Disqus - Latest Comments for philwynk

Re: The Excrescence Of Right-Wing GOP Hate

philwynk — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:45:56 -0000

I'm astonished that you have the nerve to post a self-refuting hate piece of this tenor on a site called "The Moderate Voice." Not only is it the case that the vitriol of the Left has exceeded that of the Right by about 2 orders of magnitude consistently for the last 30 years, it is the case that this very article is a stunning example of that vitriol.

There's nothing moderate about this piece that I can see.

Just for the record, the answer to the question "Would a Limbaugh or an Ann Coulter lay flowers at the grave of Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan?" is "Yes, in a heartbeat." You have no reason to infer otherwise. And the claim that the only basis for supporting the war in the Middle East is some sort of payback against godless Muslims is so easily, provably wrong that I can't imagine what possesses a nominally intelligent person to make such a statement.

You shame yourself.

Re: The Palin gamble

philwynk — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:49:27 -0000

Palin hasn't been running for national office for 18 months. Obama has. Running a presidential campaign is a form of "executive experience."

I'm sorry, but this is just so much nonsense. In the first place, Obama is not running his own campaign, it's being run by David Axelrod. In the second place, if you're counting the last 18 months as executive experience running a campaign, then Obama has only 18 months in the Senate. In the third place, and most importantly, Obama's experience is entirely self-focused, while Palin's has in the service of the public; Palin has actually accomplished something valuable with her time and effort.

As to the experience argument, Obama can't possibly answer a challenge to his readiness by pointing to Palin, because to do so concedes his own lack of readiness. I mean, sure, he'll try, but who's going to take him seriously besides those who were going to vote for him already anyhow? The fact of the matter is, Palin has just as much gravitas as Obama, and a lot fewer skeletons in her closet; and the fact that she's the bottom of the ticket and not the top means a great deal.

Re: What Happened?

philwynk — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:49:46 -0000

That's a funny ad. I like it. Thanks for posting, I'd never seen that one before.

(Sorry -- I thought this comment board was threaded. I was responding to a comment that linked to this ad from the McCain campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU )

Re: What Happened?

philwynk — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:47:24 -0000

Ah, I get it. He blanked for a moment and forgot the first part of the question. That means he's not qualified to be President.

But Obama thinking there are 57 states, seeing fallen heroes in the audience today, thinking 10,000 people were killed by a tornado in Kansas, thinking we need Arabic translators from Iraq to go to Afghanistan where they speak Farsi, or thinking he's in Sioux City, Iowa when he's in Souix Falls, South Dakota -- those do NOT disqualify him.

It's perfectly clear to me now. Thanks for clarifying.

Please, folks. Can we be serious?

Re: Go away you horrible human being

philwynk — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:47:28 -0000

She can't win, the math says she lost the nomination

The math also says Obama can't win. Think he should drop out, too?

Just wondering.

Re: Go away you horrible human being

philwynk — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:46:20 -0000

I defended her. I defended her husband. And now I'm actually wondering if the Republicans weren't right about them.

As a Republican, I'm tempted to say "It's about time, but welcome to reality." We were right about them; there was never any doubt of that.

However, your reasons fall pretty far short of reason. Here's the clue:

She makes me yell at the TV like she's George Bush, and no one other than George Bush makes me yell at the TV...

Pretty clear indication that your emotions are doing your thinking for you. That's why you couldn't see what sort of person she was in the first place. And that's why you think she's such a bad person now -- not because you actually see how bad she is, but because now she's the one preventing you from getting your way.

I'm very sorry, but as an honest Republican, I'm not pleased to have that sort of support for my point of view. Sure, you're saying that about the Clintons now, but as soon as some other Messenger of Evil comes along and gives you what you want (you know, someone like a thoroughly dishonest, closet neo-Marxist pretending to be a centrist and offering "hope" and "change"), you'll be defending them the way you did the Clintons. Honestly, I'd much rather you calmed down and decided to make your decisions based on facts and consistent reasoning, even if at first your reasons led you to oppose my point of view; I have a much better chance of convincing an honest opponent than I have of swaying the emotions of a spoiled, selfish child.

Re: CTV Sticks by Its Story

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:31:53 -0000

The issue is not just that a candidate may be lying to the voters: that would be bad enough, but it's also pretty common. The issue is, the candidate who's doing the lying is running on the strength of his being "a new kind of politician." If this story is true, Obama has just made his entire campaign a cynical fraud.

None of Obama's supporters seem to get this, though. Like a battered wife defending her husband, some of these folks seem to be able to look the most cynical dissembling in the face and ask for more. Astonishing.

Re: Democrats Want To Fund ACORN, La Raza With Stimulus Bill

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:02:08 -0000

Saul Alinsky, in his Rules for Radicals, taught young Marxists to use the rules of their adversaries against them.

You illustrate nicely how this works. ACORN is a Marxist organization intent on producing in the US what Marxism produced in Russia, Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Cuba, China and Vietnam. "Generalizing" in this fashion is the best way to get this truth across.

And yet, here you are, cautioning us to be polite (something ACORN never is) and limit our conversation to merely what's been proved in a court of law (something ACORN never does), and thus create a smokescreen behind which these vicious zealots can operate with impugnity.

Nice tactic. Sorry, though, not buying today. ACORN is a Marxist front group, and we're going to call it that.

Re: Democrats Want To Fund ACORN, La Raza With Stimulus Bill

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:54:30 -0000

I'm shamelessly tooting my own horn here, but I did some of the ground work on this a few days ago, and you can read about it here.

Fannie Mae pledged a trillion dollars to help low- and moderate-income buyers get into homes back in 1995, and the housing boom was most likely the result of this.

The foreclosure crunch has actually been going on all along since then, but was masked by the fact that housing prices were rising; when people got in trouble, they could sell at a small profit and pay off the mortgage, so it didn't show up as either a foreclosure or a defaulted loan. When you add prepayments (paying off the loan early, as in "I sold the house to pay off the loan") to foreclosures, the default rate on subprime loans doubles.This fooled both economists and investors, who made portfolio purchasing decisions based on a 10% default rate, rather than the 20% default rate that was going on all along. Now that housing prices are dropping like stones, selling the house doesn't cure the default, so all 20% show up as foreclosures.

Count on it -- the current foreclosure crisis is yet another instance of government meddling to "help the poor" actually destroying them.

Isn't it wonderful how liberals love the poor?

Re: Democrats Want To Fund ACORN, La Raza With Stimulus Bill

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:45:57 -0000

Then you should read this article, and this one, which make the clear case that the root cause, not only of the foreclosure crisis, but of the housing boom that preceded it, was a dramatic loosening of loan standards led by the federal government and implemented through Fannie Mae. If you don't realize that Fannie Mae pledging a trillion dollars to subprime loans has the economic clout to produce large effects, you need to go back to school and read a bit more. No pretending necessary here. It's a fact.

Re: Democrats Want To Fund ACORN, La Raza With Stimulus Bill

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:31:55 -0000

I am now completely ashamed that my state of birth, Pennsylvania, dumped Rick Santorum, an immensely bright and principled champion of liberty, and elected that vacuous boob Casey to the Senate.

Can you believe he actually attempted to pain ACORN and La Raza as debt counselors?

So now, the Democratic party stands for funding radical community organizers. Lest anybody misunderstand, this means funding Marxists.

And oh, by the way -- it was a community organizer like that, that Barack Obama brags about working for in the 1980s. Obama is one of them.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Obama Getting Bad Military Advice

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:42:26 -0000

Grey_Hawk, most of your posts are at least serious and plausible, but this one is just mean.

That's part of it, but it would be easier to take the conservative sanctification of military service if it didn't double-time its demonization efforts and disregard and insult the service of members of the armed forces who get too far out of line in criticizing or casting doubts on the war of the month.

Oh, please.

The Republican standard is consistent and reasonable. Service is a good thing, and service under fire proves something valuable about character. Painting your service as something it's not, or serving solely for the political capital, shows something negative about character. Avoiding combat by joining non-combat services (Coast Guard, Natioanl Guard, etc.) is still service, but a little shaky. Outright draft avoidance shows weakness. Inventing scandals and atrocities that never happened (think "Winter Soldier") to discredit the military is not only shameful, but treasonous, and is practiced by the sort of people we never want near our kids, let alone in high office. This all fits into a consistent hierarchy of character.

By contrast, Democrats play dishonest games with military service, praising it when a Democrat happens to have it, dismissing it when a Republican has it. I seriously wonder how Democrats can stand looking at themselves in the mirror sometimes, playing the Kerry/Bush service game after defending Clinton's draft avoidance against Bush Sr.'s and Dole's genuine heroism in 92 an 96. Political hacks with no shame, I understand; but why doesn't the Democrat rank and file spit in their faces when their lies get that obvious?

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Obama's Sotto Voce To Canadians: I'm Demagoguing On NAFTA

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:14:33 -0000

We import more oil from Canada than from any other nation. Mexico is not next, it's third. Saudi Arabia is second.

Re: Obama's Sotto Voce To Canadians: I'm Demagoguing On NAFTA

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:13:08 -0000

Canada is the oil-producing nation from which we import the largest amount of oil. Saudi Arabia is second.

Since Obama's support comes largely from people who, dismayed by divisive and dishonest politics, genuinely hope for something different, the fact that he is "politics as usual" is not only newsworthy, but the most newsworthy item possible this election year.

