I want to thank you for the banner link to the dirt cheap ammo place. I bought some Remington Vipers for my soon-to-arrive Henry AR-7, and as a new gun owner, I had no idea that you could buy 50 bullets for $1.67. Whatta country!
Posted by: Palandine on March 5, 2003 09:57 AMJust bought a few hundred rounds for my new 1911 from Cheaper Than Dirt. Pretty good prices, and no hassles shipping to Illinois, either (most online vendors either won't or make you jump through hoops). Thanks for the link.
Posted by: Spoons on June 6, 2003 08:02
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
A Journal of Opinion: Home of the Libertarian Center Editor: William Quick See Terms of Use here. The birthplace of the
The opinions expressed by me herein are mine alone, and do not in any way reflect or represent those of any of my employers, past, current, or potential.
MeStuff Archives
The Bear Flag League
Blogs Hosted On Blogspot
Ace of Spades HQ Blogs Usually Available
Aaron's Rantblog
|
August 23, 2004
Nope. The follow-up to "Bring It On!" is "Make It Stop! Make It Stoooooooop!" Posted by BarCodeKing on August 23, 2004 08:21 AM | Read the rest... | Link to this comment "Make It Stop! Make It Stoooooooop!" ...or we'll SUE you! Posted by dangermouse on August 23, 2004 10:16 AM | Read the rest... | Link to this comment The followup to "Bring It On!" is apparently "Stop Questioning My Patriotism!" Posted by charles austin on August 23, 2004 11:52 AM | Read the rest... | Link to this comment Did you know the primary author is giving all his proceeds to a charity? I forget the exact name, but it is for the US Marine Corps that gives assistance to families who's Marine dies in the line of duty. Posted by Trace on August 23, 2004 12:03 PM | Read the rest... | Link to this comment Please post your off-topic and general interest items here. Comments are working now.
Buy This Book! Read This Book!
Unfit for Command : Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry
August 23, 2004
The History According to Daily Pundit If John Kerry intends to use his Vietnam background to attack Bush, I think it will backfire. Americans don't remember Vietnam as a victory for the US. And I doubt that constantly reminding voters of that loss is an effective way to run a winning campaign when we're in the middle of another war.The devil makes work for idle curiosities, which is why I did a quick search to locate my first mention of the Kerry prexy campaign. This dates from June 1, 2002. By August 9th of that year, my opinion was hardening somewhat: John Kerry has about as much chance of beating George Bush in 2004 as Justin Raimondo does. It's interesting to see that a great deal of Donk political speculation has shifted to 2004, though. Do you think it's because they don't see much worth talking about in 2002?By November of 2002 I was identifying major Kerry weaknesses: Two things: First, it sounds as if the black wing of the Donks is going to dump Big Honest Al and go with Kerry. Second, I think it's not too difficult to put Kerry into the liberal corner. He has a 95% "Liberal Qotient Rating" from the Americans for Democratic Action."Early in December, I posted this interesting quote: Regarding Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Crowley quoted an anonymous Republican operative who told her: "God is not good enough to give us another Massachusetts liberal to run against."Just before Christmas I detected a glimmer of hope for Kerry: UPDATE:In mid-April of 2003, I predicted something that has now become Kerry's worst nightmare: Kerry, a superannuated political warhorse, is just playing the game the way it's always been played: kiss your base's ass for the primaries, and then try to pretend you're a middle of the road moderate if you manage to grab the nomination.On the same day I said about Mr. Vietnam: Exactly. And you don't even need to remind us with every second breath that you fought in a war and later repudiated your efforts by flinging somebody else's medals over a fence, you sniveling weasel.Near the end of July of 2003, I tried my hand at a bit of prognostication, with mixed results: I think this is as wrong as predictons of a big Gore victory in 2000, or a Donk sweep of both houses in 2002.In January of 2004, I commented: Heck, David, I'd like to see Kerry stand up in front of his mates from Vietnam, after pitching (somebody else's) medals away, and tell them what a military-supporting patriot he is.You know, I'll bet by now the Donks wish that my one failed projection - Joe Lieberman for President - had been my one right prediction. Lord Knows They Couldn't Do It Telegraph | News | General 'spared Paris by disobeying Fuhrer' Parisians celebrating the 60th anniversary of their liberation from the Nazis have been urged to remember the role of a German general who, convinced that Hitler had become mad as well as evil, disobeyed orders to destroy the French capital.Figures. A damned Nazi saved the Frog's capital. By the way, the French Resistance was the most over-rated fighting force in history. With the possible exception of the over-thirty Mike Tyson. And he would have eaten them alive. There may have been a quite a few such unsoldierly orders from Hitler and his staff, and disobeying these was apparently not a thing lightly done. On Oct. 18th 1942, Hitler issued this: “From now on, all enemies on so-called commando missions in Europe or Africa… (even if) in uniform, whether armed or unarmed, in battle or in flight, are to be slaughtered to the last man… even if (they) should apparently be prepared to give themselves up… all (German) commanders and officers who either have neglected their duty of instructing the troops about this order or acted against this order are to be executed.” General Siegfried Westphal, being questioned about this order at Nuremberg in 1946: Q: Who was your chief? Q: Do you know the order issued by Hitler on October 18th 1942? Q: Did you receive this order? Q: How did Marshal Rommel behave on receipt of this order? Rommel Biographer Desmond Young notes, however, that “In fact, Rommel was very far from being the only German general who ignored this and similar orders.” Posted by Lastango on August 23, 2004 10:44 PM | Link to this comment Almost all of the "resistance" in France was Communist. It was said by all that WWII was