Disqus - Latest Comments for RickMoran

Re: Reading Gore, Lizza, and O'Rourke

RickMoran — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:17:49 -0000

"...the conservative movement because it’s been reckess and extremist, because what it promotes is, at its core, brutality: theocratic moralism at home, imperialism abroad, and a deregulated free-market economy that would have made Adam Smith shudder in horror."

Jesus Michael, you can't be that stupid can you? "Theocratic?" Are you honestly saying that "conservatism" (not conservatives idiots) is about theocratic rule? Or "Burtality?"

Where do you get this crap, Raw Story? And btw, since Adam Smith lived in a time of no regulation at all, what would make him shudder is what Obama and his buds have in store for the free market.

"Imperialism abroad?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Which ideology was hellbent on assisting our little yellow brothers in Southeast Asia? Who was it that intervened in more nations than any other president in history? Kennedy and the Bundy/Harriman,McNamara axis made the Neocons look like isolationists. They sicced the CIA on a dozen governments around the world not to mention sending combat troops to Viet Nam and Laos. And let's not forget Clinton and his towering conceits.

You really do revel in your ignorance, don't you? Of course the way you described conservatism bears absolutely no relationship to reality. You were just spouting Greenwaldese and Neiwert-speak. In fact, I would guess you haven't a clue what liberalism is either which makes your obliviousness complete. You have proven that not only don't you have the ability to think independently ( a disease that afflicts both liberals and conservatives) but it is an open question whether you have any rational thoughts at all.

I think you should start writing a cooking column. Or maybe knitting. That's more your speed, I think. Leave political philosophy to people who like, you know, have an inkling of what they're talking about.

Maybe sports...?

Re: McCain-Palin Mudslinging & The Season Of The Conservative Pundit's Discontent

RickMoran — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:40:30 -0000

"There is only one way to end the slime — and that is to win."

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, you're serious aren't you. You actually believe Obama has run a campaign free of "name calling" and smearing his opponent?

What planet have you been on for the last 5 months? I guess the Keating 5 ad - a situation where McCain was exonerated and where he himself says he used bad judgement - is talking about "issues."

Get off your high horse. Obama is doing whatever it takes to win. And smearing McCain is one good way to do it.

You talk about my infatuation with Palin? Jesus Lord when are you going to take the mote out of your own eye so you can see how far you yourself are in the tank for The One? Anyone who believes this rookie is qualified to be president should have their head examined. Name one presidential candidate from either party in the last 100 years less qualified for the presidency than Obama? You can't.

And that makes your advocacy of him as partisan as anything I've ever written anywhere about McCain/Palin.

Re: Who is Sarah Palin?

RickMoran — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:48:26 -0000

Joe:

I respect most of the writers who appear on this site. But if someone presents himself as even handed as Mr. Dibbell was attempting to do while assailing one candidate with what I consider unfair criticism and not putting the other under the same microscope, I believe that is the definition of hypocrisy - not the criticism itself but the manner in which the writer attempts to disguise their partisanship.

Republican digs at the media were not about questions regarding her qualifications but the extraordinary smearing of Palin and her family with demonstrably false accusations and half baked charges of impropriety. Is the media paying half the attention to Biden's family connections with MBNA including the lavish and improper favors given he and his by executives of the credit card giant? The microscopic scrutiny paid to Palin and her record compared to Biden is outrageously unfair and should have been mentioned as the true justification for GOP attacks on the media.

Trying to hide one's partisanship behind a veil of ostensible fairness is why I referred to Mr. Dibbell as a hypocrite. He raises some good points about Palin and the McCain campaign's reluctance to expose her to probing questions from the media. But that doesn't excuse his penning a hit piece disguised as analysis.

Re: Who is Sarah Palin?

RickMoran — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:00:56 -0000

The list of Biden verbal gaffes that rmake him to appear as dumb as a post would fill the Encyclopedia Britannica and this is the best you can come up with on Palin? He didn't even know the name of the man who chose him as running mate for God's sake!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/23/politic...

And I would argue that his "qualifications" to be president are certainly assailable. If you believe longetivity in Washington allows for some kind of osmosis where knowledge of how to be president sort of seeps in through the pores of super annuated senators like Biden, then of course you believe him to be "qualified."

But being an executive is a helluva lot different than being a legislator. Biden has zero executive experience and thus "assailable" qualifications for president. Only a rank partisan would say otherwise.

There is only one thing that makes me angrier than unfair attacks on candidates - including the ones you mention on Obama. And that is hypocrites like you pretending to be even handed only to reveal yourself as partisan as any employee of the DNC.

Re: The Fully Vetted Sarah Palin

RickMoran — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:42:13 -0000

How does a pregnant woman "appear" at six months? Which students "report" that her daughter was out of school? Where were the quotes? Why no link? Ditto Palin "aides have been quoted..."

This is the very definition of a smear - wild charges made with absolutely no verifiable proof.

Re: GOP To The Rescue: Republicans Block Extra Tax On Oil Companies

RickMoran — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:42:43 -0000

I'm looking at all the ads on this website and I have come to the conclusion that there is an excess of profits being generated here. I'm sure Joe would gladly part with those profits since he so avidly supports the idea of taking them from others.

