Disqus - Latest Comments for RickMoran

Re: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)

Father_Time — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:09:46 -0000

Sorry Rick. Just felt like stirring the pot. There is nothing better than one arrogant arse trying to out do the other. You know how it is.

set and match

Re: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)

SteveK — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:03:27 -0000

DLS wrote: "Well, Steve, perhaps one day you'll be both more mature and also someday learn what the various logical fallacies actually are, rather than learn one or two terms and use them too "liberally"(!)."

See what I mean? :-)
h/t DLS

Re: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)

SteveK — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:04:09 -0000

RickMoran, I liked and agreed with much or your article but your ad hominem laced replies to Father_Time are making you look a lot like DLS.

Re: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)

RickMoran — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:28:15 -0000

Argumentative? No - spot on. And I'm not the one who confuses wearing a conservative tie with someone automatically believing in conservative philosophy. I'm amazed that someone who just suggested that I need a "little education" would demonstrate such towering ignorance as to fail in seeing the difference between convenient shorthand used as a social construct and a political philosophy. Is it your contention that "conservative" fashion carries the same connotation as a political conservative? Perhaps you might explain how this is so - me being so uneducated and all.

Perhaps you also believe if someone wears an outrageously colored, crazy patterned tie, that automatically makes them a liberal instead of someone with very poor fashion sense.

I would give it up. You've already lost and are now just making an idiot of yourself.

Re: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)

Father_Time — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:10:58 -0000

Argumentative.

Please restrain yourself to facts. I suggest you start with self introspection. Maybe with a little education thrown in.

Re: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)

RickMoran — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:00:36 -0000

And why put words in my mouth? What could have possibly given you the idea that I would "deny the veracity of analogy?" Is it perhaps you are suffering from "politically biased indoctrination" and seek to set up a strawman argument with no evidence, not even a clue that I would ever make such a statement.

Better look at your zipper - your partisanship is showing.

Re: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)

RickMoran — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:54:19 -0000

You are confusing "conservatism" as a cultural identifier with the philosophy. You might wear a "conservative" tie but that doesn't make you a political conservative.

Re: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)

Father_Time — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:50:44 -0000

No, I said:..."the very meaning of conformity is conservatism".

Now do you see just how inefficient your politically biased indoctrination actually is?

Something like “forest for the trees” I think is a fair analogy, but of course now you will deny the veracity of analogy as a debating point.

Re: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)

RickMoran — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:17:18 -0000

Wrong. There is no demand for "conformity" in conservatism. Sorry, but that's a pretty shallow understanding of a reverence for tradition and maintaining links with the past. In fact, the very notion of "conservative" was, by definition, hugely non-conformist until the 1970's. We used to call ourselves "individualists" - again, the opposite of conformity.

Re: Western Amnesia: It Was USSR that ‘Saved Humanity’: Izvestia, Russia

TheMagicalSkyFather — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:19:40 -0000

Well that is the hindsight argument which of course would be true if only the Russians could have predicted the future but of course they could not. Was Stalin evil with a capital E, oh yeah. Did he really think that Hitler was going to stand by the Pact, nope though he did think they would stand by it long enough for Russia to prepare for the war(they did not have the capability yet to do much) and he hoped to wash over Germany and pick up their spoils is my guess from Stalin's personality.
Either way if Russia had thrown in at that time instead of waiting for the pact to be broken Russia would have likely been worse off as WWI and WWII involved Russia pleading for help and France, Britain and the US all saying "just a little more time", because of this I would also argue the Russians knew they would get no help from the west. Hitler lost WWII for himself and the allied powers had little to no effect on the end result in my opinion. If he would have kept the pact Europe was his without much question and once consolidated the US or USSR would have been next but of course his utter hatred for the Bolsheviks for the "crime" of turning some of the German troops in WWI against the cause got the better of him and he acted irrationally and the world is better for it(never forget a fascists irrational hatred of communists and vice versa).
Putting Russia in "league" with Germany, Italy and Japan though shows a distinct slant to your history considering Russia was already fighting with Japan and was still recovering from their internal purges.
My question is what exactly do you think they could have fought Germany with spit balls? None of this takes away from the fact that the Germans lost on Russian soil, not on D-Day as my history books so love to say. Without D-Day the iron curtain would have fallen somewhere around the mid Atlantic but Hitler was already broken. D-Day from my point of view was the first act in the play we called the cold war, and possibly the most important one.

Re: Western Amnesia: It Was USSR that ‘Saved Humanity’: Izvestia, Russia

RickMoran — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:40:00 -0000

Allow me to refresh the memories of those who feel sorry for those poor, poor Russians.

It is an open question whether there would have been World war II without the Nazi-Soviet Pact. That pact, signed August 28, 1939, contained secret protocols revealed after the war with the capture of millions of documents, that gave Hitler a free hand in the west (Stalin promised not to come to the aid of Poland - something he was nominally bound to do by treaty with France) while Hitler foreswore any interest in absorbing the Baltics. To complete this cynical deal, the two dictators partitioned Poland - illegal under international law which had guaranteed Poland full sovereignty.

In addition, the treaty guaranteed monthly deliveries of massive amounts of foodstuffs, fodder, and raw materials to Stalin.

While there was much mistrust between Russia, England and France, the idea that Stalin was not complicit with Hitler in starting World War II is absurd. It was a stab in the back to his erstwhile allies in the west who were counting on Stalin to prevent war by participating in the guarantee of Poland. The French especially felt radically betrayed by the Pact - Stalin had reasonably good relations with France up until he inked the deal.

The terror the Nazis carried out in Poland was eagerly duplicated by Stalin who stole everything that wasn't nailed down in his sector while siccing his secret police on the populace.

In short, Stalin made it possible for Hitler to invade first Poland, and then the west as Hitler's rear was secured.

The anti-Hitler plotters in the army were struck a huge blow by the Pact in that they believed if Hitler had invaded Poland and all the Big Three powers of Russian, England, and France had arrayed against him, the likelihood that the Prussian officer corps, seeing Hitler make the same mistake of opening a two front war as the Kaiser did, may have felt compelled to overthrrow him.

Russian complicity is obvious on so many levels that to make the argument they were little more than innocent bystanders is revisionist history at its worst.

Re: Quote of the Day: Where Is America’s Partisan Political Ugliness Heading?

Polimom — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:50:33 -0000

"But it is perfectly legitimate for the political opposition to call "foul" when the president's agenda is promoted as the only alternative to solving our problems."

Ah Rick... if only the screeching were limited to calling "foul". I don't know where you live, but in my state (Texas) the over-the-top reaction has been nothing short of astounding.

Re: Quote of the Day: Where Is America’s Partisan Political Ugliness Heading?

RickMoran — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:41:31 -0000

I'm amazed you didn't even bring up the post speech study materials that are a rank attempt to politicize that nice little speech - even with the "How can I help Obama" stuff taken out.

I applaud the president for telling kids to stay in school, study hard, and graduate. That message cannot be stated enough. But when the Department of Education clearly uses the speech to engender partisanship - that is wrong.

No reason to get hysterical about it and keep kids home. But it is perfectly legitimate for the political opposition to call "foul" when the president's agenda is promoted as the only alternative to solving our problems.

Re: Northeastern Republicans and Dodo Birds

RickMoran — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:02:14 -0000

Got ya way beat bro. 185 comments and about 175 rip me a new one.

Re: The Truth Will Set You Free (Guest Voice)

RickMoran — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:42:21 -0000

Mr. West:

Mild? Good. I'm sure you'll volunteer to prove the efficacy of how "mild" it is to have your head bashed into a wall. Who knows? In your case, might do some good.

Jazz - does this mean I have to bookmark TMV now? Holy Christ, that means it will be in between "The Free Republic" and The Huffington Post.

Both will probably inch away hoping not to be contaminated.

Re: Reading Gore, Lizza, and O'Rourke

RickMoran — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:17:49 -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: The Excrescence Of Right-Wing GOP Hate

RickMoran — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:47:54 -0000

"Would a Limbaugh or an Ann Coulter lay flowers at the grave of Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan? Of course they wouldn’t. Because for them, unbridled hate even trumps their supposed love of country."

Where's your evidence for this statement? And while we're at it, why not some examples of hate speech you criticize?

Rather than huffing and puffing, perhaps a reasoned account of this "hate speech" - and I mean examples using objective critieria rather than your obviously biased, hysterical denunciations based on whatever emotionally strikes you as "hate."

How about putting black face on a white guy - oh, sorry. Liberals have done that already. How about throwing oreo cookies at a black man? Oh - sorry, Democrats have done that. How about calling hate speech "hate speech" when it is directed at a conservative? To wit:

"You're a philipino piece of shit who should be wiping my ass. Go back to the massage parlor. Sucky sucky long time. How dare you thing you have any right to express any opinions in this country. You're a joke. Go back to nursing school. Whore."

Nope. No hate speech there.

The day you start calling out your brethren for their "hate speech" is the day someone will take you seriously - outside of the rabid left - for your diatribes against conservatives.

That might be more in keeping with rational thought - not hanging upside down, scratching your armpit a screeching inanities like a baboon.

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

RickMoran — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:40:30 -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 13:48:26 -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 13:00:56 -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 12:42:13 -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 17:42:43 -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

mikkel — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:13:16 -0000

Rick, I have to agree with what Hilzoy wrote way back in the day.

That judges compromise was in no way bi-partisanship. I'm not sure how it's a "compromise" when one side gets what it wants in return for not completely rewriting the rules. Using that logic, it would be compromise for Clinton to agree to let Obama be the nominee in order for her to not retroactively decide that only the largest 4 states count or some other metric. (I really can't believe that the Democrats saw the Republican led Congress block dozens of nominees during Clinton's term without even a hearing while they blocked a small handful and they couldn't control the media spin).

As for immigration reform...well in all honesty there are so many large blocks that want so many different things that it's impossible to get a real agreement at this point in time. I respectfully disagree with any one that claims there is a "right" approach to the situation.

Re: Thanks for Trying, Senator Obama

RickMoran — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:40:23 -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 14:04:38 -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.