« Yo, O! Maybe YOU Should Go! | Main | The McLaughlin Group »

April 24, 2008

Comments

FK

So is the lesson here that independent thinking is bad?

Dgscol

This just goes to show the amount of negativity generated by the current administration, and political factions that have supported our Congressmen. It is like they have realized this system has royally messed up : supporting foreign slaves systems over our own western way of life.

gringoman

The lesson here may be that independent anything is anathema for the leftniki.

Poor Chelsea, the blood prisoner of two icky icons,

Not even Stalin's daughter, Svetlana, could psychologically free herself and escape to America until Daddy died.

ps But Georgie's little girl---keeping us in suspense over McCain--- will like being thought of as "thinking," no matter what she's really doing.

M/M

Diane Sawyer was hysterical when she announced this on "Good Morning America". I enjoyed watching her enjoy "sticking it to us".

SteveOk

During Hillary's speech Tuesday night after her victory in Pennsylvania, she thanked many people including her criminal brothers Hugh and Tony. I wondered why she would drag their stinking names into this campaign after they received "consulting fees" for obtaining pardons for criminals from Bill Clinton. She obviously was sending a message that Hugh and Tony will have free access the White House if she is elected. That is a comforting thought that our national treasures in the White House will be exposed once again to these thugs.

Ref.BB

The Last Temptation.

It would be like, well...cheating on your spouse.

Account Deleted

McCain toured New Orleans today and distanced himself from Bush and his handling of the Katrina disaster. He needs to do more distancing. In fact, as delicate a task as it may be he needs to run as the “true” conservative, without using that phrase, and imply that he has a forward looking plan to slake conservatives’ disaffection with Bush. In the process, he would disabuse the Democrats of the nascent accusations that he is Bush III. “Extending the Bush tax cuts” should become “a new tax proposal [the flat tax coupled with government downsizing]”; “extending the Bush Iraq strategy” should become “a new anti-terrorist strategy [with concrete, un-Iraq centric proposal to kill Al Qaeda]”, etc.

Now G-man, my friend, in a prior thread you made an incorrect assumption that “either you are for McCain or for the Muslims” on the issue of how to address Middle East terrorists (isn’t that a better to say it?), and you made a tenuous leap that advising McCain to make a diplomatic gesture toward moderate Islam, must mean one sides with the Muslims and has Mid-East “ties”.

Actually, neither is true; here is why: a) I support McCain, b) I do not support torture at Guantanamo, c) do I side with McCain or the Muslims?

Cheers,

M/M

Way to go Jenna. After what McCain is doing to the NC GOP, I may not vote for him either.

Hell froze over today. Savage said he thought HillRock might be the stronger candidate. He didn't actually say he would vote for her, but he actually thought about it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/042508dnnatjennavote.960d1844.html?npc&nTar=OPUR

Ree

This is funny and yes there is a language warning. Red state Blue state update.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/23/video-mccain-campaign-slogan-coined/

Dgscol

I guess the far right and the middle right have abandoned McCain. That still leaves Joe Lieberman!

gringoman

Hello Michael:

I thought McCain vs. muslims re use of "Islamic terror" had been clarified. Looks like I was wrong.

Muslims are telling McCain to stop using "Islamic terrorist." So far he rejects their demand.

You say you agree with the muslims on this point. You say that McCain should accede to their request.

I'm with McCain on this point. You are with the muslims on this point.

I don't think McCain should accede to the muslim request. You think he should.

But you say this misrepresents you?

Maybe you just didn't like the phrase "siding with," for some reason?

Now on to Guantanomo.

Re, let us say, "waterboarding" at Guantanomo. You ask me if you side with McCain or with the muslims on this issue.

Answer:

You side with both.

I side with neither.

ps. And let me venture to claim that our Monica sides with me here, and not with you.

Sorry, Michael. Maybe La Monique will favor you with further explication on Guantanomo, a place she has visited.

Ummahgummah

Condolences are in order re. Monica's sister.

The I had to read this bit of infantile ranting:

So is the lesson here that independent thinking is bad?

Posted by: FredK2929

No the lesson here is that liberalism is a mental disorder which is the opposite of independent thinking.

Because just like islam.. liberals shun the apostates.

