Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 171 To 180 Of 839 Comments
OBAMA'S "CHALLENGER MOMENT" AT FORT HOOD
Travis:
"Terrorism" is a word that has a specific definition. You do not yet have proof that this was terrorism.
A central element of terrorism is that it is an attack on non-combatants for the express purpose of causing terror in a civilian population and effect political changes that benefit a particular ideology.
This was not an attack on civilians, it was an attack on soldiers. That alone makes the "T" word questionable. One could argue that since these soldiers were Stateside and not in combat that they were, in effect, non-combatants. But that's stretching the definition.
If Nidal had driven to the local mall and shot shoppers then yes, it would probably be terrorism. Although we would still need some understanding of Nidal's ideology and motivation.
"Muslim shoots people" is not enough to make this terrorism. It doesn't fit the definition. And we should use words accurately.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 11.11.2009 @ 22:22
The obsession with the TelePrompter could not be more idiotic. It is not necessary -- nor is it important or even preferable in all cases -- to memorize a speech.
A president gives hundreds of speeches. If it takes him, say, 3 hours to get off-book you're talking about hundreds if not thousands of hours a year spent in rote memorization.
Further, as a writer who cares about words, I'd far rather have a speech read as written rather than imperfectly memorized and perhaps mangled.
Incidentally, if I'm giving a canned speech I read it. I extemporize in other circumstances but I'll read an actual speech. It makes sense.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 11.11.2009 @ 15:17
A RELATIVELY SHORT FOLLOWUP TO MY PJ MEDIA ARTICLE ON BI-PARTISANSHIP
Rick:
The mean old liberal commenters are scaring people off?
Dude, I say this with the greatest respect and affection: you're a huge dick to your commenters. How many people have you attacked? (Most of which, incidentally, were more or less on your side.) You slash and burn your way through your commenters, and then you turn off comments if we don't all behave, and it's the handful of libs here who are scaring people off? Puh-leeze. The only guy who's meaner to commenters is Dean Esmay and he's certifiable.
You're like a gay guy who still insists he's straight -- long after his family and friends and employer have all figured out the truth and accepted it. You're not a Republican. You're a genuine conservative. But Republicans are no longer conservatives, not the way you (and other literate people) understand the word.
The Republicans don't like you. You don't drink the Kool-Aid. You have an unsettling devotion to The Truth as you see it and an indifference to teabaggery and Palinism. That's why they jump all over you at PJM, that's why they storm out of here yelling insults over their shoulders. Because they know what you haven't yet accepted: you're not one of them.
I think you think you're going to win the tea partiers back to conservatism. But they were never conservative, that's just a label they seized on when Limbaugh gave it to them. The GOP isn't conservative, it's a grab bag of nuts and populists and rent-seekers and bigots and Christianists and fascists. They aren't your people, they haven't been for a while, and they won't be again.
People like you should stop trying to square the circle between conservatism and whatever the hell the GOP has become. It's time for a conservative party. A real conservative party. You'd be a lot happier.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 10.11.2009 @ 20:36
Just scanned the comments at PJM.
And you're a Republican why?
I am sustained by the absolute certainty that I am right - that reason must prevail or we are doomed. I accuse the base of hyperbole and exaggeration but that statement is as true as anything that has ever been written. Our current course will lead to economic catastrophe and the only way out is both parties working together.
I am also convinced that for every one vicious commenter, there are many who agree with me but don't want to leave a comment and suffer the same viciousness. The same thing happened on this site where a lot of people who used to comment favorably on the stuff I write have given up because of you and Bottoms and a few others who trash them personally for their views.
That's the nature of the internet and blogs, I suppose.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 10.11.2009 @ 14:50
Rick:
I know a lot of Democrats (on the personal level, not in politics) who are willing to talk about means-testing, changes in eligibility ages and so on to start dealing with Medicare and Social Security.
Do you know any Republicans willing to look at tax increases?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 10.11.2009 @ 14:42
SHOULD THE GOP HELP THE DEMOCRATS GOVERN?
SShiel:
I note that you supply zero support for your original statement.
I accept your implicit admission that you were talking out of your ass.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 10.11.2009 @ 14:40
What has the Democrat congress said or done that gives you any indication they are willing to compromise on anything? Their apparent objective is to move this country into a leftist totalitarian regime.
They didn't even propose single payer. That's an indication of a willingness to compromise.
Obama never signaled strong commitment to a public option. More willingness to compromise.
Accepted demands for abortion limitations. Compromise.
Agreed to forgo reconciliation. Compromise.
Meanwhile from your side we got Jim DeMint talking about using this bill to destroy Obama. And we got the true leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, stating he hoped the President of the United States would fail. And then we got death panels, and Townhall whackjobs screaming, and Michelle Bachman, and the whole 10 pound can of GOP crazy.
We tried. But your party is psychotic. The failure is yours, the lies are yours, the contempt for the needs and wishes of the American people is yours. We tried, but you're the party of no, the party of spittle-flecked rage, the party of race-baiting and conspiracy theories and tin-foil hat nuts.
Can't compromise with psychos. They only hear the voices in their heads.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 10.11.2009 @ 00:43
SShiel:
Four years ago you could have asked a similar question, “Should The Democrats Help The GOP win the war?” And what was the answer? The Democrats gave us the answer time and again when they tried to defund the war.
You are a liar.
Mr. Bush got EVERY penny he asked for, EVERY man he asked for, and EVERY weapon he asked for, and he got them from the Democrats. You contemptible fraud.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.11.2009 @ 22:01
THOUGHTS ON THE PASSAGE OF HEALTH CARE REFORM
Justice:
Radio's been around quite a while as a technology. And as a platform for loud-mouthed bigots it's been around for at least 75 years, since the days of Father Coughlin, the hate-mongering progenitor of Limbaugh and Beck.
Cable TV news has been around since CNN was founded in 1980. Blogs have been around for about a decade, give or take.
So nothing technological has changed. And since Democrats now run the White House and both houses of Congress one would have to guess that any such new technology aided our side not yours. (The biggest political blogs by far are liberal and not conservative.) So if your theory is that the internet is helping people to learn The Truth that's fine by me: Obama's at 55% and the GOP is at less than half that.
You somehow conflate liberals with government censorship of political media. Not quite sure what that's even supposed to mean. Can you point to a single example of government censorship of media because of the political content?
To the extent broadcast media are censored it's usually to do with language and sex -- for example the vendetta against Howard Stern. And that almost always comes from your side of the spectrum.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.11.2009 @ 11:08
What makes a president is rescuing the economy from what even the previous administration admits was the brink of absolute disaster.
And then rushing troops to Afghanistan to rescue that war from what the generals admit was the brink of disaster. And continuing the anti-terror Predator strikes in Pakistan that -- you have probably forgotten -- earned the scorn of Mr. McCain.
And then without giving up anything of value turning world opinion on a dime so that the US is once again the most admired nation on Earth.
And redeeming the moral standing of the US by ending torture and forbidding its use.
And then, I expect, passing the first comprehensive health care reform since the 60's.
Now, I wish he'd also managed to end DADT. But President Obama is off to a good, B+ or A- start. Infinitely preferable to the alternative. And it's a vote I am very happy to have cast.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 8.11.2009 @ 20:46
