “assumer”
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:03 pm 69Right, and the proof that he isn’t elite can be found in his Manhattan residence that he is able to afford with his multimillion dollar contract. It figures that is where it would be found, because everybody has multimillion dollar contracts and can afford homes in Manhattan.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:06 pm 70Free enterprise, Chrissie baby! That still doesn’t make him an elite or a tool of the Republican party. You are drawing the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 5.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:06 pm 71The center of the end times is around Jerusalem, not what is occuring in Iraq. The only country mentioned is Israel. Not even the United States makes a cameo appearance in Revelation.
Ken Beggon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:06 pm 72“Trying to achieve political stability in a region that has been dominated by 1300 years of tribal warfare is not likely to happen…”
Similar problems also explain why America and Japan failed to become democracies. The countries that are ready for it generally get it right in a week or two, tops. So obviously Iraq will never get there. All the seeming progress is an illusion…AN ILLUSION!!
Yawn, “No right to invade Iraq…mistake…too much blood and treasure…blah blah blah…” And Chris goes once more into the breach, fighting over the same, stupid and grossly immaterial ground for…what, five, six years now? And all whilst knowing that day by day history is being made that erodes your position even futher. Sad. Well, some remain mad that Reagan won the Cold War. Chris and his ilk will remain mad that Bush won this one. Ron didn’t seem to care overmuch, and I doubt George W. will either.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:08 pm 73Ever hear of Gog and Magog? It don’t refer to Isreal, now do it!
Even the prophets didn’t know the meaning of their prophesies. I’m certainly glad YOU have them all figured out!
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:08 pm 74I didn’t say that he doesn’t deserve his millions or whatnot. You made the claim that he is not media elite. I countered by stating (which is public knowledge) that he has a home in Manhattan and the ability to afford it because he has a multimillion dollar broadcasting contract. Does he need to have a multiBILLION dollar broadcasting contract in order to be considered media elite?
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:14 pm 75Chrissie is still here and yapping abour legitimate reasons for being where? What about Ramsey Youseff’s partner in the WTC attack genius? Hows about taht for helping Al Queda. He escaped to Baghdad and was given a job by Uday Hussien. I would think a super dooper smart person like Chwissie would know that. Thats all the reason I would ever need to blow a place to kingdom friggen come btw.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:20 pm 76The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic. You know that pledge of allegiance that you were taught in school “and to the Republic for which it stands…”
A democracy would mean a rule by the masses. A republic is a rule by law, which used to be the Constitution.
The foundations for the American Republic were based in English tradition, as America used to be British. The Japanese wanted a parliamentary system, as they believed military rule would shame them even further.
For roughly 1300 years there have been questions over leadership in Muslim countries. You can’t even begin to form a style of government until those questions are answered. And simply electing leaders like we do here isn’t going to necessarily cut it. They don’t have much of a concept of being able to freely choose your leaders.
As for your assertions, the Pope had as much to do with the downfall of Communism as Regan did (and I liked Regan), but he also had a clear plan and a clear objective, and didn’t have to resort to telling lies to the American public. Bush called for the invasion of a sovereign nation with no clear plan, no exit strategy, and no plan as to how to rebuild Iraq.
As for the “Surge” working, that had as much to do with the Iraqi’s beginning to take control as any role we played in it. While I am happy that it did work, I still don’t believe we should have ever been there to begin with.
Kensingtonon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:23 pm 77Chris,
Rish is talkradio elite; that’s a bit different from the kind of media elite that I think most people would recognize. For the most part, media elite refers primarily to liberal journalist types, including TV, magazine and newspaper journalists, but not so much radio, which is not highly regarded by, wait for it, the media elite.
Rush Limbaugh is an iconoclast, a man who came to power in talk radio by giving voice and legitimacy to conservatism, something that the rest of the media pretty much avoided.
You see, it’s not really the paycheck that makes one a member of the media elite. Rather, it’s membership in the chummy insider club of liberal groupthink.
Also, will you please define a lie for me, and distinguish a lie from a mistake? Because it seems to me that, at worst, the case for war in Iraq (at least, the part which was based on WMD) was made on mistaken intelligence, not “lies.” In fact, the statement that Bush “lied” is a lie, and kind of makes you sound like a Donk again, too.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:24 pm 78Wow Steph have you exhausted your ability to use big people words?
Our presence in Iraq made Al Qeada stronger than it had been. That’s not the way to win a police action. Strengthing the people you are fighting against is not a good thing.
We had legitimacy to go after the people responsible for 9/11. We did not have the legitimacy to invade countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:27 pm 79“telling lies to the American public”
And you are in possession of the knowledge and the proof that President Bush willfully lied about this. Accussing the POTUS of lying is a serious accusation. The POTUS must be guilty or this is considered slander.
Ken Beggon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:27 pm 80Yeah, we get that *you* don’t think we should be there. Here’s the thing…other people disagreed with you, and we *won.* Maybe it’s time to find some other matter to occupy your time with. I mean…have you ever seen Blockheads? It’s a Laurel and Hardy film. Stan is left behind in a trench during WWI, and told to guard it. He’s forgotten and never relieved, and by the time he finds out the war has been over for twenty years, he’s ground holes in the ground where for all these years he’s been executing turns as he marches back and forth to no purpose whatsoever.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:30 pm 81So would you classify Hannity and O’Reilly as “media elite”? Since they both are on tv as well as radio.