Liberalism is a mental disorder which is why so few are ever able to extricate themselves from its debilitating effects.

FK

It's incredible that you still say that. It's a good thing that you and I only talk on this blog. I don't think either of us could be civil if we actually met in person.

M/M

You can't make this up. China is suing CNN.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSPEK30866720080424?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Account Deleted

Gringoman,

You have hit upon a fundamental danger in American political thought, to which we all succomb: that every issue is dipolar and that, like the Super Bowl, sides must be chosen and a winner must be determined.

Why do you assume that my position is necessarily not helpful to McCain? And if you admit that possibility, am I not therefore siding with him -- not Muslims -- by offering another way he can prevail? Same with Guantanamo: if you say I side with both McCain and the terrorists, then you are also saying McCain is siding with terrorists, and that we are both siding with liberals. In fact, those who oppose torture simply believe it is beneath the dignity of this great country.

The answer to both dilemmas may sound trite, but it is the only answer: McCain’s interests, my interests, and we must assume the interests of all sincere interlocutors in a political debate are with the United States. Only. Once we can set objectives outside of each other’s personal interests, we can examine ideas on their merits not their origins.

Then we can stop calling liberalism a “mental disorder” (UG!) or Democrats the “enemy”. The enemies of the American way of life are:
- big government
- socialism
- terrorism
- Putin
- Chinese militarism
- Chavez
- drugs
- crime
- injustice
- poverty

Let’s have a discussion on these issues, and consider all ideas.

Regards,

Ree

Progressives don't like to be called Liberals, why because they are Socialist. There is the discussion, Liberals won't define themselves, why MONEY, keep those nickles and dimes coming in. Progressives bundle the minorities together. Minorities are the Progresive's sacred cows, they USE them as a blunt instrument for political cover. This Republic is Majority Rule with Minority protection. The Democrats have been playing Idenity Politics and their sacred cows are coming home to the Barn- the Big Tent Party...they are certainly mulitiplying all the Democrat's problems. If you don't vote for Hillary you hate women if you don't vote for Obama you hate people of color. Hillary and Obama locked in a race neither will step aside, they are burning the barn down.

FK

Once again, Michael is the voice of reason.

I don't necessarily agree with every item on your list, but understand the reasons for their inclusion. For example, Putin and Chavez are just men, not institutions or ideas. And I think Chavez hates George W. Bush more than America itself.

I want to add prejudice, bigotry, and racism as another item on the list.

FK

Ree --

Your description of how liberals supposedly think is not accurate. If someone doesn't want to vote for Obama, I don't think they are a racist. If someone doesn't want to vote for Hillary, I don't consider them a misogynist. There are many reaons to choose one candidate over the other. It may be easier for conservatives to frame this as the way liberals think, but it's not the case with me or anyone else I know. I'm not sure where you are getting these ideas.

You want to call me a liberal, go ahead. A progressive, ok. I do think that a society has a responsibility to ensure that the basic needs of its citizens are met (food, shelter, education). Maybe that makes you think I'm a socialist, but then I would think you're being simplistic.

gringoman

Michael,

Cuidado with that "enemies" list you drew up. It's incisive enough to get you perceived as an "enemy" by the proggies (although FK may be willing to give you some slack as he demonstrates his new-found "civility" and letting up on his Monica-bashing.)

Now, can I ask: As a good Catholic, have you ever studied with the Jesuits?
I wonder because your way of reducing the fundamental into matters of "dipolar" that make clarity appear to be "simplistic" shows a certain way with logic and ratiocination. And when it's compounded by suggesting that attacking McCain (eg McCain on "Islamic terrorist") is really a way of supporting McCain, well, Michael, the Jesuits may have been the loser when you opted for a career in business.

But as you know, our Monica has not only been to Guantanomo. She too has been to Columbia, and the advanced groves thereof. So I will assume that you don't think our Monica's support of Guantanomo---fully and proudly backed by many experts, not to mention gringoVision---is an example of Simple Simon, or Simple Simone.



www.gringoman.com
Escaping Politically Correct

FK

So now I get picked on if I try to be civil and not bash Monica. See how I can't win, Michael?

Account Deleted

Fred, I agree with your additional items for The Enemies List. Perhaps there are others. FYI, I added Putin because he is behind Russia's revanchism, and Chavez because he seems to be an out-of-control socialist. It is unfortunate because I thought Venezuela had potential for economic and political freedom.

