Comments Posted By Mark H.
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 71 Comments
Jim opines, "...however, i DO think there should be NO HEALTH INSURANCE for smokers who give themselves CANCER and HEART DISEASE."
How do you feel about people that go out to the beach to bask in the sun? Should they be denied healthcare too if they contract skin cancer?
What of the roofers that provide you shelter? Should they get healthcare despite working out in the sun and contracting same cancer, because their charge was more noble (as it benefited you directly) than those that were merely seeking to enjoy themselves without benefit to you?
Should, too, those of us that enjoy bacon, be denied healthcare because we should've followed the dictates of you "nannyists?"
Why are you, oh so noble people, so anxious to defer your freedom to the state?
Do you fail to understand where your inanity leads?
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 23.08.2007 @ 00:03
"THE RICK MORAN SHOW:" 9/11 TRUTHER WAKE
Wowsers Ethan, you've got that covered. That's an old threat though.
I think you should be aware of, though (and working, quickly please, to uncover the conspiracy), the explosive charges the space shuttle crew set on that asteroid hidden behind the space station (while NASA was misdirecting us about the fake damaged tile), to cause it to fall on the United States and result in a Bush for Life presidency.
You will get right on that, right? We're depending on you.
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 21.08.2007 @ 22:49
ABOUT THAT COMMENT REGISTRATION...
Actually Rick, there is a "register" button way down somewhere in the left column, but (IE7.x) clicking on it gave me an error page anyway! Good luck with crafting together the new site, looking forward to visiting it.
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 19.08.2007 @ 15:13
"Too bad Newt won’t be able to resist jumping in and ruining all Ol Fred’s carefully laid plans."
Newt ain't jumping in. I've never met anyone that would vote for Newt for Prez, probably never will.
Which is not to say that he doesn't have a point of view worth evaluating in the overall scheme of things -- just not as a candidate himself.
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 24.07.2007 @ 23:27
Rick closes: "How long can they stick with the President without permanently damaging their careers?"
I believe, Rick, that their "careers" will more likely be over because of their abandoning the President, thus also, most importantly, thumbing their noses at the troops, and, most disgustingly, at General Petraeus, after having confirmed him unanimously a short time ago. It boggles my mind.
That said, I was prompted to reply by your use of "careers." It wasn't supposed be a career, it was supposed to be temporary service to our new nation. Now it's morphed into a bunch of old men that don't know the meaning of the word "service."
Worse, they don't seem to have retained any memory of the exceptionalism of our country -- perhaps they don't, after too many years at the public trough, even believe we're exceptional any longer, it sure seems that way.
It's a very sad thing when our "leaders" are so anxious to cut, run, and dishonor our troops and ultimately lose our country -- and not too far in the future at that, thanks to their fecklessness.
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 15.07.2007 @ 22:11
NEW JIHADI VIDEO GIVES HEART TO TERRORISTS
"And what’s the point of being a liberal if you can’t trivialize the momentous and complicate the obvious>?"
I'm not sure I've heard it put just that way before, I like it!
"In other words, would it have been better to simply acknowledge that we are going to be attacked every once and a while and concentrate our efforts on policing and prevention?"
We tried that from 1783 to 1815 via tribute payments to the host nations of the Barbary pirates, and still our ships were attacked and citizens imprisoned. It wasn't until we responded with great force that that problem was solved.
Too, to have a president of the US stand up and say we're going to throw a certain number of our citizens under the bus, because we don't want to rile the enemy up by fighting back is simply not palatable to me (to others it might be).
Interestingly, to me anyway, in 1805 (22 years from 1783) we almost broke the backs of the pirates, but it was 10 years later before we got entirely serious. Our current hostilities began in 1979 with the taking of the hostages in Iran and we tried ignoring them again -- add 22 years and we get to 9/11 (and all the losses in the interim).
Still (amazingly enough) we're not fighting all out. Will it take another 4 years (1805-1815; 2001-2011) before we do what has to be done? And how catastrophic an attack will it have to be to shake us into action?
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 5.07.2007 @ 10:48
"But Right Wing Nuthouse will be retired – with honors. The name has served its purpose well of drawing attention to me. From here on out, my writing will have to serve that purpose."
Well, your writing has always sustained the site regardless of the curiosity factor of the name, but I do think your strategy of going for a new persona is a good one Rick. Continued good wishes to you.
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 9.06.2007 @ 18:02
PERSIAN GANGSTERS WILL TRY AMERICAN HOSTAGES FOR ESPIONAGE
Rick concludes: "And that kind of irony is either too amusing for words or too painful to contemplate. You decide."
Given 4 or 5 hours of silence in the comments, perhaps it's both. Given Iran's meddling in Iraq with weaponry and training, their thumbing of their nose at the world in regards to nuclear proliferation, and our own experience with ignoring them vis a vis hostage situations we have more than sufficient cause to demand release and now, or else.
Will we? I don't know, half our citizens shake in their boots at the prospect of standing up for American values and liberty around the world and President Bush is passionate about amnesty for illegals at the moment, so odds are we'll do absolutely nothing until a mushroom cloud rises (if then), long after the current hostages are dead and buried.
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 1.06.2007 @ 19:14
MY 10 FAVORITE MOVIE VILLAINS OF ALL TIME
Ah, yes WasatchMan, Mitchum in Cape Fear too (as well as DeNiro in the remake).
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 25.05.2007 @ 12:02
I agree about the two Booth's, especially "Blue Velvet." Speaking of Lynch, Robert Blake in "Lost Highway" was chillingly eerie.
Let's see, Nicholas Cage in "Face Off" was pure evil.
Comment Posted By Mark H. On 24.05.2007 @ 19:36
