by Jack
At the same time that Obama is cutting 40,000 US soldiers from the Army, his policy of recruiting Syrians to be trained by our special forces to meet the ISIS challenge has been so measured as to be almost invisible! We recently deployed 60 US trained Syrians to the front lines. No I didn’t mean 6000, or even 600. I said it right….the number is 60. That’s 60 people with small arms sent to a slaughter – why kind of an idiotic policy is this anyway?
Previous examples of US trained troops have seen them become demoralized, question their reasons for fighting and eventually they switch sides, they meld into the ISIS forces and mostly because of religious moral reasons. ISIS has a great sales pitch for the fundamentalist Muslim, especially for those that have no love for anything US.
So, you can almost expect that by training the locals our tactics will turn up in ISIS. Then they will be used to defeat the poor Iraqi forces and the beleaguered Syrian Army. Speaking of… I came across an interview with Syria’s president done by a French TV crew. They asked some pretty hard question and the answers they received might surprise you. Here’s a few of the Q and A:
Question 1: Good evening, Mr. President, I’d like to start straight forward. For most French, you are in a very large part responsible for the chaos going on in Syria, because of the brutality of the repression during the last four years. According to you, what is your part of responsibility?
President Assad: Actually, since the first few weeks of the conflict, the terrorists infiltrated the situation in Syria with the support of Western countries and regional countries, and they started attacking the civilians and destroying public places, public properties and private properties, and that’s documented on the internet, by them, not by us. So, our role as government is to defend our society and our citizens. If you want to say what you said is correct after four years, how could a government or president that’s been brutal with his population, killing them, and with the support from the other side of the greatest countries and political powers in the world, with the petrodollars in our region… how could he withstand for four years? Is it possible to have the support of your public while you are brutal with your public?
Question 2: In the beginning, there were tens of thousands of people in the street. Were they all jihadists?
President Assad: No, definitely not. But the other question is, if in the sixth day of the conflict, the first Syrian policeman was killed… how? By the peaceful demonstration? By the audio waves of the demonstrators? How? He’s been killed by terrorists. Somebody who took a gun and shot that policeman, so he’s a terrorist. It doesn’t matter if he’s a jihadist or not, because he killed a policeman.
To read the full interview click here.
In other parts of our war on terrorism, we spent about 630 million on a power project in Afghanistan and its putting about 2% of the electricity it was supposed to. There is a connection to the firm that built it, John Podesta (DC Lobbyist), Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The same names come up again in another multimillion dollar expenditure for Haiti and that too was a boondoggle. There’s a pattern here and nobody seems to be accountable for where these hundreds of millions of dollars are going. But, what does it matter, right? Click here for the full story.
Obama’s plan for stemming the violence and expansion of the ISIS evil is to keep speechifying and talking baloney until they laugh themselves to death.
That does seem pretty pathetic. Do you have a link to an article explaining why such a small number?
Of course, if you ask Ann Coulter or Pie Guevara, we should be sending more soldiers than that to Mexico to kill Mexicans before they kill us. Or perhaps they’d be satisfied with unleashing the military on the undocumented population here in the U.S.; nothing would surprise me at this point.
Heard this morning he’s spent a bundle and promised over a thousand trainers (1500 this year?) but only delivered a few, 60 or so…are these the same troops?
Re #2 second paragraph:
Leftist radicals don’t communicate or engage in discussion. They hear what they want to hear and then use their own biased understanding to go on the attack. The damage to America is much greater than any damage done to individuals they choose to target for destruction.
Is it any wonder the right has risen to rebut the lies, distortions and manipulations of dialogue the left vomits up?
I’m wondering if we’re going to get another Iraq kind of situation if we remove Assad? He’s a dictator, no question. He’s been brutal, no question. But, maybe this is what it takes to keep all these radicals in line? I don’t know, I’m just posing the question. Maybe we’re doing the wrong thing in Syria because we don’t understand how the culture works? If Assad is removed we also remove a pro-secular government that was fairly liberal towards other religions and also opposed Islamic fanaticism. What happens when Assad is gone? My worry is that ISIS will benefit and take part of Syria as a war prize.
Tina: “Leftist radicals don’t communicate or engage in discussion…”
Are you suggesting that you expect me to “engage in a discussion” with a man who calls me a “n****r burner?” Why? How could you expect me to do that? Would you do the same if you were the subject of such an ugly, racist attack?
Anyway, my comments were perfectly fair, far more than any response I have ever recieved from Pie. Both he and Coulter believe that the Mexican and American governments are taking part in a “white genocide” that rivals what was done to the Native Americans. These are their words, not mine.
Don’t tell me I am “hearing what I want to hear” or that I am the one with the problem for reacting to such a disgusting and racist position. Pie felt comfortable expressing such an extremist, white nationalist position because you and Jack have enabled his prior disgusting and uncivil comments for years. That is why he thought this was an appropriate place to spread white nationalist conspiracy theories about immigrants causing “white genocide,” and that no one whose opinion he values would criticize him for it.
Is he right?
Chris, I just want to keep a free speech blog alive because I think it’s important. When we have a debate the readers have a chance to weigh both sides point of view. Naturally we want to keep it civil so we can get the most out of the comments. I notice that you have been trying harder to be civil and that is appreciated. -Jack
#2 Chris, The statement was made by Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. Here is the video.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0708/Pentagon-Why-US-has-trained-only-60-Syrian-rebels-to-fight-ISIS-video
Thank you Peggy, I appreciate all that you do for us and bringing us the truth. : )
Thank you, Jack.
I do sometimes slip up and get angry, and for that I am (often rightly) criticized for it. That doesn’t bother me.
What bothers me is that I see others (one in particular) demonstrate the most uncivil behavior possible and NOTHING is said against him. He might have a word bleeped out here and there and be given a gentle reminder, but there’s nowhere near the vitriol or condemnation I recieve for stepping slightly out of line.
It really makes me feel that this blog is not as concerned about civility as it is making sure that no conservative commenters ever feel like they are being criticized for anything.
Chris, I won’t answer for the expressions of others on the blog. PS provides an opportunity for you to engage any of us personally.
You don’t communicate with me, Chris and the party you support has a well defined and executed system for disengagement and deflection as well as personal destruction of it’s opponents.
It’s bizarre that you would ask, “Would you do the same if you were the subject of such an ugly, racist attack?” You have subjected several of us on this blog to ugly racist attack!!! You are too PC to use extreme language but you accuse people here again and again of being a racist without expanding your mind to get what is actually being communicated
“Both he and Coulter believe that the Mexican and American governments are taking part in a “white genocide” that rivals what was done to the Native Americans.”
