tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post6396841657352784890..comments2024-03-28T06:57:10.261-05:00Comments on Althouse: There's something I like about Newt Gingrich.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger198125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49183383262150766452011-12-13T13:44:12.622-06:002011-12-13T13:44:12.622-06:00gcg is the recognized leader in legal administrati...gcg is the recognized leader in legal administration services for class action settlement,bankruptcy cases and legal noticing programs.<a href="http://www.gcginc.com/" rel="nofollow">class action</a>Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09012927080611454057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-25808691647196217092011-11-18T16:34:42.879-06:002011-11-18T16:34:42.879-06:00"Ritmo - so tell me what makes Obama qualifie..."Ritmo - so tell me what makes Obama qualified to run the USA?<br /><br />A willingness to do things differently after Republican mismanagement drove the country into the worst recession since they did last time, nearly eighty years to the day before. And winning 55% of the vote based on it."<br /><br />So Bush was a great president then. I would like to point out that, first of all, Obama's policies aren't that different. Bailouts, deficit spending/stimulus, interest rate cuts, supporting amnesty for illegals, not enforcing immigration laws(even though not as openly as this current admin) etc are the same policies Bush had. Besides tax rates, can I know what exactly does Obama do differently? The only difference is in the details.<br /><br />Besides your glaring misunderstanding of economics, it is also funny that Bush also won elections. So by your logic, Bush was a great president because he had for the most part the same policies as Obama and because he won the elections.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60105466239732674872011-11-16T17:06:07.546-06:002011-11-16T17:06:07.546-06:00>>> We all know people who are not the MO...>>> <i>We all know people who are not the MOST intelligent or well informed, but who rarely make such mistakes.</i><br /><br />That's because all too often people confuse Wisdom with Intellect.<br /><br />Intellect, measured fairly well by the IQ metric, is the capacity to learn from books.<br /><br />Wisdom, with no equivalent "WQ" metric, is the capacity to learn from <i>experience</i>, or, even better, from the experience of others:<br /><br /><b>“<i>Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others.</i>”<br />― Otto von Bismarck</b><br /><br />The two are not only not one and the same, but have no real connection to one another in terms of genetics or training. There are Foolish Geniuses (think Noam Chomsky) as well as the "Wise Uneducated".<br /><br />More interesting still, I believe, is my own personal observation that, if there were such a thing as a "WQ" test, then one quality which could be found almost uniformly and without exception among the self-designating "Left" is that they are all "Widiots". I believe almost all of them would test out on the very low end of the "WQ" bell curve.<br /><br />If you consider this, it does a remarkable job of explaining the observable "Liberal Midnight Reset Button"<b>**</b>, as well as their unending and erroneous belief in Communism, Socialism, and other forms of Governmental Collectivism.<br /><br /><i>They </i><b>can't</b><i> learn from experience.</i><br /><br />Not <i>won't</i>. <b>Can't</b>.<br /><br />===============================================<br /><br /><b>**</b> <a href="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-other.html#890392449415087439" rel="nofollow"> Description of The Liberal Midnight Reset Button Here</a>OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57349626959726704552011-11-15T10:52:35.411-06:002011-11-15T10:52:35.411-06:00"Unajudicated?!?!?!?!"
Christ, you'..."Unajudicated?!?!?!?!"<br /><br />Christ, you're a twit.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74064876847068080662011-11-15T10:51:28.554-06:002011-11-15T10:51:28.554-06:00How do you know Awlaki was involved in "activ...<i>How do you know Awlaki was involved in "actively planning" terrorist actions against America</i><br /><br />His own words. <br /><br /><i>or that he was a "combatant?" </i> He was designated as such by the DoD, which is the legal authority for that process for those outside the U.S. <br /><br /><i>Where have those allegations been proved in a court of law,</i> <br /><br />Damn, your thicker than Foamy shaving cream. The "court of law" is wholly irrelevant here. <br /><br />U.S. civilian courts don't get involved in shooting wars on foreign soil. They don't want to. They don't have the expertise to make combatant/noncombatant determinations. <br /><br />That determination is the sole purview of the executive branch, delegated to the DoD. That is the constitutional process at work here. <br /><br />Which Gingrich explains in so many words, but you're too stupid of a commie to grasp. <br /><br />If he wanted a judicial involvement, he had ample opportunity to avail himself of it. He didn't. His choice. Cry me a river.