Comments Posted By Officious Pedant
Displaying 1 To 7 Of 7 Comments



To bad you don't keep track of the stuff you write. I thought there were archives for this stuff.

How about this attack on the left:

Which lacks a single mention of the same types of escapades on the right.

And I particularly love this paranoia extravaganza, for which your sole link, as back up, is to a Captain's Quarters story on tire slashing.

I find you to be one of those "damning with faint praise" conservatives, Rick. You toss in some off the cuff compliment to the author of a piece, and then proceed, often with vitriol, to explain why they are wrongheaded, ignorant (if not stupid), and arrogant. (Odd, that last, given your propensities.)

You are precisely what you purport to be opposed to, only with a thinner veneer of disdain for your fellow Americans. Well done.

Comment Posted By Officious Pedant On 11.11.2006 @ 17:19

I think it's past time for a little crowing. I have had to put up with some of the least educated, mysanthropic, myopic, ill-informed, delusional people explain to me that war opposers were terrorist sympathizers. I have been told that my opposition to listening to a conversation without a warrant is tantamount to preventing the government from listening to terrorists. I have been told by some of the most partisan water carriers ever to have lived that it isn't torture/abuse/murder because we simply aren't as bad as terrorists/Hussein, and out heart was in the right place.

Through all of this, I have had to listen to people like you, Rick, tell me that while all this sand is being kicked in my face, I should be civil. That I'm dragging down the discourse. Ann Coulter can call widows "shrieking harpies" in a bestselling book, and on national tv, and she's being an entertainer, but my calling someone like you a moron in a blog post is bringing down the national discourse.

Well, Rick, let me tell you something. You, and those like you, have worked very hard to bring discourse to this level, so now we'll see how you like it for a while. I would like to see the House paper the White House for every scrap of information it can. I look forward to slapping down people like you who whine about getting on with the business of governing, with a recent history lesson on oversight (or lack thereof in the Republican Congress). And, if there is guilt on the part of Administration officials, proveable beyond a reasonable doubt, I look forward to seeing the men and women who planned and brought to fruition the War in Iraq go to prison.

Comment Posted By Officious Pedant On 9.11.2006 @ 19:24


And when did he turn 18, Breaking? Or is that immaterial to your claim?

Comment Posted By Officious Pedant On 6.10.2006 @ 11:03

Merovign @ 196 projected:

But I’ve become so disgusted with the hysteria, bloody-mindedness and power madness of the left, and their willingness to seek new heights in the already feotid swamps of DC dishonesty, that I can’t honestly think of more than a couple of Democratic politicians that I’d consider voting for.

Which is a profoundly odd thing to say when the last 6 years have been all about the Unitary Executive and his unfettered authority, in the person of the Commander in Chief, to prosecute wars, detain citizens, listen in on calls, ignore the law, and funnel unprecedented sums to his cronies (competent or not).

Y’all should have read the contract before you sold out to Soros (through the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which shut out a lot of “old” funding and left Soros’ 501s funding a LOT of your publicity efforts). Maybe if he’s serious about quitting, the actual grassroots can get hold of the Democrat party and actually stage a principled foil to the Repubs, as opposed to just opposing them on principle.

Yeah, that Soros is such a partisan fiend. Totally unlike Mr. Scaife in every way. Say, how's that Heritage Foundation fundraiser going? Maybe he could have Regnery Publishing (you know, the folks that published the Swift Boat smear) help out.

See, that's just wilfull blindness, there. You play down your partisanship (which is fine) to seem reasonable (which is the problem), but you wander back to Wilson, Katrina, and Blame Bush First arguments because they are your default position. Go ahead, tell me how Bush didn't cause the hurricane, I can take it. The fact that was never the issue aside. Rather it was the ineffectual response of the Federal Government after they had declared an emergency days before Katrina made landfall, but failed to show until 7 days after landfall. Tell me about Saddam's Weapons program, largely fabricated by Curveball (who has now recanted) after the Germans made clear he was unreliable. Let's talk about Chalabi leading Bush and his Administration around by their noses, and being paid by the US government while in the employ of Iranian Intelligence.

Let's talk about the good news of the Baghdad Police Academy, the rise in opium production in Afghanistan, and Ken Mehlmans assertion that Afghanistan is a failed state. Let's talk about giving Pakistan nuclear technology right before they reach an accord with North Waziristan. Lets talk about lawlessness in the Anbar province (one third of the country), and the steady drumbeat of high level military officers concerned that the armed forces are being broken in Iraq, which could take years to repair. Skyrocketing debt and deficits, government that has grown every year since Bush was elected, and corruption so widespread as to be endemic.

But you want to talk about the "good news" of schools being painted (too bad you take your life in your hands trying to go, and don't even mention girls), establishing a parliametary government (which uses Islam as its guiding principle, and is now jailing journalists for criticism), power coming on line (and just about reaching a percentage what there was before the war)? You took a giant step back from reality, and want to call that reasoned debate? It's called making it up as you go, because the suckers will buy it. And it's going to cost you in November.

Comment Posted By Officious Pedant On 2.10.2006 @ 12:51

Couple of quick notes on this Foley issue.

First, the man, however creepy, cannot be classified as a pedophile due to age of consent laws in DC. They boy(s), while in their minority, could legally give consent.

Second, the legal violation is of a Federal statute that forbids the solicitation of sexual acts via the Internet. Using such language as this:

The term ‘‘specified offense against a minor’’ means
an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:
(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or
guardian) involving kidnapping.
(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or
guardian) involving false imprisonment.
(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
(D) Use in a sexual performance.
(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.
(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of
title 18, United States Code.
(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child
(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the
use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.
(Say, using email, or an IM.)
(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense
against a minor.

As to a cover-up, I'm not sure, but there are a couple of pointers:

From the AP story: The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander (news, bio, voting record), R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen's parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, "We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem," a reference to the House's Republican leaders.

Why would the leadership seek to protect him? Well, the AP story touched on that, too: Foley was a member of the Republican leadership, serving as a deputy whip. He also was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

And Senator Boehner seemed to have some notion, at least until he forgot he did. From the WaPo: The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley's GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.

So, it seems that the leadership failed to act on what they knew, possibly because the individual who was doing it was a member of the leadership. Seems a bit less complicated now.

Comment Posted By Officious Pedant On 2.10.2006 @ 00:16

From Merovign, @ 189:

I’ve been in some pretty brutal arguments with Republicans. But usually, when I present my evidence, at the very least I don’t get a response ignoring me and making the original allegation again. That is exactly the response I get from the left, in all but a very few cases.

Then you haven't argued faulty intelligence, WMD and their supposed transshipment to Syria, the status of Iraq or the economy, the failure that was Katrina, or the status of our military. All of which are rife with facts indicating the failure of the policy, but which don't seem to dent the certitude of the Faith Based Argument community.

Comment Posted By Officious Pedant On 1.10.2006 @ 23:41

B.Poster at 114:

You know what you never hear about the "aggressive interrogation"? Whether or not those being subjected to these fraternity initiations are guilty. No one says a word about that. Not as fast as they gloss over extraordinary renditions, but still.

So, you're picked up in a sweep, or sold by bounty hunters, and handed over to US jailors. They keep you for years either at a US base, or some place closed to those inspectors you seem to have so much faith will provide oversight, and presumably subject you to only those fraternity pranks. Then they release you, no charges having been filed. That's up to the American standard of the rule of law? The one we're trying to bring to the rest of the world?

On a related note, could you point me to the portion of the act that specifies which techniques are allowed, and which aren't? Since you seem to be basing your argument on knowledge of the permitted techniques when the President or Sec Def declares you an illegal combatant, I mean.

Comment Posted By Officious Pedant On 1.10.2006 @ 22:04



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page