Comments Posted By SShiell
Displaying 211 To 220 Of 223 Comments
Rick:
Reference Post #19 - Start Charging! According to MS Word, it is 1,499 words.And I would like to apologize - to all the Buffoons of the world. To have me associate "hunk" with you is indeed insulting.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 11.03.2006 @ 11:23
Yo "Hunk"
George McClellen was considered a shoo-in for the presidency in 1864. He was the "Hero" of Antietam, led the Army of the Potomac for a number of years and it was considered, at the time, to be the perfect opponent of the "Ogre" (Lincoln). The young Republican Party was saddled with an unpopular and expensive civil war, a universally despised president (even by his own cabinet), disaster after disaster in the first 2 years of the conflict and what appeared to be an unwinnable general election. And McClellan's "ace in the hole" - the Army - they would be allowed to vote en masse for the first time in the Republic. An Army of almost a million men (remember - this was before women were allowed to vote).
The results - the first "swift boating" in history. Even though the Army loved their "Little Mac", they also recognized his position against the continuation of the War (The real Civil one) was the wrong. The Army voted for Lincoln in unbelievable numbers (the estimate of the day was in excess of 90%) forever repudiating Kerry (Oops, I mean McClellan), the Democrats, and their anti-war position.
Before you project History 100 years from now and the coming condemnation of the present Commander-In-Chief, take a moment to read a little of your own history first!
What a Buffoon!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 10.03.2006 @ 17:57
Another President caught up in the crosshairs of the press and his opponents was Lincoln. You have noted in other entries how Lincoln was ridiculed for his supposed lack of intelligence, his appearance, and his administration's conduct of the war - and this one was a real Civil War. For a man, whom many historians rate as the greatest President, to persevere in the face of all that adversity makes me wonder at the incredible will he must have had.
Now I am not equating Bush with Lincoln but the similarities in their situations warrant scrutiny. And the one area that intrigues me most is their unwavering will to do the right thing in the face of all that adversity.
Will history judge Bush as kindly as it does Lincoln? If you can mneasure that by equating the levels of hatred and acrimony adressed to the man - maybe so.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 9.03.2006 @ 10:19
It is interesting to note how ready MSM is to declare the beginning of the "Iraqi Civil War" but how reluctant they are then to report that it has not started -- yet.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 26.02.2006 @ 16:25
As far as Gitmo is concerned, I don't see the issue of closing the facility. That is a minor point. At some point in the future Gitmo will close. The real question is what do you do with the inmates. I see 3 distinct possibilities.
1) Just open the doors of the cells and let the thugs out. Give them $5.25 for busfare to Havana and call it a day. Let the cubans deal with them.
2) Send them home. Send the Saudis to Saudi, Yemeni to Yemen, etc. Now stand back and whatch them scream bloody murder, 'cause they will not want to go. They know what awaits them when they get there.
3) Kill them. If they did not deserve consideration on the battlefield, and you could have done away with them right there, why give them any consideration now.Personally, I like #2 myself.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 18.02.2006 @ 23:37
THINGS I REALLY HATE: VOL. II, PART 4
Rick:
Your attempt at forebearance and understanding with the "Cartoon Controversey" was exemplary. And I appreciate your candor in the manner in which this forebearance was thrown back in your face.Islam is attempting to raise itself out of its torpor. Decades of stagnation within the "Arab Street" have come to a head. No longer will the continued attacks on the Jews and Zionism as the great enemy or the United States as the "Great Satan" suffice. The world itself is the target and the establishment of the Great Caliphate and the Dhimmitude of all non-believers the only acceptable result.
We knew this regarding the fanatics, terrorists, and Islamo-Fascists for some time. But we have held out hope for the Moderate Muslim world. The problem has been the Moderates' silence in the face of continued terrorism. The deafening quiet heard from the Muslim Moderates when the African Embassies were bombed, the Bali bombings, the USS Cole, Suicide bombers in Israel, and then 9/11. What would it take for the moderate muslim to raise himself up. We have found out - cartoons.
When we all bow to the Muslim world and offer our necks to the sword of Islam and humbly beg to live in servitude to the will of Allah - only then will the Muslim world feel content. How else can you view the evidence?
Comment Posted By SShiell On 12.02.2006 @ 12:28
IN THE END, IT'S ABOUT EMPATHY
Rick:
I appreciate your intent with this post. There has to be some level of sanity in approaching this madness. But therein lies the rub. The "Arab Street" will not respect this approach. Will they respect any approach? I don't know. On another site a comment was made that this was a conflict of two civilizations. The response to that comment was that there was only one civilization.Maybe we have become callous here in the West. Maybe we are so cowed by political correctness that all we can do when confronted by similar situations ("Piss Christ", Anti-Semitic or Anti-Israeli rhetoric, anti christian-fundamentalist commentary, and even the hate-filled political rantings of the Far Left) is to shrug and calmly accept the situation as the natural way of the world. Maybe our own Judeo-Chriatian upbringing and our "turn the other cheek" mentality has a stronger grip on us than we really know.
It is obvious the Arab World does not accept this status. Maybe they do not believe in the turning of the cheek. Maybe they do not believe in diversity, multi-culturalism, or any of the other methods of just working together for the cause of peace. The Gitmo controversey of last year regarding stories of improper handling of the Koran should have been a warning. And now we have what may be a potential watershed crises between the Arab world and the West regarding cartoons.
So what do we do? I think we are on a course whether we have chosen it or not. Representatives have apologized for the harm done. Actions have been done by the newpapers and even governments to correct the situation. And still the "Arab Street" explodes. What more can be done?
In times past, when the common people rioted and burned and looted their way through the Jewish quarters of 17th, 18th, and 19th Century Europe, the powers that be, who instigated the riots in the first place, stood by and let the anger fade. The hope was the mob would burn out it vengeance on the Jews before it spreads to the normal parts of the cities. These were called Pogroms by the Jews. They came to fear and accept them as their lot in life. Shall we join the Pogrom? Or stand by and hope the riots and the cause of the riots fade from the mind of the rioters.
And in all of this I have but one question? How far have we really travelled from those dark days of the Pogrom. Or do we stand up on our hind legs and state "Enough!!!"
Comment Posted By SShiell On 6.02.2006 @ 00:36
Rodney:
I first read the State Department reference at Michelle Malkin but it seems that there is some confusion regarding who said what. At Little Green Footballs they describe how:Agence France Presse says the State Department spokesman was “Justin Higgins:†US blasts cartoons of Prophet Mohammed.
Reuters says it was “Kurtis Cooper:†US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute.
And the Associated Press says it was “Janelle Hironimus,†in a story by Qassim Abdel-Zahra: Protests Intensify Over Muhammad Drawings.
Is this story a hoax, or just hopelessly confused?The article continues with excerpts from a State Department briefing. There seems to be some confusion as to who said what to whom! And, as such, I may have been premature in denouncing our State Department. I only hope there may be some backbone there after all.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 3.02.2006 @ 22:05
A DEAD WRONG HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF 9/11
The "context" of history is relative. It has been over 2300 years since Alexander the Great conquered the known world of his day but there have been no less than 5 biographies published about his life in the past 5 years. What more is there to learn of the man? Seems to be enough to generate some considerable study. 9/11, the books written about it, and the criticisms of those books look to be in the forefront of nonfiction literature for some time to come.
And why not? Has there been anything since Pearl Harbor that has grabbed America at its very core like 9/11? It is possible the Challenger disaster or the Kennedy assassination has had such an emotional grips on this country. But in those cases it was an internal gut wrenching. A self-inflicted wound.
9/11 had implications for the entire world. And the collateral damage caused by that event has yet to settle. Patience all - it is possible that there may be enough "context" on this issue in something less than 2300 years?
Comment Posted By SShiell On 28.01.2006 @ 17:32
Oh, and by the way, on behalf of all the pigs in the world I respectfully take exception to referring to John Alter as a Pig! This is a slander to the pigs of the world because they would not lower themselves to his level. Some other description may be more appropriate for Mr. Alter - "Scum Sucking Bottom Feeder" or "Slack Jawed Slobbering Pedophile" or even, dare I say it "Lawyer".
Comment Posted By SShiell On 20.12.2005 @ 22:13
