Comments Posted By Jim
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 116 Comments


Hi Rick

It is ironic that Scott Brown is in some sense likely to turn out to be a conservative Barack Obama. That is to say there are people who voted for or supported him who will discover he is not what they currently think him to be. I am not saying he conducted the same kind of all things to all people campaign the president did. Nor am I accusing him of the obvious chicaneries of which the president and current democrats are guilty. Rather, that the rage still building over the direction Congress has taken for the last 30 years is deep and Massachusetts voters have chosen the best of two candidates and some are likely to place more than rational hope on his shoulders. I believe that fiscal hawks, strong on national defense with a sceptical view of abortion and an understanding that they are public servants, not part of a kleptocracy are needed right now. Essential honesty is the key ingredient and I hope Scott Brown is an honest man.

It is probably best to say that many Americans are angry at the result of 30 years of bipartisan misrule that has savaged our economy and left us vulnerable. The current administration has tossed bricks onto the camel's back, and the camel is on its knees. People are looking for men on white horses. Brown may be one but we need many, and in both parties.

Comment Posted By Jim On 20.01.2010 @ 14:34


Thank you John Burke. I would assume that Rick's 1-3 percent is probably the "old school" result of fraud in elections. I hope your figures are correct and that technology is improving voting as it has so many other areas of life. Rick does have a good point that Massachusetts is a "one-party dictatorship" and local Democrats, such as the Kennedys, have been credibly accused of vote fraud throughout the 20th Century. I think he is right that if the Dems can pocket it, they will.

PS Rick: Thanks for enraging the trolls!

Comment Posted By Jim On 17.01.2010 @ 22:45


Hi Rick

Another good post. It has been said in some quarters that the Democrats are only interested in holding and maintaining domestic power. That they are really only concerned in domestic issues and don't have their eye on foreign policy. They have little interest, in this view, in what goes on overseas.

I don't hold to that view absolutely but much this administration and its Democrat allies do gives credence to this view.

You call it "campaign mode" I think part of it may be the "Chicago Way" where the only really important thing is having patronage and using it. Effective foreign policy (to this crowd) may not buy votes. What buys votes (in this view) is passing out domestic goodies. I'm not certain of it but it sure explains why they treat the domestic opposition the way they do and give the appearance they couldn't be bothered with foreign policy.

Comment Posted By Jim On 31.12.2009 @ 14:51


Secondly, it was crappy thinking. I tried to draw a parallel between Obama’s policy and “Sitzkrieg” in World War II. Not even close. To say I tortured logic in trying to connect the two is an understatement. The connection is more in attitude than action which is difficult to quantify and impossible to expose.

Hi Rick:

I believe I understand where you were tempted to take that; I also see several of the dilemmas. The last sentence of the paragraph is intriguing. Were you suggesting that the French and British lacked the nerve to start the next phase of the war? And were you comparing that to our present situation? Or were you suggesting that the Allies became even more acutely aware of their military unpreparedness and the ways in which their actions were constrained by reality?

I am hoping you are feeling better and glad that your inner judgment stills drops the hammer on material you don't wish to have represent you.

But the tease is effective and sets me to thinking....

Comment Posted By Jim On 29.12.2009 @ 16:05


Dear M. Reynolds:

Your style of argument is tiresome and oft-repeated. You deliberately mis-state other people's positions and throw in gratutitous ad homs that prove your arguments are mere prejudice and not reasoned positions. Your basic goal is to write something that shows (to yourself) your own superiority. Good Luck. This will be my last response to you.

1) As Rick has pointed out the American response to the brutality proffered by the Tehran regime has been belated and muted since the revolt erupted. This is definitely a silence that constitututes acceptance. We should have been forthright in our condemnation for the very beginning and we should have placed diplomatic pressure on the regime.

2) President Obama (and his supporters) promised us that his administration would jump-start relations with Iran, defuse the atomic crisis and bring stability to the region. One year has passed, they (the mullahs) are closer to the Bomb, Iran has made no perceptible movement toward peaceful resolution and we are, as noted, exactly where we were 1/20/09. During the Bush Administration it was made perfectly clear that it was not in anyone's interest for Tehran to have a Bomb. Convincing them to abandon their nuclear ambitions was a tenet of Bush policy. President Obama said he would achieve it, so far he has made no progress. It is quite possible we are going backwards.

3) President Bush was quite successful in uniting the world against Iran during his term. He was not bellicose or threatening. In fact, most of what has been accomplished was accomplished in his eight years. Nothing has been added. Perhaps nothing has been lost, but of that I am not certain.