Who's to say what is "excessive?" Taxing the oil companies will not generate one single drop of additional oil nor cut a penny off a gallon of gas. It's idiotic, anti-capitalist, and dare I say it, UnAmerican.

Why is it we never hear of any suggestions to tax the enormous amount of cash raked in by unions from their members to fund political campaigns? A lot of that money is from members who don't even support the candidate being backed. What do they need all that cash for? I say it is excess cash and should be taxed severely.

Joe wants to stop this "excess tax" business at oil companies. But once you prove the point that you can confiscate profits for no other reason than you wish to play the class card in a political campaign - breeding jealousy and hatred for those who have more than you do - there will be no end to it. Today it's oil companies. Tomorrow, it will be Ag conglomerates. Or maybe Pepsi cola. How fair is it that Pepsi makes billions off of sweetened water?

Play your class card and be damned. Only don't go weeping to Washington when they start taxing "excess profits" on something you disagree with.

Re: Thanks for Trying, Senator Obama

RickMoran — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:40:23 -0000

The kind of elitist crap you threw out there Pete - "simple minds" and "minds unable to grasp" is par for the course from the messiah's supporters.

What you can't seem to get through your pointy head is that you are the one who is blinded.

"Post partisanship?" Name one meaningful attempt at bi-partisanship Obama participated in. Immigration reform? Absent. Judges compromise? Not there. Fact is, he's never stuck his neck out - he's a political coward.

A "new kind of politics?" From a guy who made his political bones in Chicago? Are you fricking kidding me?

Those who can't see that hypocrisy drips from every word this guy utters deserve his presidency. And please, don't set yourself up as our better - there is nothing "new" or "empowering" about a man who says one thing on the stump and then carries on politics as usual elsewhere.

Re: Who Killed JFK? Another Twist In The Unending Mystery

RickMoran — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:04:38 -0000

According to 3 witnesses - Ruth and Michael Paine as well as Marina Oswald, LHO was in Irving all day and night that day at the Paines house where Marina was staying in order to get away from Lee's beatings.

So unless you think those three were all in on the conspiracy, this latest "revelation" is a bunch of baloney.

Re: Michelle Obama & American Pride

RickMoran — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:44:06 -0000

Just so I have everybody's defense here down cold...

It doesn't matter what someone says but her "frame of reference" or some other illogical formulation that dismisses the actual words that came out of her mouth and substitutes...what? What am I missing here?

If words have no meaning why bother talking?

Re: Michelle Obama & American Pride

RickMoran — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:31:01 -0000

And Gandleman is the proprietor of this blog and takes responsibilty for its content. Your calling him a babysitter is not only inaccurate - it's insulting.

But I've come to expect that from you - which is why most of your comments are deleted on my site.

Re: Michelle Obama & American Pride

RickMoran — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:27:56 -0000

Why are you trying to parse this? It's ludicrous. She said what she said and what she said has been uttered by leftists in this country for more than 30 years. It's not like we haven't heard this before from liberals.

It's not a question of mind reading at all. You're the one trying to make out that she didn't really mean what she said.

Re: Michelle Obama & American Pride

RickMoran — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:47:19 -0000

Rarely have I come across such a grossly shallow, ridiculous, deliberately obtuse article as this.

There are so many idiocies I can't begin to list them. So I'll just take two obvious ones.

"Their accusations are without merit for many reasons. One reasons is because anyone who is even mildly objective knows that she was speaking in the moment to a crowd. Another reason is that any reasonable person would believe that a woman seeing her husband (of any race) have a real chance to be president would be the proudest moment in her life and no reasonable person would believe she meant she’d never been proud of this country before."

As opposed to any "reasonable person" simply taking her at her word? It is Winters arguments that are unreasonable, a stretch, without logic or merit, and extraordinarily blind. The only basis by which one can critique Mrs. Obama's words are on what she said, not what you wish she had said or shouldn't have said in the heat of the "moment" or any othe cockamamie notion of why "reasonable" people would take her meaning for anything else except what came out of her mouth.

"When men like Scarborough & Hannity ask why can’t the world be like it was in the 50s, they imagine/remember a time where life was perfect, there was good will, prosperity and values made us a strong country."

What in the name of all that is good and holy are you talking about? When have either of those gentlemen or any conservative ever said anything about wishing that the world was the way it was in the 1950's? You just made that up out of whole cloth - an infantile view of conservatives and conservatism that one would find only uttered by someone without the education to know better. Or perhaps, the dominant liberal view among those without the education to know better.

I have written to Joe about this post - utterly devoid of substance, logic, and insulting the intelligence of his conservative readers.

Re: The Showdown On The Right

RickMoran — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:53:35 -0000

Not "High Noon" but rather "Custer's Last Stand."

McCain is so far ahead in so many Super Tuesday states that on February 6, his lead will be virtually insurmountable. By my count, he could easily win more than 700 delegates - and that's only if Romney and Huckabee can close the gap on him in the few states he isn't running away with.

Romney may be 400 delegates behind coming out of Super Tuesday. And with less than a thousand delegates left to be selected it is almost a statistical impossibility that he could overtake McCain.

The showdown happened in South Carolina and Florida. Super Tuesday will be a massacre.