Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 311 To 320 Of 839 Comments
LEARNING NEW THINGS CAN BE FUN
Ken.McCloud:
The GOP wasn't there at the creation. It was built in the 1850's and 1860's out of the debris of failed parties.
It's time to build a new party.
Don't just look for something to join: build, create, invent, imagine.
The United States needs a conservative party. It doesn't have one. It has a liberal party and a crazy party. So build a conservative party.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.08.2009 @ 10:10
Rick:
I've never said you don't criticize your party enough. I've asked why you're still in this looney bin.
You know your party is nuts. You try to disguise your scalding attacks on Republicans with a lot of scat-throwing displays drawing false equivalencies to Democrats because that's what you have to do for the moron readership at PJM. But the essence of this blog has become, (if I may paraphrase,) "WTF is the matter with you crazy Republican loons?" Followed by, "Of course the Dems are just as bad."
Even your conservative readers get the basic act. And God knows they're a slow bunch.
I'm not criticizing your attacks on the GOP as insufficient. I'm just wondering when you're going to finally admit that the "excesses" of the party aren't excesses they are the essence of the party. The crazy isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Communist Party member circa, oh, what 1934 or so? Still not quite getting that it's not about dotty old Karl or even clever Vladimir Illich, it's all about Uncle Joe now.
I'm not saying you should join the Democrats. I'm saying you no longer belong in the GOP. They don't want you, and you know in your heart you don't want them.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.08.2009 @ 10:06
"Rightwing Nuthouse" used to be ironic. Now it's descriptive.
It's your party Rick. These are your people.
Why are they still your people? Why is this still your party? Nostalgia?
Back in the 20's and 30's it was possible for a decent person to be a member of the Communist Party because the truth of what was happening in the USSR still wasn't widely known. It was still possible for a person of reasonable intelligence to buy propaganda about the worker's paradise.
But there came a point when it became ridiculous for a sane person to maintain that the Communist Party was anything other than a murderous totalitarian apparatus. At that point many people who'd been sympathetic with the supposed ideals of the CP saw the light and left the party.
When are you going to see the light, Rick?
Heh - conservatives think I'm not and liberals think I am. What am I doing wrong?
Really, Michael. You have lost all perspective and become just another Obamabot hack. Your problem with me is that I'm not criticizing conservatives ENOUGH. That's logical? That's reasonable?
And I were the party man you say I am, I think that would come through by my blind obedience to the party line - something that any rational person reading my blog would find impossible to say. But you are only seeing things through the lens of partisanship. Hence, unless I am as hysterical as you are in my opposition to the GOP, I am, in fact, one of them.
Pitiful.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.08.2009 @ 08:42
VIOLENCE AT TOWN HALLS PREDICTABLE AND DISTURBING
What a load of bullshit. You're trying to draw equivalency where none exists.
We aren't shouting GOP Congressmen down. We aren't waving swastikas. We aren't trying to so deligitimize your party that we end up rationalizing violence. That's on your side, Rick.
Your party, your people, Rick, your side, are seething with hatred and rage and racist panic. That's what this is about. It has nothing to do with health care, nothing to do with the deficit, nothing to do with unions.
These are middle-aged and older white people who cannot accept that the world has changed. We have a black man in the White House. That's what this is about. It's raw, naked racism spoon-fed by Limbaugh and Beck and much of your party. And you know it. You don't like it, you can't admit it, but you know it.
Your party, your "movement" are going to get someone killed. And it won't be at all hard to figure out where to point the finger.
You really need to do some soul-searching and ask yourself if this is your party anymore.
Now feel free to abuse me, but you know it's true.
No - I won't abuse you. I pity you. You used to be rational. You used to have a modicum of judgment. Not anymore. You have gone so far over the edge, so far in the tank for this Chicago charlatan that there's no talking to people like you anymore.
btw - you still think this guy is a pragmatist? Heh.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 7.08.2009 @ 21:27
DOES THE GOVERNMENT CARE IF YOU GET INTO TROUBLE OVERSEAS ANYMORE?
Dave:
Osama is not an expert. He's a terrorist. So no, I don't take his pronouncements any more seriously than I take Kruschev's assurance that the USSR would bury us. Or Kim's endless propaganda or Castro's or Hezbollah's.
I think it's strange to credit our enemies with honesty, objectivity or accuracy. The mere fact that someone is an enemy does not make them a good analyst of American actions. And it's certainly not reasonable to imagine that they are honestly presenting their own motives or capabilities.
In this case, what is NK's game going forward? Arrest three hostages next time and get what? Two ex-presidents? Does that really strike you as likely? For four journalists do they get two ex-presidents and a first lady? What exactly would be the point?
And do you figure Somali pirates are watching this and thinking, "Hmm, next time instead of a million dollar ransom, let's get ourselves a Bill Clinton visit?"
This just doesn't parse out. And you've given me no indication that it does. Where's the trend line? Where's the cause and effect?
One of the ways the Romans prepared for war was by bribing and paying off foreign powers. It's a myth that the Romans never paid ransom. Baloney. Roman money flowed freely into barbarian hands to secure passage for Roman troops, to win releases of prisoners, to play one bunch against another. Bribing foreign powers was the order of the day for centuries.
Did Romans lie about this for home consumption? Of course. But out on the frontier the Roman generals were more interested in getting by, as soldiers usually are.
And I'd still like to hear you explain why a rational response to NK hostage taking would be attacking NK militarily and risking war that would primarily devastate our ally to the south. Or what would be accomplished by making the Somali rubble bounce as a way to end piracy.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 6.08.2009 @ 07:58
site = cite.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.08.2009 @ 22:20
#6
Can you site any examples? If we put hostage takings on a graph would we see the number rising over time? I don't think so.
Reagan rewarded the Iranians after 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon. Did we see a spike in attacks on Americans? Wouldn't we have seen subsequent cases in a fairly short time frame? Did the total number of attacks on Americans rise? I don't recall that happening. Can you make a case?
I don't see any kind of long-term rise in hostage takings or in attacks on Americans. If your thesis is correct we'd see some kind of trend. Is there a trend? Doesn't look like it. In fact it looks like these thing spike and then retreat, spike again and then retreat.
Are you actually calling for us to retaliate militarily against NK? Seriously? They arrest 2 of our journalists and we do what, bomb a NK military base? And risk war? A war that could devastate South Korea? That strikes you as rational? Do you think maybe the South Koreans might not enjoy having their cities hit with massed artillery because we need to throw a hissy fit?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.08.2009 @ 22:20
You're right.
I'm normally all for blowing people up, but even Boot's history is wrong. The Romans paid off foreign potentates all the time. They bought them off with gold, land, protection, you name it. So did their descendants in medieval and later Europe. It's part of the cost of doing business.
By the way, I really think if we're going to start a war with North Korea we should at least consult with the South Koreans who are the people who'd be having artillery shells landing in their back yards.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.08.2009 @ 10:40
SHOUTING DOWN THE OPPOSITION AT HEALTH CARE MEETINGS IS NOT THE ANSWER
Callahan:
Find me a health care howler monkey who's not an over 40 white person.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.08.2009 @ 21:11
Idiots with their moms and dads on medicare, idiots whose health insurance will be yanked the minute they get sick, idiots who will be screwed if they ever lose their jobs, idiots who can't even keep up with their premiums, show up to shout down the people trying to solve those problems.
This has nothing to do with health care. It's the rage of the aging, fading, paranoid southern white.
With apologies to Dylan Thomas: Rage, rage against the dying of the white.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.08.2009 @ 21:02
