Bruce Ramsey has a follow-up post to his original discussion of appeasement that caught Stefan's attention as well as that of a number of national blogs, including HotAir.
I'll have more to say on this later as a broader point in the wake of the appeasement kerfuffle, but there is obvious problem here. The belief that radical Islamic terrorists and rogue regimes can simply be negotiated with is a false premise. We negotiated with the Soviet Union because in the end they were a rational government (i.e., they wanted to live), even if we disagreed with them violently over ideology.
People that want to wipe a democratic country off the map, are perfectly happy making national (and international) policy based on the coming of the 13th imam, and are willing to die making all the above happen aren't going to have a pleasant talk with us and suddenly change their ways because, well, it's the right thing to do.
There is a difference between an ideologue and a zealot. It's an important distinction to bear in mind.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 19, 2008 07:41 AM | Email ThisWe'll debate what a nice skin lamp they make out of you.
Posted by: Andy on May 19, 2008 07:44 AMWhat a waste, but the guy does represent people in "I hate George Bush" environment.
What is not said is the hijacking of a religion by radical Islamists will not be improved by 'talking'. It will only worsen the situation. This hijacking is spearheaded by men who still live or yearn for the Middle Ages where arguments were won by the sword. There is no common ground.
The idea is not to talk to the 'terrorists' or radical Islamists, but to talk to the more moderates and offer better life choices.
Bush is over there telling the Arabs they better diversify their economies because their oil is running out and other countries are working for alternative fuels. After the oil runs out, no one will pay attention.
There have been several articles lately stating that the Saudis do have a shortage of oil (other articles disagree) today and that is why they aren't increasing production.
I yearn for the days when the Mideast is out of oil. Then, we can use ours that we aren't drilling for today.
Posted by: swatter on May 19, 2008 08:01 AMWe negotiated with the Soviet Union but at worst only to a statemate. Did we ever allow them to take over more of Europe? Or give up on holding the line in Asia?
Posted by: John Bailo on May 19, 2008 08:02 AMIf my country were occupied by foreign invaders - I'd fight them.
If my friends and/or family were killed fighting them, I'd probably grow to hate the foreign invaders. I would then fight them.
I'd like to think I could come up with more strategic war plans than suicide bombings, but I would be fighting a numerically superior force with technology light years ahead of my own. It would be tactically and strategically impossible to fight in a 'fair fight'. I would fight a war that exposes as little as my side as possible while trying to sap enemy morale and resources as quickly as possible.
I would do all of this because folks from another country came into mine, started building bases, started occupying it with troops, entered into alliances with my enemies (however virtuous my enemies may be, *I* still view them as my enemies), and especially because they caused the death of my friends and family.
I wish I could articulate just how important it is to consider MORE than 'they are barbarians with AK47s (I have one), RPGs, public executions, and torture'. Perhaps the solution is not to try and kill everyone who does that and simply let them live in their filth and grow out of that if they choose. Perhaps killing these people just creates more believers in their cause.
I'm not justifying what they do. But I am suggesting we take a 'think outside the box' approach to dealing with them. Understand why they are created, stop the process of creating more, and deal with the ones that exist without creating more.
We can't make everyone happy but we can certainly fight smarter than this. We're the USA. It doesn't have to be appeasement vs scorched earth and only the smallest mind would reduce it to that choice.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 08:09 AMYou are totally clueless and naive. If the US wasn't in Iraq, some other foreign power would take over. The Iraqis fighting the US troops are morons or agents of Iran. If you were an Iraqi and sane, you would be fighting with the Americans against the other foreign powers, such as Iran, attacking that country.
If the US became a dictatorship, I'd be hoping for foriegn intervention. The folks in Burma and Darfur are praying for foriegn intervention, but you lefty genocidists are doing your damn best to keep the bloody status quo of depotism and the policy of appeasing murder alive. What is your agenda here?
Posted by: AP on May 19, 2008 08:30 AMIf- the biggest word in the dictionary.
If only pigs could fly, .
Posted by: swatter on May 19, 2008 08:43 AMAlthough it's clear from the tone of your post that I'm wasting my time, I'll respond anyway. I won't claim to have full intelligence information on our enemies in Iraq (unlike you). I won't claim to know everything. But I will claim to use a logical problem solving process to address the problem.
A few points -
1) I wasn't referring specifically to Iraq, although that's certainly a hotbed for this problem.
2) You base your entire argument that I'm clueless and naive (like I said, 90% of the comments are just trying to provoke anger instead of meaningful debate - you simply think you can't be wrong and thus never bother to consider it) on the idea that Iraqis are either morons or agents of Iran and that they should fall in line with your opinion and fight against Iran instead of the United States. You completely ignore the cultural divides over there that cause sunni to fight shiite. You completely ignore the entangling alliances that we've entered into that cause some to hate us. You make your argument expecting that an arguably irrational people should fall in line with your desire instead of solving the problem in a pragmatic way that accounts for the variables that we can't control.
3) If the US became a dictatorship, I'd rather not have foreign intervention. What other country in the world would return us to freedom? They would set us up like a European bastion of democratic socialism at best, a vassal nation at worst. Do you think you'd get your right to keep and bear arms back? lol Not a chance.
4) You've apparently labeled me a lefty genocidist as soon as you decided you disagreed with me. I can't even express how stupid this is and how counterproductive it is to a conversation between us. I'm about as far opposite that as could be, yet you kneejerked, and threw it out there. Whether you did it for the sake of angering me so I couldn't offer a sincere reply, or because you're just that goddamned ignorant, I don't know.
Again, it doesn't have to be 'appeasement' vs scorched earth. Did you completely ignore that? Do you even know what appeasement is?
isolationism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
Do you think that, if things were done your way, America would be loved by everyone?
Posted by: REBEL on May 19, 2008 08:57 AMI would ask you to refer to post number 6 where I say We can't make everyone happy, but we can certainly fight smarter than this.
We don't need to be loved by everyone. I don't care if they love us. If they will trade with us and not actively seek to kill us, then we've won. That's a pretty solid criteria for a win compared to our current criteria to win the war on terror.
For what it's worth, I also recognize that there will always be some misguided souls that choose to hate us for irrational reasons that don't have any basis in logic whatsoever. Don't give them the romantic satisfaction of being 'freedom fighters'. Treat them like the criminals they are. Find them. Capture them (or kill them if they won't be taken). Give them a fair trial and then put them away for life - yes, instead of death. Don't give them the satisfaction of martyrdom. But use our trade with other nations to help influence those things.
