?

Log in

More Lefty Looniness.... - Alan, Esq.

Alan, Esq.
Date: 2005-08-31 17:55
Subject: More Lefty Looniness....
Security: Public
On the HuffPo, Russell Shaw asks this idiotic question: If Carter beat Reagan in 1980, would New Orleans have flooded?.

Despite the fact that Carter had a full term in the White House with a Senate and House of Representatives full of Democratic majorities, Shaw writes this nonsense:
Still I am wondering if those voters in Louisiana and Mississippi who helped polluter-allied Reagan win in 1980 would have found themselves fated differently under a second Carter term. If Carter came in, we could have had an alternative fuels program and tighter auto emission standards in effect by now. Sparked by his prodding, we might have had decades of global warming controls in place.
Why stop there? Maybe under a second term of Carter, we'd have flying cars using pollution-free electromagnetic drives... (or perhaps using the power of the flux compaceter). There would of course be world peace, free health care for all, and world hunger would be a thing of the past... I suppose natural disasters would also cease, since Mother Nature would respect how "green" aware we had all become.

Did Mr. Shaw remember how successful Carter was in his first term regarding the areas of petroleum and energy? Or did he remember how utterly overwhelming Carter's defeat was throughout the entire Nation, not just in southern states? My intent is not to attack President Carter, but to show how idiotic this guy is for holding on to his 25 year-old pollyannic leftist fantasies... Also he writes:
But don't worry. Thanks to Reagan and both Bushes, that offshore oil platform where your brother works is still paying.
I suppose President Clinton who served for 8 years during that time had nothing to do with the US petroleum policy, and shares in no liability for the fact that we have oil refineries? Oh wait... isn't supposed to be good to support domestic oil as opposed to foreign oil or a bad thing??? I can never keep it straight as to all the reasons why Republicans are evil.

Also, I just find it to be utterly shameless that he blames the citizens impacted by Hurricane Katrina because of how they voted in 1980!?!?!

Politicization of a Natural Disaster??? Nah....

Update: Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Post A Comment | 38 Comments | Share | Link



Eric: lucifer scowl
User: escapade52
Date: 2005-08-31 15:50 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:lucifer scowl
I hold Jimmy Carter personally responsible for the rise of the Taleban in Afghanistan (a response to the Soviet invasion, itself a response to American weakness) as well as for the rise of the mullahcracy in Iran. 9/11 and the whole "War on Terror" is more the fault of Jimmy Carter than any other single American.
Reply | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-08-31 16:10 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
How about politicizing a national disaster to start a war? Nah...
Reply | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 16:51 (UTC)
Subject: national disaster
An organized attack is not a national disaster,it is an act of war.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-08-31 16:56 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
remind me again about the part where Iraq had anything to do with that?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 17:11 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
I would link exhaustively to the Saddam regime's connection to terrorism, but frankly, you guys aren't listening anymore, so why cast the pearls, eh?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-08-31 17:32 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
As opposed to, say, focusing on the people who *actually* attacked us? Sure, there were terrorists in Iraq prior to 9/11. I submit there were probably more than that right here in the US. But in any case, there are a LOT more in Iraq now.

Demonstrating terrorist links to Saddam's regime now as a justification for war we started then, simply doesn't stand up to logical reasoning. Every example, tenuous they may be, has been found ex post facto.

Lastly, who is "you guys", Mr. Anonymous?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 17:49 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
The guys who "actually" attacked us are dead.

You're changing subjects again -- this time conceding that there were terrorists in Iraq, but arguing that there are more of them now. Well, police states have a pretty effective ways of dealing all sorts of 'dissent,' and aren't likely to be as indulgent with 'insurgents' as we've been.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-08-31 18:10 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
So Al Quaeda wasn't involved?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: ketzl
Date: 2005-08-31 22:47 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Osama bin Laden is dead? Wow there's a headline I missed.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 17:13 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
That's it, Mountainpilot. Change the subject when you get nailed. Good boy.

Sheesh.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-08-31 17:22 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Nailed? For what? This thread started with criticism of speculation.

