This event has been forced into a larger venue.
Footnotes:
[1] I initially wrote “hair-tearing”, but changed it to “efforts” because that would be cruel.
[2] Adolph Hitler invented the Volkswagen.
This event has been forced into a larger venue.
Footnotes:
[1] I initially wrote “hair-tearing”, but changed it to “efforts” because that would be cruel.
[2] Adolph Hitler invented the Volkswagen.
Boom:
I’m sure Salim Mansur will mention compassion and recognition of human rights for innocent Muslims … unless the subject is not brought up.
Set
Having read much of Salim Mansur’s work I can safely say that he will speak his mind whether the subject is brought up or not.
Why is ‘racist’ always the first thing out of a liberals mouth when they disagree with a conservative? I for one like Kathy Shaidle and her tell it like it is way of speaking. I have never found her to be racist. You’re okay in my books Shaidle.
“There is one individual in their employ Jane Roy, who is the spouse of LNC MP Glen Pearson. These two have made their lifes work the local food bank and advocating to help the less fortunate in Darfur..but I digress.”
They sound horrible. Thank goodness there are real contributors to our society, like Kathy, Ezra and Kate, who actually deliver a tangible good to the masses.
Yes Kathy Shaidle is a converted lieberal, now if only she could quit sounding like a damn lieberal trying to be a CONSERVATIVE!!!!
Perhaps you would be so kind, Me No Dhimmi, as to explain what it is you disagree with me about at 8:40 above, rather than just claiming what you apparently seem to think I might or might not agree with, of which nobody else knows (for sure) what the he11 you’re talking about. I haven’t even commented on this topic, and you disagree with me, already? Oy vey!
Heh, just watching Kathy make leftard heads explode (how’s that working for ya, bleet;-)) is worth the price of admission, principally due to their indignant adherence to the tired old “free speech for me but not for you, ’cause you hurt my tender feelings”
Keep up the good work Kathy. I love watching lefties self-destruct, even if I don’t agree with you all the time. But what do I know… I’m just a relic of a long gone age, presumable too fossilized in my ways to stop from thinking for myself instead of wallowing in the AGW & OB worshipping groupthink of the hubristic leftards.
GYM at 10:42 – I am confused. Can you explain?
There’s nothing necessarily wrong with having a panel where all the participants are in agreement on an issue, although there is less possibility of fireworks. I am reminded of a CBC panel I once saw, the topic being Cancon regulations, and naturally all three participants were in favour (one was Molly Johnson; another was Robert Lantos, who came across like a pompous ass).
On another issue: I know it’s fun to rag on a certain Wanker for his comments on swastikas in urinals, but frankly, given the nature of graffiti, they’re one of the most logical places to find them. So on this issue I think the insults and sarcasm are misplaced.
It’s Volkswagen, not Volkswagon.
sarge here holy crap schaidle looks more deranged than even the sarge expected
Thx, Johan.
sarge:
Let’s take Kathy’s latest argument and apply it to a WWII situation.
Apparently, Japan should have been nuked the day before Pearl Harbour.
But then, maybe I’m not following the logic.
Vitruvius, I seem to recall a contemptuous remark about Ann Coulter incorporating the word “circus” or freak show, or something akin to that.
If I have mis-recalled, misspoke myself, my apologies.
Had not intended to offend you in any way. There is a quite large constituency of thoughtful, well-educated people who believe that Ann Coulter is bad for the conservative movement; I had thought that you susbscribed to that view. That’s all.
As indicated, I unequivocally reject that view and merely alluded to Shaidle as a kind of Canadian Coulter.
When I read or listen to Coulter I often find myself, pleasantly shocked, thinking, ‘wow, can she really get away with saying that’, which she does, and which Shaidle seems to be too with her sometime outrageous remarks.
As a Muslim, he [Salim Mansur] understands there are certain elements within his religion that drag its name down.
Fact is, there are more Muslims killed by Muslims. That can be easily verifiable by a factual investigation.
this really puzzles me. the muslim on muslim thing.
goes way back to the shia sunni split.
kinda like catholic-protestant wars centuries ago.
do other religions do this?
