Comments Posted By ed
Displaying 121 To 130 Of 205 Comments
WHILE IRAQ BLEEDS, PAKISTAN SEETHES
I guess the malaise of one Rick Moran is over! When I read this quality of writing and thinking, I just want to make my keyboard into cesta basket. Great, informative article.
Comment Posted By ed On 31.10.2006 @ 17:38
What a great article. I told you weeks ago you should be a replacement for Jonah Goldberg. Better writer, more clarity of thought, and an actual sense of humor. You are not always correct, but you are always Right and always writing well. This blog is not the final chapter of your writing career.
Comment Posted By ed On 16.10.2006 @ 11:30
What a lovely, touching story. I agree with Drewsmom. Everyone can support the men and women of our military, not just with words, but deeds. I like Operation Uplink, (www.operationuplink.org) provided by the VFW. The programs allows anyone to donate money for phone cards, so military personnel can call home at not cost to them or their families. There are many such opportunites to provide real support. Everyone should find a way and do something tangible for our troops. It feels right and does good for people that need our support. Forget politics and think of the real people, like Petty Officer Monsoor. Thanks again for the moving story.
Comment Posted By ed On 14.10.2006 @ 11:07
FAR EAST NUCLEAR DOMINOES READY TO FALL
Drewsmom, I agree that George Bush is not the cause of all things bad. But not everything bad that happens is because of Bill Clinton, either. All presidents have faults and make mistakes. Can we all grow up a touch, for heavens sake?
Comment Posted By ed On 9.10.2006 @ 16:08
"NEVER SAY NEVER"...WELL, OKAY. BUT THE GOP IS TOAST
Dear PE:
How old are you? If you are a student of history, why has your study provided you with nothing of value (you are using politics, not history in your essay)? Did you even read what I said about fearmongering before indulging in fearmongering? Now I'll type slowly for you.
I am in the middle of my fifth decade of living under the prospect of nuclear attack. I live each day fully and as fearlessly as possible. We were under much more threat from Communists in the Soviet Union and China, with thousands of nuclear weapons than we will ever be from North Korea or Iran. This is also true of the threat from terrorists. But being a student of history, you know this already, correct?
Secondly, my historical contention that Democrats have done a reasonably decent job of governing in the past has not been refuted by you. You did mention that President Clinton "kicked the can" on foreign policy, but that is hardly proof that Democrats have not kept the nation working fairly well overall during their times in power. And if we are going to be political, which president recently announced that the resolution to the war they started will just have to fall to the president following them? Roosevelt? No. Wilson? No. Hmm. I give up. Well, you are a student of history, so perhaps you can enlighten us.
I am curious regarding you statement that the Democrats will find that treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem will not work. Hasn't law enforcement efforts stopped several terrorist attacks (the airline attacks planned out of London, the new millinium attacks planned in the United States for instance)? And why would you favor NSA evesdropping in the law enforcement approach is without value?
Talking with enemies has a long tradition in the game of diplomacy. Resolution to problems and conflict has actually occurred from such efforts. You being a student of history and all, I won't insult your intelligence by listing them for you.
If talking will not prevent North Korea (or Iran or Pakistan)from giving nuclear weapons to terrorists, what then do you propose? Preemptive nuclear strikes? Invading North Korea to give the people democracy and to overthrow a dangerous tyrant?
You don't like Democrats and their policies. Fair enough. Criticize away! I dropped out of the Democratic party 20 years ago because of crazy, misguided policies. Once again, slowly, Democrats have been misguided in the past and may be misguided in the future. However, to accuse Democrats of being anti-American and treasonous is unfounded, wrong, and against the grain of history. I am not afraid of Democrats, Republicans, Communists or terrorists. President Bush has caused massive problems by using fear as a political weapon. Your anticipated loss of Congress by the Republicans is the first bitter pill of that bludgeoning the public with it.
Comment Posted By ed On 9.10.2006 @ 11:46
Dale in Atlanta said:
"The pathetic and disgusting fact is, the only alternative to the Republicans, are the Hate-America-First party, the Surrender-to-the-Jihadis party; the Party that despises George Bush for no other reason that he is George Bush, the Party that literally has the same talking points as Al Qaeda, the Party of Anti-Americans such as John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, etc.; the Party that literally wants to destroy this country, and it’s way of life, and that is the DEMOCRATS.
