For those of you who don’t remember after eight years, this is what loyal opposition looks like.
And it also draws a very stark line between what it means to be on the political Left in America and on the Political Right. Witness:
THEN
A Republican president leads two broad international coalitions to liberate 50,000,000 Muslims in a far-away place from tyranny and despotism. In so doing, he works diligently to thwart terrorism on our own shores and in our own homeland. The Left’s reaction? To call him a war criminal, to demean him, to mock him, to call him a liar and a murderer and a torturer, too insular to consider any other type than simple cowboy diplomacy. To level the completely insensible incongruity of describing him simultaneously an evil genius and a world-class ignoramus.
NOW
A Democrat president, without the consultation of any allies, authorizes unilateral shots fired on citizens of a foreign country to save the life of a brave captain whose peril represents equal parts bravery (to even attempt escape) and selflessness (to offer himself to free his ship, crew, and cargo of charity food for starving Africans). The Right’s reaction? Praise and applause (albeit, from many quarters qualified and muted).
After eight years of continual vilification of a personality rather than policies, it is tremendously gratifying to see, for a change (YES! CHANGE!) a loyal opposition whose politics actually DO end at the water’s edge (and on it, too).
I join with my freedom and America loving conservatives today in congratulating President Obama on a cool hand and a job well done.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HQ
Bumping my own comment…
Shouldn’t Leftists be all upset about Obama-Biden’s War Machine brutally murdering three helpless, unarmed teenagers in his administration’s War of Choice against dark-skinned peoples? And isn’t killing pirates a distraction from hunting Osama bin Laden? Last I say, pirates didn’t have nothin’ to do with 9-11. Why did Obama take his eyes off the ball?
Yes, I’m sure A.N.S.W.E.R. will be quick to condemn this naked aggression.
I know it’s un-PC to question patriotism, but I think you can see which ideology loves America and which party loves power.
Holy crap. I have seen some doozies in my day, but this is a crazy post. I would literally have to go through this thing line by line to set you straight, there isn’t anything in this that’s right.
I mean, there’s still a post on the front-page by this website’s main author that basically preemptively blames Obama for getting the captain killed, and you’re patting yourselves on the back for praising and applauding the guy? What you should be doing is apologizing.
Boy, what a difference 24 hours makes.
By “right” you mean “follows the KOShole lying points”, eh?
I don’t think there’s anything heroic about some well-trained snipers backed by the entire US Navy killing some teenage black kids on a rowboat. I think this is like white LA cops beating blacks to death. I don’t think Capt. Phillips is a hero for facilitating the deaths of kids young enough to be his kids. I think that a nonviolent way of handling this could have been found–seriously, they couldn’t have had a diver come from beneath and tip over the boat? I want to see Rev. Wright’s response to this–and that’s not snarky or sarcastic. I would like to see how the radical black community responds to a black president slaughtering impoverished Africans.
Personally, I never understood the pathological need of some to troll and/or litter-box in the comments sections of sites they do not like or agree with or find distasteful. Perhaps Levi could shed some light on this for me….
I would rather spend my time reading things that give me pleasure, make me think, give me a perspective different than my own to ponder or allow me to analyze and possibly integrate into my own line of thinking. Things that, although I may not agree with (initially) I may consider based on logic and reason and determine the merits for myself.
Is that not the reason many of us blog in the first place, to express our opinions (to which each of us are entitled, whether others agree with them or not) and share information and ideas with each other? Why does left/right have to interfere with some people’s learning process? To me, this is the root of the divide separating this nation and tearing it apart from within.
Angie, excellent post. Thanks.
Poor gay patriots. It obviously drives you even crazier to see your country succeed when the president is a Democrat. Cry me a river.
Sean Hannity is trying to make it an anti-Obama thing – what a dope. Hannity was talking at Bernie Goldberg who was not going along with him.
What did Obama have to do with the job?
It’s not even clear (yet) that he had authorized the operation in anything but the vaguest, C-Y-A, I-need-to-keep-looking-good-no-matter-how-it-turns-out kind of terms. If, in fact, laid his political capital on the line in being firm and supportive of the real heroes, our troops (or Navy personnel in this case), I’m open to being told. In fact, I would love to hear it.
