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 October 19th, 2011 at 4:13 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

   Such as? Here’s the list of 135 countries where we have troops deployed. In how many of them do we have a legitimate interest?

   You realize some of them are Marine guards at embassies, no?

   (We need a facepalm smiley)

2. #102
   On October 19th, 2011 at 4:28 pm, LiveFreeOrDie_2011 said:

   Roland said: Your view is simpleminded, and there’s no getting through that. You want proof they say, “Hey, I want to die killing them at random because I hate their freedom.”

   Uhmmmm, “hating us for our freedom” is as simpleminded as it gets. Then again, your previous post about Saddam is also simplistic. Why should we care if he was a monster?? Should we go around the world killing all the monsters?

   Let me ask you a question – do you think a foreign government should be allowed to higher lobbyist to build political and public support for US military intervention?

3. #103
   On October 19th, 2011 at 4:43 pm, txvet2 said:

   On October 19th, 2011 at 2:53 pm, Roland said:

   Not all “Christian” countries are all that democratic.

   The quote marks you used make my point. Those tyrannies are collectivist, not Christian, and that is why they hate us.

   You seem to be rebutting an argument I didn’t make. My point was that fundamentalist Muslims hate all Christian countries, “freedom loving” or not (Of course the populations of most {non-Muslim} countries are “freedom loving”, it’s the governments that are the tyrannies). More generally, they hate all non-Muslim countries, no matter what form of government they might have.

4. #104
   On October 19th, 2011 at 4:50 pm, Roland said:

   Uhmmmm, “hating us for our freedom” is as simpleminded as it gets.

   I tried to explain that to you. It zipped right over your head. You should have at least realized I was trying to explain it to you.

   Then again, your previous post about Saddam is also simplistic. Why should we care if he was a monster?? Should we go around the world killing all the monsters?

   I also expained that to you. Remember the part about striking at the King? How many psychopathic monsters have we forced out of another country?

   You need to pay better attention to the opposing arguments.

   Let me ask you a question – do you think a foreign government should be allowed to higher lobbyist to build political and public support for US military intervention?

   You seem to be doing a sharp subject turn, but I’ll play along.

   Sure. Why not? However, I strongly believe in full disclosure.
   PAC’s are bs. All political contributions should be direct, and all gifts and luncheons should be reported online immediately in a way anyone can easily access.

   And draconian laws should be made to enforce disclosure.

5. #105
   On October 19th, 2011 at 4:53 pm, Roland said:

   My point was that fundamentalist Muslims hate all Christian countries, “freedom loving” or not (Of course the populations of most {non-Muslim} countries are “freedom loving”, it’s the governments that are the tyrannies). More generally, they hate all non-Muslim countries, no matter what form of government they might have.

   Good point. However, we have the great honor of being labelled The Great Satan by the Muslims. So they would seem to hate us more.

6. #106
   On October 19th, 2011 at 4:53 pm, txvet2 said:

   On October 19th, 2011 at 4:28 pm, LiveFreeOrDie_2011 said:

   Should we go around the world killing all the monsters?

   I’ve said in the past that I didn’t support invading Iraq and only supported the war in Afghanistan in the original instance, where US advisers and air power were used to support an insurgency (very effectively, I might add). I would have supported the use of American troops in both instances if the defeat and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were for a valid strategic purpose (defeating Iran) which is obvious if you look at a Middle East map. Since that was not the purpose of deploying troops into those two countries, I think we should have left Afghanistan as it was after the Taliban had been defeated.

7. #107
   On October 19th, 2011 at 4:58 pm, txvet2 said:

   On October 19th, 2011 at 4:53 pm, Roland said:

   Right. As I said, we’re the obstacle, and the only obstacle, between them and their caliphate. Certainly they’re meeting no resistance in Europe.

8. #108
   On October 19th, 2011 at 5:04 pm, txvet2 said:

   PAC’s are bs. All political contributions should be direct, and all gifts and luncheons should be reported online immediately in a way anyone can easily access.

   And draconian laws should be made to enforce disclosure.

   Right again. I don’t care who lobbies the government as long as it’s transparent. The Constitution, which some of these “constitutionalists” like to read selectively, give us the right to petition the government. All that should be required is that it all be a matter of public record and available to anyone (unlike “public records” you can’t get your hands on – for instance, the current crop of thieves ignoring FOIA requests). And I don’t have any problem with foreign governments doing the same (although some diplomatic communications must and should be secret). After all, most diplomatic missions exist for no other purpose than to influence the host government’s policies.

9. #109
   On October 19th, 2011 at 10:04 pm, Blackstone said:

   On October 19th, 2011 at 2:13 pm, LiveFreeOrDie_2011 said:

   I believe that a strategic withdrawal from the Middle East would deprive the Islamic extremists of sympathetic support of the Muslim masses and they would go back to killing each other.

   Well that’s extremely naive. What would happen instead is that the jihadists would be handed the propaganda victory of their lifetime (think Black Hawk Down on steroids), and use it to seize full power and spread the jihad wave to Europe.

   Now maybe you think that wouldn’t be our problem either. Even if they started obtaining nukes and the best military technology available, and began extending their conquests into Africa and Asia, complete with a “divinely ordained” mission to spread their religion everywhere by any means necessary.

10. #110
    On October 20th, 2011 at 11:05 am, Fleuries said:

    I wish this blog had a few more features, or was moderated to guide the topics, the comments here should stick to the debate or debates in general.