Does that make sense? Are you thinking of writing a post calling me clueless because I didn't think to address something that you thought of? Feel free to ask me what I think about it instead of putting the words in my mouth as is so common on this site. I'll be glad to discuss it with you.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 09:07 AMOf course you weren't talking about Iraq, you were talking about some fantasyland, which is why I asked what your agenda is. What it is? The war in Iraq is a war vs. Iran, not fight against the Iraqi people. Look at who is causing most of the deaths in Iraq, it isn't us, it is other foreign powers. If the Iraqis want to get the foreign powers out, what foreign power should they side with? A mass majority has sided with the Americans. Anyone with a clue can look at Munich, Tokyo, or Manila to see the consequences of American victory. Have you read Michael Yon or any of the other serious journalists embedded in Iraq?
Posted by: AP on May 19, 2008 09:12 AMAgain I invite you to present proof of your position, specifically this war vs Iran. In other words, please show that the majority of resistance in Iraq is perpetrated by Iran.
Whether or not you choose to provide this, let's discuss how this affects what I said. Nations choose to be a thorn in another nation's side all the time; We did it in Afghanistan in the 80s and possibly 70s (I'm not sure precisely when it started off the top of my head) by supplying the mujahideen with weapons and training to use in their fight against the Soviets. It was, at the time at least, a good strategic move for various reasons as it advanced our interests by helping to sap resources from the Soviet Union (though one might rightfully argue that their system in general was not sustainable anyway).
Unfortunately, now we're fighting a group of individuals led by a man who has some experience at bankrupting superpowers, and while we have more economic power to spare than the Soviets, it's not difficult to modify one's strategy to create economic pain.
So in response to your comment, I don't care if it's Iraqis, Iranians, or Martians causing deaths over there, it's still a result of our intervention in nations where it wasn't requested. Perhaps it was morally justified in some cases. Nonetheless this is the consequence of those actions. This is what I mean by pragmatism and logic. If we can't speak freely as to the reasons a conflict exists, we can never figure out a way to A) stop the creation of new enemies, and B) deal with the ones that are left without creating new ones.
To address your question - I have not read any Michael Yon, but I will take your suggestion to heart and Google him.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 09:26 AMNo need to get defensive. In fact, all I did was ask you a question, I didn't put words in your mouth. I happen to agree with you somewhat. I'm also glad to see you made a point I would have made in your third paragraph on post #12. As to whether we can fight this war any smarter, I'm not sure it's possible. War is an ugly business at best and not everything you plan always turns out the way you would like. That is why soldiers would prefer not to get into a war, believe it or not, lefties.
Posted by: REBEL on May 19, 2008 09:26 AMO-please Andrew grow a spine.
People on this site like so many others agree or disagree with what someone posts.
Just because you post something here that others don't agreee with you, doesn't mean they hate you.
PS If you want a website full of HATE, try KOS.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 19, 2008 09:38 AMHe's going to make Jimmy Carter look like Churchill.
Posted by: Kato on May 19, 2008 09:43 AMWell, yes. You are. Your entire post was a justification of 'what they do'.
Too bad you couldn't - or wouldn't - do all of your 'fighting' against the regime that was deliberately killing your friends and family, huh.
No. It's much easier to rail against the 'occupiers'.
Posted by: jimg on May 19, 2008 09:43 AMI am not justifying and will never claim the death of innocent people is justified.
If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I am essentially saying that every time we kill someone that we've labeled a terrorist, we create more enemies in the people that knew or loved that person. While I would argue that someone who kills innocent people deserves death, I would also argue that in this case it's counterproductive to our goals because it just creates more deaths by helping to turn more people against us. As for your assertion that a regime (instead of us) is deliberately killing their friends and family, are you suggesting we're not deliberately killing anyone?
Hence the reason I suggest thinking about handling this from a different standpoint.
Again - stop the creation of new enemies. Then, mop up the ones that are left over by treating them like the criminals that they are instead of introducing them to martyrdom.
Would you care to move beyond implying that I'm justifying terrorism and address my suggestions to move toward a real solution?
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 09:57 AMOn Sept 11 our family and friend WERE killed, and you liberals blamed our government. SO I seriously doubt you or any other liberal would fight if we were invaded and occupied. You'd probably celebrate with sweets like a Pali and blame the US for somehow causing it themselves.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 10:04 AMSurrender accomplishes that goal quite nicely.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 10:11 AMI will tackle the second issue first. Regardless of your opinion of the statement itself, I would be curious if the readers here think it is appropriate for the President, while visiting a foreign country, to make such a blatant political statement. I personally think, no matter the party, this was not the appropriate time or place for such a statement to be made. Why didn't Bush just wait until he got back to the US? What was so important about making the statement when and where he did? Did it not just give more fuel to the fire in the Middle East?
Regarding the question of appeasement, Bush has stated that the statement was not directed at Obama. Yet, in the background his staff with him stated that it was directed at Obama and Carter. You can't have it both ways, Bush. Either you or your staff aren't being honest. Which is it?
The statement itself is wrong. While making this statement, the Bush administration itself is in diplomatic discussions with Iran. So, to say publically that it is "appeasement" to talk to Iran, yet privately do just that, doesn't that make the Bush Administration itself guilty of appeasement?
Finally, to those who here state it isn't the same case as with the Soviets. Iran is a soveriegn country. Hamas is the ruling party in the West Bank. If you are to carry out diplomatic relations to allievate tensions, it would be with these parties. I think Senator Jim Webb stated it the best over the weekend. Given the current administration's definition of terrorist and terrorist states, one would view China in the early 70's as fitting the definition. There were many that stated that we should not talk to the Chinese, yet Nixon did, and for all the negative surrounding the Nixon Presidency, the opening up of China will go down in history as a tremendous accomplishment.
OBTW, the Bush administration also talked to Libya, which has been for years classified as a terrorism state. The duplicity of the Bush message is simply outstanding. How can someone actually believe this stuff?
Posted by: tc on May 19, 2008 10:13 AMEveryone else was able to infer that, though.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 10:14 AMI do agree, however, that the level of hypocrisy is high in this administration, in this particular regard.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 10:18 AMPlease tell me one instance in history where appeasement was successful. Unconditionally talking with Iran IS appeasement. To them it shows weakness and encourages them to take even more radical steps. History is littered with people like Chaimberlain who thought that they could appease bullies.
I put forth that appeasement has never worked throughout history. Please provide the counterexample to prove me wrong.
What about when Nixon debated the merits of capitalism vs communism with Khrushchev in 1959? Was that appeasement?
I suppose it depends on what kind of 'unconditional talking with Iran' you're referring to. You really haven't provided enough information to discuss.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 10:25 AMRamsey says "we need to talk to find out what they want." I think we have a pretty good sense of what motivates certain countries and movements:
1. survival of the elites
2. religious zealotry
3. hatred of successful people and countries: can be mixed with #s 1 and 2, but sometimes stands alone. Could be defined as "nationalism", but nationalism has a lot of other meanings too.
In other words, a mix of values and material items. The mix varies from case to case. Finding out the exact mix is nice to know, but what good does it do? Sometimes you just have to say NO, you can not have what you want.