And if radio isn’t so influential, why are liberals trying to get in on it? If radio isn’t so influential, how is Rush’s big-time contract justifiable? It seems a rather convenient cop-out to say that radio just isn’t as powerful as TV or magazines or newspapers, when in fact liberals have been trying to get into radio for awhile now. Seems to me that they think there might be something to it.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:31 pm 82Kensington, Chrissie may be on to something here…
Wikipedia says “The elite media is a term used especially by the right-wing, used to describe newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and other media whose employees allegedly believe that they are more intelligent than anyone else.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_media
El Rushbo could fit that description
except no one really knows if he’s joking or not when he cracks wise about is massive intelligence. Now Dan Rather - he might fit!
Jack Marinoon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:36 pm 83Lets get back to Rush Limbaugh America’s entrepreneur! Rush is the biggest thing in the history of radio now and in the future. Rush is a fantastic role model for anyone that wants to start his or her own business, Rush had and idea about talking about conservatism and the choir was out there waiting to hear someone out there talk about the things they all believed in. After all the liberals owned the networks, radio, TV, Hollywood, the newspapers they were spewing out their lies, bullshit for over 25 years plus without anyone challenging them on any issues. Then comes Rush limbaugh and he is selling what most Americans are buying. The liberals just don’t understand the concept of supply and demand. It was the liberals who created Rush and all the other conservative talk shows that came after him. This is what you liberals get for having a monopoly of the media since the mid 50s and only one point of view being pumped out over the airwaves without any dissent. Liberals talk about dissent and they love dissent except when it is done bigger and better then how they do it.
Liberals are losing the cultural war they started at Woodstock, they are losing and the prime example is they want to stack the deck with the fairness doctrine. Which will be thrown out at the Supreme Court level. Liberals just don’t understand what democracy really is. They believe democracy is we all agree with them and let them run the country, that is they idea of bipartisanship. That is a dictatorship, democracy is like a game of football where one side tramples the other and wins. Liberals don’t believe in what the Founders wanted only conservatives do that is why liberals can’t win elections. That is why Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 are very popular in their day, even with this onslaught of this liberal media machine on them 24/7 they still can’t destroy W or the other conservative Presidents. President Bush has out maneuvered the liberals at every turn. All they can do is call him names. They have been beaten for 8 years and when McCain wins they will be done for. Rush will vote for McCain, but Rush will make McCain more conservative then Bush ever was and he will hold McCain’s feet to the fire. The funny thing is that all you liberals out there, there is nothing, absolutely nothing you can do about it, but call us names. That is all you moonbats know how to do, you’ve been doing it since 1933.
What libtards don’t get is that America is a conservative country with a liberal culture. The culture we will change to a conservative one, in spite of all the nonsense we have to see on TV….we are winning everyday and you can’t see it.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:37 pm 84Well, lunch is over - gotta get back to work. Work: you should change out of your bathrobe and try it some time, CC. Or you could just keep living off your allowance. Makes no difference to me.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:38 pm 85OMT: Well said Jack.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:39 pm 86Ken, if we won, then we should be out of there. If we won then McCain shouldn’t be willing to commit our troops for the next 100 years. Just because Bush says “Mission Accomplished” doesn’t make it so.
And Bush has been seen on television saying Iraq played a role in 9/11. He later said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but invading Iraq was always part of the plan. That’s not what he told everyone initially.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:44 pm 87Jack you say all the liberals can do is call conservatives names. Then you label them all is libtards and moonbats. Aside from the hypocrissy, what’s a libtard and a moonbat? Do they exist in the world where Bush has more than a 25% approval rating?
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:47 pm 88“And Bush has been seen on television saying Iraq played a role in 9/11. He later said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but invading Iraq was always part of the plan. That’s not what he told everyone initially.”
“has been seen” - “he later said” - “he told everyone”
Give me a break. Just cause you say it doesn’t make it so. Let’s see some proof. How about some video or transcript links to prove it. He may have said it but I’m not taking your word for it.
(Ok, I said I was going back to work… I lied.)
Ken Beggon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:49 pm 89I mean the people who thought we should be there won. You guys, who didn’t want us there, lost. You can continue whining about it like the idiots still losing sleep over the Florida recount, but I’m not sure there’s any real point to it.
And while we are indeed in the process of winning in Iraq, we shouldn’t “leave” in some total fashion anytime in the foreseeable future. We should rather just downsize the number of troops stationed there. We haven’t left Europe, after all, and WWII was quite some time ago. In case you didn’t see his remarks on the subject, McCain alluded to this, and on that point at least he was correct. Which, admittedly, is not a statement I can make very often.
But then, upon reading your concluding remarks, I now realize you’re but another conspiracy nut. Ah, and so one’s valient attempts not to presume that their frothing opponents are indeed insane crash upon the unyielding reefs of reality. But yes, the impressive thing about Bush is that he managed to execute his Secret Plan to Invade Iraq at the same time he executed his Secret Plan to Blow Up the Levees in New Orleans. Quite the multitasker, that guy.
Monkeydartson 08 Jul 2008 at 12:53 pm 90Limbaugh has not “jumped on the McCain bandwagon.” Unless playing a McCain soundbite or ad and sighing with great pain in your voice constitutes “jumping on the bandwagon.”
And, by the way, Rush is self-employed so the idea that he’s doing what his bosses demand is a funny charge to make. It’s sorta/ kinda true I guess, since he’s his own boss– but not in the way the critic meant the charge.
