Comments Posted By SShiell
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 223 Comments
MY CONSERVATIVE APOSTASY AND WHY I DON'T GIVE A F**K WHAT YOU THINK
"Friends may come and go, even family may fade. In the end you’re standing there looking at your own face in the mirror, and that’s the guy you answer to."
Somewhere in the world pigs are flying because for once I agree with MR. You are your own man, Rick. Call yourself whatever you would like - Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Marxist, Minimalist, Cubist. It doesn't matter to anyone outside of "your own face in the mirror."
And regardless of the tag you place on yourself, I will still come and read what you have got to say.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 3.12.2009 @ 12:41
WALKBACK COMPLETE: US RECOGNIZES WINNER IN HONDURAN ELECTION
Or said another way:
"Let me try to briefly restate my earlier position: It’s Michael Reynolds, who gives a sh*t?"
Comment Posted By SShiell On 30.11.2009 @ 21:43
'THE COST OF DYING:' FALSE CHOICES OR THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN HEALTHCARE?
"I happen to think Mr. Obama’s cautious nature is an indicator that he will "avoid the very mention of the problem" once we’re past the current HCR debate, the terror trials, DADT, and a jobs recovery."
There, fixed it!
And regarding: "Or, in other words in his second term."
Care to make a wager?
Comment Posted By SShiell On 23.11.2009 @ 13:31
The dilemma facing anyone with an end-of-life decision is one that beggars the imagination. If you have not gone through it yourself, you cannot know the agony associated with the situation.
Two examples in my own family. One is an uncle who was given a medical death sentence - Stage IV renal cancer with less than 6 months to live. He chose ot avoid the potentially life extending chemo and radiation treatments because they may extend his life by a few months but the pain of going through either would be excrutiating. He chose a homeo-pathic regime of vitamins and herbal treatments. That was 14 years ago and he is still alive and kicking - and even more importantly he is enjoying life. Twice he has gone back to doctors to see if his condition has changed and in both instances the doctors just shook their heads and told him he still had but 6 months left at most. The last time he did this was 4 years ago.
The other case was my mother. In January she went into the hospital for a routine series of tests and five days later was gone.
I do not have an answer for society at large. In cases like this, I tend to defer to the family and their doctor. I just hope any resultant reforms that come from the current legislative efforts keep it at that level. It may be easy to put the medical problems we face in a dollar and cents manner, it is another thing altogether when the dollars society may be saving seemingly condemns someone you love to their demise.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 23.11.2009 @ 11:56
OBAMA'S "CHALLENGER MOMENT" AT FORT HOOD
"No, it’s an element in many scholarly definitions of terrorism."
And according to Wikipedia, “A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.”
The General Assembly resolution 49/60 titled "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism without mention of combatant status: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
But On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."
Maybe another way to differentiate would be the actions of the victims, especially if they are military. Are they in a combat zone? Are their actions consistent with combatant status? Or are they targets for terror, regardless of their status?
I am just saying that it is disengenuous to eliminate the possibility of terrorism just because the victims were military. Maybe a better characterization is whether the victims of the act were innocents. But that could very well start another discussion.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 12.11.2009 @ 11:27
"The obsession with the TelePrompter could not be more idiotic."
Even the most casual observor of Obama will admit his performances with and without the telepromtor are striking. So, while it may be "idiotic" to you, it is an comment-worthy phenomenon for most of the rest of us.
“A central element of terrorism is that it is an attack on non-combatants for the express purpose of causing terror in a civilian population and effect political changes that benefit a particular ideology."
It does not have to be an attack on non-combatants for there to be a terror attack. The definition of terrorism, according to dictionary.com is:
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
Your placing a futher caviot in the definition for non-combatants is your own addition. The Palestinians claim that since Israel drafts all into military service, a suicide attack on a bus full of people is not terrorism, but war. Their rationale, all could become military members so all are legitimate combat targets.
Your logic comes up short in the same manner. The use of force or violence in order to coerce is not limited to non-military targets for it to be a terror act.
That does not mean the Fort Hood action was a terror act. If Nadal intended to coerce - what was his aim? His agenda? What direction did he want the country to go as a result of his action? There could be reason to determine his attack may merit the term terrorism, but not without more investigation. At the same time there is not enough evidence to discount the possibility.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 12.11.2009 @ 01:36
I have to admit that Obama surprised me. Unlike virtually every speech he has ever given, he did not dwell on the only topic for which he has great experience - himself. I think it is disingenuous to critisize him for having not "taken the time to memorize the whole thing" or because it "was read from a teleprompter." He did a good job in providing comfort to the grieving and for that I thank him.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 11.11.2009 @ 15:04
SHOULD THE GOP HELP THE DEMOCRATS GOVERN?
To clarify the previous comment. Previously I stated:
"And I guess I should take a route never contemplated by the Democrats, the high road - BUT - you ask if the GOP should help the Democrats govern? My response - Sorry but I want them to do their job as the “Loyal Opposition” and F**k the Dems!"Michael Reynolds is obviously a Partisan Democrat so in order to be consistent and fair, I shall repeat: Reynolds, F**K YOU!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 10.11.2009 @ 10:38
Hey Reynolds:
F**K YOU!!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 10.11.2009 @ 10:32
Four years ago you could have asked a similar question, "Should The Democrats Help The GOP win the war?" And what was the answer? The Democrats gave us the answer time and again when they tried to defund the war.
You mention health care in your piece and one more than one occasion the GOP offered amendments regarding one or more of the various bills in circulation by the Dems:
* Tort Reform
* Opening Insurance competition across state lines
* Altogether some 800 amendments
Neither tort reform, the opening of state lines for competition, or any number of the over 800 amendments offered by the GOP would have been a "bridge too far to cross for liberals" but were shot down for what reason? Because they came from the GOP. No other reason makes sense. The Dems wanted a bi-partisan approach to health care like you would volunteer for a hole to be drilled in your head.And I would say you have a point when you say "the people have a right to expect that they shouldn’t have to pay for the consequences of this childish nonsense that passes for political discourse today. And the consequences of not reforming Medicare or making serious efforts to bring down the deficit are too horrible to contemplate."
And I guess I should take a route never contemplated by the Democrats, the high road - BUT - you ask if the GOP should help the Democrats govern? My response - Sorry but I want them to do their job as the "Loyal Opposition" and F**k the Dems!
'Nuff said!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 9.11.2009 @ 14:42
