Comments Posted By Nikolay
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 84 Comments
HONESTLY, IS JOHN ARAVOSIS A PIECE OF EXCREMENT OR WHAT?
Clark is despicable to besmerch the charactor of man who spent five years in a POW camp. John at least actually earned his medals which we know Clark and Kerry didn’t.
Clark is Vietnam veteran and a general who run the most successful military campaign ever. What factual grounds do you have for besmirching his character? Which, BTW he _did not_ to McCain. He only said that getting shot down says nothing about your executive qualifications. What he said was politically dumb, but not inaccurate.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 30.06.2008 @ 18:20
ONLY A REPUBLICAN COULD BE SO STUPID...
Whatever the connotations of the word "boy", doesn't the fact he was casually talking about "highly classified simulation" trouble you much more?
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 15.04.2008 @ 06:38
soviets did not sacrifice any of their own blood for freedom. They kept all the land they took from the Nazis. They are also responsible for the very existence of North Korea. A gift that keeps in giving.
Thompson was speaking about the personal sacrifices. There's a difference between country's politics and that. Most of the Russian anti-Stalinists were still supporting the fight against Hitler. I have a number of relatives that did wonders of heroism in that war, and they were totally anti-soviet people. If you claim that their sacrifices did nothing for the cause of freedom, you piss on their graves.
Um. Britain, France, Yugoslavia and USSR were in it for survival at the most basic, civilian by civilian level. Bit of a difference there.
And USA didn't enter the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Which was more than 2 years after invasion of Poland, and more than a year after the bombing of London began.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 22.01.2008 @ 10:19
Guys, seriously, do you really believe that the claim that "USA shed more blood for the cause of freedom than all the other countries combined" is anything but the ignorant and offensive BS?
Hey, Rick, can you answer this question? You you tout FDT as a man of seriousness, integrity etc., but here's what he said in his after-SC speech: US is a country that sacrificed more blood for the cause of freedom than all the other countries combined.
Military casualties of Britain and France in WWII alone are bigger than that of US. Hell, even Yugoslavia lost more soldiers in WWII than US. And regardless of the evils of Stalin's regime, Russian people's fight in WWII was largely for freedom. Russian causalities were around 25 times that of US if you only count military deaths and 50 times if you count civilian deaths as well.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 21.01.2008 @ 18:31
American president who could say something like what FDT said there would be a perfect symbol for American ignorance and arrogance. Even the most pro-American foreigner would feel slight contempt for your country after hearing these words.
The question is, what is the use of alienating more of the world by electing someone prone to such distasteful demagoguery? Or would you say that pissing on the graves of the countless soldiers is a minor matter?
OBAMA: NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME - EVER
Where did you read about "invading Pakistan"? Where in his speech does he talk about "invading Pakistan"?
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 1.08.2007 @ 12:59
WHOSE FREEDOM? WHAT IS SPEECH?
The petition was filed based on the continued and increasing unstable mental condition of the son as a result of the mother’s guardianship.
The quote you give is from the last appeal and is a total "psycho-expert" B.S. When it all started, the judge expressly referred to her taking part in SubGenius events as reason for taking a child from her. She was also prohibited from having SubGenius literature at home when the kid is around.
You use the egregiously inappropriate example of writing anti-semitic statements on walls. What makes it so wrong is the nature of the two acts. Putting a Koran in the toilet, where it may or may not seen by a Muslim, is an extremely passive act.
Putting Koran in the public toilet in a University attended by Muslims is unambiguous harassment, and it's in no way more passive than anti-semitic writings on the wall.
If you asked “what if someone paints anti-war and Bush is Hitler messages on walls,†the question becomes much more difficult to answer; not for me, but most certainly for you.
Well, what's hateful about writing "anti-war" messages? Is war peace now and freedom slavery? Bush=Hitler is kind of a different matter, but I believe he's not a student on campus now, so it's not gonna offend _him_, and _the church of Bush_ has not that many members either. But a guy making such writings should definitely be confronted and face some punishment. Would you really want to have campuses all covered with hateful graffiti?
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 31.07.2007 @ 15:52
If the writing said "kill the rednecks", I'd say that the question would be simpler.
Again, it's not about limiting free speech, it's about kicking out the guy from the private university for harassing fellow students.
Speaking about "double standards", there was outrageous case of Rachel Bevilacqua, so it's not like artistic anti-Christianism can't have bad legal consequences.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 30.07.2007 @ 19:06
A crucifix in urine and putting a Koran in the toilet being done for the exact same reasons are evidently seen as separate matters all because the individual who placed the crucifix in urine says he is an artist and actually received grant money for the piece from the National Endowment for the Arts.
The obvious difference is where it all happened. Desecrating things in your own private space is one thing, doing it in public is different. I bet if somebody would sneak a sculpture of Jesus with horns and a giant penis into a Christian church, the reaction would be different than if the same sculpture would be placed in a museum.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 30.07.2007 @ 18:55
The "hate speech" angle is likely absurd, but it looks like the guy deserves being kicked out of the university. If somebody likes to paint swastikas and adores Hitler, that's his own business, but if he writes "Death to the Jews" on the walls on campus, he has no business being there.
Comment #6 already made your point about “two years†versus “two days.†Did you even read the other comments before making yours, announcing it (misleadingly) like it was a revelation?
I did not announce it as a revelation, I merely pointed out that Rick made two basic mistakes (and one nasty insult) in two sentences.
The idea of “fact checking†responses to comments is completely insane. You might as well say you don’t want the author of posts to respond to comments, a suggestion I would find wildly stupid, counterproductive and offensive.
You mean, Rick should just make stuff up in the comment section? That's pretty high standards you have for him. How can you even have a discussion, when the facts are not expected to be correct?
Then, again, this is not just some minor thing, this "screw them" is a central item in the Right's "Kos [despite serving in the army for 3 years himself] hates the troops" mythology, so one would expect Rick not to be ignorant about the facts here.Rick didn’t say Kos tried to remove his comment from his blog, he said he tried to remove it from the Internet, which implies sources other than his blog. And again, this statement was not made in his post, but only in a response to a commenter.
You mean DailyKos is not on the internet? Is this some kind of joke? You mean Kos somehow deletes this comment from other sites, but couldn't delete it from his own?
Rick just made this up, there's no way of spinning this. You think that it's a minor mistake, I think that it's not.I’d also like to point out that the proper way to prove the Daily Kos isn’t a hate site is to give evidence that it’s full of love, not to prove that some other site is a hate site.
You miss all the Greenwald's argument. He has no problem with Malkin site spewing hate. In fact, since he's obviously a Democratic partisan, he very much likes Malkin destroying GOP party into oblivion. What he has problems with is attempts by some to "regulate the discourse".
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 27.07.2007 @ 06:55
This is all a story because of O'Reilly's attempts to sabotage YearlyKos convention. Nobody on the left tried to prevent GOP from associating itself with crazies and death cults. Let them do it, and let the voters kick them out for it.
When some ignorant (he still doesn't understand that Pope _is_ a primate) moron like O'Reilly tries to dictate to others what's acceptable, that stinks and should be rebuked, and that's what's Greenwald is doing.
But, Hell, some people even convinced themselves that it was Muslims that were killing Christians in Rwanda, when in fact it was Christians slaughtering Christians, and the only role of Muslims was giving shelter to Tutsis.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 26.07.2007 @ 22:02