Lumping Rush in with Sean, O’Reilly, Savage et al is very amusing if you actually read Zev’s piece and saw his short critiques of all of them. Anyone who equates Rush Limbaugh with Michael Savage hasn’t ever listened.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:56 pm 91“Do they exist in the world where Bush has more than a 25% approval rating?”
No they exist in a world where a Democratic-led Congress has a lower approval rate than the POTUS. Led by Nancy Pelosis who said in 2006 they were going to bring the two sides together.
Here it is:
“Let us join together in the first 100 hours to make this Congress the most honest and open Congress in history - 100 hours.
“This openness requires respect for every voice in the Congress. As Thomas Jefferson said, ‘Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.’ My colleagues elected me to be Speaker of the House — the entire House. Respectful of the vision of our Founders, the expectations of our people, and the great challenges that we face, we have an obligation to reach beyond partisanship to work for all Americans.
“Let us all stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.
“We have made history, now let us make progress for our the America people.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/04/BAG5ANCTQ27.DTL
Ooops. “reach beyond partisanship” Must have forgot what she said.
tsmonkon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:57 pm 92“And I don’t like that our civil liberties have been suspended, that we are living in an age where our freedoms are being sacrificed in the name of security, and as Ben Franklin put it, brings about neither, nor are we deserving of either should that happen?”
I guess Ol’ Ben wouldn’t have had a problem with pro-Tory journalists divulging which troops were undergoing smallpox inoculation, and where. Washington needed utter secrecy as he was cordoning off masses of troops at a time. To reveal such info would have devastated our army.
Things cannot be the same in peace as in war. Never have been. That’s why we’ve always granted our chief executive special war powers. And the measures Bush has taken don’t come anywhere near those that Lincoln and FDR took (jailing journalists, internment, etc). And things DEFINITELY can’t be the same when you have an enemy banking on us to provide the very same protections that will best enable them to hit us. It’s not just impractical - it’s suicidal.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:59 pm 93I never said Bush blew up the levies. The mayor of New Orleans had adequate time to evacuate just about everyone, and the loss of life would have been greatly diminished.
You try to paint me with this broad brush. Well newsflash, I am not a liberal or a democrat, and I am certainly not a Republican. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that there was something going on that would drive Bush to want to invade Iraq. Whether it was part of some larger plan or what I cannot even begin to speculate. What I do know is that Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and then he said they didn’t. He said Iraq played a part in 9/11, and then he said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So why did we go there if there wasn’t some other purpose? I don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that doesn’t sound right.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:04 pm 94So Rush owns his own broadcast studio, has his own transmitter, obtained his own FCC license, and gave himself his multi-million dollar contract?
That’s pretty impressive.
And Magoo, I do happen to know that Congressional approval is lower than the President’s. I think the American people are realizing that they gave Bush a license to shred up the Constitution. I have not defended Congress at all, but they should have been more vigilant and not allowed Bush to get away with what he has.
Morganon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:05 pm 95“if we won, then we should be out of there. If we won then McCain shouldn’t be willing to commit our troops for the next 100 years.”
We haven’t won yet, but the progress we’ve made in Iraq is undeniable and puts us closer to that victory. As for McCain’s commitment, you took that statement concerning the next 100 years out of context. McCain simply meant he is willing to stick it out in Iraq for as long as necessary.
Also, to put my two cents worth on the matter of a vote for Barr (or Baldwin), you need to understand Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin WILL NEVER win the election. They have no chance of winning. A vote for Barr or Baldwin may be just that, but it’s also NOT a vote for McCain, the only candidate who can defeat Obama.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:09 pm 96Tsmonk, why in times of war would the President be given special powers when that very notion undermines the principle of checks and balances? The President cannot do whatever he pleases during times of war or any other time. That is what the rule of law, or Republic…our Republic…was intended to prevent. To say that a President has these powers in times of war is antithetical to foundations of our government.
Morganon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:14 pm 97In the case of the War on Terror, Congress gave the President the okay to combat Islamic terrorism, even invading other sovereign nations, and that included Iraq. And don’t forget U.N. Resolution 1441, which was their official zero-tolerance policy concerning Saddam Hussein.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:16 pm 98Well I cannot and will not in good conscious vote for someone who would take away my right to dissent or provide an open door to illegal immigrants.
It is my duty as a citizen to be informed, and to vote for the person who I believe ought to be the next president. Voting for someone on the principle that it is not voting for someone else is ridiculous. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. For many Republicans, the argument is that McCain is the only one who can defeat Obama, and that’s the only reason why they are voting for him. That isn’t a good enough reason.
If I am going to do something I am going to be informed. I am not going to hold my nose and take it.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:17 pm 99And thus Congress also violated the Constitution.
tsmonkon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:21 pm 100“The President cannot do whatever he pleases during times of war or any other time.”
Lol, strawman much?
As if the guy’s just doing whatever, no consultation, just winging it because it feels right. The commander in chief has wartime powers. They are not unlimited and don’t you dare imply that I said that, got it? The measures taken do not amount to “shredding” the constitution. Not even close.
Morganon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:31 pm 101Voting for whom you believe should be the next President is noble, and that’s what I’m doing in this election, whether you believe it or not.
Illegal immigration isn’t the only major issue in this election. There’s also the threat known as radical Islam out there. John McCain knows how serious this threat is, Bob Barr does not.
When you compare McCain and Obama on all the issues, and I mean ALL the issues, McCain is much, MUCH more conservative than Obama.
