"to stop using the Constitution as an Etch-a-Sketch for their ideas about right and wrong."
And Conservatives know the difference between right and wrong? Please, I...just...think...I'm gonna barf!
Present company excluded and a few others I know personally, I have never seen a group of more amoral people. They preach long and hard about values but support torture. They are pro life and pro death (penalty and war). They talk about individual rights and treat homosexuals like animals or criminals. They talk about the "evils" of sex and yet aren't THEY always the one that gets caught having methamphetamine fueled gay sex with male prostitutes?
And Conservatives know the difference between right and wrong?
Markadelphia, you again illustrate the mindset of the Left perfectly.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to define the difference between right and wrong, it is to apply the law. It is not there to make law.
As far as "amoral people" are concerned, I think you need to take a much closer look at the Left side of the aisle. Hypocrisy is hardly limited to the Conservatives.
And at least when Conservative hypocrisy is exposed, the guilty parties actually act guilty.
Conservatives are pure kitten-killing evil (except the ones I know personally and might be posting here!), and liberals are pure-hearted flaming-sword avenging angels who would govern perfectly due to their wisdom and pure intentions.
Gack, how long has Markadelphia been posting here, nearly a year? But, he still persists in ridiculous straw man characterizations of Conservative positions.
The first thing he should have learned is that Conservative does not necessarily equal religious right.
BTW, I know a lot of conservative minded people and they do not have a bit of a problem with sex. The fact that they seem to be having a lot of babies seems to bely this Leftist trope that conservatives somehow hate sex. As far as the other issues, you can find conservatives on both sides of all of them and liberals too for that matter. Why is it that Lefties who insist that the world is not black and white, but shades of gray, insist on fitting those that disagree with them in one small, black box. The world isn't that simple.
Yeh, he's a keeper all right! :-) His straw-man approaches Wicker-Man state. I could of course go on at length about the overwhelming amorality of all the Liberals I grew-up with, or even the Gay conservatives I now know - but what's the point of competing anecdotes?
Yeah, conservatives are one Justice away- but will McCain appoint a conservative Justice? Remember the kind of conservative first Bush and Souter?
If McCain is the best conservatives can do, then conservatism is dead. What happen to principles? Its one thing to have a candidate that is mostly conservative, with one or two issues that aren't. Its another thing to have a sort of conservative that has lots of issues.
Ask the people like Rush Limbaugh who have been running the party for the last eight years. PJ O'Rourke (another outspoken conservative I respect, Sarah) said on Bill Maher on Friday that the big money folks in the Republican Party want to win and they know McCain is their best bet. If Hillary or Obama wins, they see their money going away. They see the writing in the wall with the "conservative movement" people and know that they are not electable.
"it is to apply the law. It is not there to make law."
Mmm, yes. Therein lies the problem. What you call making the law, another might call applying it.
"They talk about the "evils" of sex and yet aren't THEY always the one that gets caught having methamphetamine fueled gay sex with male prostitutes?"
Well, to be honest, this "evil" they're talking about is usually in reference to promiscuity and the saturation of youth with sexual images. Not a big issue of mine as I don't have children, but I see where they're coming from. As for the "Gay Prostitute Meth Sex," it's only a bad thing when conservatives do it, and ignored when gays themselves do it.
"I have never seen a group of more amoral people."
"They preach long and hard about values but support torture."
This shows that you aren't listening to what they're saying, really. You pretend you are, but you really aren't. You only listen long enough that you look like you were listening, but you already made up your mind long ago. Yes, I support torture, especially of those enemies of mine who think it's ok to send retarded women into public with bombs strapped to them. You think the masterminds of that little gem don't deserve torture? I have no need to respect nor accord them any values associated with humanity. By their mere actions, they have show that they have no humanity, and thus are deserving of no mercy at all. They removed themselves from the hallowed halls of humanity, by choice, and I'm supposed to treat them as if they deserve anything?
Please sir, wake up and smell what you're shoveling. It stinks to high heaven and we're not better off for having it thrown in our faces.
"Oh, and PJ also said that he thinks we are in the twilight of the loud mouth radio host."
