Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 541 To 550 Of 657 Comments
NIE REPORT ON IRANIAN NUKES: QUALIFIED GOOD NEWS
@ RM:
"Iran no longer has an active bomb program. This does not mean they have abandoned the idea of building a nuclear weapon – far from it, I’d say."The "far from it, I'd say" -- is that based off NIE text or external sources?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.12.2007 @ 14:27
Seems to me like this whole thing makes the Dem boycott of Fox Network's debates seem like a pretty damn smart move. If you believe CNN is Dem biased, then you now have proof that the bias of the network impacts how they run the debate and what questions they allow to be asked.
. . . unless you think CNN is more biased than Fox is? I mean, I respect that the FCC wouldn't allow them to copyright "Fair and Balanced" unless it were true, but still . . .
Just checked their headlines for today . . .
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.11.2007 @ 10:47
"Flasher to Jury: Genitals Too Small to Be Exposed"
God, I miss Cronkite.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE IRANIAN REGIME?
That was a fantastically informative and concise post.
Thank you.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.11.2007 @ 11:11
CONSERVATIVES CANNOT IGNORE CLIMATE CHANGE
Guess you were wrong Mr. Moran -- Conservatives apparently can ignore climate change
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.11.2007 @ 04:06
WHAT'S A LITTLE VOTER FRAUD AMONG FRIENDS?
"In truth, voter ID laws are highly discriminatory. The problem for Drum and other Democrats is that they discriminate against people who want to cheat the system and commit voter fraud."
No . . . they discriminate against people that don't have photo ID. Voter fraud is a crime. Crimes don't "discriminate". If the Voter ID laws stop lawful, honest citizens from voting, then they "discriminate" against those people.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.11.2007 @ 19:46
SEVERE CRACKDOWN BY MUSHARRAF: DEMOCRACY HOPES FADE (UPDATE: MUSHARRAF SPEAKS)
@ rick:
Since you've banned insults, I'll take your derision as a polite inquiry, although its a shame someone with your intelligence feels the need to constantly drop to a kindergarden level of name calling. Quite frankly, your insults are only insulting in that I'm sure you're capable of more complex and impresive put-downs.Is it Bush's fault the deal with Bhutto fell through? No. Is it Bush's fault he's felt the need to tie American interests not to Pakistan but to the General personally? Yes. Is the failed attempt at reinstating a representative government in Pakistan a direct and obvious result of that support for the General? Yes.
American foreign policy toward him up to this point has been, in essence, give him billions of dollars and ask him nicely to not act like a military dictator. Are the "realists" on this site suprised that a man who siezed power in a coup decided he would rather hold onto it by force as opposed to voluntarily surrendering control of an entire country?
Every time he does something we don't like, America sends him a "tsk, tsk" phone call. Up until now, he's been able to play along, continuing to collect money from our Administration and maintain his grip on power. He has not yet had to choose between maintaining his financially rewarding relationship with the U.S. and maintaining his authority. Finally, push has come to shove. He faced the courts in Pakistan declaring his unanimous election a sham, and a direct move to "legally" remove him. He chose to remain in power, which should suprise nobody. If America doesn't like it . . . so what? What's the advantage to him of maintaining "good relationships" with the U.S. if he's not a de facto king anymore?
For the Administration to be suprised by this outcome, they would have had to expect that he would voluntarily surrender ultimate power in his country. If they did, then they are naive beyond words. If they didn't really expect him to walk away from the job of dictator, then why in the hell have we been supporting him? The only logical reason to back him was to "fight" Islamic extremists, something that (as usual) has backfired -- Al Quidea and the Taliban are now, by all accounts, firmly planted in the northern region of Pakistan, regaining their strength.
So . . . either our Administration are blitheringly blind to reality, or they simply gambled that any fallout from propping him up would happen after the next election. Those are the only two possible choices I see . . . do you propose a third?