Set You Free
Re your post @ 11:53
Presumably you are aware of where and what Tora Bora is. If so, I think you are being disingenuous when you argue that bombing a system of caves where Bin Laden’s organization, known perpetrator of terrorist acts against America even previous to 9/11, was located equates to nuking an entire country ie Japan. I’m not so sure that most people would have a problem with the idea of lobbing some cruise missiles at the cave system of a known murderer and head of a terrorist organization openly at war with the West whether they were sent pre or post 9/11. Just as there seemed to be no big outcry when Clinton lobbed a cruise missile into the middle of nowhere and traumatized a herd of camels. Most people in the West at the least approved of the concept if not the execution.
Ah yes, my circus side-shows comment. But, Me No Dhimmi, I did not say that it is not the case that the US needs an Ann Coulter, as you implied, any more than I said that it is not the case that the US needs circus side-shows.
Boom:
Just questioning the logic of this statement:
“I would have ordered a batch of cruise missiles to take out Tora Bora no later than 2PM EST Sept 11, 2001. Ideally should’ve happened the day before, but oh well.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at April 7, 2009 11:03 AM
1) Ordering a batch of cruise missiles.
2) No later than 2 PM EST Sept 11, 2001.
3) Should’ve happened the day before.
In my obviously inferior mind, I’m wondering how a pre-emptive strike could be launched in anticipation of an event that would happen the next day.
Being a dummy, the only way that would be possible is if somebody KNEW the attack would happen and would launch a counter-attack the day before.
Following the example of ‘somebody knew but did nothing about it,’ launching a pre-emptive attack on Japan in retaliation to their planned bombing of Pearl Harbour would seem to have been a logical action.
It seems to me, though, that there’s a bit of backpedalling on the nuke ’em option once BS was called.
The original nuke ’em suggestion was to launch a nuke now, not before 9/11.
At the very least, this is an example of topic-shifiting against an indefensible position.
Deranged seems like a pretty accurate description of the position.
Set You Free
As I mentioned in my post, there was no need for precognition because Bin Laden and his fellow denizens at Tora Bora were already worthy of receiving a cruise missile up their whazoos because of their existing record pre-9/11. If anything, Kathy is being too moderate as, ideally, the cave complex and all in it should have been dusted off long before. (Hence the Clinton references).
Boom:
Her position clearly states ‘the day before.’
That was a backpedal from the original ‘nuke them now,’ which persumably was a solution to the problem as of this moment.
Once BS was called, unable to defend a position, a red herring was thrown out about how it should have been handled in the past.
All I did was take it even further into the past to the point of absurdity.
Bottom-line is the original sentiment to nuke ’em all is indefensible.
Ahh, nuke ’em all.
Clarity-check, please…
Set-
“That was a backpedal from the original ‘nuke them now,’ which persumably was a solution to the problem as of this moment.”
Are you referring to something Kathy said in this thread or elsewhere? I’m not clear on where you are suggesting the “original ‘nuke them now’…” comment originated.
Not arguing with you, not trying to provoke you; just looking for clarification.
Uh-oh. I see the might Kinsella has been quoted by the LFP journo. My, what enemies we have.
set you free at April 7, 2009 10:49 AM
“The enemy is radical islam”
A very easy get-out clause. I have good, long established, friendships with several muslims, and religion is never an issue.
However, many muslims would call them apostates, or at least not real muslims. For them, like many christians, religion is a personal thing.
The problem with islam is that it is a religion invented by an illiterate two-bit bandit for whom violence was the way of achieving his goals.
Set You Free-
OK, I’ll readily admit that maybe I’m not too bright, but when you say “Bottom-line is the original sentiment to nuke ’em all is indefensible…”, I confess to being a bit perplexed. Where did Kathy say “nuke ’em all”? In this post? If so, I ask you — sincerely — to please point it out. All I’m seeing is her statement supporting the nuking of people trying to kill us, or those who are actively supporting those who already have. That certainly doesn’t seem indefensible to me. As a matter of fact, it would seem to be a position that most of those who cherish life — rather than death — would likewise find quite defensible. Unless, of course, they really do hate themselves, their children, their grandchildren, etc.