G-Man, I thank you for your kind compliment and your assumption that I am a good Catholic. Let's just say I am an imperfect Catholic! I was not trained by the Jesuits, but thank you again.

As for Monica, please note I just recently became her fan and admit ignorance on some of her positions. I would welcome debating her, though, on the topic of whether torture is a core Conservative prinicple!

I have confidence in her sensibilities that she might envision a more productive strategy to destroy Al Qaeada that also enhances America's moral irreproachability.

Cheers,

Account Deleted

Wait a minute! I let one slip by, G-man ... that was naughty of you to suggest I am "attacking McCain"! I am advising McCain: give to get. Therefore, win-win.

Now Fred brings up an interesting point: Liberals believes "... the basic needs of its citizens [should be] met (food, shelter, education)". Conservatives should concede the premise, because it is a good one, and put the proposition:

If we can demonstrate how our flat tax, with its generous exclusions designed to help a family afford the basic needs, achieves that objective, and generates the capital that builds jobs (bonus!), would you work with us to support it?

FK

Good question, Michael. That's the kind of issue I thought conservatives were concerned with, not justifying torture.

If conservatives could so demonstrate, I would consider supporting a flat tax. I would, of course, want to hear from the people who don't support it, as well.

Account Deleted

Fred,

Thank you, and of course you should listen to both sides. I am hoping we will have the opportunity to discuss it in the general election, but I am doubtful McCain is able to articulate it properly or to link it to the "basic needs" issue.

He is following Forbes' proposal to allow flat tax to be optional, which may be politically expedient at the risk of signaling "I am not sure this is really going to work".

The best explanation comes from the author of the flat tax, Milton Friedman, in "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962), in which he also proposed the negative income tax as a better way to care for the truly needy.

Interesting stuff ...

FK

Despite having aced an economics and law class, I never find reading about economics very interesting. Definitely one of my shortcomings that I have to concede.

For example, I love reading biographies of presidents and other historical figures, but I'm always ready to keel over when I get to the discussions of the tariff.

Ree

Here is another example of Progressives having trouble with Liberals. Liberals won't define themselves because of MONEY they want to keep the dollars trickling into the Democrat Party there is a price to pay when you USE "Indentity Politics" to plot your way to the White House.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/25/planned-parenthood-protest-in-dc-stop-targeting-african-americans/

Ree

Progressives don't like to be called Liberals.

Account Deleted

Fred,

You might find Friedman interesting. His theories on monetary policy are esoteric, but essentially he makes the case that the Fed should control the steady growth of money supply. Combined with free trade, this allows the market to set interest rates and exchange rates.

But his ideas on taxes, spending, poverty, and other political matters are treated in "Capitalism and Freedom" and other non-economics works lucidly and compellingly.

Cheers,

FK

Ree --

Call us whatever you want. Labelling us won't help you conservatives understand our positions.

Ree

Thats very white of you FREDK2929

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/04/24/whoopi-dismisses-elisabeths-views-very-white

The Democrats it's all about the "victimhood" indentity politics this isn't Liberal this is Progressive -SOCIALIST turning every minority into a sacred cow well the sacred cows are coming home to the BIG BARN, there is a price to be paid for training people to be dependent on a flawed political idealogy.

FK

Ree --

Please, don't become Gringoman. You can make a point without being incomprehensible. And don't throw the word "Socialist" around; it's more demeaning to you than it is to me for you to have to wave that flag.

Also, what do you mean "that's very 'white' of you"? I'm giving you a chance to explain before I officially feel offended by something that sounds incredibly ignorant.

Ree

Nice try play dumb we both know you can't argue yourself out of your socialist Clap Trap.

FK

Humor me, Ree. I'm not playing dumb. And don't be like all the others on this site who throw the word "socialist" at me when they don't like what I'm saying. I suspect you are more intelligent than that, but you may be proving me wrong.

How about explaining what you mean. Otherwise, I really have to take serious offense to what you said before and I'm not sure why I should then treat you any more civilly than I treat Gringoman and Allah S./Ummah G.

Maybe you are having a bad day, Ree. If that's the case, I'll give you some leeway.

The comments to this entry are closed.