Politics as Usual

Posted Friday, November 20, 2009, at 5:23 PM
View 70 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    A few problems with your post Sceptre that I would like to point out.

    First, Truman was not a liberal he was a moderate. Nothing about his ideologies even suggest that he was even remotely close to being a liberal.

    Secondly, we didn't try the Nazis here because they didn't commit crimes here. The men that are being tried here were directly or indirectly responsible for 3000 deaths on American soil. I would think you, of all people, would want people that killed American citizens on American soil to be tried by our court system.

    "As a veteran of two wars and 24 years service, I would hate to tell you what I think about that Kenyan shoe-shine boy bowing and sucking up to dictators and others. He's not fit to be president." Seriously? Can you honestly say that you would hate to tell me what you think and then proceed to tell me what you think about Obama? But what else can I expect from someone who still somehow thinks that he was born in Kenya. Newsflash: All the evidence is in and he was born in Hawai'i. Hoping he wasn't doesn't make it true.

    Bowing to heads of states in other countries is a sign of respect and protocol. Get that? It's a sign of respect, not that you have ever or will ever show this president any respect what-so-ever which is absolutely sad.

    Finally, How many battle field criminals/terrorists can our legal system support? It was never designed for that task." Where's your proof. Our court system has already, in the eight years since 9/11, put more terrorists away than the military tribunals have. I would say that it shows that the American court system is much better set up than the military's.

    By the way, what exactly are you going to put Obama on trial for? He's not capitulating to everything you think he should? He's calling out the BS that is constantly thrown? He's actually trying to get this nation back on track instead of just saying no to everything? He is making sure that the right decision is made on Afghanistan so no more American military lives are wasted? Give me a break.

    Just keep saying no and complaining about every move Obama makes. I'm sure someone will pay attention one day.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 16, 2009, at 4:45 PM
  • Mike,

    It was predictable the photos of Pres. Obama's BOW would send the Neo Cons into a frenzy.

    What these great thinkers fail to understand is this was not a bow to THAT Japanese emperor -- but a gesture toward tradition aimed straight at Bejing.

    The U.S. President is meeting with OUR BANKERS.

    That's right -- in eight short years -- DubYah and the Draft Dodgers turned us into huge debtors to the Chinese.

    Now Obama has to convince them we are good for the BILLIONS borrowed by DubYah;

    PLUS insisting the imbalance in trade must be eliminated;

    PLUS the Chinese must correct the misalignment of their undervalued currency;

    PLUS ask their cooperation in reining in North Korea's threat;

    PLUS stop the copyright and patent piracy rampant within China;

    PLUS convince them to quit saber rattling toward Taiwan;

    PLUS, PLUS, PLUS, PLUS --- Does anyone get the picture.

    Pres. Obama must walk tall and exude strength and confidence in dealing with China's leaders.He cannot bow to any of them to show respect for Asian traditions.

    To establish his bona-fides for being respectful, a courteous bow in Japan had huge meaning.

    All of us had better pray that terrible gesture is effective.


    While our nation's infrastructure was neglected and two mismanaged wars drained resources, North Korea and Iran were allowed to run amok FOR EIGHT YEARS.

    So this week, all THIS president needs to do is pull at least SIX miracles out of his hat.

    Somehow, China's leaders need to be reminded that if they continue an all-out economic war against the U.S. -- our full military arsenal would be forced into play.

    Impossible -- Far from it.

    Another ten years with the current imbalance of trade, plus mounting interest payments on our national debt to China --- and U.S. survival will require it.

    All because DubYah wanted to avenge an attempt on "his daddy's life," while rewarding old cronies and political allies in the process.

    With Americans dying to make it all possible.

    Let the current economic situation continue through 2020 -- and the U.S. will only have one card left to play.

    DubYah would label that one thing -- Nuke-uu-lar.

    By the way, Sceptre -- "demonstrators from Ethiopia, in a peaceable manner, objecting to Obama giving that totalitarian country money."

    The money going to Ethiopia is from DubYah's last budget and appropriated during his presidency.

    That peaceful demonstration would better have been conducted at Crawford, Texas.


    A succeeding president must honor that, like it or not.

    But then, Sceptre, you would have to shine your own shoes and clean your own toilet.

    Both skills you are more qualified to practice than two Harvard educated lawyers.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Nov 16, 2009, at 6:14 PM
  • Sceptre,

    I am not the one who introduced the concept of cleaning toilets -- supposedly from you vast insider knowledge.

    Which indicates superior swimming ability to be able to overcome the flow after flushing.

    Who knows, this forum may have discovered your key vocation and only discernible talent.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Nov 16, 2009, at 7:16 PM
  • All you people are nuts. I don't know why I even read this thing...I've wondered that so many times before too.

    Now WE are the A-holes of WWII? I thought we were the ones that pretty much ended it for everyone. I didb't realize that we were some sort of scum that needed to go appologizing for what we did.

    I thought that the Japs attacked us unprovoked and caused catatrophic loss of life and military assets.

    I thought that the birth record thing was settled a long time ago. I would think that with the powers of secret societies and their money, if there was a shred of truth to it someone could have put of the money and the means to get that fact brought to life.

