74 Comments

• 1. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 9:03 am

  what a nice sunday morning.
  i would like to take a moment and thank all of the world’s humans that have giving their all in hunting down crime and removing it.
  may they continue in doing so.
  have a beautiful day.

• 2. js  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am

  God of peace, bring your peace to our violent world:
  peace in the hearts of all men and women
  and peace among the nations of the earth.
  Turn to your way of love
  those whose hearts and minds
  are consumed with hatred

  Pope Benedict XVI’s

• 3. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am

  religion and politics should have no place in the issue of crimes.
  they are both just cons to promote hate in the people with the lack of hearts and minds.
  so as i stated to start this blog issue is crime.
  again what a beautiful sunday morning.
  again thank all with the hearts and minds that hunt down crime all over the world and remove it.
  so we may have the freedom of mind and body.
  have a beautiful day.

• 4. FmrMarine  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:53 am

  jeff;

  >>>religion and politics should have no place in the issue of crimes.
  they are both just cons to promote hate in the people with the lack of hearts and minds.<<<

  Words spoken by a truly sick and demented mind.

• 5. Christian Wright  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:55 am

  Bush 43 proves there should be a psychological evaluation of all presidential nominees. This guy thinks he speaks for god and god talks back.

  John “Insane” McCain may not claim to have god’s ear, but he has anger management problems that are linked to trauma he suffered as a prisoner and torture victim during VN.

• 6. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 11:16 am

  fmrmarine.
  i stay corrected.
  i did not read it over before posted.
  or i would on changed it.
  as i have done now.
  but please as a fmrmarine you state to be.
  please bring your best manners to this blog.
  and thank you for your service in the fight against world crimes.

  religion and politics.
  they are both just cons to promote hate in the people with the lack of hearts and minds.
  so as i stated to start this blog issue is crime.
  again what a beautiful sunday morning.
  again thank all with the hearts and minds that hunt down crime all over the world and remove it.
  so we may have the freedom of mind and body.
  have a beautiful day.

• 7. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

  jeff, thank you for the Sunday morning gibberish. Still drunk from last night?

  By the way, that IS being polite.

  Religion. Hmmm, well just how many orphanages and hospitals have the ACLU and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance opened? None eh? OK, How many has the Catholic Church opened? Wow - too many to count? The Jews and Mormans? Wow - that many?

  Religion forms the basis of our belief system. Without it, how can ANYTHING be considered a crime. Hitler hated religion. You may know that many Catholic priests went to the camps. Lenin and Stalin and Mao all hated it. Look how well that worked out. Pol Pot, no religion there. With no value systems except the ones they themselves created, these people redefined crime to exclude mass murder, repression, and genocide.

  But again, here I am trying to educate a liberal. While everyone knows that is impossible. Why, I’ll bet the enormous weight of your gigantic brain makes you shoulders sag.

  Oh - former Marine here also. Not you, I bet. Well - considering what I know of the odds.

• 8. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  Interesting commentary by Wayne LaPierre in this months American Rifleman. It outlines the history behind the “Demar self defense Bill” in the Michigan legislature. And how Mr. Obama voted against it. And then voted to sustain the veto of it. The law passed overwhelmingly and the veto was overturned.

  Interesting how closely the laws this bill was meant to remedy match the D.C. gun ban laws that Obama claimed he had no opinion on. Interesting how these two recorded votes fly in the face of Obama’s stated positions today.

  Expect the NRA to be 100% against Obama. That could make the difference in 3 to 5 states.

  Bitterly clinging to religion and guns in Virginia, Kahn.

• 9. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  Obama has:

  Voted against self defense laws in Michigan.

  Endorsed the D.C. Gun ban.

  Pledged to support a ban on the transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons (which would outlaw many sporting and hunting rifles and shotguns - even my kids Ruger 10-22 in .22 caliber and my wifes 16 guage shot gun)

  Demanded that the Federal government preempt the 40 states with Right-to-carry laws. He is on record as saying that law enforcement ONLY should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

  While a board member of the Joyce foundation - that organization funded anti-gun legislation and proposals to the tune of $18 million.

  So when he NOW says he’s for “hunters rights”, understand he envisions you using a sling and sharp sticks. For now… I wonder when the term “assault sharp stick” will first be used?

  If he is this committed, why not be honest about it? Tell us what he REALLY thinks? I know many of the liberal posters here will agree with these positions. Thats not the point. The point is that it impossible to debate someone who lies about their actual positions and beliefs. If Obama is for anti-civil rights gun control - let him say so!!! Instead, we have to dig into his history to find this out.

  I thought he was supposed to be the engine of change? But I guess I missed the fact that “change” means disarming the populace and instituting socialism. OK, well i guess that IS change.

  You all on board with that?

