Comments Posted By anon
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 61 Comments
The bottom line, of course, is that Charles Johnson, with no sense of irony at all, has published a hateful and extremist diatribe to criticize hate and extremism. In other words, he's right -- he's a liberal.
Comment Posted By Anon On 1.12.2009 @ 14:57
HADLEY EMAILS DON'T 'PROVE' GLOBAL WARMING A CROCK
People in different countries on opposite hemispheres colluding to push an international treaty on industrial regulation is the very fu#@$#@ing definition of global conspiracy.
Comment Posted By anon On 21.11.2009 @ 17:22
"How it ends will determine what kind of country we will be forever after."
Well don't stop there. What kind of country will we be if it passes? What kind of country will we be if it does not?
Comment Posted By Anon On 7.11.2009 @ 12:44
YES TO HOFFMAN, BUT NO LITMUS TEST PLEASE
I don't see this as a right or far right litmus test at all. Hoffman is a mainstream Republican. Scazzafava is a far-left Republican. Hoffman sought the GOP nomination, but was denied by the NY party bosses, so he opted for third party, but he's really still just an ordinary Republican. It isn't that he has passed a litmus test with Republican voters, but that Scazzafava just fails to represent even a single important Republican issue. She's not a Republican. He is. If that's a litmus test for how Republicans should vote, well…it ought to be!
Comment Posted By Anon On 27.10.2009 @ 14:31
The problem with your analysis is that while there are unhinged righties in the entertainment media, there are also prominent Republicans who will publicly say that President Obama, or other democrats, have good intentions, love their country, etc. In the democrat party today, there are no such gentlemen or gentlewomen -- and there hasn't been for a decade or more. The only gentleman they had left, Joe Lieberman, was literally thrown out of the party, mostly for being a decent man. When democrat party leaders speak of their political opposition, it is ALWAYS with dripping sarcasm and vicious invective. When Republicans go too far with their rhetoric, other Republicans criticize them. Democrats never, ever criticize each other for their bad behavior, and the media never asks them to. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama routinely say just awful things about their political opposition, and then they go an television and whine about "incivility." It's ridiculous. The situation hasn't even begun to achieve moral equivalency, and it's simply dishonest to suggest that it has.
Comment Posted By Anon On 14.10.2009 @ 18:39
SHOULD NEWSPAPERS GO NON-PROFIT?
Should typewriter manufacturers have gone non-profit? Should vinyl record album makers have gone non-profit? How about rotary dial telephones, or for that matter home phones altogether? Newspapers aren't selling anything consumers want. There are other ways to get the news, many, many other ways. Times have changed. Moreover, not only are consumers no longer interested in reading their news on paper, the newspaper industry hastened its own demise by producing a really bad, biased product. They already function as instruments of the state (so long as the head of state is a democrat). To ask consumers to pay for their propaganda via tax breaks is an insult to democracy. This will be a very bad move. We already pay for state propaganda; it's called the White House communications office. Why do we need to pay to read their press releases twice, once as it comes out of the White House and again on the front page of the New York Times? Has the left lost its collective mind?
Comment Posted By Anon On 21.09.2009 @ 14:07
STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS SATURDAY
Here is my stream of consciousness: Please, please stop with the "both the right and left" nonsense. At least say "the left, for years and years and years," and "the right, more recently." The political climate we find ourselves in today is wholly a creation of the left, which was permitted by the nation's media and political elites to launch blood libel after blood libel for years with absolutely no filter, no shame, and no calls for party introspection. It continues today with "racists," "teabaggers," and now allusions to John Kennedy and 1963. I would really like some "reasoned, rational" person to acknowledge that our poisonous political climate was given to us by the poisonous left, of which our president is a member, that he has benefited greatly from that poison in his political ascension, and that he has never, ever chastised his own side for its many, many vitriolic excesses. Now, the right is taking a page from the left's Alinsky playbook -- to their political benefit, as well, I might add -- and it's time to put on the brakes and seek "rational discourse"? The political left are like wife beaters who want to have a glass of wine and "talk" when the beating's over and the police have been called. This entire conversation reminds me of the liberal parent who tells her son, after taking a beating at school day after day, to seek "conversation and common ground." Then Uncle Joe comes over for a visit, sees the kid's black eye, pulls him aside, and says "They're gonna keep hitting you until you hit them back. The next time they jump you, punch the biggest one there right in the face." The left have been bullies for far too long, and now that the right is hitting back, they are, like all bullies, crying and looking around for mommy to come in and save them, complete with their whining pleas that "It's not fair!" I don't think the environment will ever change until the leaders of the far left -- and that is the president himself -- demonstrate some introspection about their very large role in bringing us to this point, and THAT is never going to happen. So, I'm glad the bullies are getting hit back. It's petty, perhaps, and maybe it doesn't help solve all "the problems" of the nation, but neither has letting these bullies abuse unfettered all these years. If this is the political climate we have -- hardball and invective all the time -- and I believe it is, then it's a good thing both sides are bringing some muscle to the fight. It's about time.
Comment Posted By Anon On 19.09.2009 @ 15:54
IT'S A SHAME DUELING HAS BEEN OUTLAWED
If playing the race card -- which is dangerously polarizing the nation to hardened extremes I have never seen -- is helping Obama, so he therefore won't repudiate it, doesn't that on its face make him utterly unfit for the presidency? Doesn't that fact -- his willingness to tear the country asunder through slander, hate, and the stoking of violence -- make your later post about Limbaugh's hyperbole a little silly? Barack Obama is the president of the United States, for God's sake. He could -- and absolutely should -- shut down this vicious smear, this blood libel, of any who oppose him, but he won't because it might mean a bump in the polls or an easier path for his deeply unpopular agenda? That makes him a despicable human being, a cancer on the nation, a parasite feeding off of the hysteria of the most extreme fringe of his party. If this is who Obama is, what good thing at all is there to say about him? He is no longer the president of the nation he is the president of Obama, and he must go.
Comment Posted By Anon On 16.09.2009 @ 14:12
THE LEFT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT JOE WILSON
Amen.
Comment Posted By Anon On 11.09.2009 @ 13:41
WOULD SOMEONE ON THE LEFT PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME?
"I don’t see how anyone can rationalize support for someone that the overwhelming majority of American people would agree is unfit to serve in any capacity in government."
I think this is precisely why they MUST defend Jones. While the overwhelming majority of the American people would agree Van Jones is entirely and quite obviously unfit to serve in any capacity in government, our President did not see that. Jones' elevation to a powerful position in the White House, with control over a $30 billion budget of taxpayer money, illustrates such breathtaking poor judgment and incompetency on the part of Barack Obama that Jones simply must be defended, and the narrative must be changed so that his appointment by Obama appears to have been good judgment. The defense isn't of Jones, per se, but of Obama and the increasing public perception that he simply does not know what he is doing.
Comment Posted By Anon On 7.09.2009 @ 08:54
