Comments Posted By chris
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 204 Comments


You did not come out and say you no longer support McCain/Palin, but I don't see how you possibly could still be planning to vote for them based on how you feel. McCain lacks judgment. Palin is a moral coward. She has wretched moral sense. She should be condemned.

Okay, so are you just sitting it out, voting for Obama, or going third party? Inquiring minds want to know.

Comment Posted By Chris On 25.10.2008 @ 15:39



That's funny, the way I recall it, the contract with America stated in explicit terms what the Newt congress was going to try to accomplish. Whereas, Clinton got all coy with the meaning of such rarely used words as "is". Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere. Republicans do not hide our intent. We state exactly what we intend to do, whether it is Reagan with the Soviets or Bush with the terrorists. The one glaring exception to that was Bush the Elder on taxes and look what happened to him for raising those taxes. Democrats on the other hand try to make themselves look more moderate than they really are election after election because they understand that their ideas will not prevail with the majority of Americans if they do not. We do not want massive entitlement programs and redistributionist economics. We do not want to answer to the UN or any other global entity. We believe in God; we support the right of individuals to bear arms; we believe in a strong defense; we believe in American exceptionalism; we believe in the free market and we support myriad other things that you do not, except when you are making campaign speeches in elections.

In short, we do not like your ideas and you know it. Thus you lie and undermine the meanings of words to disguise your intent. We do not do that.

Comment Posted By chris On 4.08.2008 @ 16:21


I keep thinking how the Obamessiah will implode or be destroyed by McCain during the debates. But then I fear the all too possible reality that the MSM and The Master's supporters will not LET him implode. Look at what they've ignored so far. And McCain is not the most effective debater. "O" will stay away from debate formats which do not favor him. I am no fan of (the political) McCain, but it scares me to think of the damage an Obama presidency will do. I just pray that we have enough residual wisdom as a country to reject him. Given how far we have already strayed from our founding principles, four years of Obamaship may well destroy what is left of The Great Experiment.

Comment Posted By Chris On 28.07.2008 @ 04:04


I would ascribe this to "wicked ulterior motives". Their history is one of continual outing of confidential programs or individuals, all in the name of their own aggrandizement. They simply do not care about national security, at least under the present administration. This has been going on for so long that it looks like an orchestrated campaign to undermine the Administration's ability to wage a war that the NYT doesn't believe in.

Allen has the gist of it. If you give up confidential information that undercuts the executive, then you are safe. If you refuse, then you are an unperson.

Comment Posted By Chris On 7.07.2008 @ 11:57


Since the Chinese have been in possession of Tibet for some sixty years, and no one is inclined to do anything more than harrumph about it, I hardly think that any symbolic protests about it are going to do anything at all. I really don't know what you expect from the President, unless you think that insulting the Chinese for no discernible gain is preferable to not embarrassing them when we could use their cooperation in a region, where, as you say, they are actively throwing around their weight.

As Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton showed us, appeals to emotion get us nothing in terms of respect or cooperation. These other leaders aren't looked to for actual, you know, leadership, of anything but their own backyards. They can afford to engage in silly posturing. We can't.

Comment Posted By Chris On 7.07.2008 @ 11:42


@Surabaya Stew

"Yes, I can certainly think of a very big business that government generally runs better that private enterprise. Its called water. That’s right, local governments with municipal water boards building reservoirs and water mains are far more capable of delivering a quality product to the consumer than private enterprise."

One MAJOR point that deserves being pointed out. You are talking about LOCAL government control and not national control. Can you imagine the cost and inefficiency if the federal government was in charge of water?

The key here is that water supply is essentially a natural monopoly, so there's not really any benefit to having multiple players in the market. In that instance, whether it's a city council or a private company really makes little difference.

But the petroleum industry is not a natural monopoly. You have a CHOICE about which filling station you go to. There are multiple methods of delivery of the good. And despite the essential fungibility of the finished product(s) - gasoline & diesel - there are some perceived differences between who sells it (i.e. - Some people trust the quality of gas from Exxon more than the E-Z Mart).

It is a fundamental economic truth that forcing a monopoly into existence results in higher prices, lower supply, and reduced efficiency. For something as vital as the petrol industry, I cannot think of a worse idea.

Comment Posted By Chris On 19.06.2008 @ 10:15


You're getting closer to me all the time. Keep heading south and you'll get a taste of the real state of Illinois.

Comment Posted By Chris On 10.05.2008 @ 18:36


Heard you on KSFO just now. Good discussion.

Comment Posted By Chris On 17.04.2008 @ 10:39


I have to agree with Dale somewhat, Rick. You may be invested in your own analysis. When you describe Maliki above, you could have been talking about Abraham Lincoln. It's a little early to declare Maliki a complete failure. I would think that it may be a good thing that the national leader can't solve all Iraq's problems. Not everyone gets a George Washington right off the bat.

I'm not all that concerned about the Iraqi Army's lack of heavy weapons either. They need to learn to walk before they run. Read accounts of our performance in Africa in 1942. We didn't dazzle anyone with our combined arms operations. It's taken us more than 60 years to reach the levels of military proficiency we enjoy today. Let's give the Iraqis a little time, shall we?

As far as the IA's performance, as far as I can tell, the action in Basra is theirs all the way. If they aren't quite up to snuff, well, at least they aren't getting their capital burnt like we did in 1812. Again, look at our performance early in WWII. We were incompetent. We got better, though it cost us dearly. We took our lumps and learned from our mistakes. Let's give them the same chance. I've read that it takes ten years to train your noncommissioned officers to the point where they are the backbone that you need for a modern army. The Iraqis have had five. Maybe we're expecting too much, too fast.

Comment Posted By Chris On 1.04.2008 @ 19:07


I've said this before, but my son and I went to see "Behind Enemy Lines" right after 9/11. People cheered at the end, because they wanted to see the American military kicking the shit out of the bad guys.

A great many American people still want to see that. I know I do. The difference between me and our current crop of filmmakers is that I can identify the bad guys. Hint: it ain't us.

Comment Posted By Chris On 1.04.2008 @ 19:19

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (21) : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

«« Back To Stats Page