just a "warm up" for the real one, the real one being the revolution after the war. I remember a great uncle who was in the 82nd Airborne saying in reply to someone referencing the poor "starving Frenchmen." "What starving Frenchmen?" He went on to explain that every French citizen he ever saw was fat as could be. Posted by Howard Veit on August 24, 2004 12:05 AM | Link to this comment Keep This In Mind, Okay? "We will not quickly join those who march on Veteran's Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands of lives who died for the 'greater glory of the United States. We will not accept the rhetoric.We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. We will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been able to provide. We will not uphold the traditions which decorously memorialize that which is base and grim." Just one more thing that this two faced hypocrite said while in bed with his commie buds. The msm doesn't care. All that we hear from that lot is stories filled with democrat talking points about POWs who are secret Bush campaign operatives. Meanwhile Mr. 5 deferments(Edwards) is spewing on the trail about the Pres. Not one msm story about Edwards' deferments but the msm was quick to quote ole "thunderbird" Harkin when he slimed the VEEP. Jesus this is crazy. Posted by Lou Hebert on August 23, 2004 09:29 PM | Link to this comment Kicking Their Ash Telegraph | Opinion | Kerry: strange, stuck-up... and stupid According to Francis Harris in Saturday's Telegraph, allegations that John Kerry "lied about his Vietnam record" are "unravelling". Oh, I wouldn't say that. Right now, it looks like the sanity of the Kerry campaign and its pals in the media that's beginning to unravel.Always good to start the week with Mark Steyn. Later on in this piece, he lights up the blowtorch and really goes to work. You don't want to miss that. Pusillanimous RINO Jerk IHT: Bush calls for halt to anti-Kerry ad WASHINGTON President George W. Bush weighed in Monday on a bitter controversy over television ads harshly critical of Senator John Kerry's military service, saying that a commercial by a Vietnam veterans group should be dropped, along with all other ads by such independent political groups.This is one of the reasons I find it easy to despise George W. Bush. He signed the First Amendment-trashing (no, I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court said) McCain/Feingold Mainstream Media Empowerment Act, and now he's calling for the silencing of political speech which, above all other kinds of speech, was valued by the Founders. And yes, I include moveon.org in that protected class right along with the Swifties. To hell with him. What a putz. Wrong, but politically smart since Kerry will have his legs cut out from under him without all the 527s. Maybe Bush will see the light in January. Posted by charles austin on August 23, 2004 08:03 PM | Link to this comment Wrong, but politically smart since Kerry will have his legs cut out from under him without all the 527s.Wrong? Charles, the 527s aren't going anywhere. And this is GWB condemning them, remember? The very same GWB who signed into law the legislation that created them. If it was Kerry, you'd be screaming flip-flop. But since it's Bush.... Posted by Bill Quick on August 23, 2004 08:19 PM | Link to this comment Now, if YGB were smart, he'd seize on this statement as a Bush Lie. Or at least, a Bush Dishonesty, since Bush's statement is not literally a falsehood -- in that it gives the impression that Bush disapproves of the SBVT ads and the MoveOn ads, while in fact he and Karl HAVE to be super pleased. The former because they have seriously wounded Kerry, the latter because they make the Left look deranged. Bush was very careful to say "I think they all ought TO stop" not that they "all ought TO BE stopped" -- implying that he'd accept a voluntary bilateral truce, which will never happen, but not actually calling for new 1st-Amendment-trashing legislation. Which doesn't get him off the hook for the original BCFR act, but I digress.) Not to say that Karl is "coordinating" with SBVT via his so-called "web of connections" -- but you can still be pleased that some hatchet group is doing your dirty work, but at a far enough remove that your hands, if not your heart, are, by law and in fact, completely clean. Posted by Chuck on August 23, 2004 09:54 PM | Link to this comment Lost in all this is the clever legal trap set by "Five Deferments Ed." If Bush called for the Swiftboat ads to stop and they did stop, it would be proof that they were controlled by Bush and hence a violation of the law, a felony under the McCain Feingold campaign reform. BTW after calling Chaney a coward for getting defements the Democrats suddenly shut up. Anyone wonder why? Posted by Dave the Rave on August 24, 2004 12:13 AM | Link to this comment Not Moving On, Thanks Kerry's thigh has shrapnel, records show The Kerry campaign removed a 20-page batch of documents yesterday from its website after The Boston Globe quoted a Navy officer who said the documents wrongly portrayed Kerry's service. Edward Peck had said he -- not Kerry -- was the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 at a time when the Kerry campaign website credited the senator with serving on the boat. The website had described Kerry's boat as being hit by rockets and said a crewmate was injured in an attack. But Peck said those events happened when he was the skipper. The campaign did not respond to a request to explain why the records were removed.This came out last April. Didn't make much of a splash, did it? Let's just see if we can't fix that. (Thanks, Jeff!) BRAC Those Barracks! Behind the troop movement: Robert Novak (archive) WASHINGTON -- The dirty little secret about the Bush administration's decision to move U.S. troops out of Europe and Korea is what part BRAC played in these plans. BRAC is the acronym for Base Realignment and Closure Commission. It is also a sound that professional politicians in Congress dread hearing.The reason BRAC was passed in the first place was that, left to the pols, no military base would ever close, because no Congressman could withstand the pressure from his own district or state to keep a base up and running. Congress knew this led to bad policy, and so tried to find a way around