    Now here we are again blaming Dubya or whatever you call him for everything. You even said it yourself that it's congress too, but your only blame falls on Dubya. He did all these snaky things for greed and profit. Who's profit? What profit? Where did all this profit go? Where did all this so called profit come from?

    I bet we have never owned the Chinese money before. Funny, when I was in senior economnics in '94-ish we had a 4 trillion dollar deficit, I wonder who owned that...Ethiopia?!?!?

    Why isn't Obama being nailed for snaky profit, after all he's in caharge now. Trillion dollar stimunothin that he is in control of, I wonder how many of his slum lord cohorts in Chicago are getting millions to keep rentors poor and earting cockroaches while they go buy Bentleys and bling bling like he did when he was a community organizer that never facelifted one single building while in charge there.

    You guys are all a bunch whinny loons. Take me off the blog, I don't care anymore...I can hardly take anymore of or your ignorant ranting and whinning, lie and crying, history-challenged, baloney!

    I loved seeing Obama get on his knees for the Chinese and appologize once again for all the crappy things us greedy, profit-driven scumbags have done. We are such bad people in fact, that we have elected a president that has made it his M.O. to not leave a foreign country without a heart felt appology for all the rotten things we have done.

    Let's see all the rotten things....

    Ending WWII,

    Tearing down the Iron Curtain,

    Feeding the world,

    Taking in refugees from all over the world,

    Trying to keep peace between Muslims and Jews,

    Sending 100's of billions in aid to fill in the disaster_________________

    Helping rid the world of murderous dictators,

    Speaking of the Chinese....commie's killing protestors that wont freedom, censorship, populaiton control, no free market (meaning all this ealth they are coming into lately goes to the already rich and the poor will ALWAYS remain poor), human rights violators, biggest unappolgetic pollutors in the world. And you guys sit here and rips America up. It's sad, really sad.

    Sometimes Mike, I think if Obama wanted to write his own new National Anthem to replace the old one and include his name in it, you would be here the next day raving about it. And your buddies would be here talking about how the man who wrote the orginal was a profit craving scumbag who was a republican and he was drilling for oil and it was all his fault for this and that....kinda like what this place is like now.

    I might as well throw this out there too, since it's a load of BS> Islam has ALWAYS been big part of US history? Obama says so, so I guess it's true. NOT! Since when? The country was colonized, settled, and founded by Chirstians, the Constitution has a remakable likiness to the Ten Commandments.

    Had Islam had anything to do with our country at it's begining or childhood, women would not be voting, or seen in public, or driving cars. Killing would be okay if someone didn't agree with your religion. There would not be a separation of church and state. No one that settled this country was Muslim.

    Buddism and Hinduism had about as much to do with this country being formed into waht it is today as Islam did. Maybe that's why the US, most of Europe, Japan, and most of Russia have been great coutries and most, if not all Muslim countries either are or close to 3rd world countries...unless you are a rich Sultan of course.

    You can knock me all you want and call me a racist or whatever, I'm not. I'm just not afraid to call a spade a spade. I'm not politically correct and I'm proud of that because is don't cloud my judgment or make me weak. I don't have a problem with any of these people. I just know when they are wrong and I'm not afraid to say it.

    America is a free country, the greatest there has ever been, so great in fact, that some countries want to tear us down. You guys continually nit pick at our own country and never call out these other guys. Then you salute your Master of Appology ceremonies for making us look stupid in front of World scum. Nice.

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Nov 16, 2009, at 10:11 PM
  • Wow, the tone of these comments went south quickly.

    My two cents.

    The manufactured controversy surrounding Obama is getting a bit ridiculous. And quite frankly it's getting a bit silly. The bowing thing is particularly childish. It's a gesture that does not (in modern times) convey submissiveness or weakness, but respect. And the idea that a political figure would be lambasted for respecting the culture of another country is ridiculous.

    That said, the manufactured Bush controversies that kept spouting from the left during his last year or two were similarly childish. However, I'd contend that they were more a symptom of bitterness from some obviously poor decisions/policies (Iraq, justice firings, New Orleans, Valerie Plame, etc).

    I suppose that the manufactured Obama controversies similarly spring from what are perceived as poor decisions (stimulus, auto bailout, extending TARP, etc). The key difference is that the story isn't over on any of these things. We do not yet know that they have failed or succeeded. We can only speculate. Personally, I am optimistic.

    Pertaining to Bush's motives, I will have to disagree with some of my like-minded compatriots on this blog. I'm not going to accuse him of using the war for personal gain, or some misguided vendetta against Saddam, or as a payout to military contractors. But I'm also not going to agree with the opposing position that "he just did what he thought was best". In truth, neither I nor any of you know what President Bush's intentions were concerning the war on terror and many of his other policies. So judging him based on his INTENT, whether you believe it was positive or negative, is unjustified. We can only judge him on his results. The way he shaped the country, and it's state when he left office.