You may not want to hold your nose and take it by voting for McCain, but you will have to hold your nose and take it should we end up with an Obama Administration.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:34 pm 102In no way, shape, or form is giving one branch of the government more power than what it Constiutionally should have a good thing. Congress violated the Constitution by granting the president these powers. Bush violated the Constitution (and not the first time either) by accepting them. Finally the Supreme Court should have said “Wait a minute, you don’t have the right to do that.” So they are guilty as well by not putting a stop to it.
I don’t care if Bush’s extra power is limited. He couldn’t be content with Constitutionally limited power to begin with! So why should I think that Bush is going to use these extra powers responsibly?
In short, I don’t. And so far I have been proved right.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:39 pm 103No I won’t because I won’t have voted for Obama, and I would be just as critical of him as I am of Bush.
And the Libertarian position is that we shouldn’t be intervening in the world’s problems. Yes there’s radical Islam. There’s also radical Judaism and radical Christianity and radical environmentalists and radical peaceniks and radical…(the list can go on for quite awhile).
The primary duty of the President is to his country, not stomping out all these fires that pop up around the world (some of which we started). By opening up the door and letting illegal immigrants come in, McCain would be making this country a whole lot less safe.
tsmonkon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:50 pm 104Having a disagreement over what is constitutionally allowable is a far cry from stepping all over it because a guy feels he can get away with it. Supreme Court justices have done a far better job at shirking the Constitution than Bush could ever dream. And in Justice Kennedy’s case, he admits that he’s considered case law from foreign governments in his rulings as opposed to the Constitution alone. And he’ll continue to do so. If you’re going to get uppity over “shredding,” then start there.
Doing things like conferring constitutional rights to combatants - many of which have never set foot on our soil - is in my view unconstitutional.
Morganon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:51 pm 105“There’s also radical Judaism and radical Christianity and radical environmentalists and radical peaceniks and radical…(the list can go on for quite awhile).”
I don’t buy radical Judaism or radical Christianity. As for the rest of the list of radicals, radical Islam remains the most dangerous due to the multi-layered support it receives from nations, organizations and individuals. Radical Islam is also, because of this multi-layered support, the most active in their efforts (Bali, 7/7 & Spain being some good examples here).
As to intervening in the world’s problems, that’s not what we’re doing. What we’re doing simply is defending American lives AND American interests. If we were really intervening in the world’s problems, we would be having troops in the Sudan, Burma and many other places.
And as to opening the door and letting illegals coming in, you’re right. This remains McCain’s greatest flaw as a candidate and what we need to do is work through the houses of Congress to combat any pro-illegal immigration effort McCain will attempt.
JohnFNWayneon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:54 pm 106Got to agree with Harry, that article says a lot more about Bart than it does Limbaugh.
I hope people take the Missouri comments they go viral. Let the world know what this asshole things of flyover country. I’ll take it any day over bend over country in California.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 1:55 pm 107Habeus Corpus existed as a principle prior to the Constitution, and is recognized as a fundamental human right. It does not do ourselves any favors by suspending such a right when in fact we haven’t even declared war.
And trust me I am not a big fan of the Supreme Court either. Each branch of government has done a phenomenal job of destroying the Constitution, and we as a people have allowed it to happen.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 2:01 pm 108We created the terrorists we are now fighting against. Where do you think they got their weapons and training? Our very own CIA. We provided the path for our interests to be compromised, we created the situation in the Middle East. Had we left very well enough alone, we wouldn’t be having these problems would we?
And how are we protecting American lives by sending Americans to Iraq, especially since what we are involved in isn’t a war according to the Constitution?
Morganon 08 Jul 2008 at 2:12 pm 109Leaving well enough alone would not have saved us the trouble we currently face because the jihad they are waging is one they have been waging for over a thousand years, the CIA did not train any of the terrorists we are currently fighting (which includes bin Laden) and we protect American lives by fighting al-Qaeda on their ground, not ours.
tsmonkon 08 Jul 2008 at 2:12 pm 1101. Our past links with groups that have now risen against us are exaggerated at best. It’s not like we concocted them in labs, and a terrorist is far more likely to be carrying a weapon that begins with the initials “AK”.
2. That said, we’ve made ugly alliances. I’m pretty sure we did business with a guy named “Uncle Joe.” Old as war itself. You have to consider the alternative. Thanks to our being in Iraq, we will have many scary alliances, spooks running all over the Middle East, people you will stare at in amazement that God doesn’t strike them dead. These people are helping us with our network of intelligence to assure that we don’t have another 911 or WMD fiasco. We do this because if we don’t, we put ourselves in greater danger.
GTO Bobcaton 08 Jul 2008 at 2:16 pm 111Cole sez: “What we have is a situation where we did not declare war, we invaded a sovereign nation, we took suspected terrorists and detained them without charging them. It makes us no better than the terrorists we are fighting.”
You’ve just passed the moral-equivalency moonbat test, sir. Ergo, you’re now on my Ignore List, as I don’t argue with moonbats.
GTO Bobcaton 08 Jul 2008 at 3:00 pm 112I’m gonna go against my instincts here to say: Cole, you’re a bald-faced liar. To wit: “In Perry Biddiscombe’s book ‘Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944–1946′ the allegations that the movement endured which you are describing is debunked.”
