Comments Posted By milo
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 22 Comments

OBAMA: THE NEW LEFT TRIUMPHANT

Rick, you write: I believe in the inviolable rights of private property as the guarantor of American liberty.

Yesterday, in response to a comment, you added: You are correct about the cabinet.

It is the 3,000 other jobs the president gets to fill that will trouble us. That’s where if there is any radicalism in him, we will see it manifested in how he fills out the bureaucracy.

I wonder what you think of this piece by someone that evidently agrees with your first point and whether you might temper your fear of the coming admnistration's appointments.

The point being that it is quite easy to find appointees doing bad, stupid and wrong things or pursuing policies that you don't support. The more interesting question is how are these appointees managed by the executive when they become manifestly unfit for the office which they hold.

Comment Posted By milo On 28.10.2008 @ 09:21

FEAR NOT - THE REPUBLIC WILL SURVIVE A PRESIDENT OBAMA

We know from experience that any additional revenue received through an increase in taxes never, ever goes to reducing the deficit.

Are you Rip Van Winkle? Were you not alive and sentient during the Clinton Presidency?

No. Yes. No.

Rank dishonesty, Rick.

Not so, my friend. The growth of the economy brought in 10 times more revenue than Clinton's tax rise on the top tier. And spending increased many times the amount of revenue brought in by the tax rise.

ed.

Comment Posted By milo On 2.05.2008 @ 19:22

OBAMA WINS NO MATTER WHAT

Formatting above completely lost. Sorry.

Comment Posted By milo On 6.02.2008 @ 11:21

I take a look at Barack
Obama’s candidacy Rick Moran's post
and place it in some historical
perspective:
An
extraordinary statistic jumped out of the jumble of
numbers and percentages that pulled me up short and caused me to
reflect on the past as well as the future. In the exit polls from the
Democratic party primary in Georgia, nestled in with indicators of age,
income, and religion was the vote cast by white males. When you Rick Moran
thinks
about it, this is startling:

Vote by Sex and Race Clinton Edwards Obama
White Men (16%)
Clinton – 48%
Edwards – 6%
Obama – 45%

Within Obama’s lifetime, a black man in
Georgia has gone from being prevented from exercising his right to vote
to capturing a near majority of the registered Democratic
party sons and grandsons of his former oppressors and the sons of some who
fought in ways small and large to overthrow the oppressions
in a run for the highest office in the land.

I suppose it’s no big thing for many
younger Americans who weren’t born and raised with the idea
that there were limits inherent in the American political system that
would prevent a black man from achieving what Mr. Obama has achieved.
It is a shameful thing to believe in those limits – bred to
it by history and circumstance as we
many
of my generation were.

Read it all before commenting please.
It would be extraordinary if the white male Republican voters
of any state could be said to have cast their votes in this manner.
 As a white, male, southern Democrat, I can assure you that
there is nothing extraordinary about my casting a vote for a black
candidate in preference to white candidate.  It happens all
the time.

Comment Posted By milo On 6.02.2008 @ 11:20

STABBED IN THE WHAT?

Okay, Rick, on to substance:
When you say: So yes, blame Bush and his people for what they should be blamed for; the incompetent prosecution of an ill-planned war. But if blaming the left for deliberately seeking to break the will of the American people to carry on the struggle to at least the point we could leave behind some semblance of a viable Iraqi state means that I will be called a back stabber, allow me to coin a phrase: Bring It On. you display a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject on which you are posting. The Dolchstosslegende or "stab in the back" that is the subject of the post refers to war opponents being accused of the act of stabbing in the back. You are not in danger of being called a back stabber. Sleep well.

Furthermore, you ought to drop the Bush hatred theme. My opposition to the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with George W. Bush. Hatred is really not my gig, nor do I believe it motivates much more than a handful of Bush opponents. Your mileage varies, but it ain't economical.

Comment Posted By milo On 28.06.2007 @ 18:53

You'll just have to undelete it to let everyone know. (You remember, the one about not taking the Lord's name in vain.)

Comment Posted By milo On 28.06.2007 @ 18:03

Don't worry Rick, I'll keep our little secret. Mum's the word.

Comment Posted By milo On 28.06.2007 @ 17:59

Oh, and just as a prophylactic, there is this.

August 29, 2003, about a year ago, or four.

Comment Posted By milo On 28.06.2007 @ 17:09

Rick Moran Said:
2:09 pm

You’re right – at least as far as blaming the press. I think Baker was the first to actually include the anti-war community as those who would be accused of stabbing the country in the back.

Not even close. (Ahem, again, cough, cough.)

Comment Posted By milo On 28.06.2007 @ 16:39

As far as I can tell, this meme first saw the light of day a year ago in an article by Kevin Baker in Harpers.

Not even close.

Comment Posted By milo On 28.06.2007 @ 13:53


 


Next page »


Pages (3) : [1] 2 3


«« Back To Stats Page