Comments Posted By ed
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 205 Comments
And by the way, eliXelx, I am not a liberal, I don't support abortion or euthanasia. If you think my math for declaring victory is cruel, look at the math the Bush White House is using. They don't have a definition of victory, but we must have soldiers die for it, for they will know victory when they see it. I assume you must be either 13, or the cruelest, most unthinking person on the planet.
Comment Posted By ed On 20.03.2007 @ 12:30
Dear eliXelx:
My wife of 25 years died from cancer 3 years ago and I was faced with the questions you asked. I stopped ongoing treatment when there was no hope of recovery or any quality of life whatsoever, in accordance with her wishes. Any other comments, motherf***er?
Comment Posted By ed On 20.03.2007 @ 12:13
It is a good thing that war supporters make themselves known. My ongoing question remains, what will victory in Iraq be, that is, what must happen specifically before we know we have won? (Since this is an uncoventional war, there will be no conventional surrender ceremony and peace accord. Therefore, other metrics must be established to declare victory.)
How many car bombings in Iraq per month specifically constitute victory? None, one, two, fifteen?
How many American deaths per month specifically constitute victory? None, one, two, fifteen?
How many Iraqi deaths per month specifically constitute victory? None, one, two, fifteen?
How low specifically must U.S. spending go in Iraq per month before that measure can be called a victory? No money at all, a million a month, a billion a month?
These and a myriad of other outcome measures remain undefined. How can you achieve a victory that has no definition? As a very wise person once said, if you don't know where you are going, then how will you know when you get there?
Comment Posted By ed On 19.03.2007 @ 14:48
SCANDAL HYSTERIA GRIPS THE CAPITOL
Larry, Rick's brother:
Great thoughts on the partisan mess that has been created. I am far from an expert, but true civility, compromise and bipartisanship seems to have evaporated after the presidential nominating process was "opened up" to prevent the smoky back room choices of candidates. Truth be told, the experiment in a more open, democratic nominating process has had severe unintended consequences, i.e., facilitating the ugliness of our current political dialogue. While 24 hour news channels, blogs, etc., play a strong role in promoting the fringes to scream loudly and not play well together, perhaps it is time to declare the new nominating process a failure and either move back to the old process or restructure the current system to stem the influence of the extremes on both the right and left. I would like to hear from more knowledgable political people on their ideas to stop the current mess, or are special interests benefitting too much from the current system to ever change it?
Comment Posted By ed On 16.03.2007 @ 12:21
Dear Fred Fry:
It is not the role of the judicial branch to support OR oppose any administration's policies. That pesky separation of powers and checks and balances thingys the Founding Fathers insisted on. Oh, and conflating the law with a President's agenda is not a well thought out idea either.
Fire everyone now? Your ideas are as politically tone deaf as the second term prosecuter firings. Please feel free to call me a moonbat. Namecalling doesn't negate your errors, however.
Comment Posted By ed On 16.03.2007 @ 12:07
While I think this whole "scandal" is a tempest in a teapot, it is hard to wonder why all the federal prosecuters were not asked for their resignations when the Bush administration first came into office in 2000, as did Presidents Clinton and G.H.W. Bush. The dismissals were politically ill-timed and open to creating an impression of political pressure on the federal judiciary, regardless of intent. Rick, you got this one 100% right.
It appears that history will regard this administration as focused only on re-election, at the expense of leaving any noteworthy legacy or accomplishments. Jimmy Carter with a smirk instead of a sweater.
Comment Posted By ed On 16.03.2007 @ 09:11
NEWT'S PECCADILLOS: POLITICAL AND PRIVATE
The odds of a Gingrich presidency are about the same as a Francis the Talking Mule Kentucky Derby win.
Comment Posted By ed On 9.03.2007 @ 17:09
What do you suppose Newt would have done if he had been asked publically about having an affair during the Clinton impeachment timeframe? If your answer is anything other than "lie his ass off", you are listening to too much talk radio for your own good.
Comment Posted By ed On 9.03.2007 @ 12:21
WHAT JOE WILSON'S LIES HAVE WROUGHT
Shawn:
From Dictionary.com's definition of pretense:
9. any allegation or claim: to obtain money under false pretenses.
The dictionary's example includes "false pretense!" If you want to get your panties in a wad, at least know what you are talking about.
Comment Posted By ed On 8.03.2007 @ 10:08
Thank you, Sirius, for pointing out the "may haves". Ronald Reagan "may have" cheated on his first wife, Bill Clinton "may have" killed Vince Foster, and Walt Disney's head "may have" been cryogenically frozen. Denigrating someone with unfounded, speculative "may haves" is beneath the standards of journalism espoused by Rick Moran. The part of the quote you provided reading, "in fact, may have" is just embarrassing. Trying to present unfounded speculation as a fact is very much in line with Bush administration rhetoric, I'll grant that much. Come on, Rick. You are better than this.
Comment Posted By ed On 7.03.2007 @ 13:11