Oh, really? Per Biddiscombe himself (link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940379/posts )…
>>> The Werewolves were originally organised by the SS and the Hitler Youth as a diversionary operation on the fringes of the Third Reich, which were occupied by the Western Allies and the Soviets in the autumn of 1944. Some 5,000 — 6,000 recruits were raised by the winter of 1944-45, but numbers rose considerably in the following spring when the Nazi Party and the Propaganda Ministry launched a popular call to arms, beseeching everybody in the occupied areas — even women and children — to launch themselves upon the enemy. In typical Nazi fashion, this expansion was not co-ordinated by the relevant bodies, which were instead involved in a bureaucratic war among themselves over control of the project. The result was that the movement functioned on two largely unrelated levels: the first as a real force of specially trained SS, Hitler Youth and Nazi Party guerrillas; the second as an outlet for casual violence by fanatics.
The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers — perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945. Buildings housing Allied and Soviet staffs were favourite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and thirty-nine Germans. Techniques for harassing the occupiers were given widespread publicity through Werewolf leaflets and radio propaganda, and long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers.
Although the Werewolves originally limited themselves to guerrilla warfare with the invading armies, they soon began to undertake scorched-earth measures and vigilante actions against German `collaborators’ or `defeatists’. They damaged Germany’s economic infrastructure, already battered by Allied bombing and ground fighting, and tried to prevent anything of value from falling into enemy hands. Attempts to blow up factories, power plants or waterworks occasionally provoked melees between Werewolves and desperate German workers trying to save the physical basis of their employment, particularly in the Ruhr and Upper Silesia.
GTO Bobcaton 08 Jul 2008 at 3:03 pm 113For some reason, my above message was partly truncated. Here’s the rest.
…Attempts to blow up factories, power plants or waterworks occasionally provoked melees between Werewolves and desperate German workers trying to save the physical basis of their employment, particularly in the Ruhr and Upper Silesia. >>>
Lastly but most importantly, Cole, my mentioning of the Werewolves had nothing to do with whether they were the guerilla equivalent of the Rolling Stones and kept going and going and going. No, my mentioning of them was to make the point that they were terrorists and the Allies dealt with them swiftly and harshly, just as we should deal contemporary terrorists. No Miranda warnings; just bullets to their stinkin’ heads. Period.
Jack Marinoon 08 Jul 2008 at 4:21 pm 114Cole, that isn’t hypocrisy I am just giving back what I have been taught by liberals for over 45 years of my lifetime. Besides I was a Democrat for years in Boston politics and let me tell you just how close the democratic party and the mob are in bed together. You belong to and defend one of the most evil, corrupt politician parties that has ever existed. For years since FDR you have treated Republicans like a battered wife. The democrats never negotiate when they are in the majority. The run everything as if power is the birthright and liberals have a blood lust for power. After 50 to 40s year of this abuse by the democrats young liberals like you just can’t understand why we republicans feel this way about you and your ideals.
Chris I never go by polls, the are run by the media and they all hate Bush. The game is fixed against Bush. The President can send troop anywhere in the world without approval from Congress. He doesn’t need anyone’s approval if he feels this nation is at risk. He is the Commander in Chief. We went into Iraq because of Clintons failure to act years earlier when Saddam broke every UN resolution. He had to go because the man was playing with the development of WMD and today they are taking out the uranium out of Iraq, so much for No WMDs.
The USA is the only country that is ready to clean the world of assholes and these terrorist are on the list. Now if Clinton attacked Saddam and he was still in office and he said Mission Accomplish you liberals would be building monuments to his military genius.
If the entire Democratic party, the media and Hollywood had stood behind Bush for one solid year and show the world that both Reps and Dems are behind this war 100% , we would have been in and out of there in a year. The insurgents would have not put up the fight they did, because they would not have seen a division here in America. Since the liberals hate Bush more the they love their country, you people prolong this war, cause the death of 3000 kids over there just so you can try to destroy Bush. Well Bush has won everything and he is still President and look at the incompetent fool your party has nominated and you people call Bush stupid?
Cole I don’t know how old you are, you seem to be in your late 20s or early 30s, but this went on during the Vietnam war. The liberals protested that war and added 30,000 more names on that wall. The NRVA was ready to surrender until they saw the 68 DEMOCRATIC convention and riots and they thought the USA was on the verge of collapse. These foreigners we fight are the dumbest people on the planet they have no idea how big this country is, they have no idea of the colossal military might and the destructive power we can unleashed on this planet and there is NO ONE to stop us. NO ONE! They have no idea how our political systems works. Seeing a bunch of long hair hippie maggots fighting the police only gave the VC and NVRA the courage to fight on until 1972 when they signed OUR treaty after Nixon bombed them into the stone age.
The terrorist listen to people like you and fat Mike Moore and they continue to fight on and on. Meanwhile we can’t kill the terrorist, we have to protect them under the constitution, we can’t torture them to get info out of them, can you tell me how are we going to win this war if all we can do is give the enemy hand jobs??? Can you imagine if these liberals were in power in WWII and they gave constitution rights to the Germans and Goring wanted to be tired in the States instead of Nuremberg. This is why liberals cannot hold political office, because they are drunk with power and they can’t read the constitution. I will tell you this Cole, sit down with all your ideals and read the Federalist papers and then tell us if your ideals are exactly as what is written in the Federalist papers.
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 4:30 pm 115Jack this moron is just another troll. He won’t listen and he is enjoying watching us get pissed off. Like I said my dog had this stuff figured out. I mean Chrissie I could get my neice to let me borrow her crayons if that would help you get a CLUEA!
