Commenter Archive

Comments by Sully

On “Who “they” is

@ Rex Caruthers:

A word from an agnostic. The Declaration of Independence does refer to "Creator" in the singular, so it's not completely impossible that folks who immigrate here and intend to fully integrate into the prevailing culture may tend also to migrate toward monotheistic religions.

On “All the little Tea Party Americans in the world

@ CK MacLeod:

You have no basis for denying the truth of my description

He has no obligation to disprove your description. You and the NAACP have the obligation to prove it.

Presumably there is more evidence than those seven pictures. Where is the video of a proven Tea Partier spouting hate like that Black Panther dude whose voter intimidation Michelle's husband whitewashed?

If wanting "states’ rights/restraint on the federal government, low taxes, cultural self-defense" is racist then I stand with the racists and so do a whole lot of Americans. And I will not apologize for it to an organization that tolerates Al Sharpton or a First Lady who spent twenty years of Sundays attending the church of Jeremiah Wright.

I'm with narcisco. Not an inch. Let the NAACP cast out the beam in its own eye before the Tea Party even thinks about addressing the mote in its.

"

@ CK MacLeod:

How about a little admixture of simple common sense verified through personal experience?

Okay. From my own observations perhaps 10% of people in this country are colorblind in all their deeds and thoughts. The Tea Party and all other groups of people including more that 10% of Americans must therefore include racists.

The current president of the United States is not colorblind in all his deeds and thought as amply demonstrated by his books. And don't even get me started about "clean and well spoken" Joe Biden. The Democratic Party therefore includes at least two stone cold racists beyond the ex clan leader they buried last week.

The Democratic Party has demonstrably implemented many government program over the past fifty years that seem better designed to destroyed the families of tens of millions of minority citizens than to help them. And, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, the teachers' unions it has furthermore condemned tens of millions of minority citizens to terrible educations that don't prepare them well for the world of work.

Yet the NAACP works hand in hand with the Democratic Party and has done nothing effective to oppose the above.

And you expect me to credit the NAACP as giving a damn about the welfare of minority citizens who don't make their livings as race hustlers?

"

@ CK MacLeod:

And no one at the NAACP, or the NBPP, or god knows who else, cropped me.

We have only your word on that, and even assuming the person who posts here as CK MacLeod is a real person and can be trusted to write what he believes to be the truth he may be biased and "completely unconscious of it."

"

@ CK MacLeod:

And if y’all Tea Party Americans want to see a lot more of that kind of thing, just keep on keeping on like you are.

And if y'all want to see folks driven to take up extreme positions just keep on keeping on encouraging folks to call anybody who states an opinion on a whole range of legitimate issues a racist.

You poo poohed it; but the fact is that I now discount all supposed evidence produced by anyone associated with the Democratic Party and the news media other than Fox, and a whole list of leftist organizations in the same way leftists reflexively discount all evidence produced by folks like Glenn Beck except with more reason.

Congressmen did lie about being called names and spat upon after purposely trying to set up an incident. That fellow Bellisles (or whatever) who wrote the lying book about gun usage in colonial and later America just wrote another book that was published,and he is still treated as a serious academic by a whole swath of the left. President Obama's current Supreme Court nominee clearly manipulated scientific evidence for ideological reasons. Dan Rather and his team at a major network clearly faked evidence or knowingly trafficked in faked evidence to influence an election. Photos of Tea Party people (like photos of those convoy people) have been cropped. Al Sharpton did knowingly attempt to destroy a career among other things in the Tawana Brawley case even though he knew it was all a lie. Bill Clinton's people did lie about church burnings in order to inflame racial hatred. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Sometimes what looks like willingness to manipulate the news and evidence for ideological reasons is precisely what it appears to be.

And now you tout seven photos on an NAACP web site as proof that the Tea Party is racist. If they had seven hundred photos I wouldn't accept them as evidence until each and every one had been proofed. And then I would suspect agents provocateurs. And with perfectly good reason.