BTW Iran still uses the Great Satan card, and they have lost no credibility that I can see. In fact, since the majority of Shias in the world live in Iran it is hard to see how they would lose credit in the Shia "world."

I agree with Rick's position. Nothing you have said provides a valid counter-argument.

Comment Posted By Jim On 28.12.2009 @ 23:47

Hi Rick

I agree with you on this one. In this case silence does constitute acceptance. Worse, it creates acceptance by making other nations reluctant to speak out. It is lowering the bar of international standards by downgrading the definition of heinous.

We should be vocal in our condemnation of the regime and consistent in our support for the reform movement. The regime will say the reformers are our tools, so what?

The problem is that, as you note, we have gotten nothing from our one-year experiment in "engagement." Worse, the serial apologizing is bearing fruit as the Iranians now have a stick to beat us with. "You have nothing to say about human rights, your own president said so" will be the refrain.
Keeping silent on this issue reminds me of the "advice" I once read from an "expert" who said you should carry lots of money in your wallet in case you were robbed. That way you wouldn't anger the bandit.

Comment Posted By Jim On 28.12.2009 @ 18:27


Hi Rick

You put it all out there and don't hold back. I respect that and enjoy the posts. Merry Christmas.

Comment Posted By Jim On 25.12.2009 @ 14:42


Dear U. Lessou:

Five Suggestions:

1) Learn to Read.
2) Pay special attention to reading comprehension.
3) Learn to write above a 7th Grade level.
4) Practice responding to points made in the piece you are writing about,not imaginary straw people.
5) Be Polite. Believe it or not, if you address Rick politely others will take your arguments more seriously, even when they are poorly thought out and even more poorly expressed.

Have A Better Day!

PS: People come to this site because Rick thinks and writes clearly. It is perfectly fine to disagree, as I sometimes do. But I for one, want to read polite, intelligent disagreement that shows the other side of the argument, not simple screed.

Comment Posted By Jim On 21.12.2009 @ 03:01


Hi Rick

We've had our differences certainly, but you are not a Palin basher so much as someone who disagrees with her. The bashers resort to vicious fiction. Everyone needs friends who dare to be critical.

No politician (if that is what she actually is) is supposed to be immune from criticism and none is supposed to be immune to calls for action, change and reflection. Essentially, you are asking for relection and change from her.
So many people are now in an "all or nothing" "my way or the highway" mindset that finding a realistic middle is difficult. I hve been reflecting on your laments about this fact. How exactly do we govern when both major parties are run from the extremes? Do we hope a true independent party emerges and that nothing occurs unless all three parties buy in? Or do we have stasis.

I think Palin is currently refining her, forgive the marketing term, "branding" and her brand - "Reaganism," lower taxes, smaller government, fiscal sanity, "all of the above energey policy" and a strong military - is a better "brand" than what is coming out of Washington. She has a long way to go in order to be a viable presidential candidate. I hope she gets there.

The real problem is that President Obama was elected in the first place. That means a majority was carved out that agreed to a massive expansion of government and fiscal insanity. It was all out there for them to see prior to the election, yet they did it anyway. Putting that tooothpaste back in the tube will be tough.

Comment Posted By Jim On 20.11.2009 @ 11:21


Uh, Rick

Goldwater, Romney and McCain were all sued in federal court on eligibility grounds. They all responded to the charges. Essentially stating the facts and asking that they be dismissed. They were. Goldwater was sued because he was born in Arizona when it was a territory, George Romney was sued because he was born in Mexico (but both parents were United States Citizens) and McCain was sued because he was born in Panama (to serving personnel on a military base). McCain actually went to the trouble of having a senate resolution passed acknowledging his eligibility. Obama has never directly responded, simply claiming the plaintiffs "lack standing." His response has until now been through his website.

So don't say this has never happened before....

I find it ironic that Obama has, by not responding, created his own "Florida 2000." I ask you, did "Florida 2000 destroy the Democrats, or help lead to Obama?

You are correct in that virtually everyone seems to believe in some sort of conspiracy, big or small. You are also correct in stating that there is fever, exaggeration and silliness involved. But even non-consevatives like Camille Paglia acknowledge "ambiguities" (I think that is the word she used) in his birth history.

And, by the way, since when is posting a facsimile of a birth certificate the same as bringing it in to court?



Comment Posted By Jim On 22.07.2009 @ 12:10

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (12) : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

«« Back To Stats Page