Comments Posted By Me
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 20 Comments
"Coulter employs hate speech. Terry did not"
Expressing regret that 3 people targeted for their race,sex and gender escaped a lynching is pretty hateful.
Should your "rich,white boy" brother be fired?No,this is America,where he's free to be a smug bigot as long as someone richer and dumber is willing to pay him to be a dumbass." Not in defense of what he wrote but in solidarity with his right to say it"
"No, I won’t defend what Terry said. But when all hands are raised against him, I think it important that he know that his family will stand with him"
But would Terry return the favor?hmmmm
The Bookworm put it best"people you don't like have no rights".
I only hope Terry and his friends learned a valuble lesson here.
Only lynch poor white boys,they can't afford good lawyers.
Comment Posted By me On 14.04.2007 @ 12:59
O'REILLY AND GERALDO LOSE IT ON AIR
This is a debate that is very clouded by emotion, on both sides.
But I know ugliness when I see it, and I only see it on one side of this debate.
On the other side I see compassion and understanding.
I mean, just look at that song you posted... immigrants don't pay taxes? not true. In fact, many pay social security but will never collect, so this is really a bogus argument....Same deal here as they get there? Why don't you go without a job for six months and live in a tin shack, with excrement lining your streets. Then you could go to a nice place in Mexico...now THAT would be the 'same deal'.
Other arguments stem from the fact that immigrants are poor, not that they are immigrants:
they get free public schools (immigrants don't pay rent? their landlords don't pay property taxes? this is stupid as well)
they might commit crimes (not as many crimes per capita as the average american)Then finally, the more directly related, yet still stupid:
They won't learn the language!!! (who cares? their kids will)
They'll "dilute" the population (what are you, a Nazi who believes in racial purity? no? just a republican? get rid of this argument...it's a stinker)So really, I don't think the right has the right to be that mad about this. The ugly nativism driving much of this is really the worst of human nature at work. We should be appealing to the best of human nature.
As for the drunk driver... this is one of the most politicically correct, sanctimonious issues out there...it's also a crime that almost everyone has committed, and one that many people commit on a regular basis.
And you want to send immigrants back to their tin-shacks-in-shit over that? (not really, you want to send them back because they are illegal) I've got no problem deporting them if they've committed a violent crime, for example, but what you're really saying is that the illegals here should be deported as soon as they are noticed...so this really isn't about drunk driving (other than a dramatic example of cause-and-effect...anectodal nonetheless).
And my point is: we let them in. We did, our corporations did, our government did. You might not want to admit it, and I'll certainly admit myself that it's not technically legal, but we let them in, and we have to accept the consequences of that. It's not their fault....you would have done exactly what they did (you would have been stupid not to, really, and if you love America as much as I do, you know this).
So this problem is of our making, and we have a choice to be decent, compassionate people, or ugly nativists, angry about something that we barely notice day-to-day.
Comment Posted By ME On 6.04.2007 @ 09:24
DEMS SCRAMBLING OVER WAR FUNDING BILL
"Immediate and unconditional surrender."
uhh...forgive me for stating the obvious, but ending an occupation is not, and never will be "surrender".
Retreat does not equal surrender, and it never will.
Though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by hyperbole at a place that calls itself a "nuthouse".
Comment Posted By ME On 21.03.2007 @ 09:35
IN WHICH I AM HEARTILY SICK OF GLENN GREENWALD
"How many times can you say that it’s impossible to determine the legality of a program you know nothing about?"
Dude, are you serious? That should read "program that we know a few things about". Like it's illegality.
When we "knew nothing about" the program, we didn't know it existed. That would be "knowing nothing".
We know enough about the program to know that it violates FISA. No serious legal argument can be made otherwise, and you know it (because you fail to make one).
And your support of it doesn't make you a neocon as much as an authoritarian, though if you support bringing democracy to Iraq through occupation, you are a neocon too.
Be proud of what you are! (Or tell us why that label can't apply to you).
