David Postman of the Seattle Times has the news from Yakima.
Democrats voted to approve a resolution calling for creation of a U.S. Department of Peace.The resolution calls on the state's Congressional delegation to "support and cosponsor a Cabinet level Department of Peace & Nonviolence to be established to study and advance peace and nonviolence as the organizing principles in all human relations from families and neighborhoods, to courts and congresses, both nationwide and internationally."
Yeah. Right, Dwight. Your chair just crashed, stage left. Share your state party's "peace and nonviolence" manifesto with Al Qaeda In Iraq. And that nutbar atop Iran's government. And the Canadian terrorism suspects just arrested in Toronto.
This flaccid and inimical concept surfaced during the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign of Dennis Kucinich. Message today from Yakima: Washington Democrats are naive dupes, soft on terrorism, and they hate the United States while fatuously pretending otherwise.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 03, 2006 08:38 PM | Email ThisHis department of "peice" seems like a crass way to make up the political yardage. Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 3, 2006 08:53 PM
This about sums it up. Terrorism grows: Dems want a Dept. of Peace. Social Security heads to the abyss: Dems say Full Speed Ahead. Global Warming is no cause for Hysteria: Dems say It's The End of The World As We Know It.
Democrats: The Anti-Reality Party. Man, you can't make this stuff up. Priceless.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 3, 2006 09:44 PMThey're an odd-ball group of people, so please excuse their sillyness. The Democratic Party (the organization, not candidates) has been very disappointing. Some of the meetings I went to were so frusterating - leadership seemed really cool, but many of the members were extremely... selfish, unrealistic, and stupid.
This is a combination of unrealistic and stupid.
Posted by: Gerald on June 3, 2006 10:00 PMIt is one thing to be a pacificist yourself. It is in no way admirable and would be really pretty stupid. But your life is your own and you can waste it if you want to.
To advocate pacificism as a national policy is a monsterous evil. Ayn Rand wrote this about pacificism:
"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of force a moral imperative.
If some 'pacificist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society woukd achieve the opposite if its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it."
Know KDewey is seizing every opportunity to give the finger to all those meanies.
"Look at me...little KDewey...I'm a very important person now!"
I'm sure Fidel is all swollen up with pride by this performance by his favorite Pupil.
In a recent Poll, 78% of all Washington voters say they would love to "Bitch-slap" KDewey.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 3, 2006 11:17 PM
I'm sorry, Gerald, that your party has left you behind in their frantic dash towards madness. (I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but I can see the Republican party doing some pretty stupid things, too--the Dems don't have a monopoly on idiocy these days.)
Some things that the Dems apparently used to focus on make sense, but a Department of Peace?
These people apparently assume that everybody else in the world would be as rational and fair and nice as they are (and we all know how accurate that assessment is). But it is naive to stake too much on this romantic notion. Posted by: pseduotsuga on June 3, 2006 11:45 PM
If the worst thing you can say about the Democratic plank is that it contains support for a department that promotes peaceful approaches to resolving issues then I'm happy with that. However to insinuate that means all problems would be solved by putting flowers in the barrel of guns is plain stupid and you know it.
Democrats and Republicans all agree that the U.S. response to 9/11 when we took the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was appropriate and justified. Where there is disagreement is that a military invasion of Iraq was necessary to combat terrorism against a regime that was not friendly to al Qaeda.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 4, 2006 12:06 AMNo, the worst thing we could say might involve the fact that the Democratic leadership of the State of Washington was too scared to allow its own membership vote on impeachment of the President,VP and Cabinet members and 90 other potential planks brought forward. Instead the Democrats will have the "Central Committee" review issues in September. Wouldn't want the "plan" to get messed up input from the elected representatives of the party members right? Well at least Democrats govern like they hold conventions.
Posted by: Smokie on June 4, 2006 06:32 AMThere is a notably huge difference between the GOP’s immigration plank and the Democrats Dept. of Peace, plus their language on antiterrorist efforts.
The GOP plank in question is controversial, but it is a serious attempt to solve a significant problem our country faces. I don’t even agree with all of it, but it is a serious attempt to solve a problem, regardless of its dicey politics and whether or not someone supports its suggested course of action.
In contrast, the Democratic language being chided, both the Dept of Peace and the language on combating terrorism (see http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/archives/2006/06/democrats_proposed_platform.html) is utterly unserious. It ignores virtually all of know human history by implying we just need to talk things out, build up the other guys self-esteem, give him a fair shake, and everything will be all right.
What all this ignores is the total discrepancy between Western Civilization’s values and that values of those that would join or cheer on Al Qaeda (or any other branch of militant Islam); they don’t want to talk things out and they won’t change their actions if given a little self-esteem boost. They want to destroy our way of life and impose theirs. They would interpret a Department of Peace and Nonviolence as a big sign saying, “come kick our ass.” I’m not sure that’s the message we as a nation are looking for.
This Department of Peace would not just be about taking a peaceful approach to solving problems as you say. All the language in the platform indicates it would be THE approach, functionally abdicating the serious use of US military power. If that’s what you believe in, fine. But it doesn’t change the fact it’s dreadfully irresponsible in the modern world.
No surprise here, they will probably increase their lead in their lead in the legislature with such a platform.
J
it took to the very end of the Sea Times article on the 'Canada incident' to reveal the names of the alleged perps--I was astounded to find they were really a group Poles from an ethnic enclave in a Wisconsin city; the article mentioned 'people' and other nicey nicey terms; until we stop this p.c. jerking around, we will be slaughtered; Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 4, 2006 09:22 AM
Give me one historical example of a pacifist, peaceful, non-violent society has survived for any longer than it took them to declare they demilitarized?
...
...
...
Still waiting.
The League of Nations was a "Peace" orientated group no force component to back up it's resolutions. Can you say WWII?
The U.N. is a Peace Organization that puts Libya and Cuba on the Human Rights Commission, Iran and N. Korea on the Non-Poliferation Commission. Turns a blind eye too communist and totalitarian leaders repressions, and wails about the US and Gitmo. Is knee deep in scandals, Oil for food, sex with children, etc...
Gedanken experiment.
Department of Peace is established, Department of Defense disbanded (the Kucinich plan),
Peace agreement is reach with Dictator X in Outer whateveristan.
Dictator X repeated attacks US civilians, assets and interests. Each time he assures us he will behave in the future. (no historical precedent for that type of behavior right?)
Dictator X has a Cruise ship hijacked, with Daniel K's Sister, Mother, Wife on board. The hijackers are whacking off heads and pitching bodies to the sharks.
Whatcha' gonna' do?
No Delta.
No Seals.
No Rangers.
No Navy.
No Air force.
Liberals do not believe in evil (except evil republicans).
Liberals believe when shit happens, it's the victims fault (except rape).
Liberals believe deep down, our military is the cause of the attacks.
Example: the liberal belief if we take away guns from law abiding citizens, they never explain how to take the criminals guns away, murders and robberies would suddenly and miraculously stop.
If we just stopped everything we do, no one would hate us and everything would be kum by yah.
However evil exists and does not need a rational reason to kill wantonly.
I prefer having "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."George Orwell
Posted by: JCM on June 4, 2006 09:26 AMCheech and Chong.
Only people this high could possibly think that a department of peace will somehow lead muslim fanatics to stop wanting to kill us. If fanatics from the religion of peace want to kill us, maybe we could get some fanatics into our department of peace, such as Ted Bundy or Jeff Dahmer. Posted by: Jason Woodruff on June 4, 2006 09:30 AM
Cheech and Chong."
I laughed at this until I remembered that they have a blood-feud going on and have been fighting for over twenty years!
And then it struck me - the Dhimmicrats were thinking on Orwellian terms. Their Department of Peace would actually be a ruthless mechanism for ridding themselves of all dissention! What a masterful stroke! No longer having to resort to "Fort Marcy Park'ing" their opponents, they could simply declare them "enemies of the state" that had to be eliminated "in the name of peace".
I guess it pays to never underestimate the Dhimmicrat party! ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2006 10:04 AMhttp://www.usip.org/
Posted by: DaveJ on June 4, 2006 11:38 AMNo matter what you think, no matter what you feel, no matter what you say or do, you have no clue, no clue whatever, how thoroughly Christine Gregoire is going to CRUSH whatever opponent you put in her path in 2008.
So please continue to delude yourselves that it isn't going to happen. But it is. That's all.