Ramsey wrote "Get beyond the "terrorist" label, which is another device for barring communication."
Actually, let's turn this on its head. Telling people you know who they are, and what they stand for, is a first step to communication. It shows you understand reality and their attitudes. If Ramsey doesn't like the terrorist label, then what better label does he have to describe people who recruit suicide bombers, who rain down rockets on civilians and who like to hide among civilians when conducting warfare so there are more casualties?
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on May 19, 2008 10:42 AMWe do talk to Iran via low level diplomatic staff. What we don't do is have or President meet with their president while they deny the holocaust and threaten to wipe Israel off the map.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 10:48 AMThe only form of talking that would possibly work with them, if it is indeed true that Iran views negotiation as weakness, would be to tell them what we, the US, view as acceptable behaviour by Iran and inform them of the consequences if they do not capitulate.
I am in total agreement with Andrew when he states that killing only causes the dead persons relatives to hate more, so I think it should be avoided if possible, however, I think he also alluded to the fact that to put it crudely some people just need killin'.
Oh and tc, no one anywhere in the free thinking world thinks seriously that it was a big deal where the hell Bush talked about appeasement. Only those of you who are always looking to add another reason to hate him do that. Why are you lovey dovey liberal types always so full of hate?
One thing about Bush's choice of venue for talking about appeasement when apparently referring to his political opposition back home - Let's keep our dirty laundry among ourselves. Not that it's a secret or anything but our politics are an internal matter, and up to us to make our own choice. We don't need the peanut gallery - be it Israel or Iran - involved.
Just a thought. I don't really care much but I'd like to see us at least be Americans together, even if we all disagree. :)
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 10:57 AM"So if communication with another nation is appeasement, do you consider what Nixon did to be appeasement, and if so, do you think it worked?"
Not sure what you are talking about . Please be more specific.
"What about when Nixon debated the merits of capitalism vs communism with Khrushchev in 1959? Was that appeasement?"
Was Nixon president when he did this?
"I suppose it depends on what kind of 'unconditional talking with Iran' you're referring to. You really haven't provided enough information to discuss."
Obama has repeatedly said "When he is President" that he will meet unconditionally with the leader of IRan. Is that specific enough for you to talk about?
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 11:07 AM"Just a thought. I don't really care much but I'd like to see us at least be Americans together, even if we all disagree. :)"
First off, Bush never mentioned anyone and it was not a reference to Obama.
It is nice that you prefer us to "keep our dirty laundry among ourselves", but one wonders where you were when Baghdad Jim McDermott, Jimmy Carter and Nancy Pelosi did the same thing by specifically naming names, unlike President Bush. That reveals to me all I need to know about you really. It is a double standard. Your facade of "I am just like you" is just like the quadrennial election year article that liberals run in their rags telling us how "true conservatives" should vote for the liberal.
So c'mon Andre, show me your not just another part of the liberal intelligentsia, let's hear your criticism of Carter, McDermot and Pelosi for dong the exact thing you accuse Bush of having done.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 11:18 AMWhat sort of conditions would you impose PJB?
You seem pretty intent on committing mass murder of the radical statements of one nations misguided leader. How many times did the Soviet Union hardliners threaten to blow us up? Khrushchev himself said he would bury us. Over time though the walls fell and Khrushchev's son eventually became an American citizen.
Sounds like you are willing to blame an entire country for the statements of a misguided leader. Personally pbj, I can't believe the SP admins still let closet racists like you post here.
Sorry, I meant to say what Nixon did by going to China.
Anyway, since you listed something specific. Personally, I think that speaking unconditionally to the leader of Iran in itself is fine. The problem with Obama (and anyone else currently in the running for President) is that they all want to make some kind of pact or treaty or what have you that will tell Iran that they will receive X in return for not building nuclear weapons or plants or whatever.
The fundamental problem there is that we believe that we're somehow granted a right on the world stage (not the ability - but a right) to dictate to other sovereign nations what they are allowed to do on their own soil.
If Iran told us that we should get rid of our nukes, we would LOL at them. They have, and we essentially did. And rightfully so! We are a sovereign nation that runs our own affairs and any attempt to infringe on that would be wrong.
So essentially, while I support free communication with Iran, I don't support the almost certainly entangling alliance that is going to come out of Obama speaking with these guys (or McCain, if he chose to do so). I also don't support the entangling alliance with Israel either, although I completely support their right to existence.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 11:35 AMOk, I criticize Carter, McDermott, and Pelosi for doing the exact thing Bush did. That work for you?
P.S. If you think I respect these people based on what I've said here, or that just because I disagree with you makes me one of 'them thar dirty hippy commie liberals' then you are seriously dumber than rocks.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 11:44 AMYet you don't want people to hate you?
So I see you joined that 90% group you were talking.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 19, 2008 12:14 PMYou forgot to cut and paste the conditional part of the statement. I'm sure it was a mere oversight.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 12:16 PMYour arguments are based on the false premise you point out in number 6 above: "If my country were occupied by foreign invaders - I'd fight them.
If my friends and/or family were killed fighting them, I'd probably grow to hate the foreign invaders. I would then fight them."
In order to fix your statement to what is actually happening with the terrorists, radical Islam, and terrorism sponsoring states like Iran you have to change your statement to something like:
If any country in the world that has Muslims in it were occupied by infidels who were not Islamic then it would be your duty to fight them. Further, if your friends and family were killed fighting them you would probably grow to hate the infidels even more.
That is what we are dealing with, it's a 'guerilla nation' without borders, a 'guerilla nation' without a government. Or in the case of state sponsors of terror, 'guerilla nations' with no real sense of political boundaries, their ideology has washed that ability to reason all away - the Middle East needs to be one big Kingdom so that the rest of the World could be under the Kingdom's rule. Political boundaries have no meaning to them.
Posted by: Doug on May 19, 2008 12:34 PM"Stinking corpse"... "Great Satan".... "Evil Empire." I understand the only foreign policy enthusiastically supported by so-called conservatives is to utilize full military might because one country's leader calls another country names.
Yes, Al Qaida is a dangerous threat. Yes, they should be pursued and challenged at all costs. No, they do not control any country. (Unless you include Pakistan, in which Obama used the decidedly non-appeasement language of having military action in Pakistan's borders to pursue Al Qaida, with or without the approval of Pakistan's leaders. Conservatives even bitched and moaned about that. Probably because they didn't say it first...)