Said on the program of a loud mouth TV host. I suspect Rush, Ann, et. al. will have no problem at all under a Democratic Party Administration. I seem to remember pundits saying that Rush was all washed up after Bill Clinton got elected. What little they knew. He was just getting started.
"Ask the people like Rush Limbaugh who have been running the party for the last eight years."
This one makes me laugh out loud. Have you ever even listened to his program? Running the party. The guy who is going hell for leather after the party's nominee, John McCain. Seriously, people like Rush, Coulter, etc. will be even bigger after the election of a Democrat. They will have a lot of despondent Conservatives who will be pissed off and ready to hear a good rant against Obama or Hillary.
"What little they knew. He was just getting started...."
"ready to hear a good rant against Obama."
If Obama wins the nomination (and the presidency), I would have only two words to say to Rush et al:
Good Luck.
"wake up and smell what you're shoveling"
What I am shoveling is that America, at least the last time I checked, was better than Al Qaeda. So, Kresh, are you saying that we need to behave like them in order to "win?" Find a WWII vet and they'll tell you how to win....
Even if Obama wins, at least 40% of the country will be totally and completely against him. Those people will listen to Rush and the other talk shows even more fervently. Just like in 92 when Bill Clinton was elected. An Obama presidency will make Rush an even richer man than he is now.
Seriously, do you actually believe what you are writing? What do you expect, that the 40% or so of the population that is Conservative leaning will commit mass suicide if Obama gets elected president? They aren't going away and guess what, they'll be pissed just like you are now. More so if the election is close. Hell, they're pissed now because of McCain.
Funny how Obama reminds me of George W, Bush in 2000. Remember that Bush ran his campaign on the slogan that he was a uniter not a divider. That sounds a lot like Obama's claim that he is somehow going to unite the country. I suspect that he won't have any more success than Bush has had.
"This shows that you aren't listening to what they're saying, really. You pretend you are, but you really aren't. You only listen long enough that you look like you were listening, but you already made up your mind long ago."
That is so true.
"said on Bill Maher on Friday"
The only time I ever see Real Time is in Markadelphias basement and Maher is everything Markadelphia claims to hate about the right...black and white thinking. Lefties don't recognize absolutes and black and white thinking if they agree with it because politics is their religion - it trumps all.
Pundits said Rush was over with when GWB was elected too. Wrong again buffalo breath.
I've been told by Mark to "Turn off Michael Savage" when Savage has been saying that GWB is the worst president ever for over a year now. Rush has indeed been against the nominee for the Republican party for months now. Mark ripped on Ron Paul before researching Pauls positions. Then Mark made blog entries saying "Boy I was wrong about Ron Paul" which basically admits (to me anyway) that he has a tendency to spout off about subjects that he hasn't spent a lot of time looking into. Even in his latest blog entry he says that Rush and Laura Ingraham "started off with a singular purpose" when it is well known that Rush was a DJ and also spent time working for the Kansas City Royals and Ingraham was a speechwriter and a lawyer before getting into talk radio.
I'm still waiting for someone, anyone (even from the left)to talk about or even mention Obamas voting record in the US Senate.
"Well, if they're a Pacific Theater combat veteran"
That would be my grandfather who, in his 92 years, has only voted once for a Democrat (Kennedy). Although not as sharp as he used to be, he is pretty disgusted at what has happened to the military under Bush and Cheney, especially the torture thing.
One of the ways they got the Japanese to surrender on one of the many islands he visited was to show movies and pop popcorn every night. Cold, tired, and hungry, they would wander into camp, give up, and watch Humphrey Bogart.
"Even if Obama wins, at least 40% of the country will be totally and completely against him. Those people will listen to Rush and the other talk shows even more fervently. Just like in 92 when Bill Clinton was elected. An Obama presidency will make Rush an even richer man than he is now."
Actually, no. Take a look at the states he is winning. They are all red states. Look at the turnout that he is getting. 110 million people voted in 2004, 60 for Bush, 50 for Kerry. In 2008, I predict it could be 140 million...maybe more. You will also a ton of independents and even some conservatives to cross the aisle.
Obama could run a 50 state campaign and win many key red states. Figure in the other 90 million who never vote, the majority of which will be coming out to vote for Obama and you might see 80-90 million for him and 30-40 for McCain. That's more like 30 percent or less, which, coincidently is Bush's approval rating.
I would love to hear Rush go after Obama. That would be a rare treat.
I would consider it a success if the went after Obama's voting record or attacked him exclusively on the issues. Wouldn't it be great to have intelligent debate in this country?
"Actually, no. Take a look at the states he is winning. They are all red states."
In Democratic Party primaries. Let's see how he does in the general election.
"Look at the turnout that he is getting. 110 million people voted in 2004, 60 for Bush, 50 for Kerry. In 2008, I predict it could be 140 million...maybe more. You will also a ton of independents and even some conservatives to cross the aisle."
We'll see. I'm not sure why any conservative would vote for the man that has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Seems to me that if you vote for the most liberal candidate, that means you aren't really conservative.
But that's not my point. Regardless of the actual percentage, 30% or 40%, there will be enough people that will make a ready audience for Rush et al.
That you are even debating this shows how much of a true believer you are in Obama the messiah. Frankly, his whole campaign smacks of the man on horseback and it scares the hell out of me.
One of the ways they got the Japanese to surrender on one of the many islands he visited was to show movies and pop popcorn every night. Cold, tired, and hungry, they would wander into camp, give up, and watch Humphrey Bogart.
Soooo...
the reason only 216 of over 21,000 Japanese survived the battle of Iwo Jima was because we didn't show enough movies and pop enough popcorn?
Every time you say something I think cannot be topped, you amaze me again.
".....he is pretty disgusted at what has happened to the military under Bush and Cheney, especially the torture thing."
You can guarantee that we did a whole hell of a lot worse torture in WWII than water boarding. Summary executions, the whole list of war crimes were done by all sides, some a lot more than others. That's what happens in war. Start digging into books and archives about WWII. It wasn't a clean war in any respect.
Yes, let's see. Quite looking forward to that one, actually.
"Frankly, his whole campaign smacks of the man on horseback..."
Well, I still say he needs to get to the particulars. He is doing what he is doing now because it is giving him the Big Mo. Should he secure the nomination, I really want to see detailed plans on Iraq, Al Qaeda, Health Care, and Education. If he doesn't provide them, I will be disappointed.
Kevin, that was ONE of the ways. True, were were brutal but not without honor ...which is what the Japanese were then, what Al Qaeda is all about, and what we have we been dipping our feet in quite deeply thanks to the people who lead us who are most assuredly without honor or courage.
"You can guarantee that we did a whole hell of a lot worse"
"Actually, no."
So you are saying there was no torture on any battlefield, anywhere in all of WWII. No commander who roughed up a prisoner who had information that would save his men in all of that war. No summary executions of prisoners in all of the years of that war. Even though there are plenty of accounts that this did happen. All of this you discount with one article that pushes your meme that we are so much worse now then in those days.
Also, I think there is a BIG difference between prisoners of war and captured terrorists. I don't really agree with water boarding, but there is a difference.
True, were were brutal but not without honor ...which is what the Japanese were then, what Al Qaeda is all about, and...
Wow, Markadelphia breaks ranks with the notion that the U.S. is the all-time worst for using atomic weapons? Or did you just forget yourself there for a minute?
Yosemite, No, I am simply saying that our soldiers in WWII acted with greater honor with prisoners than the Japanese or Germans did with their prisoners. We were actually the good guys then. We did not do things on a regular basis that we do now. Show me what we did and compare it to now. And when you do bear this in mind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RsIkfjMBvk
Whether you folks want to face it or not, this is what we have become and it sickens me because it helps us to lose, not win.
Juris, chances are pretty good that I wouldn't exist if it weren't for the bomb being dropped on Japan. My grandfather surely would've died in any invasion. I wrestle with this dilemma all the time and at the end of the day, I think we did the right thing because there is clear evidence that the Japanese government was not going to surrender on our terms. I saw us as actually being pretty restrained and honorable.
Completely different situation today and I suspect that most of you know it...
You know, as much as I try and ignore the sheer effrontery that Mark dishes out, eventually, he just goes too damn far with the stupid and incredible ignorance.
our soldiers in WWII acted with greater honor with prisoners than the Japanese or Germans did with their prisoners.
With the Japanese, that wasn't a high bar. However, a little "light" reading would... No, it wouldn't. Even if you read it, you couldn't comprehend it. You'd rather make up stories. (Popcorn? Maybe we see where it comes from.) But for anyone else, it discusses at length the detailed issues with taking prisoners - not only did most Japanese not surrender, most Americans wouldn't take prisoners.
After Pearl Harbor, especially after Bataan, after a few early "suicide bombers" - there was a concerted effort by the military intel from 1942 to get troops to accept prisoners.
Prisoners didn't start to be generally taken until late 1944. Okinawa is the only location where large numbers of prisoners were taken. Only. and almost 1/2 the civilian population killed themselves. (Marines found a cliff where adults were throwing kids off, onto the rocks before. They asked for and were denied permission to shoot the adults - because they were noncombatants.)
Japanese sailors in the water (merchant and Imperial) were routinely machine-gunned by submarines. There's plenty of video around. They showed examples of it on Movietone news with approval. Japanese body parts were not only taken and preserved, but sent home as souvenirs.
Your staggering (and swaggering) ignorance wouldn't be so bloody annoying if you didn't insist on demonstrating that you're utterly historically illiterate on a regular basis, and then make up stories to support your "reality-based" world. (I don't know if the popcorn is something you made up, or someone made up and told to you. Not my point. My point is that you invented this bullshit that it was "better" in WWII, despite all evidence to the contrary.)
As for the Germans, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe didn't have problems. The Waffen SS (which were deployed almost exclusively on the Eastern Front) is another story.
That being said, there are plenty of examples of German prisoners being abused, shot, and otherwise harshly treated - with almost no repercussions. Court-martials were rare. Not unheard of, but rare.
Where's the only examples you can point to?
Right. You can point to the ones where people were court-martialed for their offenses. Where there's the documentation because we prosecuted the offenders.
But you still can't see a difference. Abu Ghirab you never heard about until after half the people involved had already been sentenced. The "leak" of the photos from the defense team trying to get one of the soldiers off, after the government refused to offer a plea bargain galvanized people. But the arrests, demotions, and relief of the commanding officer had been announced via a press release.
Yeah. Fucking popcorn.
Right.
I suppose it's possible. But that runs counter to everybody I know who was in the Pacific. One of the Merrill Marauder's officers, several Marines, and one guy who was in Supply - and who was one of 5 out of the 20 he arrived with to survive as their supply trucks would get attacked by the Japanese looking for food. Not surrendering for fucking popcorn, but attacking without ammo, fixed bayonets anytime they had a supply convoy without enough escort. (They thought the island had been "pacified". That was the original proclamation by the time they got there.)
there is clear evidence that the Japanese government was not going to surrender on our terms.
The Japanese government (The Army, who had the power) didn't surrender after we dropped the first fucking atomic bomb on them. They were still willing to fight.
What more could you "wrestle" with over the morality of using the bomb? Not only did they not take the Potsdam warning seriously, they didn't take the first demonstration that leveled a city seriously.
Ah, but it's therapeutic, Kevin. He's doing just fine.
And, he's right. The Japanese didn't surrender until the Russians declared war on them and began grinding over them in China, which they did exactly when Stalin promised to, three months after Germany surrendered. The bomb was only a catalyst, not an avalanche.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/02/quote-of-day_10.html (40 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
"to stop using the Constitution as an Etch-a-Sketch for their ideas about right and wrong."
And Conservatives know the difference between right and wrong? Please, I...just...think...I'm gonna barf!
Present company excluded and a few others I know personally, I have never seen a group of more amoral people. They preach long and hard about values but support torture. They are pro life and pro death (penalty and war). They talk about individual rights and treat homosexuals like animals or criminals. They talk about the "evils" of sex and yet aren't THEY always the one that gets caught having methamphetamine fueled gay sex with male prostitutes?
And Conservatives know the difference between right and wrong?
Markadelphia, you again illustrate the mindset of the Left perfectly.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to define the difference between right and wrong, it is to apply the law. It is not there to make law.
As far as "amoral people" are concerned, I think you need to take a much closer look at the Left side of the aisle. Hypocrisy is hardly limited to the Conservatives.
And at least when Conservative hypocrisy is exposed, the guilty parties actually act guilty.
Lost cause Kevin.
Hear, hear, Mr.Baker!
I also agree with Dirt, Mark's a lost cause, but then again, so is the case with me supporting McCain. Just aint gonna happen.
This time around I was hoping for Thompson, but it looks like I'll be writing in for Condi.
Conservatives are pure kitten-killing evil (except the ones I know personally and might be posting here!), and liberals are pure-hearted flaming-sword avenging angels who would govern perfectly due to their wisdom and pure intentions.
Iteration XVII.
"Lost cause" is understatement.
But he draws such interesting comments!
Gack, how long has Markadelphia been posting here, nearly a year? But, he still persists in ridiculous straw man characterizations of Conservative positions.
The first thing he should have learned is that Conservative does not necessarily equal religious right.
BTW, I know a lot of conservative minded people and they do not have a bit of a problem with sex. The fact that they seem to be having a lot of babies seems to bely this Leftist trope that conservatives somehow hate sex. As far as the other issues, you can find conservatives on both sides of all of them and liberals too for that matter. Why is it that Lefties who insist that the world is not black and white, but shades of gray, insist on fitting those that disagree with them in one small, black box. The world isn't that simple.
Yeh, he's a keeper all right! :-) His straw-man approaches Wicker-Man state. I could of course go on at length about the overwhelming amorality of all the Liberals I grew-up with, or even the Gay conservatives I now know - but what's the point of competing anecdotes?
Entertaining storytelling? ;)
Yeah, conservatives are one Justice away- but will McCain appoint a conservative Justice? Remember the kind of conservative first Bush and Souter?
If McCain is the best conservatives can do, then conservatism is dead. What happen to principles? Its one thing to have a candidate that is mostly conservative, with one or two issues that aren't. Its another thing to have a sort of conservative that has lots of issues.
"What happen to principles?"
Ask the people like Rush Limbaugh who have been running the party for the last eight years. PJ O'Rourke (another outspoken conservative I respect, Sarah) said on Bill Maher on Friday that the big money folks in the Republican Party want to win and they know McCain is their best bet. If Hillary or Obama wins, they see their money going away. They see the writing in the wall with the "conservative movement" people and know that they are not electable.
"it is to apply the law. It is not there to make law."
Mmm, yes. Therein lies the problem. What you call making the law, another might call applying it.
Oh, and PJ also said that he thinks we are in the twilight of the loud mouth radio host.
Amen.
"They talk about the "evils" of sex and yet aren't THEY always the one that gets caught having methamphetamine fueled gay sex with male prostitutes?"
Well, to be honest, this "evil" they're talking about is usually in reference to promiscuity and the saturation of youth with sexual images. Not a big issue of mine as I don't have children, but I see where they're coming from. As for the "Gay Prostitute Meth Sex," it's only a bad thing when conservatives do it, and ignored when gays themselves do it.
"I have never seen a group of more amoral people."
Generalize much? Sheesh, Captain Broad Brush, arriving!
"They preach long and hard about values but support torture."
This shows that you aren't listening to what they're saying, really. You pretend you are, but you really aren't. You only listen long enough that you look like you were listening, but you already made up your mind long ago. Yes, I support torture, especially of those enemies of mine who think it's ok to send retarded women into public with bombs strapped to them. You think the masterminds of that little gem don't deserve torture? I have no need to respect nor accord them any values associated with humanity. By their mere actions, they have show that they have no humanity, and thus are deserving of no mercy at all. They removed themselves from the hallowed halls of humanity, by choice, and I'm supposed to treat them as if they deserve anything?
Please sir, wake up and smell what you're shoveling. It stinks to high heaven and we're not better off for having it thrown in our faces.
Loust cause and all that...
...make that "lost cause."
"Oh, and PJ also said that he thinks we are in the twilight of the loud mouth radio host."
Said on the program of a loud mouth TV host. I suspect Rush, Ann, et. al. will have no problem at all under a Democratic Party Administration. I seem to remember pundits saying that Rush was all washed up after Bill Clinton got elected. What little they knew. He was just getting started.
"Ask the people like Rush Limbaugh who have been running the party for the last eight years."
This one makes me laugh out loud. Have you ever even listened to his program? Running the party. The guy who is going hell for leather after the party's nominee, John McCain. Seriously, people like Rush, Coulter, etc. will be even bigger after the election of a Democrat. They will have a lot of despondent Conservatives who will be pissed off and ready to hear a good rant against Obama or Hillary.
Therein lies the problem. What you call making the law, another might call applying it.
I've covered that topic before.
Telling them apart isn't hard.
"I have never seen a group of more amoral people."
Now I just find out that Maher was wishing for Limbaugh's death on the very show that Markadelphia is referencing.
Pot meet kettle.
"What little they knew. He was just getting started...."
"ready to hear a good rant against Obama."
If Obama wins the nomination (and the presidency), I would have only two words to say to Rush et al:
Good Luck.
"wake up and smell what you're shoveling"
What I am shoveling is that America, at least the last time I checked, was better than Al Qaeda. So, Kresh, are you saying that we need to behave like them in order to "win?" Find a WWII vet and they'll tell you how to win....
Find a WWII vet and they'll tell you how to win....
Well, if they're a Pacific Theater combat veteran, they'll tell you you win when there aren't enough of the fanatics left to lead.
Wow, the absolute faith of the true believer.
Even if Obama wins, at least 40% of the country will be totally and completely against him. Those people will listen to Rush and the other talk shows even more fervently. Just like in 92 when Bill Clinton was elected. An Obama presidency will make Rush an even richer man than he is now.
Seriously, do you actually believe what you are writing? What do you expect, that the 40% or so of the population that is Conservative leaning will commit mass suicide if Obama gets elected president? They aren't going away and guess what, they'll be pissed just like you are now. More so if the election is close. Hell, they're pissed now because of McCain.
Funny how Obama reminds me of George W, Bush in 2000. Remember that Bush ran his campaign on the slogan that he was a uniter not a divider. That sounds a lot like Obama's claim that he is somehow going to unite the country. I suspect that he won't have any more success than Bush has had.
"This shows that you aren't listening to what they're saying, really. You pretend you are, but you really aren't. You only listen long enough that you look like you were listening, but you already made up your mind long ago."
That is so true.
"said on Bill Maher on Friday"
The only time I ever see Real Time is in Markadelphias basement and Maher is everything Markadelphia claims to hate about the right...black and white thinking. Lefties don't recognize absolutes and black and white thinking if they agree with it because politics is their religion - it trumps all.
Pundits said Rush was over with when GWB was elected too. Wrong again buffalo breath.
I've been told by Mark to "Turn off Michael Savage" when Savage has been saying that GWB is the worst president ever for over a year now. Rush has indeed been against the nominee for the Republican party for months now. Mark ripped on Ron Paul before researching Pauls positions. Then Mark made blog entries saying "Boy I was wrong about Ron Paul" which basically admits (to me anyway) that he has a tendency to spout off about subjects that he hasn't spent a lot of time looking into. Even in his latest blog entry he says that Rush and Laura Ingraham "started off with a singular purpose" when it is well known that Rush was a DJ and also spent time working for the Kansas City Royals and Ingraham was a speechwriter and a lawyer before getting into talk radio.
I'm still waiting for someone, anyone (even from the left)to talk about or even mention Obamas voting record in the US Senate.
You mean like this?
"Well, if they're a Pacific Theater combat veteran"
That would be my grandfather who, in his 92 years, has only voted once for a Democrat (Kennedy). Although not as sharp as he used to be, he is pretty disgusted at what has happened to the military under Bush and Cheney, especially the torture thing.
One of the ways they got the Japanese to surrender on one of the many islands he visited was to show movies and pop popcorn every night. Cold, tired, and hungry, they would wander into camp, give up, and watch Humphrey Bogart.
"Even if Obama wins, at least 40% of the country will be totally and completely against him. Those people will listen to Rush and the other talk shows even more fervently. Just like in 92 when Bill Clinton was elected. An Obama presidency will make Rush an even richer man than he is now."
Actually, no. Take a look at the states he is winning. They are all red states. Look at the turnout that he is getting. 110 million people voted in 2004, 60 for Bush, 50 for Kerry. In 2008, I predict it could be 140 million...maybe more. You will also a ton of independents and even some conservatives to cross the aisle.
Obama could run a 50 state campaign and win many key red states. Figure in the other 90 million who never vote, the majority of which will be coming out to vote for Obama and you might see 80-90 million for him and 30-40 for McCain. That's more like 30 percent or less, which, coincidently is Bush's approval rating.
I would love to hear Rush go after Obama. That would be a rare treat.
I would consider it a success if the went after Obama's voting record or attacked him exclusively on the issues. Wouldn't it be great to have intelligent debate in this country?
"Actually, no. Take a look at the states he is winning. They are all red states."
In Democratic Party primaries. Let's see how he does in the general election.
"Look at the turnout that he is getting. 110 million people voted in 2004, 60 for Bush, 50 for Kerry. In 2008, I predict it could be 140 million...maybe more. You will also a ton of independents and even some conservatives to cross the aisle."
We'll see. I'm not sure why any conservative would vote for the man that has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Seems to me that if you vote for the most liberal candidate, that means you aren't really conservative.
But that's not my point. Regardless of the actual percentage, 30% or 40%, there will be enough people that will make a ready audience for Rush et al.
That you are even debating this shows how much of a true believer you are in Obama the messiah. Frankly, his whole campaign smacks of the man on horseback and it scares the hell out of me.
One of the ways they got the Japanese to surrender on one of the many islands he visited was to show movies and pop popcorn every night. Cold, tired, and hungry, they would wander into camp, give up, and watch Humphrey Bogart.
Soooo...
the reason only 216 of over 21,000 Japanese survived the battle of Iwo Jima was because we didn't show enough movies and pop enough popcorn?
Every time you say something I think cannot be topped, you amaze me again.
".....he is pretty disgusted at what has happened to the military under Bush and Cheney, especially the torture thing."
You can guarantee that we did a whole hell of a lot worse torture in WWII than water boarding. Summary executions, the whole list of war crimes were done by all sides, some a lot more than others. That's what happens in war. Start digging into books and archives about WWII. It wasn't a clean war in any respect.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Heinlein
Our Mark hits them all, doesn't he?
www.don-lindsay-archive.org
"Let's see how he does in the general election."
Yes, let's see. Quite looking forward to that one, actually.
"Frankly, his whole campaign smacks of the man on horseback..."
Well, I still say he needs to get to the particulars. He is doing what he is doing now because it is giving him the Big Mo. Should he secure the nomination, I really want to see detailed plans on Iraq, Al Qaeda, Health Care, and Education. If he doesn't provide them, I will be disappointed.
Kevin, that was ONE of the ways. True, were were brutal but not without honor ...which is what the Japanese were then, what Al Qaeda is all about, and what we have we been dipping our feet in quite deeply thanks to the people who lead us who are most assuredly without honor or courage.
"You can guarantee that we did a whole hell of a lot worse"
Actually, no.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html?sub=new
"Our Mark hits them all, doesn't he?"
Don't see Appeal to Fear on that list...hmmm
"Actually, no."
So you are saying there was no torture on any battlefield, anywhere in all of WWII. No commander who roughed up a prisoner who had information that would save his men in all of that war. No summary executions of prisoners in all of the years of that war. Even though there are plenty of accounts that this did happen. All of this you discount with one article that pushes your meme that we are so much worse now then in those days.
Also, I think there is a BIG difference between prisoners of war and captured terrorists. I don't really agree with water boarding, but there is a difference.
True, were were brutal but not without honor ...which is what the Japanese were then, what Al Qaeda is all about, and...
Wow, Markadelphia breaks ranks with the notion that the U.S. is the all-time worst for using atomic weapons? Or did you just forget yourself there for a minute?
Yosemite, No, I am simply saying that our soldiers in WWII acted with greater honor with prisoners than the Japanese or Germans did with their prisoners. We were actually the good guys then. We did not do things on a regular basis that we do now. Show me what we did and compare it to now. And when you do bear this in mind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RsIkfjMBvk
Whether you folks want to face it or not, this is what we have become and it sickens me because it helps us to lose, not win.
Juris, chances are pretty good that I wouldn't exist if it weren't for the bomb being dropped on Japan. My grandfather surely would've died in any invasion. I wrestle with this dilemma all the time and at the end of the day, I think we did the right thing because there is clear evidence that the Japanese government was not going to surrender on our terms. I saw us as actually being pretty restrained and honorable.
Completely different situation today and I suspect that most of you know it...
I don't.
You know, as much as I try and ignore the sheer effrontery that Mark dishes out, eventually, he just goes too damn far with the stupid and incredible ignorance.
our soldiers in WWII acted with greater honor with prisoners than the Japanese or Germans did with their prisoners.
With the Japanese, that wasn't a high bar. However, a little "light" reading would... No, it wouldn't. Even if you read it, you couldn't comprehend it. You'd rather make up stories. (Popcorn? Maybe we see where it comes from.) But for anyone else, it discusses at length the detailed issues with taking prisoners - not only did most Japanese not surrender, most Americans wouldn't take prisoners.
After Pearl Harbor, especially after Bataan, after a few early "suicide bombers" - there was a concerted effort by the military intel from 1942 to get troops to accept prisoners.
Prisoners didn't start to be generally taken until late 1944. Okinawa is the only location where large numbers of prisoners were taken. Only. and almost 1/2 the civilian population killed themselves. (Marines found a cliff where adults were throwing kids off, onto the rocks before. They asked for and were denied permission to shoot the adults - because they were noncombatants.)
Japanese sailors in the water (merchant and Imperial) were routinely machine-gunned by submarines. There's plenty of video around. They showed examples of it on Movietone news with approval. Japanese body parts were not only taken and preserved, but sent home as souvenirs.
Your staggering (and swaggering) ignorance wouldn't be so bloody annoying if you didn't insist on demonstrating that you're utterly historically illiterate on a regular basis, and then make up stories to support your "reality-based" world. (I don't know if the popcorn is something you made up, or someone made up and told to you. Not my point. My point is that you invented this bullshit that it was "better" in WWII, despite all evidence to the contrary.)
As for the Germans, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe didn't have problems. The Waffen SS (which were deployed almost exclusively on the Eastern Front) is another story.
That being said, there are plenty of examples of German prisoners being abused, shot, and otherwise harshly treated - with almost no repercussions. Court-martials were rare. Not unheard of, but rare.
Where's the only examples you can point to?
Right. You can point to the ones where people were court-martialed for their offenses. Where there's the documentation because we prosecuted the offenders.
But you still can't see a difference. Abu Ghirab you never heard about until after half the people involved had already been sentenced. The "leak" of the photos from the defense team trying to get one of the soldiers off, after the government refused to offer a plea bargain galvanized people. But the arrests, demotions, and relief of the commanding officer had been announced via a press release.
Yeah. Fucking popcorn.
Right.
I suppose it's possible. But that runs counter to everybody I know who was in the Pacific. One of the Merrill Marauder's officers, several Marines, and one guy who was in Supply - and who was one of 5 out of the 20 he arrived with to survive as their supply trucks would get attacked by the Japanese looking for food. Not surrendering for fucking popcorn, but attacking without ammo, fixed bayonets anytime they had a supply convoy without enough escort. (They thought the island had been "pacified". That was the original proclamation by the time they got there.)
there is clear evidence that the Japanese government was not going to surrender on our terms.
The Japanese government (The Army, who had the power) didn't surrender after we dropped the first fucking atomic bomb on them. They were still willing to fight.
What more could you "wrestle" with over the morality of using the bomb? Not only did they not take the Potsdam warning seriously, they didn't take the first demonstration that leveled a city seriously.
Completely different situation today
You. Wouldn't. Know. If. It. Was.
You really need to watch your blood pressure, Unix. ;)
Ah, but it's therapeutic, Kevin. He's doing just fine.
And, he's right. The Japanese didn't surrender until the Russians declared war on them and began grinding over them in China, which they did exactly when Stalin promised to, three months after Germany surrendered. The bomb was only a catalyst, not an avalanche.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>