Comments Posted By Eno
Displaying 11 To 18 Of 18 Comments
AL GORE: MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR ANTI-AMERICANISM
Gore's unfitness for any elected office becomes more evident every day. He clearly is far more interested in his personal power than in furthering the interests of his fellow americans. His proposals would put millions of working people out of work based on unproven, and in some instances, unfounded science. Wealthy people like Gore and Soros are not concerned about the plight of average people.
I normally will not personally criticize other commenters, but Bartley, Scrivinor's comment may be the most ignorant I've ever read on this blog. Gore's comments about a sitting preisdent, made on foreign soil, have a far greater historical meaning than political speeches in Iowa. Anyone who has studied political science, interantional relations or history would recognize this fact. Reagan never personally insulted Carter's idiocy even though the previous admin's foreign policy was an interantional joke. It would not benfit the U.S. to have done so. Rarely in history has one party attacked a sitting president with such vitriol on foreign soil. If people actually took the time to study history and understand the politics of other nations (yes, including Europe Bart), they may have some understanding of Rick's column. But in the typically unreal stupid vein that the left currently exists, Bart reduces this to a two word response. Hey moron, being anti-Bush does not make you anti-american. Being anti-american makes you anti-american.P.S. Riverrat, could questions about -isms. Guys like Bart wouldn't understand the statist basis of Facism and socialism when reduced to a nationalist scale, rather than as worldwide phenomonem. But conservative dummis like us probably need to stick to New Riverisms.
Comment Posted By Eno On 31.05.2006 @ 15:17
CIA VS THE WHITE HOUSE: THE LONE PARTISAN?
The real question here is "does McCarthy have any personal connection to the State of Ohio, or was this the best way to 'back her horse (Kerry)' in a tight election?" If she has no connection, then the partisanship is so sickenly obvious, maybe the NYT and CNN will even notice.
Comment Posted By Eno On 23.04.2006 @ 08:23
I would be very interested in Steve's proof that we are turning into a Theocracy. What church is now in charge of our government? Who are the Mullahs of our new society? etc.etc. Then I'd like to hear his definitition of fascism, and specific examples of the rise of that political philosophy in the nation. Then perhaps he could explain to all of us poor deluded masses how the first Fascsit Theocracy came into being under the noses of strong intellectuals like him
Comment Posted By Eno On 15.03.2006 @ 13:33
HOW CAN YOU TOP "OVER THE TOP?"
I agree with your basic premise, but I see Ann as a product of the 80's. It was cool and intellectual to attack Reagan, and only stoopid people supported him. Ann was the first to get back at the rabid left with their own tactics. Today, when conservative discourse is easier to find, she is clearly over the top.
Comment Posted By Eno On 11.02.2006 @ 10:20
P.S. Do I have to become a cool blogger to get emails from Siter Toldjah? Damn, I knew I was doing something wrong!
AH! TO BE YOUNG, IN LOVE, AND IN PARIS IN THE FALL...
When I was in Paris (20 yrs ago) I stayed in a Hostel south of town in an Asian suburb. If the problems here are purely economic as the MSM wants us to believe, then the Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotion and Hmong populaces must be up in arms as well. Something tells me only the islamic radicals are behind this. Until everyone admits this fact, then Paris (and Berlin?) will continue to burn.
The French have ignored this for so long the only solution may be Napolean's "whiff of grapeshot."
Comment Posted By Eno On 6.11.2005 @ 10:35
HOLY SOCKS! BERGER AND ABLE DANGER?
Hey Oliver Stone Jr.: Sounds a little paranoid, but within the realm of possibility.
Comment Posted By Eno On 11.08.2005 @ 12:38
Thanks Naked Ape, for reminding me how deluded folks on the left can be on occasion. A little internet search would show you the history you evidently forgot. Nixon actually started the first real anti-drug legislation that in the "War on Drugs" vein in 1973. Reagan then started use of the term "War on Drugs" and Nancy got the typical first lady assignment and headed up the "Just say no" campaign. That idea stressed personal choice and individual responsiblity rather than stronger sentencing to stop drug use. I'm sure the terms personal choice and individual responsibility are confusing to a Clinton man.
Comment Posted By Eno On 11.08.2005 @ 18:18
Bill "Never inhaled" Clinton ran in 1992 and 1996 as the "War on Crime" president.During his term he greatly strengthened the sentencing guidelines and started "Zero tolerance" policies on many fronts, especially those drugs he was too ignorant to inhale. Between 1996 and 2001 General B. McCaffery was the nation's drug Czar and took the incarceration of Americans (especially minorities)to a new extreme. I doubt you would want to be naked in one your prez's prisons Naked Ape, they aren't easy going places. Please check out the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice website for the history of the "Incarceration President" ( www.cjcj.org )
Lastly dude, please don't try to impress me with aging (or dead) guys who liked to catch a buzz. I'm an aging guy who likes to catch a buzz,o.k. If you read my piece you might understand that the policies in place hurt people far more than a few joints. I'd advise you to relax, chill, and smoke a bone.
Nobody wants to hang out with a worthless stoner or obnoxious drunk, and that's not the point. I agree with most of Nuthouse's points, but disagree about the effect of legalization. I'm a state public defender, so I see the "war on drugs" in the trenches. We waste a tremendous amount of resources on jailing users. Now can we all agree that there are people who use both alcohol and drugs "responsibly" in the sense that they do not harm those around them and do nominal harm to themselves? I think we can.
Comment Posted By Eno On 11.08.2005 @ 12:36
I would like to think more conservatives would also realize that drugs, like all comodities are market driven. Nuthouse's point about the government dealing with Peruvian thugs is pretty good, but don't you think that they are thugs because they deal only with thugs in the distribution system? The illegal distribution sytem now in operation won't go away overnight, true, but by using law enforcemen resources against those in illegal distribution rather than illegal use would be a savings in terms of billions. Furthermore, if you could buy a drug legally as opposed to buying it illegally and facing a jail sentence for your efforts? Nuthouse is right, the illegals have too much invested to go away, but a huge percentage of their customers will disappear.
Now let me get my conservative bonafides back up in the picture: Drugs are bad!!! There, I said it. I've used them all and they can destroy lives of users and innocents around them. Nuthouse's comment about alcohol is well taken, why should we allow more debilitating substances in the world legally? Another excellent point. Right now someone is preparing a response to me with something like "My mother (sister,brother,father, best friend, etc.)was destroyed by Meth (coke, pot oxys, etc.)" Look dudes, this is 70% of my clientele. My officemate had all three of her sentencings this morning cancelled because all three guys failed pee tests.These losers couldn't come to Court clean!!!! I know how awful drugs can be! But let me remind you that we are currently "at war" with drugs since Pres. Clinton. Today, ten years later, this office can't complete one damn hearing because the guys are too stoned.
I'm not a libertarian who says "F--- the innocents", really I'm not. I'm just a realist who says jail time for everbody like Harrell wants is foolish, way too expensive, and doesn't work. Personally, I'm for legalizing all substances, FDA control and making all behaviors often credited to drug use (i.e. DUI, breaking and entering, forgery, or delivery of substances outside the system) should be punished harshly. It would work better than what we've got, and certainly couldn't work any worse.
