Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 246 Comments
OOGEDY-BOOGEDY AND BIBBIDI, BOBBIDI, BOO
"Parker was comparing the religious right with those other famous armband wearers, the Brown Shirts of Nazi fame. But she did it in such a cutesy way, we will forgive her, right? Boy, I bet Parker’s little smear elicited a snicker or two from her new found friends on the left – a crowd she seems to be playing to more and more lately.
But it is the use of the pejorative “oogedy boogedy” that has everyone up in arms on the right. Jonah Goldberg wonders what all the fuss is about:"
Utterly brilliant. You decry someone making veiled references to Nazis and then you follow up with a quote from Jonah Goldberg, author of the book with the smiley face Hitler on the front cover.
You did this deliberately didn't you?
"And during the last decade (and especially the last two presidential elections) as Karl Rove shamelessly – and successfully – used wedge issues like gay marriage to maximize the turnout among the evangelical community, hideous figures like Hagee and Parsley gained influence because of the size of their following." Rick Moran
"The power of the religious right in party affairs has never been so great and it may take something of a civil war between the evangelicals and secular conservatives to hash this out. So be it." Rick Moran
"To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh." Kathleen Parker
Honestly, these three quotes are not that different. Parker is obviously addressing the same group of nutjobs that you have a problem with, rather than Christians as a whole.
Yes, but the idea that the religious right is this huge bogeyman that Parker and the left are pushing is ludicrous. My beef is with the emphasis placed on social issues not who is supporting those issues (mostly).
And it has been a well established scholarly arguement for a generation that liberalism and fascism have much in common - perhaps more than conservatism and fascism but I wouldn't want to live off the difference. The real point Goldberg was making in his book was the left's unacknowledged support for totalitarian-like policies. The right has been kicking these kooks out of respectable society for 50 years. The left has a seat at the table for them.
ed.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 21.11.2008 @ 08:46
"Of course, they also have high suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, and divorce rates. They don’t have children either because they hate them or think them an impediment to their lifestyle. The vast majority of them live drab, colorless lives with little opportunity to better themselves. And who would want to considering that governments frown on anyone getting too far ahead of their neighbors. They import the colored peoples of the world to do their scut work and then do everything they can to prevent their assimilation by sticking them in immigrant ghettos where hate and resentment against their lovable hosts will almost certainly explode into uncontrollable violence one day."
What on Earth are you talking about? Have you ever actually been to Europe, or are you relying on the classic stereotypes?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 15.11.2008 @ 03:54
"Gee…do you think that maybe a very large segment of the world was not “with us” following 9/11 after all and, in fact, celebrated this hit against our pride and prestige?"
You are equating "Cheering on their downfall" with "Watching one thing happen after another".
Acknowledging that events tend to have causes is not the same as wishing that those events happen. using phrases like "Got what was coming to them" is simply playing to this misconception, and I cannot imagine that you don't realise it.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.09.2008 @ 14:28
"Try a decade – or more. Extraordinary rendition began under Clinton. So unless you think they were serving tea and crumpits to the prisoners, I would advise you to amend your typically shallow and useless analysis."
I love it, one person on the entire thread agrees with you and he's the one you dispute. You a funny guy!
I don't remember people having open discussions about how much torture was OK back then, but then I was a lot younger, maybe I just forgot the masses of Op-Eds supporting water torture, the stories of detainees being beaten to death, or being found manacled in "Stress positions", etc.
If you notice, I didn't ask when people started torturing, it was when it became so easy to be in support of torture publicly. Just look at this thread. Such a thread would have been regarded as insane only a few years ago. "Should America torture people" used to have a simple answer.
Of course you didn't hear of rendition during CLinton years. It was a secret. And by God, even though the same CIA agents who leaked like a sieve about torture during the Bush Administration because it was immoral were there during Clinton's rendition period, that was different.
I leave it to your imagination to discover what the difference between Bush and Clinton might be.
ed.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 4.08.2008 @ 09:46
Ahh, for the simplicity of the time when you could simply say "Torturing people, innocent or guilty, is wrong so we shouldn't do it" and that would be the end of it.
That was, what, about 7 or so years ago, wasn't it?
Try a decade - or more. Extraordinary rendition began under Clinton. So unless you think they were serving tea and crumpits to the prisoners, I would advise you to amend your typically shallow and useless analysis.
ed.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 4.08.2008 @ 09:00
ANTHRAX SUICIDE CASE RAISES TROUBLING QUESTIONS
"if you are going to try and convince anyone that the American people supported going to war against Saddam because of the anthrax attack, that would be wrong."
Perhaps, but it certainly helped to change 911 from an attack to a series of attacks in the public mind, and there were certainly incorrect attempts to te Saddam to the attacks.
You're acting as if the campaign to build public support for the war in Iraq was a one-shot affair, when you know full well that it was a cumulative attempt to change people's reactions on a gut level rather than an intellectual one.
Normally, I'd say that the levels of general incompetence in the attempt preclude it from being a conspiracy, but with the lot in charge at the moment, that sounds like a poor defense.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 1.08.2008 @ 17:06
McCAIN CAMPAIGN STILL FOUNDERING
"It may come to walling McCain off from the press – fewer avails and press conferences."
Your endorsements are getting better and better. The best way to get McCain elected is to keep him locked up quietly so he can't screw things up any more. You should work for his campaign office.
(And yes, I know you aren't endorsing McCain, just slating Obama).
"But just hours after his crisp performance, the Republican presidential candidate blurred his own message with an offhand comment to a television interviewer that Obama’s proposal for a 16-month time frame for removing combat troops from Iraq might be a “pretty good timetable.” That seemed to run counter to his attempts to cast Obama as naive on foreign policy, and it sent his aides scrambling."
He could easily have meant that as "If we wanted a timetable then that would be a good one, but we don't because...[insert standard 'they'll wait us out' argument]" or "Yes, having an internal timetable for planning purposes might be a good idea, and that would be a fair one but we mustn't tell the Iraqis because...". It may be poor politics if you are running a stupid campaign about relative patriotism and America love, but it is good behaviour to change your position if the facts change.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 31.07.2008 @ 14:24
OIL AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CAN REDEFINE THE RACE
"Listless, directionless, and only recently has any semblance of organization begun to be seen."
Now those are the qualities you want in a potential leader.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.07.2008 @ 18:33
OBAMA WOWS THE GERMANS. BUT WILL IT PLAY IN STREATOR, IL?
"Can you say: “Taqiyah”?"
Can I just confirm something here. Obama is a muslim who has been hiding his identity in order to sneak, undercover, to the presidency of the US where he will act in accordance with his true muslim attitudes, yes? To this end he has pretended to be a Christian for his entire life, going to church, all that stuff. Other than that he lives a safely secular all-American life as his cover, drinking, smoking, etc.
But the one thing that he couldn't cover up was his aversion to giving Christmas gifts.
Yup, that's believable.
And, as we all know, Christmas is all about the presents, right?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 27.07.2008 @ 08:17
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE <em>FUHRER</em>
Couldn't agree more. A proper Presidential candidate would never hold large rallies, would work as hard as he could to dissuade people from becoming overenthusiastic about his candidacy and would speak of division and hopelessness at every opportunity. In fact, such a serious and humble person would be a sure fire winner in the most hyper-media-driven election environment the world has ever known. Just look at Fred Thompson.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 24.07.2008 @ 09:44
