“fundamentalists” cling to dogmatic and entrenched positions that defy reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.
dakine on July 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM

On this thread alone, there’s substantial reasoned argument and contradictory evidence to refute your comments that are, I suppose, by those you dub “fundamentalists.”
You refuse to see it because you are a fundamentalist Shi’ite Democrat Leftist Liberal zealot.
Two can play at that game!

dakine on July 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM

In spite of the Leftists’ attempts to rewrite their “truths” on a regular basis, Truth does exist.

Your attempts to define “fundamentalism” are pathetic and do not justify your *liberal* use of the word to brand your political and social enemies.

Are you not going to “abide” all of us?

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I won’t abide any of you. For purposes of this discussion, “fundamentalist” = “zealot”. All of you are dangerous and worthy of disrespect…some more than others. Religious zealots, environmental zealots, racial zealots, etc…all of you.

BTW, as I’ve used the term here, “fundamentalists” cling to dogmatic and entrenched positions that defy reasoned argument or contradictory evidence. In other words, fundamentalists view themselves as having stumbled upon the ultimate and absolute truth…THE TRUTH, and they’ll impose such truth on the rest of us every chance they get. Sound familiar?

Facebook and Twitter certainly provide a very diverse platform for people to get their message out and offer up their opinions regarding various issues. This often includes politicians and those within this circle of people that choose to listen and. ….

Damn, your good! I’d take you over the Palin-hating girly men anyday of the week.

Sounds like YOU should be making Facebook posts as well.

Palin is laying the foundation for her presidential run. Through Facebook and a variety of public speeches, she is thinking through and developing a coherent constitutional political philosophy that she likely always had but had never bothered to articulate fully in writing. Now she is, and America knows where she stands.

Palin consistently takes down Obama. Obama consistently has no adequate response to Palin’s shots. In 2012, Obama’s only recourse will be to call a state of emergency and suspend elections. That’s the only thing that will keep Palin from defeating him because ACORN and illegal alien or other non-citizen voting will not be enough.

That’s pretty friggin’ awesome!

The ROE changed because the accidental civilian deaths were compromising the mission.

BZZZT WRONG!

MChyrstal meth thought that we could not win unless we had the support of the populace. Based on that fantasy he put ROEs in place that made clear he valued the lives of Afghani civilians over our soldiers. The Taliban took advantage of such rules, often with the help of the “civilians”. Look up what our soldiers have to say on the issue. Until the hands of our soldiers are untied, we are significantly reducing our chances at winning.
I liked the attempt to somehow associate my point with what the Russians did. Too bad I don’t think we should do what they did either. Your next strawman please.

Like the dodge on the so-called-surge. Mchrystal had that right, but obama doesn’t want the war won. He wants to be able to say that he tried, but things were too far gone thanks to the Bush admin. Again, your fantasy that obama is doing more than Bush did to win in Afghanistan is just more leftist agitprop.

Wow.
That’s one interesting post!
I wonder who you really are…

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Some people know me as the Kentucky Colonel. ;-)

NoNails on July 1, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Wow.
That’s one interesting post!
I wonder who you really are…

The ROE changed because the accidental civilian deaths were compromising the mission. The Soviets went in with ROE’s essentially authorizing them to kill everything that moved and it did not work out for them.

Changing the ROEs had nothing to do with either the Soviet experience or civilian casualties.
It’s a Leftist trick to weaken our military and our war effort because that’s what Obowma set out to do when he became Precedent and fired McKiernan.
The jihadis either hide behind civilians or claim to be civilians when they’re caught.
Obama gives his Muslim brothers in arms the advantage on the battlefield by hamstringing our guys.

There were 10k more troops even before the official offensive.

You lie.

Again Jen… it seems others have to do everything for you since you are such a dolt.

I don’t want you to do anything for me except shut up.