BTW, why are you hiding behind anonymous posts?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: ketzl
Date: 2005-08-31 22:49 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Keyword:raar
Sheesh indeed. If being linked to by Instapundit means that discussion in your LJ is reduced to anonymous posters patronizingly sneering "Good boy" then I think your glee is misplaced, alanesq.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 17:27 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Or how about ignoring a war for two decades and turning it into a national disaster?

remind me again about who 'start(ed) a war'?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-08-31 17:35 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Which war? The one we just changed the name of?

And even if you do insist on calling it a war, how do you win it?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 17:58 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
And the subject changes again -- now we're on to how we're supposed to win a war you're reluctant to even call a war. Or what we're calling it.

Back to the start:

September 11th was an act of war, not a national disaster.
We didn't 'start' anything.

We've been at war for more than two decades -- a hotter war than the one which preceded it.

There were, and are, terrorists in Iraq. And I submit that there'll be far more of them there than at either time should we allow Iraq fail while we quibble over legalisms and the proper names for conflicts.

Do you think anyone waited until they called it World War II before the shooting started?

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-08-31 18:09 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Ok, so you're issue seems to be with my characterization of the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a 'national disaster.'

National: Of, relating to, or belonging to a nation as an organized whole.
Disaster: An occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe

Which part doesn't apply?

There were, and are, terrorists in Iraq. And I submit that there'll be far more of them there than at either time should we allow Iraq fail while we quibble over legalisms and the proper names for conflicts.

While we're engaging in constructing straw men (see top of this thread, which I agree with mind you) Three were, and are terrorists in the United States. And I submit that there will be more next year than there are now.

And, again referring you to the top of this thread, I didn't begin by quibbling over terminology.

An organized attack is not a national disaster,it is an act of war.

And one more time, why do you insist on posting anonymously? Skeletons in your closet?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 18:55 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
OK - I'm not the previous anon poster. I'm posting this way because I haven't established a user name and I don't feel like it for one post.

How do we win this war? One country at a time.

Afghanistan is won. Libya is won. Lebanon is won. Iraq is still in play, but mostly won. Iran is surrounded.

Syria is on the edge, a little shove and it topples over. Arabia is getting better, we may not have to invade them. If we do, it will be after we have them surrounded.

It's going to take a generation. Not surprising, it took 200 years to get this bad.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-08-31 22:50 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Hrm. I don't seem to recall signing up for reestablishing ourselves as a colonial power. I assume after we 'win' in Iraq, well go occupy Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea and, what the hell, China while we're at it. They need the iron fist of democracy brought down on them too, right? After all, as you point out, we've been 'right' for the past 200 years.

Oh, and your 'victory' in Afghanistan? I assume you're referring to the simmering insurgency and opium war that the Germans are fighting on our behalf there now?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-09-01 06:09 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Are Japan and Germany American "colonies" because we democratized them?

After decades of zero movement, freedom and democracy are finally spreading across the Mideast (elections in Lebanaon, Egypt, Suadi Arabia, Iraq, Afganistan) because of what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe those concepts don't mean anything to you, as you've lived with them so long you're ignorant of what it means to be without them. Well, not all Americans share your ignorance, nor do we fail to underatand that bringing freedom and democracy to the Mideast is the only way to end terrorism.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-09-01 09:43 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
First of all, our involvement in WWII did not begin with a unilateral strike by us against the will of pretty much every other nation on earth against, say Italy, in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. As much of a sound bite it may be, your analogy doesn't hold water.

Second of all, what we're doing is not "spreading democracy," we're inflicting unregulated free market capitalism under the guise of democracy. Here's a first hand account of what that really looks like if you can tear yourself away from Fox News long enough to pay attention.

Finally, this "democracy" you're talking about? I think what you're referring to is the emerging Islamic Republic. And the "war" part? Try "a global struggle against violent extremism".

"Engage in a struggle to set up an Islamic republic" doesn't have quite the ring to it as "fight a war on terror to spread democracy" now does it?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-09-01 16:05 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Incidentally, do you count Kuwait among the places we've won?

Senior Kuwaiti Official: "Katrina is a Wind of Torment and Evil from Allah Sent to This American Empire"

In reaction to Hurricane Katrina and the destruction in its wake, a high-ranking Kuwaiti official, Muhammad Yousef Al-Mlaifi, who is director of the Kuwaiti Ministry of Endowment's research center, published an article titled "The Terrorist Katrina is One of the Soldiers of Allah, But Not an Adherent of Al-Qaeda." [1] The article appeared August 31, 2005 in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-08-31 22:54 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
PS. Aren't there terrorists in Northern Ireland too? Any choices to lead up the Belfast expeditionary force?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



aillecat
User: aillecat
Date: 2005-09-01 07:24 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
The IRA have supposedly laid down thier arms. Besides, the IRA are a completely different breed of "terrorist", the kind wanting thier land back. 6 counties are still under UK rule, there are 32 counties in Ireland, you do the math.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-09-01 09:16 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
That is precisely my point. There are terrorists everywhere, fighting for a variety of causes, some loosey affiliated, some not. We have decided to wage "war" against the concept of terrorism, not a specific enemy.

Without the esablishment of a global police state it is impossible to "win" (i.e. prevent terrorist attacks).
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



James of England: Ulster
User: jamesofengland
Date: 2005-09-01 11:54 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Keyword:Ulster
Whilst I get the impression that the "different breed" comment is largely about them being from her breed, and thus totally different from any Arab, the IRA are a pretty relevant example. Before 9/11, they were funded by Americans. The political climate in New Jersey and in Ulster is now so hostile to them that they were reduced first to bank robberies and then to petty murder in bar brawls being the best that they can accomplish.

With a bit of luck, we'll be able to squeeze the funding of Al-Qaida in a similar way, given enough time, given enough Muslims killed by Al-Qaida. We can't shut down the Islamist drug trade, any more than we can the Irish Nationalist drug trade. We can't keep them out of petty crime, or grand larceny. It's the big political gestures of murder that we can stop, and it's those that we have a duty to stop (we being the wider west).
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mountainpilot
Date: 2005-09-01 09:53 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
PS. Aren't the Palestinians also a little upset about the issue of land? Name one "terrorist movement" for lack of a better term, that is not about land in one shape or another.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



James of England: Ulster
User: jamesofengland
Date: 2005-09-01 11:33 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Keyword:Ulster
Yeah. Absolute end to the bombs. Days went by before the next IRA bomb was found.

How is the dogmatic minority (communist/ Wahabist) wanting to rule the less dogmatic majority any different from the same thing in the other place?

"land back"? "Land" "back"? A return to the golden age of a united independent Ireland? When would you imagine that age took place? With the EU, there is far less independence for Ulster from Connaught than at any other time in history.

I'm not a fan of the PLO, but you can see an argument that the land from which they were cleared was their land. I'm not sure that I can see an analogous argument for the IRA. You can see the argument that Al-Qaida wish to return the Dar-Al-Islam to the way that it was ruled. Ireland has never been communist. It's not even like the IRA don't have seats in parliament and the national assembly.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they were a different breed. They all live in the murky world of drug dealing, petty thugs, money laundering, thievery, and political appeasement and subsidy. They all find funding based on racially motivated mythmaking, with a little ideology thrown in. The arguments of most of the Islamic or Tamil or Maoist or Marxist terrorists may be stronger, but they’re not in a fundamentally different category. “We’ve been injured (sometimes spiritually injured) by poor governance and believe that our (generally, otherwise *they* would be the government) minority would be better treated if it ran the government instead of the current despotic majority.” Sometimes they win (the Taliban, say), sometimes they lose (the Shining Path, say).

I’m not sure how to respond to the “the Republic is larger than the North, so the Republic should run the North” argument. Do you feel the same way about Putin running Lithuania? Bush running Canada? India running Kashmir? Is there any other issue in global politics where you feel that this is a valid argument, or is this another example of Irish Exceptionalism?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



aillecat
User: aillecat
Date: 2005-09-01 14:27 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Canada was never "part of the US"... as for the rest of your comment, I'm not taking the bait. We people of Irish Descent are always the Exception. When the world gets it through thier heads, there will finally be whorled peas.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



James of England: Ulster
User: jamesofengland
Date: 2005-09-01 19:32 (UTC)
Subject: Re: national disaster
Keyword:Ulster
I can see arguments for and against Canada being part of the US.