And I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but we're going to do our best to broadcast this everywhere.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Obama's Sotto Voce To Canadians: I'm Demagoguing On NAFTA

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:09:58 -0000

Few people here believe him. However, many people nationally seem to. A great deal of Obama's support comes from people frightened about the future of a divided America, who genuinely hope he represents a change from politics as usual.

You seem to be saying that it's alright for Obama to deceive these people. "Let the buyer beware," eh?

Well, I agree -- the buyer has a responsibility to beware. But if I know the seller is hawking a gilded iron bar rather than real gold, I have a responsibility to tell the naive buyers what they're actually getting. So does Captain Ed.

Obama's message of hope is a cynical fraud. It's our duty as citizens to say so.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Obama's Sotto Voce To Canadians: I'm Demagoguing On NAFTA

philwynk — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:03:59 -0000

I obtained some of the same information for my blog article that makes the case that Obama represents the far-left, radical activist camp. Not only is he not a centrist, he's probably only a Democrat for legitimacy's sake, believing things as far to the left as Ron Paul does to the right. The evidence is far from insubstancial, but needs attention and fleshing out. I invite comments.

Re: Obama Getting Bad Military Advice

philwynk — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:50:03 -0000

Boys, this really is old news. The debate over this took place a week ago.

The Jawa Report spanked Jake Tapper soundly over that abortion of a "fact-checking" job he did. You need to read it.

I actually covered this discussion on my blog four days ago. I think perhaps the Captain is a little distracted these days.

Re: Obama Getting Bad Military Advice

philwynk — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:19:56 -0000

Obama's street activist training took place within an organization called the Gamaliel Foundation in the 1980s. Gamaliel, if you recall, is a Rabbi from the Talmudic period who gets mentioned in the New Testament in Acts 5, recommending that the Jews leave the disciples alone lest they find themselves fighting against God. The Gamaliel Foundation mixes hard-left activism with the teachings of the Apostle Paul, and seems to share that sense of messianic calling that Barack and Michelle Obama have expressed.

This is all part of Obama's consistent background of leftist activism, combined with liberal theology. You don't just want to read up on "the old religious left," but you'll want to pay attention to Liberation Theology, which is essentially Marxism in sheep's clothing.

I covered some of this on a blog posting yesterday, with links to info about the Gamaliel Foundation, if you'd like to check it out.

Re: Obama Getting Bad Military Advice

philwynk — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:12:09 -0000

This has long since been checked out. The officer Obama was quoting was talking about events in 2003, when he was a Lieutenant. Today, he's a Captain.

Of course, this created other problems: like, how could he be complaining about armor on Humvees in 2003 when they didn't start producing armored Humvees until 2004? or, how could he be complaining about Humvees at all, since light infantry platoons in Afghanistan didn't get Humvees?

It becomes clear after a while that what we're listening to is standard foot soldier griping that you can hear about any theater of any war since the beginning of armed combat ("There were no smooth stones for my sling!") amplified by a politician for the purpose of a cheap shot.

On the other hand, anybody who really needs this sort of evidence that Barack Obama hasn't the slightest qualification to lead a military force, is probably a lost cause already.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Obama Getting Bad Military Advice

philwynk — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:05:53 -0000

This is an unduly dismissive comment. The problem is, the global war against terrorists is far from over. Electing a President based on its completion would be a mistake.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: The Road Goes Ever On

philwynk — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:09:32 -0000

Congratulations, Captain Ed. We'll miss you here, but we'll catch you there.

Re: Now Louis Farrakhan Gets Messiah Fever

philwynk — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:55:59 -0000

Like I told my kids when they were small, "The fact that somebody is doing something wrong to you, doesn't make it right to do the same thing back to them." Defending ourselves from slime attacks is one thing, launching them is quite another.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Is This Helpful?

philwynk — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:51:50 -0000

The most recent of your examples occurred almost 30 years ago.

Like I said...

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Is This Helpful?

philwynk — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:47:09 -0000

Yeah, I've heard people talking like this. It's a manifestation of the "America is Racist" meme among liberals. They actually believe some nut on the Right is going to try to kill Obama, simply because he's black.

Note, in particular, the reference in the New York Times story to 1968, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were gunned down within 2 months of each other. Are we really finding it surprising that some Democrats still think it's 1968? We've been saying for years that they're stuck in the 60s. This is not just a figure of speech: a large number of liberals really are stuck in the 1960s. It's how they rationalize their relevance; that was the time during which they really mattered, and, in their own minds, stood head and shoulders above the unenlightened rabble, so that's where they keep themselves.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Now Louis Farrakhan Gets Messiah Fever

philwynk — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:38:46 -0000

To assert that certain dress indicates Muslim leanings is simply ignorant. If I visited Kenya -- and I've considered doing so a couple of times -- I'd probably dress like a Kenyan as well. I'm about as Christian as they come.

Care to make a bet with me that Christians in Kenya dress this way, too? And yes, there are plenty of Christians in Kenya.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)