If you had written this exact article six months ago, or a year ago, you would have been castigated by your RW colleagues as a traitor, and an appeaser, and been tarred and feathered.
I guess it is the fate of conservatives to inhabit the caboose of our political evolutionary train, but it is good to see that, at the end of the day, the caboose actually moves as far as the rest of the train.
One serious dipute with your comments though. The resistance to engagement with the Syrians is rather strange. The argument that their behavior puts them beyond the pale seems rather beside the point. Is their behavior worse than that of the old Soviet Union? Did St. Ronnie have any problem understanding that dialogue with ones enemies is in the interests of the nation>Comment Posted By Tano On 6.07.2007 @ 14:35
Its your own fault.
No rational person would seriously advocate continuing the status quo, nor shipping the millions of working illegals home, nor letting them stay permanently in a second class status. Any immigration reform is going to have to find a way to integrate these people into American life - ie. eventual earned citizenship.
But conservatives are not rational people. There really is a deep well of fear and bigotry amongst your base. Propose a wise solution to a problem, and you can guarantee they will oppose it. Find some policy that harms the country, causes misery to lots of good people, but allows one to wave the flag and beat the chest, and they will surely support it.
Just like the prospect of doing stem cell research is likened to a new Auschwitz, or allowing gay couples to marry will destroy the marriages of all us heteros, so to the wise and rational solution to the immigration issue is built up into some scary disaster that will ruin the country.
So of course your politicians will say what they need to say to keep your drooling dittoheads quiet. And then they will go back to work to try and find a rational solution.
It is you guys who built up the "amnesty" bugaboo - redefining the word to encompass any policy that didnt amount to a massive expulsion. So yes, there will be "amnesty" as you define it - there always was gonna be. And if you didnt understand that all along, then you, like all your colleagues, were too busy drinking your own kool-aid to think clearly.Comment Posted By Tano On 17.05.2007 @ 01:48
The notion that the government is an enemy of liberty is absurd. It is so, as the Founders understood, when there is no popular control of the government. That is why they solved the problem of an enemy government by establishing a democracy.
Conservatism has always been an elitist ideology. Whether the elite gains power through family inheritance (monarchy or aristocracy), or through some combination of inheritance and meritocracy, it still represents an elite group. Democracy is the notion that all people should have an equal voice, even if they are low-born, or low in social accomplishemnts. That is what most rightwingers dont seem to get. Even if you are a thoroughly average person, or even below average, you are still entitled to an equal voice.
The democratic will of the people is for government to play a role in solving many of the issues that the people feel are problematical in our society. The wealthy would prefer to use thier own resources to contruct personal little paradises behind their gated walls, and to contribute as little as possible to what the rabble are doing.Comment Posted By Tano On 16.04.2007 @ 20:21
Gee Rick, you seem quite smug and boastful about your rhetorical efforts. It kinda boggles the mind.
Perhaps you havent noticed, but America is in the midst of takng a decided turn to the left, and there doesnt seem to be any end to it in the near future. And I bet it is the case, that you, and people like you, with your mindless, childish rantings, have contributed to that, in some tiny way.
How can I put this a bit more dramatically? Here we go - the Glenn Greenwalds of this world are WINNING the argument. The Rick Morans of this world are LOSING the argument. What are we up to now, a 50-35 partisan divide favoring the democrats? A growing army of rats fleeing the conservative / Republican ship?
And yet you sit here congratulating yourself over your brilliance in effortlessly beating back the rhetoric of the left? "Denial" used to be a pretty useful word, but I sense that you are way beyond that.
Sure, the article you reference is kinda silly. Big yawn. You arent going to seriously try to argue though that this country and this world wouldnt have been enormously better off if Gore had been inaugurated, are you?
Heh.Comment Posted By Tano On 1.04.2007 @ 00:37
Seems pretty clear that Pelosi went to Damascus to keep an eye on the Republican congressmen who were already there.
Does the Captain's and Allah's commentary apply to them as well?Comment Posted By Tano On 31.03.2007 @ 17:22
Hah! Yeah where is the OUTRAGE? We need more OUTRAGE. How can you run a government, create a policy, without OUTRAGE.
Maybe we could lend them Rush for a few months. Y'know, help generate some OUTRAGE.
They probably will get their sailors back, and wrap up this whole episode without killing a single Iranian. What a wasted opportunity. Its an OUTRAGE. Maybe we could lend them Bush for a few months. Y'know, to do something OUTRAGEOUS.Comment Posted By Tano On 28.03.2007 @ 14:04
Why do you think he felt compelled to lie?Comment Posted By Tano On 24.03.2007 @ 22:19
What kind of silliness is that? Who ever said anything about using Joe Wilson's testimony exclusivly?
There was also a Marine general, based in Europe, who went to track down the yellowcake story and found the same thing as Wilson.
And of course, the original charges were based on forged documents.Comment Posted By Tano On 7.03.2007 @ 21:15
It is interesting that Clarice can find comfort only in the most incoherent of arguments. Believe it or not, both of these quotes are from the same pen - in the same article:
"The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plameâ€™s identity"
"But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV."Comment Posted By Tano On 7.03.2007 @ 15:23
Sorry, but your spin is just totally unbelievable.
Wilson's mission did not confirm that Saddam was seeking yellowcake. He wasn't. One minister, having been conctacted by the Iraqis for a meeting, speculated that they were intersted in yellowcake. Thats it. Thats the sum total of the confirmation. The meeting then took place. Yellowcake was never raised. No further meeting took place. The initial speculation was unfounded. And yet, you consider this a confirmation?
The impetus for the trip most certainly originated in the VP's office. Not to the detail of "send Joe Wilson there" or even, "send someone there" , but certainly at the level of "go get to the bottom of this". Getting to the bottom of it rather obviously entailed talking to the relevatn people over there.
Joe Wilson may be a self-aggrandizing heel, but in that he is no different from most people in washington, and most bloggers for that matter. And, just like is standard practice with you rightwingers, you have flooded the field with hundreds of charges against him, most of which turn out to be unfounded, or gross distortions. We saw it for eight years with the Clinton "scandals", with the Swift Boat clowns, and now here again. You people seem not to understand that your own credibility is infinitly worse than Wilson's. So more story telling doesnt help your case much - what you need to start doing is rebuliding your own credibility.
Your claims about Joe Wilson being the cause of all this, becuase he "lied" is absurd. He told the truth. He went to Africa to check out a story. He reported back that nothing was going on. He was right. Nothing was going on. Yet, Bush went ahead and used the supposed Africa connection as another piece of evidence for a false case of WMD threat. And that was in service to an argument for war.
Wilson was totally justified in making this public. If the Bush administration had a reasonable explanation - that they hadnt gotten Wilson's report, or they didnt believe Wilson or any other legitimate reason, they had plenty of opportunity to make such a case. But instead, in classic Rovian-GOP fashion, they decided to mount a personal attack on the character of the messenger. One that you continue to this day.
It isn't surprising that y'all dont get much traction outside the nuthouse, and that the general impression is that y'all really are sleaze balls with something to hide.Comment Posted By Tano On 7.03.2007 @ 15:12