Has she suggested “nuking” innocents in some other forum? If so, I would sincerely appreciate you bringing that to my attention, as I, too, might well concur with your sentiments in the matter. If that’s the case, please do point me in that direction. In the meantime, however, if your comments are in reference to statements she’s made here, I respectfully suggest, sir, that your assertions don’t hold any water. If you have some that do, I would appreciate you bringing them forward so that we can all judge them on their merits.
Set You Free-
OK, I’ll readily admit that maybe I’m not too bright, but when you say “Bottom-line is the original sentiment to nuke ’em all is indefensible…”, I confess to being a bit perplexed. Where did Kathy say “nuke ’em all”? In this post? If so, I ask you — sincerely — to please point it out. All I’m seeing is her statement supporting the nuking of people trying to kill us, or those who are actively supporting those who already have. That certainly doesn’t seem indefensible to me. As a matter of fact, it would seem to be a position that most of those who cherish life — rather than death — would likewise find quite defensible. Unless, of course, they really do hate themselves, their children, their grandchildren, etc.
Has she suggested “nuking” innocents in some other forum? If so, I would sincerely appreciate you bringing that to my attention, as I, too, might well concur with your sentiments in the matter. If that’s the case, please do point me in that direction. In the meantime, however, if your comments are in reference to statements she’s made here, I respectfully suggest, sir, that your assertions don’t hold any water. If you have some that do, I would appreciate you bringing them forward so that we can all judge them on their merits.
Chop:
Just look at ‘Hearts and Minds is a bad strategy’ and draw your own conclusions as to where the nuke was intended.
Not specific, but Afghanistan. Moments after the 9/11 attack, just rain down nukes on Afghanistan. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Set You Free-
OK, I guess I am as dumb as I thought, cuz I just don’t get where you’re coming from. I had read ‘Hearts and Minds…’ yesterday, but upon your recommendation, I re-read it this morning just to be sure.
Hm-m-m-m… Nowhere do I see any sort of reference to dropping nukes willy nilly or anything approaching the suggestion that we should wantonly kill innocents. Instead, the author makes it clear that the destruction of insurgent armies is, in his opinion, a much more effective and long-lasting approach to the pacification of an insurgency. Makes sense to me.
What I’m left with here is the strong sense that Kathy’s observation that you’re someone “who purposely misrepresents the arguments of… people he disagrees with” appears to be spot on. You’ve offered nothing which, upon investigation, demonstrates in any meaningful way that Kathy is the bloodthirsty barbarian you seem to suggest she is; instead, you make it clear that when it comes to “winning” an argument, anything goes, the truth be damned. Reminds me of Karl Marx’s observation that “the end justifies the means”.
I confess to being a bit saddened here in that although I know people can be — and are — quite passionate about their positions, I still hold out the so-often-dashed hope that they can find it within themselves to be honest in the process. What you have engaged in here appears to be a classic case of “truth-twisting”, and that clearly tells the story of just who you are. Determined to “win” at any cost, the truth be damned.
I guess I’m just an old-fashioned kind of guy, but I still find myself often quite disappointed that integrity… honesty… is in such short supply. It’s why I finally, after many years, left the Liberal side of the aisle and moved to the right. Conservatives don’t always have the answers, but they generally do seem to pursue those answers with a steadfast integrity that I perceive to be… sadly… in short supply on the left.
Chopper
I believe your confusion arises from the fact that set you free was referencing Shaidle’s comment on the ‘Hearts and Minds’ post – which was “If we’d just nuked the place no later than 2pm on Sept. 11, 2001 we’d be fine’.
Set you free’s point is that nuking ‘the place’, i.e., the country of Afghanistan, 5 hours after the attacks, might have been, to use your own words, a trifle blood thirsty and barbaric. Considering that, you know, there might be innocent children, women and men who had nothing to do with 9-11 in the country of Aghanistan, and to rain down destruction and death on them, might have been a trifle,, well, bloodthirsty and barbaric.
Set you free is innocent of the ‘purposeful misrepresentation of arguments’ you accuse him of. Shaidle is guilt of backtracking hypocritically from her inflammatory words. And you, dear Chopper, well, you take care of those tender sensibilities. The world is a confusing place, but I’m sure as you wander from one political party to another you’ll find the integrity you so fervently desire. 🙂