Comments Posted By docdave
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 28 Comments
JONAH GOLDBERG NEEDS A PIE IN THE FACE (METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING OF COURSE)
I've never been impressed by Jonah Goldberg or anything he's written. I do not consider him to be a true conservative.
Comment Posted By docdave On 15.12.2006 @ 16:29
WHY I WILL DRAG MY SORRY ASS TO THE POLLS ON NOVEMBER 6
This is what I wrote at sayanythingblog.com.
Comment Posted By docdave On 18.05.2006 @ 13:40
"In November we will be voting for congressional candidates not the president so we should be looking at the qualifications of those candidates. the presidents ratings be damned." and in my own post 'Don't Throw The Baby Out With The Bathwater' at the same blog.
"In summary, I believe the immigration problem is just another feel-good program given to us by the liberals. At the next election, rather than blame the problem on the Republicans, consider the ideological leans of all the candidates and vote for the one that you think is most conservative, or least liberal. If the immigration problem is to be solved, I doubt that it can be resolved with a congress dominated by liberals regardless of their political party affiliation."
Rick, did you see the same game that I saw last night? If Mohammed could catch a pass the score would have been 40-13. The Bears also showed an absence of imaginative play calling on short yardage situations. How many times did they fail on 3rd and short with the same tired off-tackle or off-guard plays. Jones is good but he's not a Bettis on short yardage situations.
Grossman can throw accurately and long but can Favre? Granted the Pack don't have a running game without Green so that puts a lot more pressure on Favre but Chicago was giving the Pack the short passes all night so it's hard to rate him overall. I don't think that Chicago will go very far in the play-offs.
Comment Posted By docdave On 26.12.2005 @ 20:47
ed and everyone, opinions are a worth about as much as 'free' advice but the right to voice an opinion is a right that is not available to people in many societies something that we Americans need to be continually reminded of and should be grateful for. My opinion of politics in our country today is that it has evolved into a love/hate relationship with the president and those emotions are so strong that they drown out the debate. Bush is not perfect, no president ever was and no president will ever be. I think it is too easy to forget that the attack on our nation on 9/11/2001 was near the magnitude of the attack on Pearl Harbor which has its anniversary today and as the country replied in kind after Pearl Harbor, the country under president Bush had to retaliate after 9/11/2005. The proper retaliation is against the known enemy. After Pearl Harbor the identity of the enemy was obvious because their symbol, the rising sun, was displayed for all to see. The problem after 9/11 is that the identity of the enemy was not obvious and even today remains in doubt. Is the enemy as the president stated at that time any nation who supports the terrorists in some way directly or indirectly? If that is not correct, then just who is the enemy and how does one go about defeating them?
Comment Posted By docdave On 7.12.2005 @ 18:34
Gina Cobb has a good post on Murtha
Comment Posted By docdave On 1.12.2005 @ 19:22
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2005/12/us_army_is_brok.html
ed, I can't think of one major news media (maybe Fox is the exception) who except rarely has anything good to say about the Bush administration and the Iraqi war. These same media agencies have lost a lot of readers and viewers which means that those people are getting their news from elsewhere, probably from the internet: bloggers and news media like WND (they get millions of hits each day), Newsmax and others. Bushs election victories were marginal at best and considering the quality of the opposition they might have been more decisive if he (Bush) would have gotten favorable press coverage and endorsements (I believe that none of the major media endorsed Bush).
My comments about Lincoln had more to do with in Lincolns perception the apparent seditious actions of some of the press. Some of the same press fled to Canada to avoid prosecution as Canada has often y been a refuge for dissidents from this country (slaves escaping from the south, Vietnam draft dodgers, etc.). Lincoln had his hands more than full with the south so was not likely to consider invading Canada who as a nation was not threatening the north. Besides the naval blockade was essentially keeping foreign supplies from reaching the south.
Comment Posted By docdave On 1.12.2005 @ 18:38
I think that you all fault the president a bit too much. With the possible exception of Lincoln, no president has had to deal with as negative a press as has Bush, and Lincoln solved his problem by arresting the press leaders and/or shutting them down. The NYT, Washington Post, AP and others fit that category and in Lincoln's time their editors and leaders would have been imprisoned for sedition.
Comment Posted By docdave On 1.12.2005 @ 13:02
Yep, John, the Souix made their home in Minnesota until the Chippewa kicked them out.
To patch, where syphilis came from is debatable. What is clear is that the Europeans gave the natives all the diseases associated with domesticated creatures e.g. small pox, chicken pox, measles, diptheria, etc. for which the natives had no resistance. The disease virtually destroyed many tribes leaving the few survivors to seek refuge with other tribes.
Historically, catastrophe usually occurs when totally different cultures collide and what survives is often a composite of some sort e.g. the mestizos of Mexico
Comment Posted By docdave On 25.11.2005 @ 13:55
At any rate, it is really stupid to belabor the point as Jensen has done especially since nothing can be done to change the past.
“They’ve been in power too long,†Mr. Nofziger says of Republicans. “Any time you put any political party in power for too long, it becomes corrupt. It loses its focus. It forgets why it came there.â€
Could be that's true but how does that relate to the absolute corruption of the Democratic party which has sold out to the extreme lefties and has not been in power for several years. Trouble is if the Republicans have become corrupt who do we have to replace them? Certainly not the current Democrats.
Comment Posted By docdave On 25.11.2005 @ 14:39
To all you wimpy whiny leftists liberals I present this classic Patton speech
Comment Posted By docdave On 14.11.2005 @ 18:04
http://www.rightwingnews.com/speeches/patton.php
You'll know where in the speech Patton is refering to you. Enjoy!!
