Friday links: TIME’s 100, Americanizing Shelley, ethanol, bulbs and more
posted at 11:28 am on May 4, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Right. So TIME magazine seriously thinks that the leader of the free world, POTUS himself, is less influential on the world stage than Leo DiCaprio or Omar al-Bashir? Who are they kidding? Not Don Surber.
—
When Hot Air gets the company jet, I’m going to change all my lightbulbs and then tell everyone else how to live while I zip about above the clouds. Hey, it works for envirohypocrite Laurie David!
—
Hugo Chavez looks more like Castro every day.
—
Next president: Optimism, schmoptimism. I’m with Andy McCarthy: We need a brawler.
—
The pro-American film Americanizing Shelley opens today. Check local listings on Yahoo Movies or your aggregator of choice. We profiled the film in a Vent a while back. It looks like a fun film made by an unapologetically patriotic group.
—
Ethanol: Not a panacea. It reduces oil use but may kill the rain forest. Poor women and children hit hardest. The corn god will not be appeased.
—
Jules Crittenden gets down on the ground in Iraq. Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Abscam) gets some deserved blowback from Gen. Petraeus.
—
One more: The answer to keeping Iran from medding in Iraq: Show a little skin?
Links: The New Editor, Moonbattery.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Dude. I posted about this like 2 days ago. I’m like Ace, when I’ve posted, it’s old news, already.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 11:30 AM
You’re griping about one link out of about 20 in this post? Sheesh.
Bryan on May 4, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I find it interesting how it’s always the last question that gets asked of these global warming pushers – how have you changed your own life? I’ll bet most scramble for answers.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Bryan, dude, I’m joking and making fun of myself.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Bryan,
Tried emailing this but am not sure what your filter on yahoo may be but the following is a pretty good link for a story related to the delay in funding and its impact on the Air Force:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,133428,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl
Bradky on May 4, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Those lovable Demoncrats. Who’ll they screw over next?
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Well that might deserve a post all its own, Bradky. Democrats say they support the troops but they’re defunding the military in an attempt to wrest CINC power from the actual CINC.
Bryan on May 4, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Not sure if you had seen it – sorry to go OT on the thread.
Bradky on May 4, 2007 at 11:42 AM
I have to agree with you on this one.
No other man in world can take a position, any position, and have 90% of the world and 70% of Americans immediately oppose it and take the exact opposite position.
Now that’s some serious influence.
JaHerer22 on May 4, 2007 at 11:43 AM
According to them President Bush is standing all along amoungst a vast ocean of people who want to pull out of Iraq. Iraq to them is the most important issue of our time and something they call the worst foreign policy disaster in our nation’s history. If George Bush alone is single handedly keeping us “bogged down” in the “quagmire” in Iraq which is the most important issue of our lifetime then ipso facto George Bush must then be the #1 most influential human being on the face of the earth. I’m confused. Why don’t they think losing lives in Iraq is important anymore?
Zetterson on May 4, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Actually it’s just 100% of Democrats minus Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman who oppose any stance the Prez takes, including his popular stands on taxes, gay marriage and so forth. Which says more about BDSers like yourself, JH, than it says about Bush.
Bryan on May 4, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Leaving the President off the list is laughable. I see they couldn’t resist including our not quite one-term Senator Obama on the cover. When was the last time Queen Elizabeth had real influence over anything? They should include a statement for each stating how they are more influencial than the President.
Stevel on May 4, 2007 at 11:51 AM
JaHerer 22 proves that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot…
.
The Machine on May 4, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Really? You disagree with his position that we need to stop terrorism? That we need a stronger economy? That we need to be less dependent on foreign oil? That we need to find a solution to our country’s failing education? You’re against all of those stances?
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 11:52 AM
JaHerer22, BTW, when polled, over 51% of the EU said we need to stop Iran at all costs, even if that means military action. And unlike your numbers, if you give me some time, I can dig up the link to mine.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Ninety percent of the world disagrees with the president?
Link, please.
Might want to avoid Digg, though.