It’s enough to make me sick to my stomach!"
Dale, you are usually reasonable and thoughtful, with some good original thinking, in your comments. This boilerplate from Hannity, Rush, etc., is hyperbole, at best. The country operated just as well as it does today during most times when liberals had control of the government. America fought wars of defense, provided needed services, and helped business and labor succeed (admittedly, at different levels of success at different times, just as with conservatives).
Fearmongering got us into an intractable mess in Iraq and fearmongering about Democrats being the same as al-Qaeda will get the same results. If you oppose liberal programs or ideas, tell us what is wrong with them specifically. You will frequently be correct, I would wager. An honest liberal would have to admit that the world as we know it has not ended under conservative rule. An honest conservative would have to say the same about liberal rule. Hysteria and hyperbole is not much of an argument from any political viewpoint.
Comment Posted By ed On 9.10.2006 @ 10:03
OCTOBER 5: A DAY OF PEACE, LOVE, AND MASS MASTURBATION
Wow, lot's of sexual metaphors and references here lately. Time to ask for Viagra donations?
Comment Posted By ed On 4.10.2006 @ 11:48
Kind of reminds one of the good old "get Clinton" days, doesn't it? Whitewater, Monicagate, Troopergate, Travelgate, who murdered Vince Foster, etc.; a million new, fresh allegations to keep the outrage stirred, with lying about a blowjob being the crime that stuck. Call it karma, being hoisted on one's own petard, a reverse Swiftboat, or whatever. Those dastardly liberals just play politics, while we conservatives only walk on the water of truth and fair play. And by the way, did you hear John McCain fathered a black baby?
Rick, let me leave you with a quote from that great 20th Century philosopher, Bugs Bunny. "What a maroon!"
Comment Posted By ed On 4.10.2006 @ 07:29
This is as good as political commentary gets. Rick, when you connect, you not only hit it out of the park, you hit it past the parking lot! We have never dealt effectively with the actual and potential proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly since the fall of the Soviet Union. I have yet to read anything convincing that the location of all Soviet suitcase bombs is known to either U.S. or Russian authorities. The same may also be said for their full-sized nuclear armaments as well. Most members of the nuclear club are responsible, but some are quite questionable. The former Soviet Union has too many rogues, thieves and desperate people to trust that their weapons will not end up in terrorist hands (or states that sponsor them). Pakistan? I cannot articulate the solid reasons for trusting that they would not transfer nuclear technology or even weapons to terrorists. North Korea? A bigger mightmare in my mind than even Iran with nukes. If Saddam was a dangerous dictator (and he was), then what is Kim Jong Il? Brutal AND nuts.
I have no idea what to do about either above the table and below the table nuclear proliferation. It will happen in Iran, and we can expect other states that are not pro-Western to follow suit. Walk loudly and carry a big nuke, I guess.
The United Nations can and will do nothing to prevent more rogue states from going nuclear. The United States is limited in what we can do. You gave the great examples of stopping Saddam from getting his weapons program completed, but can such strikes occur now?
Even refusing to buy Iranian and all Middle Eastern oil, a move that would surely devastate our economy, would be of no avail to cut off their money supply to acquire nuclear weapons. China and Russia, among others, would keep the money flowing without us. However jingoist it sounds, we must make it abundantly clear that a nuclear strike on Israel will make the Fifth Pillar of Islam unnecessary. There will be no Mecca to go to. Thanks again for the thought-provoking, if dark message.
Comment Posted By ed On 3.10.2006 @ 14:56
WASHINGTON TIMES TO HASTERT: RESIGN NOW
Capital E Ed is NOT me, ed with a small e! I'll take my Rick Moran beatings and beratings (smile), but only for my own comments. For once, I agree almost completely with Rick. And I hope the Democrats, if they do take over either or both of the legislative branches, remember that Republican hubris, corruption and incompetence is what will be rejected by the voters. There is no great desire to return to far left-wing governance.
Comment Posted By ed On 3.10.2006 @ 10:39