What is being done about the criminals crossing our borders again and again? The Mexican government does nothing, although they use force to protect their own borders. The American government has a catch and release policy even when the people released have a long history of heinous federal crimes, including murder, trafficking, and rape.
You distort (And fail to get) what’s being communicated because it’s easier to believe that Coulter and Pie are just bad people and because it serves the party line.
The left political machine transformed a small radical group (Supremacists) to include anyone on the right. Your party has used this deceit to target anyone who tries to engage in discussion or point out the truth about what is happening in America.
Mexicans are hurt by illegal border crossing, felons that are released to cross and harm Americans again while taking advantage of our system, You boldly pile on the leftist lies proving you don’t really give a rip and you wonder how it is that Americans that have been accused of “white privilege and “systemic racism” when it’s a damn lie are upset enough to punch back? Give me a large break!
Chris you are free to participate here or not, as you know. I notice since I’ve been back that you have attempted to be more civil also. However, I am suspicious, is your new found civility a mask? You still show no signs of actually getting what conservatives are saying about issues of race, gender, the border, or economics and you do demonstrate the “new tyranny” which requires that your opponents bend completely to your will, apologize for being absolutely wrong, and express admiration for and devotion to our “superiors.”
This blog is concerned about civility. It also expects each participant to be adult…to answer for and be responsible for his own words.
Tina: “Chris, I won’t answer for the expressions of others on the blog.”
Your defense of Pie’s extreme white nationalist comments later on in your reply contradict this claim, but we’ll get to that.
“You don’t communicate with me, Chris”
This is not true. I typically respond to you fairly and logically. You typically respond by making strawman arguments and dodging direct questions about your position. You did this recently in the Confederate flag thread, when you claimed that I said “standing up for states’ rights” was “irrational and treasonous,” when I said no such thing. You did this in the gay marriage thread where you repeatedly stated that gay marriage harmed children and refused my repeated requests to explain why. You do this all the time. Then you deflect by making vague statements about how I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say, and if I were just more tolerant and open minded about statements like “Immigrants are causing white genocide,” we’d all get along better.
I understand exactly what you’re saying. The problem is that what you’re saying happens to be horrible and extreme.
“It’s bizarre that you would ask, “Would you do the same if you were the subject of such an ugly, racist attack?” You have subjected several of us on this blog to ugly racist attack!!! You are too PC to use extreme language but you accuse people here again and again of being a racist without expanding your mind to get what is actually being communicated”
No. I do not accuse people here again and again of “being a racist.” I do point out when people here say racist things, and I explain exactly why I find such statements racist, using logic and reason. If you really think that is equivalent to calling someone a “n****r burner,” well, I’m sorry, but I’m not going to bother explaining to you the hughe chasm of difference that exists there; it would be pointless.
I did call Pie a racist recently, which is the first time I can remember labeling a commenter here that way. That’s because his comments were so far over the line, and so in sync with white nationalist thought, that the label applies.
As I’ve suggested before, if you do not want me to point out when you say racist things, the solution is to stop saying racist things.
Me: “Both he and Coulter believe that the Mexican and American governments are taking part in a “white genocide” that rivals what was done to the Native Americans.”
Tina: “What is being done about the criminals crossing our borders again and again? The Mexican government does nothing, although they use force to protect their own borders. The American government has a catch and release policy even when the people released have a long history of heinous federal crimes, including murder, trafficking, and rape.”
How on earth is this at all a response to what I said? Once again you engage in non-sequiters and weasel-wording. You won’t come out and say you agree with Pie that Mexico’s and U.S. policy amounts to “white genocide,” but you give this extremist statement your tacit approval.
“You distort (And fail to get) what’s being communicated”
I distorted nothing. I reported their comments entirely accurately, using their own words.
If you find what I wrote offensive and over the top, that’s because what Pie and Coulter said was extremely offensive and over the top.
“because it’s easier to believe that Coulter and Pie are just bad people”
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, Tina. I’ve done so for you more times than I can count. I’ve been told that I see the best in everybody, even people I vehemently disagree with.
Pie Guevara and Ann Coulter are bad people. I don’t believe that because I want to or because it’s easy for me. I believe it because they demonstrate this with their hateful words and deeds.
“The left political machine transformed a small radical group (Supremacists) to include anyone on the right.”
No. The reason that the right has become so associated with a small radical group of white supremacists, is because the right has CHOSEN to associate themselves with a small radical group of white supremacists.
You and Jack have both quoted open white nationalists on this blog before, without embarassment.
Numerous Republican candidates have been caught appearing at white supremacist events, circulating white supremacist newsletters, and circulating racist e-mails.
Donald Trump, an unapologetic racist, is leading in the polls in many states among Republicans right now.
Ann Coulter, whose rhetoric is now indistinguishable from that of white nationalists, is still defended and tolerated in your party.
Pie Guevara says that immigration amounts to white genocide and you defend him.
Have you ever googled “white genocide,” Tina? Do you know the kind of links that turn up?
If you don’t want people to accuse the right of racism, stop associating with blatant racists. It’s that simple! But it requires you to take some personal responsibility and to stop blaming your every problem on Democrats.
Democrats don’t have the POC vote because POC are stupid and gullible. But you’ve said even MLK Jr. was “boondoggled” into supporting the left, so how could you ever be expected to have respect for any person of color who disagrees with you?
Do you understand what an extreme word “genocide” is? Probably not, since you’ve said yourself that gay marriage could lead to genocide of the human race(!):
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2015/01/22/live-life-every-life-gift/
Do you understand what the “-cide” means in “genocide?” It means murder. Do you understand that if everything is called “genocide,” than the word ceases to mean anything? Do you understand that if you insist on arguing using extremist rhetroic, people are going to treat you as an extremist? Do you understand that if you insist on behaving like the worst stereotype of a gibbering, foaming-at-the-mouth, uncompassionate conservative, that people are going to treat you as such?
You cannot use such radical, over-the-top rhetoric and then complain when people call you out for it. Well, you can. But you’re going to lose, just like you lost the same-sex marriage debate. And you’ll have no one to blame but yourself.
I don’t know what’s worse, Chris, your arrogance or your indoctrination into the tyranny of the PC left. You do not communicate, you preach and by the heavens anyone in your path had better understand things as you do and come on over to your side!
Pie is being a mirror whether you can see it or not.
Good communication skills require that you get what another person is saying from their perspective and understanding. Making value judgements based on your understanding means you don’t get it and you don’t care enough to get it.