    Clearly, my opinion is that he did not do a very good job. The economy was in shambles when he left office, our perception in the rest of the world was diminished, the budget deficit was flirting with $1 trillion, and we had racked up an unprecedented debt with almost nothing to show for it. Not to mention the political scandals that took place in his administration (Libby, Gonzales, etc).

    As far as trying terrorist suspects in a public court. I am for that. If someone committed (or intended to commit) a crime against Americans on American soil, they should be put through the American justice system. These are not warriors, soldiers, or representatives of any sovereign nation. They are low-lifes, and should be treated as such. Put through the same criminal system anyone else would be put through. Terrorism is not special. It's an act of barbarism and cruelty that should be punished to the full extent of the law.

    THAT SAID, I would not be against special accommodations for their trials being made. While I believe in the American justice system, and shudder to think that the rights guaranteed by the constitution should be denied to anyone on American soil, the men interrogating/investigating these individuals were likely told that they did not have to follow proper procedures, because they would never be tried in a court of law. So it's likely that some accommodations to the justice system will be necessary.

    Concerning the atomic bombing of Japan, all I can say is that I am glad I did not have to make such a decision. And I fervently hope no man will ever need to make such a decision again. A nuclear war is truly a Pandora's Box that we do not wish to open, ever. Period.

    And I'd like to respond directly to some of Justin76's assertions directly.

    "the Constitution has a remakable likiness to the Ten Commandments."

    Yes. That's why it's illegal to swear, work on Sundays, worship any other gods, worship false idols, dishonor your parents, cheat on your wife, or covet possessions (capitalism anyone?).

    Unless you are referring to the fact that the ten commandments is a list of 10 things, as is the Bill of Rights. Then I agree. The likeness is astounding.

    "Had Islam had anything to do with our country at it's begining or childhood, women would not be voting..."

    Exactly. That's why women have always had the right to vote in this country, because Islam wasn't affecting it. We also avoided slavery because this country was founded on Christian law which forbids slavery. (that's one of the commandments, right?)

    Sorry to be a little sarcastic with those two.

    And I don't think anyone would deny that Christianity has had a tremendous affect on the founding and direction of this country. Absolutely more so than Islam. But our country has always been open to all faiths, and each has left an indelible mark on our country and our culture. And the framers saw fit to not recognize any god or gods in the constitution. Instead drawing it's authority from "we the people", not divine mandate.

    And I'll again point out the misinformation that the founders were all Christian. Certainly many were. But many were deists instead. Most notably Thomas Paine, who wrote one of the most well known critiques of the Christian faith. And others had a complex and changing belief system. And it would hardly be accurate to simply label it as "christian". Thomas Jefferson, for example, re-authored the gospels, removing all miracles and any claims to Jesus' divinity. (Imagine someone doing that today and still managing to get elected president!).

    Jumping tracks completely (I am too tired to think of a good transition)...

    I'd like to address one more thing. The idea that we (meaning liberals) think America is wrong, and that it's mean, and that it treats other countries harshly. Well... we do. But it's more complex than that. We also appreciate all of the things our country has been able to accomplish, for both ourselves and the world. Ending WWII, rebuilding Europe, sending a man to the moon, inventing the Internet. All amazing things that give me (and us) tremendous respect for our country.

    But these achievements, these accomplishments, these gifts to the world do not exempt us from scrutiny. If America does something wrong, I will say so. Not because I hate my country. But because I LOVE my country. And because I expect better of it. Because I expect America to live up to the standards I set for it, and that it sets for itself. Because I want America to be an example for the rest of the world. A "shining city upon a hill".

    I do not blindly love America, and forget all of her transgressions. I do not weigh the good against the bad and say that it cancels it out. I love my country like I would love a spouse. I accept their faults, and help them to overcome said faults. I want to lead the world by example. I want us to turn the other cheek. I want us to treat other countries with the respect we wish to be treated with, even in the face of hatred. I want us to help move the world forward through cooperation, education, and trade. Not imperialism, war, and aggression. Sure it would be difficult. It might be impossible. But it's what is right.

    -- Posted by jhat on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 1:06 AM
  • Between all the venom and vitriol --

    There are a few FACTS which might be considered:

    The court system in recent years has tried 192 terrorist suspects, convicted nearly all.

    The military tribunals have tried THREE.

    At this rate using only tribunals --

    Gitmo will be clear of prisoners sometime in 2409 -- although there will be one Helluva problem keeping several hundred of those people alive long enough for trial before a tribunal.

    Regarding -- Innnocent Japanese killed by the two A-Bombs.

    FACT -- Without Capt. (U.S. Army Nat'l Gd.-Ret) Harry Truman's decision to use those two bombs, the WWII military planners estimated at least FIVE MILLION to as many as TWENTY MILLION Japanese men, women and children would have died.

    At least 500,000 Allied men would have died.

    [Ironically, when FDR died and Harry Truman was sworn in as president, it wasn't until after his first week in office that the new President learned of the Manhattan Project and development of atomic weapons. The decision fell upon him within a very short time to bomb or not to bomb.]

    Japanese leaders have said since that if those two bombs had not been used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- the entire nation would have been destroyed in a fanatical defense.

    FACT -- Pres. Obama has not bowed once, or shown any sign of subservience in China.

