Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 731 To 740 Of 839 Comments
Rick:
Did you read his comments on China? Holy Christ what a naive idiot! China evicts 10,000 people to make way for a new runway, not paying them for their farmland and threatening them with violence unless they left – no recourse to a court nor appeal to a higher authority. And Obama thinks we should be more like China because they improved their airport so efficiently?
Either naive or a commie. Which is it?
That is an asinine interpretation of what he said. It's beneath you. He said the Chinese are investing in infrastructure. He didn't endorse their every method. Good grief. If that makes Obama a commie I can only assume Mr. Bush's various glowing remarks about Putin and the house of Saud makes him both a Czarist and a Salfist. Are you auditioning for Hannity's job?
He was effusive in his praise of the Chinese government and their prep for the Olympics, yes? Maybe if he had bothered to think how all those "infrastructure miracles" were achieved (including one he didn't mention; the Three Gorges Dam project that has cost thousands of lives and displaced tens of thousands of people) he wouldn't make an ass of himself.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.08.2008 @ 12:36
Biden's the right choice. And you're still off-base trying to picture Obama as naive. This was not a naive choice. Obama is closer to being ruthless than naive.
I'll tell you what: I'll bet you a bottle of your favorite whatever ($70 max. value, so that leaves out the Macallan 55 year,) that a year from now, if Obama wins, you'll agree with me on that characterization.
Did you read his comments on China? Holy Christ what a naive idiot! China evicts 10,000 people to make way for a new runway, not paying them for their farmland and threatening them with violence unless they left - no recourse to a court nor appeal to a higher authority. And Obama thinks we should be more like China because they improved their airport so efficiently?
Either naive or a commie. Which is it?
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.08.2008 @ 09:15
THE LATEST NIGERIAN SCAM BROUGHT TO YOU BY 'OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT'
Wait, you mean the daughter of the deposed vice premier of Nigeria is never going to send me that 10 million? Even though she knows me to be a moral and reliable man?
This is a severe disappointment. I was going to invest that money in an alpaca ranch.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.08.2008 @ 04:46
SNOWBALL PICKS HER RUNNING MATE
I don't think the liberal MSM has done a good job of presenting Snowball's positions. They are obviously in the tank for Barackitty.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 21.08.2008 @ 17:45
LIEBERMAN BURNS HIS BRIDGES: WILL SPEAK AT RNC
Lieberman's an ass. I thought so when he was Gore's ineffectual running mate, and I think so now. He's a pompous, vain, preening, prig. Lieberman is about nothing but Lieberman. Granted this does not differentiate him from most senators, but he manages a level of sanctimony that makes his self-inflation particularly irritating.
You guys want him? He's all yours. I'd happily trade you for Olympia Snowe.
That being said, the Kossacks screwed up going after Holy Joe. Idiots picked a stupid fight with this windbag and then failed to knock him off.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 20.08.2008 @ 16:12
Rick:
You are so naive. The point of the government's attacks on itself on 9/11 was to create pro-American sentiment in Canada and stampede them into joining the sinister North American Union whose capital would be Des Moines. You've seen how politicians pander to Iowa's hog farmers? Well, my friend, if this goes forward the Iowa Hog Farmers will in fact control the Canadian Bacon business thus creating a monopoly in the breakfast meats market. That, plus an endless supply of cheap Mexican hog butchers, will generate huge windfall profits. Naturally, given that we're talking about pork, the Jews are behind it all.
Jeez, do I have to explain everything to you?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 17.08.2008 @ 02:49
THE LEFT WILTS IN THE FACE OF AGGRESSION
TL:
There is zero chance the EU or Japan would join us in sanctions. Also zero chance they'll back an effort to toss Russia out of the G-8 or WTO. Russia owns the light switch for Europe, and the EU's not known for boldness and resolve even when they aren't dealing with the guy who can turn off their central heating.
We were never going to do anything. Which is why Obama wanted to kick it to the UN -- because that's where you go for nothing. It's why Bush didn't come home from China and Condi stayed on vacation. If Russia wants Georgia it will have Georgia.
If McCain had been president, and had tried to impose sanctions on Russia he'd have been a fool. And by threatening same -- an empty threat -- he spotlights our impotence. It was emotional and reckless and would have harmed our interests.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.08.2008 @ 09:56
I think this is mostly nonsense, Rick.
First: McCain is wrong, Obama (and Bush) is right. McCain was running a bluff -- talking tough with no capacity to back it up. How does it advance the cause of America's interests to take shots at the Russians in this circumstance? Do you think our impotent bluster will somehow dissuade them from their longstanding interest in extending Russian hegemony along their borders?
I'm all for doing something when there is something to be done. In this case American bellicosity would do little but highlight our impotence. An impotence born of geography and history.
And while we're at it, I thought we had one president at a time. Where does McCain get off posturing in a way that drew derisive sneers from Saakashvili? Is this justified because he got a tiny poll bump? That's how we run or foreign policy now?
Second, the one writer I've seen so far who really fits your indictment is that wacky liberal Pat Bucahanan.
It never ceases to amaze me the power that liberals have. The GOP has the White House and for Bush's first term the Congress. BUsh has never been denied a single man or a single gun or a single meaningful appointee. And yet, somehow, two dozen "liberals" in Berkeley and the Upper West Side manage to thwart all the GOP's best intentions.
McCain's wrong. He's made an ass of himself on this. He's blustering and bluffing and proposing solutions that do nothing to advance American interests. It's amateur hour, and McCain is the amateur.
McCain has proposed nothing that would entail American troops or military aid. His "bluster" as you call it was calling a spade a spade. His statements have been realistic, honest, with the necessary strong condemnatory language that was given without weasel words or wiggle room for misunderstanding. Sakashvili's "sneers" were hardly that - that is a characterization without merit, proof, or logic.
In f act, it was, as has been the entire response I have seen from the left, pure unadulterated political spin. You characterize Saakashvili's response the way you wish in order to make a political point not because it is based on any perceptive or intelligent reading of what he said.
If what you say is correct, why did Obama's statements on the crisis change to reflect those statements made by McCain? The original response of both Obama and Bush was shameful and both men adjusted their responses more toward McCain's initial gut reaction over the course of the next few days. This shows pretty cleraly who the "amateur" is and who the neophyte is.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.08.2008 @ 05:00
REMEMBERING THE BOMB, FORGETTING WHY
Nice piece. Evenhanded and honest.
Don't want you cities going up in mushroom clouds? Don't make war on the United States.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 13.08.2008 @ 14:04
B.Poster:
Relax, dude. This is a black eye, not a severed artery.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 12.08.2008 @ 16:29