As far as outrageous statements like those expressed by Coulter go, you tell me. When a person has politely engaged in conversation about issues only see their contributions ridiculed and maligned as _____ (fill in the blank), that’s not communication! it isn’t even civil. When someone sees himself attacked to the point of needing security, that’s not an example of good communication or civility! And when someone like Coulter has been invited to speak at a university and the opposition doesn’t have the decency to allow him to speak, that’s not communication, civility or even lively debate. This is exactly how conservatives have been engaged by the left for decades. Coulter is outrageous because you guys don;t sincerely engage in debate or conversation. And don’t throw into this the one young Muslim woman who was polite because I’m not talking about her behavior, although clearly she was unwilling to get what Coulter was saying. when a conservative attempts to speak about radical, possibly dangerous members of the Muslim community they are immediately dismissed and then maligned…period!
You will never get Coulter until you’re willing to drop the lens you look through and attempt to see things as she does. Doing that doesn’t mean you have to permanently drop your POV, your ideals, or your opinions. It does require a level of respect you don’t seem able to muster.
Pick an issue, any issue, and you will see the roots of contention have been nourished by leftists looking for a political fight rather than solutions to difficult problems that work for everyone.
We have a big border problem and it doesn’t exist because Americans are systemically racist. It exists because policies invite illegal crossings and because our government lacks the will to adequately address the problem! The government can’t address the problem because the right side of the aisle is required to agree 100% with the other or be vilified and labeled. The problem can’t be addressed because the right perspective is distorted. The government can’t address the problem because part of the left’s political game is to convince POC that the right hates them.
You participate regularly in that game. If whites look privileged to you it’s because they’ve been industrious, not racist, and yet you don’t have the decency or willingness to recognize this as a truth.
Nearly everything in your comment fails to express anything about my perspective. There is a clear picture of your prejudice as regards my communications.
There isn’t much difference between labeling someone a racist by calling them one and constantly labeling their speech as racist…the end result is the same. Those who do get me, those who do get Pie, know I’m not a racist nor is Peggy or Jack or anyone else you have decided to straighten out! We resent that “get your mind right” attitude and rightly so. When the President of the United States can get away with labeling white Americans with systemic racism (A group think approach) it’s clear there is more going on here than white privilege or racism. There is a political agenda to deceive POC.
You, my friend, don’t get it! Your radical leadership doesn’t want you to get it. Unfortunately, you are just another useful fool.
At #11 Tina the following sentence:
“Mexicans are hurt by illegal border crossing, felons that are released to cross and harm Americans again while taking advantage of our system,”
should read:
Mexicans are hurt by illegal border crossings, as are Mexican Americans, white Americans…all Americans! Felons that are released to cross again while taking advantage of our system, don’t deserve our sympathies.”
Chris : I do sometimes slip up and get angry.
Bald faced lie. You are always angry and are always looking for an opening, imagined or real (usually imagined) to launch into a vile personal attack.
Chris : Are you suggesting that you expect me to “engage in a discussion” with a man who calls me a “n****r burner?” Why? How could you expect me to do that? Would you do the same if you were the subject of such an ugly, racist attack?
A selective memory is so convenient. You have and do engage Tina, Jack, and others with ugly racist attacks. See last Sanctuary Cities Are Illegal comments when they all come up for a burner update.
Chris : Pie felt comfortable expressing such an extremist, white nationalist position because you and Jack have enabled his prior disgusting and uncivil comments for years. That is why he thought this was an appropriate place to spread white nationalist conspiracy theories about immigrants causing “white genocide,” and that no one whose opinion he values would criticize him for it.
and
Chris : Both he [Pie] and Coulter believe that the Mexican and American governments are taking part in a “white genocide” that rivals what was done to the Native Americans.
More absolute nonsense from the king of nonsense. I and Coulter are not spreading white nationalist conspiracy theories about immigrants causing “white genocide.” Again see last Sanctuary Cities Are Illegal comments when they all come up. Jack and Tina have also enabled your disgusting and uncivil comments for years. I guess they finally had enough of your vile personal attacks on them and gave you a time-out recently.
Chris : Your defense of Pie’s extreme white nationalist comments later on in your reply contradict this claim, but we’ll get to that.
More bald faced lies from the king of lies. Tina has never defended that comment and it was not a white nationalist comment. Neither was Coulter’s. She was stealing a left-wing rhetorical device that has long been and continually abused by the left and shoving it back in your collective faces. Good for her.
Chris : “You don’t communicate with me, Chris” [Quoting Tina] This is not true. I typically respond to you fairly and logically.
Typical. Chris’ sense of fairness and logic is really quite twisted, to the point of being bizarre.
Chris : You [Tina] typically respond by making strawman arguments and dodging direct questions about your position.
and
Chris : No. I do not accuse people here again and again of “being a racist.”
More bald faced lies. Chris does exactly what he accuses Tina of. Psychologists call it “projection.” I call it oblivious, un-self-examined gobbledygook so typical of leftists. Chris has a very selective memory, he has attacked Jack and Tina innumerable times with specious accusations of racism. I am beginning to think Chris is as mentally ill as his dead mentor was.
Chris : You won’t come out and say you agree with Pie that Mexico’s and U.S. policy amounts to “white genocide,” but you give this extremist statement your tacit approval.
and
Tina : You distort (And fail to get) what’s being communicated because it’s easier to believe that Coulter and Pie are just bad people and because it serves the party line.
and
Tina : The left political machine transformed a small radical group (Supremacists) to include anyone on the right. Your party has used this deceit to target anyone who tries to engage in discussion or point out the truth about what is happening in America.
Tina just owned Chris and the left. You got him EXACTLY. Chris is like a stupid, untrained dog that never ceases barking once it gets going. This is a tactic he deploys to wear down people he hates and disagrees with. All leftists I am familiar with use it ad nauseam. Chris needs a shock collar. This dog just likes to bark. He is a very bad dog. Chris will go on forever harping about a rhetorical device stolen from the left by Coulter.
Chris : Pie Guevara and Ann Coulter are bad people.
No we are not, you are. Moreover, you are a bad dog in need of training.
Chris : The reason that the right has become so associated with a small radical group of white supremacists, is because the right has CHOSEN to associate themselves with a small radical group of white supremacists.
The bald faced lies just keep piling up. 99.999999% of the right, including Coulter and myself have absolutely nothing to do with white supremacists. Sometimes I think someone should just shoot this rabid dog. This is one of Chris’ and left’s most despicable of lies used for mass character assassination. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they are not. The left is pure evil.
I see no sense in continuing with the rest of Chris’ political posturing, his lies, and his deliberate misinterpretations and misrepresentations. This specious and rabid rant is just another vile mass personal attack on Post Scripts, conservatives, and Republicans.
His personal attacks on Post Scripts are utterly reprehensible. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time but not Chris. To err is human, but Chris never errs because he is not human. He is a rabid dog of the left and he will always snarl, bark, and foam at the mouth with his invectives and those philippics he gets from his handlers. Why Post Scripts puts up with it is remarkable, but I think they should (figuratively) shoot this dog.