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 4:58 pm 116Chris? Chrissie? CC? I’m home from work now. Are you out there? Hmm. Must have moved on…
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 5:07 pm 117FOR THE LAST TIME I AM NOT A LIBERAL! And Bush is no conservative.
I never said Werewolves didn’t exist, all I said was they were not as entrenched as you made them appear to be.
Jack, it used to be the policy of the United States that we left the world up to their business, and we took care of ours. We have two huge oceans, and as far as superpowers are concerned, we are pretty well isolated. It wasn’t until we bought into this whole globalization thing that things went haywire. Back when we left everyone the hell alone, we were the most trusted, the most admired nation in the world. And now you say that the president can do whatever the hell he pleases. Might does not make right. The architects of our government understood that there needed to be boundaries, and acting as the world’s police force violates those boundaries.
You all make these broad statements that you don’t even see the hypocrissy in your own words. You say “oh only liberals trash Bush and call him names”, and then you pull out the names yourselves, hypocrites. You can’t even so much as comprehend the foundational document that our nation was run by. You cannot see that your liberty is being taken away piece by piece. You cannot see that this president has abused his power, and made a bad situation worse. You buy into all the opinions of people like Rush and Hannity and O’Reilly and don’t take the time to think through them.
Even in some of these movie “reviews” your hypocrissy is outstanding. What’s the deal with attacking WALL-E? Oooooh, the planet has been trashed and humans are living in space. It’s an anti-Bush movie. Never mind the fact that the humans reject their nanny state, make the world a better place through hard work instead of lounging around in space, never mind that they begin to think for themselves and reject the life they have come to know (things conservatives have traditionally championed until the neocons hijacked what it means to be a conservative), because it contains environmental elements and a phrase you have put way too much into, it’s a liberal movie.
You really make me laugh. It seems Rush and the like have shut off your brains. Apparently it is only me, but invading nations based on some bad intelligence is not a good thing. Any one branch of the government taking on more powers than it was meant to have, also not a good thing. Torturing people we have yet to declare war on, not a good thing. Maybe we ought to strive to be better, but no, that would be going soft. Better to be wrong and be spectacular in being wrong than to admit it and try to do right.
You decry the media elite, but when the “right” pulls the same tactics you egg them on.
And I still have no idea what a moonbat is. Is it a made up word penned by Bushie?
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 5:22 pm 118Oh, and did you even know that the neoconservative movement has its roots in the belief system of Leon Trotsky, one of the architects of the communist revolution in Russia? It seems as though the founder of neoconservatism, one Irving Kristol (father of Bill Kristol) was a Trotskyist who was proud of that fact.
What an ideological forefather to have eh?
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 5:52 pm 119When Bush stops spying on American citizens Jack, then you can talk about politicians going mad with power.
Neocons have historically been power hungry, with roots in Trotsky’s philosophy and enamored with the ideas of the New Deal, things that libertarians and other conservatives such as Pat Buchannan have rightly criticized. And many of the foundational neocons have been members of socialist organizations, such as Irving Kristol. They like to view foreign policy as the primary thing, and it doesn’t matter how much damage the Constitution takes for it, nor does it matter how much our domestic policy suffers. If McCain is elected, we’ll have no more border with Mexico, and criticizing him for it will be out because the 1st Amendment will have been done away with.
Michael Moore does not speak for me. Nobody speaks for me. I speak for myself. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Democratic party. I am not now nor have I ever been a liberal. I believe in smaller government that is accountable to the people and the Constitution of the United States. I believe we are better off if we keep our noses out of other people’s business, and that not having ties to the Middle East is the best way we can keep ourselves safe. I do not believe it is ever right to give any branch of the government more power than is Constitutionally allowed, despite the circumstances. I do not believe it is right for the government to spy on its citizens, otherwise we’re just another China, North Korea, or Cuba.
What Bush represents is not traditional conservative values or principles. What he represents is a move to more globalization, and that has had dire ramifications in our country. We have a mostly unsecured southern border, where people claiming to be members of the Mexican army can cross whenever they feel like and murder our citizens. Where our foreign policy has devasted the value of the American dollar. Where American workers have lost jobs to China and other third-world nations. And Bush has used whatever he can as an excuse to take on powers not granted to him by the Constitution, and both the Supreme Court and Congress has done nothing about it. But it’s just as much our fault because as a people we are to hold government accountable. But people like Rove and Cheney and McCain want to take care of that too.
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 6:03 pm 120Wow the guy in Mommys basement just won’t leave. Young man please do not lecture anyone about anything. Your not a Libertarian and you have no right at all to tell us who is or who is not a conservative. Your about what 16 years old? You argue like a five month old baby. I am tired of it. If you cannot shut the hell up and be honest about who you are then go away.
You bad mouth Rush and without him we never would have retaken congress in 94. You bad mouth your president whom many of us do disagree with but still respect and support. Now go get a clue and have a real life before you start lecturing people wiser and older than you, Mr. Skid Marks boy.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 6:17 pm 121Oh gee Stephanie, I am glad that you don’t resort to name calling like those media elites do. I would hate for someone to come along and point out the hypocrissy if indeed you did.
The fact of the matter is you know nothing about me except what I choose to reveal about myself. You don’t know who I am, you don’t know where I live, you don’t know where I am from, you have no clue as to how old I am…you don’t even know if I am just doing all this for shits and giggles, or if indeed these are my actual views.
