Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I respect Max Clecland not because he lost 3 limbs
in vietnam but because he had won the Silver Star
in Combat. It's sad how few Republicans have
won combat decorations.

Posted by anonymous at June 21, 2006 12:26 PM

I agree with you, big time, that it's too bad Ann dragged science and Darwin into it. She made the mistake of offering an opinion on something she knew nothing about. Beyond her ignorance of the scientific method, evangelizing for or against God or Darwin is always a philosophical mistake. As an atheist I say -- and Benedetto, the Pope who loves cats and Mozart agrees -- render unto God those things that are God's and unto Darwin those things that are Darwin's.

Posted by Sissy Willis at June 21, 2006 12:37 PM

Anon,

You did not win combat decorations. You are awarded them in recognition of your actions.

That point aside, you have no statistics to back up what you are saying. But I'll play along. It is sad how few lefties have working brains.

Posted by Edward Colletta at June 21, 2006 12:42 PM

You know, it feels like people back political parties (or "left" vs. "right") the same way they back football teams. Regardless of whether the party has any good ideas, and regardless of whether the candidates of the party actually represent the cheerleader, they still chuck around cheap, petty comments about supporters of the "other team."

Get lives, people. Quit picking on your perceived opponent (whoever that happens to be) and just work to improve the country in whatever way you can.

Posted by at June 21, 2006 12:56 PM

Ah, the irony:

You have no statistics to back up what you are saying. * * * It is sad how few lefties have working brains.

Posted by Statistic-less at June 21, 2006 01:09 PM

Of course it helps to leave out the part that you did. If you think I actually meant that last part you are mistaken

Posted by Edward Colletta at June 21, 2006 01:17 PM

"Duke" Cunningham "won" the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, multiple Air Medals and the Purple Heart. Do you respect him "Anon"?

I respect Duke and Max for their military respective service but that doesn't mean they get a pass on everything they do/say for the rest of their lives.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 21, 2006 01:30 PM

Hail Cecil!!

If the medals give you the right to say whatever you want or about whom so ever, why is Nancy Pelosi out front of this crowd? Is Ted Kennedy using JFK's old WWII medals because he's dead and doesn't need them now?

As to the "inevitable pusback", we live in a country where we are supposed to have freedom of religion not freedom FROM religion. The usual course is to have the left praise social ethnicity and religious diversity unless it's Judeo-Christian religion or ethnicity.

The "pusback" can only be done AFTER the push, and the push started with Madeline Murray O'Hare. Christians didn't ask Atheists to cease and desist; it was and still is the other way around.

So Rand you recognized the pushback, but failed to point out why it exists.

I haven't read the book either, and Coulter is somewhat of a pit bull, but so are Pelosi, Cleland, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean et al. There are pit bulls on both sides of this political landscape we call home. I don't see anyone calling Kanye West to task for saying the President hates African-Americans.

Everybody is mad because she hit a hot nerve IMHO.

Posted by Steve at June 21, 2006 02:13 PM

"Coulter is somewhat of a pit bull, but so are Pelosi, Cleland, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean et al."

The difference is that Ann has a sense of humor... she's sticking pins in them and they're howling.

I'm howling too, with laughter.

...and those pins have serious points.

Posted by ken anthony at June 21, 2006 04:47 PM

What Cleland understands is War. He's been there, he fought.
McCain did too. Coulter, cheney and the other chickenhawks
don't know war.

Posted by anonymous at June 21, 2006 10:06 PM

Coulter, cheney and the other chickenhawks
don't know war.

Is it your (idiotic) contention that no one who does "know war" favors this one? To be more specific, do you really believe that everyone currently serving in Iraq opposed the war, and that they universally want us to pull out immediately?

I've seen a lot of stupid expositions of the logically invalid "chickenhawk" argument, but this has to be one of the dumbest in my memory.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 21, 2006 10:16 PM

Coulter, cheney and the other chickenhawks
don't know war.

Clinton, Albright and the other chickenhawks don't know war.

(I was turned down by the Navy - what kind of hawk does that make me?)