P.S.
Chris has successfully again hijacked another Post Scripts article to go on one of his long winded, sputtering and spewing left wing rants. Maybe someday Post Scripts will realize that this is a standard tactic of the left. To divert and diffuse.
Chris at #2, introducing an off topic tool with which to bludgeon Coulter and Pie, “Of course, if you ask Ann Coulter or Pie Guevara, we should be sending more soldiers than that to Mexico to kill Mexicans before they kill us. Or perhaps they’d be satisfied with unleashing the military on the undocumented population here in the U.S”
A covert, slime act…and he pretends to be so innocent!
Tina, all you’re saying is that any time a conservative says anything mean or over-the-top, it’s because a liberal did it first and they had no choice. You actually believe Ann Coulter was polite and respectful before the mean left changed her into what she is today? How is that personal responsibility? How is that ethical?
You say:
“Pie is being a mirror whether you can see it or not.”
Then Pie says:
“Sometimes I think someone should just shoot this rabid dog.”
I have never said anything like this about anyone. I would never say anything like this about anyone. It is so far over the line as to be sickening.
We can disagree respectfully over many things. We cannot disagree respectfully about this. If you tolerate such violent comments on your blog, you are perpetuating evil.
You also say:
“This blog is concerned about civility.”
If you don’t speak out against Pie’s comments, then this statement is a lie.
I do not feel comfortable participating on a blog which promotes white nationalist conspiracy theories that immigrants are causing “white genocide.” Nor do I feel comfortable participating on a blog in which proponents of such theories dehumanize their opponents and openly talk about wanting them to be shot, and the blogrunners act like the victim of the harassment is the problem.
If that’s the type of rhetoric you are comfortable with, then you win. I’m out.
I mean, how freaking hard would it be to say “It is wrong to call people ‘n****r burners.’ It is wrong to say people should be shot like dogs. It is wrong to say that immigrants are causing white genocide.”
That shouldn’t be hard. That shouldn’t be controversial. It’s actually the bare minimum standard of ethics and human decency.
If you view me asking you to reach that extremely minimal bar of civility as some sort of tyrannical PC bullying demand, then you really are just a shockingly unethical person, and I look forward to never speaking to you again.
“I mean, how freaking hard would it be to say “It is wrong to call people ‘n****r burners” Ok, it’s wrong, that was easy.
Help me here. Weren’t “white supremacists” in the recent past called members of the KKK and wasn’t/isn’t the KKK made up of 9999999.9 Democrats?
Just clarifying who the real racist are. Thanks.
Editors note: Yes they were.
I just noticed Pie uses the same attack plybook every time chris. also you will see into David Waltons world on twitter. Over time one ca see while he is calling people here “Stupid” He is gobbling up already debunked Propaganda on the web.
I have to say Pie is a bully and name calls here but yet Chris is the culprit?
Never are actual facts discussed or proven here,
Look How about let’s talk about the platforms and skip the name calling.
I see the word socialism being misused, So
Who here collects a socialist social security check, uses the socialist medicare or veterans hospital?
Tina I am proud of you for not taking these socialist checks.? A true conservative would not
Dewey, I think conservatives have every right to recover their tax money from the government visa vi social security. They know how to spend it best, not the gov.
Thanks Jack and Dewey.
Jack I know you are a good guy who tries to keep things civil.
Peggy: “Help me here. Weren’t “white supremacists” in the recent past called members of the KKK and wasn’t/isn’t the KKK made up of 9999999.9 Democrats?”
The original KKK was mostly Democrats, as everyone knows. As everyone also knows, most Democrats today support things like multiculturalism, affirmative action, open immigration, and other ideas that any KKK member would find repugnant. So I’m not sure why you believe most KKK members would be Democrats today. (My hunch is that most identify with neither party.)
And of course it was not a Democrat who said immigration was causing white genocide, it was fringe Republican Ann Coulter, whose remarks were then supported by Pie Guevara as “facts” before he changed his story to say that she was merely satirizing liberals. (If she didn’t mean what she said, the white supremacist community seems to be unaware; VDARE, AmRen and other white supremacist groups are giving her glowing reviews, and Coulter has even said that the inspiration for her most recent anti-immigrant book was Peter Brimelow, the editor of VDARE, who she praised extensively. She is a white supremacist now; mainstream Republicans need to distance themselves from this toxic person immediately.)
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/ann-coulter-interview-part-one/
Speaking of conservative book writers the NY Times is taking Chris’ advice to “distance themselves” from “toxic person immediately,” by excluding Ted Cruz’s “A Time For Truth” book from it’s bestseller list. The reason given is it doesn’t meet their standard’s. Of course it’s understood what those left-leaning standards are as stated by Chris.
Equal and fair treatment only applies to those who express ideas approved by the DNC.
Despite Stellar Sales, New York Times Keeps Ted Cruz’s New Book Off Bestseller List — Here’s the Excuse Given:
“One title that will be noticeably absent from The New York Times’ upcoming bestsellers list is Senator Ted Cruz’s new book, “A Time for Truth.”
The New York Times confirmed to the book’s publisher, HarperCollins, that they are excluding Cruz’s book from the bestsellers list, despite stellar sales numbers, Politico’s Dylan Byers first reported. Cruz’s new book sold 11,854 copies in its first week, more than “all but two of the Times’ bestselling titles,” according to the report.
By Byers’ estimation, the strong sales would land Cruz the No. 3 spot.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/09/despite-stellar-sales-new-york-times-keeps-ted-cruzs-new-book-off-bestseller-list-heres-the-excuse-given/
I’ve read the book and found it excellently presented and written. I even researched the facts presented to verify their accuracy and found them all to be accurate. Which is probably why the NY Times decided to exclude it from the list. They would not be able to disprove the information, so instead is trying to keep people uninformed of Cruz’s accomplishments by not promoting his book.
On the other end of political book writers is Hillary Clinton’s book which did make the bestseller list, while Carson’s book with close to matching sales was ranked 10 steps lower.
Clinton critic’s book bumps Hillary memoir from top of bestseller list:
“”Hard Choices” still leads the list of Hardcover Nonfiction, but trails when print and e-books are combined.
And on Amazon.com, Klein’s book has shot up to #13 overall, while Clinton’s has fallen out of the top 100.
In another curious detail in the book wars, conservative commentator and neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s book has crept into the Times’ Top 10 list. According to The Daily Caller, the book’s overall sales are also approaching Clinton’s.
