I started reading your blog about a year ago, and have followed you regularly since then. I don’t remember how I found you, but I was immediately attracted by what I considered to be your “independent” views. They appealed to me because of my own independent views – i.e. no affiliation with any political party, never voting along party lines, trying to keep an open mind, etc. I am also a History major and student of history, and I appreciated your knowledge in this area. Of course I was leery of the name “Rightwing Nuthouse”, but as I came to read your posts I found them to generally be fair minded. In fact, there was a period (when you started to tire of Bush’s foreign policies) that you began to “stray” dangerously far from many of your cohorts’ writings, and you took some serious heat for it in Republican circles. And then you would understandably write something to come back “into the fold”. I’m sure it can be very lonely when you’re calling your blog Rightwing Nuthouse and moving toward the center on some of the set in stone Republican party line positions…..
Unfortunately – as this presidential campaign has unfolded – your “independent” views have completely disappeared, and this will be the last time that I post on or read your blog. (I’m sure that you won’t lose any sleep over it) I found it amusing that you wrote: “my republican soul (note the small “r”)”. I guess you still want to hold onto some of your “independent” readers, but – like me – I suspect many of them will leaving.
As the campaign has gone farther along, you have totally and completely sunk back into mainstream republican propaganda. Let’s not kid ourselves here; when you start using words like “dangerous” and potentially comparing Obama to Nixon, there’s no “small R” anywhere in your Republican soul. If I wanted to read that crap, I can just scan realclearpolitics.com for all of the posts by Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, John Hinderaker, etc. – all intelligent people, but eerily similar to the women I’ve seen interviewed from Warren Jeff’s FLDS group in Texas. I’d call it “one-speak”.
But I’m sure that Captain Ed and the rest of your buddies have welcomed you back with open arms. It’s too bad, because you can really do a lot better…..
At some point soon, however, you will have to come to terms with the fact that – whether you approve or not - Barak Obama will be the next President of the United States. It’s not going to be close, and the 75,000 in Portland is only the beginning……
Anyway – I wish you and your wife well in your new home, and continued success with your writing.
What a piece of simpering, crap. I don't like McCain any more than Obama. But if you don't think a man - an Ameriocan politician trying to develop a mass movement based not on policies but on his cult of personal leadership isn't dangerous, you're a dunce. Couple that with what any reasonably aware person can see his far left ideological leanings and unbelievable naivte on just about any foreign policy question facing the country and yes, I will call him dangerous from now until the cows come home.
I write what I want, when I want, about anything and everything that catches my fancy. What you see is what you get. There is no artiface here - no pandering to the right and certainly not the left. I don't write for links or for audience. And I certainly don't write for self centered, navel gazing pooh-bahs like you who arrogantly places themselves above the rest of us "party men" due to your "independent mind."
What a crock of shit. I consider you captured by the pleasant atmospherics of the Obama candidacy because anyone with half a mind much less an independent one would never vote for the guy in a million years. No experience, no track record of accomplishing anything - anything - that he has promised, and ideas on foriegn policy that are bat-shit dangerous and childishly naive.
Announcing to the world that you are not going to read my blog anymore is pretty childish come to think of it. Maybe you could of, you know, just done it because the result is the same - no one cares.
btw - it isn't that you're not reading my blog anymore that I went off on you. It's the condenscending and moronic way you went about it. You want to accuse me of lacking "independence" (what ever that means) is the same thing as saying I'm a liar, that I write dishonestly and that I don't allow my true beliefs and feelings to come out.
Wrong on all counts. So go away and to make sure you don't come back, I'm banning your IP.Comment Posted By tetvet68 On 19.05.2008 @ 15:52
Seven and a half years of the worst foreign policy in the history of the United States, and you’re “right on board” for more of the same.
Let’s take a look at a few of the highlights:
An endless war that has now gone on for longer than World War II. (It was McCain who pointed this out at a recent commemoration ceremony at Pearl Harbor) We were able to completely rebuild our Navy and a good part of our Air Force, mobilize 16 million people and defeat two world powers all over the world in less time than we have been able to do what????????? in Iraq.
A war that is costing 3 billion dollars a week! A child dies of starvation every six seconds in Africa. For three billion dollars, you could feed every one of them.
A war that will cost over a trillion dollars and is killing our economy and creating more poverty in the USA.
An Al-Qaeda that has reconstituted itself to pre- 9/11 strength, and which – had we not invaded Iraq and given them a “new cause” – would probably now either be non-existent, or consist of a couple of dozen guys hiding in caves.
