Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 761 To 770 Of 839 Comments
DID OBAMA JUST SAY WHAT I THINK HE SAID?
Elizabeth Montgomery was the third hottest TV wife of the 50's and 60's, after Mary Tyler Moore from her Dick Van Dyke days, and barely edging out Donna Reed from her eponymous show.
DONNA REED? Holy Christ Michael, someone should check your man genes.
Reed was fine in the 1930's but she was a cow by the 50's.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 17.07.2008 @ 16:57
I wrote a little over 4 months ago that we might have just won the Iraq War. It's nice to see that Mr. Obama has begun to wake up to that reality.
http://sidewaysmencken.blogspot.com/2008/04/did-we-just-win-war.html
Of course I wrote more than a year and a half ago that we might have just lost another war, Afghanistan. It's nice to see that Mr. McCain may be waking up to that reality.
http://donklephant.com/2006/09/06/did-we-just-lose/
Someone should hire you as a soothesayer. Or a stock tout.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 17.07.2008 @ 14:18
THE CONSERVATIVE'S SHAMEFUL DEFENSE OF GRAMM
Retire:
I have a house I can't sell. Like a lot of people. I see my stock portfolio dropping. I see that gas is a lot more expensive. So is food. I see that we're talking ow about having to bail out Fannie and Freddie. I see deficits out of control and the dollar dropping like a rock and GM on the edge of bankruptcy. Like most Americans I don't trust my health insurance.
And you know what? I'm actually pretty well off.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.07.2008 @ 08:52
Retire05:
People get their economic news from their bank balance, their mortgage bill, their paycheck and their credit card balance. Not the MSM.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.07.2008 @ 14:09
For all the hysteria of some of your commenters, we are not dealing with communism or naziism or any other ideology likely to result in gulags and concentration camps. We are Republicans and Democrats. By the standards prevalent in most of the western world our parties are about as far apart as aqua and turquoise. We agree on 90% of everything. There is far more overlap than there is separation.
The very concept of swing voters demonstrates this reality. Are there "swing voters" between fascists and Trotskyites?
Sometimes I think the fact that we have so little of substance to disagree about is what makes our politics poisonous. Having so little reason to actually hate each other, we have to posture and exaggerate and demonize in order to achieve what for some is a necessary minimum of hostility.
What's strange is that the two presidential candidates have so little in common temperamentally and ideologically with their most obnoxious supporters. (Let's say Gramm and Moulitsas, respectively.) I believe McCain and Obama are good, decent men who sincerely want to make this a better country. I admire McCain, I always have. I won't vote for him, but I'll admire him no less. I don't know why that is such a difficult thing for so many people, to oppose without hating, to disagree without demonizing. Hell, I disagree with you, Rick, but I'd sit down and kill a bottle of Macallan with you without feeling the need to throw punches at any point.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 14.07.2008 @ 16:10
DEMS PLAYING ALFONSE AND GASTON WITH VEEP CHOICE
What's the job pay? I might be interested.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.07.2008 @ 16:03
Samuel:
Liberals repudiate the country's past? You mean, the way they hate freedom of religion and association and the press? (I thought liberals were the press.) Or is it their deep and abiding hatred of the anti-slavery movement. Or perhaps their contempt or women's suffrage? Or the labor movement. Or Civil Rights. Or their unending hostility toward Jefferson and Lincoln? How about World War II, in which we were led by the ur-liberal, FDR?
Look, genius, this country's "past" covers a lot of ground. You decide -- on some basis that only makes sense to you -- that some of our past is our real past, and other parts of our past are somehow not, and then manage to convince yourself that because liberals despise slavery and genocide and Jim Crow that they hate America.
Um . . . what?
Do conservatives somehow honor slavery and genocide and Jim Crow? Are there no parts of our past that trouble conservatives just a bit? Really proud of that whole Mexican-American War thing? That wild-eyed radical Ulysses Grant despised that war. You kind of think what we did to the Cherokee and the Seminoles was no biggie?
Conservatives hate a lot of this nation's past. They are ashamed of a lot of our past. Liberals hate a lot of it. I think if you put ten minutes thought into the matter you'd discover (surprise!) that there's about a 90% overlap.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.07.2008 @ 08:24
TJ:
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 8.07.2008 @ 17:12
I don't think I'm going to waste any more of my time.
Zorn
I didn't say Iraq was a disaster.
Obama didn't say he'd gut the military.
As for negotiating with terrorist states. You mean like North Korea?
Got anything else?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 8.07.2008 @ 07:26
Our situation today is in now way analogous to 1940. In 1940 we had a small army, and a decent but by no means dominant navy. Several nations could rival our industrial and technological capacity. Today we are unchallenged.
As for complaining about Democrats hollowing out the military, excuse me, but I've been through this bull---- before. All through the Clinton years Republicans cried that we had a hollow military, too small to win a war. And what did Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld do when they were given the chance to fix this alleged problem? They pivoted and decided that the very force they had decried as too small and too weak could be smaller still and yet manage to fight two wars simultaneously.
I remember very well in the days immediately after the Iraq invasion when I would write that we had too small a force in Iraq, too small a force level overall, and be derided as everything from a coward to a traitor by loud-mouthed GOP water-carriers who insisted there was no problem, no problem at all. Well, there was and is a problem. If the Clinton army was too small to maintain peace, then no one but a damned fool would argue that the same force was adequate to fight two wars.
And yet, that's exactly what Republicans argued.
Sorry, boys, but Republicans have zero credibility on this. Zero.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 8.07.2008 @ 06:06