Nielsen Bookscan figures reportedly show Carson has sold 162,000 books, while Clinton has sold 177,000.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/11/clinton-memoir-bumped-from-top-bestseller-list-by-clinton-critic/
Chris, Ann Coulter has always been polite. That doesn’t mean the words she chooses will not push your buttons. It does not mean she won’t meet impolite words with equally impolite words. Ann Coulter will not knuckle under to leftist tactics or belief systems; you can’t shut her up by calling her names, throwing things at her while she’s attempting to speak, or threatening her life.
Ann Coulter’s research is unquestionably thorough, the woman knows what she’s talking about but you are not interested. You don’t think you could possible learn something new from Coulter. It simply isn’t possible in your PC world to include information that might expand your perspective.
How sad that this is the state of many of our college grads today.
Adult people usually realize as they mature that their knowledge, perspective, and understanding is limited while what there is to know is abundant and vast. They realize they can always learn from another. The left, in dismissing everything the right has to say on any subject, demonstrate a lack of maturity that can only exist in an indoctrinated, closed minded individual…or an ambitious con artist looking for absolute power and control.
I’ll say it again! This is a war of words and ideology. The currently used radical lefts tactics came from a book published in 1971 by a man whose politics were Marxist and who learned how to operate from a member of the mafia. The Democrat Party has been taken over by such as these and operates by the Alinsky book no matter the issue and no matter the facts! keeping and staying in power is the only objective!
I resent your high handed objections to anything Coulter or anyone else from the conservative side says
because you continue to participate in and use those tactics yourself. You enjoy being the mouth piece for the leftist rule #12 tactics that “targeted” Ann Coulter, attempted to freeze (silence) and isolate her from sympathy, cut her off from support by her peer group, and made the attack personal. Alinsky wrote: “Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
So yes, I think your team drew first blood. Your party is not the Democrat Party that existed prior to 1971. You Obviously do not care that your chosen party with its twisted, “transformed” ideology has been despicably playing this mean spirited word game for decades. You will not include in discussions any evidence, fact, or POV that does not agree with the radical PC leftist position. You obviously think we should just shut up, take it, and get our minds right!
“If you don’t speak out against Pie’s comments, then this statement is a lie.”
Horsefeathers! I don’t believe Pie is serious when suggesting shooting might be a good response. The words push your buttons and are “evil” in your eyes because now you have become the “target”, you are being “isolated”, you are being “personally” and “cruelly” attacked, and…you cannot see that Pie is being a mirror giving you an opportunity to recognize the evil leadership and ideology you have chosen to support.
I would prefer a more civil blog but I will not suppress expression that mirrors how Ann Coulter has been treated from the first moment she opened her mouth by your party faithful simply for daring to have something different to say!
I’m concerned with your constant accusations of racism but you continue to be allowed space here to accuse and play the Alinsky game covertly.
Now tell me how Jack’s willingness to say that calling someone a “N….r burner” is “wrong” will change anything? What’s the victory if not a blow to isolate and silence Pie?
Grow up, Chris! Take the punches like the rest of us or move on. A good first step would be to honestly look at the party you favor and the tactics used. Another would be to look at your willing participation, albeit possibly with unconscious, slavish loyalty.
A White Supremisist’s “glowing review” does not indicate understanding of what Coulter has said. In fact it’s an ignorant position projected on her which you are only too happy to take advantage. Notice how you jump at the opportunity to paint her as agreeing with them…more cruel criticism meant to shut her up!
“As everyone also knows, most Democrats today support things like multiculturalism, affirmative action, open immigration, and other ideas that any KKK member would find repugnant.”
The Democrat position in the KKK has not changed with these programs that enslave, demean, and oppress blacks. The KKK are covertly successful. Democrats shifted tactics but they did it in order to continue their prejudice and attitude…they did it to deceive.
The communists also decided that violence was too damaging and open and they chose covert means which would work just as well.
Agreement with one thing someone, or some group, thinks IS NOT agreement with everything that person or group thinks. Since you are slavish to group think you don’t understand that. Hence you can target Coulter as a white supremacist and think you have done something valuable.
Republicans need to distance themselves from this toxic person immediately.)
Go pound sand you silly, unconscious, unthinking hypocrite!
Dewey we do provide facts and discuss issues of the day on PS. You apparently think we have to post what you would. I suggest, once again, a blog of your own.
Also you misunderstood me on SS. I do take it and believe it would be stupid not to since I was forced into a system (And as an employer pay the employers portion) with a promised return for that money…at least until the law is changed and we all participate according to law. The benefit offered is a paltry sum compared to what I could have realized from a private sector investment and for that reason, if nothing else, I support reform of the SS law.
If anyone can’t find facts and links to our sources then they are not trying. PS posts tons of facts with an error rate of less than 1% and we do it with half our brain tied behind our backs just to make it fair for the liberals who visit here. ; )
We love to cite the truth – it gives us credibility and it informs the people of things they ought to know. It’s one of the reasons we are here!
Seriously, if we ever post something that is in error we do our level best to fix it. We want you to get good, rock solid information about what’s happening in this country and around the world.
#21 Jack : “I mean, how freaking hard would it be to say “It is wrong to call people ‘n****r burners” Ok, it’s wrong, that was easy.
Agreed Jack, but it is funny. 😀 Chris likes to tout himself as Mr. Sensitivity and then slips up by expressing a wholly insensitive remark without thinking what he was literally saying and the abject brutality it represents. I could not resist sticking the knife into the always pompous Chris. I still like to enjoy giving that knife a twist now and then because I know it makes him burn worse than he could ever burn a black POTUS. Chris loves to slam others for their insensitivity but nevertheless I shall desist but I sure as heck won’t apologize.
Re #22 Dewey:
Dewey, do you follow me with a Twitter account? If yes, Tweet me! Don’t be a coward and hide. What is your Twitter account so I can follow back! Be forewarned, I sometimes treat others as they treat me and I do not suffer weird, anti-capitalist,cop hating leftist morons who crap on conservatives and peddle bizarre ideas and opinions easily.
Re #27 Tina : “Chris, Ann Coulter has always been polite. That doesn’t mean the words she chooses will not push your buttons. It does not mean she won’t meet impolite words with equally impolite words. Ann Coulter will not knuckle under to leftist tactics or belief systems; you can’t shut her up by calling her names, throwing things at her while she’s attempting to speak, or threatening her life.”
BINGO. This is EXACTLY why Chris and the rest of his rabid left-wing dog hate Coulter with such vehemence.
Re #27 Tina:
Screwed that sentence up with a bad edit. This is why I wish we could have preview editing or re-editing of posts already made restored. Both were once deployed in the past for short periods. Also, with either systems an accidental Submit can be edited.
That should have read —
BINGO. This is EXACTLY why Chris and the rest of his rabid left-wing dog pack hate Coulter with such vehemence.
Re #22 Dewey : I am not afraid to publish my real name, why are you so afraid?
