11 February 2008
News and Comments of the Day – 2/11/08
Posted by Roy Bischoff under: General .
A lot of you share articles and we appreciate your contributions. We want to provide a convenient place for those articles, also comments that you are not sure where else to put.
Mail this post
34 Comments so far...
Matt Says:
11 February 2008 at 9:47 am.
Pelosi contradicts herself in this article. She says there were no gains in the surge then says the gains have not produced the desired effects. Can’t have it both ways. I get the feeling Joy was against going into Iraq from the way she says things but even she says that since we are there we need to win. Why can’t people see how bad it would be to show a weak face to our enemies? That isn’t how Reagan won the cold war. We don’t want another killing fields. Wake up pacifists. If we lose it means more war in the future and possibly right here where we would finally learn how bad war really is.
Pelosi calls Iraq a ‘failure’
Anchor Wolf Blitzer asked: “Are you not worried, though, that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?”
“There haven’t been gains, Wolf,” the speaker replied. “The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well.
E.E. Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:19 am.
I knew at least half the people who talk about not being pushed into supporting McCain would end up knuckling under but I didn’t think it would happen this fast. I’ve been reading over at Committed to Romney and where before almost no one there said they would support McCain, now most of the comments are saying we have to. A lot of them are scolding conservatives who say they won’t. Others act like they are holding their nose and doing it.
How does capitulating to the liberal who was hand picked against our will, strengthen and preserve our party? What is more important, winning the war and losing everything that makes this nation great and will preserve freedom for our children? If this war is going to be used as a tool to beat us into line, force us left, and take away the power of our collective voice then I will be against the war. The consequences are far too high.
The good news is, the power elite, with their MSM mouthpiece would never let McCain take the presidency. Even they know he is too unstable and work provoke international antagonism. McCainis a war monger who doesn’t care about preserving our safety here at home from terrorists who can slip over the border.
Angela Rogin Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:22 am.
This is interesting. Matt is talking about how important it is to win the war and E.E. is saying the war isn’t as important as keeping a conservative base. You are more fiery name normal this morning, E.E. How do you do that on a Monday?
E.E. Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:29 am.
Okay I’ll calm down. It just took me by surprise how fast people are capitulating. We are being trained and I don’t want to believe we are sheep like they believe we are. The egomaniacs who pull the strings in the party were so sure they could impose their will on the dumb masses and I just want to shake everyone who are obediently falling in line and refusing to think for themselves. Why can’t they step back and see how this will chance the balance in the future? Think of a teeter-toter. If we slide in then the liberals hold the weight advantage and we know what we will do with the Constitution. Dang. I guess I’m getting worked up again but I just wanted to believe better from my fellow conservatives.
Matt Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:32 am.
I’m with you E.E. Like Joy wrote, just because keeping the Constitution has to come first politically, that doesn’t mean the war and other issues aren’t important too. Pelosi isn’t logical and she contradicts herself. I wanted to point that out. But I will not support McCain even if he is for the war. His comment about being willing to stay one hundred years shows an entrenchment mentality. I want to win the war and get out, not just fight it. But even more, I want my kids to grow up in a free country. Freedom is a higher good than security.
Angela Rogin Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:35 am.
Maybe you have just hit the nail on the head, Matt. What does it all really come down to? What is more important, freedom or security. I would rather have both but one has to take precedence, wouldn’t it have to be freedom? If we win the war but in the meantime we find out that the cost of the victory is a significant breakdown of the Constitution, what have we won?
Cameron Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:38 am.
We had a long discussion a couple of weeks ago about this very thing. We decided pretty much what you just said Angela. There have to be priorities and the Constitution has to be first because without that foundation the rest will crumble with time and circumstances. If we move left then we have no power to fight against the trend toward socialism. Why is that so hard to see? I’m with you E.E. It is worth getting fired up about.
Angela Rogin Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:41 am.
It does seem simple when you break it down. I’m glad what I wrote made sense. People get so fuzzy when they feel that all the supposed reasonable gurus out there treat them like naughty children if they don’t act properly and do what they are told.
BTW, speaking of Joy, where has she been the last few days?
The Realist Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:49 am.
But you all do agree that we have to win the war right? I feel very strongly about that. Those extremist Islamo-facsists will stop at nothing to destroy us. If they sense weakness we are in trouble. I think they are getting more active against because they see now that a lib will be president and they want to keep the pressure on so that next pres will raise the white flag.
Matt Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:52 am.
Maybe you can look at it this way. Walls of a house are very important. Without them there is no safety. But the foundation has to be there first because if it isn’t then the walls will not be stable and will crumble with time.
Cameron Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:56 am.
Realist
We lost Vietnam but survived as a country. I don’t want another Vietnam. I think we have to try to win but there can be two important things happening at once. We are the soldiers at home working on the back line instead of the front making sure we win on both fronts, safety from extremists, and preserving freedom from those who want to chip it away to control us.
The Realist Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:57 am.
I’ll buy that. And I’ll buy that Pelosi needs her head examined.
CindyL. Says:
11 February 2008 at 2:02 pm.
Saying something is important doesn’t lessen the importance of something almost as important. I was thinking we should pull out of Iraq a year ago because it was becoming a quagmire. Win or stop but don’t just hold on to an out of control situation is how I saw it. Since the surge we are finally trying to win it and it seems that is the best answer. What I am worried about is making a permanent base there. Muslims see their land as sacred and resentment will grow and fester if we stay. We would be seen as an occupying force and being infidels, that would be unacceptable.
T. Fan Says:
11 February 2008 at 2:49 pm.
Huckabee is on Hannity. He is demanding an investigation into the voting process in Washington State. He says that the establishment is behind McCain and wants to crown him. He thinks something was going on there that was underhanded. If Romney had raised one word about all the probable voter fraud that went on against him, he would have destroyed himself politically. Now that its happening to Huckabee, he doesn’t like it and he isn’t getting blasted for bringing it up. Poor Romney. It would be great if the fraud was highlighted though.
Matt Says:
11 February 2008 at 4:32 pm.
I liked this paragraph in an opinion piece about Romney. The last paragraph made me think of what we are trying to do here:
And if he decides to stay active in Republican and conservative politics, the YouTubes of performances from years gone by, which plagued him with a reputation for flip-flopping, will eventually recede into irrelevance. Conservatives and even the larger public will come to judge him by the value of his ideas and the forcefulness of his presentation. How many times he went hunting will cease to matter.
One of the reasons so many Republicans found this primary season dispiriting is that the candidates, Romney included, concentrated on “contrasting” themselves with one another. The most dismaying fact wasn’t that the candidates attacked one another–politics ain’t beanbag. But it made the party seem mired in the disputes of the 1980s and ’90s, and bereft of fresh ideas.
What conservatism will come to stand for is more up for grabs now than at any point since 1980. There will be many consequential conversations to come. Let’s hope Mitt Romney sticks around for the cupcakes and cookies, and joins the fun.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20080211/cm_weeklystandard/mittwehardlyknewye_1
Cameron Says:
11 February 2008 at 4:48 pm.
Good find, Matt. If conservatism is up for grabs let’s grab it. If got the answer for what ails the party. Help get the word out about this blog everybody.
E.E. Says:
11 February 2008 at 9:49 pm.
I am not sure how I feel about having a president who doesn’t believe in saluting the flag. I wish I knew more about Obama. He mesmerizes people with his oratory skills but so did Hitler. I’m not saying he is like Hitler but I keep waiting to hear substance. Some things I have heard about his background make me nervousl Here is a part of an article telling about the markets that predict winners. They are known for amazing accuracy.
LoWASHINGTON (Reuters) – Traders wagering on the outcome of the U.S. presidential vote were overwhelmingly betting on Monday that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will defeat former first lady Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and ultimately win the presidency.
Obama, whose campaign swept four state Democratic presidential contests against Clinton over the weekend, was trading at about 70 on Monday on the Dublin, Ireland-based Intrade predictions market, meaning traders gave him a 70 percent chance of being the Democrats’ presidential candidate in the November election.
Clinton, who replaced her campaign manager in a staff shake-up, was selling at about 30, meaning traders gave her a 30 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, data on the Intrade web site showed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080211/pl_nm/usa_politics_predictions_dc
A True Evangelical Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:02 pm.
I printed a paragraph from a article that is saying the same thing about Governor Huckabee that I did last week here but you didn’t believe me. You will all be thinking differently as you watch state by state go to Mike.
“Some GOP sages suggest it’s hard to quit while you’re still winning races, as Huckabee is doing, despite the mathematical reality of the delegate count. But then Huckabee likes to brag that he “didn’t major in math, I majored in miracles,” and he asserted anew on Monday his intention to stay in the race.”
So Mike is saying it himself. What I can’t understand is why all of you aren’t supporting him now that Romney is out???
E.E. Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:18 pm.
nocommentnocommentnocommentnocomment.
Okay I’m under control now. I will not be irritated and just post my clip. Here is something else aboyt Hillary. Superdelegates should have some conviction by now. I am surprised how wishy washy people can be. Tossed tro and fro with every wind. Here’s the clip:
Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.
Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately “go with the flow,” in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.
Cavetrollhead Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:42 pm.
Hey True evangelical, I think people should vote for Huckabee too.
Roy Bischoff Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:47 pm.
I think if Huckabee starts doing too well the media will turn on him and start making him look bad.
Stumpy Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:06 pm.
Listen evangelical. I aint about to vote for no man whos name makes me start hiccuping every blasted time I say it.
Stumpy Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:06 pm.
Now shut yer mouth and go to bed.
A True Evangelical Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:10 pm.
What is with this man? Is he crazy?
E.E. Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:16 pm.
potcallingkettlepotcallingkettlepotcallingkettle
dontsayitdontsayitdontsayit
Okay I’m in control.
Dear Evangelical,
You are welcome here but you need to follow the rules and not use labels or call anyone names. You can call McCain and certain other candidates liberal if they act that way since that isn’t a label it is truth. But you can’t call Stumpy crazy. The only one around here that gets to call people names is Stumpy. That’s because he is the site mascot.
We love you Stumpy.
Stumpy Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:18 pm.
ssssssmmmmackkkkkkkkkkkk
one kind for E and another kind for E.E.
nite
Cavetrollhead Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:36 pm.
True Evangelical,
Stumpy is just a comedian.
Hick-up-y
Huck-a-bee
Get it?
A True Evangelical Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:37 pm.
You know I read where a moderator said there are lots of people that are coming on here to read. The reason most of them don’t comment is because they are afraid this stumpy guy will attack them. If that is how you want it…fine.
Sharon Anderson Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:45 pm.
I liked the article about a brokered convention so I would like to see Huckabee get enough delegates to stop McCain from just walking away with the nomination. I’m sure that would make Evangelical happy too. A brokered convention could be exciting!
Sharon Anderson Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:49 pm.
And True Evangelical, stick around. Stumpy is harmless…unless you are allergic to cats.
Cavetrollhead Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:50 pm.
Well I don’t know about the other people out there, but we remember YOUR debut on this site. You immediately posted some anti-Mormon comments. Considering those commenting on this site are about half Mormon, you might as well have covered yourself with butter and honey and rolled into a bear’s den. I don’t approve of Stumpy’s “shut up and go to bed comment” but all things considered, you have been welcomed civilly. And you are still welcome as far as I am concerned. But please don’t antagonize the others who come here.
Cavetrollhead Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:51 pm.
Last comment was for T.E.
E.E. Says:
12 February 2008 at 5:29 pm.
This shows how important our vote is. We are giving a person our mandate to act in our name because we have studied the issues and believe that person will reflect the values we hold onto as our center. This leads us to a sticky question about John McCain. We are after all responsible for our vote like reaching out the arm as a spoke to hold and deliver energy from the dance as you put it. A mandate does create energy. McCain has very little and he does not represent my center, he represents the other one, big government. So what do we do?
Pickles Says:
12 February 2008 at 5:33 pm.
Thanks Joy. I can’t wait to talk to my friends. I am going to freaking blow their minds.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
