See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On February 16th, 2008 at 10:25 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

   Well, Ragsy, it sounds like you’re whining about being called a smart-ass, again, boo hoo hoo, as though I have devalued an otherwise mature and intelligent conversation. Just don’t forget that you always start this crap when you appear to try to compensate for your shallow though-process with the snide little quip. So yes, you are a smartass. And you’re a whiney smartass to boot, because you strike first and then whine “foul” when someone calls you on it.

   By the way, thanks for adopting my posting style with the “strong” feature; it allows me to skip over the BS and read the very few words worth reading in your post.

   Now, to clarify an astounding confession on your part. Let me see if you got this straight, and stop the obfuscation because if you want me to answer your questions, you’ll have to answer mine straight up. You were “generous” to allow me to elaborate – a move I’m guessing was defensive because you, yourself, clearly decided not to answer my question “Yes or No” as asked.

   I don’t know why I’m bothering with this dope, I really don’t….

   YES! I did not vote for a FALSE label. I was not duped,

   I’m asking for clarification because you appear to have stated that you would sacrifice the lives of 80,000 of your fellow citizens for what seems to be a matter of personal ego (unbeleiebaly unconscionable and I’ll take you at your word) followed by

   and I didn’t suspend rational thought because I was afraid my country could not sustain my vote of conscience.

   What appears to be a lazy rationalization for copping out. Reagan never spoke of the nation being able to absorn the absent votes of dweebs. Reagan said just the opposite:

   But just as important as how we vote is that we vote. Every vote cast on election day means that we the people have taken a hand in shaping our nation’s future.”

   He didn’t say anything about copping out and letting Democrats into power and ruin our nation out of “not being duped”.

   I campaigned for Ronald Reagan, I voted for Ronald Reagan, and Ragsy-boy, you’re no Ronald Reagan!

   There’s anotherone thing of which I’m sure for you few ambulance-chasers out there still reading this thread: this poser is no lawyer. I know lawyers. I have a close friend (who makes almost half a mil a year as a senior partner) who’s a lawyer and lawyers, at least good ones, don’t express themselves like our pal Ragsy-Boy.

   Anyway, please answer the question as asked, Yes or No, and stop the grandstanding, because it seems like you’re spiraling off into madness, not to mention hyperventilating evasion, as well as being an intolerable smart-ass.

   Once again and for the last time, for clarification (your yes or no only gets mine)

   We know the Democrats are weak on terror. We know that republicans staying home or voting for a third party candidate”out of conscience” is more likely to get a democrat elected than would be otherwise true if those Republicans voted the Republican ticket (”Duh” is the operative word you’d understand, Ragsy). If you don’t vote the Republican ticket, and a Democrat wins, and that liberal democrat, soft on terrorism and big on blame-America-first rhetoric, oversees policies and positions that weaken us, a dirty bomb is exploded in a major city and 80,000 innocent lives are lost – could you -knowing that contributed to the loss of life that otherwise would more likely have been prevented, be able to look yourself in the mirror and say “I did the right thing and I’d do it again.”

   No posing and evasion again on this Professor, just a yes or no answer.

   Yes or No

2. #102
   On February 16th, 2008 at 10:49 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

   On February 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am, longbow said:

   You’ll be surprised to learn, though perhaps shouldn’t be, that the only things I disagree with you about are one or two conclusions.

   McCain takes great pride in being a “maverick”.

   Yes.

   The origin of the word comes from cattle ranching in the 1800s – a “maverick” was an ornery, untrustworthy animal that was nothing but trouble.

   Perhaps but that’s irrelevant in context. Lots of words come from unexpected sources. Reagan appeared to brutally slap a woman in a movie. None of that matters, with all due respect.

   The offices of Senator and President are supposed to serve the American people. McCain serves noone but himself.

   Sort-of. He really does both. Most senators on the right do both, the only question is one of degree. Nancy pelosi, running out for personal business when FIMA is ticking down, more meets your description, I think.

   McCain is arrogant, testy, cranky and old.

   I agree 100%. Though neither of us know him personally, something we should perhaps bear in mind more often, in general that’s my take on him, too.

   It’d be a toss-up in an election between him and The Witch – which one is the least nasty?