Methinks that if Dewey posted his real name Huey, Louie, uncle Donald, and the rest of the Duck family will find out and he would be in hot water.
Peggy, your article left out the Times’ explanation for WHY Cruz’ book did not meet their standards. Here it is:
“In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases,” (Times Spokesperson Eileen Murphy) said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/ny-times-keeps-cruz-off-bestseller-list-210254.html
In other words, the Times is accusing Cruz’ publisher of rigging the system to inflate his book sales. I’ve no idea if this is true or not, but I’m sure conservative blogs will stay on the case.
Tina: “Chris, Ann Coulter has always been polite.”
LOL!
Do you really think it’s polite to call 9/11 widows “greedy harpies” who were “enjoying their husbands’ deaths” and were probably about to be divorced before their husbands died on 9/11? That is polite to you?
(Don’t tell me you “don’t know the context” here; this is literally what Coulter is most famous for.)
“It does not mean she won’t meet impolite words with equally impolite words.”
What do you think the 9/11 widows did or said to Ann Coulter that merited such awful treatment? Why do you believe they deserved to be called greedy harpies who were enjoying their husbands’ deaths?
“Ann Coulter will not knuckle under to leftist tactics or belief systems; you can’t shut her up by calling her names, throwing things at her while she’s attempting to speak, or threatening her life.”
You’re right, only leftists do this. No right-winger has ever called a left-winger a name, thrown things at them, or threatened their lives.
“Ann Coulter’s research is unquestionably thorough, the woman knows what she’s talking about but you are not interested.”
Do you mean like when she claimed America had taken in 1/4 of Mexico’s population, a ridiculous lie based on a borderline illiterate misreading of polling data?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/02/ann-coulter/no-us-has-not-taken-14-mexicos-population/
How about when she ludicrously claimed that “No doctors who went to an American medical school will be accepting Obamacare?”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/16/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-says-no-doctors-who-went-american-medi/
Where were her amazing powers of “unquestionable” research when she called SC Gov. Nikki Haley, who was born in America, an “immigrant” who did not understand America’s history?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/24/ann-coulter/ann-coulters-pants-fire-claim-sc-gov-nikki-haley-i/
What about when she claimed that Blue Shield had pulled out of California, causing a friend to “die from Obamcare?”
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/05/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-says-friends-sister-died/
So no, her research is not “unquestionable,” and she clearly does NOT know what she is talking about. She tells outrageous falsehoods, all the time.
Exposing Coulter’s falsehoods is not “targeting” her in an Alinky-style attack. It’s simply about telling the truth.
It is important that liars are exposed as liars. End of.
“Your party is not the Democrat Party that existed prior to 1971.”
Oh good, I’m glad you admit this. So now will you stop holding the Democratic (that’s how it’s spelled, by the way) party responsible for the KKK?
“The Democrat position in the KKK has not changed with these programs that enslave, demean, and oppress blacks. The KKK are covertly successful. Democrats shifted tactics but they did it in order to continue their prejudice and attitude…they did it to deceive.”
*sigh* I guess not.
This conspiracy theory is insane, by the way. You honestly believe that the purpose of welfare programs is to “enslave, demean, and oppress blacks?” That’s crazy! And it’s offensive as hell to all black Democrats, not to mention those who actually endured the evils of slavery.
“You will not include in discussions any evidence, fact, or POV that does not agree with the radical PC leftist position. You obviously think we should just shut up, take it, and get our minds right!”
This is just such a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of my participating here, I don’t even know what to say. I do not automatically dismiss opposing evidence. I typically engage with it and explain why I think it’s invalid. Obviously I have a bias and sometimes I am probably too quick to dismiss opposing information but I try and be as fair as possible. If you can’t see that then your own bias is clouding your judgment.
“I don’t believe Pie is serious when suggesting shooting might be a good response.”
Does that really matter? If I said “Tina should be shot like the dog she is,” would it matter to you (or anyone) if I was being serious? Jack would ban me in a heartbeat, and he’d be right to do so! That kind of language is sick and has no place in any kind of discourse whatsoever.
“I would prefer a more civil blog but I will not suppress expression that mirrors how Ann Coulter has been treated from the first moment she opened her mouth by your party faithful simply for daring to have something different to say!”
Well, yeah, I guess calling 9/11 widows “greedy harpies” sure is different. It’s also objectively awful.
It’s so disengenuous when you pretend that certain individuals are targeted simply for “having a different opinion,” when in reality, they’re being targeted because they are awful, bigoted human beings.
There is a way to express conservative opinions without being bigoted. You and Jack manage to do so a majority of the time! But when you slip up I let you know.
There are others, like Coulter, whose entire public persona is premised on being bigoted bullies. When you fail to acknowledge that, it makes people on the fence think that you’re just as bad as they are.
It’s whiny and petulant to complain that peeople are hurling accusations of bigotry simply because you “have a difference of opinion.” I’ve admitted in some cases when liberals have gone too far and falsely accused people of bigotry, but if you can’t see it in Coulter’s case than the word has lost all meaning.
“A White Supremisist’s “glowing review” does not indicate understanding of what Coulter has said. In fact it’s an ignorant position projected on her which you are only too happy to take advantage. Notice how you jump at the opportunity to paint her as agreeing with them…more cruel criticism meant to shut her up!”
Did you miss the part where, in addition to being praised by white supremacists, she is praising them back, and claiming that the editor of VDARE inspired her to write her anti-immigration book? Or did you just choose to ignore it?
How many white supremacists does Coulter have to openly praise before you start questioning her? Obviously the number is higher than “one.” Is it two? Three? Four?
Of course, my question relies on the premise that there is anything Coulter can do that would make you question her, which is perhaps giving you more of the benefit of the doubt than you’ve earned. You defended Rush Limbaugh after he praised a terrorist organization and claimed that our military was invading Uganda to kill Christians, so there is obviously NOTHING any influential speaker from your side can do that will ever earn anything more than a shrug from you.
You believe this is a “war,” and that ANY tactics are justified to match the tactics you believe originate on the left. No “soldier” from your side can be disciplined while this war rages on, and there is no such thing as too much force.
It’s a very sad, divisive, unethical worldview.
“Agreement with one thing someone, or some group, thinks IS NOT agreement with everything that person or group thinks.”
And yet you can’t even express the mildest disagreement with the worst things people on your side say.
Since some people like to pick and choose what words are acceptable depending on who says them I give you a revered Democrat who used the words “white ni****”
Sen. Robert Byrd not only was a KKK member but led his local Klan chapter:
“No single obituary of Byrd mentioned his 2001 use of the term “white nigger,” an early 20th-century anachronism that Byrd employed not once, but twice.”