    His actions in Japan demonstrated respect for Asian tradition as a signal to Chinese leaders. He has remained rigidly erect in China, towering over all the Chinese leaders, courteous, properly respectful and polite during the mandatory ceremonies.

    The huge list of points of contention between the U.S. and China is complicated beyond belief by the enormity of the U.S. debt to China.

    His position is similar to a Republican Valley farmer who owes his banker several times more than he can reasonably pay interest on.

    Yet the farmer wants to demand the banker stop his seven sons from coming into his community and seducing all the 15-18 year old girls, cutting fences to gain access to the river for skinny-dipping parties in full view of several homes and the state highway.

    We can all be glad that Barack Obama is representing the U.S. in China today -- and not the even-tempered Dick Cheney or John McCain.

    [Can you conceive of Pres. McCain dying of a heart attack and V.P Sarah Palin moving into the Oval Office -- being in those negotiations today?]

    Jan. 1, 2009, the enormity of the Global Economic Collapse and total responsibility of less than two dozen major U.S. banks for that collapse was frightening for everyone aware of the total situation.

    CitiBank alone had lost several TRILLION DOLLARS for Persian Gulf [Dubai, Saudi, UAE, Yemeni, Kuwaiti, etc.] investors. No one knowledgable person appears to know the exact loss and those victims are not talking.

    It is sufficient that they have withdrawn and still withhold their investments here.

    [Which explains a lot of idle big rigs around the country. I know within 175 miles of my front door, there are at least 2,000 acres of big rig tractors, reefer and dry box vans, auto haulers, softsides, bulk trailers and low boys on consignment by owner/operators, banks and leasing companies and trucking companies. A 2000-2006 slope nose three axle with 500 HP, full sleeper and full Chrome -- Less than $15,000. 53' flat beds with 80% rubber -- $2500.]

    Meanwhile one in ten U.S. workers is hung out to dry.

    Two of our three major auto makers were forced into bankruptcy so they could strip awar debts and survive. Reported foreclosures continue climbing despite all the improving numbers.

    Hey fellows, let's start a coupla extra wars next week.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 1:10 AM
  • 27 million Russians killed in WWII. 23 Million Chinese killed in WWII. 450,000 Americans killed.

    An American invasion of Japan would have killed millions. On both sides.

    I don't get your logic.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 5:46 AM
  • *

    No one on here or anywhere else can say for sure what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb. I stand on the side that says that Japan was close to surrendering and I don't buy the logic that a land invasion of Japan would have cost multi-million lives.

    I do not agree with the political decision to drop two atomic bombs on cities. I believe it to have been a political decision not a military decision.

    Having said that and trying to steer the debate back to its original intent which is the trying of terror suspects in New York and a bow to the Japanese leader many of the posters that have posted to this point see that trying the suspects in New York in a civilian court as maybe not a popular decision but the right decision. These attacks were perpetrated on American citizens.

    As for the bow, this argument is absolutely ridiculous. Japan is a great ally to us. Obama bowing shows them great respect. If you think honoring an ally by showing them respect is weak than I have nothing for you.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 9:45 AM
  • *

    I just want to send a special thank you to jhat. Through all of the muck and vitriol that has occurred on this blog (and yes I do take some of the blame) you have stayed above it all in your posts.

    Thank you jhat for showing what true debate should be.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 9:49 AM
  • *

    I guess that question I need to ask is what in the world happened between my posting at 4:45 yesterday afternoon to now?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 9:52 AM
  • *

    Speaking of muck and vitriol, I just have a question. Do you people who rant and rave and name call and taunt and just in general behave badly around here speak this way in person or are you all a bunch of web warriors? Because seriously, if I felt the stupidity that passes for discource on these blogs was representative of how people truly behave I might have to kill myself or something.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 10:27 AM
  • The funniest thing about today's American liberal is the hypocrisy he/she just can't see. They believe our country's entire history is one of being evil, terroristic, racist, hateful, misogynistic, imperialistic, and always wrong in every conflict, whether with Native Americans, Germans, Russians, Asians, jihadists, whoever.

    But then they'll look you dead in the eye and swear they love their country.

    Seriously, if we are what you believe, why would you love us?? We're a horrible country full of "ugly Americans!!" For the love of all that's liberal, get out while you CAN!

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 11:06 AM
  • *

    Okay that's enough. duffer you have been flagged for your comments.

    If you you or anyone else want to racial slurs to describe the President of the United States I suggest you go elsewhere. It will not be tolerated on this blog.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 12:31 PM
  • *

    That's quite the leap of logic you took there MrsSmith to trash everyone liberal. Just one question? Who of the liberals here has ever said that America was wrong in every conflict? You won't find one. We question mistakes made during conflicts but not a single one of us has ever said that we were wrong in every conflict.

    I love this country but that doesn't mean that I will turn a blind eye when I believe our country is doing something not in its best interest.

    Dictators thrive on populaces that cheer on everything they do even when it involves taking freedoms and killing to keep their power.

    That was a good attempt at sarcasm, but it fell just a tad bit short.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 12:35 PM
  • *

    By the way I encourage all posters not to respond to anything that duffer says as this person is clearly only on here to flame other users and try to get them to say something on duffer's level.