   Now here is where we part company. Hillary would put far-left judges and sign far-left legislation form Reid and Pelosi and do so happily to appease her base. If McCain wants a second term, and his very nature as you have described it – doing things for himself – would make it clear that he needs at least part of his base (they all don’t listen to rush or come here), he can’t stray nearly as far from his base as Hillary would go left to appease hers. i think we can agree that this is a likely reality. His pandering now essentially proves it. Nor has he shown to be nearly as far-left on abortion and nowhere near as far-left on judicial pick opinion and the war or terror as Hillary.

   Bottom line, McCain is not nearly as bad as Hillary. Really, when you think of what a strident, true-believer, how could he be? How could anyone?

   Between McCain and the smooth Obama – McCain would look even older and more senile than he does now.

   Possibly. or elder statesmen as – God save me for making the comparison – Reagan did.

   Given the choice between the old and cranky and the young and dynamic, unfortunately Obama would win.

   Or it becomes a perceptive choice between wizen, sage statesman or young, wet-behind-the-ears form drug trafficker. One of these days Obama is going to have to answer with substance – he can’t fly on appearance forever.

   Quite frankly though, given how Hillary or Obama would ruin this country with judicial appointments alone, I don’t see how anyone could even make a comparison.

3. #103
   On February 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am, longbow said:

   Cat, you miss the point.

   The comparison was made – The Hildebeest vs. McNasty – or The Magic Negro vs. Old Cranky White Man – to try to frame it as the overall American public will see it. As is often said, 40% will vote DemocRAT, 40% Pubby no matter what – it’s the 20% undecided who will determine the winner. They often do not judge by what’s good for the country. There is no real analysis, it’s based on appearance and how they make them feel – and not so much what they say, but how they say it.

   McCain as “sage statesman” – ha ha you have a GREAT sense of humor and the absurd!

4. #104
   On February 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am, longbow said:

   I really think the election is already lost with McCain as the nominee.

   Either the ‘RATs will win outright, or McCain will pull out a narrow victory with no ‘mandate’ and the only way he will be able to govern at all is to essentially adopt a Dem agenda – in other words he will continue to be a RINO (what did you expect?) who has few fixed conservative principles. Even if he were to change his spots and nominate conservative judges, they’d never get through the Dem-controlled approval process/filibusters.

   I think the best we can hope for is to elect enough REAL Republicans/conservatives in the House and Senate who will fight hard to have as much gridlock as possible – we are all safe (except for the WOT), and will keep more of our own money, if we can let them do as little as possible.

   Of course noone is safe as long as Congress is in session. But at least they would be able to chip away at our freedoms only a little at a time, addressing momentous issues such as how much water our toilets should be allowed to flush and investigating steroid use in MLB.

5. #105
   On February 16th, 2008 at 12:39 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

   Longbow,

   to try to frame it as the overall American public will see it.

   I really think the election is already lost with McCain as the nominee.

   Even if he were to change his spots and nominate conservative judges, they’d never get through the Dem-controlled approval process/filibusters.

   Don’t misinterpret what I’m about to say as a personal slight, but every one of those statements is grounded in a pessimistic view. You may turn out to be right, for all we know, but it isn’t a certainty, and one thing is for sure: if we believe it without a fight it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We make it happen.

   Our founding fathers, whom Reagan quoted often, made it clear we have to fight for freedom every day. Now we have the internet instead of the town crier, TV instead of Franklin’s written essays, and cell phones and e-mail instead of the courier on horseback. But the battle is the same. Our founding Fathers would see the analogy very clearly: we on the right are them and the liberals are the redcoats. You can tick off a list of socio-political views between the two and the analogy is quite valid.

   Reagan didn’t say to vote when the odds were in our favor. He never said throw up your hands because things looked grim. If there was ever a man who embodied the diametrical opposition of those notions it was Reagan. Indeed, if he embraced half of the basic mindset you’re demonstrating (I’m try to say this without it sounding personal), he never would have been Ronald Reagan.

   No. We fight with what we have, like Reagan and the founding fathers did. We do it to win. We must, really, the stakes are too high to gamble on armchair analysis of the complex political realities by people who have never run a campaign, let alone win one.