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68482278386679617732011-11-15T06:45:56.812-06:002011-11-15T06:45:56.812-06:00Once again, Jason, you merely repeat unajudicated ...Once again, Jason, you merely repeat unajudicated allegations. How do you <i>know</i> Awlaki was involved in "actively planning" terrorist actions against America, or that he was a "combatant?" Where have those allegations been proved in a court of law, or proved at all? <br /><br /><i><b>"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."</b></i>Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3791307484520242232011-11-14T22:37:36.816-06:002011-11-14T22:37:36.816-06:00Jason, simply being an adherent of a terrorist gro...<i>Jason, simply being an adherent of a terrorist group does not remove from an American citizien his due process rights</i><br /><br />This case wasn't simply a matter of "being an adherent of a terrorist group," dumbass.<br /><br /> <i>And, the Mafia has killed more people in this country and caused more harm over time and over all than Al Qaeda will ever succeed in doing. Should we, perhaps, remove from Mafiosi--and other criminal gangs--due process protections as well, given their more real and present danger to American communities than AQ will ever pose?) </i><br /><br />If they remove themselves from the reach of U.S. law enforcement, adhere to an organization that has declared war against the U.S., that the U.S. has itself declared war against, and by actively planning operations against Americans, make themselves active combatants in a declared war, then no, shit-for-brains, we should not invent a "due process" right for active illegal combatants in a shooting war that has NEVER existed. <br /><br />They may have some protections as non-combatants. But NOT as combatants. Legally, that falls under the constitutional purview of the DoD, not the judiciary - and there it remains until such time as they cease to be combatants. That is, when they are captured or they are so disabled from wounds as to be combat ineffective. <br /><br />You think that's not true, you ignorant half-wit? The Attorney General of a Democrat administration says you're full of shit. Yeah, maybe you'll have better luck with the Republicans. <br /><br />Keep on fucking that chicken. The world will go on merrily ignoring you like a hysterical child.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62889533299559978952011-11-14T12:02:08.442-06:002011-11-14T12:02:08.442-06:00Thanks, I’ve seen your blog before during my, all ...Thanks, I’ve seen your blog before during my, all of the ex-pats are linked together, which is really cool. Thanks for the mention and I put your link up here too.<a href="http://carolinaaramburo.com/" rel="nofollow">personal business coach</a><br /><a href="http://carolinaaramburo.com/" rel="nofollow">business coaching services</a>Carolinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17111352851271639839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75852258705912251602011-11-14T12:00:22.152-06:002011-11-14T12:00:22.152-06:00Jason, simply being an adherent of a terrorist gro...Jason, simply being an adherent of a terrorist group does not remove from an American citizien his due process rights...at least, there are no such due process exceptions in the Constitution. (And, the Mafia has killed more people in this country and caused more harm over time and over all than Al Qaeda will ever succeed in doing. Should we, perhaps, remove from Mafiosi--and other criminal gangs--due process protections as well, given their more real and present danger to American communities than AQ will ever pose?) And what evidence do you have--or has the government presented to be determined in court by a jury--that Awlaki was a combatant?<br /><br />Again, this is simply a case of uttering the magic boogity-boogity scare words <i>"muslim terrorist"</i> to short circuit not just due process of law but logic.<br /><br /><i><b>"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."</b></i>Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86689487398076267302011-11-14T11:55:05.968-06:002011-11-14T11:55:05.968-06:00The article in your blog reminds me some old memor...The article in your blog reminds me some old memory .That is good .It gives me happy .I think we will have a harmonious talk.Do you agree?<a href="http://carolinaaramburo.com/" rel="nofollow">personal business coach</a><br /><a href="http://carolinaaramburo.com/" rel="nofollow">business coaching services</a>Carolinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17111352851271639839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68767561784865854302011-11-14T10:29:43.039-06:002011-11-14T10:29:43.039-06:00Where is the proof of any of that? Alawi's ow...<i>Where is the proof of any of that? </i> Alawi's own words. His status as an adherant to and leader of Al Qaeda is not in contention.<br /><br /><i>We even put Mafia capos and serial murderers on trial before we pronounce guilt or execute sentencing.