Comment Posted By ME On 30.11.2006 @ 13:18
Anyone who refutes this study should go and do their own. THe best way to refute a scientific study is with your own. Surely the state department has an interest in showing how this study is BS. Why don't they fund their own, using the same accepted methodologies, but ensuring that the sampling is done fairly?
When the right has actual data, and not just "It's biased!" as an argument, people might pay attention.
Comment Posted By ME On 12.10.2006 @ 14:52
What a friggin mess we are in. There's no blaming Clinton for this one. What will we tell our children? Republicans are totally irresponsible and act in ways which damage our national security long-term when in charge, but Democrats might, "gasp!" raise our taxes.
Jesus, If I had knonw they were leading us down this road, I would have traded my vote for Bush for a tax-hike. This will cost a lot more in blood and treasure before we're through...no thanks to Bush.
It's another "katrina moment" to hear Bush say he won't allow terrorists to "carve out safehavens" and that those countries who harbor them are "just as guilty of murder", while we see him allowing the pakistanis to do just that.
Lying, irresponsible, incompetent fool. (And so are we for supporting this disaster of a president)
Today I gave up on Bush. Today the wool over my eyes finally fell to the floor.
Comment Posted By ME On 6.09.2006 @ 08:33
ASSASSINATING BUSH AND OTHER OCCASIONS FOR HUMOR
Typical right wingers whining about the left. GET OVER IT. This is one of the worst presidents in America's history. It's not a right vs left issue, its a right vs wrong issue. A shame that the right cant differentiate between right vs wrong. And even justify murder as long as it doesnt make their side look bad.
Truely sad and pathetic.
Comment Posted By Me On 1.09.2006 @ 04:51
And this is what the great country of America has become.
ANN COULTER: CONSERVATIVE LOUT
Modern conservatives are ALL louts. At one time, there were responsible conservatives in the world. Not many, but there were some. But those days are long gone.
Coulter just makes public what the typical con believes. She makes an outrageous statement, and cons back off a little. But the discourse is moved to the right. Repeat ad nauseum, and we end up with monsters running the US government.
Comment Posted By me On 8.06.2006 @ 17:35
Why the complaints?
Ann Coulter is just your typical conservative, although just slightly less restrained than most. She's getting lots of air time, press, radio time, etc. She says what most cons believe. Why would cons complain? She's one of them. She IS they, and they are she. Yes, the archetypal conservative, the quintessential conservative: Ann Coulter. The heart and soul of modern conservatism. The direct descendant and heir of Buckley and Reagan, Ann Coulter.
Comment Posted By me On 8.06.2006 @ 10:57
It's difficult to imagine the administration firing Rummy when they haven't even got the nerve to investigate and fire the numerous CIA officers who have leaked classified information, undermined administration and government policies, and jeopardized the likelihood of success in Iraq.
Imagine a group of intelligence officers undercutting Roosevelt during World War II because they didn't agree with the Japanese internment. That's what we have today, an intelligence class that has placed their own political beliefs and working philosophy above the democratically elected government of the country.
If the active military did something like this, there'd hell to pay and the danger of a major Constitutional crisis. When the CIA does, all of a sudden the black ops troublemakers that the left loved to hate are somehow the good guys.
Iraq is turning everything on its head. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has concluded that they have to maintain some sort of equillibrium with the press and critics, not in their words but in their actions. They should take a page from Lincoln about not trying to please everyone all the time and do what it takes to win the war on terror in so much as it can be won.
It would be nice though if some people on the anti-war left would wake up and see how utterly ridiculous and pathetic it is to continue to regard the administration as somehow morally and ethically worse than Hussein, Al Queda, and others whose goals are the deaths of millions, the extermination of worldwide Jewry, and the imposition of totalitarian Islamic government throughout the globe.
Until that happens, many of Rumsfeld's critics will never have any traction to deal with the real failures in Iraq, or the perspective to see why some of those failures occurred.
Comment Posted By Me On 5.05.2006 @ 12:45