Bin Laden and Al Zarqawi alive and well, and regularly sending out tapes to promote their cause.
Sanctioned humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib.
A strengthened and defiant Iran, moving right ahead with their development of nuclear weapons.
ZERO progress on the Israel – Palestinian front, with Hamas now controlling Gaza.
Lebanon rapidly coming apart.
Personally…….I’ll take the “pie in the sky” approach…….Comment Posted By tetvet68 On 17.05.2008 @ 09:29
Nice to see that you took a [brief] break from your usual faire to write this â€œnon-articleâ€ about Barry Bonds.
I also read Richard Baehrâ€™s article at The American Thinker that you refer to, but found it to be nothing more than a re-hash of Bondâ€™s statistics and what everyone else in the MSM writes about Bonds. Like Baehr, I also grew up in the Bronx as a NY Giants fan. I was seven years old in 1951 when Willie Mays came up, and had the chance to see him play in person many times. I do agree with Baehr on his assessment that Babe Ruth was the greatest hitter in the history of Baseball, and Willie Mays the greatest all-around player. I continued to follow the Giants after they moved to San Francisco, but I am neither pro or anti-Barry Bonds. I consider myself to be just a baseball fan and try to keep an open mind. With that in mind, here are some thoughts about Bonds that you will never see addressed in the MSM:
Firstly, I DO BELIEVE that Barry Bonds â€œprobablyâ€ used steroids at some point, either knowingly or unknowingly, but letâ€™s look at some history. Bonds â€“ and others - testified before a Congressional Committee in December, 2003. Testifying before such a committee is no small thing. Following these hearings, Bud Selig â€“ who I consider to be the WORST commissioner in the history of Baseball â€“ was â€œforcedâ€ to begin drug testing, So letâ€™s look at Bonds after the December, 2003 Congressional hearings.
Firstly, Iâ€™m certain that Bonds has been tested MANY times since 2003 for performance enhancing drugs, NEVER testing positive.
Secondly, physically, Barry Bonds looks exactly the same today as he did when he testified in 2003.
When Mark McGwire testified, everyone was aghast at the way he looked. I donâ€™t remember anyone saying that he might have been on the â€œJenny Craigâ€ diet. Everyone jumped all over him with comments like: â€œheâ€™s a shell of his former self", "an empty suit", "shriveled up like a prune", etc. But why havenâ€™t we seen the same changes in Bonds' body????
While Baehr and others are always looking at Bondsâ€™ statistics up until 2004, letâ€™s look at his statistics for the almost four seasons following the Congressional Hearings. Since those hearings, over the past four seasons, Bonds has 1051 official ABs and has hit 99 HRS. That's 1 HR for every 10.616 ABs. Bonds did this between the ages of 39 and 43.
OF ALL THE PLAYERS IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL, ONLY MARK MCGWIRE has a higher percentage of HRs to ABs: 1 HR per 10.612 AB's. I think we would all agree there is no doubt that McGwire was a major steroid user and he never played past the age of 37. Bonds also had 469 walks during this period - over 30% of his plate appearances, usually never saw more than one or two decent pitches each game, and had a constant stream of hatred and vitriol directed at him by the press
So how did he accomplish this during the past four years???? Of course MANY people will say: ITâ€™S SIMPLE!
HEâ€™S STILL USING PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS!. HE NEVER STOPPED USING THEM. HEâ€™S FLAUNTING IT IN BASEBALLâ€™S FACE.
I SIMPLY DONâ€™T BUY THIS ARGUMENT. After the Congressional hearings, we had the BALCO scandal, and Victor Conte and Greg Anderson were busted. Are we supposed to believe that Bonds found a new drug supplier without skipping a beat and has continued to use up until today If so â€“ considering the intense media scrutiny that he has been subjected to â€“ where is the evidence that he has continued to use since 2003???? Donâ€™t you honestly think that some shred of evidence of continued use would have surfaced during the past four years, or has Bonds â€œmagicallyâ€ continued his drug use undetected and unimpeded?????