My post was directed to your comment I quoted, which seems to hold that since the Bush Administration was "backing" Bhutto, blaming them for the current situation was a fallacy of the Left. I was attempting to mock your idea -- Bush may have been backing Bhutto's return to power, but he has also been backing the General. The fact that Bush may have wanted Bhutto back in power (assuming that's true, for the sake of this argument) doesn't absolve him and the Administration of the responsibility for supporting the General. That backing has, to no small extent, led to the current crisis. Blaming the Administration for the failures of its foreign policy is not Leftie crazy-talk . . . it's common sense.
You argue that despite the situation, America essentially has no choice but to continue to back the General. Let's assume that's true. The fact that he's the best choice out of all the bad options does not mean that the Administration's support of him all these years was a good idea, or that the current situation is one in which Bush has alabaster-pure hands. As you noted;
"Musharraf has demonstrated – and not for the first time – that he simply can’t be trusted to keep his word."
So we've backed and supported a man who will lie to us and to his own people in order to stave off something worse -- the specter of Islamo-terrorists seizing control of the country. I could argue that it's possible our support of him has caused the threat of a religious fundamentalist takeover to grow, but let's ignore that for now. Essentially, you're arguing "stick with the devil you know."
If that's the pragmatic position we take, fine . . . but to scoff at any responsibility for the devilish actions of the devil we back is dishonest.
You note that cutting off ties with him may be morally correct, but practically disasterous, and I agree. However, you seem to use the fact that now we're stuck with him as a reason why we shouldn't feel any moral blame for what has happened. If cutting off ties with him is the "morally satisfying" thing to do, that means that continued dealings with him are morally "repugnant" (my word, not yours). As you noted, this isn't something that came out of the blue. Therefore, our association with him all this time has been morally repugnant. We bear the blame for that. Bush and the Administration bear the blame for that repugnance.Ignoring the criticism as simply "the Left blaming everything on W" is a convienent dodge that allows us to avoid shouldering our responsibility for backing a despot. Do we need the despot? Arguably yes. Does that mean we're not responsible for their despotic acts? No -- we are responsible, and we deserve at least some measure of the blame. Blame it on "hippie Bush hatred" if you like . . . but they are right this time.
Acceptable clarification of my position?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.11.2007 @ 04:22
"despite the fact that the Administration had actually been orchestrating this return to democracy from behind the scenes by backing Bhutto’s return and helping to broker the deal between her and Musharraf."
Well then, lets be proud of another bang-up job of diplomacy for the Administration. Yes sir, that's quite a deal they brokered.
You laugh at the Left for "blaming" GWB for this, even though as this exact scenario has grown more and more likely the Admin hasn't taken steps to stop it aside from . . . what? Asking Mush to pretty-please not go all dictator? Of course, if the "new democracy" had actually worked, I'm sure you'd all think GWB deserves the credit.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.11.2007 @ 03:59
Man, I want a job where all problems can be blamed on someone else, and all successes I get 100% credit for. Must be nice.
MY TEN FAVORITE MYTHIC HEROES OF ALL TIME
Wow. Scoring HUGE points by dropping the John Carter!!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.10.2007 @ 19:12
"WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THIS MEDDLESOME TERRORIST?"
@ Mr. Moran:
"Only the fringe right argues that those other publications are not legitimate news outlets with individuals who exhibit bias."
I suppose that depends on how you define "fringe right", doesn't it?
Oh, and I'm enjoying your re-opened comments section. From your new rules:
"The rules are simple; insult me or other commenters, you’re out."You, from this thread alone"
"Thank you for admitting you’re a hypocrite."
"and then comment intelligently. I guess that lets you out…"
"something the left and apparently you don’t have the intellectual honesty to do."
"And then go back to kindergarten and learn how to read."
"Too busy being an asshole to read that, huh."I certainly see why you wouldn't want anybody in the comments to insult you or other posters. Kudos to you for taking a firm stand on allowing open debate, and the moral fortitude to live up to it yourself.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.10.2007 @ 03:34
@Lamontyoubigdummy:
"As a dog guy, cats creep me out (with their ability to see dead people & whatnot). "
For some bizzare reason that's specifically why I like them. There's something paradoxically comforting in that "you may feed me but I still dream of killing you in your sleep" look they get when you tell them no.
I should probably see a shrink about that . . .
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.10.2007 @ 05:35