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/28/sen-robert-byrd-not-only-was-a-kkk-member-but-led-his-local-klan-chapter/#ixzz3fX63K0zp
Trying to rewrite history won’t work. A leopard today has the same spots its linage has had since it first walked on this earth. Leopard spots don’t change and neither does the racist Democrat party.
Chris writes: “Tina: “Chris, Ann Coulter has always been polite.”
LOL!
Do you really think it’s polite to call 9/11 widows “greedy harpies” who were “enjoying their husbands’ deaths” and were probably about to be divorced before their husbands died on 9/11? That is polite to you?”
Chris you once again fail to communicate. Ann Coulter is always polite. She is often interrupted nut always listens quietly until the speaker has finished to reply. She doesn’t rage but expresses her opinions in a matter-of-fact way. Political opponents who are on shows with her often talk over her and interrupt. She has been screamed off the stage and had things thrown at her. Yes Chris she is polite
You did not represent what I wrote accurately anyway. I wrote: “Ann Coulter has always been polite. That doesn’t mean the words she chooses will not push your buttons. It does not mean she won’t meet impolite words with equally impolite words. Ann Coulter will not knuckle under to leftist tactics or belief systems; you can’t shut her up by calling her names, throwing things at her while she’s attempting to speak, or threatening her life.”
It’s not quite the same thing is it!
How about we let Coulter respond to why she characterized the four widows from Jersey. She was asked by Reuters which was quoted at Free Republic. I included comments made by the FR writer as an introduction:
Ann Coulter is polite but as I wrote above: “It does not mean she won’t meet impolite words with equally impolite words. Ann Coulter will not knuckle under to leftist tactics or belief systems…”
Those women were not innocent. They chose to use their tragedy as a means to further a political cause, making them fair game. Blaming Bush (And Bill Clinton) for 911 to try to get Kerry nominated is pretty low. I wouldn’t do it.
Chris I will not further indulge you on Coulter, there’s no point in it. The problems you have with what people say are your own. You’ll just have to deal with it.
Apparently you can’t accept the reality of the Saul Alinsky word war the left from the seventies created or appreciate how challenging it has been for conservatives over several decades, no matter how many times that reality is pointed out to you. You have nothing to say but the disingenuous agreement that what was done wasn’t right. You don’t go apoplectic, you don’t feel the need to post the outrageous accusations and condemn them specifically. You are not outraged at how public hearings have been used as shaming devices using false charges. To my knowledge, I have been gone awhile, you are not at all outraged about evidence that the IRS targeted conservatives to block political speech and colluded with other agencies for possible prosecution and harassment of the conservatives targeted. Same with the scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton. Your response has been, “Ho hum, nothing to see here.”
when your side is not in power it is equally vicious. What was done to Scooter Libby, for instance, was horrible and unforgivable.
Your superior moral posturing seems shallow and insincere to me since you continue to align with and support a party led by such despicable people. Words by commentators are one thing, specious, illegal deeds are quite another.
“You believe this is a “war,” and that ANY tactics are justified to match the tactics you believe originate on the left. No “soldier” from your side can be disciplined while this war rages on, and there is no such thing as too much force.”
No soldier from your side is EVER disciplined…often they are promoted!!!!!
In war soldiers set aside their morals to fight the battle. Your side started this war and follow a manual of cruel personal targeting. It would be the equivalent of suicide to back down to you or anyone else who participates in this game. So be offended and object and “punish’ your own side. They certainly deserve it, which is why Rush has always said, “…I am equal time.”
“And yet you can’t even express the mildest disagreement with the worst things people on your side say.”
Wrong! I choose not to comment.
Chris: “Oh good, I’m glad you admit this. So now will you stop holding the Democratic (that’s how it’s spelled, by the way) party responsible for the KKK?”
I posted the Wikipedia entry that explained how the party was named the Democrat Party when we discussed this before. I’m just being polite and accurate! So stuff it, Mr. know it all from the corrections bureau. And by the way the word party should have been capitalized if you were referring to the name.
Why should I avoid the truth about the KKK and it’s strong ties to the Democrat Party and it’s formation when it’s true?
Many Southern Democrats were extremely prejudiced and racist prior to the seventies but they loved America. The modern Democrat Party has been taken over by radical extremists with the explicit desire to “fundamentally transform” this nation…they do NOT love America! You slavishly join them and then expect respect from me. You refuse to denounce them and yet expect me to agree when you express petty complaints about commentators who simply match their counterparts pitch for pitch. You are barking up the wrong tree; I will not unless your side surrenders and comes back to America.
You don’t like it? Get out of the game!
I’m done with you on this thread.
Pie at #31, either way it works for me.
Re #36 Tina :
Tina just shot the rabid dog. Can I have the pelt? I want to make a shopping bag out of it.
Peggy at #35
The latest tag being hung around our necks is white privilege. What a joke. My mother-in-law was raised in a small house in Canada with a dirt floor (Just like Maya Angelou). My own mother was an orphan at 12 after losing her father at nine and was farmed out to other peoples homes where she worked like a dog and still managed to get a diploma. There were times when she went without food for days before her mom died. The wealthier black family next door sometimes gave her cookies and milk. My dad lost his father at 18 months and became the son of a working Mom, latch key kid before welfare. My Grandmother rolled up her sleeves, went to work, scrimped and saved, and eventually opened her own shop. None of these histories make me, my husband, or our parents privileged. There are millions of personal stories like this America’s history. People of all races could share theirs. I met a woman recently who came here with just the clothes on her back and without use of the language. She valued the freedom that is America’s gift and pulled herself up to independence and personal pride of accomplishment!
The group label, white privilege, is just the latest in the war waged to target whites that’s part of the radical left playbook. Disgusting!
Re #37 Tina :
Chris: “Oh good, I’m glad you admit this. So now will you stop holding the Democratic (that’s how it’s spelled, by the way) party responsible for the KKK?”
I posted the Wikipedia entry that explained how the party was named the Democrat Party when we discussed this before. I’m just being polite and accurate! So stuff it, Mr. know it all from the corrections bureau. And by the way the word party should have been capitalized if you were referring to the name.
Hmmmm,I missed all this. Do you mean this entry, Tina?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28epithet%29
If you did mean that link, HOT DAMN! I never knew this. If you did not, hot damn anyway.
From now on it is the Democrat Party for me (or the alternative I often have used, the DimRat Party.
Given all the insulting forms Democrats use to describe the Republican Party, it is nice to have another epithet to use on them.
Hmmm, I guess Chris thinks the Democrat Party did not create the KKK. Denial works wonders for disturbed rats.