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 11:54 AM
They buy indulgences. Why change your ways when you can buy a mea culpa? Its how I plan on cheating on my wife with 3 hot Swedish bikini models….
/sarcasm
Tim Burton on May 4, 2007 at 11:54 AM
How many of us conservatives subscribe to Time, Newsweek or any of the entertainment rags? I never read them just like I never watch MSNBC (except for last night’s debate) I stick mostly to Fox and a select few shows on CNN (Glen Beck). I have two subscriptions; the Weekly Standard and Reader’s Digest. We are a very divided country and I think we are going to stay this way. I think the next president will be decided by who gets out more of the vote on their side.
I hope a Dhimmicrat has a fit about this so I’m going ot say it:
I LIKE AND RESPECT PRESIDENT BUSH!
CCRWM on May 4, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Bryan I’m agreeing with you. 100% of Democrats, 20% of Republicans, and 80% of independents immediately reject anything Bush says and take the opposite postion. It may be some crazy reverse influence, but it’s still influence.
And yes of course it’s more about BDS than Bush, that’s the point.
But if Bush was smart he would use all this BDS to his advantage and employ a little reverse psychology. I mean it certainly couldn’t hurt him.
JaHerer22 on May 4, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Would be great in theory. But reality is that if Bush said “I believe global warming is the greatest threat”, “I agree we need to leave Iraq”, and “We needed HillaryCare”, the Dems wouldn’t switch their views. They’d see him as caving, and use it to their advantage. Politics, not early learning.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Anything Bush says? Are you going to provide any sort of data to back up this assertion?
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 12:01 PM
AGAIN with the big lie. Repeating these bogus numbers over and over do not make them true.
I hope you actually read the following, since I’ve posted it a couple of times before (sorry HA). But you probably won’t because truth is like kryptonite to you rabid libs.
You’re deluding yourself and actively attempting to delude others. I’m sick of it.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 12:02 PM
JH22 and all our other rabid little trolls,
Look at the Democrat numbers in those poll results. And the polls are hardly Conservative-friendly.
How do you explain that. America is NOT with the small, but VERY friggin’ vocal, numbers of you leftist lunatics.
And I believe you’re going to be very surprised in the next elections. And not in a good way, either.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 12:05 PM
The ‘rest of the world’ includes France (the Nazi appeasers and collaborators), the Islamic world (not much to say there), Red China (not much to say there), Russia (not much to say there), the Chavistas (not much to say there). Everyone else pretty much doesn’t say anything. That, by the way, kind of shows you which camp your in. Proud of yourself?
PRCalDude on May 4, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Slublog, Democrats don’t need data, when they’ve got other Democrats telling the “facts”.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 12:09 PM
*you’re (my average intelligence showing again, Slu)
PRCalDude on May 4, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Well one thing for sure, Time circulation this month will be at least 100.
Rag.
Limerick on May 4, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Poor, uneducated and easy to lead… :-)
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Ever notice how the trolls don’t comment on things like islamofascists planning on blowing up a girls school, or the “culture of corruption” on the D side of the asile, or well, just about anything of real importance. But a post with Time Most influential…
KelliD on May 4, 2007 at 12:15 PM
It’s their cognitive dissonance.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 12:17 PM
on the bright side, at least President Bush made Time’s person of the year.
KelliD on May 4, 2007 at 12:17 PM
You guys need to settle down a little bit and stop taking yourselves so seriously. Of course those numbers were made up, both of those post were semi-serious, half-mocking hyperbole…were you too dense to realize that?
Do you really think I believe the President should start saying the opposite of what he means or that any intellectually honest person, regardless of their beliefs, would reject a position just because they don’t like who said it?
Completely made up, fact-free bullshit is spouted in these comments every day, you just let it slide when it fits your worldview.
JaHerer22 on May 4, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Great backpedal.
PRCalDude on May 4, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Tsk…tsk…JH. Ad hominem and bad language. Easy there, tiger.
Now you expect us to believe you were only engaging in hyperbole?
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 12:23 PM
You guys have to hear the Rush Limbaugh show, on now, if you can. Hysterical.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 12:23 PM
BUT. TIME. ISN’T. BIASED.
