Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 101 To 110 Of 839 Comments
IS OBAMA GROWING INTO THE JOB OF COMMANDER IN CHIEF?
It may seem pejorative, or at best condescending to wonder if the messages contained in President Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech are indicative of a more realistic view of the world than he has demonstrated previously.
There is nothing new, surprising or different in this speech. Not a single word or paragraph, thought or reference surprised me. Nor have his actions in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan surprised me.
When people see what they want to see rather than what is real, they are often surprised when forced to face reality. The Right has gone off on a magical mystery tour of fantasies about Obama. But this is Obama, as he always was.
Which is why I voted for him.
Maybe what you meant to say, rather than "he's growing into it," is "I was wrong, like most of my buddies on the Right because I saw what I expected to see rather than what was right there in front of me."
The growth isn't his, it's yours.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 11.12.2009 @ 22:21
CZ:
I believe that was your most intelligent comment ever. Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 10.12.2009 @ 10:57
I have seen not a single fact put forward here by Rick, or by any of the rightwing comment-writers, to support their positions: none. Nada. Zip.
We get it: you hate Obama. Beyond that hatred you've got nothing. Vapor.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.12.2009 @ 20:59
Everybody in Christendom except you recognizes that the president’s Afghan decision was political and had nothing to do with any grand ideas about Exceptionalism.
It had to do with making the best of a mess. The alternative was walking away. He's doing what little can be done to preserve and protect American interests.
And thanks to Obama's "subsuming" he got NATO to agree to add some troops. Nine years into this war you think Bush would have gotten NATO to step up? You think Bush could have convinced the American people to go along?
I mean, Jesus, Rick, at least a little perspective: Obama just screwed his own base because he felt he had to for the national interests and you come along whining about it.
It's unfair, it's factually unsupported, and it's nothing but blind partisanship.
Show us where and how Obama has hurt the national interests of the United States.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.12.2009 @ 13:50
This is a silly post based on assumption and vapor.
What evidence do you have that Obama carries "no stick?" That's absurd. You think there's a government on earth that doesn't know we have thousands of nukes, the world's only real force-projection army, the bulk of the world's military expenditure, and that we are fighting two wars simultaneously? It's like claiming that Mike Tyson is being mistaken for Urkel. You think Obama should regularly remind people, "You know, we could totally kick your ass?"
For a guy who loves to call Obama naive you're awfully naive.
And how exactly does it subsume American interests to make us "first among equals?" Give us an example of how that happens, that whole subsuming thing.
Obama has doubled forces in Afghanistan. He has increased Predator strikes into Pakistan and put the Pakistan government on notice that we are no longer going to be their butt boys. He's following the wishes of the Iraqi government and the policy of the previous administration in Iraq. He is not slashing military expenditures, he is not withdrawing forces or rejecting commitments.
So, put up or shut up: show us where exactly Obama has subsumed an American interest because of his "transnationalism."
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.12.2009 @ 11:44
FINALLY GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER
I'm assuming we can fine-tune the energy so as to turn it into a space-based destructive beam and use it to obliterate Hot Topic stores, cell phone towers pretending to be palm trees, and most BMW's.
If so then I am in favor.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.12.2009 @ 22:27
PALIN MAINSTREAMS THE BIRTHERS
Dragon:
What can I say? I must be one of the elites.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.12.2009 @ 14:36
Palin, whether she runs or not, is more akin to either Robt E. Lee or George Patton.
Yes, that was the first thought that came to my mind, too. Palin = Robert E. Lee.
Please don't let Rick or anyone else sane dissuade you: rock on Sarah!
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.12.2009 @ 13:32
B. Poster:
You're citing logical reasons Palin can't win the nom. But her supporters aren't rational. And the more you cite reason the more they will reject your arguments and support Palin. In the meantime she will pull focus from more sensible GOP candidates and the Palinbots will aid and abet her every step of the way.
That's why sensible conservatives want to kill her off, once and for all. (They'll fail.) And of course Democrats love Palin because she exemplifies everything wrong with the GOP.
Think of it as a conspiracy between the Palinbots and the Democrats against the frustrated remnants of the old GOP. Democrats and Palinbots have the same goal: the neutering of the GOP and the redefinition of "conservatism" as "lunacy."
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.12.2009 @ 11:26
I was always taught that there are no dumb questions just unasked questions. I tell my students here in China this everyday. Am I mistaken?
Dumb questions:
1) How many legs does cheese have?
2) Does your car like hot dogs?
3) Is Obama American?Actually, it's pretty easy to construct a dumb question. Any two nouns, a verb or two and a question mark.
Tip: Commonplaces are often wrong.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.12.2009 @ 21:31