I’ve just been trying to piece together Obama’s part from news accounts on and off all day, and asking the question on this blog, and never being given a straight answer by the Dear Teleprompter’s supporters. For example, see this contorted answer from a self-proclaimed leftist who asserts that the whole pirate situation was never anything that could deserve The One’s attention, then uses it as an occasion to attack conservatives. A skillful answer, shall we say.
Sorry, missing subject, “If, in fact, *he* laid his political capital on the line…”
#6 “impoverished Africans” – Pirates are criminals. Period. BHO acted correctly when he authorized our military to take necessary action to rescue our citizen, Captain Phillips. I applaud BHO even though I think he should have spoken out more forcibly earlier.
“black president slaughtering impoverished Africans” – Is BHO supposed to put the interests of Africans over those of Americans?
Personally, I never understood the pathological need of some to troll and/or litter-box in the comments sections of sites they do not like or agree with or find distasteful. Perhaps Levi could shed some light on this for me….
Well call me crazy, but the idea of exposing yourself to websites and opinions you don’t agree with doesn’t need really need much of an explanation. I’d get really bored really quick sitting here agreeing with everything that everybody says.
I would rather spend my time reading things that give me pleasure, make me think, give me a perspective different than my own to ponder or allow me to analyze and possibly integrate into my own line of thinking. Things that, although I may not agree with (initially) I may consider based on logic and reason and determine the merits for myself.
Reading and commenting on this and other conservative blogs gives me pleasure and it gives me a perspective different than my own. Not so different, you and I. Though, I can’t say I find much to integrate into my own thinking around here.
Is that not the reason many of us blog in the first place, to express our opinions (to which each of us are entitled, whether others agree with them or not) and share information and ideas with each other? Why does left/right have to interfere with some people’s learning process? To me, this is the root of the divide separating this nation and tearing it apart from within.
Am I not doing that? Am I not expressing my opinions or sharing my ideas? I’m not sure what you mean with regards to interfering with the learning process. Whatever that’s supposed to mean, I seriously doubt that my presence on conservative blog is disrupting it.
Also, you need to learn what the definition of trolling is before you DERAIL A THREAD to accuse people that are ON TOPIC of being trolls.
I gave you SOME HINTS.
Sean Hannity is trying to make it an anti-Obama thing – what a dope. Hannity was talking at Bernie Goldberg who was not going along with him.
I’m watching that right now. Hannity is exploring new depths of pathetic.
I say yeah Navy!
Howver, like the Democrats of the past 8 years, I will also say, I support theuir troops and not their commandier.
When some Leftist can show links how they gave President Bush the benfit of the doubt and how Democrats followed Senator vandenberg’s dictum of “politics stops at the waters edge,” then I will praise Obama.
Until then, spare me.
I say yeah Navy!
Howver, like the Democrats of the past 8 years, I will also say, I support theuir troops and not their commandier.
When some Leftist can show links how they gave President Bush the benfit of the doubt and how Democrats followed Senator vandenberg’s dictum of “politics stops at the waters edge,†then I will praise Obama.
Until then, spare me.
All you have to do is look at Bush’s approval ratings.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pdPM0BrcUU8/Rwrj0m2bdgI/AAAAAAAAAIA/-xDBdKfFfB0/s400/Bush-approval-rating.gif
You don’t top 90% without a couple million liberals giving Bush the benefit of the doubt.
Levi:
This is the second time in recent memory (at least since I returned from my deployment) that I’ve seen you comment on a post of mine (perhaps in your trolling you’re also doing this to Bruce, Dan, and John, I don’t know) with the same sort of sentiment: That I’m so wrong that you don’t have time to specifically state how wrong I am line by line.
Well, then also this evening, you’ve spent plenty of time Fisking Angie’s very well-written comment. I wonder if you’d mind actually putting up or shutting up by doing the same for my post. Please “literally … go through this thing line by line to set [me] straight, [and show me how] there isn’t anything in this that’s right.”
