Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 16 July 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 16 July 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[MNJohnnie]

Ok what have you done with the real Rodguy911? That was entirely too tame a response for the end of thread posting.

[Peach]

FR will ALWAYS remain my home too, Rodguy, but I'd like to see if we can effect some positive dialog with the inevitable leftists who sign up in October and just maybe change a few minds.

[cardinal4]

100 miles North of me, in Pompano Bch. the black community has had enough and are demanding that a new mosque not be built in Pompano, the rats are in a tizzy of course.

Of course they are. There silence would be palpable if a Muslim group was demanding a Church or Synagogue not be built. Liberal transparency is the very magnifying glass used for ignition..

[eeevil conservative]

LOL!

Ya'll seen that before
I posted it here
lol!

I love yoU!

[Recovering_Democrat]

How Chris Dodd make a jackass out of himself on Fox News Sunday

[Recovering_Democrat]

How Chris Dodd make a jackass out of himself on Fox News Sunday
Fox News Sunday

Posted on 07/16/2006 6:38:47 PM EDT by Recovering_Democrat

I'm watching Fox News Sunday...Chris Dodd, Socialist of Connecticut, is on with George Allen--Constitutionalist from Virginia.

He just made the OUTRAGEOUS statement that in his time of public service, he cannot remember a time when America has been in more trouble.

I quickly looked up that Socialist Dodd was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1974...so he was in power in 1979. Dodd must have forgotten about this truly humiliating moment from his earlier career--the turning point, in my opinion, that gave the Islamofacists their rallying point in history:


Remember November 4, 1979? Chris Dodd's president Jimmy Carter's pathetic, weak-kneed, milquetoast response to this act of terror kept our people in captivity for 444 days. One of the terrorist "students" who took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was the current President of Iran:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hostage taker in 1979 is now the President of Iran.

---

[demkicker]

Here's one of my favorite toons that speaks volumes about how I feel about this upside down world and the loony left that drives me nuts everyday.

[defconw]

:)

[eeevil conservative]

ROFLLLLLLL!!

[rodguy911]

I'm still a bit burned out from my trip this week, big work load,need some rest.

[rodguy911]

Gotcha Peach great idea!

[rodguy911]

Dam Card, you are getting better every week! Here is your weekly fishing report:

This week from NO courtesy of the outdoor show on WWL Sat. morning. They are catching mako sharks, two one 200 pounder the other 300 lbs.also blackfin tunas to 25 lbs. yellowfin tuna at night, a few true red snapper and some grouper, most of the action 80 miles offshore.

[rodguy911]

You are sweet, we are expecting big things from you new blog at Townhall.

[beyond the sea]

Oh .........did I get here too late? Darn.

;-)

[eeevil conservative]

TY~
wait til I get the eeevilconservative.com up and running!

BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAA!

;-)

call me the RED Ann Coulter!

;-)

[kabar]

And what evidence leads you to believe that North Korea will honor or even recognize your compelling and rational argument against such a plan?

National survival. The NK leadership, Kim Jong-il included, doesn't have a death wish. Their concern for their personal safety approaches paranoia. It is critical that we do what we say we will do.

They have kidnapped citizens of foreign powers and kept them as slaves for decades. They admit it and they are still holding these people. They have committed more acts of terror than any other regime in modern history, including blowing up airplanes with diplomats of "friendly powers," such as China, on board. They have starved over a million of their own people. They are currently holding us up because we stopped them from distributing billions of dollars in counterfeit $100 bills that they had produced. And they demand the money back from that criminal endeavor as their price for returning to negotiations over their nuclear program.

They are extortionists. They will continue to commit terroist acts, issue threats, and use blackmail to obtain what they want. They didn't suffer any penalty when they captured the USS Pueblo or hacked our troops to death at the 38th parallel. In fact, they are being rewarded for their actions, witness the Clinton/Carter/Albright negotiation and concessions to nuclear blackmail. Since 1995 the US has provided NK with $1 billion in aid. We are just reinforcing their behavior.

They are not rational. That's the part that so many who have argued with me today reject and really the only point on which we disagree. If you can't accept that possibility then, in my opinion, you haven't got a broad enough view of the world to imagine what might happen and therefore, in my view, you can't analyze the situation effectively. Stuff happens beyond what we consider to be reasonable and acceptable. We have to be able to think beyond what we consider reasonable and acceptable.

Au contraire. They are very rational. Is Tony Soprano rational? NK is one of the poorest countries on earth barely able to feed itself with help from abroad, and yet the world's lone superpower, Japan, Russia, and China are trying to bribe them from not developing their nuclear program any fruther. The whole world shudders when they try to launch a few missiles. Kim Jong-il is crazy like a fox. The question should be are we rational in how we deal with them? If we keep rewarding them, they will continue to make outrageous demands and issue threats.

Will they do it? I have no idea. Might they do it? Absolutely. You (and others here) reject that possibility out of hand and I think that is a serious mistake. You have the odds on your side. But then, the odds were against the Anschluss or Pearl Harbor and certainly against 9/11 being carried out. In the case of Pearl Harbor the leading military minds of the time, including those in Japan, said it was insane. The Anschluss was the result of 30 years of humiliation and despair, coupled with a madman's twisted dream. In the case of 9/11 you had a bunch of religious fanatics who had their own reality and welcomed the consequences. What makes you think that the Iranian or North Korean or Venezuelan leaders are any more connected with reality than the NAZIs, Al Qaeda or the Imperial Japanese?

They are all connected to reality. It depends on where you sit in terms of your perspective. NK and Iran don't approach the threats the Nazis, Japanese, and Soviets posed. Islamic fundamentalism has suffered serious setbacks in recent years, e.g., the downfall of the Taliban, the liberation of Iraq, the dismanteling of AQ, etc.

[La Enchiladita]

I had not seen it before, eeevil, and I really appreciated learning about Mr. Rodney, a truly heroic founder of our Great Nation. Makes me feel so darned BLESSED to live here, to be an American too. Thanks.

[mathluv]

I wanted to ping you to this post, and to #270.

It was late when I responded to your post, and I think I let some Fox News Watch (Neal Gabler) combine with the panel.

[Phsstpok]

You are claiming "Many Americans" agree this is WWIV. I merely point out "many Americans" also think CFR is a great law and that "the rich" don't pay their fair share of taxes.

No, you said "most of you think" in post #551, not "many Americans."  It was that phrasing that turned it from a reasonable comment into a snarky, outrageous and unwarranted attack.

I can accept that you mispoke, I do it all the time, particularly when I'm trying to type quickly in a response.  But you also should recognize that your posts have been phrased in a way that is easily percieved as unusually hostile on this thread.

 

[Phsstpok]

The Taliban did not attack us, Al Qeda did. How would that be any different then the Iranians using Hezbullah to attack us?

As kabar says in #577, the most direct analogous situation to our attacking the Taliban for sheltering Al Qaeda is probably Israel attacking Lebanon and then Syria for sheltering Hezbullah (how are we supposed to spell that, by the way?).  Israel is doing to Lebanon very much what we did in Afghanistan, with the difference that they view the Lebanese government largely as a victim of Syria and Hezbullah, not a primary sponsor or protector (at least not yet). 

I think President Bush is emphasizing Syria in his private and public statements based on precisely this logic.  I think he's setting the ground work for an Israeli and/or US attack on significant assets in Syria.  That would be a very powerful signal to Iran without immediately requiring an all out response from Iran (e.g. trying to stop the flow of oil form the Gulf).  I just heard former CIA head James Woolsey on Big Story on Fox saying that we, not Israel, should be striking at Syrian infrastructure for precisely this reason, to knock Syria down a peg and knock back Iran's position in the area by showing them to be basically running a bluff at this point. 

Particularly with the rest of the Arab League basically lining up against Hezbullah it might be a tactic to consider.  I do believe that the President and Rummy just might have a bit more info about the situation that I do, so I'll leave that decision to them... <g>