"

@ narciso:

Given that there are members of the Black Panthers who have appeared in proximity to NAACP members at events. And, given that there is actual footage of that Black Panther guy espousing genocide openly on the street, it's reasonable to conclude that there may be "an element of truth" to an assertion that the NAACP is a genocidal organization. Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of its members.

"

Seven photos of racist signs that are claimed to have been taken at protests that have involved hundreds of thousands of people! And those photos presented by an organization that includes members who have clearly borne false witness in the past.

I too have relatives who are racist; but not one of them is remotely as racist as Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and The Reverend Wright, all of whom have been treated with respect and have even been honored by the NAACP. And I've never seen those three named worthies in their private moments, so I'm probably underestimating just how vile and despicable they are.

As to the photos, they could easily have been carried by agents provocateur, or they could have been photoshopped. The left has certainly carried out such operations in the past.

"

@ Ill Papa Fuster:

When you're right, you're right.

I hereby declare a hudna that will extend until such time as I'm next ready to attack.

"

And I've gotten fully fed up with having people run around calling a broad slice of the population racists based at the whisper of a claim that a derogatory word was hurled (false), spittle was launched (false) and intentions are bad (false).

Seen in any reasonable light the Tea Party is a cry of rage by people from across the racial spectrum at a transparent attempt to reorder society and massively increase the size and power of government on the strength of a thin majority win in one election. And this by a profoundly cynical movement that openly claims the plain words of the Constitution mean whatever nine judges say they mean.

"

@ Ill Papa Fuster:

Why not instead inquire as to whether other folks meant to also indulge?

Because I've gotten fully fed up with observing a fellow with beams in both eyes flailing around straining at motes.

"

When I hear that all Tea Party people have accepted as divinely inspired a text calling for all non Tea Party people to be converted by the sword or forced to submit I'll be prepared to consider the reasonableness of assignment of collective guilt. When I hear that death has been prescribed as punishment for renunciation of membership in the Tea Party I'll assign it myself.

"

and, worse, will have an element of truth to it

Do I sense collective guilt being assigned by one who is hypersensitive to any hint of that in other venues?

Some might call that vile; but not I, of course.

On “From Somalia without love

@ CK MacLeod:

Does or does not the Qur'an justify lying to infidels?

Did or did not Muhammad spread his faith by the sword?

Do or do not Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of God and that they should emulate the actions of their prophet?

If those are true nothing from the mouth of a Muslim to an infidel can be trusted, ever. Not that the word of anyone to anyone can ever be trusted very far.

"

@ CK MacLeod:

Muhammad corresponds more closely to the authors of the gospels or to the Old Testament prophets, with the added dimension that he’s treated as a figure worthy of emulation.

Exactly; worthy of emulation by proper Muslims in his spread of the faith by the sword which proper Muslims are doing to this day, right down to the massacres of innocents as yesterday at the world cup match, despite all the supposed peaceful writings, which are nothing but lies designed to lull the infidels. I've read the sequence of Strangelet's comments closely.

Not that I'm granting you your severely stretched point about Christ, which is reminiscent of Bill Clinton at the height of his powers of Jesuitification.

On “Real and Unreal Threats from Iran

@ Ill Papa Fuster:

A great quote. I wonder if it was Roy Cohn or Saint Bobby who wrote it for him.

On “From Somalia without love

@ CK MacLeod:

Your use of "pornocracy" was very similar to what you called "bearing false witness" on other threads.

Your reference to "render" was in making of it an equivalent to the Verse of the Sword. And yet again you are obfuscating the matter rather than responding to it.

I don't know why I'm wasting time on this. It's like trying to explain color to a blind person.

"

@ CK MacLeod:

"pornocracy"

equating "render to Caesar" with the Verse of the Sword.