And Terrible Leftist:
Do you have some sort of script on your computer that just posts comments without reading them? My entire post here is lauditory toward the president and jests just the type of thing you’re suggesting (that “[i]t obviously drives [me] even crazier to see [y]our country succeed when the president is a Democrat.”). And people say it’s conservatives who don’t have irony. I suggest you have someone actually read the post to you in whatever language you best understand before commenting in the future.
Colorado Patriot, it’s crystal clear from reading this website and the various other wingnut blogs that any praise of Obama is grudging, and that your real emotion is disappointment that the mission didn’t fail. The right wing always puts politics before country, and this incident is merely the latest example.
You’re not foolish anyone with your obligatory damnation by faint praise. You know, one of these days maybe you’ll stop and ask yourself why only one-quarter of the public identifies as Republicans, and why two-thirds of the public disapproves of your party. The worm has turned, and the old tactics don’t work any more.
You obviously haven’t gotten the message. A few more devastating electoral wipeouts and it might start sinking in, but only when the Republicans clear out your kind and get some rationality will anything change. And I don’t think that’s going to happen for another 10 years or so.
Welcome to your washing machine.
Hell yeah there is! These weren’t some little kids pulling off a playground game with water pistols. These were dedicated young men holding a man’s life in their hands with AK-47s. They had to know, especially with the US Navy around, that they were going to get their asses spanked one way or the other.
You’ll let us know when that happens, right? Also, please let us know when Il Douche decides to quit telling everybody how much America sucks.
I think that sentence requires an explanation. You may not be crazy, but it’s clear you’re an arrogant dick.
TerLeft: It’s crystal clear that you not only misread people, you just make sh*t up. Heh 🙂 Welcome to your own little world.
Is that anything like putting forward 60+ bills to wrest the CIC power from President Bush? Or is that more like the al-Qaeda Times leaking national security information on the front page? Perhaps it’s actually like calling our own soldiers “terrorists” and “Nazis” etc.
Is it a washing machine that spins out sentences like:
Instead of sputtering and spitting, how about coming up with a rational comment? Chill, dude. You’re hatred is screwing you up every way from Sunday.
P.S. on TerLeft’s mind-reading of Nick…
There is another post right now from GPW, where GPW analyzes a quote of Andrew Sullivan’s to show how inauthentic Sullivan’s emotions are. Let’s look at the structure of the Sullivan quote, to see whether it condemns itself or betrays mixed emotions. Sullivan is speaking of his own distaste for the Tea Party movement:
It does. GPW’s take is correct on its face. Following such an example, TerLeft might have a point about Nick’s attitude toward Obama if Nick’s post were something like this:
Is that Nick’s attitude? Hint: no.
Says the commentor who is attempting to use the incident to bash conservatives. (or his idea of them)
Levi:
This is the second time in recent memory (at least since I returned from my deployment) that I’ve seen you comment on a post of mine (perhaps in your trolling you’re also doing this to Bruce, Dan, and John, I don’t know) with the same sort of sentiment: That I’m so wrong that you don’t have time to specifically state how wrong I am line by line.
Well, then also this evening, you’ve spent plenty of time Fisking Angie’s very well-written comment. I wonder if you’d mind actually putting up or shutting up by doing the same for my post. Please “literally … go through this thing line by line to set [me] straight, [and show me how] there isn’t anything in this that’s right.â€
Fair enough. I’ll skip the Iraq stuff though. I could spend hours with that absurd characterization. I’ve been through that enough times over the years, and I’d obviously be wasting my time.
On to the pirates.
A Democrat president, without the consultation of any allies, authorizes unilateral shots fired on citizens of a foreign country to save the life of a brave captain whose peril represents equal parts bravery (to even attempt escape) and selflessness (to offer himself to free his ship, crew, and cargo of charity food for starving Africans). The Right’s reaction? Praise and applause (albeit, from many quarters qualified and muted).
Why would we need to consult our allies? I guess you’re trying to make some point about liberal criticism of Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq, but that just doesn’t even make any sense. How can you honestly compare some mercenaries holding an American hostage to the United States invading Iraq? What is similar about those situations?
You note that the praise and applause from conservatives is qualified and muted, and I think you need to think about why that is. Lots of conservatives, including this website’s main author, started putting their eggs in the ‘this guy is definitely gonna get killed’ basket pretty early. I know it’s not you who made that ridiculous AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE post, but that post was devoted entirely to preemptively blaming Obama for the captain’s certain death. Go re-read the post and tell me that isn’t the main take-away.
You go on to broadly dismiss liberal criticism of George Bush as ‘continual vilification of a personality rather than policies,’ but here you guys are, ‘qualified and muted’ because you don’t get to go to the tea parties tomorrow blaming Obama for getting the captain killed, which rather morbidly would have been the highlight of your year so far. You guys are so desperate for something to use in your political arguments that you’re not even waiting for stories to fully develop anymore. The author of this website, without putting too fine a point on it, was kind of made to look like a fool. Again, this is the kind of behavior that makes liberals doubt the sincerity behind the tea parties.
And don’t worry, someday I will also teach you about Iraq. Because you need some big help on that one. See that graph that I linked up there? Note the huge spike after 9-11 and the initial invasion. That’s what loyal opposition looks like. Staking bets on the outcome of a hostage situation (and betting on the bad outcome)? Yeah…. not so much.
It does. GPW’s take is correct on its face. Following such an example, TerLeft might have a point about Nick’s attitude toward Obama if Nick’s post were something like this:
ILC, your reading comprehension needs a check-up. Sullivan isn’t trying to make a point about spending one way or the other, he’s making a point about the conservative movement. The little switcheroo you did there makes absolutely no sense, by the way.
Sweet Jesus, man! Put down the ‘shrooms. You’re seein’ shit that just ain’t there.
And as far as that graph from your spank bank, it shows that it started going back down again as your “loyal opposition” you imagined went back to work opposing Bush’s appointments, Daschle’s shelving of almost everything to come out of the WH and the liberals putting union interests above national security.
And unless your Iraq sermon acknowledges that the liberals were demanding it for years and opposed it when a Republican President actually did what they’d been bitching about, instead of screwing interns, you can cram that sideways too.
You need help dude. You’re not as smart as you hope that you are. Try NarcAnon.org or 1-866-822-8323.
Seriously, dude. I’m worried about you.
What’s really pathetic is the posturing of Levi and Terrible Leftist. “The Dear Leader (long may his pecs glisten!) snipered three starving teenagers in a boat who were out of ammo… He’s the greatest military hero of all time!”
OK, I exaggerate, but still, the whining that Dear Leader hasn’t been praised enough for a decision that was pretty much a no-brainer would be sad. I think the weeks and weeks of non-stop bumblef-ckery leading up to this action just makes it look good by comparison to all the stupidity that’s poured forth from this administration so far.
The ‘then and now’ comparison that CP is trying to project is both a surprisingly fluid adaptation from what this site was talking about re: pirates and, unfortunately, misinformed re: nature of Bush’s intervention, and it’s practical outcomes. based on these shaky foundations, any conclusions as to the nature of Republican opposition that the post tries to make are hamstrung by the fallacy upon which they are build on.
Physician, heal thyself. Here is how I characterized Sullivan’s point:
I.e., for today’s “conservative movement” as you put it. Obviously, Levi, you didn’t comprehend jack squat when you “read” (haha) my comment. Work on yourself.
…said the pot to the kettle.
Keep it up the spin, lefties. You guys are a hoot! 🙂
If these teenagers were in LA and had been shot by police snipers, you’d see clearly that this was simply bullying. I would like to see how black America would have handled 3 white snipers kill 3 black teenagers in, oh, say, the southside of Chicago. Even if the teenagers were carrying guns and holding someone hostage.
The point is, they could have tipped over the boat. They could have use some kind of tear gas. Or, heck, they could have given them the $2 million dollars–let’s face it, a Dr. Evil sort of ransom. Killing some poor kids from an undeveloped country is not heroic. Even for conservatives.