Addendum to the above :
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28epithet%29#sthash.sZEUtOoF.dpuf
1 The term “Democrat Party” was in common use with no negative connotations by Democrats in some localities during the 1950s.[8] The Dictionary of American Regional English gives numerous examples of “Democrat” being used as an adjective in everyday speech, especially in the Northeast.[9]
2 … “Democrat Party” prior to the mid-nineteenth century was usually simply a value-neutral synonym for the more common “Democratic Party”
3 Similar two-word phrases using “Democrat” as an adjective have been deemed controversial when used as a substitute for “Democratic” (as in “Democrat idea”); National Public Radio has banned the use of “Democrat” as an adjective.[7]
3 in light of 1 and 2 is hillarious!
Tina, I can’t wait until NPR bans the noun “Democrat” and substitutes “Democratic” for it!
As long as the value neutral Democrat Party annoys Democratics, I will deploy it. 😀
By the way, the article mentions William Safire. I grew up reading William Safire in the “This World” supplement in our Sunday newspaper. He wrote opinion pieces and had a regular column called “Wordplay.” He was a brilliant and outstanding writer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Safire
Re #36 Tina :
1 Chris : “And yet you can’t even express the mildest disagreement with the worst things people on your side say.”
2 Tina : Wrong! I choose not to comment.
Now isn’t this interesting. This is a standard tactic from Chris, he fallaciously presumes to know a person’s mind. This sort of snotty, pissant remark deserves a label, so I have coined one …
The ChrisCrap Fallacy.
After Tina’s partial return from a prolonged illness it didn’t take Chris long to start shi**ing all over her again now did it?
As I pass by the title of this …..
why is there never any discussion of how we created ISIS and now they want us to go in debt to fight them while the Saudi’s are there with the 3rd largest military and oil money coming out of their butts?
The plan to destroy America as laid out by Bin Laden was to bankrupt them by war.
What was going on in Benghazi was the CIA had set up operations there to arm the rebels.
The Iraqi army we fired has become part of ISIS.
No just fear mongering, name calling, and Obama bashing.
WHy do we allow the Military Industrial Complex to create never ending war to bankrupt us?
Tina: “Those women were not innocent. They chose to use their tragedy as a means to further a political cause, making them fair game. Blaming Bush (And Bill Clinton) for 911 to try to get Kerry nominated is pretty low. I wouldn’t do it.”
I’m curious. Would you say the same if it were Benghazi widows blaming Obama for Benghazi to try and get a Republican candidate nominated?
What if Bill Maher then called the Benghazi widows “greedy harpies,” and said, “I’ve never seen a group of women enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much. By the way, how do we know their husbands weren’t planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they’d better hurry up and appear in Playboy.”
I highly doubt you’d say Maher was simply responding to rudeness with rudeness. You’d likely use it as evidence of the intolerant left. And I would condemn his words as well, even if I disagreed with the opinions of the targets.
You’ve defended Sarah Palin’s choice to use her son’s down syndrome to fearmonger about imaginary “death panels” that could decide whether he lived or died, even though nothing like this was ever in any version of the healthcare bill.
So I’m skeptical that you are really against people using tragedy to further a political cause, or to target a president, on principle. What I suspect you are against is people using tragedy to further a political cause with which you disagree, to target a president you like.
“In war soldiers set aside their morals to fight the battle. Your side started this war and follow a manual of cruel personal targeting. It would be the equivalent of suicide to back down to you or anyone else who participates in this game.”
Thank you for confirming your dystopian worldview. You are not at “war” with your fellow citizens, Tina, and it’s sad that you see choose to see yourself that way as a way to justify unethical behavior on your side. I feel sorry for you.
You don’t even notice how ridiculously out of proportion your expectations are. You can’t criticize a single person on your side, for anything, yet you want me to denounce the entire Democratic Party. It’s ridiculous.
“Wrong! I choose not to comment.”
Except that you did comment…a lot.
Pie: “Hmmm, I guess Chris thinks the Democrat Party did not create the KKK.”
You are functionally illiterate.
At #5 Jack: “I’m wondering if we’re going to get another Iraq kind of situation if we remove Assad? He’s a dictator, no question. He’s been brutal, no question. But, maybe this is what it takes to keep all these radicals in line?”
I’m thinking you’ve stumbled upon some of thinking behind the Bush administration’s war plan. There are no good solutions to this problem. Saddam was a deceitful brute who kept the Islamic radicals and tribal frictions in line through his brutality. But he was also in violation of 17 UN resolutions, had used WMD on his own people, fired on our planes in the no fly zone, and had supported terrorist activities. Since we never called an official end to the Gulf War, Iraq was the logical place to take the fight to the enemy.
I can’t tell you a single thing about this administrations plans or justifications. The American people don’t seem to care, Obama can do no wrong.
The evidence of total failure, incompetence, possibly illegal activity and collusion with the enemy is obvious in the rise of ISIS, ridiculous deals with Iran, thousands of refugees, the destruction of valuable artifacts and places of worship and the chaos and genocidal murder that’s been created.
The generals always have war plans available for the president to consider. There is never any guarantee that they will work, which is why we see changes in strategy like the very successful “surge.”
It would be interesting to view the various ideas our war department has to fight ISIS and support stability in the region. Maybe in a couple of years we’ll have a chance to see this problem addressed with better sense and more vigor and competence. I certainly hope so.
Tina, I sure hope wisdom and common sense will return to the White House with the next election and that the Congress and Senate will remain conservative. If that happens (and I think it will) they will have a mandate to get the job done. If they can’t or won’t surely the American people will find a replacement for the Republican Party.
Re #44 DEWEY :
“why is there never any discussion of how we created ISIS and now they want us to go in debt to fight them while the Saudi’s are there with the 3rd largest military and oil money coming out of their butts?”
Well Dewey, instead of bitching about it why don’t YOU get your thumb out of your patoot, write an article that will inspire discussion and submit it as a comment headed Post Scripts Blog Article Submission.
Didn’t you know Post Scripts invite guest articles?
If that is too much for you, just start a conversation in the comments section and see what happens.
Re #45 Chris “You are functionally illiterate.” No am am not, but you are dysfunctionally brain damaged.
Regarding my use of “Democrat” Party:
I couldn’t find the Wikipedia article I posted long ago, must have been taken down, but I remember it distinctly. In my research I did find a reference at scholastic.com:
A book review posted at Free Republic contains an interesting quote.
New Republic book recomendation, Joseph J. Ellis – “Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation.”
Conservapedia weighs in:
Liberals complained about GWB using the word and he joked about it:
I also breezed through a liberal site where I read something about the term Democrat Party not being used for 100 years, something like, “you have to go back about 100 years…” Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to recover the link.
Our readers might find some of the historical information interesting on this Wikipedia page:
Democratic Socialist Federation – Wikipedia
It’s amazing what can be found on the web!
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson