Comments Posted By Jake
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 19 Comments

MICHAEL JACKSON, WORLD FAMOUS PEDOPHILE, DEAD AT 50

Still amazed at how sure of themselves people are about the pedophile conviction.

You do all realize that if Michael Jackson would have wanted to have sex with children without anyone knowing, he could have done that without anyone knowing? It's the guilty ones who look innocent. Michael admitted to his strange affection for children (was it natural? no - but that doesn't make it pedophilia, you idiots) because he genuinely believed he did nothing wrong. If he had a guilty conscience he wouldn't have talked about it so publically.

You may say that "that's because he thought pedophilia was innocent and normal" - many pedophiles genuinely think they would never hurt a child (because they love them).

Then my question still remains, why he would so publically show affection for children when he could have gone to go to Thailand and nobody would ever know. That's right. Beyond the fact that pedophiles generally blend in rather than stand out, Jackson had the means to hide it well and forever if he had sex with kids. Does not fitting the profile make him innocent?

No. Because again I DON'T KNOW. And it would be nice to see all you so-called righteous people admit that, too. You don't know. Let it go and protect the children who can still be protected. You can't only campaign for these things when it's easy and convenient. Go out and do something.

Comment Posted By Jake On 28.06.2009 @ 05:35

What I find amazing, is that while right-wing would describe the left as "emotional" and manipulative, you lot have shown yourselves to be experts at this. "THIS GUY WAS A PEDOPHILE!! HE RAPED CHILDREN!! END OF STORY!"

Wow, *amazing* rationalism and factualism there. Very practical and realistic approach. Even if you are right and he did rape children - you do know that you still only GUESSED correctly, and thereby your point is still not' but air. The cold hard truth, you cold-hard-truth-lovers, is that you don't know, I don't know, nobody knows except the people who were there. That's the cold hard truth. And I find it pathetic how self-righteous people become when they get to bluff with a card as horrible as "pedophile". Get over yourselves - you don't know SHIT. Just like I don't know shit. You're guessing, so don't pretend to be better than anyone else by using terms like "childrape" to scare people into agreeing with you. Low.

I don't know what he did or didn't do. Whatever happened, justice will find him - in the afterlife now, obviously. It isn't up to YOU or ME to judge this situation, it is up to us to take care of the children we CAN protect. What you are all doing is easy, cheap and incredibly shallow. Talk about narcissism.

Comment Posted By Jake On 27.06.2009 @ 17:10

THE PATRIOT GAME

@TJ:

Which is why the French celebrate Bastille Day every year, or worry so much about the creeping influence of English on the French language that there's a government bureau dedicated to preserving and protecting it (an extreme example of a country taking TOO much pride in their culture, but that smacks too much of the Conservative version of patriotism to be uttered in decent company). Or for that matter, why riots erupted after Spain won the Euro championship - more than just "some soccer match."

Anyone who claims that there is "no pride in their history, culture nor traditions," would be better served asking an actual European about their history, culture, and traditions first. This may come as a shocker, but most Europeans view the creeping Americanization of the world as a bad thing.

Comment Posted By Jake On 1.07.2008 @ 12:17

Good piece, though a (relatively) minor quibble.
One often (rightly) faults the left for painting obscene caricatures of Republicans arguing that conservatives aren't just gun-totin' redneck nationalists (as this blog proves time and again). I just wish that courtesy was reciprocated and you didn't paint obscene caricatures of liberals as a group of of self-hating coastal elitists.
Rick, you said back in October:
"For the left to paint all conservatives and all Americans who express their love of country in a more demonstrable fashion than liberals as xenophobes and simple minded, brainwashed automatons is outrageously arrogant."

To which I would add
"For those on the right to paint all liberals and all Americans who express any critique of their government as traitors and anti-American is outrageously arrogant and deeply offensive."

Just askin...

Aravosis' politics cocern me not. Or at least they are a tangential issue to his being a sewer rat of the first order. Politics is a very tough game - which why when a line is crossed, you come down like a ton of bricks on the the one who crosses it.

Aravosis, as I point out, has been doing it for years. He is beyond redemption and should be forsworn by all liberals who should refuse to visit his site or pay any attention to him. You will no longer find any Ann Coulter quotes here - even to criticize her. Ditto for Pat Buchanan and a few others. The left should do the same to Aravosis.

ed

Comment Posted By Jake On 30.06.2008 @ 13:42

A LITTLE ALTERNATE HISTORY: 'HOPKINS SLAMS FDR IN NEW BOOK'

"FDR followed the law in stepping aside to allow Congress to fulfill their constitutional charge in determining if a declaration of war was merited. Clearly, the Constitution stipulates that the Congress alone has the authority to declare war.

Congress was complicit in breaching the Constitution when they yielded to Bush’s request that he alone would pull the war trigger.This effectively removed all checks and safeguards."

Don't sign up for the debate team...

Comment Posted By jake On 1.06.2008 @ 23:12

NOT A CULT, A CRUSADE

Ever considered the fact that maybe your last column tells you why so many people are so passionate about Obama? That maybe people are tired about the shenanigans of the Clintons? That people are sick of Bill's "Jessie Jackson won South Carolina twice" and Hillary's slimy attempts to get the Florida/Michigan delegates seated at the convention? Maybe the fact that the Clintons wreak of Rovian divide and conquer politics has something to do with it?

But no, Rick, according to you if we support Obama we're "irrationally" following our "messianic leader," yet if we vote for Hillary we're supporting a "take no prisoners" political machine. Give us some credit, maybe some of us young people are sick to death of the Clinton/Rove style. Maybe some of us want more out of our political discourse, not swift-boating and race-baiting.

You're right, I don't know everything about Obama's policies. I'm not much of a policy wonk, I'm not sure I care. He and Hillary are so close to each other that any substantive differences they have (mandates anyone?) will be ironed out by the legislative process.

When there's no difference on substance the question becomes one of style. And in my humble "irrational" opinion, Obama's congenial style - his willingness to listen to his ideological opponents (instead of HRCs abhorrent attempt to attack Obama for saying some nice things about Regan - Heaven forbid a democrat think, much less SAY that Regan did some good things as president!!!).

I've never come right out and said it before, because yes, I am too cynical for my own good, and I'm not yet entirely convinced that Hope (there I go with that ephemeral word again? where's the policy? you ask!!!) can beat the vaunted Clinton machine. But you calling my generation "irrational" and implying that my support for Obama was as empty as my wallet is insulting. Some of us may see what we like in Obama, or support him uncritically. But others of us actually thought (Imagine that! Young people thinking!!) and decided that we'd rather take a chance and be disappointed than reinforce a status quo that we are deeply disaffected with.

But what would I know? I'm just an "irrational" young voter who fails to "think critically." You may be a cynical old man Rick, but not all of us are blessed with your "rational" view of reality, and quite frankly, I'm not sure many of us would like to be.

Comment Posted By Jake On 14.02.2008 @ 17:59

WE'RE GOING TO NEED THE PATIENCE OF JOB

Rick, I fear you're coming down with McCain Derangement Syndrome. Here's the thing about McCain...he's not advocating policies that are all that irrational:
- Let's stop torturing prisoners,
- Let's keep criminals charged with crimes under American law in America,
- Let's work with allies and the UN(when we can) and when Russia (or others) make that impossible, and he seems to imply that the US won't let that stop them,
- Let's work with the Chinese and Indians to try to find a mutually agreeable solution to global warming...

These are, as far as I can tell, fairly reasonable policies, no matter what side of the fence you sit on. At least he's not (Gasp!) advocating sitting down with Hugo Chavez to work out our differences.

Honestly Rick, at this point, you're starting to get a little unhinged. I used to read you because you were a "reasonable" conservative...but with your MDS (and comments like "What a pandering, sycophantic, arrogant popinjay he is."), I'm quickly losing that impression.

I'd suggest stepping back and taking a deep breath.

Comment Posted By Jake On 12.02.2008 @ 18:16

BILL CLINTON, SPOUSE IN CHIEF

The NYTimes, the Right's favorite whipping boy, just published an op-ed by Frank Rich on this very topic yesterday. Dozens of left-wing bloggers have also pondered this subject, and virtually all of them do so with the same reservations as you. Granted, most are Obama supporters, but for many, the prospect of a "co-Presidency" smells just as bad to them as it does to you, Rick. The media is starting to talk about it - especially after Bill injected himself into her campaign in Nevada and South Carolina. One of the main narratives coming after Obama trounced Billary in SC is how this was a repudiation of not only HRC, but Bill as well(some 70% of voters who said Bill influenced their decision in SC voted FOR Obama - but don't quote me on that exact number).

PS: here's the link to the NYTimes article if your interested
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?em&ex=1201669200&en=548b245a1aa01a0d&ei=5087%0A

Comment Posted By Jake On 28.01.2008 @ 10:38

WHO ARE YOU CALLING A LIBERAL?

Gee Rick, as far as the Right demonizing liberals goes, your first commenter couldn't have been a more perfect example. As far as I'm aware, socialism has more to do with the government taking over industry, and less to do with things like universal health care..yes Liberals want to create some sort of safety net for the poor, but nobody in the democratic party is calling for an end to private property as we know it. So what possible reasons could the righties have for equating Democrats with Communists and Socialists? Oh yeah, thats right: Demonization.

You may not have personally contributed to this discourse, or you may have. But the Right has a long history of trying to convince the public that Democrats are somehow agents of the Communist menace.

Back in 04 when Bush was calling Kerry a "Liberal" time and again, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that as a compliment.

Comment Posted By Jake On 23.01.2008 @ 23:40

DEBATE IN SOUTH CAROLINA REVEALS GOP SCHISMS

As a registered Democrat (though sometimes I wonder about that - Bush's one "success" is to have pushed me towards a small-government type philosophy), Fred Thompson strikes me as one of two current Republican candidates (McCain being the other) that I would not only be ok with having as President, but would consider voting for. His strong position on Federalism and granting more power to the states is for me, an attractive philosophy. That and in the debates I've seen, his position on the issues - even when I disagree - seems to come from rational thought and argument more than the other candidates who rely on fear and hate (in my admittedly biased view).

Huckabee should be the nation's official speech-giver - his public speaking skills are unparallelled, but he should not run the country.
Frankly (at the risk of being called "soft on terror"), Giuliani scares me as a civil-liberties lover.
Romney's an insincere robot, and if his positions didn't scare me, his flip-flopping would.
I like McCain, but fear that he's just got too much baggage with the base of the party to win the nomination - though maybe they'll surprise me.

Thompson's best moment - for me - was when he was asked a question at the NH debates last weekend and seemed to wake up with a "Oh it's my turn?" It may have reflected the stereotype of Thompson as a lazy geezer, but to me it was humanizing - he went on to answer the question thoughtfully (though I forget what it was about). He seemed less like he'd be the nation's "Father figure" and more like a kindly "Grandfather Figure."
To some, it may be too distant, but to me it was somehow appealing.

Comment Posted By Jake On 12.01.2008 @ 19:25


 


Next page »


Pages (2) : [1] 2


«« Back To Stats Page