    I'm not telling you not to respond to Duffer, if you want to that's your choice, but I do encourage those that are actually here for debate to ignore those that are solely here to spread hate.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 12:40 PM
  • *

    Hey Mike,

    Couldn't your warning about duffer apply to roughly 90% of the posters here?

    Why stop at racial slurs? Are racial slurs worse than a lot of the other garbage going on? If you want to foster debate you probably should monitor some of the other incivility that goes on here as well as racial innuendo.

    Just one more question if I can't use racial slurs against the President, who can I use them towards: senators, representatives, the guy down the street, the silly ranters on these posts? Your post reads to me that only he is safe from slurrage [I think I just made that word up :) ]

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 1:17 PM
  • Regarding the whole "liberals hate America" theme, I'd like to share a quote. It's a quote from a man many of you probably don't particularly like, Al Franken.

    "Conservatives love America like a four-year-old loves her mommy: Totally, completely, and without question. Mommy is Wonder Woman. She is perfect, beautiful, and can do no wrong.

    Liberals, however, love America like a spouse: Affectionately, but with maturity; and with an understanding that he or she is human, and will have faults that must be overcome or overlooked in the larger picture."

    Now, I am not saying that this applies to every liberal/conservative across the board. But it fairly accurately expresses my opinion on loving my country. I can love my country and still find fault with it, much in the same way I can love my girlfriend while understanding that she has flaws as well.

    -- Posted by jhat on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 1:35 PM
  • *

    SWnebr that is a great point and one that I should have elaborated on.

    Racial slurs against anyone, no matter if the are the president or someone that lives in your neighborhood, will not be tolerated on this blog, period.

    And yes SWNebr the debate on this blog is seriously lacking and I take account for that. I am trying.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 2:17 PM
  • *

    To all posters:

    Please refrain from using vulgar words on this blog. Remember young children can get on here and read this language. If you wouldn't use this kind of language around a five year child, don't use it on this blog.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 2:20 PM
  • *

    Justin after reading through your long diatribe of a post a have a couple of questions since you believe you are the intelligent one among all of illiterates:

    When did Obama get on his knees for the leaders of China? I must have missed that one.

    When did Obama ever apologize for anything America has done? Do you have transcripts?

    I don't remember Obama ever saying that Islam has always been part of America, but if he did he was probably talking on a much grander scale that all religions have had a roll in the formation of this country.

    The last time I compared the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments they were remarkably different. Mostly because the Bill of Rights tells us what our rights are and the Ten Commandments tell us what we can't or shouldn't do.

    But yeah if you could answer those questions for this illiterate and give me a place where I can verify it I would appreciate. I love learning new things.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 2:29 PM
  • *

    The only thing that I have called for Bush to be held accountable for were the breaking of world wide and American laws when he gave the okay for torture. If he didn't, great I have no quarrels with him.

    As soon as Obama breaks a law I'll call for him to be held accountable for it as well.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 2:31 PM
  • *

    OH NOOOOOOO!!!! now fredd is a sexist and should be flagged :P

    I also find it interesting that fredd apparently believes only a "scoundral" is capable of patriotism.

    Be careful with your analogy jhat, you go spreading your girlfriends flaws around too much and soon you'll find yourself only loving yourself ;)

    duffer et al. do you really think your clever little nicknames do anything other that prove you are incapable of rational discussion?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 3:17 PM
  • "Liberals, however, love America like a spouse: Affectionately, but with maturity; and with an understanding that he or she is human, and will have faults that must be overcome or overlooked in the larger picture."


    Well, I guess that goes a long way toward explaining the high divorce rate.

    Hey, libs...a non-stop stream of abuse is not a good way to run either a country or a marriage.

    After watching the stream of anger and vitriol on this blog, I thank God that I'm married to a conservative...someone who understands that constant insults and rehashing of past mistakes does NOT constitute love!

    Conservatives live in a country that has come a long way toward meeting the ideals of our founders...being only hampered by the liberal insistance on trying to copy the countries we disliked enough to leave 200 years ago.

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 3:30 PM
  • *

    MrsSmith in your zeal to blame everything on liberals are actually suggesting that the 51% is solely liberals divorcing each other? Are you sure you want to make that jump of logic.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 3:50 PM
  • *

    A for the vitriol of the posters of this blog (primarily duffer and fredd) if it doesn't stop and get back to the subject of the blog I will on my own accord take this entire blog down. Though it should be interesting that anytime a posters comments that are from the conservative angle or taken down posters immediately start shouting 1st Amendment I wonder if they would defend a liberal commentator the same.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 3:53 PM
  • *

    Why fredd, didn't you pay attention, you mocked the "little cheerleader sara" that comment smacks of sexism, far more than the supposed racial overtones of "call a spade a spade"

    People need to do what Frankie says.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 4:19 PM
  • Mike,

    In other words: "You two stop picking on each other, or I will turn this blog around!"