Al Qaida wasn't a presence in Iraq prior to the occupation, as Iraq was too secular & Sunni. Now it's a fundamentalist Shiite country (one of very few in the Middle East), and as such is a haven for terrorists. You read such nonsense on stupid blogs like "Sound Politics" about "How if I was an Iraqi, I'd fight with the Americans to get foreign fighters out." It's a complete irrational mindset like this that led to this utterly hopeless foreign policy fiasco. In reality, there is no such thing as an "Iraqi." It's all broken down by ethnic and tribal standards. And considering the Shiites in control of Iraq have more in common with the Shiites in Iran, they're doing exactly what was suggested: Fighting to kick out the foreign occupiers. Namely, us.
But, I know! Let's increase the number of U.S. troops so they'll have more targets to shoot at! Brilliant!
It'd be a lot nicer if the politics on display here were a bit more 'sound.' I've said it before and I'll say it again: More dead Americans in the mid-east under Bush-Cheney-McCain foreign policy than under Clinton-Gore-Obama foreign policy.
Posted by: True Slicky on May 19, 2008 12:53 PM++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No. I've been reading you stuff for awhile now, and pointing out some of your errors.
By the way, don't move to a glass house.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 19, 2008 12:53 PM
Well perhaps they can stop supplying explosives and training to nutty AQ people in Iraq, that would bs a start. Hillary also had some good ideas on this. I am surprised you aren't familiar with them.
"You seem pretty intent on committing mass murder of the radical statements of one nations misguided leader. How many times did the Soviet Union hardliners threaten to blow us up? Khrushchev himself said he would bury us. Over time though the walls fell and Khrushchev's son eventually became an American citizen."
There you go again with your false premises. I never said we should attack Iran. Never said it. Provide the specific link where you think I said such or retract.
"Sounds like you are willing to blame an entire country for the statements of a misguided leader."
Another false premise from the king of such. Please provide the link to where I said such a thing.
"Personally pbj, I can't believe the SP admins still let closet racists like you post here."
And when all else fails, resort to the ad hominem attack. ObfusCATOr you are sooooo predictable.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 12:57 PMI have never seen you post here before today. For all I know you could be a sock puppet (you do know what that is don't you?). We have had those types come and go over the years. The common thread is typically they have a double standard whereby liberals who do a thing are given a pass and excuse whereas conservatives are crucified.
If you think just because I disagree with you makes me one of those "angry bitter right wing nut jobs clinging to his guns and bible", then YOU are the one dumber than a box of rocks.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 01:09 PMI'll just go ahead and make this clear right now, then. I grew up a Republican. I swing between Republican (when they follow their party platform) and Libertarianism. I am an extreme economic conservative and demand a free market. I do not want government interfering in my life and thus you might get away with calling me a social liberal. I really am pretty libertarian with a small L. I was raised to respect the Constitution and was brought up knowing that while it's not perfect, the limitations it placed on federal government (and later state government via incorporation) served to make this nation great by allowing private enterprise its free reign, and limiting the ability of misguided individuals in power to hurt us.
I'm also a Christian. I do own guns. I'm part of the open carry (of firearms) community here in Washington. I abhor the murder of innocent life that is abortion. I'm a married father of a 7 month old. I've loved one woman and we've been together about 8 years now (I'm 27). I'm a management consultant for a firm that serves mostly financial market verticals, and my specific discipline is software development. I post with my real name because I'm proud of my beliefs and don't feel the need to hide behind a pen name. If I had to pick one book aside from the Bible that has influenced me most, it would probably be Atlas Shrugged. Hardly a book for the Left! :)
I have no love for Pelosi, McDermott, or Carter. I also have no love for Bush, McCain, Obama, or Clinton. I did like Ron Paul (commence the peanut gallery comments) as I felt he actually pushed a real economic conservative viewpoint, but I knew he wouldn't get the nomination as soon as everyone started creating the self fulfilling prophecy that he had no chance. Nonetheless I did try to help.
It's unnecessary to write me off as a liberal, or as someone who didn't speak up in some thread I've never seen about Pelosi, McDermott, or Carter, as you have done repeatedly in this thread. I find your desire to pigeonhole me and make assumptions about my patriotism, willingness to fight for my country, and political views to be reprehensible and pathetic. If you bothered to listen, ask questions, and actually communicate in both directions, you'd probably find that we aren't that different once the defensive facade is dropped and the 'liberals' namecalling is done.
Now, would you like to recant any of your words, or should I just move on, knowing that I at least tried to refrain from ad hominem attacks - even if I was somewhat blunt - in spite of your attacking me as a liberal from the very first post? Truce or no?
Take care.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 01:38 PM
Was Germany under Hilter a rational country as Joseph P Kennedy thought prior to WWII?
"Stinking corpse"... "Great Satan".... "Evil Empire." I understand the only foreign policy enthusiastically supported by so-called conservatives is to utilize full military might because one country's leader calls another country names.
If that was true, North Korea would have been nuked long ago. No, your bombastic over the top characterization "Sticky" (Or is it Cato or perhaps Andrew? I'll just call you socks, for sock puppet) is totally incorrect. Iran does much more than that. Apparently you don't seem to care if they execute young 14 yr olds because they are homosexual, yet screem bloody murder if some in the US question gay marriage.
Yes, Al Qaida is a dangerous threat. Yes, they should be pursued and challenged at all costs. No, they do not control any country.
Today they don't because Bush went after them. But under Clinton, they controlled Afghanistan.
"(Unless you include Pakistan, in which Obama used the decidedly non-appeasement language of having military action in Pakistan's borders to pursue Al Qaida, with or without the approval of Pakistan's leaders. Conservatives even bitched and moaned about that. Probably because they didn't say it first...)"
They are cooperating with us. Is that the new liberal foreign policy, to bomb your allies and sit down to tea with yur enemies? Mitt Romney was right, Obama went from Doctor Zhivago to Jane Fonda over night. So much for Andrews theory of not creating more angry nutjobs. Have any of you liberal geniuses looked at a map lately? If you are at war with Pakistan how are you going to get into Afghanistan? It is a landlocked country.
Al Qaida wasn't a presence in Iraq prior to the occupation, as Iraq was too secular & Sunni. Now it's a fundamentalist Shiite country (one of very few in the Middle East), and as such is a haven for terrorists. You read such nonsense on stupid blogs like "Sound Politics" about "How if I was an Iraqi, I'd fight with the Americans to get foreign fighters out." It's a complete irrational mindset like this that led to this utterly hopeless foreign policy fiasco. In reality, there is no such thing as an "Iraqi." It's all broken down by ethnic and tribal standards. And considering the Shiites in control of Iraq have more in common with the Shiites in Iran, they're doing exactly what was suggested: Fighting to kick out the foreign occupiers. Namely, us. "
More rehashed liberal talking points. In fact Iraq was a HAVEN for terrorists. In fact we nabbed Abbu Abbas another one of yur terrorist "freedom fighters" who killed wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer on the Achilli Lauro cruise ship and threw his body overboard.
"But, I know! Let's increase the number of U.S. troops so they'll have more targets to shoot at! Brilliant!
No, we increase the troops so there will be more to keep the peace.
"It'd be a lot nicer if the politics on display here were a bit more 'sound.' I've said it before and I'll say it again: More dead Americans in the mid-east under Bush-Cheney-McCain foreign policy than under Clinton-Gore-Obama foreign policy."
Well if we ar taking tally then counting the Democrats in WWI (Woodrow Wilson), WWII (FDR), Korea (Truman) and Vietnam (JFK, Johnson) Republicans have a hell of a lot more work to catch up!
Posted by: bj on May 19, 2008 01:42 PMYou've identified some of the issues, but the reason we can't go with Paul or Obama foregin policy is not because they hate us, but why they hate us, and what drives them to continue to hate us.
To the extent that there are just died-in-the-wool Muslims who will take the Quran literally, there is a fundamnetal difference in philosophy that is basically their-way-or-death vs. our live-and-let-live. This is inreconcilable, and for the Muslims who think this way to their core, the only conclusion will be death. Better them than us.
For those Muslims who are more reasonable, there is a greater problem. The daily preaching of hatred and incitement to violence in the Middle East. Our strategy should be to get them to recognize that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that as long as they allow a mystical daily component to incitement to violence, we will impose sanctions and then military solutions. Essentially, the Muslim leadership is waging war on us by preaching for the death of the Great Satan. We either confront these regimes to own this problem, and show progress towards stopping the preaching of hatred, or we use force to make sure that it does happen.
But there is fundamentally no unilateral neogtiation with an enemy that is unwilling to stop a brainwashed stream of foot soldiers to their cause.
Iran continues to escalate. We should not come to the table with something to give until Iran agrees to a top-down Ayatollah decree that ends the daily preaching of hatred, and the conveyance of weapons, soldiers, and other support for direct fighting with US Soldiers in Iraq.
But for you to think that Middle Eastern leaders will show a willingness to neogtiate with tangible results, flies directly in the face of history.
Al-Q is Sunni, Iran is Shi'a, they don't get along. If this were Northern Ireland you would be telling us that the Catholics be arming the Protestants to fight themselves.
I never said we should attack Iran.
So we should just ignore them and let them build nukes, but not talk to them. Great strategy there pbj, we'll just continue to pint them as evil and hopefully the problem will go away on it's own.
For all I know you could be a sock puppet? ). We have had those types come and go over the years.
PBJ, you've established yourself a mouthpiece for the Aryan Nation, talk about being a pot calling the kettle black.
So I guess its okay for Republicans to have Appeased Hussein, the Soviets while they actively killed Americans in their proxy wars (read: terrorists), and Mao while he armed the Vietnamese (read: terrorists) because of Joe Kennedy and Hitler?
Dodge One!
Oh, so Iran murders 14 year old girls? As does our ally Saudi Arabia. I guess for conservatives to blithely use our military might on a country, it has to call another names while also having a draconian justice system. (By the way, the only countries that rival Iran's incarceration rate is China and the U.S.) Plus, conservatives freaked out when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that capital punishment couldn't be used on adolescents.
If we used our military on countries who called us names (or other countries names) and also practiced justice from the dark ages, there would be a LOT of countries we'd be at war with simultaneously. Again, not sound politics.
Dodge Two!
When did the Taliban gain control of Afghanistan again? Oh yeah, when Reagan-Bush left the CIA-trained freedom fighters standing with their dicks in their hands.
Dodge Three!
Pakistan is an ally? Bwahahahahahahaha! Are you going to cite Daniel Pearl to back up that assertion?
Newsflash for you: AL QAIDA IS IN SAFE HAVEN IN PAKISTAN. We should be doing whatever it takes to root them out and destroy them. Last I checked, the Shrub administration has dropped plenty of bombs in Pakistan's borders, and if we bombed Al Qaida in Pakistan, we wouldn't be bombing any "allies."
Dodge Four!
So a couple of secular terrorists in Iraq made it a terrorist haven? That makes as much sense as all the terrorists hiding out in South Florida making the U.S. a terrorist haven!
Dodge Five!
Yeah, we've kept increasing the troops and that's totally coincided with a decrease in violence and an increase in peace. Yeah. Totally.
Dodge Six!
And the Republicans "have some catching up to do." Whatever. Keep voting Republican if you like to see more Americans dead. As long as that satisfies you bloodlust.
Dodge Seven!
And the Greatest Appeaser of them all? Ronald Reagan.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/17/reagan/index.html
Posted by: True Slicky on May 19, 2008 02:03 PMTo suggest that Islam is not a religion of peace is no more accurate than saying that Christianity isn't a religion of peace because of the Crusades.
PEOPLE, not the religion, twist it to fit their evil plans. The same way that PEOPLE use guns to kill people, PEOPLE use religion to convince the uneducated that they should do something because God Himself has said to do so.
I know that someone can easily go google 'infidels violence quran' and get some great out of context or mistranslated quotes from the Quran that will say to kill all the unbelievers or whatever else. I've got the email forwards from Grandpa as well; save yourself the trouble.
What people seem to forget are a few important things - just off the top of my head, too.
1) Muslims give Jesus more respect than your average Christian. When a devout Muslim refers to Jesus, he says 'Jesus, peace be upon him'. Obviously they think Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God, but nonetheless they STILL treat Him with more respect than we do generally.
2) Christians, Muslims, and Jews are all supposed to be People of the Book. Obviously this gets dropped in extreme fundamentalist Islam because it's really not convenient to the message that certain leaders would deliver to their people, but they aren't supposed to kill us and throughout history have offered special privileges to us where they wouldn't to other groups.
3) We all worship the same God anyway (if you're a Christian or Jew).
I think it's definitely a fair point that the preaching of hatred and inciting of violence in the middle east is a severe detriment to good relations, but I don't see the answer as going into their countries and ending lives - that just reinforces the message that we're the great satan. Or supporting their enemies when they don't really need the support anyway (After all, every time Israel gets attacked, they end up with more land, lol).
Don't interpret that as me saying that Israel has no right to exist, either. I don't believe that at all. They can take care of themselves.
As for not using a Paul or Obama foreign policy, I'm ok with that. Although I do like a lot of Paul's foreign policy, we can't transition instantly and I think that had he by some miracle got the nomination that would have become quickly apparent. But we should move toward a policy of non intervention and avoid these alliances that just become, well, entangling. Trade with everyone. Let them do their own thing in their own sovereign country. Bring prosperity to everyone via trade and you'd be surprised how little beef they have with each other, I say.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 02:07 PMAyn Rand? Oh boy, there goes tea with poster WVH.
Frankly I don't care what you say you were raised as, what you say you are. I call em as I see em. I spent 40 years being raised and indoctrinated by liberal Democrats that blindly followed anyone with a D next to their name. I have very accute senses to detect them when I see them.
I won't post my real information because I don't want the liberal retribution to come down upon me. Within 2 hours my credit Go ask Michael Steele what liberals do. They mess with your credit, your employeer etc etc. That is how they operate. So unless you are a lawyer likE Wilda Heard and can afford to file cases against your opponents, you better forget it with liberals. They are the meanest, dirtiest trickersters in the world and they have fooled themselves into thinking they aren't.
You came to this thread with the absurd notion that an America soldier killing a terrorist is the equivalent of a terrorist killing a civilian. I reject that.
lol @ tea with WVH. I'll pass, thanks.
You can call em as you see em all you want. I spent the first 16 years of my life being homeschooled, so perhaps you should consider the idea that your liberal Democrat indoctrination didn't give you all the tools you need to identify what I am. It's unfortunate that your aversion to Democrats resulted in you taking the extreme opposite and blindly following - actually I'm inferring this here, but it seems supported by your comments that I've seen thus far - anyone with an R next to their name.
As for your paranoia about what liberals do... is that meant to be humor? I work with quite a few of them and I assure you, my credit is quite good still, and we get along just fine. Perhaps that's because I don't impose my way of life on them.
As for your summary of my views - that an American soldier killing a terrorist is the equivalent of a terrorist killing a civilian, you're rejecting a delusion. I never said that.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 02:17 PMYou are being dishonest about what Ramsey and Obama have said. They never said negotiations would be "simple" or lead to "sudden" changes. They merely said they could be helpful. Are you saying we should only negotiate when a simple, sudden solution is possible?
Well in war, the enemy of my enemy is my friend so to speak. Iran could easily give stuff to AQ simply because they hate us so much. That is why during WWII, we had COMMIE allies like the Soviets.
So we should just ignore them and let them build nukes, but not talk to them. Great strategy there pbj, we'll just continue to pint them as evil and hopefully the problem will go away on it's own.
Silly Cato, will you ever learn? Appeasing them won't stop them. Did giving North Korea heating oils stop them from building nukes? That was the Clinton/Carter plan. It failed miserably. So tea in the White House on top of that is supposed to make it work?
"PBJ, you've established yourself a mouthpiece for the Aryan Nation, talk about being a pot calling the kettle black. "
And this is what liberals call reasoned debate? I bet you wish this were a Stalinist liberal blog where you could ban those you cannot win over with argument eh Cato? Hey there you go! WE wil just BAN Iran. Sing it people (Beach Boys) ...Ban Ban Ban.......Ban Ban Iran! Have a cup of tea... we'll ban ban Iran.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 02:18 PMYou are just another troll, if I had to guess I'd that you are "TheHim", but that is just a guess. When you can converse and present evidence rather than just copy and pasting a one word response, then maybe we'll talk.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 02:21 PMZarqawi was in Iraq for medical treatment of wounds he received while battling US forces in Afghanistan. Saddam's doctors fitted him with the best prosthetic leg available, which enabled him to continue his murder spree until we finally killed him 2006.
As Zarqawi was a high ranking member of Al Qaeda, it is false to say that AQ was not in Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam was actively supporting them.
Posted by: Kato on May 19, 2008 02:21 PM " If my country were occupied by foreign invaders - I'd fight them.
If my friends and/or family were killed fighting them, I'd probably grow to hate the foreign invaders. I would then fight them"
Between 1945 and 1950, 7.5 million Germans were expelled from territories ceded to Poland and the USSR following the end
of the second world war. (The figures are from the Wikipedia article for "Expulsion of Germans after World War II").
Even assuming hefty inflation in these numbers, this is clearly far larger than the number of Palestinean refugees who fled
Palestine after the founding of the state of Israel.
If Mr. Brown were German, would he favor waging war on Poland and Russia to recover these territories? If significant parties
within Germany were advocating such a war, how would Mr. Brown propose that we deal with them?
Between the partition of India in 1947 and 1951, 7.2 million Muslims left India for Pakistan and 7.2 million Hindus and Sikhs left
Pakistan for India, (again, Wikipedia).
Does Mr. Brown believe that the displaced Muslims are justified in waging war against India? Or are the displaced Hindus
and Sikhs justified in waging war against Pakistan? Or both? Neither?
Uh huh, they're going to arm the people who want to wipe them off the face of the planet because of some incedent 1500 years ago. Not going to happen.
That is why during WWII, we had COMMIE allies like the Soviets.
Sure, to take down the idiot who was attacking both sides. You should know all about that being that you still follow the idiot nutjob who started that war.
Did giving North Korea heating oils stop them from building nukes?
Why does any country ant Nukes? They want to feel superior. India has Nukes, Pakistan has Nukes, Israel likely has Nukes, NK's good buddy China has Nukes. I think they were feeling a little left out. No one f**ks with people who have Nukes, those countries f**k with you. Having Nukes is also serves as a testament to your engineering prowess since you can't exactly assemble one in your backyard.
I bet you wish this were a Stalinist liberal blog where you could ban those you cannot win over with argument eh Cato?
I'm only stating the obvious here pbj. Since the Admin's here don't seem to want ban you for open bigotry and racism the only solution is to keep calling out people like you for what they are so everyone knows just who you are and what you stand for.
"As for your paranoia about what liberals do... is that meant to be humor? I work with quite a few of them and I assure you, my credit is quite good still, and we get along just fine. Perhaps that's because I don't impose my way of life on them."
No it most definitely was not meant to be humor. I referred to Michael Steele. Obviously you are clueless what I am talking about. The story can be found at this link.
From the story:
"Federal prosecutors have decided to bring charges against a Democratic researcher accused of fraudulently obtaining a credit report on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, now a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate."
So no, I am not making it up. Liberals are mean vindictive people that destroy people.
Now please tell me how I am imposing my way of life on liberals?
But I find it amusing that it appears from "wisdom" expressed by the progressives (like Andrew Brown) on the left; that were the Bushitler Theocracy to start sending progressives and free thinkers off to camps, and were the French to invade to enact regime change, those selfsame progressives and free thinkers would immediately start battling the French in order to restore the Bushhitler Theocracy.
Or did I miss a difference?
pyotr
Posted by: pyotr on May 19, 2008 02:56 PMPlease tell me. Is it alright to call a black person the N-Word? Do you suppose that if a conservative columnist ever wrote that a liberal Democrat was the N-word, there would be outrage throughout the press?
Why don't you just go ahead and share whatever point you're trying to get to, instead of asking me inane questions like whether I think it's appropriate to put someone down because of their skin color, instead of judging them by their character and actions.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 03:08 PMNope. Answer the question first please. Otherwise I am forced to make presumptions about you and you don't like that. How else will I know how you feel if I don't ask you?
Please answer the question.
Thanks.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 03:11 PMLet's just make sure that when someone cuts and pastes this, you cut and paste the whole thing, and don't cherry pick out of context.
I believe in an inviolable and God given right to free speech. That means if you want to walk up to some black guys and start calling them N-words, feel free. Hell, videotape it. If they react as some would, I might even get a good laugh at your expense because you understood the idea of freedom, but didn't understand the idea of consequences for your actions or personal responsibility.
Now that said, I view it as incredibly ignorant, too. As I implied in my previous post, if you want to judge someone by the class of skin they have instead of their individual character and actions, well, that's your call, but as for myself I'll give them the same benefit of the doubt I'd give anyone else.
But no, ignorance shouldn't be illegal.
So it depends on the specifics of the question. All right as in legal? Yes, and it should remain so. All right as in socially acceptable? No, and I won't cry for you if you're called an ignorant fool for doing so, because you're not using logic to judge someone, you're judging based on something that has no bearing whatsoever on the situation.
As for your second question, yes, I would hope that people would out that columnist as the illogical fool that he is, just as I hope would be done to a democrat doing the same thing.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 03:24 PMOK. Thanks for clearing that up. We can say you are against people doing such things. Personally, you find it morally reugnant as do I.
Now consider cartoon by liberal Ted Rall that does just what I described.
Did you know about this cartoon?
By the way, I can get to the page, but the image link is broken. I can't see the cartoon.
Now, pbj, tell me what any of this has to do with me.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 03:38 PMYou don;t know liberals as well as you thought you did. And it shows the bias of the media in favor of liberasl as surely as the sun rises because if a conservative had uttered such a thing, it would be headlined on the evening news channels.
That example reinforces what I have been saying about liberals being mean, nasty destructive bigots.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 03:59 PMYet, you find it logically sound to associate all liberals with the actions of a single cartoonist - who often engages in the creation of controversial cartoons, according to wikipedia - simply because they fall into the same ideology class?
Pot, kettle, black.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 04:02 PMWhen I don't see them expresing outrage that they would if it was a conservative saying such a thing, I most certainly do. When I see no outrage at all, their silence on the matter convists them.
Not pot, juts kettle.
To me there is no moral equivalence between judging someone based upon a characteristic they cannot change like skin color, versus one they can change, like blind ideology. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to draw such an equivalence. It betrays the level of indifference you have about racial bigotry unless perhaps your outrage is also selective.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 04:10 PMNow will you please answer my question I first posed at post #62 above:
Please tell me how I am imposing my way of life on liberals?
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 04:14 PMAnd for the record, it is not just a single cartoonist. There is also Randi Rhoade "mock assassinating" the president of the United States of America on the radio of Air America. I bet you never heard about that one either? I supposed I could post the link, but then you'd just claim it didn't work.
Nope. Conclusion drawn my friend, You are a liberal. Sorry Andy.
I am just don't understand why you liberals are ashamed to say what you are.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 04:18 PMBut then again, you held me responsible for not speaking up against Carter, Pelosi, and McDermott in threads that I'd never seen, so apparently you think it's ok to hold people responsible for not speaking up against something they've never seen.
Your logic fails the test, and you really aren't worth any more of my time. Good day.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 19, 2008 04:20 PMSee- we give them free health care and in-state tuition at our universities. That's more than we can say for the ones Obasm wants to negotiate with.
Posted by: Andy on May 19, 2008 04:39 PMI'm afraid illegal aliens haven't killed anyone I know, so I just can't summon up the outrage necessary to suicide bomb them.
That said, I'd absolutely love to secure our borders and find a resolution to the problem of illegal immigrants here. One more reason I can't really support Senator McCain or any of the Democrat candidates.
Interestingly enough, the formula is the same.
1. STOP the illegal immigration.
2. Remove the ones that are left over.
I thought they were all deranged appeasing hippies? =P
Oh look, the GOP has once again failed to nominate a single minority to be elected to Congress. Those darn Liberals and their desire to recruit people of color to win election. So much for the party that supposedly "freed the slaves", looks more like the party of boring old white guys.
Oh my God, you called me "sticky!' And then a "hand puppet." And then you ran away because you knew all your talking points were full of shit!
At least you didn't throw a number of dodges. You just do the other conservative tactic: either dodge or run away. What a bunch of pussies.
And we all know you exist, because you posted three letters to prove it!
Oh yeah, McCain was for appeasement before he "wasn't!" Bwahahahaha! Conservatives are going to continue in their long tradition of voting for appeasers this November!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
McCAIN: "They're [Hamas is] the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Burma.
The government there didn't want us westerners interfering.
Burma should rise up and get rid of those horrid foreign occupiers.
Posted by: Andy on May 19, 2008 06:40 PMI was here long you arrived and will be here long after. Now move along troll, you are rather droll.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 06:44 PMYou said:
"When I see no outrage, I assume that they either consider him a hack, or that they simply haven't seen it."
The fact of the matter is the liberal biased media ensures that if a republican made such a remark, it'd be on the top of every broadcast. For an example, see Trent Lott and his remark. But if a liberal makes it it's like asking if there is sound when a tree falls in the forest and there is not one around to hear it.
You too are also one who has not been here very long. I was here long before you and will be here long after.
Every time you pro-appeasers rear you ugly heads, I will be there to slap you back down with facts.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 06:51 PMI thought they were all deranged appeasing hippies? =P
One and the same. Charlie Manson was one of your liberal idols.
Oh look, the GOP has once again failed to nominate a single minority to be elected to Congress. Those darn Liberals and their desire to recruit people of color to win election. So much for the party that supposedly "freed the slaves", looks more like the party of boring old white guys.
Why do you care? Are you racist liberal bigots looking for some more black Republicans to destroy like you did Michael Steele? Or perhaps you liberal racists would draw another comic calling them the N-word.
This coming from a party who never had a black secretary of defense or secretary of state. Yeah, you liberals sure got the African Americans fooled. They are the most faithful voters to your party and time after time after time after time, they only get the maid jobs and the janitor jobs. Clinton's executive cabinet looked like a KKK convention compared to Bush's. And loud mouthed Howard Dean didn't even allow a black person on his campaign staff.
And it was the liberals racists that tried to destroy Clarence Thomas. So no you liberal racist, you won't have any opportunity to lynch any black people this time around.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 06:59 PM"Oh look, the GOP has once again failed to nominate a single minority to be elected to Congress. "
But that statement doesn't jive with his very own source":
"Just a few years after the Republican Party launched a highly publicized diversity effort, the GOP is heading into the 2008 election without a single minority candidate with a plausible chance of winning a campaign for the House, the Senate or governor."
So the story, IN FACT, doesn't say the GOP didn't nominate any minorities. It states the OPINION that none of them have a plausible chance. Take note independent readers.
"The enemy of my enemy" and all that.
Which is similar to how we were able to make an opening with the Sunni in Iraq- once they decided that Al Queda was more of their enemy then we were.
That is not the situation with Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran.
The situations are not the same. This is a bad historical comparison that anybody with even a little bit of historical knowledge can point out as flawed.
Talking is great when it might actually result in an agreement that is tolerable to both sides. However, if the differences and interests are irreconcilable, then striving for a diplomatic solution becomes a burden leading us into a cycle of eternally dashed hopes. Usually with negative real world consequences for us.
An important qualification for a leader is knowing when to talk, and when to fight. Always trying to talk is going to end up in disaster as surely as always deciding to fight.
Posted by: Cicero on May 19, 2008 09:25 PMThanks to a conservative douchebag I know, he led me to this blog. I kind of like it. I think I'll stay. We're going to get to know each other reaaaaaaalllly well...
And what's your obsession with hand puppets? Is it because somebody's hole is being violated to stick the hand in? Makes sense that's on your mind, considering you're an apologist for two economic rapists squatting in the White House the past eight years.
And to think, a decade ago conservatives couldn't shut up about the "rapist in the White House." Now they apologize for both of them...
Posted by: True Slicky on May 19, 2008 09:54 PMClearly you are one of the Equine Anal blog regulars. Vulgar references to your sexual practices won't get you any friends here and may just get you banned.
But then gutter based filthy swearing is what passes for intellect with today's liberals. I think you just dumped about all the knowledge that fits inside your tiny lemur brain.
No wonder you are for appeasement.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 10:08 PMa lesson soon forgotten by many diplomats and countries;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 20, 2008 05:59 AMPBJ- you win!
Now you have to improve your record and get them to cut into you sooner than the 90 something'th comment.
Posted by: Andy on May 20, 2008 08:44 AMWhat is your point of blogging on this site?
It appears to me as a witness to your comments that you do not intend to say anything that might cause someone to change their opinion of an issue. It seems more likely that you intend to try to insult people that you don't agree with. Notice I said 'try to', you can't be insulted by someone who is immature. It also appears that you are more reactive to labels such as conservative, liberal, libertarian, independent, etc... You have a different reaction to each, obviously not only disliking conservatives, but actually hating them.
" considering you're an apologist for two economic rapists squatting in the White House the past eight years"
Just what are you referring to? 2 eonomic rapists? Sorry, that doesn't make sense unless I consider that you are a Republican hater and you have to make things up to feed your hatred and hopefully recruit more haters.
Posted by: REBEL on May 20, 2008 08:47 AMSo minority candidates to the GOP are just expendable fools who are never given a chance. Good to know PBJ.
Clearly the Dem's embrace diversity and give their candidates proper funding and support needed to actually win elections.
So much for the "the change you deserve", more like "running the same old white guys, again".
"So much for the "the change you deserve", more like "running the same old white guys, again".
Give me a break. Talk about running the same old white guys, again. Your side might have some problems in Mass. in the future, your hero Tedward Kennedy with the malignant brain tumor wont be able to continue too much longer. Which white guy are you gonna run then? When R's run a black man we do it not because he's black, like you D's do, we do it for what he stands for. I know that is like speaking Greek to you, voting for someone because of what they stand for. If you weren't such a biased leftard you would know that the R's have quite often run blacks and other races (hopefully I don't have to run a list of other races for you). The main reason the D's are so highly represented by Blacks is that the D party has been race-baiting the black population for a long time, you know taking advantage of ignorance and exploiting it. We all know that you Dems don't really care about the blacks, unless it's to exploit them. Too bad they wont give Republicans a chance to show that we care about everyone including blacks. The only reason I write this is to show the unbrainwashed the way it really is. You unfortunately are a waste of time since you are brainwashed.
Talk about a straw man. Sheesh.
"Clearly the Dem's embrace diversity and give their candidates proper funding and support needed to actually win elections."
If Democrats embrace diversity so much, how come they pulled Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's credit report to try to blackmail him? (Steele is Black and a Republican)
If Democrats embrace diversity so much, how come it took a Republican in the White House to appoint the first black woman as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor?
If Democrats embrace diversity so much, how come it took a Republican in the White House to appoint the first Hispanic Attorney General?
If Democrats embrace diversity so much, how come it took Republicans to overcome the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill by DEMOCRAT Robert Byrd, a man Democrat now adore and heap with accolades?
Saying Democrats embrace diversity is nothing more than cheap false propaganda repeated with such frequencey by the propagandists that eve Goebbel's would blush.
Then the party should prove it through legislation. You know, tax credits for running small businesses in urban centers?
the D party has been race-baiting the black population for a long time, you know taking advantage of ignorance and exploiting it
So you are saying that black people are ignorant? Sure seems like it. That's a great way to prove the GOP cases about people of all races, insult them.
You unfortunately are a waste of time since you are brainwashed.
You're not? The GOP had every chance in the world to prove themselves from 2000-2006, controlled the WH plus the House and the Senate. What did they do? Went on a giant spending spree while cutting taxes and starting a war, now were feeling the repercussions of the GOP spending spree by way of massive house foreclosures, rapid inflation, a war that will go on for 100+ years if McCain has his way, a huge deficit, and the biggest government in US history. I'm sure America will be thanking the Grand Old Party for all it has done at the ballot box this year.
"Then the party should prove it through legislation. You know, tax credits for running small businesses in urban centers?"
What the hell does that have to do with treating the blacks like equals?
"So you are saying that black people are ignorant?"
I could have written your response myself. How juvenile of you. You no doubt equate ignorance with stupidity. In your case it may be true. The blacks have been manipulated from the time of the civil war. The Democrats just made it an art form, you know, got real good at it.
"The GOP had every chance in the world to prove themselves from 2000-2006, controlled the WH plus the House and the Senate."
Wow, you can actually be correct about something. Do you not know that the average grass-root conservative is quite angry with the status quo Republican politician. It is why I call for term limits on all federally elected offices. Don't give me the BS about elections being term limits as that requires a whole other diatribe which I am sure you may actully make more correct statements.
"while cutting taxes and starting a war"
Please. You know that the Democrats are equally as quilty for starting a war, also the case might be made that AQ started the war on terror.
Posted by: REBEL on May 21, 2008 06:49 AMAs Rebel said (Please. You know that the Democrats are equally as quilty for starting a war, also the case might be made that AQ started the war on terror.)
Funnt how Cato forgot or try's to forget. We waited a year before we went to war. During that time the Dem's wanted Bush to meet one test after another before they said ok. Well Cato. He met them and the dem's gave the blessing!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 21, 2008 09:54 AMWonder who trained the individuals who brought AlQ to power? Seems to me we were fighting a covert war with the USSR by proxy in the 80's in a little country called Afghanistan.
It was Democrats as I recall. Haven't you sen the movie "Wilson's War"?
Posted by: pbj on May 22, 2008 12:17 PM