Comments Posted By DoorHold
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 66 Comments
WHEN REALITY, INTENT, AND WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY DON'T MATTER
"For we are not talking about the redress of a grievances but rather the exercise of power ..."
Holy crap. With that one snippet you've changed the way I'm going to see such racist rants forever. (Is it original? Or have I just been missing that point?)
I guess I can understand how a group that feels it has no power would be compelled to use a technique that empowers them in some way, even if that technique ultimately proves to be useless or even work against them. Feeling powerless means they do not believe they CAN fix their problems, so the mere exercise of power makes them feel better about their perceived situation.
Christ people! Stop wasting your time trying to prove how powerful you can be and SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 24.02.2009 @ 14:10
NEIWART AND THE LEFT DON'T GET IT
Why are the proponents of the FD ignoring its potential to censor every media outlet they control? Will the rejiggered FD apply ONLY to radio?
I'm tellin' ya, if conservatives and Republicans let "progressives" know that we're anxious to vigorously attack liberal media, naming names (CBS, CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, etc.), they might let this die a quiet death (they won't "change their mind," that would be admitting they were wrong).
I honestly believe "progressives" are too arrogant to have a clue that the FD can work against them. It's our responsiblity to "educate" them that, if passed, it WILL be used against them at every opportunity. Change the entire dialog on the FD from "You're attacking Rush" to "We will attack ."
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 17.02.2009 @ 14:08
OBAMA ABSOLVES HIMSELF IN BLAGOBUST - LEFT AGREES
"... as we saw with Bill Clinton, parsing words is an art form and statements made in the report could very well contradict what the actual conversations might say because a good lawyer can twist words and facts until they reveal exactly what he wishes them to reveal."
Obama's a master of parsing his words, but he's telling the absolute unvarnished truth THIS TIME. Uh-huh. OK.
Personally -- I doubt he'd make any stupid moves THAT far along in his campaign, so I doubt there's anything incriminating to be found regarding his replacement. But I have to agree, the way people have jumped on this as "proof" is just plain outrageous.
It doesn't matter, however, as ANYTHING he does or says or advocates or promotes or HAS done will be hailed as just the greatest thing ever. Get used to it.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 24.12.2008 @ 16:36
WISHING THE GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE WOULD JUST GO AWAY
I'm disappointed that you use "the economy" as an excuse to disparage an unrelated issue. Hey, we're still at war! Why is the economy an issue at all? We just elected the most liberal President in history! Why is the economy an issue at all? Sure, those issues affect the economy, and the economy IS a big issue, but are we to put *everything* on hold until things return to normalcy? And what of people who aren't as worried about the economy as you are, or aren't worried about it at all? Should everyone sit on their hands until you're satisfied with your economic issues?
I happen to disagree with you that same sex marriage should be left up to the states, but your points on that subject are valid *enough* that I have little to add to that debate.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 24.12.2008 @ 16:53
THE RICH GET RICHER IN A VERY UNCAPITALIST WAY
Often, such legislative abuse *eventually* gets corrected. The credit industry helped re-write laws to their advantage not too long ago, and corrections are just now being implemented. Checks and balances are in place and work, but in the short term, things can get out of hand.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 24.12.2008 @ 17:03
"The government of the United States – last I looked – was a government of, by, and for the people. In other words, the government is us. And any insults directed at the government are insults hurled at each and every American regardless of party affiliation, ideology, or, in the case of liberals, intelligence or the lack thereof."
Half of "the people" have rejected our current President so I suspect rather than believing the country as a whole has been insulted, they relish any and all insults hurled toward "BusHitler." They've been flingin' insults themselves for the last eight years, why would they take this one personally?
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 17.12.2008 @ 14:25
"Obama was expecting hundreds of billions of dollars ..."
And like nearly every presidential candidate before him, he lied right to our faces. He's not stupid, he knew what he promised was undoable. Nobody seems to care. He'll say things changed or something else that people will swallow hook, line and sinker.
I think I'm getting depressed. ;)
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 3.12.2008 @ 13:57
THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRA
Chopra is a left-leaning celebrity. The media interviews left-leaning celebrities. That's it, the only reason we hear from the guy on political issues.
"The rest of the world breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the neocons’ attempt to create an American military empire."
CREATE an American Military Empire? I guess they mean there was plan afoot to use the American Military to LITERALLY take over the world. It's a stupid notion, but not surprising considering the source.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 3.12.2008 @ 14:08
IS ALL THE ECONOMIC DOOM AND GLOOM JUSTIFIED?
michael reynolds Said: "You know, commentors, the fact that it isn’t 1929 does not mean this is phony. This is a real, serious, dangerous mess. ..."
What, exactly, has changed in the American economy to cause such an explosion of despair? Not what's happening at the moment (one bank or another, whatever), what caused such a widespread meltdown?
Chuck Tucson Said: "... Sorry, but there’s no such thing as conservatism anymore. It’s dead. The Republicans destroyed it and now look what we’ve got."
The idea's alive, we just can't find anybody willing to apply it. :(
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 3.12.2008 @ 14:17
"Obama and the country could do worse than Hillary Clinton at State. I think she proved during the campaign that she has a much more realistic outlook on the world than the naive Obama and would probably be one of the only Obama foreign policy advisors who would advocate or support military action against Iran as a last resort. She is a steady friend of Israel, a more practical advocate for an Iraq drawdown, would support a surge of forces in Afghanistan, and generally has a more real politik outlook than the Obama crew. We could have done a lot worse if you consider the gaggle of far left liberals Obama tapped as his advisors during the campaign."
Before this past election campaign I thought Hillary was about as far left as anyone can be and still be electable to high office. Obama proved me wrong on that one. During the campaign I (Horrors!) actually LIKED what Hillary had to say, and, even more shocking, HOW she said it.
God help me, she often came across as ... Reagan-esque.
Eliminate all the conjecture and pre-conceived notions and you're left with the paragraph quoted above: Hillary would be a dependable choice for Secretary of State.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 19.11.2008 @ 13:15