    Mrs. Smith. I'm sorry you see it as a "non-stop stream of abuse". I see it more as a constructive criticism. Certainly there are those that broach civility and are outright hateful, but they are clearly the minority. And I don't know of one person on this blog who I would consider "hateful" of America.

    And I'm glad you are happy with your marriage. I am happy with my relationship where we feel comfortable enough with each other to talk candidly about our shortcomings, so that we can help each other overcome our faults by working together and supporting each other.

    As far as some of the anti-Muslim sentiment that is rearing it's head, I'm quite disgusted. I work with many Muslims. And they are generally some of the nicer people I've known. They are as appalled by the actions of radical Muslims as I assume most Christians are appalled by the actions of the KKK.

    No one would deny there are more radical Muslims than radical Christians in today's world. But it is still unfair to categorize all Muslims as radicals. The problem isn't Islam, it's extremism.

    -- Posted by jhat on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 4:22 PM
  • Over 1 million german soldiers died in the last 6 weeks of WWII defending Berlin. You think that an invasion of Japan would have fewer deaths? The Japanese people were known for fighting to the death and not surrendering.

    I have living relatives that fought in WWII. I will not allow "revisionist" history to go unanswered.

    The 50 million dead Chinese and Russians were our allies during the war. Do not under estimate the death toll that awaited a Japanese invader.

    As for the rest of your blog I can sum it up. Mike doesn't like Republicans! He finds quirky angles on quirky subjects.

    Why don't you talk about the cost benefit of mammograms after 50 yrs old. There is your govt imposed health care but I am off topic. Politics as usual by the left btw.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 4:57 PM
  • *

    Fredd and other Liberals:

    I understand that there are a lot of people who fail to meet the expectations of the "conservative family values" you mock, but does that mean those values have no value or that people fail to reach lofty goals? I find it tremendously rude to continue to exhibit glee at the downfall of individuals, as rude as I find duffer and spectre with thier race baiting fear mongering. Is there no middle ground? Do you not believe that the values espoused are worthy? In basing your attack on MrsSmith, where did she say she favors any of the things in your rant? I'm not saying she didn't, if she did, by all means fire away!

    btw, you do know what Frankie says right?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 5:03 PM
  • *

    Another question for fredd, sorry I know there a lot lately. When do you see large masses of good christians standing up defending the KKK or a Neo Con (whatever that is)? When do you see esteemed Christian leaders preaching about the virtues of KKK ideals? How would you like christians to "stand up to right wing extremists" what would that look like?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 5:08 PM
  • *

    Because of certain individuals on this particular blog who feel that is better for them to call others name and cuss at will, this blog will be removed at 8:00 P.M. I hope you are satisfied with yourselves. Your inability to keep the topic civil and you insistence to constantly change the topic of the blog and deride anyone who doesn't agree with you has cost everyone else a chance to get their ideas out.

    Congratulations on stifling discussion on this blog. The Tea Partiers couldn't be happier.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 7:41 PM
  • *

    Those that are the cause of this know who they are.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 17, 2009, at 7:49 PM
  • *

    I find it amazing that the right who blame all liberals for any kind of made up America hate spewing they can think of are all in a twitter over this case.

    For all their ranting and raving about how good America really is they turn right around and trash our court system. Bunch of hypocrites. Someone explain to me how you get all emotional and hateful about liberals spewing "hate America" rhetoric but somehow you trashing our legal system is perfectly fine. It's a conundrum.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, at 5:27 PM
  • It was actually on TV Mike, for crying out loud. It's actually on TV and you will still sit in your chair and deny it. I love it. You are so full of Bush derrangement syndrome and your disdane for conservatives you can actually sit there and ignore what's all around you. It's something to behold. I really didn't think you could stoop so low but I guess I was wrong.

    You can't get over the fact that conservatives had the audacity to assemble and protest.

    Iggy, I guess it takes a smart_$$ to know one. Hey, I have my own uphill battles to fight and I'm strong enough and smart enough to do it on my own. At least I have that. All your insults can't take away from me, and when the next government program comes out that you guys sign on to because it's your right to have wealthy people pay your way...I'll be pulling my own weight, so cheers. Sponges.

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, at 8:37 PM
  • The right trashing the court system? Try the left. It is the left that is constantly trying to tinker with our laws to justify their evil. All the right (conservatives) want is to enforce the laws we already have.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 6:00 AM
  • *

    Justin what was on tv what in the world are you talking about? Besides I thought you wanted off this site.

    No you don't Chunky if you did you wouldn't care at all to see these people tried in a civil court. Civil courts have been trying terrorists for years and it is only now that you think that the civil court system can't handle it? Give me a break.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 10:30 AM
  • *

    I still want to know what was on TV that I was denying.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 1:01 PM
  • Iggy & Mike,

    My answer is this. These terrorist were not captured on American soil, unlike previous terrorists. They are enemy combatants, meaning they claim no allegiance with a UN defined country. They were captured in a foreign country, where they were interrogated thoroughly, and given valuable information (yes, it's true) to the US military. A military tribunal pits the terrorists against the US military. In a civil court, the terrorist against the justice department, their cases would bed thrown out and they will be released.