"

@ narciso:

He's so intent on arguing for accomodation with the "good Islam" that he won't recognize any distinction between a religion whose founder said turn the other cheek and refused to allow his followers to resist even when his enemies came to take him to his death and a religion whose founder personally slaughtered unbelievers and took women as booty. That in itself is an example of impugning christianity.

On “Real and Unreal Threats from Iran

@ CK MacLeod:

we will give medals for valor to soldiers who haven’t even finished basic training.

Why not? We give Nobel Prizes to politicians who haven't done anything.

On “From Somalia without love

@ CK MacLeod:

please provide an example of Christianity being impugned on this blog,

Really CK - to assert that you haven't been impugning Christianity? It's incredible how far you've gone over the river and around the bend on this topic.

On “Real and Unreal Threats from Iran

@ Rex Caruthers:

Our goal should be to Win,and nothing more.

Afghanistan is an isolated sideshow. We "won" when we forced out the Taliban government and ruined the lives of its key members for years because that sent a message to other leaders about what happens to folks who let their countries be used to plan and stage attacks on us. We would have won more thoroughly had we managed to kill them all; but that was never to be expected, although we should have done better.

What we've been doing since setting the Talibanis on the run, namely trying to create some sort of (to appearances, wink, wink)quasi democratic government in a tribal land, has always been impossible given the constraints we operate under. Imposing a government on those tribesmen even proved impossible for the Russians, who operate under much less in the way of constraints and who were willing to sacrifice a whole lot more lives than we are.

"

@ Rex Caruthers:

Rex,
You go back to this theme regularly about declarations of war and I tend to be sympathetic toward your position. But here's what Wikipedia has to say about a war fought under the direction the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence and who presumably understood the constitution along with those who were in Congress and on the Supreme Court.

"On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.""

"

@ CK MacLeod:

Even Hitler had a rationale.

And that man came quite close to winning his bet, so it wasn't a completely preposterous one. Of course, on the other hand, the Japanese militarists perceived themselves as having to roll the dice against quite steep odds, assuming Yamamoto and others who knew the military capability of the U.S. were listened to at all.

Pretty dangerous to rely on the strategic calculations of a bunch of fellows whose education was pretty much confined to memorizing sacred texts, and whose grip on power depends on religious posturing, even if we assume they doen't really, really, really believe it's their duty to set the stage for the return of the Twelfth Imam no matter what the cost in this life.

"

@ Joe NS:

I wouldn't have laughed before and I certainly won't laugh now. I think it's a very dangerous thing for a country to have a minor nuclear capability.

Once heard an air force general on C-Span testifying before congress. A discussion about missile defense led to him being pressed very hard about our ability to stop a North Korean missile attack if we knew for a fact one was coming. He started to answer that yes we certainly did have options for stopping such an attack, and then he and the congresscritter pulled back from that line of questioning.

This, of course, is why the Russians don't fear an Iranian bomb; because their leaders are honest enough among themselves to state the obvious. The Russian leaders have no intention of letting some minor power take out Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kiev while they have control of thousands of at the ready missiles and they expect their potential opponents to understand that.

Similarly, Israel, with enough nuclear weapons to devastate every potential threatening target in Iran, will not allow Iran to take out Tel Aviv. It will attack on warning or perhaps even on achievement of capability if it believes the Iranian regime capable of launching a surprise attack. Iranians serving the regime or tolerating the regime can figure this out also.

"

@ Rex Caruthers:

Death of a thousand cuts;we know longer have the the ability either to win outright or cut our losses. It’s the Romans versus the “Barbarians” with a likely similiar result.

No one ever wins outright unless they completely eliminate the enemy, and even then another enemy will inevitably appear. The Romans held off the barbarians for five hundred years which wasn't too shabby if you were a Roman or a Romanized inhabitant of the empire during ninety percent of that time.

I'm not a big supporter of our Iraq and Afghanistan strategies; but we've carried out those wars at relatively trivial cost. Even in terms of military losses it wouldn't shock me to learn that an 18 year old male was safer serving in Iraq or Afghan than driving here in the U.S.