• 10. Jeremiah  |  April 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  religion and politics.
  they are both just cons to promote hate in the people with the lack of hearts and minds.

  Jeff,

  To say that I shouldn’t be able to state my opinions as I understand where this country came from, and then you say I “shouldn’t” be allowed to share my testimony is viewpoint discrimination….so did it ever occur to you that you’re breaking the law? The chances are great.

• 11. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  sorry not a drinker.
  sorry not a liberal.
  just a good human being.
  my father was a marine.
  which i am very proud of.
  he was a great man.
  and in turn made me one as well.
  if you remember your training well.
  you would know that religion and politics are cons just for the masses.
  i never stated that they bring anything good or bad to the world.
  i started my comment on how happy i am for the humans that have hunted down and removed crime from this world.
  such as i do everyday.
  and support it to continue in our effort.
  only to be followed by a comment by js’s comment.
  did not want to turn into a religion and politics debate.
  but more about laws and crimes.
  the people seem to think it is ok for the police to go after crimimals, is ok.
  but they think our armed forces don’t have the right?
  that is to me very wrong to let them cloud it with again, “religion and politics”
  so again…
  i thank all the people who go after crime and it’s roots and remove it.
  so all human may enjoy the freedom life has to offer.
  have a beautiful day.

• 12. Jeremiah  |  April 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  such as i do everyday.

  Jeff,

  You a law man? Let me ask you this, since you’re an officer schooled in law.

  What has changed in our justice system that they aren’t willing to take the necessary measures to ensure justice?

  If one studies their history, we find that our ForeFather weren’t afraid stand for truth, and they weren’t afraid to execute people that chose to disobey the law.

  It seems to me that they are what made this country great …. they had no fear, because they were willing to fight.

  So what’s happened?

  Hmmmmm, let me see …….(thinking)…….AHA! I’ve got it…. the ACLU want to afford asylum to our enemies……whatcha think?

• 13. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

  Thanks jeff. Not really sure what the point of your posts are. You claim that religion is a con and that this site is criminal. Then you say our armed forces should be able to go after criminals. Then you say you yourself do.

  Great.

  Are you proposing that the armed forces quash sites like this and stamp out religion? Sounds like you are.

  Have a wonderful day.

  Try reading up on making a logical argument.

• 14. Diana Powe  |  April 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s prescience is further confirmed:
  

  To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

  Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

  The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

  Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
  ____________
  Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

• 15. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

  again i did not start this as a personal attack on anyone or group.
  but only to welcome everyone to a nice sunday morning and to thank all of us that go after crime in the world, everyday.
  i see it as a shame that so many see people see it as a crime for the world’s armed force to go after crimimal groups that hijack countries and their people.
  have a beautiful day.

• 16. Jeremiah  |  April 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  Dianey, Diaaaney Crockett, Queen of the blogospheeere.

• 17. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  sorry had to read back over the post.
  so as i stated to start this blog issue is crime.
  sorry.
  so as i stated to start this blog issue “on” crime.
  have a beautiful day.

• 18. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  opp!
  tripped over the plug.
  but we are back up a running again.
  have a beautiful day.

• 19. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

  Actually Jeff, it’s labeled Sunday morning open thread. Not sure what you are talking about.

  Diana - so should the Pentagon shut out reporters and analysts? These guys are paid by news organizations, right? So - besides FOX which I claim is neutral and you claim is biased right…. what other organization is not biased left? Do you want to shut out all these organizations from information? Because in case you haven’t been paying attention - they have virtually NO people on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. What they do have, is just about enough to cover the daily briefings there.

  So what is worse? Reporters with little or no military experience asking the military questions, or retired Arm and Marine colonels and generals asking the military questions.

  I don’t really understand where the left (yes, the NYT) is going with this issue.

• 20. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

  News: Bloody Weekend: 32 Shot, 2 Stabbed, 6 Dead

  http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.weekend.violence.2.704117.html

  Iraq? No. Afghanistan? No.

  It’s that Democrat Utopia, Chicago.

  Like all long time Democrat controlled states and cities, it’s messed up.

• 21. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  kahn
  maybe you should try starting with the first comment “on sunday open thread”.
  read slowly.
  when you are up to speed.
  you will see and understand.
  i’ll wait.
  but again if you are in the service.
  my thanks for hunting down crime in the world.
  have a beautiful day.

• 22. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  jeff - YOUR first post does not set the theme for an open thread.

  You made a post. Great.

  JS followed with a post on a different subject. Great.

  You apparently interpreted his post as a reply to yous? Kind of stupid (no insult intended.)

  Maybe, just maybe you’re not as smart as you think you are. You certainly don’t communicate well. And apparently, you can’t read either.