Here’s a link to the LWJ that you could not find. I think you are using a Chinese gov’t search engine… the editor is a regular contributor to the Weekly Standard… do you know what that is?

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Been a subscriber to the Weekly Standard for years.
I’ve still never heard of the Long War Journal and I read the magazine on a fairly regular basis.
And you can kiss my a$$, Ozzie!
I think you’re a useful idiot of the Left with your pissy British name, so we’re even.

Like most great women of mystery, Sarah Palin is at once everywhere and nowhere. On any given evening, you might see the former Alaska governor-turned-conservative-icon on Fox News, chatting up like-minded travelers about the political buzz du jour. Her byline pops up now and again in the opinion pages (supporting McCain, bashing enviros). She periodically hits the campaign trail with favored candidates. She is a prolific and passionate tweeter. Her Facebook page overflows with thoughts on global events both past (D-Day, Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech) and present (Israel, border security, the need to drill, baby, drill); news of upcoming appearances (a rally at the Lincoln Memorial with Glenn Beck, a possible U.K. jaunt to meet Margaret Thatcher); the latest media atrocities committed against her; and her rolling endorsements of “commonsense conservative” candidates who tickle her fancy. And, any day now, filming is scheduled to start on the docu-travelogue series in which Palin will “bring the wonder and majesty of Alaska” to TLC viewers.

In the midst of this aggressive visibility, however, Palin keeps a tight grip on her time in the public eye. She rarely sits down with non-conservative interviewers and eschews mix-’em-up formats pitting her viewpoint against that of a more liberal counterpart. More fascinating, she is cautious about her interaction with fellow Republicans. Some of her Facebook endorsements this election cycle have come with telephone outreach to the chosen candidate or, for the fortunate few, even joint appearances. Others come suddenly, with no direct communication at all. More than one campaign learned of Palin’s endorsement only when some staffer or supporter stumbled across it online. There is, for instance, an entertaining video clip of Iowa gubernatorial hopeful Terry Branstad being handed news of his anointment during a June 3 campaign event. Blindsided, Branstad chuckles awkwardly and announces, with evident amazement, “I never expected this! Sarah Palin just endorsed us on Facebook.” (It’s hard to tell from audience members’ explosive laughter whether they are more delighted or appalled for Branstad, a moderate Republican whose endorsement by Palin drew howls of protest from her conservative followers.)

For Republican pols actively angling for Palin’s magic touch, simply attracting the attention of Palinland can prove challenging. There have been smirking media accounts of various Republican primary combatants scrambling for a Palin endorsement or appearance. Before he became infamous for serially exaggerating his r≠sum≠, Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk suffered the indignity of having his make-her-love-me-please memo to Palin pal Fred Malek leaked to the media. Among Republican strategists, there has arisen grumbling about the difficulties in connecting with her people. “Nobody even knows how to get hold of her. No one knows who to call,” says one. Some campaigns grew so desperate, they took to e-mailing Palin’s Facebook page. (Meanwhile, even among those considered close to Palin, there is some confusion as to who, besides Sarah and Todd, are in-the-know, central players in Palinland.) Grumps the strategist, “The entire Palin organization seems to be the woman, a massive Facebook page, and a ton of TV cameras.”

It’s an unconventional media strategy, to be sure, and not without its drawbacks — namely, bitter party operatives. (”This means that you can’t plan anything!” says the strategist.) Yet it’s hard to deny that Palin’s p.r. approach has not only succeeded but succeeded brilliantly. How? The most obvious element at work here is that Palin operates not as a politician but as a celebrity. “Most politicians can’t get on the cover of People,” sighs another GOP campaign veteran. “She’s on the cover almost every week.” The rules are different for celebrities: Palin’s megawattage enables her to command attention for every word and gesture, even as she largely stiff-arms The New York Times and “Meet the Press.” Similarly, candidates desperate for her endorsement are unlikely to (publicly) whine about whatever attention she dribbles their way, no matter how arbitrary or last-minute.