I can't see any that don't apply equally to the North being part of the Republic.

Both pairs were the King's until one of the pair declared and was granted independence, the other one opting not to become independent. In both instances, the significant number of Scots in the North was a factor. ;-)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



White Jacket
User: mr_machiavelli
Date: 2005-08-31 18:15 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Though a liberal, I find addressing what might have beens an incredible historical and political faux pas. We can already learn enough still from history by studying it closer instead of going by vague conjecture, especially conjecture based on promises and the personality of a single man.
Reply | Thread | Link



everything is never quite enough
User: mikeijames
Date: 2005-08-31 18:35 (UTC)
Subject: too late....
the right has played this game to the hilt for the past five years: setting up potential issues in a frame of language of their choosing and watching the left fight to hold their ground. for once (twice, if you count sheehan), the republicans have to go on the defensive and respond instead of instigate.
Reply | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 19:40 (UTC)
Subject: Re: too late....
HUH ???
You want the republicans to be forced to respond to a hurricane from a defensive position ???
Why don't you try telling that to the people spending their time on overpasses in louisiana.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



everything is never quite enough
User: mikeijames
Date: 2005-08-31 19:48 (UTC)
Subject: Re: too late....
i don't want the republicans to be forced to respond: i find it quite encouraging on the behalf of the democrats and the left to frame the argument to their advantage as the right and the republicans have on other issues like abortion, terri schiavo, et. al.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 19:59 (UTC)
Subject: Re: too late....
Oh so you wan't to be able to beat the republicans about the head with the hurricane disaster?

Did you ever think that politicizing such an event is at best horrendously stupid ?? If what you hope for comes to pass it will hinder the relief efforts for those actually suffering ?

{Irony} Well whats the suffering of a few people if we can get chimpy mchaliburton that moron loser out of office {/Irony}

Perhaps if you manage to lay some dirt at the republicans door you will be able to get a fine man like Robert Byrd or Al Sharpton elected.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



everything is never quite enough
User: mikeijames
Date: 2005-08-31 20:34 (UTC)
Subject: Re: too late....
the sickness

i hardly think point to verifiable holes in policy rises to the level of some of the attacks that have had their genesis on the far right wing (as evidenced by the picture above).

i personally have no stake in the partisan politics in washington; i do think it's about time that the democrats take an issue that has resonance with the population at large and own it. they haven't done so with so many issues for a very long time.

this isn't politicizing an event for politics' sake: how long did it take the right to blame lax immigration policy for the july seventh attacks and to draw a link to the operations in iraq in a positive fashion (firming up resolve, they said)? how long did it take the right wing to rally around the pope's death as a call to hold on to conservative interpretations of biblical moral code? before and after the death of terri schiavo, the republicans in the great state of florida had no reservations in blaming activist judges indirectly and michael schiavo directly.

no one discounts the tragedy of these people, but the blame game's coming (it always does) and in this fight, the democrats have the edge for once (for twice if you count the sheehan fiasco).
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 21:35 (UTC)
Subject: Re: too late....
LOL

Ask a fish to understand the nature of water
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2005-08-31 19:38 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
how exactly did "Louisiana and Mississippi who helped polluter-allied Reagan win in 1980".

if I recall correctly 1980 was pretty much a Regan blow out...
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.php?year=1980
Reply | Thread | Link



Reality Hammer: Reagan Salute RIP
User: reality_hammer
Date: 2005-08-31 23:25 (UTC)
Subject: God punished New Orleans for voting for Kerry
Keyword:Reagan Salute RIP
lol

You can imagine what the moonbats would be saying if Fox News led with that headline.

Carter gave us long gas lines, "odd/even" gas rationing and sweaters to combat "global cooling". He was a complete and utter failure.
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
December 2010