   I’d just like to comment on something which is where alot of this is coming from. not from you, necessarily, but in the aggregate:

   Rush was a great commentator. I say was because as his audience numbers show, he’s down to half of what he once was. granted, there are more options than 25 years ago, but there are also more people. I don’t know if it’s the drug addiction or what, but he’s skating into a dangerous kind of la la land. This, despite the fact that while he was once a good commentator (we owe him a huge dept) he was never a strategist. Not really. And if he was, then he continues to be, and our currently dispiriting situation shows that whatever he’s doing isn’t helping. And the idea of treating conservatism like a religion instead of like a set of values that exist only to benefit people manifestly is just plain getting weird. he and people who say the country would be better to regroup as conservatives under a Hillary Clinton Presidency are clearly in some desperate way disconnected to reality. The judicial appointments alone would be cataclysmic for all we hold dear for, probably, the rest of our lives.

   McCain as “sage statesman” – ha ha you have a GREAT sense of humor and the absurd!

   Yeah, I know what you’re saying, but as someone who’s been in the media professionally for over 25 years, I can say that while the notion seems absurd to those of us who pat attention year ’round, it’s not impossible to project this perception onto the average audience. Clinton convinced alot of Americans that oral sex was not sex. Hillary is supported by more numbers than we would have dreamed possible 10 years ago. Yes, McCain can be perceived by voters as statesmanlike. He must be, and we must help him in that no matter how distasteful because we must win this thing. Period.

   Then, when he’s the President, we can pile on like an avalanche and remind him every day that if we wants the nod for the second term, he’ll have to fall in line with us. Either way, it’s 100 times better than Clinton or Obama. Those are our choices. We better cut the crap in this party about idealism and get down to winning this thing.

6. #106
   On February 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pm, Ragspierre said:

   I answered you.

   You don’t get to re-frame my answer.

   Anyone here who can read can see one of us (me) making a reasoned argument, predicated on empirical facts.

   They can read you ad hominem attacks.

   Your attempt to force an answer to your polemical sophistry of a question was met with a discourse illuminating my position (again), with segmented counter-questions you cannot summon the balls to answer.

   You are pathetic.

   Like I said…it is your turn to answer.

   The absence of a direct, rational response will tell the tale…again.

   Poor Kitty.

7. #107
   On February 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

   Ragsy! You snotty little sh*t, it’s go to see you again! I thought you had given up being obnoxious for a minute.

   You don’t get to re-frame my answer.

   No, you don’t get to re-frame my question, creep.

   We know the Democrats are weak on terror. We know that republicans staying home or voting for a third party candidate”out of conscience” is more likely to get a democrat elected than would be otherwise true if those Republicans voted the Republican ticket (”Duh” is the operative word you’d understand, Ragsy). If you don’t vote the Republican ticket, and a Democrat wins, and that liberal democrat, soft on terrorism and big on blame-America-first rhetoric, oversees policies and positions that weaken us, a dirty bomb is exploded in a major city and 80,000 innocent lives are lost – could you -knowing that contributed to the loss of life that otherwise would more likely have been prevented, be able to look yourself in the mirror and say “I did the right thing and I’d do it again.”

   “Yes” or “no”, wise guy.

   Can’t do it straight up, can you, smart ass?

8. #108
   On February 16th, 2008 at 2:47 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

   By the way, Ragsy, look at the great pro-action voting patriots on this thread alone: whysoangry, jeanie, meatpieandtatters, Blind Mule, Always Right, graysonret, Milwaukee Mike, globmgmt, ajmontana, Paul-Cincy and others

   Look at the nice chat I had with Longbow even though we disagree, or Dakin or others. Why can’t you be more like them? Why do you have to be such an relentless j*rk-off?

9. #109
   On February 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm, Ragspierre said:

   See…???

   Another object lesson complete!

   Thank for your cooperation, and predictability.

   Resorting to naming supposed syncophantes…really, how junior high school can by get?

   Til next demonstration…buh bye

10. #110
    On February 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

    Superior posturing doesn’t wear well on a troll like you, Ragsy. Just another excuse for not being able to answer a yes or no question while whing about being victimized after you struck first.
    Sheesh, what an assh*le.