Of course, unlike other categories of the rich and famous, political celebs (especially populist firebrands) cannot risk being seen as remote or out of touch. But here’s where Palin’s embrace of new media saves the day. Her perky, quirky tweets and chatty Facebook items make her fans feel as though they have a direct line to her — despite the oft-voiced assumption that Palin (like so many pols) does not write most (if any) of her own Facebook posts. Such is the beauty of social networking: It allows a public figure to avoid direct interaction with the public while promoting the illusion of personal connection and involvement.

This model makes perfect sense for Palin if she plans to continue as a media personality. It’s unlikely she’d change her m.o., however, even if she decided to run for office again one day. It suits her core strengths — passion, pithiness, and a mind-boggling magnetism — and, let’s face it, it’s so much easier than the conventional model. Already, even as Palin eagerly collects scalps in the midterm races (a key step toward running for future office), she is skipping much of the messier, schmoozier work of building relationships with other campaigns (traditionally also a key step), opting instead to bless many from the safe, antiseptic distance of Facebook.

Palin would not be the first celebrity candidate to attempt an above-the-fray strategy. In the hunt for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, ex-senator and erstwhile actor Fred Thompson briefly entertained dreams of running a different kind of campaign, in which his fame and willingness to rely on the Web would spare him from trudging through all those snow banks in Iowa and New Hampshire. A key part of his plan was to speak directly to voters via blog posts and other new-media tools, rather than letting himself be filtered by all the usual gatekeepers. But Thompson, while plenty well-known and delightfully avuncular, lacked the fire in the belly to make it more than a couple of feet off the starting block.

Palin, by contrast, appears to still harbor plenty of ambition, or at least scores to settle. She also enjoys a media landscape far more “democratized” than what Thompson faced just a few years ago — who knows what Team Fred could have done with the Twitter mania that’s swept politics recently? — not to mention a star quality many Hollywood A-listers would kill for. With her new-media savvy and old-fashioned charisma, Palin has managed to merge Norma Desmond (”Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up”) with Greta Garbo (”I want to be alone”) to become one of the most irresistible spectacles on the public stage. Any political strategist who orchestrated such brilliant success via such unconventional means would instantly be dubbed the p.r. genius of our time. But, as far as we know, there is no crack communications team charting Palin’s course. At some point, even Palin haters may have to face the possibility that the public relations genius is Sarah herself.

It’s funny you metion that but it seems Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan much harder than Bush ever did.

Lexamfox, could you possibly be any more full of sh*t?
Yes obama has stepped up drone strikes, but that is it.
He has allowed our soldeirs to be put at risk with bogus ROEs and has announced a pullout date.
The surge? He made sure there wouldn’t be enough soldiers provided to actually win.
WTH, is it leftist troll day here at HA?
I guess spewing their hatred and lies here beats facing reality that they are losong power and are failures.

Hard Right on July 1, 2010 at 9:31 PM

No. You are wrong. Name one resource which has been cut or not increased in Afghanistan since Obama took office. The ROE changed because the accidental civilian deaths were compromising the mission. The Soviets went in with ROE’s essentially authorizing them to kill everything that moved and it did not work out for them.

There are far more troops and more of virtually every other possible resource being allocated to Afghanistan since Obama’s election. There were 10k more troops even before the official offensive.

I’ve searched the web for good war journals since the WOT began and I’ve never heard of the “Long War Journal.”
Commmies, Lefties–what’s the difference?

As for reading the LSM, what’s the point if you can’t trust what they say or the agenda behind it?

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Again Jen… it seems others have to do everything for you since you are such a dolt. Here’s a link to the LWJ that you could not find. I think you are using a Chinese gov’t search engine… the editor is a regular contributor to the Weekly Standard… do you know what that is?

It’s funny you metion that but it seems Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan much harder than Bush ever did.

