Comments Posted By Redhead Infidel
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 13 Comments
griefer Said:
11:17 amhey rick
i think team mccain agrees with you.
I think not.
I'd warrant William Kristol is a tad more believable than Ed Schultz:
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 29.09.2008 @ 11:53With respect to his campaign, McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her — aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she’s a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.
I’m told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff’s handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They’re supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.
Rick said: "when invited to a knife fight, bring a gun."
Oh please, Rick, you're hardly a Gunslinger of the Right. You're better known for your butter knife.
Let's see: MOUTH BREATHING, SCROTUM SCRATCHING NINCOMPOOPS...shallow, ignorant, remarkably stupid righties...inbreds......marmoset(thought I don't see what cute furry little monkeys have to do with anything; perhaps you meant something more "weasel-y")...brain dead righties...worthy of a quick trip to the asylum in a strait jacket...all these names and much more for a group of people you called "friends", who just didn't care as much as you about the whole Coulter comment thing. How atrocious of them! And what a gentleman you are, Rick.
I'm sure you completely miss the irony of all that name-calling in a post about not calling names because of the "deep emotional scarring" it causes. I might add, that you saved your deepest outrage and scorn for people you called "friends" and were constantly begging for votes for your mealy "essays". Not to mention that you proceeded to do the oh-so-gentlemanly thing and publish their private emails from a private email list. Wow - your manners impress me - what a class act. Should we thank your sainted father for such gentlemanly behavior?
I find it hilarious that you don't even see your own pomposity (which I have taken the time to kindly point out to you before). Next time, "burnish your bona fides" in private and save yourself the embarrassment of doing it in public. You've only come across as a sanctimonious whiner.
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 5.03.2007 @ 19:03
Good lord, Rick! So much work - amazing job. Now get a good night's rest and when you wake up in the morning, all will be revealed.
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 7.11.2006 @ 23:42
IAF ADMITS IT WAS WRONG ABOUT QANA
There are many contradictions and sloppy statements in the Haaretz article. I wrote to the three reporters to request clarifications on the following:
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 2.08.2006 @ 11:521. "...the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time."
Does that mean there WERE NONE, or that they just didn't have the info to give to you?
2. "However, it [IAF] changed its version on Monday."
How so? No one disputes that over 150 rockets have been launched from Qana in the preceding 20 days.
3. "However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike."
The strike occured between midnight and 1:00 a.m. Are you trying to say that there were no rocket launches from Qana on the previous day, or as you wrote, the actual "day of the strike" - ie: after midnight? It is quite possible that there were no rocket launches between midnight and the time of the Israeli strike - a matter of minutes. So, technically, your statement is correct, but disingenuous. Either you are being deliberately misleading, or none of you are very precise and accurate writers.
4. Your report is contradictory. First you say "The survivors say rescue teams arrived only in the morning, as night conditions made the rescue mission difficult." but then you say "...the electricity and phones in the village of Qana were almost entirely cut-off by IAF attacks." Is that so? Apparently NOT, since they were able to make the call anyways. So which is it? Did the rescue teams get a call at night, but they couldn't make it because of the dark, or did they get the call in the morning??? You can't have it both ways. In either case, you are wrong, the phones were working. It only matters when the calls were made.
5. "The IDF provided no explanation for the second explosion..."
What second explosion? Either the building collapsed at midnight due to an IAF strike, and the rescue teams couldn't make it because it was tragically so dark; OR, the building collapsed in the morning, having nothing to do with the IAF strike.
6. "The IAF admits the village was struck three times between Saturday night and Sunday morning."
I take issue with your loaded use of the negative word "admits". A more accurate word would have been "confirms".
I find this particular article to be a sloppy bit of reporting. One would hope that between the three of you, you could apply a little more logic. You're not asking the right questions, you're citing questionable and unnamed sources, and your semantics seem deliberately chosen to paint a highly negative picture of the IDF and IAF.
By the way, did you know that the anti-Israeli left is now using this exact article as their "proof" of evil Israeli intent and a cover-up? Not well played, Yoav, Yuval, and Amos - not well played, at all.
ALL THAT'S MISSING ARE THE POM-POMS
I have to vote for Cecilia for pure barf-worthiness.
Seriously, I'm queasy.
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 30.07.2006 @ 11:32
THE SPOILED BRAT WING OF THE GOP
Well, like I said, I'd never consider not voting. I can't speak to that theory. Nor have I ever been considered passive-aggressive. Actaully quite the opposite. But I do aim to vote FOR someone - not AGAINST someone. Meaning, I won't vote for trash just because the alternative is puke. Theway2k hit the nail on the head. Yes, I WILL vote for a Third Party - and admit it, that's what's really got everyone worried. The bottom line is that a Man or Woman of Principle may not be able to win against the Party's Loser, but that doesn't mean He/She won't earn enough loyal votes to crash the corroded Republican Party into their own mess.
The point is that you're shootin' at the wrong people. If the Republicans lose any race at all, it's because they've lost the people who are voting for someone else, and not them. That is THEIR fault. They are right now trying to buy their future votes at the expense of the ones who put them in office. My grandaddy would say, 'Dance with the one that brung ya.' Repubs are whoring themselves out for cheap, uneducated votes. OK, I guess they'll have to see if they can win playing the game that way. Their risk.
Again, if you guys want to get all pissy, get angry at the ones who are actually splitting the Party - hint: that would be the RINOs.
Roanoke said: "splitting the base over the imagined invasion"
Here's an open invitation to the Texas border, handsome. I'll show you a war zone that would rival Mosul. Mmm...kay?
As a veteran, there is no way I'd ever jeopardize our troops and their mission. However, securing our border is Priority Number One when it comes to the war on terror. Read this and catch up.
Timothy McVeigh was home grown.
McVeigh was a moron and didn't work alone and you know it.
Well, Rick, I just read your last comment and I can't argue with you about it because we're talking about two different things. You seem to have this idea that there are just millions of us out there who will ruin everything by staying home and not voting. Unfortunately for Republicans, that's not true. We're educated, we have money, we're pissed off, and we WILL vote. In fact, we're ready to vote for ANYONE better than them. Simple as that. It's time for an Independent.
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 22.05.2006 @ 21:25
Crosspatch, I suggest you lay off the psycho-babble. I've quoted you before on my blog, but your comment above is abysmal.
If the Republicans aren't worried about losing US, their base, then they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, with no one holding them accountable. You guys who want to smooth over the rough waters are doing nothing more than compromising your principles in the name of getting along. It may feel like you're taking the high-road, but you're not - it's really just the easy way.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.â€
-Barry Goldwater
I was a life-long Republican until last year. Now I am staunchly Independent. Never again will anyone get my vote just because they have an (R) next to their name - they had better well deserve it. Some people in this country still vote their conscience. That doesn't make us whiny, crybaby footstompers - that makes us principled, unwavering conservatives. If you Republicans don't want us, you know exactly how to get rid of us: make it impossible to distinguish Republicans from Democrats and voila! you've got your wish.
You both need to scratch a little deeper to get to the REAL ISSUE. You'll never fix this problem by treating the symptoms (disillusioned conservatives), instead of the disease (rotten RINOs). Repubs are abandoning their CORE, their foundation. It is not the other way around. If RINOs lose in November, it's not because of disillusioned conservatives didn't go out and vote. It's because those Repubs failed to lead and inspire those same conservatives to vote. The onus is on them. That's the real issue, and you completely ignore it.
Eventually, this dialogue is going to have to evolve into a discussion of the reality that our two-party system is broken. It is broken when there is nothing to choose from except the lesser of two evils. Unless a miracle happens, that's exactly what we face this November.
There is a huge block of disenfranchised voters out there who don't believe either party represents them. We are taxed without representation, to wit. This is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. I am an America First constitutionalist - neither Party puts America first. You know it, and I know it. And if the Repubs know it, then maybe it's the first step toward reforming themselves. Until then, they better work harder toward convincing me and everyone else like me that they're worth it. Because right now, they look like Democrats to me. And I'll be damned if I vote for a Democrat.
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 22.05.2006 @ 16:23
Rick, rick, rick...you are disappointing me, man. I thought you were all about bridging the gap between conservatives and the rest. And then I find you over here still calling us names. I say "us" because even though I will vote, I still demand that those up for election EARN MY DAMN VOTE! I never want them to think my vote is just a given. I will not encourage them by glossing over their mistakes; I will not calmly clasp my hands and hope for better in the future; I will activly shout out that I will boot their sorry asses out of power if they don't do the right thing! That is my right as an American, and I am really starting to resent your name-calling and castigation for it.
No. I will not roll over and let the Republicans get away with Alternative #2, as Loma Alta so eloquently put it above. You better bet your sweet ass I'm going to scream and holler my loudest so that those worthless politicians wake up and realize they've lost me and everyone else in MY Tribe. Then, and only then, will they realize they need to straighten up and fly right.
If we do things your way, then the Republicans stay comfortable - no scary conservatives to appease - and they get carte blanche. I'm not about to hand them a free pass.
I came over here because you requested a vote in the Wideawakes forum for this article at RCP. So naturally, I had to come read it first. I just took 20 minutes to dialogue on this so if you delete my comment, Rick, I'll give you an earful in Widewakes. ;P
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 22.05.2006 @ 15:20
LOOKING FOR MIDDLE GROUND IN THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE
I posted this back on May 4th:
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 19.05.2006 @ 07:27“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.â€
-Barry Goldwater
*clap, clap, clap*
Compromise, eh? I live in Texas, and I'm living with the long-term results of such compromise. But nevermind the reality, moderation is the key, right? I'll bet everyone feels really, really good about themselves as a "voice of reason". Good for you. Because that's what it's all about - feelin' good about yourselves. It's even better when you get to call other conservatives names like "mouthbreathers" and "knuckledraggers". Heh heh - how very high brow. Unfortunately, it doesn't go very far in bridging the divide, does it? And isn't that what you claim you want to do?
So don't break your arms patting yourselves on the back just yet...
After 5 1/2 years of doing nothing, Bush's plan is nothing more than placatory, inneffectual half-measures arranged around the centerpiece of his amnesty plan to gussy it up a bit for the masses. "Ahh, but wait," you cry, "he's against amnesty." Right. UNLESS he can call it a "guest worker program" instead.
FACTS: Bush promised and authorized 10,000 new border agents. Last year he reneged and authorized funding for only 200. He spends more time explaining himself to the Mexican president than he does his own people. The Mexican military has invaded our border hundreds of times, and have actually kidnapped Americans on several occasions. Our citizens live in the wasteland of a war zone on the border. If Bush's plan gets shoved through AGAINST the will of the American people, within 20 years we will have more aliens than our infrastructure can sustain. That's a fact, not histrionics.
And if you think Americans are framing this debate, think again. As the illegal immigration debate has risen to the surface over the past five years, it has been molded and defined by Mexico. Read it before you airily dismiss it from your high horse. It's Fox's Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2001-2006. We've been led like sheep. Step by step, the Mexican government has accomplished a comprehensive plan, while we've been wallowing in rhetoric like yours. Today's debate has been deliberately defined in emotional, extremist terms not of OUR choosing, but of Mexico's. And you've fallen for it.
"Concentration camps"?! Sheesh.
Comment Posted By Redhead Infidel On 18.05.2006 @ 11:43