I quit reading that liberal rag 20 years ago. This TIME magazine cover/story is hard evidence of their bias. In fact, it is so blatant, TIME has made it clear they have no problem admitting their previously denied ideology, and willingly cheerlead for the surrrender monkey Dumbocrats.
Biggest face on the cover? Hussein Obama. Nuff said.
fogw on May 4, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Pretend time is over. Now get your nappy blanket.
fogw on May 4, 2007 at 12:28 PM
What’s the big deal? Bush doesn’t make the Time list. Does this matter?
Now, the People 100 Most Beautiful People, now there’s a list worth fighting over!!!!! (I keep coming in at 101, damn it!!!)
honora on May 4, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I’d ask the Democrats if they’d care if Clinton didn’t make the list as President. They’d say “I wouldn’t care”, which of course would be bull.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 12:31 PM
I guess socialists will never learn. Remember, Hawaii tried to freeze gas prices during the summer of Katrina/Rita, and it was such a disaster. Now, I’m just watching this tin-horned fool in Venezuela like a train-wreck waiting to happen.
budorob on May 4, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I think we need to give JH some credit – he/she did acknowledge that there is such a thing as “BDS” (as opposed to just throwing out liberal talking points).
Rick on May 4, 2007 at 12:34 PM
I’m actually more amazed that Nurse Bloomberg made the list. Who knew that banning trans fats was such a big deal?
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 12:36 PM
It does matter in that it shows who these “serious” and “well respected” “journalists” at TIME find to be the most influential and important – which translates to what issues they see as important – and more importantly, shows their bias.
Rick on May 4, 2007 at 12:40 PM
My other question about the list – when, exactly, is Leonardo Di Caprio going to look old?
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Of course, all of these environuts are completely ignoring the mercury contained in their beloved compact florescent bulbs. Having a few million of those added to our landfills each year isn’t going to damage a thing. /sarc
I haven’t done the research myself, so, take this with a grain of salt, but, I’ve seen multiple sources claim that 1 gallon of ethanol takes 1.5 gallons of gas to produce. Apparently ethanol can’t be transmitted through pipes (like oil) because it’s very sensitive to moisture so it has to be trucked into places. Between the oil necessary for growing/cultivating the corn and the oil needed to ship the ethanol where it’s going, you end up using 1.5 gallons of oil to make 1 gallon of ethanol. Also, ethanol is only 2/3 as powerful as gasoline, so more ethanol is required to move the same distance.
JadeNYU on May 4, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Good point, he’s got that Dorian Gray thing down. I must admit that he arouses what we used to call “impure thoughts” back at Our Lady of Perpetual Motion.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I know exactly jack about this, but I would assume that like all relatively new technologies, ethanol is well short of it’s potential in terms of affordability, effectiveness as a fuel etc. Also think one of the pluses versus oil is that it’s renewable.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Well thanks Rick.
Do you guys even read what I write or do you just look at my name and go into attack mode? My first comment was meant to be more of a sarcastic statement about BDS than an attack on Bush. Granted sarcasm and tone don’t exactly come across well online, but still it’s like you see Bush, you see JaHerer22 and instantly it’s time to go on the offensive.
I think there is some serious JHDS going on here.
Oh, and just a side note, I would vote for Ron Paul over any Democratic candidate. He’s far from perfect, but he has balls, isn’t afraid of serious change or offending people, believes in freedom and individual liberty, and he’s not a mindless cog in the mainstream Democratic/Republican machine.
JaHerer22 on May 4, 2007 at 12:48 PM
We’re in the same boat with knowing jack. :) I certainly don’t mean to pooh-pooh it. Obviously, new technologies need some time to develop. I’m just always wary (although probably erring on the side of cynicism, it’s my nature) when a new technology is presented by people as The Solution! when there are serious issues that still need to be answered.
Not that that’s what anyone here was doing. More than anything, I was hoping to spur some discussion amongst people that know more than I do about it (which wouldn’t take much) so that I can get a little free edumakashun.
JadeNYU on May 4, 2007 at 12:57 PM
I wish I could have gotten onto this thread sooner. That was some serious JaHerer bashing going on. That his original post was not meant to be taken literally was obvious to me as soon as I read it, and there was no indication that he was identifying himself with those “90%” and “70%” His statement was, if anything, an quick commentary on the BDS that we have been discussing (myself less than most here, I know) for months.
As far as people believing we shouldn’t be fighting the terrorists, isn’t this exactly the complaint we conservatives have been making about the Democrats and the Europeans for some months now?
Lancer on May 4, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Qube TV!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3137127&page=1
RushBaby on May 4, 2007 at 1:30 PM
JHDS
LOL
RushBaby on May 4, 2007 at 1:34 PM
That was funny.
To answer your question, no I don’t hate you. I don’t know you in any meaningful sense, so it’s impossible to really feel emotion one way or the other.
Your posts seemed more ‘kidding on the square’ than anything else – in other words, hyperbole that seeks to communicate a ‘higher truth’ of some sort – namely, that Bush is just so unpopular. I just think when someone makes that sort of statement, it helps to have some sort of citation.
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 1:38 PM
“Americanizing Shelly”… great, sounds like another liberal propoganda flick where they take a decent girl (or guy, in other flicks) and turn her into a tramp (or him into a metrosexual.)
Hiraghm on May 4, 2007 at 1:53 PM
And most of that fact-free bs in the comments comes from your side, you duplicitous weakling.
Talk about taking yourself seriously… sheesh.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Yeah, but it’s not.
Rick on May 4, 2007 at 1:58 PM
And exactly what would be our clue that this is semi-serious half-mocking hyperbole? Sounds just like the rest of the bs coming out of your deluded ranks.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Sounds like somebody got a nice new thesaurus for graduation….
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Sounds like somebody is their usual arrogant, elitist, self…
How about those dem numbers in the polls I posted earlier, oh elite one? Any comment on those?
Thought not.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 2:16 PM
On the bright side:
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Whew.
Maybe they were afraid we’d keep their Queen if the debate had gone the other way.
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Oh, and for the record, I’m self-educated; not having had the luxury or opportunity, (or mandatory indoctrination), of obtaining a ‘higher education’.
Could you possibly be more condescending and dismissive? I know it’s a challenge, but I also know you’ve probably got it in you someplace.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Big surprise. I like the “higer education” in quotes. We don’t need no book learnin’, right pa? LOL
Oh honey, you’ll know when I’m being condescending and dismissive. Why bring out the big guns when you don’t need to? Hitting a gnat with a sledgehammer, not my style.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:23 PM
He’s smart enough to know that ignoring you and yours is waaaay more effective. We see a microcosm of it here. You’re demonstrating it to perfection.
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 2:24 PM
honora, go back to being witty – don’t go cheap. It’s Friday and it might ruin your own weekend, no matter what you claim to the contrary.
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Entelechy: why do you feel compelled to attack me for “going cheap”, and yet technobarb gets a pass calling people “duplicitous weakling” and “deluded”?
Just curious.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:35 PM
You can just call me Honora, no honorifics necessary. Polls? Check out this: Gallup, NYT, WSJ, Pew: all have the same general info: the yeas for a deadline for withdrawal at 57%/64%/56%/59%
http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Rick on May 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Oh, plenty of book larnin’ here. I grew up going to school and local libraries. But yeah, I’m just a hick fool to you and those like you. There are a lot of Americans like me. You don’t respect us, but we really don’t care. We see you for what you are. And also for what you aren’t.
Big guns… from a lib? Right…
Toots, you’re so very amusingly transparent. And so very shallow and petty. But you certainly have a right to be.
But, once again, how about some sparkling sledge hammer rabid lib comment on those gnat-like poll numbers above? Why are Sane Democrats more on ‘our’ side than ‘yours’?
You’re part of a tiny pathetic minority which the msm wholeheartedly supports and protects.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Boy…this escalated quickly. I mean, it really got out of hand fast.
Where’s my trident?
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Do you think it’s smart to advertise a withdrawal date? What do you think will happen once we withdraw? Do you think everything will just go back to normal?
Rick on May 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Read the link I posted above. Bless your heart, you were so sure I wouldn’t respond.
So I guess that nomenclature “mainstream” is not really appropriate, right?
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM
>when, exactly, is Leonardo Di Caprio going to look old?
Instead of just looking like a girl?
Doghouse on May 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Sorry, Slublog. I’m just tired of the hit and run lies, and the vapidly arrogant condescention.
And when they’re called on it, suddenly they’re ‘kidding’.
Not buying it. I’ve had my say. I’ll let it go now. Got a business to run and a deadline to meet. Back later tonight.
Also, be sure to DVR Fred!’s speech tonight on CSPAN. Should be a good one.
Have a good one, All.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 2:47 PM
First, I was responding to techo’s claims that the majority of people reject a withdrawal date. They don’t.
Second, to be perfectly honest, I don’t know what I think. I guess I think we should have an internal go to hell date. The more I see what’s going on in this part of the world, the more obvious to me it is that there are very, very few people and nations, who are pulling for us. Not the Saudis, not the Eygptians, not the Arab “street”.
We have turned Iraq into an A Q magnet. This notion that we “are fighting them there so don’t follow us here” aka the Lassie POV, strikes me a bit naive. It’s not like A Q has a finite army that can only be deployed in one theater–how many folks did it take for them to bring about 9/11?
Third: What’s “normal”?
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Sorry. Just trying to inject some humor.
*Sigh*
C’mon all, it’s Friday!
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Because I like you and believe, am convinced, that you’d be more effective arguing the facts, versus throwing barbs, or belittling others, even if they have that tendency. Also, I expect a lot from you.
Just because I didn’t go after t_b, doesn’t mean that I approve of his flaming. I could spend all day doing just that. Besides, sometimes I have this ‘bad’ tendency. So, consider yourself special. You should know by now that you are special in my HA life, and that we’re aiming to be better, together :)
Rick, I wouldn’t ‘fight’ honora, not even for your Friday amusement. She and I are simply too strong, and it woulb be too long of a ‘fight’. Two ladies fighting is never a good sight.
Back on topic…and have a great weekend all.
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM
I thought, in this new progressive culture we are building, we are supposed to like this kind of thing?
Lawrence on May 4, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Whoa there Nellie!!! You keep referencing poll data; when rebutted, you have to run??
Bock, bock, bock….
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Naa… I knew you’d respond with something.
Yeah, you’re right. ‘Mainstream’ is pretty much a euphemism when referring to the current media, isn’t it?
I’ll read those links. I was really hoping for actual commentary from you rather than more polls, but I suppose that’s too much for such a big-brained elite.
Oh, by the way, I have nothing even close to respect for you. But then you haven’t done anything to earn it, have you?
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Burn!
Lawrence on May 4, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Hey, I appreciate it. (Of course being appreciated by me is probably gonna get you in beeg trubble weet moose and squirrel…..)
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Heh. It was a little tough buying him as a hardened tough guy in “The Departed.” He did well with the role, but still…
Slublog on May 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Oh, and usually, it’s you that run off and hide whenever you’re confronted.
Don’t know why I bother with you. You could be confronted with irrefutable proof and you would still deny it.
Ok… lemme read your links. Don’t go ‘way, now…
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Ah yes, but then you’re not cursed with noblesse oblige.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Not that you know of, anyway.
Very ‘kerry-esqe’ comment, by the way.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Rick’s got some good questions there, toots. How about some answers?
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Oh Lord. I did answer him, look at the post above, 2:49PM.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 3:07 PM
techno_barbarian, I admire you even more for the way you got your education, and for running your business. I got my degrees later in life and no one believed that I didn’t have them sooner. Also, they are good to have, but not as good as many other traits, and they’re definitely overrated. Fortunately, in this country, they are not a requirement to succeed. What we know and what we do is way more important.
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Hey toots,
The problem I’ve got with those Gallup polls is that, unlike the ones I posted, there’s no breakdown of where those opinions are actually coming from. That, and the way the questions are posed.