Lexamfox, could you possibly be any more full of sh*t?
Yes obama has stepped up drone strikes, but that is it.
He has allowed our soldeirs to be put at risk with bogus ROEs and has announced a pullout date.
The surge? He made sure there wouldn’t be enough soldiers provided to actually win.
WTH, is it leftist troll day here at HA?
I guess spewing their hatred and lies here beats facing reality that they are losong power and are failures.

Chick or dude Jen, you’re a fundamentalist puppet regardless.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Jen must be right over the target if she’s getting flak…

I love Sarah Palin, I have never seen such a fearless warrior and someone who is so putting herself out there, incurring the ugly wrath of the Hatefilled Left, because she sees America and her people as worth it… God bless her…

There she goes again, stating the clear truth on the actual issues in a short to the point lesson. THAT’S Leadership! Our weak three Mouseketeers of Romney, Gingrich and Huckabee have nothing to say at all directed against Obama’s weak spots. Why not? Are they gutless?

jimw on July 1, 2010 at 8:04 PM

I think we can scratch Lonesome Rhodes Huckabee off the list!

I heard today he is about to take his show, the modern day version of Hee-Haw, into syndication!

In other words, he’s doing what losers like him accused Sarah of wanting to do: become the “conservative Oprah”!

Funny how, one by one these clowns out themselves!

Chick or dude, you’re an ad hominem Palin-hating and Christian-hating bomb thrower regardless.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Nope. Simply won’t abide fundamentalism of any stripe.

dakine on July 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Fundamentalist by itself is a meaningless term. There’s a world of difference between a fundamentalist Christian, a fundamentalist Orthodox Jew, and a fundamentalist Muslim.

Just as a pertinent example, a fundamentalist Orthodox Jew is not going to try to evangelize like a fundamentalist Christian, and a fundamentalist Christian is not going to try to kill you like a fundamentalist Muslim.

And a fundamentalist basketball coach will focus his team on doing the fundamentals of the sport well.

So you could make a very good case that a “fundamentalist American” might refer to someone who still believes in those values that actually made our country great, like free enterprise, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, liberty, and peace through strength.

“Fundamentalist” by itself is meaningless.

Jenfidel on July 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Another leap in logic despite the facts. Specifically that Obama has not closed Gitmo, has not really changed the wiretap monitoring, and is keeping much of the info confidential.
In other words, once he became President Obama instead of candidate Obama he understood what Bush was doing.

Bradky on July 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Did you approve when Bush was doing it? Or only when Obama started (reluctantly) doing it?

Or did you decide to approve when you saw a chance to try to bash Palin?

It’s funny you metion that but it seems Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan much harder than Bush ever did.

Complete horsesh*t.
We’re about to lose it!
The only thing that can bring the momentum back is Petraeus by relaxing the restrictive ROEs and letting our guys win, despite Obowma’s desire to lose it and withdraw.

Palin can squawk all she wants but during the campaign she and maverik were rather critical of Obama when he said he would go after AQ and Taliban assets in Pakistan. He has stepped that up even if some here choose to ignore that important fact.

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Why’s he having Pakistani generals go after the bad guys in Pok-i-ston when the Taliban is killing our guys in Afghanistan?!

Pakistan has an endless supply of jihadi killers.

tom on July 1, 2010 at 5:54 PM

It’s funny you metion that but it seems Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan much harder than Bush ever did. Palin can squawk all she wants but during the campaign she and maverik were rather critical of Obama when he said he would go after AQ and Taliban assets in Pakistan. He has stepped that up even if some here choose to ignore that important fact.

The statistics are from the Long War Journal.. though I am sure they are commies to you. Again, you are reminded to read rather than skim headlines.

lexhamfox on July 1, 2010 at 6:34 PM

I’ve searched the web for good war journals since the WOT began and I’ve never heard of the “Long War Journal.”
Commmies, Lefties–what’s the difference?

As for reading the LSM, what’s the point if you can’t trust what they say or the agenda behind it?