</i><br /><br />They aren't combatants in a declared war. If they were, we'd kill them, too, by whatever means was at hand.<br /><br /><i>He was not killed on a battlefield </i> Yes, he was, twit. <br /><br /><i>...or in a firefight with American troops;</i><br /><br />If he were, you would have accused those troops of being war criminals, fool. <br /><br />But why expose our own troops to danger if we can hit him remotely? Only an idiot would choose to risk troops' lives.<br /><br /><i>If he was what the government claimed him to be, we should have presented evidence in court and obtained an indictment in absentia and made efforts to apprehend him.</i><br /><br />What are you? Twelve? Apprehend him? In Yemen? Jesus, Cook... you're stupid even for a libtard.<br /><br />Combatants don't get trials. As long as they're combatants, on foreign soil, they get bullets. 'Twas ever thus. That is, in fact, legal. <br /><br />His citizenship status only comes into play when he ceases to be a combatant. <br /><br /><br /><br />Grow up.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83723458566947045362011-11-14T10:05:16.018-06:002011-11-14T10:05:16.018-06:00"But almost all evidence is that what you cla...<i>"But almost all evidence is that what you claim to be a 'lie' was, in fact, a global wide intelligence failure...."</i><br /><br />If you believe this, I've got a Tower on 5th Avenue called Trump I can sell you for <i>cheap!</i><br /><br />When caught in a lie, all the liar need say is--<i>"Oops! I guess we got it wrong! La dee dah!"</i>, akin to the standard courthouse testimoney dodge of <i>"Ummm...I don't remember...."</i>--and all questions just go away!<br /><br />Everyone knows the government lied, but no one wants to acknowledge it, so everyone just agrees to accept that there was a <i>"global wide intelligence failure."</i><br /><br />It was baloney then and it's baloney now.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51855366015040061952011-11-14T09:27:53.316-06:002011-11-14T09:27:53.316-06:00I wonder how much analysis of character this Ritmo...<i>I wonder how much analysis of character this Ritmo guy completed before he cast his vote for Obama. Since Obama's past has been scrubbed from the face of the earth, I wonder what Ritmo concluded from virtually no data so as to satisfy himself that Obama achieved his incredibly high moral standards</i>.<br /><br />Not all of it was "scrubbing". Rather, some of it was intentionally not leaving any footprints. Apparently, all of those "present" votes, as well as many of the absent votes by Obama were the result of advice by former Sen. Tom Daschle, who was helping prepare Obama for running for the Presidency. Which, BTW, is why Daschle was offered that health care post (which had to be revoked due to the discovery of income tax fraud on the part of Daschle).Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29818681497640997622011-11-14T09:21:25.163-06:002011-11-14T09:21:25.163-06:00Make no mistake: our war in Iraq was predicated on...<i>Make no mistake: our war in Iraq was predicated on lies</i>.<br /><br />Have been hearing this mantra since not long after we went into Iraq. But almost all evidence is that what you claim to be a "lie" was, in fact, a global wide intelligence failure, made worse in this country by the gutting of CIA field operations by Democratic Presidents. Add in that the presence of WMDs were just one of a number of reasons repeatedly listed by President Bush before intervention into Iraq.<br /><br />Nevertheless, this is getting far afield when it comes to the subject at hand, and may be evidence of hijacking the thread in order to take pressure off of the highly biased MSM and their performance here.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39422296385167860412011-11-14T09:21:16.524-06:002011-11-14T09:21:16.524-06:00Its always shocking to me when I run into a libera...Its always shocking to me when I run into a liberal,<br />especially, an Obama supporting Liberal, for whom character is critical to political office. Specifically, I wonder how much analysis of character this Ritmo guy completed before he cast his vote for Obama. Since Obama's past has been scrubbed from the face of the earth, I wonder what Ritmo concluded from virtually no data so as to satisfy himself that Obama achieved his incredibly high moral standards. <br /><br />I wonder when the libs started subscribing to that idea.<br />Let's not forget Weinergate. The MSM took Weiner's word, circled the wagons around him and tried to further the narrative that Breitbart hacked into Weiner's Twitter account.syd B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04536022701906707715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26026510310691115732011-11-14T09:15:36.099-06:002011-11-14T09:15:36.099-06:00From Trivial Pursuit:
I take it as read that you’...From <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283091/trivial-pursuit-michael-walsh" rel="nofollow">Trivial Pursuit</a>:<br /><br /><i>I take it as read that you’re right about the CBS Saturday-night debate disaster and moderator Scott Pelley, but let’s look on the bright side: The MSM just did every conservative, including the candidates, a huge favor by letting the mask slip and flashing its true ugly face for the cameras. Mr. Newt has been rising in the polls not simply because the anybody-but-Romney (count me in that camp) vote needs to go somewhere, but because he’s taking the fight to the enemy — and the Enemedia — as thousands cheer...<br /><br />What Newt is doing — finally — is showing the Right how to fight back, by turning the Left’s own weapons (in this case, of sneering disdain) back on them. Principles, not programs: those three little words, not 57-point manifestos, ought to be our mantra heading into the crucial 2012 election, and the candidate who can best make that case will defeat Barack Obama</i>. <br /><br />This article was about Gingrich getting the better of Pelley at the debates. Gingrich has shown that the right can get blood (of the leftist MSM) here and that getting such blood was popular. I expect to see more and more of this as the debates wind down - not just from Newt, but from other candidates too. <br /><br />I think that it should be obvious why this put down was so popular with the audience. The MSM, living in their liberal cocoons, has been running these debates, to their own advantage. They could show how weak the Republican contenders were by their failing to address the issues as determined and outlined by the leftist moderators. Much of the audience could see it, but the candidates went on, apparently buying into the leftist world views of those moderators, debate after debate. <br /><br />I think now that many now see that the emperor has no clothes, when it comes to the MSM and their claimed objectivity. They have none, because they live and work in a leftist cocoon. And, they aren't half as smart as they and the rest of the left think.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41106539984264644022011-11-14T09:11:25.909-06:002011-11-14T09:11:25.909-06:00Jason,
Where is the proof of any of that? Say wha...Jason,<br /><br />Where is the proof of any of that? Say what you will, parrot the claims of the government all you like, as an American citizen Awlaki was entitled to and gauranteed due process of law. We even put Mafia capos and serial murderers on trial before we pronounce guilt or execute sentencing.<br /><br />He was not killed on a battlefield or in a firefight with American troops; he was assassinated by drone bombing strike. If he was what the government claimed him to be, we should have presented evidence in court and obtained an indictment <i>in absentia</i> and made efforts to apprehend him.<br /><br /><i><b>"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."</b></i>Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6245050878933319542011-11-14T08:53:31.486-06:002011-11-14T08:53:31.486-06:00The U.S. went after an Al Qaeda command and contro...The U.S. went after an Al Qaeda command and control node. Alawi wasn't targeted because he was an American, but because he represented a key communications node of an enemy force with which we are engaged in a declared war.<br /><br />The target was Alawi's cell phone. <br /><br />We would have attacked that cell phone even if Alawi was not a citizen. No "warrant" needed. The warrant was a Congressional use of force resolution to authorize the President to target Al Qaeda anywhere in the world. <br /><br />As an avowed member of the opposing force, Alawi holds no claim to protection against the miltary actions of the U.S. Armed Forces at that point. It is only upon being taken alive that he can claim an entitlement to due process, including a trial. If this was important to him he had ample opportunity to seek justice by turning himself in to a U.S. embassy in the region. <br /><br />Instead, he continued to wage jihad against the United States.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-25920894157539035012011-11-14T07:44:07.898-06:002011-11-14T07:44:07.898-06:00No one claimed that Iraq had nukes or would have t...<i>No one claimed that Iraq had nukes or would have them in minutes, only that they were working on it and would get them. There were many reasons to hold this view as entirely reasonable at the time.</i><br /><br />Sorry, this is simply untrue. Cheney's statement that there is no doubt that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program had no basis in fact or available intelligence (and they deliberately misread and only believed what they wanted to on the subject of other WMDs). There was zero evidence (let alone "no doubt") that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72928785114107354252011-11-14T07:24:09.398-06:002011-11-14T07:24:09.398-06:00Synova, no, the Bush administration never explicit...Synova, no, the Bush administration never explicitly said Saddam had nukes mere "minutes" away from ready status, but their language was intended to (and did) create that impression in the minds of a fearful citizenry--we who had just been battered by the horror of 9/11, and whose Pavlovian fear responses were being conditioned with regular (and I have no doubt, fraudulent), escalations of the terror color code from cool to HOT every other day--with their repetition of the doom-laden phrase <i>"a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud."</i><br /><br />Make no mistake: our war in Iraq was predicated on lies.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15462432296357317982011-11-14T05:52:53.013-06:002011-11-14T05:52:53.013-06:00With regard to the shocking and shameful sight of ...With regard to the shocking and shameful sight of several of the terminal mediocrities clawing for the Republican nomination openly asserting their willingness to employ torture if they were to become President, Paine had another applicable observation, (as humans were were the same then as now, with the same swift eagerness to justify perfidy with honeyed oratory):<br /><br /><i><b>"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."</b></i>Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81102081080045479762011-11-14T05:40:46.275-06:002011-11-14T05:40:46.275-06:00Frank, being assassinated by one's own governm...Frank, being assassinated by one's own government does <i>not</i> constitute "friendly fire," as you well know.<br /><br />By the way, here's a relevant quote from Thomas Paine, as true now as when he offered it:<br /><br /><br /><i><b>"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."</b></i><br /><br />We have forgotten this plain as a fist in the face principle, and it will have have blowback for us, no doubt. <br /><br />Paine also said:<br /><br /><i><b>"Character is much easier kept than recovered."</b></i><br /><br />This is as true of nations as of men, and we have shed our character over these last ten years as readily as a stripper with kids to feed. We are a shabby relic of what we once were--or at least aspired to be, reality never living up to aspirations--a nation on a binge of killing and torture and glib excuses for betrayal of principles, and have disgraced ourselves.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63454232658378831102011-11-14T00:42:39.246-06:002011-11-14T00:42:39.246-06:00And Robert--I find no moral equivalence between ki...And Robert--I find no moral equivalence between killing a Muslim preacher who happens to be American in Yemen and the murder of a US Federal Agent in 'Fast and Furious' a Justice Department progran run for dubious reasons. There's your 'proper' need for the criminal justice system. Give Holder, et. al. a fair trial and then execute him/them.frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13833763205428304308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44299940921572797202011-11-14T00:28:43.385-06:002011-11-14T00:28:43.385-06:00Yes Robert, I would not be the first American kill...Yes Robert, I would not be the first American killed by 'friendly fire'in a war. I guess that's why 'governmental immunity' exists. As we said in VN, "There it is."frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13833763205428304308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41522196342015420812011-11-14T00:25:50.652-06:002011-11-14T00:25:50.652-06:00"Look how many lies the government tells all ..."<i>Look how many lies the government tells all the time, including that Saddam Hussein was somehow a confederate of bin Laden and that Iraq had nukes mere minutes away from popping out of their E-Z Bake Ovens of WMD.</i>"<br /><br />I've no doubt it's true that the government lies, but these aren't lies that the government ever told.<br /><br />Being hyperbolic doesn't help your cause.<br /><br />Still, this may be a good illustration of the difference between what is appropriate in war and what is appropriate for police and a court room.<br /><br />You have got a right to defend yourself without any proof or trial or anything to prove that the person you kill was really going to kill you. After all, the only way to know for sure is to wait until he does it, at which point you're dead. The standard is only that a reasonable person would believe themselves in danger of their life.<br /><br />No one claimed that Iraq had nukes or would have them in minutes, only that they were working on it and would get them. There were many reasons to hold this view as entirely reasonable at the time. There is no requirement whatsoever that we, as a nation, wait as law enforcement is required to do, until after the murder is committed or the nukes exist or are used.<br /><br />The standard you suggest is moronic, Cook. Nations have no more requirement to wait until a crime is committed than a woman has a requirement to wait until after she's been raped or murdered to defend herself.<br /><br />Courtrooms and trials occupy a different purpose.<br /><br />That's not to say at all that we need not be diligent but it would be better if our criticisms weren't flagrantly naive.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.com