Easy to lead people to skew the results you desire. True of all polls, I’ll grant.
Happy now? Probably not.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 3:13 PM
See, that’s the problem with this whole “withdrawal” issue – nobody seems to have thought it through. People are taking this and running with it, and not even realizing what the repercussions will be. I don’t think there is anybody (on either side of the aisle) that wants to be in Iraq, just to be in Iraq.
What do you expect? They see what’s going on here in the US. They see that the Dems are in charge of Congress, and are pushing for withdrawal. That scares the crap out of them. They are all trying to cover their own a$$e$ now.
Uh, correct me if I’m wrong, but this “notion” has worked so far.
See first response above. Also, I can tell you that if we withdraw, “normal” for that part of the world will take on a worse meaning than we could have ever imagined.
My biggest fear is that if we do decide to “withdraw”, that the ensuing chaos will be so bad that everybody over there will rally around Iran (despite their differences), and come after us here at home. You think we are hated around the world now – wait until that happens. We will be America, the country that came, messed things up, and just left us (for dead) when the going got tough.
Yep, that’s all we need.
Rick on May 4, 2007 at 3:16 PM
As in “Nellie Ball” – those Warriors sure took it to the Mavs.
Rick on May 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Actually your polls break down by R/D/I in only 2 instances. And the questions are different–mostly talk about defunding, not the idea of a withdrawal date. But you’re right, the manner of questions can drive the data. And I’m always happy baby.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Nice summary, Rick. Thanks.
KelliD on May 4, 2007 at 3:21 PM
toots,
Oh Lord! You DID answer. I missed that.
And all the defeatist rhetoric coming from the current lib ‘leadership’ didn’t exacerbate that situation one bit, did it? Bull. They know the dems are helping them by tearing down the will of the American People. It’s exactly what they want, and it’s a mistake of epic and historic proportions.
And it would seem to me that an aq magnet in Iraq is a good thing. Concentrate the enemy and destroy them, which is exactly what we’re doing.
The news directly from Centcom is much different than what we’re getting from the msm. Sure there’s bad happening and the violence is currently escalating. The bad guys know quivering harry reid and the rest of the weak-kneed libs respond in their favor the more innocents killed.
My point is that the libs are playing right into the hands of our enemies, and the only solution they’re offering is the abject defeat of the US, which is in no way in America’s best interests.
But you don’t see it that way, for some reason. You have a very peculiar brand of ‘patriotism’, in my opinion.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Thanks, Entelechy. Your kind comments are much appreciated.
My lack of formal education has never been an impediment to me. Actually, it’s been an asset. My work speaks for itself, and it always brings in more work.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Oh come on, be fair. Are you saying that up until the Dems took over Congress, we were the toast of the town in the Arab world?
Look, here’s where I struggle: we took down a nation that was a “nation” only thru the good auspices of Saddam. (This is sarcasm for some of the more literal readers of hotair.com) From what I can see, we want them to become a democracy more than they want to become a democracy. So we have 2 choices: stay as an occupier or leave. Neither good choices. But I am sick of this bullshit that we can make this into anything resembling a nation that can define itself and be at least neutral towards us.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Not define. Defend. Getting late and I want my martini….
honora on May 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Hmmm… let’s try some interpretation of the theme to this movie:
“Americanizing Shelley tells the story of a wanna-be Hollywood player, who sets out to
Americanizesecularize anIndian girlcountry bumpkin straight from the Himalayas. As he creatively teaches her all about the American way oflifehedonism and what it takes to be a Hollywoodcelebritysex-goddess.I’m not sure there is anything really ‘new’ with this theme, except the country bumpkin is from the Himalayas instead of Kansas.
As far as wholesome… I guess it depends on one’s definition.
Lawrence on May 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM
.
As I pointed out to my friend Rick, if you are under the impression that all was just swell with the rest of the Arab world prior to this January, well you are way, way off base. I do admire the shameless alacrity with which you conveniently ignore the facts.
Tell me, whose fault was all this before Pelosi and Reid? And I think you have your sequence out of whack: the “will of the American People” is exactly what put the “current lib leadership” in power.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »