Comments Posted By AnalogBoy
Displaying 1 To 9 Of 9 Comments
RUDY EXPLOITS MOVEON'S STUPIDITY
Just a question - what about all the right-wing pro war types who call anyone who opposes this little war of ours "traitors?" Where's your righteous anger there Rick? Where's your anger at the Pentagon's note questioning Hilary Clinton's patriotism after she asked for any plans they may have for a withdrawal (which as I've been led to believe was routine?)
Not saying that the ad was right..but some consistency in your anger might be a good idea from the rhetorical argumentative standpoint.
Comment Posted By analogboy On 15.09.2007 @ 20:37
OBAMA: NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME - EVER
Bookish:
Hipocracy is a beautiful thing when it's exposed for the world to see, ain't it?Someone should email that transcript out to the entire righty blogosphere. Any takers, Rick?
Comment Posted By AnalogBoy On 3.08.2007 @ 09:36
Rather astute observations. Maybe it's self evident, but I'd add one more thing - the point you make about trusting the President is to me, the defining difference between his supporters and his detractors. As a confessed detractor of the President, I've often found myself baffled by those who defend and support warrentless wiretapping, secret prisons, and ambiguous torture policies. When I ask them where they're coming from (a tactic that I feel is often forgotten in favor of childish namecalling and rancor - from both sides), they almost universally have responded with something similar to "I trust that the President is doing the right thing to make the world safer."
Now I can agrue with their rationales for trusting the Prez, but you can't argue with trust.
I'd like to think that I would hold a President that I agree with to the same standards of criticism that I hold when discussing Dubya's policies, but I can't say that I would for the simple reason that I would be more likely to trust someone that I agree with more.
Comment Posted By analogboy On 1.08.2007 @ 10:18
SCIENTIFIC DEBUNKING OF LANCET STUDY: DOES IT REALLY MATTER?
Rick,
You had me until you accused these scientists of being "traitors" - however politically motivated this report was and however wrong their methodology may have been.
It's my (albeit lacking) understanding that treason involves "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance." (Merriam Webster)Now if to you, "treason" involves opposing a war begun on dubious grounds, then that's your perogative, but I wouldn't expect much support except from right wing wackos. But I fail to see the connection between publishing this report and even aiding the enemy. I'm not too bright, someone spell it out for me explicitly, logically please.
If they used bad science to push a political agenda, then the saner segments of society will eventually realize that these guys are quacks and will pay no more attention to them then they pay to any other of the various quacks, nutjobs, and wackos running around spouting bullsh*t.
Comment Posted By AnalogBoy On 26.07.2007 @ 14:51
LOVIN' THE WAR AND HATIN' THE MILITARY...OR IS IT T'OTHER WAY AROUND?
No, no, you had it right the first way around: Lovin' the war and hatin' the military:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/generation-chickenhawk-t_b_56676.html
Now, those are college...Republicans? Right?? Now why won't they fight?
Oh right, asthma. Bad knees.
Come on Rick, even this has to make you wonder...
Comment Posted By Analogboy On 23.07.2007 @ 10:44
THE NEW REPUBLIC NEEDS TO SET UP AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
Unfortunately this issue will (almost certainly) never be resolved. What happens if an independent investigation proves "inconclusive" or merely discredits parts of the story?
Most people - especially those whose livelihoods depend on creating controversy (ie bloggers) will believe what they want to believe, and short of the author coming out and admitting he made the whole thing up - this story will go down as either left wing evidence of US troops brutality or right wing evidence of "left wing lies." No investigation will change that.
Comment Posted By Analogboy On 21.07.2007 @ 21:56
STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS FRIDAY
Man, I lean left and that Kos entry was too much for me. It's no wonder people don't take us seriously. He sounds like those nutjobs on the right that claim that the terrorists are beating down our door trying to set up an Islamic State in the US.
Why do people even listen to these nutcases?
Comment Posted By Analogboy On 21.07.2007 @ 22:18
Uh, I think Bart was kidding dude.
And I don't get it...With almost 70% of this country against this war, a Democratic attempt to end it is pandering to it's "base"
qed, 70% of the country = the Democratic party's base. no wonder Republicans are scared. that's not even counting swing voters or those who dont even vote in the primaries.
Comment Posted By Analogboy On 18.07.2007 @ 21:43
NEW JIHADI VIDEO GIVES HEART TO TERRORISTS
I'm not sure anyone disagrees with the idea of an attack on a state sponsor of terrorism should another attack occur here at home. I think that there maybe were 5 people in the US who objected to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 on the grounds that the Taliban was instrumental in protecting al-Qaida while they planed and executed the attacks.
And I believe that if an Iranian or Syrian or Libyan or whoever -backed group carries out an attack, a retaliatory attack on that state will be necessary. I agree with SShiell above that we, as a nation, will need to retaliate.
My worry is, that while fighting two wars (one legit, the other one...debatable), will we have the military resources to carry out a third one? Or will we be forced to just lob some cruise missiles at a terrorist training camp? (which of course would result in political crucifixion by warmongers - especially if the next president is a Democrat).
State sponsors of terrorism SHOULD be held accountable for their actions. I think that the question will be less a SHOULD we attack (assuming of course that there is conclusive evidence of state support), and more of a CAN we attack - with our military stretched as it is nowadays and political support for the wars that we're currently engaged in waning.
And on a related note...what do we do about terrorists that aren't explicitly sponsored by a state? It appears that the would-be terrorists in the UK this past week aren't affiliated with any sort of state - and I would guess that the trend is going to be towards non-affiliated nutjobs rather than a centralized state sponsored organization...how do you deter these more "random" acts? Surely bombing the crap outta Iran isn't going to deter those guys??
Comment Posted By AnalogBoy On 5.07.2007 @ 10:40