Ashpenaz,
I do hope your tongue is firmly in cheek (and no, not Jason Statham’s) with that last post. They wanted to be pirates. They got their wish, now we need to hang the last one and deal with the tribal elders who represented them
So, Levi. I’ll take it by your refusal to do so when actually challenged to back yourself that you were merely talking big with your “line by line” rhetoric.
A typical pity that with such a platform you still choose to scurry away when given the opportunity to actually prove your point. You make zero substantive criticism of what I wrote, but merely attack things I didn’t write and somehow discern a hidden motive a-la mindreading about what I actually did write. If that’s the best you’ve got, thanks but spare me the “education” on Iraq.
Hey, TGC, all politicians are guilty of spin. This is just an incredibly obvious example of it.
ILC, all politicans are guilty of spin. This is just a very obvious example of it.
Nick,
I know you don’t post as often as Dan or Bruce (or some of us in the comments!) but asking Levi for facts is like asking a vampire to for garlic. One is anethma to the other.
I “praise” Obama for doing the right thing. Now, trolls, hear me clearly: If Obama had diddled and piddled around and the Captain had not been freed or worse, I would have been all over Obama like ugly on an ape for being a panty-waist liberal with no lead in his pencil. Understand?
Why can’t you guys accept some faint “praise” when your Messiah handles something correctly? Way to go Obama! You did what a real President should do. Keep it up!
What is wrong with our lefties? We on the right feel that the most important job for a president is keeping us safe.
Well this weekend Obama did his job and we are thankful. We have said so in posts and comments.
So out come the lefties and scream at us that we actually don’t mean what we said – projection anyone?
They just don’t get it, when they hate – they hate everything about a president. So of course they simply can’t handle the fact that there are times we are so grateful that our president didn’t fail, we actually thank him and praise him when he does what is right.
Obama’s staged, phony Afghanistan Photo Op.
Heh. Well Leah, as we’ve seen for years on this blog, too many lefties (by no means all, but, too many) are in fact unpatriotic; some despise all forms of patriotism, and a few even despise the United States as such.
So yeah, projection and displacement. And perhaps a desire to be “on the offensive”, eradicating the memory of all those years when some of them called for the impeachment and/or murder of the President of the United States when he kept us safe, etc. Perhaps like the cheating spouse who diverts attention with bizarre accusations of others cheating. Too bad our local lefties don’t realize how funny they are 😉
Is my praise of and for Obama reluctant and grudging? Yes, it is. I don’t like him. I don’t like what he represents. I’m not even certain he had anything to do with this rescue, despite what a lying, biased media assures. I’m certain he’d like to take credit for it, but from statements issued by the other commanding officers, there isn’t much to praise.
We’re all happy the captain is safe and sound. Let’s wait and see who should get the appropriate credit. If Obama had direct involvement in the rescue (which I doubt), I’ll give him kudos.
Lefties, I don’t hate Obama. Merely because you hate Republicans/conservatives/righties doesn’t mean we hate your politicians. We don’t hold politics and politicians as centrally important in our lives — in fact, quite the opposite — and so we don’t need to worship and hate those in the public sector because our futures (and related aspects such as our self-esteems) do not depend upon them.
Well this weekend Obama did his job and we are thankful. We have said so in posts and comments.
Your websites, including this one, have been chock full of sentiments like those from Ignatius, who tells us that his praise is “relucant and grudging,” and takes a wait-and-see stance on giving Obama credit. Only if Obama was on the scene, pulling the trigger, would Ignatius think of giving any credit. Except we all know what he’d say then: “Micromanager.”
The great thing about all this is that the public sees the wingers for what they are. You have no ideas, and you’ve been rooting for failure from the very start. It’s a bad idea, on a number of levels, to place your bets against your own country. Some gay “patriots” you are.
#42 – That last paragraph of yours sounds exactly like what we heard from the left in the previous eight years.
Speaking for myself, I would say that it would behoove any fair-minded conservative to give Obama the same kind of respect and behavior that your side exhibited when GWB was in the White House.
Regards,
Peter H.
Levi: You have some serious pathological issues of your own, if you think you are NOT trolling. I have seen your litter-box comments on this post and others here, and you surely seem to me to be taking an inflammatory standpoint – regardless of subject matter.
You claim I am trying to “derail a thread,” but I thought the topic here was the differences between reactions to the other side by left and right; then again, perhaps that is just my own asininity speaking, since I fall more in the middle with a rightward tilt and neither specifically left nor right. On the other hand, you believe yourself to be “on topic” by telling the author his writings are “crazy,” that you need to “set [him] straight,” and that “there isn’t anything in this that’s right.” I suppose that could be interpreted as “on topic,” as it demonstrates the glaringly obvious contempt the left holds for the right and the inherent inability of those on the left to attribute any merit to what those on the right (or in the middle) have to say.
Expressing opinions and sharing ideas, you are not. Your above-referenced statements are about as “sharing” as Shepherd Smith bringing Ralph Nader on air to “give him time” with the intent not to “share” but to attack and demand an apology for calling The O an Uncle Tom (even though he did not); or perhaps as “sharing” as Fortney Stark standing on the floor of the House deriding Dave Camp and Eric Cantor’s amendment as “wrong-headed” when they proposed an alternative to the infamous Porkulus spending spree, even though it could have created twice as many jobs at half the cost. Gaining another perspective different from your own (to me, anyhow) also includes considering the merits of that perspective and not simply ridiculing or dismissing it.
The fact that you claim to gain “pleasure” from this exercise lends credibility to my “diagnosis” of your personality disorder. If you have not already done so, might I suggest scheduling an appointment with a mental health professional? You seem to be in need of some Haldol – stat.
People like you are the reason I refrain from linking my own site with my name in comments or asking for reciprocation on blog rolling – I need the aggravation of visits from you about as much as I need a hemorrhoid. I have confidence that if site administrators are interested in what I have to say beyond the comments I leave, they will find me. You, on the other hand, leave me wondering why it is *you* fail to leave a link.
I am quite sure you and I stand on opposite sides of that divide I referred to previously, and the fundamental difference between us is that I am willing to listen beyond hearing, see beyond looking, and LEARN rather than sitting in my own little corner of “reality” complaining about everyone and everything that does not fit my own perception of how things “should” be in this world. I feel no need to apologize for who and what I am, how I think, what I believe, and if someone does not like what they see, they are free to look the other way. You need to take responsibility for cleaning up your own manure-spreader mentality (that would be a farming reference, BTW), because I am tired of digging through the piles trying to find you.
#44 – Dang, Angie, that is one heck of a smackdown!
Regards,
Peter H.
If these teenagers were in LA and had been shot by police snipers, you’d see clearly that this was simply bullying. I would like to see how black America would have handled 3 white snipers kill 3 black teenagers in, oh, say, the southside of Chicago. Even if the teenagers were carrying guns and holding someone hostage.
Ashpenaz, when you expressed this view in another thread, I thought, like Livewire, it was tongue in cheek.
I look at this and similar situations this way. You have a bunch of thugs who hold someone innocent, and whose life and limb is clearly at risk. While that is going on, I hold the victim’s life in high regard, and zero value to the lives of the thugs.
In fact, let’s say there are two possible options. 1) Kill the thugs in a way that does not harm the victim. 2) Somehow, there is a way to free the victim while not having to kill the thugs, but it will require five more minutes of prep time.
I choose option 1. Because that 5 minutes of earlier freedom for the victim, to me, is worth 1,000,000 times the lives of those thugs.
Well, TL, we were told that a President couldn’t be CIC unless he had military experience. Does that standard not apply now? I’ve lost track because we were told lack of military experience didn’t matter (Clinton), serving as a photographer (Algore) counted, military service was the only thing that mattered (Kerry) and Bush’s imagined lack of military service didn’t qualify him. So which is it now?
Remember when liberals demanded that Bush lead our soldiers on the battlefield? Why won’t Il Douche? Or does that standard not apply?
Another bit of confusion is how we were told that the hostage situation was a “distraction” and that Il Douche was busy with other things. Then, of course, there was SoS Hillary laughing it off. Now we’re told that he was all over it, following it closely, letting it drag on for days.
Nobody’s placing any “bets” against our own country. That’s why we hope Il Douche’s policies fail BECAUSE they will destroy the country. What good does it do our country to blindly follow a bumbling idiot who runs around, even to other countrys, proclaiming “America sucks!”? Supporting a President who takes over private companies, fires their CEO without consulting Congress or even their board doesn’t do America a whole hell of a lot of good either. Nor does adding $140 billion to our debt by contributing to the IMF, without consulting Congress.
Nationalizing healthcare with even more waste and fraud that Medicare/Medicaid isn’t going to do us much good. Inciting hatred and harrassment against individual citizens doesn’t do us much good either. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that we’re far better gay patriots than you could ever pretend to be, TL.
After replying to him earlier, it occured to me that he could have been sarcastic. Now I’m disappointed that he’s serious.
And why the hang up on race, Ashpenaz?
Levi: You have some serious pathological issues of your own, if you think you are NOT trolling. I have seen your litter-box comments on this post and others here, and you surely seem to me to be taking an inflammatory standpoint – regardless of subject matter.
You claim I am trying to “derail a thread,†but I thought the topic here was the differences between reactions to the other side by left and right; then again, perhaps that is just my own asininity speaking, since I fall more in the middle with a rightward tilt and neither specifically left nor right. On the other hand, you believe yourself to be “on topic†by telling the author his writings are “crazy,†that you need to “set [him] straight,†and that “there isn’t anything in this that’s right.†I suppose that could be interpreted as “on topic,†as it demonstrates the glaringly obvious contempt the left holds for the right and the inherent inability of those on the left to attribute any merit to what those on the right (or in the middle) have to say.
Expressing opinions and sharing ideas, you are not. Your above-referenced statements are about as “sharing†as Shepherd Smith bringing Ralph Nader on air to “give him time†with the intent not to “share†but to attack and demand an apology for calling The O an Uncle Tom (even though he did not); or perhaps as “sharing†as Fortney Stark standing on the floor of the House deriding Dave Camp and Eric Cantor’s amendment as “wrong-headed†when they proposed an alternative to the infamous Porkulus spending spree, even though it could have created twice as many jobs at half the cost. Gaining another perspective different from your own (to me, anyhow) also includes considering the merits of that perspective and not simply ridiculing or dismissing it.
The fact that you claim to gain “pleasure†from this exercise lends credibility to my “diagnosis†of your personality disorder. If you have not already done so, might I suggest scheduling an appointment with a mental health professional? You seem to be in need of some Haldol – stat.
People like you are the reason I refrain from linking my own site with my name in comments or asking for reciprocation on blog rolling – I need the aggravation of visits from you about as much as I need a hemorrhoid. I have confidence that if site administrators are interested in what I have to say beyond the comments I leave, they will find me. You, on the other hand, leave me wondering why it is *you* fail to leave a link.
I am quite sure you and I stand on opposite sides of that divide I referred to previously, and the fundamental difference between us is that I am willing to listen beyond hearing, see beyond looking, and LEARN rather than sitting in my own little corner of “reality†complaining about everyone and everything that does not fit my own perception of how things “should†be in this world. I feel no need to apologize for who and what I am, how I think, what I believe, and if someone does not like what they see, they are free to look the other way. You need to take responsibility for cleaning up your own manure-spreader mentality (that would be a farming reference, BTW), because I am tired of digging through the piles trying to find you.
I don’t know what you want me to tell you. Why don’t you take your own advice and look the other way? I don’t care about what you’re here to do, and I don’t care what you think about my tone or my personality disorders or my pathology or anything else — except your political arguments, which I haven’t seen you offer up at all. People that clutter up politics forums with stylistic critiques or over-the-internet psychological diagnoses are the most boring people in the world. Have a good one.
I believe in a seamless ethic of life. I believe life is sacred from conception until natural death. I, with the Pope, believe in a preferential option for the poor. I, with the Pope again, am against the death penalty. When there are any other possible options, deadly force should not be used. I would think the Navy Seals with the backing of the US military could handle a bunch of poor teenage black kids in a rowboat without killing them. I think their lives are just as valuable as the hostage–again, please refer to Pope above. Remember, when J-sus was held hostage, he told Peter, “Put up your sword–he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” As we can see, killing these kids has only made the overall situation worse.
Being conservative does not mean, as Glenn Beck says, putting a bullet in the center of some teenager’s head. Being conservative involves knowing when to show mercy.
Ashpenaz,
It also means accepting the consequences for one’s actions. In this case, it was 3 rounds, after a bit of waiting.
Well, TL, we were told that a President couldn’t be CIC unless he had military experience. Does that standard not apply now? I’ve lost track because we were told lack of military experience didn’t matter (Clinton), serving as a photographer (Algore) counted, military service was the only thing that mattered (Kerry) and Bush’s imagined lack of military service didn’t qualify him.
Where did you hear that? On the broadcast through the fillings in your teeth?
Remember when liberals demanded that Bush lead our soldiers on the battlefield?
Nope, don’t remember it. Are you having a flashback again?
Nobody’s placing any “bets†against our own country.
Your patron saint and closet case Rush Limbaugh, the de facto head of your party, has been rooting for the president’s failure from the very start.
Nope. That was the position of the liberal left during those elections.
Again, that was a demand of many liberals repeated incessantly.
Yes, you are a tool. I know this, but that doesn’t exempt you from reading what I wrote. Despite popular belief, Chairman Obama is not America. The desire for Il Douche to fail is a desire for America to succeed. He doesn’t WANT America to succeed himself, based on what he’s done so far. What liberals don’t get is that we will succeed IN SPITE of Il Douche. If he would shut up and get the hell out of our way, we could do a hell of a lot better without him.
If you don’t want to read my comments, that’s fine. Just don’t try to respond to them without doing so.
I would think the Navy Seals with the backing of the US military could handle a bunch of poor teenage black kids in a rowboat without killing them.
Ashpenaz, perhaps they could have, if they didn’t have a hostage on board. It seems to me that the goal of the Navy Seals was to save the captain, the quickest and safest way possible. That was paramount in this case.
Valuing the life of the pirates as much as the captain would have greatly increased the chances of the captain losing his life. Not a fair exchange under the circumstances.
If the pirates had the same view of life as you had, they would still be alive today. And I still don’t get why “black” has anything to do with this. Are you suggesting if, everything else being equal, but the pirates were white, this would have been handled differently?
I think their lives are just as valuable as the hostage–again, please refer to Pope above.
If that’s what the Pope believes, I’ll have to disagree. Their lives were just as valuable as the hostage, until the point they took the hostage. At that point, the value of their lives, by necessity, dropped considerably.
Being conservative does not mean, as Glenn Beck says, putting a bullet in the center of some teenager’s head. Being conservative involves knowing when to show mercy.
Thankfully, the Navy Seals recognized that wasn’t the time for mercy. We have an alive captain to thank for that.
Ashpenaz,
In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas argues:
I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner”; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.”
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine’s works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”You seem hung-up on the lives of teenagers. Many of our own soldiers are teenagers. Historically, armies were full of young men who were merely 14. Childhood and the angst of being a teen is the invention of the post Victorian period. The world is chock-a-block full of families headed by 15 year olds who have been toiling for survival for years. They have no time for childhood.
St. Thomas is speaking of war, but you can read his words and understand the effects of piracy on the international system of peaceful trade.
Have you any concern over your blessed “teenagers” attempting to take a ship laden with a cargo of donated food for starving nations?
If you wish to be a total pacifist, so be it. But you make a curious argument for pacifism. Just today, another teenager shot an rpg at a ship which pierced its hull and resulted in a fire.
Please bring your spirited defense of these teenagers forth. It will make for fascinating reading and a chance to learn just how your mind works. Meanwhile, I suggest you go to Morocco, Peru, Laos, Indonesia, India, Mexico or a myriad other places and get a reality check on “teenagers.”