it by tying its own hands on the issue of base-closings with BRAC. If you got rid of BRAC tomorrow, you'd have to find a way to replace it, because the original reasons for it still exist, and we can't afford the sort of stasis the initial state of affairs demanded. Novak’s premise is incorrect. His main concern is that needed bases in Europe will be closed so that the troops can be transferred home to justify keeping unneeded domestic bases. He backs this by quoting an official: "Our heavy forces are in Europe today because it puts them closer to potential hot spots in the Middle East. Taking them home puts the hardest (air)lift problem farther from the objective." First, our heavy forces are in Europe today because that’s where they were at the end of the cold war and we haven’t moved them yet. Much more importantly, airlift capability does not determine how fast U.S. heavy forces can be positioned. Recall the example of 4ID. It was unable to deploy to Iraq until after Baghdad fell because its equipment was stalled offshore Turkey in ships, and couldn't transit to Iraq fast enough. It would have been pointless to fly 4ID personnel to the theatre without their gear. Their gear was in ships because the airlift capacity to transfer substantial heavy forces around the globe does not exist, and never will. A while back the military tried to solve this problem with the M551 Sheridan, a tank that can be airlifted because it weighs only about 1/4 of an Abrams. That’s what the rapid deployment force was equipped with when we sent them to Saudi after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Recognizing the uselessness of the M551’s armor and combination gun/missle launcher, the troops referred to themselves as a “speed bump” in the way of a possible Iraqi thrust south. Posted by Lastango on August 23, 2004 08:26 AM | Link to this comment --It was unable to deploy to Iraq until after Baghdad fell because its equipment was stalled offshore Turkey in ships,-- Compliments of our "ally" frogistan. --Taking them home puts the hardest (air)lift problem farther from the objective."-- It might be farther from the objective, but unless the environmental wackos and NIMBYS do the AF what they've done to the Navy, at least we'll be able to take off, which might not be an option in Germany since it wanted final approval.
Posted by Sandy P on August 23, 2004 08:37 AM | Link to this comment Yaaarrrggghhhh! Somebody (like Novak's researchers) should take a look at where strategic lift assets (long-range aircraft like C-5 Galaxies and C-17s, ships like the SL-7s) are based, and then make judgements about whether it's easier or harder to move troops from Europe or CONUS. Guess what: the US, AFAIK, does not base any strategic airlift assets in Europe. That means that the airlifters are going to have to fly from the US to Europe first, in order to lift forces to anywhere. Posted by Dean on August 23, 2004 08:54 AM | Link to this comment "...the airlift capacity to transfer substantial heavy forces around the globe does not exist, and never will..." Well, not that it substantially alters the essential flaws in Novak's premise, or really substantially alters the topic of BRAC, but that's not strictly true. Currently, there is the capability within the U.S. military to shift heavy forces globally by air, and, given a bit of lead time, in substantial numbers. The Boeing-built C-17 transport aircraft is able to transport the M1A1 Abrams and/or substantial amounts of other heavy gear to just about anywhere in the world that such goods are needed. we've got a lot of them available, and more are being delivered all the time. Our air inventory also includes a bunch of C-5As and C-130s, which, while smaller in capacity, can put a really startling amount of gear on-site in pretty short order. Sheridans are obsolete, and have been for a good long while - meanwhile, even better gear, both medium and heavy, is on the way, and all of it is intended to be airlift-capable. Novak's got it wrong to begin with: Even if Kerry were to be elected in November (a shrinking possibility, at this point), the current European bases would not remain as they are. They've already been extensively truncated from the late 80's/early 90's levels, and they're simply not needed all that much anymore - at least not in their current locations. Posted by JB on August 23, 2004 08:58 AM | Link to this comment JB: The only problem is, there's the ability to move some forces, which is not the same as moving meaningful forces. There are about 100 C-5s and 120 C-17s in the total US Air Force/Air National Guard inventory. There's 50+ M-1s in an armored battalion. Since each C-5 or C-17 can only carry one M-1, that means the entire inventory of strategic airlifters (assuming they're all available) can lift no more than 4 battalions of tanks. In reality, of course, it'd be far fewer, b/c you'd still have to lift the command vehicles, trucks, Bradleys, ammo, artillery, etc. of the battalions. The Stryker brigades are supposed to perform better than that---we'll see. (Color me skeptical that a wheeled, light armored vehicle can either do the cross-country thing, or the intense fighting, that an M-1 can do.) Posted by Dean on August 23, 2004 09:12 AM | Link to this comment we are currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars renovating horrible family housing in europe. moving troops out of europe and back to the states will save us millions of dollars in institutional (base upkeep) funds. Posted by Captain Scarlet on August 23, 2004 09:47 AM | Link to this comment O.k., Dean, not to get into too extensive discussion over either semantics or force-projection here: My only point was, a substantial amount/quantity of heavy gear/forces can, in fact, be globally air-deployed, given just a bit of lead time; i.e., a few days to a week or so. I consider the ability to place even one battalion of armor, along with some level of support, where and when you need it, by air, to be substantial. Will that level of delivery win a war (or even a major battle)? Probably not - but, it can give a very solid cutting edge to the "sharp end", by air, pretty much anywhere. Given a few more days' time, that cutting edge could become even more substantial. In addition - better yet is on the way. BTW: Regardless of the outcome in November, I think most of the "heavies" we had in Europe are going to be ME-based from now on, for some time to come. Consequently, we will not need (or want) most of the European installations - and will likely move the ones we keep to locations farther to the east, in some of our newer (and friendlier) NATO-alliance countries' neighborhoods. Posted by JB on August 23, 2004 11:17 AM | Link to this comment JB: Sorry, wasn't meaning to get into either. I guess, to my mind, a battalion (or even two) just isn't that substantial. Doesn't detract from the bigger point, which is Novak's off. I dunno about heavy being deployed to the ME, though. Where would they train? For all that Hohenfels and Grafenwehr are small, they're still better instrumented facilities than any I'm aware of in the ME. I actually think that what we had in Kuwait will be the model. POMCUS-like equipment sets in-country, with rotating personnel being flown up to man them. The bulk of the personnel, though, will be based in the US, training at NTC/JRTC. That, plus "lily-pads" in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and the ME. Just a thought... Posted by Dean on August 23, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this comment You Want Mickey Moron True Believers Making Decisions About Anything? August 23, 2004 -- THE vast majority of Americans believe that the United States can defend itself against a ballistic-missile attack.The vast majority ofAmerican voters are ignorant as a box of rocks. The Founders assumed the decisions of the Republic would be made by representatives elected or appointed by intelligent, knowledgable men. That given, it is probably a Good Thing that less than half the eligible population votes.
protein wisdom linked with You Decide 2004, cont.
Excerpt: Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh, speaking moments ago on "Hannity and Colmes": "George Bush betrayed his country by sending us to war on false pretenses, and George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam." Yes. Y...
protein wisdom linked with You Decide 2004, cont.
Excerpt: Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh, speaking moments ago on "Hannity and Colmes": "George Bush betrayed his country by sending us to war on false pretenses, and George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam." Yes. Y... "...it is probably a Good Thing that less than half the eligible population votes..." It is most definitely A Good Thing that we still elect the POTUS by the Electoral College system, rather than by "popular vote" - and the kind of generalized ignorance of the real world on the part of most of those citizens eligible to vote is the reason why. Posted by JB on August 23, 2004 07:49 AM | Link to this comment The longer I live, the more I admire our Founding Fathers. Absolutely visionary, all things considered. Posted by Sandy P on August 23, 2004 08:15 AM | Link to this comment Sandy: A huge reason why the Founding Fathers succeeded is because, unlike most other revolutions (French, Russian, Chinese), these were not utopianists. They looked at their fellow man, and saw highly flawed beings---hence the idea of "balance of powers." They did not try to create the perfect, only to create the good (as in "the perfect is the enemy of the good"). And they were, at heart, somewhat pessimistic. Notice Franklin's warning that they had created a Republic, "if you can keep it." It is this same set of qualities that has led the Left, be it the old Soviet Left or the New Left of the 60s, to consistently question whether the American Revolution was, in fact, a revolution, or merely exchanging one set of oligarchs for another. As though France, Russia, China, Cuba would not have done better w/ the likes of such oligarchs. Posted by Dean on August 23, 2004 09:18 AM | Link to this comment And if half or more do vote, Bush is history. Posted by earl on August 23, 2004 09:22 AM | Link to this comment "...And if half or more do vote, Bush is history..." Half or more of what, earl? Undecided voters? Die-hard Democrats? If you're talking about the total possible electorate - upon what do you base your apparent prognostication? Historically (from what I recollect), heavy turnouts in Presidential elections have tended to favor the incumbent. Your crystal ball must not be getting very good reception. Posted by JB on August 23, 2004 11:43 AM | Link to this comment The vast majority ofAmerican voters are ignorant as a box of rocks. That's funny, coming from a guy with a high school education such as yourself. It's also a good example of Left Coast anti-American elitism. Posted by harold on August 23, 2004 01:26 PM | Link to this comment Another guy that's a bit out of focus... The man said ignorant, harold, not uneducated, or unschooled or stupid...and, when it comes to background on candidates or issues, the electoral process and just about any other facet involved in being a voter, most people in this country (registered as well as unregistered) are, from all appearances, woefully ignorant. If you dispute that - explain, please: Why, four years ago, we had multiple demonstrations, on the part of people who supposedly should have known better, of abysmal ignorance when it came to the details of the process by which every President in the history of our Republic has been elected... Why, even now, there are those who insist (with, again, perfect ignorance of legal process) that Bush was "selected" by the Supreme Court, and not legally elected... Why people like John Kerry (who, among other things, has a nearly-20 year record of legislative ineffectiveness and sloth) can continue being re-elected by the supposedly "informed" voters in Massachusetts... Why, when asked to state the line of succession should the President become incapacitated while in office, many people do not know that the next person in line is the Vice-President, and many, many more cannot state who is next in line after that... And those are simply a few of the items that should be covered in any decent 8th-grade Civics lesson. "...It's also a good example of Left Coast anti-American elitism..." Thus, we have a clear demonstration of a) the fine art of unconscious irony, and b) your own unwitting and abysmal ignorance - Bill Quick may be a lot of other things, but he has yet to exhibit any characteristic anti-American elitism (although he does exhibit an inordinate fondness for the rather masochistic practice of maintaining residence in Californicatia). Posted by JB on August 23, 2004 03:09 PM | Link to this comment
Uh-oh. Now he's going to have to shoot an arrow right through your eye ... Harold. Posted by Tom Cohoe on August 23, 2004 03:18 PM | Link to this comment Now he's going to have to shoot an arrow right through your eye ... Harold.Nah. Harold's just a one-off jerkoff trying to aspire to the level of troll. He's probably visited my writer's website, where, in noting my listing in Who's Who In America (something Harold will never, in his wildest dreams, come close to achieving) I mentioned I was proud of getting that listing despite the fact that I did not have a college degree. I also have 30 some published books despite not having that degree. I also have one of the most successful blogs in the blogosphere, a section of cyberspace that I just happened to have named. Harold and his ilk like to drive by and snipe at their betters, (that would be me) in hopes that they might pick up a bit of glitter from this tenuous association with me. I feel sorry for him. His envy is palpable, his abilities pathetic, his accomplishments nonexistent. His only hope of even being noticed is to insult me - on my blog, because his lack of talent does not permit him to run a blog of his own. And he can't even manage a decent insult. Pitiful. Posted by Bill Quick on August 23, 2004 06:00 PM | Link to this comment Youch! And you worry about getting me angry... ;) Posted by Jeff G on August 23, 2004 06:21 PM | Link to this comment
William has conked Harold. Posted by Tom Cohoe on August 23, 2004 09:56 PM | Link to this comment Universities are repositories of knowledge. Freshman enter with a little, leave with none, and knowledge accumulates. And don't even get me started on graduate students. And I know whereof I speak: Posted by Chuck, ABD PhD on August 23, 2004 09:58 PM | Link to this comment But Weren't They? DEM ADS MISSING THE MARK, STUDY SAYS August 23, 2004 -- Democrat John Kerry's first TV ad defending himself against attacks from fellow Vietnam vets wasn't very effective, an independent nonpartisan advertising study has found.I was afraid of this. For a generation educated on Vietnam by the likes of Oliver Stone's Platoon or The Deer Hunter or Apocalypse Now, the notion that American soldiers in Vietnam were crazed, dope-addicted war criminals is commonly accepted as the truth. I was seriously wondering about this. But I'm not surprised at the result. This ad is targeted to a very particular type of voter: middle class, moderate left of center, blue collar working Democrats--Reagan Democrats, basically--who remember Vietnam or have relatives who were there who they love. For those people, this second ad is devastatingly, painfully difficult to watch (as it is for me, since I have several people who are Vietnam vets who I respect and admire in my life). The first ad was meant to draw the question of his entire war background into focus. This second ad, one aspect that matters little to most people, but a very great deal to some swing voters. It will be interesting to see who the third ad is targeted toward. Posted by Dean Esmay on August 23, 2004 03:44 AM | Link to this comment The funny thing is, I have always seen the war protestors as the crazed dope smoking, lazy hippies. Posted by Trace on August 23, 2004 05:50 AM | Link to this comment As for myself, I'd like to see more attention paid to the Bush ad laying out Kerry's attendance record on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Personally, I think that's far more devastating than anything the Swiftboat Vets could say... Posted by Tom on August 23, 2004 06:58 AM | Link to this comment Someone had a link to a Village Voice article that was very critical to Kerry's work on the POW-MIA comission in the early 1990's. It said Kerry basically whitewashed the report on POWs still in captivity so that relations with Vietnam could be normalized. I wonder if the swiftboat vets will use that as a followup to their second commercial. What a devistating trilogy that would make: 1. Lied about his service in Vietnam to get an early out after 4 months. Posted by nash on August 23, 2004 08:04 AM | Link to this comment It's hard to say from this POV who the sell-out ad was designed to target. After all, nobody has issued a memo on the subject, have they? Posted by Richard Aubrey on August 23, 2004 05:51 PM | Link to this comment Transparent Bullshit He's the billionaire primed to fight Bush This Dr. No of the presidential campaign strolled into his office conference room last week, 32 floors above Central Park, wearing a tentative smile and, under his blazer, a checked shirt unbuttoned at the collar. Courtly and reserved, he wasted little time making clear why he granted the interview.Yeah, yeah, we get it. Bush is Hitler, (and maybe Stalin, too - doesn't matter, he's a bad, evil, non-democratic man) and Soros is just a well-intentioned grampa. And the writer of this puff-bio is a Bush-hating moron. Hmmm...the author doesn't mention how some of Soros's "bets" singlehandedly destroyed the economies and currencies of several pacific rim countries. Wonder why? Posted by Chuck on August 23, 2004 06:48 AM | Link to this comment > Hmmm...the author doesn't mention how some of Soros's "bets" singlehandedly destroyed the economies and currencies of several pacific rim countries. That's unfair. Those economies were already dead from IMF- and self-inflicted wounds. Soros merely figured out how to make a buck from the corpse. That being said, Soros is wrong politically. One problem with the fall of the USSR is that we can't give such folks what they want. Posted by Andy Freeman on August 23, 2004 08:54 AM | Link to this comment One of the other consequences of Soros's little gamble. were the areas affected; Indonesia, Posted by narciso on August 23, 2004 09:44 AM | Link to this comment Don't ignore Peter B. Lewis: Peter B. Lewis, chairman of the board of the Progressive Corp., an insurance company located in Mayfield Village, Ohio, was the largest new donor. In fact, in the last ten months, Lewis became the largest disclosed donor in 527 history. Lewis has given more than $14.1 million to largely pro-Democrat organizations, including Joint Victory Campaign 2004 ($7.75 million); America Coming Together ($2.99 million); and MoveOn.org Voter Fund ($2.50 million). Posted by Lynxx Pherrett on August 23, 2004 10:36 AM | Link to this comment The thing that always bothers me about George Soros' donations as well as any other of similiar scale: This size can only be explained as either ideological driven or as "investment." Most of the time, the Contributor does not seem passionate enough for me to feel comfortable believing in the ideological motivation, so I end up looking at "investment" and I don't think that I want to see what the "return" is supposed to be. Posted by Oddity on August 23, 2004 06:22 PM | Link to this comment Howling Hill To NYC HILL TO HEAD KERRY 'TRUTH SQUAD' August 23, 2004 -- JOHN KERRY'S presi dential campaign, which slighted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic convention last month, now wants the former first lady to lead its "truth squad" at next week's GOP convention, The Post has learned.Not so long ago, the tradition was that you let the other guy have his convention in peace. Now we've got the Democratic party through its coordination with its 527s sending hundreds of thousands of howling protesters to NYC to physically attack the Republican delegates, as well as sending howling politicians to attack them on the airwaves and in the rest of the media. The Donks are nothing if not consistent: tell any lie, betray any value, destroy any tradition, sacrifice any friend, kowtow to any enemy - all in the service of the only thing in which they believe: Their own power lust. How diabolical it was of Kerry and the Dems to send 100,000-200,000 protestors to London, a half million to Rome, 10,000 to Berlin, about one million to Washington DC, and a few million... well... everywhere. Those are some shifty 527s, Bill. As for your so-called "tradition," maybe you should have let the GOP in on your little secret. If you're going to be a hypocrite, couldn't you at least make it a bit more subtle? Oh... good morning, by the way. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 23, 2004 05:55 AM | Link to this comment "Estimated", "Thought to have been", "No official count", "Organizers say" When you put the qualifiers that appear in the articles back in the whole 'millions' idea blows away like so much leftist hot air....which it pretty much is. A lot like your comment. What do 'millions' protesting in other countries have to do with helping to organise mass protests at political conventions? This is an apples to oranges comparision, much like your swipe at the Chambliss press conference. Republicans, party or otherwise, did not, in point of fact, organise mass protests to adorn the the Democrats 'Freedom Cage' in Boston. Democrats cannot say the same thing. After all, you posted the numbers, right, YGB? Democrats love to protest, right? They love it so much that 'millions' spontaneously head out to protest , right? Without any organization or leadership. Sure. Posted by jack on August 23, 2004 07:13 AM | Link to this comment Hmmm. Millions protested the deployment of Pershing IIs and cruise missiles. Millions protested in favor of the nuclear freeze. Thousands protested when Reagan called on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." Millions protested the first Gulf War. BUT Virtually no one protested Soviet deployment of SS-20s Few protested the ongoing Soviet nuclear development program (with the exception of a few like Sakharov, who was denounced by some Western academics as a Western "puppet"). Few protested, at Reagan's time, the ongoing existence of the Berlin Wall. Few protested the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. (Although some DID argue that sanctions were the answer. What did "Voices in the Wilderness" say, then?)
Posted by Dean on August 23, 2004 07:38 AM | Link to this comment When are the millions going to be forced to face the fact that the system they supported was as evil as the Nazis? When are the apologists and activists for the Commies going to feel shame? When will A.N.S.W.E.R. receive the same welcome as the KKK? We will never settle our problems with Islam until we have settled this matter. Posted by Tom Cohoe on August 23, 2004 08:02 AM | Link to this comment Oh, please, Y, while some of those marchers were good, decent people, just where do you think the commies, totalitarians, marxists, fascists, general America-haters and anarchists went after The Wall fell? Do you think they admitted defeat after their ideologies were found to be bankrupt and they accepted it? Europe is moving towards heavy socialism or possibly even commie-lite status, unless the former Eastern-bloc countries can stop their madness. They were looking for an excuse. ANSWER (one of the prime organizers) is a sub of IAC which is a sub of the WWP - World Workers Party. Why don't you tell us why and when they split off from the World Socialist Party? And what they think about NorK. Posted by Sandy P on August 23, 2004 08:53 AM | Link to this comment "The ? are nothing if not consistent: tell any lie, betray any value, destroy any tradition, sacrifice any friend, kowtow to any enemy - all in the service of the only thing in which they believe: Their own power lust." What part of this does not apply to that other political party? Posted by earl on August 23, 2004 09:58 AM | Link to this comment I find it hard to believe that Hillary is going to help the virtual JFK do ANYTHING to get elected this year. Bogus truth squad, spinnable Republican-bashing and party solidarity aside, if Lurch does manage to get elected (I hate to even type those words), he's going to f#@% things up so bad that she'll never get to the White House in 2008. She's gotta know that. I wonder how secretly pissed off she is that she might be caught between the very public proverbial rock and a hard place? Posted by Amy on August 23, 2004 10:33 AM | Link to this comment "This is one reason why, whenever anyone notes that "millions protested," I pretty much conclude that they're on the wrong side. I mean, really, during the Cold War, when did the protestors march in support of what turned out to be the right side?" Absolutely awesome point. Where were the protestors against Saddam's prisons?
Posted by Trace on August 23, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this comment "This is one reason why, whenever anyone notes that "millions protested," I pretty much conclude that they're on the wrong side. I mean, really, during the Cold War, when did the protestors march in support of what turned out to be the right side?" Absolutely awesome point. Where were the protestors against Saddam's prisons?
Posted by Trace on August 23, 2004 12:21 PM | Link to this comment Those durned eliteist scums... with their grammar and spelling and the like. I hate them so much... Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 23, 2004 02:49 PM | Link to this comment YGB - Apparently, you missed this return comment by dangermouse, over on another thread. I thought I'd copy it over here, as it appears to apply even better here than on the original location: "...What I expect is a cogent, well-reasoned and well-written argument (you're still pretty well-written IMHO, by the way), as well as to say "Point taken" when an argument does not favor your chosen candidate. This does not preclude the use of humor, even sarcasm, when appropriate. And it sure doesn't preclude silence when that's appropriate, too. This is because I still remember how you used to post around here. One could argue that I'm being irrational to still expect that..." (emphasis added) Posted by JB on August 23, 2004 03:24 PM | Link to this comment "Now we've got the Democratic party through its coordination with its 527s sending hundreds of thousands of howling protesters to NYC to physically attack the Republican delegates, as well as sending howling politicians to attack them on the airwaves and in the rest of the media." Which 527's are bringing protesters? Posted by actus on August 23, 2004 06:18 PM | Link to this comment who are the 527's and what is the GOP? Posted by The brain on August 23, 2004 07:55 PM | Link to this comment Aren't We About Due For A Cease Fire? It's Been Almost 24 Hours.... Fighting Erupts Round Rebel-Held Najaf Shrine NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Fierce fighting broke out around a shrine in the holy Iraqi city of Najaf Monday, and pieces of shrapnel landed in the courtyard of the mosque held by followers of a radical Shi'ite cleric, Reuters witnesses said.Lastango was right. For what it's worth the Fox News ticker said 250 yards this afternoon. Posted by Daniel on August 23, 2004 04:16 PM | Link to this comment
August 22, 2004
Maybe Not So Funny To Kerry, Though TThe double standard: Kerry has it both ways, as usual JOHN KERRY has vigorously and relentlessly attacked President Bush as a President and a person throughout the campaign, and all the while he has spaced out his attacks with periodic complaints about negative campaigning. Had President Bush done that, the national media would have pointed out the contradiction immediately. Kerry knows he can get away with such hypocrisy.Funny how more and more folks are noticing this, isn't it? He starts the fight (Bush AWOL!), begs for more (Bring. It. On.) gets what he asked for (Swift vets) and immediately starts whimpering to George to make the nasty war heroes stop picking on him. And people think this whining little hypocrite should defend the free world? (No, the Islamic world is not free, not in any sense of the word). Goodness! The Manchester Union-Ledger has sided with GOP spinners! Stop the presses, man... this is the scoop of the century! Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 23, 2004 05:57 AM | Link to this comment Goodness! TheThat all you got, YGB? Attack the messenger, not the message? Well, at least you're true to your treacherous liberal standards. Oh, good morning, by the way. Posted by Bill Quick on August 23, 2004 06:27 AM | Link to this comment YGB, Is that supposed to be some type of argument against the post? If so, it doesn't say much. TV (Harry) Posted by Inspector Callahan on August 23, 2004 06:27 AM | Link to this comment
It's the best one available, and I must say he's game to play with nothing better than that weak gambit. Posted by Tom Cohoe on August 23, 2004 08:10 AM | Link to this comment Look... I know you all expect War and Peace form me with every post, but sometimes a smart-ass response is all that is necessary or appropriate. Bill wrote: "Funny how more and more folks are noticing this, isn't it?" as though there was the slimmest chance that the MUL would have any different view on this. Guess what? Free Republic has discovered Kerry's horrifying, communist past, too. They're carefully reviewed the facts, and they've decided to support Bush on this one. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 23, 2004 09:04 AM | Link to this comment Look... I know you all expect War and Peace form me with every post No. What I expect is a cogent, well-reasoned and well-written argument (you're still pretty well-written IMHO, by the way), as well as to say "Point taken" when an argument does not favor your chosen candidate. This does not preclude the use of humor, even sarcasm, when appropriate. And it sure doesn't preclude silence when that's appropriate, too. This is because I still remember how you used to post around here. One could argue that I'm being irrational to still expect that. Posted by dangermouse on August 23, 2004 11:02 AM | Link to this comment Dept. of Unintended Consequences, Irony Division Preciese Truth has taken apart the Bill Rood recollection of the day John Kerry won his Silver Star. The result? Far from confirming Kerry's account, it appears to paint him in a worse light!
The msm doesn't have a foot left to shoot off.... Posted by Lou Hebert on August 22, 2004 10:04 PM | Link to this comment Second Hand Bloggery Misha's found a good one. Paean To The French The Emperor has become a patron of poetry. But In A Nice Way I don't ever want Jeff Goldstein mad at me. They Love Him, They Really Do Kerry's picked up some more support from a rather odd place. (Thanks, Allah!) Not 50-50 - Not Since 9/11 I know that what I am going to say is what a lot of "regular" Americans think but cannot say because they do not want to sound belligerent or because they want to be politically correct.This gent is threatening to take the law into his own hands and assault anybody he identifies as a Muslim enemy here in this country, if the Islamofascists manage another successful attack here. We cannot permit that. But this guy's level of rage is very real, and I suspect a lot more common than those of us in the news and punditry biz would like to admit. I'd love to see one of those big public polls like Gallup break down that all-too-common question, "Do you approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the War on Terror (or War In Iraq)? with some followups like: "If yes, is is because he is A. Using too much force? B. The right amount of force? C. Not enough force? If no, is it because he is A. Using too much force? B. The right amount of force? C. Not enough force? I think the media might find the answers instructive, although I'd be willing to bet a fairly large amount that Bush's own internal polling operation asks precisely those questions. I think there is a lot of anger building in this country over the war on terror and the way it is being handled, and it isn't because Bush is too unilateral, or too hard on the enemy. I think it is exactly the opposite. And that is yet another reason why I expect Bush to crush Kerry in November, to the vast surprise (again) of the media that has managed to delude itself that this is still a fifty-fifty country. 25 years ago when I was a teenager, we had an appeaser in office when the Black Turbans stormed our embassy in Iran. Now those same vermin are months away from getting the bomb and I don't think putting another appeaser who is a communist sympathizer and possible traitor in the big chair is the smart thing to do. I refuse to let him do to these soldiers what he did to his band of brothers, the Vietnam soldiers. Posted by Sandy P on August 22, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this comment Luis C. Moreno Not exactly an anglo-saxon name. Posted by Sandy P on August 22, 2004 04:55 PM | Link to this comment I think there is a lot of anger building in this country over the war on terror and the way it is being handled, and it isn't because Bush is too unilateral, or too hard on the enemy. I think it is exactly the opposite. And that is yet another reason why I expect Bush to crush Kerry in November... Only if W starts giving those people a reason to believe his just-one-more-truce last-chance I-really-mean-it-this-time leopard is going to change its spots. Otherwise, they might just decide to sit this on out. Posted by Chuck on August 23, 2004 03:07 PM | Link to this comment I Don't Care About The Moderates, Either Political shoals of the swift-boat wars | csmonitor.com Another Kerry defender stepped forward over the weekend after 35 years of silence over a different incident, one that took place on Feb. 28, 1969. William Rood, the only other surviving swift boat commander to witness the incident, wrote a piece backing Kerry's version of events in the Chicago Tribune, where he works as an editor. The incident, for which Kerry won a Silver Star, involved Kerry chasing down a Vietcong gunner and killing him.Interesting the way the Monitor reports this. Rood's tale is not the lede, nor is his "rebuttal" inflated. In fact, the Monitor's summary of Rood's story, that the main difference is whether some VC was wearing a loincloth or "VC garb", makes it clear just how meaningless Rood's "help" for Kerry turned out to be. I think Kerry is cooked. Even the foaming Bush-haters at the NYT are being forced to at least try to appear even-handed. As for the moderates who claim not to care about the issues of character and honesty swirling around the Vietnam controversies, to hell with them. I'm tired of hearing them whine about their desire for a debate about foreign policy, health insurance, and all the rest. Bush has a record on all these issues, and so does Kerry - although Kerry's is very difficult to puzzle out. Kerry doesn't want to discussthese things. That's his choice - and the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil moderates' problem. It wasn't GWB who changed the subject to Vietnam. And the moderates who try to blame Bush in equal part for Kerry's decision as to how he wants to wage his campaign reveal themselves not as moderates, but as simply another sort of partisan - and worse, partisans afraid to admit that is exactly what they are. "As for the moderates who claim not to care about the issues of character and honesty swirling around the Vietnam controversies, to hell with them. I'm tired of hearing them whine about their desire for a debate about foreign policy, health insurance, and all the rest. Bush has a record on all these issues, and so does Kerry - although Kerry's is very difficult to puzzle out. Kerry doesn't want to discussthese things. That's his choice - and the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil moderates' problem. It wasn't GWB who changed the subject to Vietnam. And the moderates who try to blame Bush in equal part for Kerry's decision as to how he wants to wage his campaign reveal themselves not as moderates, but as simply another sort of partisan - and worse, partisans afraid to admit that is exactly what they are." Well said. For some people, this whole equal-distribution-of-blame trope has become a rhetorical crutch. And far from revealing its most frequent purveyors as moral / ethical paragons, it reveals them to be (in most cases) sanctimonious narcissists hoping to buy a modicum of cheap grace by showcasing their carefully cultivated faux-equanimity. But here's the thing: Character matters. And what John Kerry did in Vietnam matters -- especially if it doesn't jibe with what he's long said he did in Vietnam. I'll "move on" regarding Kerry's Vietnam exploits after this pampered dandy is hooked off the public stage. Posted by Jeff G on August 23, 2004 07:40 PM | Link to this comment |
|||||||||||||||||
The follow-up to "Bring It On" is "Keep It Coming", right?
Posted by JB on August 23, 2004 07:30 AM | Read the rest... | Link to this comment