Comments Posted By lionheart
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 216 Comments
MICHAEL JACKSON, WORLD FAMOUS PEDOPHILE, DEAD AT 50
Rick...
Bette Midler? I don't know about that one. I do like her song "The Rose", but I'm not sure I agree that she belongs on your pro forma list (comment 14).
Her stage show is incredible. Makes Jackson look like he's asleep.
ed.
Comment Posted By lionheart On 26.06.2009 @ 15:07
Nice work, Rick.
I know that at least one commenter has disagreed with you on Elvis, and I do too. I'll read his comment, and your response after I write my own exception.
I strongly disagree with you that Elvis was a man of limited ability. I would posit that he was a man of great natural ability, and that hurt him greatly... everything came too easy to him. His voice was powerful and resonant, his guitar skills were adequate (he could have been much better if he had applied himself), he wrote several very good songs (not the majority, but he was creative) and his natural showmanship was (is) apparent.
These two should not be mentioned in the same article, other than a reference to the sham marriage between Jackson and Lisa Marie.
Just one man's thoughts (and yes, I am from Mississippi, so I might not be completely objective)
Comment Posted By lionheart On 26.06.2009 @ 10:04
PUT NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN ON HOLD
I am with you, Rick, that bombing Iran is the last resort we should take. I am even with you that Obama may have a reasonable plan in restraining the rhetoric. Good post, very logical.
In past decades, CIA could support the opposition with money, weapons, political influence (bribes), etc. But now, everybody with a cell phone can record video evidence of all that, and post it on YouTube in minutes. Those days are over, at least to the degree of the empowerment of the Shah, or the Contra's of Nic.
As you rightly say, Iran must feel the consequence of their human and civil rights abuse. But quite honestly, for the first time, I feel Obama's pain: there does not seem to be a good solution... I am a man of strong convictions, but I am also man enough to admit that I have no idea what to do here. I do not want to live under the threat of a nuclear Iran, run by a madman. On the other hand, I don't want my 22 year old son manning checkpoints in Tehran.
Comment Posted By lionheart On 24.06.2009 @ 19:55
HEALTH CARE DEBATE IN CONGRESS: WHERE IS OBAMA?
jharp:
Save his thunder for crunch timeWhat real leader does that? Can you imagine an athlete not producing his best effort, so he can be the hero at "crunch time"? Or a General not really trying to win a battle, so he can do better later? Furthermore, it doesn't make sense, because his credibility is being eroded (see the recent Rasmussen poll on strongly approve versus strongly disapprove).
Comment Posted By lionheart On 24.06.2009 @ 10:07
busboy33: 53% to 47% is hardly an "overwhelming majority". And I have a feeling that a significant percentage of that 6% that gave him the win are rethinking the wisdom of their vote.
Hope doesn't pay the bills, and change isn't necessarily good (going from bad to worse is change too). Leadership doesn't manifest itself by holding up their finger in the wind to see which way the prevailing winds are blowing, and I get the feeling that Obama does a lot of that.
Of course, I could be wrong, and I hope I am.
Comment Posted By lionheart On 24.06.2009 @ 07:14
Obama is the youngest president in the history of our nation. His lack of life experiences alone would cause problems with governing. Couple that with the fact that he has never run a department, a company, and certainly not a government spells weak, ineffective leadership. Governments don't run themselves, and he seems to be clueless. He is out of his league, and has surrounded himself with incapable cronys.
I wouldn't count on too many successes. Expect a lot of continued blaming of the previous administration, flowery speeches, scandals, and weakness.
Believe it or not, I hope I'm wrong, but I would bet against my prediction.
Comment Posted By lionheart On 23.06.2009 @ 08:28
I agree that embracement of the demonstrators will have a nullifying effect. But I don't think that Krauthammer addressed that point because he concedes it- it's possible that C.K. believes that 1) the U.S. must, for moral purposes, make a statement of support and 2) believes that Obama is being seen as weak, inexperienced and indecisive (as you do, from the text of your post). You can make a stand on principle, even though you don't believe you will necessarily profit.
I've always thought that CK does a good job of proffering thoughtful critiques without gross partisanship (he's no Glenn Beck). I have never seen him quote Obama out of context, or avoid a fight. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on his ommission of addressing the opposite side of the argument.
Comment Posted By lionheart On 19.06.2009 @ 13:04
THE CHICAGO WAY TO DEAL WITH NOSY IG'S
Postagoras,
You have proven, by the simple fact that you believe it to be worth investigating, that you are not an Obamabot. You are not a hypocrite, and I applaude you. Sadly, on your side of the political spectrum, you are the exception (and I readily acknowledge that there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides).But I can't remember many incidents during the Bush administration where Bush did something that was excused by righties, but would have incurred their wrath if it had been a Democrat (Bush firing the AG's would be a poor example- Republicans that attacked Clinton for doing it also attached Bush, as well as the converse). Republicans lead the charge in condemnation of sexual misconduct, whether the offender is dem or repub. Ethical violations such as the Abramoff scandal highly offended the republican constituancy, regardless of the fact that most of the offending interests were members of the Bush administration.
I am not surprised by Obama's actions here... as my father told me many years ago, "if you plant beans, you get beans". My surprise is that the media, even as sympathetic as they are to Obama, are not outraged over this.
Comment Posted By lionheart On 18.06.2009 @ 12:04
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT ATTITUDE
Michael Reynolds,
I find it very disappointing to see that have devolved to name-calling and invective. At least your former critiques had some basic (perhaps twisted) logic behind them. And there is classic liberal irony in your message: from accusing conservatives of being stupid (as if that were limited to a single party) to being angry (KOS is not a hate-site?), to not posting new ideas (what's wrong with the old ones?)... to that I say "tu quoque" (yes, I know I have used that phrase recently, but you present the opportunity to use it so often, I just can't resist).You and your compatriots remind me of pre-teen kids that win a sports tournament, then stick their tongues out and sing-song teases at their vanquished opponents. The immaturity is astonishing. And those kids forget that there's another season next year.
I would never try to speak for Rick, but as an outside observer, I would suggest that you worry more about your party, and what it is doing to you instead of worrying so much about Rick. And I'm surprised he hasn't torn you a new asshole for suggesting to him what to write on his own blog.
As far as rage goes, it is rarely impotent for long. Rage is the foundation of grassroots movements, and it is both justified and sinless here. And by the way, the grassroots movement has already started... Obama's numbers are falling. Only in-the-tank media have kept his numbers so high for so long. Over time, your sing-song teases will become less and less frequent in direct relation to Obama's approval ratings.
We're not dead yet, and Rick's encouragement today reminds me of Churchill's famous Harrow School speech
Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.Or to their high approval numbers.
Comment Posted By lionheart On 17.06.2009 @ 13:39
'THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING HERE'
Chuck,
Try to imagine Fox News broadcasting from the White House "Blue Room" during the Bush presidency, where he is making the case for war- prime time, hosted by Brit Hume, presented as news, no opposite viewpoints presented, and free air time. You would be outraged, and rightfully so.
The fact that you attempt to defend the Obama/ABC News marriage is nothing less than astounding, and much more than hypocritical.
Comment Posted By lionheart On 16.06.2009 @ 10:41