Posted by: ivan on June 4, 2006 12:09 PMThe Communist Party has always based their power on not how people vote, but who counts the votes. Since Queen Christine didn't win the last election until she was "counted" into power on the third try, you may be right.
Posted by: swassociates on June 4, 2006 12:15 PMAfter considerable debate about the appropriate form of the new institution, the United States Institute of Peace Act was finally passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984.Commie-loving America-hating Ronald Reagan. Posted by: Jim Anderson on June 4, 2006 12:19 PM
No matter what you think, no matter what you feel, no matter what you say or do, you have no clue, no clue whatever, how thoroughly Christine Gregoire is going to CRUSH whatever opponent you put in her path in 2008.
I'm not sure how your second sentence follows from your first.
Attending a party's convention is not likely to give you any insight into the electorate as a whole. Attending the 2006 convention is even less likely to improve your ability to predict the behavior of the electorate in November 2008.
Posted by: ScottM on June 4, 2006 12:23 PMGood Lord, pray tell, what is it like to be in an alternative universe with no connection whatsoever to reality?
Happy Shopper Queen Christine will need a shopping cart after the 08 election, because she will be a homeless bag lady.......
unless of course her poll ratings YOU dreamed up to fake the rest of us out....and she is indeed wildly popular......somewhere other than Evergreen College, er Evergreen adult day care.....
Posted by: Hank on June 4, 2006 01:17 PMJapan would probably be the biggest example. You could also say Switzerland for part of its history and the Vatican today. However those countries were able to do so because of very unique historical circumstances.
As a strong Dem I absolutely hate it when we do things that make us look like a bunch of crazy ass new age hippies. Had I been there I would have offered an amendment to simple add an another 'O' and make Zap Branagin in charge. 10 points to who ever knows that reference.
That being said you have to separate out convention attendees from rank and file Dems. The dynamics of a convention including how representation is determined and were they are located can create weird results. That’s why party platforms are somewhat meaningless. I know that many republicans would not want every cockamamie idea approved at their convention to follow them around.
Democrats and Republicans all agree that the U.S. response to 9/11 when we took the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was appropriate and justified. Where there is disagreement is that a military invasion of Iraq was necessary to combat terrorism against a regime that was not friendly to al Qaeda.
Daniel - that is a lie. Not all Democrats agreed with our response to take the fight to Afghanistan and the Taliban. Democrat Barbara lee of Berkely voted against it.
So once again, a liberal is caught in an outright lie. Do you also have bribery money in the freeser next to your frozen waffles?
Posted by: pbj on June 4, 2006 02:59 PMWishful thinking, ivan.
Hello, Governor Rossi (the whole state's been waitin' for ya).
Since Matt Rosenberg is so high and mighty as to call Democrats who want peace 'UnAmerican', I assume he'll be the first Republican extremist to sign up to go to Iraq.
Is anyone else on this list signing up to fight the war in Iraq???? ........ Yea. I didn't think so.
Posted by: Jacob on June 4, 2006 03:13 PMThanks jacob, but I already signed up to fight a more desperate and insidious enemy - Dhimmicrats.
I'll be seeing ya around!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 4, 2006 03:22 PMBush was AWOL in the Texas National Guard. And he's AWOL as President. What a joke.
Posted by: Jacob on June 4, 2006 04:34 PMNo surprise here, they will probably increase their lead in their lead in the legislature with such a platform."
That is too pessimistic and don't necessarily agree, even here - providing the voters are not a majority ideological. This platform is making Dems scratch their heads - because Pelz is so far left he is dragging the party over the cliff. This state sadly needs divided Government and have to say that the Federal Government would be better off with it at this time.
Posted by: KS on June 4, 2006 04:39 PMSound more realistic ?
Posted by: KS on June 4, 2006 04:42 PMJapan has a defense force, and defense treaties with US. In effect an attack on Japan is an attack on us. Historically Kamikaze dates back 1000 years to battles with the Chinese.
The Swiss have a standing army, and every male between 18-65 is in the equivalent of the National Guard. They all have fully automatic assault rifles and ammo by law stored in their homes. Historically the Swiss spank a number of invading armies and their mercenaries where the most feared soldiers in the middle ages. Aggressors gave up on Switzerland and bypassed it.
