Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 839 Comments
I would have thought Birchers couldn't exist without Communists. I naively assumed it was a sort of symbiotic thing. But of course in the absence of actual Communists the Right simply imagined them. And poof: Commies! Best of all, a Negro Commie-in-Chief. Yay!
I'm curious as to your take on percentages. What percentage do you think of self-identified conservatives are you or James Joyner or Douthat, and what percentage do you think are Birther/Bircher/Batshit?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.12.2009 @ 11:42
REFORM IS A TRIUMPH OF PROCESS OVER PRUDENCE
I always enjoy a nice non-denial denial.
Every word you've written on this subject -- every word -- could be written by a Klansman or a member of Aryan Brotherhood.
"Your informants." That's very funny.
Merry Christmas.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.12.2009 @ 23:13
MaNNNing:
Oh, the Google is a lovely thing, isn't it? I always wondered why the three 'N's in your screen name.
Turns out if you Google "NNN" and "race" you go straight to New Nation News -- a neo-Nazi web site that specializes in reporting black on white violence. Which it turns out is your particular kink
Quite a coincidence. Dontcha think?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.12.2009 @ 18:56
The pattern of your encounters with other men is rather suggestive of a recurring problem of yours. What is it?
Um. . . that I don't like wife beaters and don't like being robbed? That seems to be the only repeated theme.
You've already revealed yourself as a racist, you aren't really going to defend wife-beating now are you?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.12.2009 @ 17:08
Manning:
You're not just a racist. You're the dictionary illustration of "racist." Why deny what is patently obvious to any objective observer? Why not own it?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.12.2009 @ 21:34
Manning:
What a lovely job you've done of proving my point. You're a racist. Period, end of story, clearly demonstrated.
As for your notion that I've never had any unpleasant experiences with African-Americans. Age 11, I was molested by a black guy. Many years later my wife was pistol-whipped by a black man in the course of an attempted rape.
I was also held up at gunpoint by a white guy. (My those nine mills do look big when they're pointed at you.)
Had an apartment I was managing trashed (smeared with feces) by a white guy and subsequently fought him in the street.
Stepped between a white guy and his white wife as he was beating her in the street.
Ditto a second time with a different white guy and had a lovely stand-off with many loud threats.
Had my family threatened by the KKK many years ago in Florida.
Was threatened by a drunken, gun-wielding white biker in a bar.
Was attacked in my room by a drunken white guy roaring that he wanted to kill me. (Attack suspended when he rammed his arm through a reinforced glass door. Much blood and excitement.)
Chased through the streets of Crocket California by a white biker who'd just ripped me off. (Very Hollywood chase scene.)
I don't recall ever having a problem with an Asian, but I assume I will someday.
But I don't conclude from that that blacks are inferior, aggressive or evil, since I've had at least as much trouble with white folks. In terms of being scared sh*tless I'd have to give the edge to white folks.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.12.2009 @ 13:27
Manning:
You're not getting it: your statement was blatantly racist.
. . . born of a virulent black culture that hates America, and wishes to wreck its revenge on the white majority–think Reverend White–and Obama is its titular leader. To support this ideology is to support the downfall of white America. . .
In your mind you separate black America from white, define them in terms evoking disease, define them as hostile and anti-American, reduce them to their worst elements, and posit that they desire to destroy "white America." And then, just so you can be extra crazy, you identify Obama as the leader of this alien, anti-American fringe.
The Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Brotherhood could have written that. Word for word.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.12.2009 @ 10:08
Manning:
Exhibit A next time I need to demonstrate the racism at the heart of so many on the right:
1) There is indeed a race component to the opposition to Obama, but it isn’t a simple color issue at all. It is an issue born of a virulent black culture that hates America, and wishes to wreck its revenge on the white majority–think Reverend White–and Obama is its titular leader. To support this ideology is to support the downfall of white America.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 22.12.2009 @ 13:39
Every military decision has been reluctantly agreed to, politicized, and is usually too little and/or too late ...
Obama called for Predator raids inside Pakistan during the campaign. John McCain attacked him for it.
Obama called for focusing on Afghanistan all through the campaign. He rushed troops there the instant he was elected. And now he has added still more men. Smething the REPUBLICAN Mr. Bush did not do.
As for racism, only a fool denies that racism is a very significant part of the tea party/Glen Beck/Rush Limbaugh party. It is not coincidence that the GOP is all white and mostly Southern and rural.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 22.12.2009 @ 10:43
Lionheart:
Arrogant ideologue . . . pathetic narcissist . . . seemingly unremarkable intelligence . ..
Questions:
1- Which ideology was served by increasing Predator raids into Pakistan?
2 - Which ideology is served by continuing to carry out Mr. Bush's agreements on Iraq?
3- Which ideology is served by vastly increasing US forces in Afghanistan? Is that a communist thing, or would you say it's more a secret Muslim thing?
4- Was it his "pathetic narcissism" that enabled him to get a 5000 man commitment from NATO?
5- Which ideology was he serving by steering clear of open support for the public option beloved by most of his own party?
6- Unless Bob Byrd croaks in the next few days Obama will have gotten a health care reform plan that Clinton could not. Is that his unremarkable intelligence at work?
7- Was it that same unremarkable intelligence that allowed him to avoid stepping into the middle of the Iran green revolution and undermining our possible friends?
8- You'll have to tell me whether it was ideology or narcissism or stupidity that caused him (along with Mr. Bush) to rescue this country from a financial meltdown of epic proportions. I can't guess.
You guys have tried out every insult you can come up with: fascist, communist, Islamist, Kenyan, naive, Bambi, stupid, crooked, evil, racist and none stick. You know why? Because you're idiotlogues who see only what they want to see and what they need to see to validate pre-existing prejudices.
Now, if you had come to me I could have told you what Obama is: ruthless, suave, unflappable, intelligent, patient and secure. He's also cold, lacking in empathy, distant and arrogant.
Ranting and raving and calling him names won't work. Here's what's going to happen: the jobless number will come down. We'll have a recovery coming off a stronger-than-expected Christmas. (The stock market is already up.) More banks will pay back their TARP funds. Fewer mortgages will default than we fear. And about, oh, four months from now it's going to dawn on people that the HCR hasn't destroyed their world.
Then all you crazy people on the far right will have a hard time remembering quite what it was that so filled you with hate and rage. (Aside of course from Obama's pigmentation which is what a good half of it is.)
We'll be out of Iraq, showing a sort of phony progress in Afghanistan, the banks will start lending again, taxes won't skyrocket, the economy will rebound (it always does) and you and your party of spittle-flecked nuts will feel the hot air leaking from your sad little balloon.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 21.12.2009 @ 21:45