    I cannot blame the candidates for using the opportunity of the MSM offering time and exposure on television through these debates. If you meet a threshold of support you get to appear, and a candidate like a Santorum or a Bachman or a Cain could not afford to buy this exposure. That said, the Republican National Committee is at fault for not micro managing these debates with some requirements about topics and staying on topic, and questions that have un-Republican premise, that NPR style debate in New Hampshire, required the candidates be on their game correcting the premise of the questions, of course, especially our clean and articulate friend Newt. The questions present a double jeopardy to our candidates which wastes time or taints their answers if they stick to the clock.

    I have to disagree with the point posted above:

    Debate losers…

    - Anyone hoping for serious discussion of entitlement reform and reducing growth of government.

    - Anyone hoping for a debate relevant to current political climate that would delve into bipartisan Beltway corruption and statism.

    I don’t think the debate is a place where you can discuss serious budget issues, only philosophy. It is too deep and requires numbers. Mr. Cain cannot spend time showing his figures that prove 999 works during a 30 or 60 second sound bite. Read his website, please.

    Read Romneys 59 points on his website, don’t expect him to recite them at a debate.

    Read Newts New contract…it’s not exciting, but really THAT is your duty, not voting for a candidate of a certain religious point of view about salvation.

    I for one, was glad that Mitt got angry, and there was some wish for him to let loose out in the public. I did not think he lost his cool, and if you don’t understand his comment regarding running for president and telling the landscaper that he is running for President for god’s sake you do not know how the Boston Globe jealously guards sitting out in front of Mitt’s house waiting for him to sin so they can publicize it, and ignores the enormous Corruption in the democrat ranks in Massachusetts, including 3 Speakers of the House gone to jail, Bribes, complete with money in her Bra of a well known legislator, and any corruption in our minority community leadership. To the Globe, Senator (R) fails, sins, falls, hires a lawn service, is the only time they accidentally commit journalism. They actually do not think it is wrong to hire illegals, you don’t actually know they didn’t send them!

    If you learn what Mitt means by For God’s sake I’m running for President, you will understand the tenor of the environment we have to negotiate here to accomplish anything, and especially how everything here has to be parsed so that the lunatics don’t start a smear campaign against you. The Anti-Romney forces are the same people feeding simpering false flattery and ruining the health insurance solution that Mitt helped them write. There has never been a collective good will to implement any of Mitt’s solutions in an economic way, and even if YOU think health care reform should be about cost, this was not health care reform because we have the most excellent private health care system in our state that saves people’s lives with magnificent cures, even if you come from a red state or from around the world. It was not worth ruining it, the Mitt solution was private insurance, just like he said. Newt’s comments and article are disingenuous on this topic. There is no one who could have forseen the economic breakdown that has caused most of the fiscal problems and landed so many people without a job and without health insurance.

    It is the ultra liberals in charge in Massachusetts for the last 5 years that do not care what the health insurance requirements do to us, and have been superimposing Obama Care over 99% coverage of Mitt’s insurance plan. They want everyone who pays their own way to get a Cadillac plan whether they can afford it or not, out of Fairness, or give them Medicaid for free…and Medicaid it will be if they have their way here. They are the ones who want to blame Mitt Romney, please don’t join them in their venom.

    If your hatred toward Mitt Romney makes you ugly, you are no better than Deval Patrick, or Barney Frank or Ed Markey. I really don’t like what I see on our side with the sour attitudes, and If Ron Paul is not the candidate I am staying home, and smoking pot obviously.

    The sour has to go. Someone please ask Rick Santorum to take the sour look off his face, he would have been an excellent VP candidate if he did not look like he was whining all the time now. It’s the sneer.

    Now, it doesn’t matter who the candidate is, the Republican establishment who lives on Government is going to line up behind our candidate, it is their living, and it is their power, including the lobbyists that depend on government. There is a Republican machine, that is not the same machine the dems have, but will be there no matter who are candidate is. Its not the party, it’s individuals, and a lot of us do not know who they are, but we know it when it appears, like Big Health insurance coming out for Obama Care, or our current leadership not going along with the sanctions against China, they are not explaining, and it must be something.

    Therefore, Tea Partiers, and conservatives need to get ready. We could not do everything without the Senate this past election, and sadly the insiders had it right, although it was not their place to interfere in state party choices like they did. We would not be here if we did not have some really weak Tea Party candidates. But also, the state republican parties were sour on who the winners were, and did not do their party objectively. In Alaska the republican party allowed two candidates when there should have been a rule, luckily the democrat did not win, but Murkowski misbehaved badly in her own self interest.

    Quite frankly the tea party congress people should be thinking now about what is wrong in the House and what needs changing. I see the privileges of seniority as a problem, not necessarily a need for term limits. House rules, not that you should not have rules, but phoney protocol, and bills that collect bunches of things into a huge mess to pass things that not everyone is in favor of. We need more single subject bills, and the things we were looking for before November. If you have a bill regarding the budget, you can’t put a Planned Parenthood bill in it, Pro or Con, for a free ride. Make people vote on subject oriented bills.

    It doesn’t matter who the candidates are, if you are sour and stay home, you are the one that ruins our chances to turn around this whole government. A vote that stays home pouting about purity is a vote for Obama, and I won’t let you forget it here in this blog. Ron Paul does not care if he is a spoiler, but YOU should.

11. #111
    On October 20th, 2011 at 12:51 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    Cain is indifferent to evil, scratched from my list of potential choices.

12. #112
    On October 20th, 2011 at 3:35 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    These stupid liberals are precisely the reason I don’t participate in the debates.

    I take the relevant questions and answer them on my blog.

    ‘Nuff said.

    RWR ’12
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com