The Vatican had an army for year, is now defend de-facto by the Italians, and has the Swiss Guard. The Swiss Guard for all the traditional garb are real soldiers, usually special forces types. I for one would not to mess with one of them. Historically the when the Vatican controlled Kings, they in essence controlled whole armies.
None of those is demilitaries, never has been, and in fact have histories of military success in both defense and offense.
Go back and learn your history.
Posted by: JCM on June 4, 2006 06:38 PMYou missed my point. I agree that almost always refusing to have a military and pacifism fail. However in isolated circumstances a country can either have no military or refuse to fight. While Japan has a defensive force it has historically been quite small. Really a police force The reliance on our protection is one of the unique circumstance I was referring to. Same with Switzerland being able to stay out wars waging around it and the Vatican’s ability to survive without a military. My point is that it is a stretch to say that no country has ever pursued demilitarization (Vatican/Japan) or pacifism (Swiss neutrality, though it wasn't necessarily motivated by pacifism).
For the US to do either would be a mistake. As a democrat I believe in a strong defense. I opposed the Iraq war not because I am a pacifist or hate the military, but because I thought it was a poor use of resources and a distraction from the overall war on terror. There are many generals and other military people who share this view and they are hardly pacifists or anti-military types. It seems that we should be able to debate the efficacy of a course of military action without simplifying the opposition into extremists.
Is anyone else on this list signing up to fight the war in Iraq???? ........ Yea. I didn't think so.
I am currently serving in the armed forces. Blow it out your ass.
The "chicken hawk" meme doesn't work against people who are on active duty, and until you volunteer your sorry ass as a "human shield" or as a suicide bomber you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion. It's easy for you to throw rocks from your dorm room at Evergreen State, or from the basement in your mommy's house. In the words of Shania Twain, "That don't impress me much."
STFU and crawl back under the rock you slithered out from beneath.
Posted by: timekeeper on June 4, 2006 09:34 PMLook at how many opposed any reaction at all to 9/11.
Look at how many are for a pull out in Iraq, forgeting the aftermath of our Vietnam pullout 2-3 million dead countless other in re-education camps.
Reagan was right, Peace through Strength.
Posted by: JCM on June 4, 2006 09:39 PMJapan would probably be the biggest example. You could also say Switzerland for part of its history and the Vatican today. However those countries were able to do so because of very unique historical circumstances.
Yes, that's true. Japan is an excellent example--and they avoided Russian invasion after WWII (and maintained their pacifistic constitution) precisely because they were under the umbrella of the big, bad USA, like you pointed out.
As a strong Dem I absolutely hate it when we do things that make us look like a bunch of crazy ass new age hippies.
Heh! Yeah, it's hard to take those far, far lefties seriously all right. Why do you think, Giffy, that this happens to the Dem party? (I know there's a far right Repub analogue, but you can't speak for them.)
That being said you have to separate out convention attendees from rank and file Dems. The dynamics of a convention including how representation is determined and were they are located can create weird results. That’s why party platforms are somewhat meaningless.
True words--the zealots and true believers (like yer man "ivan" up above) are usually the ones who attend the conventions, due to their strong, even rabid commitment to their cause.
I just wish I could see more moderate democrat voices expressing their opinions on immigration, Gregoire, and so on. Surely there are some others who see the problems, who won't allow "ivan" and others like him/her to speak for them?
The biggest problem is that regular reasonable Dems, like regular reasonable Reps have jobs, families, and things to do. They see no reason to go to the convention. And honestly I can't blame them. For the most part conventions are pointless exercises in party building. Platforms have almost no weight and many candidates don't even attend. conventions basically serve to make people involved in local parties feel more important. This is true for both sides. Personally I pay more attention to candidates then party politics and even interest groups. When it comes right down to it they are the ones who have an impact.
As to why it happens. For one thing the Dems have less party discipline then the Reps. Generally Rep conventions are more scripted and tightly controlled. Reps are pretty good at keeping some of the more crazy elements under check. This is both good and bad.
You have to remember that for a really long time (from basically WW2/civil rights to 1994 the Dems were the undisputed party of congressional power. During that time we let our party apparatuses and political machine fall apart. Meanwhile the R's built an incredible machine. R's are simply better then us, at this point, at playing the game of politics. Compare the campaigns (not the issues) between Kerry and Bush or Gregoire and Rossi. The R’s ran better in both cases. Better synergy between interest groups (swift boaters) and the actual candidates. Better responsive to attacks (nat guard vs swift boat). Less verbal slip ups and better us of opponent slip ups/mitigating own slip ups (I voted for before I voted against).
Posted by: Giffy on June 5, 2006 08:11 AM
Perhaps true. But, like in '04, it won't be by winning the most legally-cast ballots. Then again, autocrats are nothing if not skilled at "CRUSHing" opposition, one way or another.
If you are talking how each side responded, then ok, but the National Guard was a non-starter, yet, the Ds made it a starter over a non-issue. You can't tell me that the Ds were imcompetent. They almost won the day on that non-issue.
Posted by: swatter on June 5, 2006 08:41 AMIs it Dwight "Fidel" Pelz
or
Dwight "Che" Pelz?
Default to Dwight "Osama" Pelz (if that doesn'r upset Patty "Osama" Murray).
Posted by: Hoplophile on June 5, 2006 10:34 AMsound familiar. reading the posts on this thread pretty well outline the direction we are headed.
when the extreme lack of civil discourse, as so often displayed in the comments, becomes the norm, i think it safe to say we are a nation divided.
both sides play their part in exacerbating this division.
the real enemy is neither democrats nor republicans, but you couldn't tell that from these posts.
Posted by: dinesh on June 5, 2006 11:38 AMWill it also have a "Deputy Secretary for Apologies and Regrets", too? Posted by: John425 on June 5, 2006 11:46 AM
Dinesh, we are very divided, you are on the side that causes wars through deliberate denial of reality, and I am on the side that steps up and saves morons like you from those who would enslave you and rape your family.
Tell us how a "Departmant of Peace" would help anything moron.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 5, 2006 02:56 PMi don't know that the dept. of peace would solve anything. i can't name a functioning dept. on either the state or federal level.
ever heard of fema? functioning?
state dept? functioning?
defense? functioning?
intelligence? functioning?
so, perhaps you are the moron. just turn on fox, drink some kool aid and vote republican. you don't seem capable of doing much else.
Posted by: dinesh on June 5, 2006 04:49 PMYou are quite right Dinesh, unlike you . . . I don't save crap.
You can't name a functioning department on either the state or federal level because you are a moron.
Twinks like you make laughing at absurdity seem tedious. As a Republican I supported and voted into office along with a majority of the American people, a Republican President -- GW Bush -- who energized troops that saved your family from being raped by terrorists from the Middle East. The terrorists want to cut your pititful empty noggin off and hand it to your wife (assuming you have one) and they laugh at your pusillanamity, and your dissaproval of those very forces that sustain you.
If you are successful, don't ask for my help or get in my way dip-shit, I will be busy saving my family and yours by killing your real enemies.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 5, 2006 08:30 PMYou demean and disparage Soundpolitics and republicans as failing to meet some arbitrary mark. You suggest that "...the extreme lack of civil discourse, as so often displayed in the comments...." on this site is somehow illustrative of the inferiority of conservative sites.
Could you enlighten us by showing us a sample of leftist thinking that doesn't lower itself to the lowly partisanship evidenced (in you opinion) at SP? Even one? What’s your favorite leftist site?
Here's your big chance to show up the conservatives by pointing us to the true source of wisdom.
Can you?
you are paranoid. you want to do to the enemies what you purport they want to do to you; i.e. you say they want to cut my head off, but don't you want to kill them. bush didn't save anybody--if you haven't noticed, his failure to manage, his trust in cronies instead of competencies has made the situation worse.
your vote for bush has helped create a financial situation which burdens most people (although i have been able to profit). your vote doesn't save me, so quit with the sanctimous stuff. if you want to save somebody, quit posting here, and join the people who act and serve. not that committed are you?
i know facts get in the way, but the majority of american people did not vote for bush (last i checked, bush did not receive 150+ million votes); nor did the majority of american voters in 2000 vote for bush. bush received the necessary amount of electoral college votes to win the presidency (after receiving the majority of supreme court votes regarding the florida election). so try to get your "majorities" straight.
the comments section on dailykos, for example, are no better, and perhaps worse. i generally don't visit them b/c, in part, the national nature of that blog brings out more partisan b.s. you (and your 'like minded' posters) are of the same stripe, different side. name calling, telling people to shut up and go away.
i don't think either side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on incivility. hence my prior post.
at the end of the day, we are here together. gone, it seems, are the days when one side tries to win the other through reason. why bother? nowadays, it's just "cut them down" (a la sixth grade) and believe in the rightness of our own thinking.
some "conservative" sites that i visit don't have comments (e.g. instapundit, andrew sullivan). the daily read of blogs is fairly similar to sullivan's daily read, including this blog and some other music related stuff.
so the short answer to your question is there aren't any left leaning sites that are much different. in fact they are pretty much the same--equally mundane, full of vitriol.
the comments on dandrezner's site and volokh conspiracy tend to avoid some of this, but it may be b/c of editorial control, i just don't know.
at the end of the day, i think that a political minority has to win based on ideas, not intimidiation. you have not persuaded me once, often because you can't make it through a person without making some disparaging comment. that is not true of the regulator contributors to this blog (namely stefan and jim, in my opinion).
i hope you don't talk to people in real life the way you comment on this post. if so, you are likely to be a real unpleasant person to be around. i may be wrong, but man, based on what you write here, i don't think so. piss and vinegar, it seems.
here's the deal: from now i won't respond to you, so feel free to ignore me.
Posted by: dinesh on June 5, 2006 09:46 PMWhat will you do? From now on, dinesh won't respond to you, so (as he says) feel free to ignore him?
What a deal eh?
Hey Dinesh you friggin moron.
You are an example of the problem our country faces; too stupid to reason, barely smart enough to cast a ballot.
Thank you for your contribution. It is proof positive of the paltry nature of your abilities and commensurate credibility.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by Dinesh on June 5, 2006 09:58 PMThat's his right (and perfectly square with his religous beliefs, being a Jew and all) but I can't understand why so many supposed Christians post here when the owners of this site have nothing but contempt for your religious convictions.
Posted by: Casey on June 5, 2006 10:05 PMAs I suspected, you cannot cite anywhere in the blogosphere that isn't affected by the contentious, fractious balkanization that was created by Dhimmicrats.
I don't go to lefty sites - what's the point? I won't learn anything and I prefer not to drink from the toilet. Likewise, I would think that you would be adverse from coming here - we have nothing to offer that you are intelligent enough to understand - so what is the interest? You persuade no one and your still-born sense of politics is the butt of jokes by most here. Are you a masochist?
The closest to my giving a sh!t about your opinion is that I too think highly of Stefan's work (though probably for vastly different reasons).
Take it as it comes, or STFU dinsh
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 5, 2006 10:08 PMMay I have your regal permission to exercise the option to feel at liberty to ignore you as well?
On the other hand inversely, may I please -- with your permission -- address your dumb-a$$ if I decide that I would like to?
What a joke (liberal twit).
All Republicans need to understand and be able to defend that the Immigration Plank was not only entirely Constitutional, it seeks to restore the Constitution and U.S. Law on Immigration. It is instructive that Democrats consistently find fundamental and historic principles of American Freedom "extremist." Full Report Posted by: Doug on June 5, 2006 10:17 PM
Provide proof and context or shut up.
I strongly disagree with Matt Rosenberg from time to time and otherwise generally agree with his views,
but I have never heard of anything like what you say.
Prove it immediately. Otherwise, you are a liar.
however, i doubt many true conservatives say much at work or school; why? liberal p.c. censoring mechanisms like the Seattle Schools' Equity and Diversity Department; contrary views (even if offered respectfully) are considered 'racist' or 'intolerant'--so why bother? why lose a job to p.c. trendy thoughts? just blog here or be self-employed; having endured many diversity sessions at different employers, it all boils down to wasted time repeating things we all know as sensible folk; only winner is the 'course consultant'
you noted "at the end of the day, we are here together"--i agree, and want to keep it that way; liberals will have us ALL killed through 'negotiating' and 'tolerance'--would you have wanted to see the Canadian 17 succeed? not me--hopefully not you either; comes a time when guns are better than butter for stopping crazed fanatics; perhaps the frustration you feel here in the speech is that of a group of people (like me) who see too-tolerant liberals steering our collective canoe for the falls and ingoring the roar of the impending water; true--maybe libs think the same way about conservatives, but i think the result is to effectively say 'any river than GB' while conservatives say 'let's check the map to see the impending course or the ones that did not work'
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 6, 2006 11:20 AMRight on.
Dinesh,
You say "i hope you don't talk to people in real life the way you comment on this post. if so, you are likely to be a real unpleasant person to be around."
I speak very much like I comment on this post in real life and it is very unpleasant for people with the limited intellect and phony delicate sensibilities possessed by people like you. My friends are all well educated dynamic leaders in business, government, law, and technical careers, many of them highly experienced and accomplished military leaders from several wars, and all highly moral people of reason, high intellect, and integrity. None of them follow easy liberal ideals but lead when others like you fail, and they don't need to be told what to think by people like you who have no idea why they feeel what they believe.
These friends and associates alternately laugh their a$$es off at the idiotic nonsense people like you proffer, and are enraged at the difficulties you make for them. You might be a real pleasant person, but you are a real problem for yourself and others, and the fact that you are unaware of this fact doesn't make it all O.K. There have been people like you throughout history, and that is an important part of the reason why wars will always be necessary; in the real world, refusal to deal with reality, until it becomes a crisis works that way.
You serve as a wonderful example of the reason why liberalism is a failing ideology and I sincerely wish to heartily thank you for performing that service for the rest of us.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 6, 2006 09:48 PMIf you'll excuse me I'm going to go back to hating America.
PS That Stranger article you linked is hilarious. Spot on.
Posted by: Warren on June 7, 2006 12:17 PMYou're excused.
Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on June 8, 2006 12:42 AMThe proposed creation of a "DEPARTMENT OF PEACE" is pure unadulterated liberal democrat symbolism of deliberate cowardice and stupidity by half-wits like Warren and Dinesh.
We already have a “Department of Peace” – it’s more appropriately called . . . the Department of State, and when the diplomats are no longer able to solve problems, we have the Department of Defense.
Those like Dinesh and Warren ignore reality in favor of their sentiment driven pseudo-intellectual hoax of “peace” first, last, and always. They are cowardly and dim-witted enough to conclude that human problems can all be solved through “peace”ful means. Rather than speaking softly and carrying a big stick, Warren wants us to skip along gaily whistling doo dah, daisy firmly in hand.
Diplomacy definitely has its place – BUT ONLY with deliberate studied resort to the credible threat of the use of force. Clinton’s Madelyn Albright proved to everyone with a brain, that tough talk means nothing unless it is backed up by the credible and imminent use of violent force.
Today, the MSM announced that a devil on earth Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a bombing raid in Iraq. Warren and Dinesh no doubt feeeeeeeel that Zarqawi was just a misunderstood freedom fighter doing what he must for his own region's interest. It’s too bad they didn’t have the opportunity to talk (or suck) Zarqawi’s maladjustive behavior out of him before he cut their heads off. As it was, we had to resort to un-peaceful means of redress.
Those who wish for peace at all cost are disgusting cowardly subhuman pukes who will probably cry over Zarqawi’s loss.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 8, 2006 11:21 AMAnd you are spot on about my feelings towards Zarqawi. Such impressive understanding of the majority point of view is no doubt the foundation for all that conservative political success in Washington state...
Your aversion to any comprehension of reality is comical as well.
The only peace worth having that anyone (including you) has ever enjoyed came about because decent honorable people quite unlike you were willing to fight for it.
Too bad (for your degenerate interest) that you were not able to service Zarqawi before he became mush -- he would no doubt have loved it.
And then, to show his appreciation, lopped your mash-potato filled noggin off.
Warren, do you have a point (other than that you're a friggin moron?!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 8, 2006 12:55 PMWarren's point is that conservative Bush Republicans are for huge expenses, wars, strife, and imprisoning innocent terrorists while Warren will get us "peace" by simply declaring it to Bin Ladens and Zarqawis like Slick Willie did with Aideed right in front of them. In this way we teach terrorists that we are afraid of them and they will uh . . . leave us uh . . . alone
Geeee why didn't we think of that? We could be cowardly self destructive pricks like Warren too.
No thanks, I prefer continuous wars, strife, and imprisoning innocent terrorists.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 8, 2006 03:39 PMYou might want to go back to whoever is yanking your chain and find out why they are lying to you.
Good luck!
Posted by: Michael Clark on June 13, 2006 08:00 PM