The point that Iâ€™m making here is that while Bonds may have used â€“ or DID use prior to those hearings, (I still do not accept the premise that steroid use can substantially improve someoneâ€™s batting average), we MAY have just been witnessing an incredible baseball player. And the fact that he may be â€œa cheat, a scoundrel, a woman abuser, and a tax dodge is irrelevant. Heâ€™s also one hell of a playerâ€¦..Comment Posted By tetvet68 On 9.08.2007 @ 14:31
Some very good discussion with many good points being made here, less the few over the edge comments about exterminating every living thing in the Middle East. Here is my take on some of the comments:
Drongo â€“ I agree with virtually everything that you have said, but â€“ unfortunately â€“ yours is an almost â€œutopianâ€ view
â€œWe will always have some people who believe in their ideology so much (whether it is insane or reasonable) that they will be willing to kill innocents.â€. Undeniably true.
â€œTerrorism is almost an irrelevance to our livesâ€
It may be at the moment for most of us, but I totally agree with Bill Arnoldâ€™s comment that â€œTerrorism involving WMDs is qualitatively different â€“ it could be a real threat to civilization.â€ Whether or not the threat from Jihadi terrorism has increased over the last 100 years, the WMDâ€™s make it a whole different ballgame. What â€œnuclear controlsâ€ do we really have???? Even with the most advanced satellite technology that is available to us, we clearly do not know everywhere the production of nuclear weapons may be going on in the world today. I remember when we were first alerted to the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. We were blown away by how much they had done. And now, much of the production of WMDs can be mobile, making it even more difficult to really know whatâ€™s going on. While we might not be looking at â€œthe end of civilizationâ€, a worst case - or close to worst case - scenarioâ€ is not that far-fetched.
â€œStop building up the terrorists, in media, public statements and even in our own minds. They are sad, deluded, usually hopelessly anachronistic savages, generally. Stop painting them as the apocalyptic threat to society that we seem to want them to be. They really arenâ€™t. Hell, just call them criminals in the media, it debases them. Donâ€™t give them the credit they so badly crave.â€
A great idea, but certainly not realistic in the US, where violence is glorified and played up â€“ not down. The media here is all about sensationalism and greed â€“ who can sell the most newspapers, have the most watched programs and the most viewed internet pages. When a mentally ill maniac goes on a killing spree at Virginia Tech University and kills 30 people, we glorify it by putting his pre-killing video â€“ complete with him dressed in full battle gear â€“ on the home page CNN, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC etc., with an oversized â€œPLAY NOW button.
â€œDonâ€™t use the threat of terrorism to feather any other nests, or push any other agendas. Donâ€™t use the threat of terrorism to justify billions in public money being funneled to your mates in security businesses. Donâ€™t use it to justify your pet world changing ideologies.â€
Great ideas all, but we would have to eliminate the Democratic & Republican parties before these ideas would have a chance.
â€œIslamic culture, most particularly the Arab and Semitic variety, respects above all else power and the willingness and ability to use it. Islam, by its very canon, cannot and will not make common ground with the West and its dominant religious principles, founded upon Judeo-Christian tenets.â€ The Islamist would look at a typical Western diplomat, who seeks to make some sort of peace, shake his head, and take him for a fool.â€
I couldnâ€™t agree more with this comment. I remember seeing Bibi Netanyahoo on CNN a few years ago speaking about dealing with terrorism. His comment was: â€œThe only way they will respect you is when they fear you. You have the power, but you have to find the will to use it. If they had the power, they would use it on you in a heartbeatâ€
â€œJust donâ€™t go to war with them in the â€œinvade them and occupy themâ€ sense. Weâ€™re talling punitive attacks, which should be against (a) Terrorist training camps) and (b) The homes and offices of the people in charge of the countries.In this world, knocking down states is a bad idea because they are so damn hard to put back together. Leave â€˜em alone but make the retaliation personal to them, the leaders, not general to the population.â€ (the Israeli method)
Another very good idea. I donâ€™t know why people constantly talk about â€œinvading and occupyingâ€ Surely, there are MANY creative ways to use our power and put serious pressures on governments that sponsor terrorism, but you donâ€™t see this talked about much.
Finally, we should all remember that the truly Radical Islamists - and their views - represent only a tiny fraction of the people in the countries that support terrorism. Outside of Israel, there are no democracies, nor have there been any democracies, in the Middle East. It is the leaders of these countries â€“ not the common people â€“ who provide the support for terrorists, manipulate the media, etc. And unfortunately â€“ as was the case in Nazi Germany, a maniac â€“ with a small group - who is loud enough, can change the course of history. I truly believe that the great majority of â€œcommon peopleâ€ in a country like Iran would rather come to America than chant â€œDeath to Americansâ€.Comment Posted By tetvet68 On 5.07.2007 @ 14:14
Pages (1) :