    Now Mike, give me a break.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 4:28 PM
  • fredd,

    I really don't think we could prosecute the terrorists in another country.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 5:45 PM
  • And who arrested these terrorists? Pakistan, Canada, or the US?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 6:35 PM
  • It does make a difference if we get them ourselves or if we play backup.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 7:05 PM
  • *

    Who defined them enemy combatants in the first place? It was the Bush Admnistration.

    Just because we don't arrest them in the country doesn't mean we can't try them here.

    And yes we can try them in other countries. Look at the Nuremburg Trials and trials against the Japanese.

    You also say CPB "In a civil court, the terrorist against the justice department, their cases would bed thrown out and they will be released." Are you actually going to deny that we have tried and convicted other terrorists in our civil court system?

    You're grasping at any straw you can in order to stay mad at Obama. The only problem is you are completely ignoring all facts and history to do it.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 7:30 PM
  • Mike,

    Are you honestly that stupid? How can you even collect a paycheck as a teacher? Let alone, as a history teacher!

    The Nuremberg Trials, didn't that involve Nazi Germany, a nation. And the Japanese trials, I believe the country was named Japan. Two clearly defined nations.

    The last time I checked, Al-qaeda and other crazy muslim terrorists could not be defined as a nation, but rather wherever they just happened to be. These are not defeated nations, they are captured combatants, they are also our enemy. Hence the term enemy combatants.

    I am not grasping straws to stay mad at obama, I just don't want to see Americans die at the hands of terrorists. You on the other hand, with your extreme level of immaturity, are drowning in a sea of BS.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 8:33 PM
  • *

    CPB if you can't debate without name calling I will flag you.

    I was questioning your understanding of history because you stated that we never tried anyone that we had captured in other countries when in fact we had.

    But I do find it interesting your continuing silence on the fact that we have tried AND CONVICTED terrorists in civil courts in the United States with absolutely no issues during the Bush Administration and the only time you've had an issue with it is when we are about to try some more under Obama. This is clearly a partisan political issue for you and not a fear of something going wrong.

    I have to agree with fredd, though, the fact that you would actually sit there and assert that any American wants to see terrorists succeed in this country is horrific.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 5:32 AM
  • Mike,

    I have absolutely NO problems on who's administration prosecutes terrorists. If justice is served, great. MY concern is given the parameters these specific terrorist were captured in, can their trials hold up in civil courts. I say no, because the other example you and Guillermo listed are completely different, and in different situation.

    Again, to reiterate, NO problems with who prosecutes.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 7:53 AM
  • *

    How are they different?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 9:28 AM
  • Mike,

    Scroll up.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 2:28 PM
  • My great Uncle in Warren, Arkansas served in WWII. He has been a doctor there since 1950. He thinks that you are very misinformed about the end of WWII. He was stationed in the Aleutian Islands and flew B-17's and B-29's.

    According to him, we were going to invade Japan. Millions were going to die. The dropping of the Atom Bomb was viewed as the magic bullet. In 4 days, the war ended and Millions and Millions of lives were saved.

    Say what you will but you are wrong on this one.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 2:50 PM
  • Guillermo,

    Here is the difference. The 3 examples you listed above, and all prior terrorist trials, the perpetrators were all arrested in foreign countries by those countries police and with the help of the US's justice department, and extradited. Or they were arrested in US territory by US police. Those held in Gitmo were captured in a foreign country, by the US armed forces, , not a police agency, interrogated by the CIA, then sent to a US detention center somewhere abroad.

    I could be wrong, and I pray I am not, but there could be big problems at trial.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 5:25 PM
  • *

    I have to agree with GI, who arrested them makes no difference in where they are tried.

    wallis I hate to disagree with a World War II veteran but the political powers that were at the time all have said that a surrender was in the works. Unfortunately for all involved Truman listened to really bad advice and dropped two atomic weapons.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 6:08 PM
  • Guillermo & mike,

    Thanks for proving my point, AKG was arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani forces, and backed up by US forces. He was also extradited. Many of those at Gitmo were never arrested, but rather captured. Most, if not all, will never be extradited.

    Consult a lawyer on this one.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 6:41 PM
  • *

    I notice CPB that anytime that either I or GI prove your points to be short in evidence you just simply change what you believe the facts are.

    The simple point here is, these men are charged with killing or planning the death of American citizens and now they are going to be tried by an American court system. I just don't understand what about this you find so abhorrent. As much as you stand up and defend everything American as being the best this is your perfect to chance to crow about it instead you are ripping the decision apart.

    Make me understand why you think everything American is the greatest in the world except the American court system. You yourself said, "All the right (conservatives) want is to enforce the laws we already have." This is the perfect oppurtunity and yet in this case you don't want to have anything to do with it unless it is done by a military tribunal (by the way they have only tried three cases in the last 8 years).

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, at 10:45 AM
  • *

    That's a good point especially for the anti-tax crowd.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, at 12:08 PM
  • Mike,

    Where did I change my opinions of the facts? I have made my point very clear. In your own idiocy you choose to brush them aside.

    You have not heard me "trash" our court system. You did hear me say, "enforce the laws we already have". I just question our current set of laws and whether they can effectively prosecute the terrorists.

    In your zeal to prove that you might have a point (you have not), you paint every republican as a conservative, and every conservative as a republican. Therefore my charge against you for being stupid stands. I offer as proof you own posts. So flag me if you must, that way you can tilt the debate further in your favor.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, at 4:20 PM
  • *

    Though I have flagged you CPB for violation of terms of service I will answer one point you did make. I have never asserted that every conservative is a Republican and vice versa. That is utterly made up.

    I know there is a distinct difference between Republicans and conservatives and I have pointed that out several times in many different blogs and posts through the nearly two years I have been writing on this blog site.

    But I understand why you made it up. You felt you were losing the debate and wanted to change the topic. Except for my answer to your charge against me that's all I have to say about it.

    The fact remains, as GI has posted, you have changed your argument throughout this thread to correspond to the holes in your original logic about where the trials should be held. Every time one of your assertions has been proven wrong you change your argument.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, at 5:22 PM
  • Guillermo & mike,

    Where exacly did I change the premise of my arguement?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 5:55 PM
  • *

    You've changed your argument back and forth between whether or not our court system could handle the terrorists to who captured them to what they are.

    The bottom line is that the men that have been captured, arrested, or whatever term you choose to use (also whether they are terrorists or enemy combatants) are being tried for killing American citizens. The committed crimes against primarily citizens and they should and will be tried by our civil court system.

    What you won't even acknowledge is that comparisons between the American court system and military tribunals the court system has a far better record.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 6:47 PM
  • Thank you Iggy,

    After 30 years of being in American, my English still sucks. I will just wait his out and see what the court says.

    mike, I didn't know I was supposed to draw a comparison. Do you play, or have ever played dungeons and dragons?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 7:23 PM
  • *

    So your response to the fact that the civil courts have not only shown they can handle terrorists cases but they are doing better than military tribunals is to ask if I have ever played dungeons and dragons?

    That's okay, honestly that's about the kind of blind recognition I expected from you.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 8:02 PM
  • I am still not convinced civil courts can handle the Al-qaeda terrorist. This is my opinion, if the trials prove me wrong, then you and Iggy can high-5 each other

    So have you, Mike?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 8:37 PM
  • *

    We will have to see what happens but it absolutely shocks me that you don't believe that an American system can handle something. I would think you would be rooting for this work more than GI or myself ever could.

    I guess the bottom line CPB is you have no opinion what-so-ever about the civil courts fairing much better than military tribunals (more prosecutions and convictions)?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, at 11:36 AM
  • *

    I find it interesting that after Dana Perino was nominated for a post in the Obama White House she went on Fox News and proclaimed that "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

    For all the talk on this site about liberals revising history Perino just knocked the revision ball out of the park.

    So I guess the question is, Ms. Perino, what was 9/11? An inconvenience?

    Great pick President Obama, a woman who revises history to protect her old boss to score a political point against her potential new boss on Fox News.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, at 1:10 PM
  • Three Navy SEALS being charged with assault for punching a terrorist in the face. I'm not saying too much here, but the defense has started.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 9:23 AM
  • Since Mike and Gullimermo are all knowing.....How should we deal with Iran???????

    Please make a decision in real time. No revisionist history on this one.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 9:54 AM
  • *

    "Please make a decision in real time. No revisionist history on this one."

    What does that mean wallis?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 10:21 AM
  • Wallis,

    It means Mike has no answers. Unable to go back in time to blame Reagan/Bush1 & 2, Mike is unable to formulate a coherent response to what's happening today.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 11:20 AM
  • *

    Well I know what the answer isn't wallis? The answer is not invading yet another sovereign country and forcing our will because we don't like the way it's being ran.

    Plus, I never said I'm all knowing wallis. That's a very unfair claim to make. CPB made a claim that every time was challenged he changed his argument. Calling someone out for that does not make a person all knowing.

    CPB if you can't come on here and be civil, if you can't come on here and contain yourself from constantly degrading those who don't agree 100% with you, please find a new home. Some of on here try our hardest to have a civil debate, but when you come on here and question someone's intelligence because you don't like them that ruins the debate.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM
  • Only in your world Mike, is explaining a point of view somehow changing the argument. Am I going to be flagged?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 1:47 PM
  • *

    If you were explaining your point of view CPB I would agree with you but you changed your argument. You've been provided with the evidence that you changed your argument and your response was to question the intelligence of those who provided the evidence.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 2:16 PM
  • PUT ON MY CHEST-HIGH FISHING WADERS and made it through all this stuff above.

    Greatly impressed by Chunky's vocabulary, reminds one of being in a truck stop men's room, or behind the chutes at Dodge City's PRCA rodeo.


    The Federal Court System to date has convicted 192 terrorist suspects of Felonies and sentenced them.


    To have legal grounds for continuing to hold several hundred GitMo detainees -- They need to be tried and CONVICTED in open court.

    Otherwise most nations of the world will believe we are ignoring and violating human rights.

    We cannot lead from the high ground, by crawling through swamps.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Sat, Nov 28, 2009, at 1:47 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: