Comments Posted By jackson1234
Displaying 121 To 130 Of 190 Comments
INDEFENSIBLE: OBAMA FAILS HIS FIRST BIG TEST
While Ortega and Chavez won quasi-democratic elections, they employed old school Marxist techniques to help achieve their victories. To an extent, the same applies to Morales in Bolivia. All of which is to say these leaders squelched as much speech as possible, threatened opposition leaders and parties, and possibly worse since people simply disppeared in some cases. I didn't read anywhere that there was massive voter fraud but I might have missed it, hence, the "quasi-."
The problem I have, Rick, isn't so much that Obama didn't uphold the good name of the United States. He didn't, but I think he just does apologies under the naive assumption it will curry favor. No, the problem is the signal this gives to the democratic opposition in nations under the thumb of the likes of Ortega--the United States is no longer there to help you.
I largely agreed with your post about torture because such behavior degrades America's reputation in the world. The same applies to coddling nascent dictators. This is what Obama has done, and it speaks volumes--both to the world, and to those oppressed by these governments.
Finally, Violetta Chamorro is one of the tue heroes of the last century. If there is any justice in the world, she will be the name Managua speaks with pride after it moves beyond its shameful Sandinista and Somoza past.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 20.04.2009 @ 10:31
BEGALA: APRIL 15TH SHOULD BE 'PATRIOT'S DAY'
Shocker. Per usual, Begala is a dishonest bastard and a pathological liar. If he actually gets all warm and fuzzy paying taxes it is strange that the rates this year as opposed to last made him feel all better. If memory serves, nothing has changed just yet. Oh, that's right, he likes the guy in the White House this year.
I bet if he were audited, this hypocritical piece of shit would be just like Geitner--a two-faced tax cheat.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 15.04.2009 @ 13:45
A TEA PARTY WALKBACK -- OF SORTS
You certainly aren't stupid, Rick. You probably got so jaded by the staged and phony protests bought for and paid by George Soros during the Bush years that the real thing seemed phony. I will admit that I laughed at Professor Reynolds' line that you probably would decry the protests as "inauthentic," but you have proved him wrong.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 15.04.2009 @ 13:38
Robert:
"The report clearly only pertains to far right extremist groups, like the Klan or people such as McVeigh, and has nothing to do with moderate conservatives."
That makes is so much better. Has Il Duce Jr.'s Ministry of Truth named a commisar yet to determine how "moderate" a conservative must be before he isn't an enemy of the state? Can a conservative be as far to the right as Code Pink was to the left and still be moderate enough not to require surveillance?
Seriously, this was one of the most unintentionally funny things I have read on this site since I have lurked here let alone posted.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 14.04.2009 @ 14:36
I see this as the further Europeanization of the United States, wherein citizens are treated more and more like subjects and even benign dissent is viewed as, if not treason, something not done without express permission. Within the EU, limitation of rights is seen as a positive rather than a negative. The recent flap over Mr. Koh was a good illustration of how large swaths of our electorate have bought into this bullshit. Along these lines, within the EU criticism of massive Islamic immigration has been deemed a hate crime whereas an imam can incite violence with abandon. It isn't so much that the latter is supported as the former interferes with state policy and must be silenced. As an analogy, the vast majority of Americans oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants without assurances of border security first, so the default position of even our government is to attribute the worst possible motives to those who oppose one of its pet projects.
So I wasn't surprised to read this directive to law enforcement.
Andrew Breitbart summed it up nicely: economic Marxism (his words) I don't like but can accept. Cultural Marxism (his words) scares the fuck out of me. Substitute whatever word is more accurate than "Marxism," and this is how most of us feel.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 14.04.2009 @ 09:56
STACEY McCAIN ON WHAT AILS THE RIGHT
Stacey's piece is brilliant. Anti-communism was the glue that held the conservative coalition together but....George W. Bush was elected twice after the Soviet Empire imploded. What to make of that point? Apparently
conservatism is more than a muscular foreign policy, for a start, and that other quotient has appeal.While I don't find the degree of fault with you that Stacey did, Rick, I must note you have bought into two left-wing memes recently that were so absurd on their face one has imploded and the other soon will. The first was that Rush Limbaugh was somehow or another a Republican leader. The other was that Glen Beck was somehow or another the leader of the conservative movement. Both were and are demonstrably false yet you gave these absurdities greater weight than they deserved. You did note the left-wing smear machine backed away from the Limbaugh-bashing after it didn't work and turned to bashing someone obscure to most folks, Beck. Yet you seemed to believe these were effective strategies when they plainly are not.
The Left will have a true face attached to its electoral prospects in 2010, and it is Barack Obama. Democratic fortunes will be tied to Obama's economic policies. It won't be pretty for them unless basic economic principles can be suspended, i.e., hyper-inflation that is all but certain.
So the Republicans don't really have to put forward a face. I know you want programs advanced but that, as pure electoral strategy, isn't necessary. "We're not those guys" works. I don't like it, either, but that's how it goes. The Democrats learned long ago to appeal to the lowest common denominators. I have no problem if our side does so with effect, as well, although it makes me want to go into the bathroom and puke my fucking guts out.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 9.04.2009 @ 13:09
GLENN BECK AND THE RADICAL RIGHT
Shaun Mullen:
"You accused Oliver Willis — and myself by extension — of being irrational by connecting the Glenn Becks to albeit isolated incidents where lunatic fringe right-wingers act out by doing naughty things like killing police officers."
Irrational? More like fucking nuts. Let's say I connect Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" to eco-terrorism, the most prevalent form of such violence in the United States. I would be fucking nuts at that point, too. If I found Jodie Foster had made some anti-Reagan remarks, I would be fucking nuts to attribute John Hinckley's actions to her.
It is people like you that make me feel confident the Republicans either will take or will come close to taking the House in 2012. It's nothing they've done, mind you, but the cretinous behavior of the Left in recent months.
Incidentally, you need to go after large breed dogs. I understand they inspire the unstable to shoot dark-haired girls in Brooklyn. Fucking Jesus.
There was a reason the Left stopped attacking Limbaugh: it backfired after a point. If this is the best you folks have, God help you.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 8.04.2009 @ 12:14
Sorry, this is one rabbit hole I won't go down very far. Let's stipulate Beck is a nutter. So what? Keith Olbermann is a psychotic. So what? Rachel Maddow is a nutter. So what? Chris Matthews has lost all rationality and also has become a nutter. Again, so what?
Until I see the Left taxed about Olbermann claiming Dick Cheney had death squads or Chris Matthews shouting down Michelle Malkin or---well, suffice it to say I won't get taxed. Neither should you. As for the alleged incitement to violence, I submit Al Gore has unintentionally incited more domestic violence via eco-terrorists than all the left-wing and right-wing talk show and radio hosts combined. And even to that point--so what?
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 8.04.2009 @ 10:33
OBAMA'S FORIEGN APOLOGIES: WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
Michael, I obviously don't hope it comes to a first strike. Yet you earlier laid out the reasons it likely will: we have few, if any, cards to play. Israel, which has fewer cards, likely will do it without our blessing although we will suffer enormous economic and political consequences. China might intervene if it believes the economic consequences would be so great it would threaten its American debt. But given what happened in North Korea this weekend, I don't believe it will happen.
Busboy: I not only know quite a few people who opposed the Afghan invasion, I have family members who did. This was largely a West Coast phenomenon, and the image that sticks in my mind was that of a typical Sixties-era UCDavis professor who complained, "we were victims until this happened." It is more important to be victims among these types.
I hope Californians don't take offense at what I just wrote. I told friends in Manhattan that the same would have happened there if the attacks had been on L.A. As a matter of fact, there were professors and students at NYU who did protest the Afghan campaign (on a low key basis for obvious reasons).
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 8.04.2009 @ 09:02
It is naive to think there can be a non-nuclear Iran without a first strike, Michael. The question will be whether it comes from us or Israel (I suspect it will be the latter with or without our blessing). I indeed wish it were otherwise. As for the contents of the letter, it wasn't addressed to the "Iranian people." It was to the "Islamic Republic of Iran." That is understood less as a diplomatic term of art among Iranian citizens than as an address made specifically to the government. President Bush, incidentally, was quite careful to make this distinction in his last months of office.
I have lurked here long enough to know this doesn't apply to you, but I thought of it after I posted earlier. Many liberal Democrats opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, too. I only point this out as an illustration of why those of us who are right of center expect naivete from a liberal president. Because of it, I expect actual shock from Obama when some threat he thinks overblown suddenly emerges. It might not necessarily be Iran, but time will tell. And if I am wrong about his response (but don't expect to be), I will be quite happy to have been in error.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 7.04.2009 @ 15:26
