Comments Posted By ed
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 205 Comments
"UNDOCUMENTED" AND OUT OF LUCK
According to the article, attorney James Cueva DIDN'T do his duty as a citizen and turn in an illegal alien, but rather THREATENED to do so IF the lawsuit was filed. I don't see much a hero in Mr. Cueva or the SBS. If he were not an attorney, his actions would look a lot like blackmail. He should have immediately turned over the information regarding the illegal to the INS, not use it as a legal manuever.
That said, I wish the punishment for filing frivolous lawsuits included a death penalty option for those filing them and attorneys who facilitate them. On illegals overall, we need to decide if we want cheap yardwork, or borders with integrity. Efforts to have it both ways leads to this kind of foolishness and invalidates the War on Terror.
Comment Posted By ed On 25.01.2007 @ 14:40
DEMOCRATS SAY THE DARNDEST THINGS (PART 5,197)
"Now if I were to posit a logical fallacy, I could say that since 49% of Democrats want the military to fail, then it follows that they wish large numbers of American soldiers to die to make their wish come true. But I would never accuse Democrats of any such thing, would I?"
Aaarrgghhh! This is exactly the cheap shot mentality that keeps me from being a conservative. Rick, you are far too intelligent to stoop to using these types of snotty, condescending rhetorical devices. You are quick to point out the smugness and meanspiritedness of the far Left, so why emulate them? Your points are made in a very strong manner without this type of childish language.
Child teasing another: "Your are a fat stupid idiot!"
Same child after getting caught teasing: "I was just kidding!"This is exactly parallel to your literary device quoted above. You're better than that.
Comment Posted By ed On 19.01.2007 @ 13:22
Rick, I agree with you that Senator Obama is untested and to some degree, a blank slate. You wrote he is seen as, "the shining knight saving us all from our partisan follies and rancorous politics." While true for some, you are missing a more important point. The charismatic Senator is seen as a fresh alternative to the morally bankrupt Bush presidency. Someone not caught up in the President's misbegotten adventure into Iraq.
Much like the post-Jimmy Carter era, America is looking for a fresh, energetic leader with much charm and charisma and who doesn't look like the typical Washington weasel. This was much of the appeal of President Ronald Reagan (don't blow a gasket, Reagan's conservatism was also important to his victory at that point in time, and Obama is no Reagan). John Kennedy had the same qualities to offer as the country transitioned from a WW II mindset.
While you may not see Sen. Obama as standing for much in a tradional political sense, be careful in underestimating the public's desire for moving away from the trainwreck of the Bush administration and associated politicians.
Comment Posted By ed On 18.01.2007 @ 10:41
WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND
Rick, I'll join you in feeling satisfaction for this raid, as I also remember the 1979 hostage taking at the U.S. Embassy. Hopefully, we may also gain some intelligence on Iran's logistics in supplying those Iraqis bent on killing us. A Somali-type raid on Iranian supply lines into Iraq would also not hurt my feelings even a little.
Comment Posted By ed On 11.01.2007 @ 13:01
DOING SOMETHING RIGHT: THE SOMALI RAID
I have commented here several times in opposition to the war in Iraq. The Somali raid appears to have been well planned and well executed. More importantly, it was directed against our enemy, al Qaeda, and should be supported by all. My hope is President Bush will narrow the focus in Iraq to deal with our enemies and not continue wandering unplanned into Iraq's civil disturbance (war?) between the Shia and the Sunni. Iraq is partitioning itself into three areas (Sunni, Shia and Kurd) through migration and resettlement. The United States needs to forget about a unified Iraq and work to make the natural partitioning as pro-Western and democratic as is possible.
This moderate wants to kill American enemies, al Qaeda (and related extremist groups). What we can no longer afford to do is to referee Iraq's warring factions. I am counting on our President to use all of the advice he has been given to lay out a workable approach to Iraq and international terrorism. The Somali raids show a right way to attack real enemies.
Comment Posted By ed On 9.01.2007 @ 14:39
Well, when the righty bloggers have no interest in the truth unless it's "the truth" (similar to Karl's "the math"), then yes, I do enjoy when they are humiliated by the facts interfering with their fantasies.
Comment Posted By Ed On 5.01.2007 @ 15:46
The major news from Iraq is and has been for a long time:
1. The Iraqi government cannot control the insurgents, militias, or criminal gangs.
2. American troop efforts also cannot control the insurgents, militias, or criminal gangs.
3. Many Iraqis and Americans are dying in these failed attempts and because there is no control.What other news are we missing, exactly? Perhaps you think our "rebuilding efforts" are more important news that the three points above that is what is usually referred to as the missing news from Iraq)?
The right's appeals to supporting the troops in harm's way is as empty as a hollow log. We can't fix Iraq. A simple question. If you were standing in the middle of a hailstorm, with hail the size of softballs, would you:
A. Decide that a bigger straw hat would be the answer?
B. Keep standing there because hail can be replaced by rainbows if you wish hard enough?
C. Get the hell out of the storm and go inside?Better call me a lefty, because only C makes any sense at all.
Comment Posted By ed On 5.01.2007 @ 15:11
You really didn't read the 'Jamilgate' blogs if you interpreted the attacks on the AP as anything other than just another attempt to intimidate the liberal MSM because they were reporting things that partisans didn't want to hear. It wasn't that there were inaccuracies, it was that inaccuracies could be used to discredit the AP's overall coverage of the war. And yes, that is meant to insinuate that things would be different if people knew the "real" story.
"It would seem to me to be the height of irresponsibility as a citizen not to question the sensationalism..., and the almost total lack of context that accompanies every story..." is exactly the same complaint that many of us had on the runup to the war. I heard no complaints from the right blogosphere when sensational claims of WMD were made out of context. Yes, Saddam had an active nuclear program but it was BACK BEFORE 1991. Which was exactly what Baradi and the IAEA were saying.
Hence, I don't think you can claim with a straight face that this was about accuracy in reporting. This was an attempt to influence the coverage to a particular point of view that blew up in the right's face.
So yes, a little crow-eating might be in order.
Comment Posted By Ed On 5.01.2007 @ 15:04
RELIGION AND POLITICS: INTOLERANCE IS GROWING
I appreciate the article, but I got lost regarding Mr. Cenk Uygur's comments. You saw no difference in Sir Isaac Newton's declaration that the Bible was divinely inspired and those that believe Jesus Christ will return IN 2007!! Despite Mr. Uygur's sniping ugliness in attacking Christians overall, believing you know the return date of Christ is both anti-Biblical and silly. If you cannot see the difference between a general statement of belief and a stated knowledge of what diety will actually do this year, then some remedial logic is in order.
And for a lot of the people mentioned, religion and politics do not intersect, they intertwine. Lots of people on the left and the right are evangelical zealots about their political beliefs, forgetting that politics is the art of the possible, not a Crusade.
Comment Posted By ed On 2.01.2007 @ 12:23
THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY...AND GEORGE
Thank for calling out President Bush, as you did Harry Reid. I agree that the offices they hold require their presence at the Ford funeral activities.
Your analysis of the national organism is an interesting one, and points to one of the major sticking points between conservatives and liberals. The notion that tradition is vital to maintaining the county's (or any other organization) identity and continuity is a core conservative idea. It plays itself out in such areas as strict constructionist approaches to the Constitution, support for flag burning penalties, opposition to expanding marriage rights to gays, and a myriad of other efforts to protect the status quo.
Liberals tend to see the living organism of our nation as one that needs to change over time in response to changing politics, economics, ideas of morality and their self-defined notions of fairness. Liberals tend to pay less attention to tradition than do conservatives because they are focused on change.
Interestingly enough, systems theory teaches us that both ideas must be in place to insure the future success of any social organization, from the family to the nation. We must maintain enough continuity and tradition to keep our basic identity as an organization. Too much change will cause the organization to lose its identity and even purpose.
At the same time, failure to change in response to the times, conditions, etc. will also destroy an organization. Change must happen or the organization becomes irrelevant and unnecessary for current conditions, a certain death knell. So a balance of change and stability are needed to keep the United States moving forward. Liberals represent the change necessities of the country and conservatives represent the stability needs of the country (yes, these are generalities, exceptions can be found on either side). Yes, incredibly stupid, venal people exist on both sides of the equation, but they do not negate the effective, dedicated people that make up the majority of liberals and conservatives. Perhaps it is time to recognize that both conservatives and liberals are necessary for our nation to succeed and to stop dehumanizing each other. Argue, yes. Demonize, no. Each represents forces necessary to the existence of our nation.
Comment Posted By ed On 29.12.2006 @ 13:24