  But you’re not a “liberal”. OK

• 23. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

  lol
  go back to your teen chat room.
  or do you really have anything at all to offer here.
  all i have seen of your posts are insults and belittling people for their views.
  again thank all of you for talking about real issues.
  sorry i sunk to your level of meanest.
  have a beautiful day.

• 24. Christian Wright  |  April 20th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

  There are still many people that worship the 12 Gods of the Greeks. Their beliefs are older than Christianity.

  My question is: Is this ancient faith any less valid than the relatively recent belief in a Christian god?

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6285397.stm

• 25. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:06 pm

  jeff,

  I was about to post that I was too harsh on you. Maybe you really did think that you were setting the subject and maybe you really did not mean to say that religion was a con (oh wait, I don’t think that was a typo - was it), and maybe you just can’t write well.

  But, well - maybe the only posts you’ve read are the one’s where I belittle your skills? Sorry if I offended…… You skipped the informations posts on Obama and gun rights and Democrat Utopia Chicago? Just who was I belittling in THOSE posts jeff? Oh wait, there I go again challenging your comprehension skills. Sorry.

  CW - Actually, no. It’s just as valid. I recommend reading Robert A. Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land”. Personally, I’ve never liked the condescending attitude some people have towards ancient religions. Come to think of it, I don’t like those attitudes towards modern religion.

  I think it depends on how you observe religion and what you think it’s providing to the individual. If you look past the icons and rituals and into how it helps an individual better understand his or her place in the universe, many religions are similar. A whiling dervish, a nun lost in the ecstasy of prayer, a monk deep in trance - all actually pretty similar.

  I took a course in college called, “Religion in the Human Experience”. It was fascinating, and made me realize how little I knew of the subject.

• 26. Rich  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

  Kahn - I was about to post the same thing on chicago- Think I might take this week off. Gonna be pretty nice out and that means the guns will be thick on the streets on the south side.

• 27. congressive  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

  Congrats! Looks like the pope has friends on the inside at AP News:

  Pope’s visit to ground zero offers hope to 9/11 families. That’s the HEADLINE of a story that goes on to mention:

  “Rosemary Cain, whose firefighter son George perished on Sept. 11, 2001, wanted Benedict to address the desire of some families to keep searching for remains at both ground zero and the dump so they can be buried properly.

  “Nothing about Fresh Kills was addressed. Nothing about the inhumanity to the remains was addressed,” she said. “I know the souls will not rest peacefully until they are buried with respect and dignity.”"

  Sounds like “hope” to you? AP News editors thought the one guy who mistook the pope for God was worth the headline:

  “Our faith was destroyed that day. We said ‘Where was God?’ on 9/11, but he’s come back here today and they’ve restored our faith,” Riches said after the pope’s visit.

  I am well aware that “pope smears” are not allowed here, so I’ll not mention that even the pope doesn’t think he’s God.

• 28. Diana Powe  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

  Kahn,

  It’s not hard. If people are going to propped up as having military expertise (which they do) and an unbiased point of view (which they don’t, courtesy of being “managed” by the Pentagon) then it’s pretty self-evident that the viewers ought to be aware of the fact that these authoritative voices belong to people who have a financial stake in what they’re talking about. It’s called conflict of interest.

• 29. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

  “managed”????? By having access to information? Wouldn’t you be MORE concerned if they didn’t have access? They are paid by everyone. They know what they’re talking about. And they have not always been positive.

  Is it just that NOW, when we may have reached a turning point that their credibility MUST be questioned because their informed points of view might challenge those of the liberal elites?

  Is your solution then to give these experts LESS access? Really? Is that actually what you are proposing?

  Wow.

• 30. congressive  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  Lots of gun violence in Chicago. Republican solution: more guns. Democratic solution: reduce guns - OH MY GOD!! NOOOO!!! YOU CAN”T TAKE AWAY GUNS!!! WHAT WILL WE KILL EACH OTHER WITH???

  Although I am a proud liberal, I’m not anti-gun, even though I had a near-death experience at a shooting range last year when a slug lodged in the barrel of a 9mm. Michael Moore and Charlton Heston hashed that one out to a stalemate in “Bowling for Columbine”. Moore asked why Heston thought Americans kill each other. They discussed violence on tv, but all countries have that. They discussed violent histories, but Germany has us beat there. They discussed guns, but Canada has millions and millions of guns and they don’t kill each other like we do - i.e. it’s not the guns.

  Kahn seems to think it’s one thing and one thing only - Democrats.

  Ok. Whatever.

• 31. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

  Note - because you seem unclear on this. The Pentagon does not pay these people, the press does. They also pay experts on many many other subjects.

  Are you advocating that this stop also?

  Please, explain yourself. Hey, take a second and think about it for a second first. This doesn’t look like a giant right wing conspiracy to me.

  But while you’re at it, you could discuss the fact that people are glad that Obama is lying about how he really feels about gun control in order to get elected. Rather than being the agent of change you claim he is, you are actually counting on the fact that he is lying his ass off. Interesting.

• 32. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

  congressive - that’s because where guns are illegal gun violence and crime are higher. Thats called science.

  I’m sorry you think the world is flat, but it’s just not.

  These Democrat utopias already make guns illegal - and it does not work. Get it? They are trampling Constitutional Rights, and it doesn’t even work.

  So yah, your side is stupid about it. Refusal to look at scientific evidence - stupid.

• 33. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  Congressive, I’m sorry. I understand that this is a difficult concept to grasp and that many on your side are sincere. I just think you’re wrong.

  What I find as intolerable is that Obama is squarely in your camp and is lying about it. AND, that you are aware of the lies, applaud them, and are counting on the fact that he’s lying.

  Please explain to me how this is “change” and engenders “hope.” Really, it looks mainstream liberal to me. Say anything to get elected then trot out the hard core liberal agenda…

• 34. Christian Wright  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

  Good news for Republicans. One of their leaders is NOT a rapist.

  For days, Bruce Barclay’s political career hung in the balance. The Republican commissioner of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, had been accused of rape — by a man, no less — and the police were bearing down. Barclay’s lawyer issued a strong denial (”This accusation of rape is ludicrous It will be defended forever and is wrong.”). But it was clear things were looking pretty dicey. Until… vindication! Well, sort of.

  On March 31st, police, investigating the allegation of rape by the 20-year old Marshall McCurdy, obtained a warrant to search Barclay’s home. They didn’t find evidence of rape. But they did find videotapes of hundreds of sexual encounters with men that Barclay had filmed on high-tech surveillance cameras. The cameras were hidden inside AM/FM radios, motion detectors and intercom speaker systems, among other places. There was also one at his business office. [..]

  On April 10th, the rape charges were dropped. One of the videos found during the search showed Barclay and McCurdy engaging in apparently consensual sex. [..]

  Sadly, his vindication was his undoing. Barclay was forced to resign.

  Of course, Barclay may be out of the frying pan, but he definitely landed in the fire. He faces charges of privacy violations, among others. McCurdy, on the other hand, is facing charges of making false reports to law enforcement and faces up to 3 years in prison.

• 35. Christian Wright  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  Comments on an important part of the Republican Policy.

  A recent survey that found some Florida teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy has prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state.

  The survey showed that Florida teens also believe that smoking marijuana will prevent a person from getting pregnant.State lawmakers said the myths are spreading because of Florida’s abstinence-only sex education

• 36. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

  CW, yah. Weird huh?

  So are we attacking him for being gay or for making secret videos? Because as long as there is no sound - in many places videos are legal. Not sure about that particular jurisdiction however.

  But I guess he’d be in hot water even if it had been hundreds of encounters with women. Thats why Bill Clinton resigned, if memory serves. Oh wait…

• 37. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

  CW - are you sure you want to tie this Florida thing to Republicans? What socio-economic and racial groups believe this nonsense? Maybe if they actually DID remain celibate, they wouldn’t have these problems.

  You could just blame it on a particularly stupid segment of society. But hey, I can speculate all I want and so can you - I mean absent many actual facts…

• 38. Diana Powe  |  April 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  Kahn,

  Why would it ever be the business of the Pentagon to wine and dine these “analysts” (they’re not reporters) and provide them with these extremely unusual levels of access (lunches with the Secretary of Defense) unless they felt they had an extremely good chance of shaping the message that got out in a way that favored the Pentagon’s point of view? Did you even bother to read the entire story? For example:
  

  In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

  A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

  “It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

  Add in the fact that they work with companies that do or seek to do business with the Pentagon and anyone with a brain in their head would see the tremendous pressure on these men not to do anything that would cause them to get kicked out of the group as happened to William V. Cowan after he wasn’t on-message in an appearance with Bill O’Reilly in 2005. If you don’t understand the concept of a conflict of interest, then I don’t know what to say.

• 39. Eric T  |  April 20th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

  Christian Wright-

  In response to post #5

  You got your politics backwards. Most Democrats are just BLASPHEMEY! Look at the Hollywood elites that are pushing the democrat propaganda. All these T.V shows like Grey’s Anatomy, promoting homosexual and alternative lifestyles. Look at the pro-death abortion and euthanasia stance the leftists take. Bush’s faith has probably kept him from scandals like Clinton, that allowed lust to take control of his mind and caused him to repeatedly cheat on his wife. Instead of focusing on terrorism and performing the duties of President. Bill was up there bringing his wife a great deal of shame, over and over. Guys like Larry Flynt from Hustler may portray him as a hero, for cutting out on Hillary. But anyone with a heart and feelings, probably was not impressed. If McCain does half as good of a job that Bush #43 did, we’ll be OK.

  If you were to compare Iraq to the Korean War or Vietnam. Iraq is probably one of the most successful military operations in recent history.
  I think Bush has done a good job keeping the economy cruising along. Keeping terrorists out.

  When the reality of Bush leaving sets in, people will look at these 3 replacements and wish he could do a 3rd term.

  Besides the uncomfortably high energy prices, what is there really, to complain about, and why would you wants liberal extremists to raise your taxes and deficate all over your 2nd Amendment rights? They want to remove anything to do with God from America, turn everyone gay, and destroy babies in the womb.

  The choice is clear. Conserve the standard American values that made this country what it is. Or adopt some European style big government socialism and give up freedom like the the 2nd Amendment. Look at Hillary and Obama’s record on guns. Do you really wanna trade in your nutz and your guns for some carbon credits?

• 40. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

  Diana - wine and dine? Got specifics or just making that up?

  Who better to brief than someone who actually understands and knows the players involved? Most reporters I’ve seen or heard are woefully ignorant of military affairs.

  They are paid for by the news organizations - NOT the Pentagon. They get deeper access because they are retired military, have clearances, and actually understand what they are talking about. If they were NOT granted this access, you’d be worse off and also complaining.

  “members” of the group have echoed administration “talking points”…

  OK - who? On what occasions. Is it because the “talking points” were in fact correct? Were they in fact speaking the truth, and it happened to coincide with the administration?

  Write the Times and tell them to get off the innuendo and guilt by association trip and actually do some reporting. You have nothing here but a general distrust and it is coloring everything you write.

  But, by the way - does the Times itself use these experts? Do they? Or are they happy with ignorant reporters?

  The trouble with this story is, there is no there there.

• 41. Plantation Owner  |  April 20th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  C Wright screeches,

  “Bush 43 proves there should be a psychological evaluation of all presidential nominees. This guy thinks he speaks for god and god talks back.
  John “Insane” McCain may not claim to have god’s ear, but he has anger management problems that are linked to trauma he suffered as a prisoner and torture victim during VN.”

  Who else should get psyche tests?

  How about a father who enrolls his daughter in a PRIVATE CATHOLIC school and is SURPRISED and outraged that she is taught religion????

  Wow, that is like sending your daughter into the pool and is surprised that she got wet!!!!!!

  Talk about a no brainer???? Luckily for you (and us) that you aren’t running for president and your rules. Can you say, “They’re coming to take me away AHA! They’re are coming to take me away AHA! HEHE! HOHO! To the funny farm………..”

  The libs are truly getting desperate they are conregressing back to their drug induced 60s BS.

• 42. bongoman  |  April 20th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

  Presenting Pentagon plants as “independent” analysts spouting propaganda? Darn that “liberal” media…

  The NY Times deserves a Pulitzer for bringing this one to our attention.

  Kahn wrote:

  I don’t really understand where the left (yes, the NYT) is going with this issue.

  You’re kidding right? Deceitfully spouting the government line, often with extensive business interests as military contractors, as “objective”, “independent” analysts is fine by you?

  There are very obvious conflicts here. But if you’re into Pravda-style journalism, where the government feeds its line to a willing public, then I suppose you see no problem.

  Some of us expect way more from an independent media.

  Remember, we’re talking about military “analysts” who have a vested financial interest in the continuation of military aggression by the USA, being presented as “independent” observers, feeding us the government line.

  The media in a free society has a role to play in exposing such relationships, not covering them up, hoodwinking the public and serving to benefit war profiteers.

• 43. Plantation Owner  |  April 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

  Oh, how could I forget.

  C Wright believes that a tadpole MATURING into its adult frog state is EVOLUTION!!!!!

  This from an individual who thinks that he can comment logically on any topic related to Obama’s opposition, science or religion. Talk about a single celled organism who goes with the flow, free of responsibility. Just sits back sucks up oxygen and does nothing but exists!

  Get a life.

• 44. congressive  |  April 20th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

  Kahn, Obama is “change”, but not “change” as in something completely different. It’s “change” as in changing the filthy bedsheets once in a while. Given the choices we now have between McSame and Hillary Repeat Clinton, Obama is the only non-crony left in the race. The “change” we want is the elimination of embedded bedbug billionaires in our supposedly Democratic government who are draining treasure and blood from working-class America. McCain sure ain’t gonna do that. Clinton sure ain’t gonna do that.

  Obama’s “Change” slogan is just a grossly oversimplified branding of a catchword to paint behind podiums for the benefit of ADD news bureaus thought up by some political marketing advisor. Rather than read the banner, why not listen to the man speaking? Not the Fox News five second sound bites, the whole speech? How else can you know you’re not being played by media billionaires?

  I won’t hold my breath.

• 45. Mark Noonan  |  April 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

  Congressive,

  We have - or, at least, I have…and there’s nothing there but more tax and spend liberalism; more class warfare rhetoric; more MoveOn-style defeatism…

  If we want change, Obama isn’t the place to get it…

• 46. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

  bongoman - well, nice use of adjectives - but you ave no specifics whatsoever. No proof that these guys were in the bag for the Pentagon. None. You don’t even have examples to discuss.

  Your hatred is wearing thin.

• 47. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

  Congressive - the ONLY one of the three who has a proven track record of bipartisan compromise is McCain. He has the scars to prove it. You may have noticed the trouble he had with some of the more conservative Republicans.

  If and when you nominate Obama, you will be putting up an extreme liberal (found to be the most liberal Senator). He has been shown to lie, in fact I say you’re counting on it. His allies got the courts to unseal the divorce records of his opponent for the Senate.

  He is change ONLY in the sense that you want to move the nation towards socialism. He is anti-civil rights - I consider the 2nd Amendment to spell out a civil right. He has argued for suppression of opposition speech in his support for the “fairness doctrine”, refuses to speak with conservative news outlets, and is and has been associated with race haters and terrorist bombers.

  We will be sure to point these things out in the general election.

  So, knock yourselves out. Make the same mistake you did with Kerry.

• 48. Plantation Owner  |  April 20th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

  Conregressive: “Obama is change.”

  I am having flashbacks of the ‘92 election!!!

  “Change” how original. If Obama is change, how then is raising taxes, cutting the military, increasing the power and size of the federal government, increased spending and more social programs “change”??

  What is different about this liberal than the past ones?

  “Change” - nice but a tired over-used slogan, but the lemmings and idiots fall for it. Proudly count yourself among them!

• 49. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

  Oh and to all you liberals - do yourself a favor and READ an Obama speech instead of listening to one. I have in fact posted links to transcripts here before. Get past the fluff.

  He’s anti-gun, anti-religion, and pro-socialism. He now has a proven record of lies. His socialist agenda will raise our budget by 25%. His plans to just pull out of Iraq will be a disaster leading to oil prices in the stratosphere and millions dead.

  Your idiocy is frightening.

• 50. phnx  |  April 20th, 2008 at 7:52 pm

  “…he was a great man.
  and in turn made me one as well.” Jeff

  And a humble one as well.

• 51. Christian Wright  |  April 20th, 2008 at 8:54 pm

  “Bush’s faith has probably kept him from scandals like Clinton”

  For the record, I would rather have a president like Kennedy or Clinton who cheats on his wife, than a president like Bush who approves the torture of people, invades sovereign lands, uses WP and cluster bombs in urban areas, and depleted uranium munitions.

• 52. Plantation Owner  |  April 20th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

  Uh, C Wright, your boy Clinton used the same munitions in Bosnia and bombed from 40,000 ft to avoid AA missiles.

  Here’s a hint: precision weapons are no longer precise at that altitude — those bombs had to land somewhere! Notice we were not given civilian casualties by the liberal friendly media.

  But, I can’t expect a single celled organism like you to think but only regurgitate the usual liberal lies:

  “….approves the torture of people, invades sovereign lands, uses WP and cluster bombs in urban areas, and depleted uranium munitions.”

  An unevolved bacterium has more intelligence and purpose that you do.

  How’s your daughter’s CATHOLIC education coming? I know she is learning more than you did in your government school.

• 53. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

  just for you again kahn.
  what a nice sunday morning.
  i would like to take a moment and thank all of the world’s humans that have giving their all in hunting down crime and removing it.
  may they continue in doing so.
  have a beautiful day.

  i really think that was a great comment to start the day.

  have a beautiful day

  which invited support or non support.
  but really i can only see you as a blog bully.

  same when such an issue like this… and is not sell out that try to one up you with i am smarter then you brow beater.

  but really i am more a shame of dropping to your level of believe me or else.

  and never once did you add to the issue i address.

  again have a beautiful day.

• 54. Diana Powe  |  April 20th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

  Kahn,

  As I said, if you can’t understand a conflict of interest, I don’t know what to tell you. However, let’s do a thought experiment. Retired general Jones appears on XYZ Network to talk about the invasion of Iraq. While he’s talking, a box appears below him that reads:

  Gen. Jones, U. S. Army, retired
  Vice-president - AAA defense contractor
  Board of directors - BBB defense contractor
  Board of directors CCC defense contractor

  Do you think his credibility to analyze the Pentagon’s actions might be different with the audience than if they only saw the first line? Not with you, since it’s all Greek in your case, but to the mass of viewers.

  Also, what do you think President Eisenhower’s take would be on it?

• 55. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  phnx
  i think you may have hit the nail on the head.
  and i thank you.
  have a beautiful day.

• 56. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:07 pm

  CW - JFK was sleeping with an East German spy. He precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the very brink of humiliation.

  But whatever. Politicians sleeping with hundreds of women is OK. But Republicans sleeping with men is not.

  Were you aware that you are homophobic? How does this realization fit with your stated political beliefs?

• 57. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:12 pm

  jeff, i had no issue at all with your first post.

  Why did you take issue with the one from js that followed it? Why did you say this site was criminal (oh yah, you claim it was a typo) and that religion is a con? You still stand by THAT statement, don’t you?

  What issue did you bring up that I didn’t address? And hey, capital I’s and work on your English a little OK? You are quite difficult to understand.

• 58. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

  Diana,

  Yes, well I see you had to move into the world of the hypothetical. Are you going to apologize to the unnamed people you slandered or issue a retraction? No. You could provide NO actual details to back up your earlier posts. NONE AT ALL.

  But as to your suggestion. Sure. IF we see similar legends for all guests. And a qick explanation of the money trail for those organizations secretly funded through shell organizations by Soro’s. OK? Fair is fair.

  Dr. John Doe
  American Green Scientists
  funded by green machine and green apples
  which are both funded by George Soros

  OK?

• 59. jeff  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

  if you really were a marine, you would fully understand that thought.
  and you are not my teacher grading me.
  you are just a blog bully.
  never address the isssue and questions i gave to ponder over.
  but most of all you are not worth replying to ever again.
  what a small closed small mind you have.
  what is it that you really fear.
  have a beautiful day.

• 60. Kahn  |  April 20th, 2008 at 10:45 pm

  what issue jeff? I can barely make it through your inane posts.

  Just exactly what freakin’ issue are you referring to?

• 61. Kahn  |  April 21st, 2008 at 12:30 am

  Still there jeff? Blog Bully! Blog Bully! Whah Whah Whah!!! I can’t think and I can’t write so stop picking on me!

  Pathetic.

• 62. Freedom1  |  April 21st, 2008 at 12:41 am

  UK:Cancelled on police advice: St George’s Day parade through the Bradford race-riot zone - Daily Mail

  Unbelievable! The English are afraid to celebrate their own patron saint in their own country! Read the article’s first 12 comments. The native English are really angry with the cancellation of the parade and with the Muslim immigrants. One even suggested that Britain is heading toward civil war.

• 63. Freedom1  |  April 21st, 2008 at 1:11 am

  GREAT NEWS FOR AMERICA!

  Rep. Sue Myrick’s 10 Point Plan to Tackle Domestic Islamists, Starting With CAIR….

  Diana West, “Rep. Sue Myrick, North Carolina Republican, is really doing things right. First, she calls for Jimmy “Hamas” Carter’s passport to be revoked; now, she has unveiled the “Wake Up America” Agenda, the first bold and coherent plan to use means at our disposal to begin to investigate, isolate and take appropriate measures against the jihadist threat inside the US. Below is her agenda, which:

  1. Will call for a government investigation of all US military chaplains who were approved by Abdurahman Alamoudi.

  2. Will call for a government investigation of all US prison chaplains who were approved by Abdurahman Alamoudi.

  3. Will call for the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate the selection process of Arabic translators in the FBI and DoD.

  4. Will call for the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) 501(c)(3) non-profit status which restricts “lobbying on behalf of a foreign government”.

  5. Introduce a bill to make the preaching, publication, or distribution of materials that call for the death of American citizens, attacks on the United States Government or Armed Forces, or the financing of the means and/or operations to accomplish these acts, acts of sedition and/or solicitation of treason.

  6. Will call on the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit to verify the total sovereign wealth fund investment in the United States.

  7. Will attempt to cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their textbooks.

  8. Will introduce a bill to restrict R-1/R-2 religious visas for imams who come from countries that do not allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.

  9. Will introduce a bill to cancel contracts to train Saudi police and other security forces in US Counterterrorism tactics until the Saudi’s certify the prosecution of Al Qaeda financiers, like Yasin al-Kadi, and the detention of repatriated Guantanamo terrorists that keep being released into the general population after being “rehabilitated”.

  10. Will introduce or sponsor a bill to block the sale of sensitive military munitions, especially Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), to Saudi Arabia.

• 64. Christian Wright  |  April 21st, 2008 at 7:50 am

  Kahn wrote:

  “Politicians sleeping with hundreds of women is OK. But Republicans sleeping with men is not.”

  I write: If a Republican states gay sex is a sin, passes legislation that discriminates against gays, uses the term “faggot” or “homo” to disparage gays, and all along is chasing after page boys or consorting with known prostitutes, then he needs to be exposed for the hypocrite he is.

  How many openly gay Republicans are there, compared to how many were dragged out of the closet by scandal?

• 65. TiredofLiBullShit  |  April 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am

  C Wrong, USEFUL IDIOT says,

  “…then he needs to be exposed for the hypocrite he is.”

  So if your boy Obama says one thing but does something else, does something he publicly is against, etc. etc.

  You honestly point it out. You will expose him for the complete hypocrite he truly is.

  Or, you will defend his actions…….

  Well, your actions are obvious. You will and have done the latter! As Plantation Owner points out, you are like a single celled organism that blindly goes with the flow.

  Pathetic and hypocritical. You can’t even be honest with yourself. How can you be honest here?

  I am not looking for an answer so don’t bother answering.

• 66. Kahn  |  April 21st, 2008 at 11:52 am

  It’s OK CW, justify it to yourself anyway you want to. I don’t care if someone is gay. You apparently do.

• 67. Tractatus  |  April 21st, 2008 at 8:25 pm

  I don’t care if someone is gay.

  So you’re pro-gay marriage, then?

• 68. Kahn  |  April 21st, 2008 at 9:28 pm

  Tractatus - actually, I don’t care. I’ve said as much in the many discussions here. I don’t care if you marry a tree or a goat or 30 other men and women. Don’t care. Don’t care what you do in bed. Don’t care what you eat. It’s not my concern.

  I notice however that liberals DO care. Homosexual marriage is OK, polygamy is not. Seems to me they both have equal standing.

  I like to eat fish and meat. I see that PETA is attack Al Gore for that today.

  I like to hunt and fish, and I sometimes carry a pistol for self protection. ALL very questionable by liberal standards.

  I also think that though you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater, you can tell someone that he or she is an asshole.

  I also notice that liberals here regularly attack gay Republicans for not being gay “just the right way.” You know, like CW arbitrarily defines above. If you notice, he imposes HIS view on a gay man of how he should act and then attacks him for not being exactly the way he wants.

  Who made him (or you) the arbiter of correctness?

  Did I pop an illusion you had? How sad.

• 69. Jeremiah  |  April 21st, 2008 at 11:53 pm

  While I understand you all are having your own debate/discussion line, I don’t want to interrupt, but I would like to politely ask a small favor of those of you who consider yourselves believers in the power of prayer…

  While I and my family will be in prayer, I’d also like to request your prayers for my brother Lucas.

  Thanks.

• 70. Kahn  |  April 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 am

  Sure Jeremiah, whats up?

• 71. Jeremiah  |  April 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 am

  It’s my brother, he seems to be going through a troubled time right now with a host of issues, and we’re afraid he’s going to do something bad. He really needs our prayers.

  :(

• 72. Tractatus  |  April 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm

  I also notice that liberals here regularly attack gay Republicans for not being gay “just the right way.”

  No, the issue is that many of these gay Republicans make repeated anti-gay stands, use things like gay marriage as a wedge issue, attack homosexuality, etc….and then get caught engaging in the very same things they repeatedly decry. It’s like if you, the gun fetishist, ran for office on a hardcore anti-gun platform. “It’s not OK for any of you, but it’s OK for me!”

  Did I pop an illusion you had? How sad.

  Nope, can’t say you did. How, uh, sad? I am, however, wondering what the hell this was supposed to mean:

  I notice however that liberals DO care. Homosexual marriage is OK, polygamy is not.

  You’re saying in the first sentence that liberals–who you admit in the very next sentence are in favor of gay marriage, indicating that they don’t care which gender you’re attracted to–somehow DO care if somebody is gay or not, and your proof of this is because they don’t support polygamy? So you contradict your own statement, then “prove” yourself by introducing apples to a discussion about oranges. Perhaps you’d like to try again?

• 73. Kahn  |  April 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 pm

  Tractius - you attack a Republican for not being gay the way you want. You do it right in this post. And I don’t care if you marry a rock. Get it? You attack polygamy (I’m assuming)? Well I don’t.

  Homosexual marriage, bestiality, polygamy, marrying a watermelon. I don’t care.

  So some gay Republicans seek privacy. You hate them for that. Not all Republicans are anti-”gay” rights. I don’t case (for example). Not all gay Republicans are publicly attacking gays. I heard no evidence that the man above did - YOU ASSUMED he did through your own prejudice.

  THAT prejudice is the illusion I had hoped I popped. I guess yours is just too thick. (Bet thats the only time you’ve ever heard THAT phrase.)

• 74. Tractatus  |  April 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 am

  you attack a Republican for not being gay the way you want. You do it right in this post.

  You might want to re-read the post, Kahnny boy. I pointed out GOP hypocrisy vis-a-vis gay rights (i.e. GOP politicians engaging in the exact behavior they rail against). To you, that somehow becomes “attacking somebody for not being gay the way [I] want.”

  Step your reading comprehension up and try again. Good luck!