I think it’s actually kind of funny how one person who writes how much he dislikes Bush or the police action in Iraq gets so much attention, and how you run around and call me names without so much as even knowing if that’s what I actually believe.
You have provided me a day of complete amusement. And to keep you guys going, I think I will continue on doing what I am doing, without ever revealing if that is what I truly believe or not.
Buck Turgidsonon 08 Jul 2008 at 6:40 pm 122“The fact of the matter is you know nothing about me except what I choose to reveal about myself.”
Judging from the inordinate number of posts, I’d say you are out of work.
“And to keep you guys going, I think I will continue on doing what I am doing, without ever revealing if that is what I truly believe or not.”
And a self-admitted troll.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 7:07 pm 123You could say that. You might be right, you might not be. Maybe I have a boss that doesn’t mind me posting on the internet.
And if you want to think of me as a troll, fine. The fact of the matter is that puts you nowhere closer to knowing if what I post is actually what I believe, or if I merely enjoy seeing you get all bent out of shape because someone dared to post some opinions different than everyone elses.
Morganon 08 Jul 2008 at 7:39 pm 124Reading opposite opinions doesn’t bend me out of shape, but based on what you have posted already, I suspect you were or still are a supporter of Ron Paul.
No, you’re not a liberal, but you’re not a conservative either. And judging the content of your previous posts, I also believe you hold opinions that would put you on the fringe in the whole of the political spectrum.
That’s my two cents on your opinions.
Morganon 08 Jul 2008 at 7:45 pm 125On the matter of Peter Bart’s criticisms, the mere fact that Mr. Bart stated Mississippi as Rush Limbaugh’s birthplace as well as describing his native hometown of Cape Girardeau as “one of the arm pits of our country” tells you just how ignorant Mr. Bart is about Mr. Limbaugh, which state he was actually born in and just what the heartland of America really is.
Bottom line, Peter Bart swallowed the East Coast/West Coast opinions of and prejudices toward Middle America hook, line and sinker and his statements make him look like an ignorant idiot.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:35 pm 126Quick question Christopher. Is this (below) an act of war on the United States? What would be your response if you were POTUS?
“On October 12, 2000, USS Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, set in to Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 0930. Refueling started at 10:30. Around 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-60-foot gash in the ship’s port side according to the memorial plate to those that lost their lives. It was reported that the boat was so close that the attackers (trying to appear friendly) aboard the boat and the sailors greeted each other before the blast. It is believed that the men aboard the USS Cole thought that the boat was just a garbage service boat. The blast hit the ship’s galley, where crew were lining up for lunch. The crew fought flooding in the engineering spaces and had the damage under control by the evening. Divers inspected the hull and determined the keel was not damaged.
“Seventeen sailors were killed and thirty nine others were injured in the blast. The injured sailors were taken to the United States Army’s Landstuhl Regional Medical Center near Ramstein, Germany, and later to the U.S. The attack was the deadliest against a US Naval vessel since the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark (FFG-31) on May 17th, 1987.
“The attack, organized and directed by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization, was carried out by suicide bombers Ibrahim al-Thawr and Abdullah al-Misawa.” Source: Wikipedia
Troyon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:40 pm 127It’s a good guess he’s a ROn paul supporter because he’s obsessed. Dude you’ve been responding nor for almost 10 hours. Get a J.O.B.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:53 pm 128“What he represents is a move to more globalization, and that has had dire ramifications in our country.”
Now I guess Bush is a “tool” for globalization like Rush is a”tool” for the Republican Party? Hey, I know you! You’re an isolationist, Chris! I thought I recognized you!
Guess what - I’m making twice the wage I made in ‘03 because the company I work for has been able to set up shop in other countries and sell to other countries. Not all the jobs have gone overseas, Chris. Globalization is scary and risky but it just might be worth the risk. Again, this is called free trade. It ain’t perfect but it’s better than whining.
Magooon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:54 pm 129Ron Paul = Isolationist
a. acaciaon 08 Jul 2008 at 9:58 pm 130Well, all I can say is Christopher Cole should be on Dirty Harry’s payroll. Look at the lengthy thread, if not a record, then close - 130+ comments. Yikes! Talk about an ego boost. And if Cole sticks to his word about continuous assaults, you can bet that Harry’s self-admitted “obsession with the hit counter” is about to go through the roof.
Don’t even think about proper site maintenance - no-brainer stuff like, uh…banning trolls. Puh-lease! Look at those stats!
What do you get when you have a commenter who’s a self-admitted troll and a site admin who’s a self-admitted traffic whore? Answer: troll turds galore…whether we like it or not!
Looks like we’re about to revisit those good ol’ mattcornell days. Oh joy.
Phoenixon 09 Jul 2008 at 12:06 am 131“with a “nine-figure signing bonus.” The total package is valued at “north of $400 million.” = $50 million a year.
Is that like trailer parks to drag a $10 through? What next, “the dirty poor”?
The one that he kept to through years of poverty and firings over it.
Instead of pulling a Scott Mcclellan for media love.
All liberal commentary is political porn and a hospitalization application.
Stephanieon 09 Jul 2008 at 6:52 am 132Cole isnt a libertarian. I know libertarians and I am one. He is a leftist. He is here to bug the living crap out of people from his Mommys basement in his skid marked underroos.
Christopher Coleon 09 Jul 2008 at 7:58 am 133Stephenie, you have never seen my underoos, you never will, because I have standards of who I will let see them, and you don’t even come close. And seriously, who says underoos anymore? From some of the things you post I would say you have a fascination with baby speak. Oh wait, fascination is kind of a big word. Let me spell it out phonetically, which means spell it like it sounds, so you can read it, ok? F-as-in-ay-shun. There, that isn’t so hard.
The attack on the USS Cole was tragic and very deliberate. However we should have done something then, not waited and waited and waited to do something.
And what’s wrong with Ron Paul being an isolationist? Up until FDR the U.S. was fairly isolationist. Oh wait, FDR is kind of a folk hero to neocons. Silly me. He was certainly the best Republican candidate, but the “right’s” media elite lowballed him. An actual conservative seems to scare a neoconservative. “Constitution, what’s that?” “Oh it’s that document that grants the president super powers when he decides to invade countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.” “Really?” “Yeah, it’s all lined out in the 51st Amendment, right before the amendment that states he can spy on his own country men and women without a warrant.”
Christopher Coleon 09 Jul 2008 at 8:26 am 134Morgan, if the standard for being a conservative is either a GWB or McCain, then I will take not being a conservative as a compliment.
Morganon 09 Jul 2008 at 8:59 am 135Mr. Cole, I should say I didn’t intend to compliment or insult when I said you were not a conservative, but by all means, take it however you wish. The only thing for the moment we agree on is to disagree.
Magooon 09 Jul 2008 at 9:08 am 136“Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
“Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
“Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
“Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This “libertarian isolationist” view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all people.” — Wikipedia
Being an isolationist or libertarian isolationist seems unrealistic in today’s world when there are groups out there that want to eliminate us and have access to weapons that can be hidden on container ships - ready to launch at us when they secretly get close enough to our shores. We don’t live in an FDR world anymore, IMO.
Any thoughts?
Christopher Coleon 09 Jul 2008 at 9:32 am 137We have always lived in a dangerous world. That much has not changed. And yes stuff can be hidden in crates and whatnot. But how is getting involved in the politics of other countries going to keep us safer? How is diverting our resources to fighting in the Middle East going to keep our domestic borders safe? It isn’t.
I do not believe it was ever the intention of the Founders to create an empire, and that is effectively what we have done. When we became a superpower, we should have left it at that, and not try to douse all these uprisings all over the place.
There are other ways in which we can exert influence than always having to send the military. Maybe had we done that in the first place, and maybe had we not put ourselves at risk in the first place, we would be living in a safer world.
Magooon 09 Jul 2008 at 9:59 am 138Oh man… I wasn’t asking a rehash of what “we” are doing wrong. I think we get your point.
However, I WAS asking how our country would realistically apply an isolationist or libertarian isolationist policy in today’s world. I’m willing to listen. This is your chance to help me understand that it would work. Not in theory but in reality.
I know we have always lived in a dangerous world. But I think there’s a big difference between seeing sails coming over the horizon vs. scud missiles. Not as much time to react. Isolationism sounds too much like “head in the sand” to me.
Personally I would like to see us involved in human rights violations and not nation building. Unfortunately, the first is a slippery slope and the second is not as you say what our Founders had in mind. I guess GW’s refusal to get involved in France after TJ’s insistence is a good example of what they had in mind. But if we are all one world, why not step in when humans are being brutalized? Aren’t we part of the world? Wouldn’t we want someone to come to our rescue if we couldn’t defend ourselves? Isn’t that’s what the UN was supposed to do? They seem incapapble of saving anyone.
Magooon 09 Jul 2008 at 10:01 am 139“There are other ways in which we can exert influence than always having to send the military.”
What are they? Talk? Embargo? They don’t seem to work.
Christopher Coleon 09 Jul 2008 at 10:16 am 140I have little use for the U.N.
We obviously cannot just remove ourselves from the world immediately. Such a thing would have to be done gradually.
I believe it is possible to trade without getting involved in the internal politics of the countries we are trading with. But I do not believe FREE trade as it is called is the way to do this. I would say FAIR trade is the way to go. By utilizing fair trade, we would not exploit people in third world countries. Instead we would be helping them utilize their resources better, allowing them to earn fair wages for their labor, helping their economy get on track, and reducing the likelihood of revolution, making the world a safer place.
I also believe that not supporting governments that commit human rights abuses is a responsible way to go. Not buying Chinese products for example. It’s pretty obvious that the Chinese government cares little for human life, yet we tacitly give them permission to continue on with these abuses by buying their products. Not to mention China has ties to the people commiting genocide in Darfur.
We ought to lead by example, use what resources we have wisely, and stay out of internal politics of other nations.
Phoenixon 14 Jul 2008 at 9:58 pm 1412 cents:
Websites are not democracies. Theaters evict the worst disturbers. Reasonable allowance should be given for the sake of open inquiry.
Some warnings are warranted for excessive obscenity, hate, sporging, etc.
Trolls come in several kinds. Going all Kos is just liberal dementia.
Radical unreason is immaturity. Personality disorders are infantilism.
Ban the worst, and certainly the classic one:
“to annoy for the sake of annoying, itself”. That’s the sole constant.
Attention is only more of it. *cough*, Andy Mabbet.
All the other qualities are just unserious tactical details.
Another one (by Cole) is feigning seriousness until people are hooked, and then rapidly cranking up the inflation to places where only huge mud fight could engage it, so cranking is the only consistent goal: “Ok, you’re right. Bush has God’s permission to invade every brown country on earth and bomb them into accepting Jesus and turning white”.
Ooooh, that’ll be so easy to engage……………………