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 22, 2006 03:30 AM

its not an argument of "liberal infallibility". its perfectly reasonable to disgree with these people, and i havent seen anyone look down on those who do. what gets under coulter's skin is the stigma attached to personal attacks of victims. on her current controversy, people arent mad that she disagrees with the 911 widows, they are mad because she demeaned them personally, and said things that had no purpose other than to injure them and draw attention to herself. so really, she's arguing that we should be able to attack victims as viciously as we do other people.

Posted by at June 22, 2006 04:56 AM

"Coulter, cheney and the other...blah blah blah"

If I were making such idiotic statments I too would want to remain "anonymous".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 22, 2006 05:15 AM

It's a consequence of relativism. If you don't believe in absolute truth, but only in individual narratives, the reason to choose one narrative over another isn't evidence but the backgroup of the person presenting it as a designated member of a 'good' (ie, oppressed) group.

Thus, the most important thing isn't coherent positions but the biography of your spokesmen.

Posted by Mike Earl at June 22, 2006 10:12 AM

Just noting the correlation of 1.0 between supporting Rand and commenting under a real name. What are the detractors afraid of?

Posted by Jay Manifold at June 22, 2006 05:34 PM

I've READ the book and the comments the left are nashing their teeth over make up a small part of the book. She has her facts and footnotes in order. She tears the left a new one. The hyperbole is over the top but that's the way she writes. Without it, Mark steyn doesn't write this great editorial.

Posted by Bill Maron at June 22, 2006 05:35 PM

It is my contention that Coulter, Cheney and the Other
Chickenhawks don't know war. It's not very debatable.
There are people who know war and there are chickenhawks
who don't know war. I would rather hear from Real Warriors
then Chickenhawks.
It's rather amusing how Outraged Simberg gets when
the phrase chickenhawk is mentioned. Neocon's hate
the phrase chickenhawk.

Posted by anonymous at June 22, 2006 05:44 PM

I don't get "outraged" at the idiotic and multiply discredited "chickenhawk" argument. I laugh at it.

Particularly when it comes from (as Jay points out) anonymous morons. All that I can imagine that they're afraid of is that people will know just who it is that makes such foolish (non)arguments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2006 05:52 PM

The use of chickenhawk is annoying in much the same way watching some anonymous person making a complete fool of himself is annoying. It just becomes boring at first and then grating, because it is just dumb. Why don't you just admit you have nothing rational to say, instead of just reaching for the "chickenhawk" sloganeering?

Anyway, it’s astonishing how fast some people rush to prove a point. The anonymous commenter’s have provided excellent examples to prove Mark Steyn's point. Max Cleland's injuries sustained in combat have nothing to do with his thoughts and ideas being beyond reproach. A silver star is awarded for gallantry of the field of combat. They are not rewarded for outstanding citizenship in the world of politics. If you are going to play in the political world, you better use the right credentials.

Fair enough, Max Cleland is a far better representative of the US military than John Kerry. Then again, John Kerry is a far better representative of the US military than Cindy Sheehan. Sadly, Max and John have served their purpose and failed miserably for the far left. So now the left has latched on the Cindy Sheehan as the moral authority for the US military. The great moral authority, having been granted plenty of time and money by the administration, still hasn’t found an opportunity to mark her son’s grave site. So, get rid of her… Let’s bring in Congressman Murtha (D-Okinawa)...

Posted by Leland at June 22, 2006 08:34 PM

Time for an IP address search on this anon?

Posted by Bill Maron at June 22, 2006 08:53 PM

Anon's stupidity is growing to the point that it is in danger of collapsing in upon itself from its increasing mass and create a stupidity singularity that will suck in and destroy all reason that comes near.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 22, 2006 10:10 PM

Leland, Casey Sheehan finally has a gravestone.

Posted by Ed Minchau at June 23, 2006 04:45 AM

Leland makes a nice point. Cleland is a better representative
of the Military then Kerry. Kerry is Better then Sheehan.
It's also fair that Cleland and Kerry are better representatives
of the military
then Cheney, coulter and Simberg.

Posted by anonymous at June 23, 2006 08:19 AM

I don't recall ever having claimed to "represent the military." Nor has Ann Coulter (though Dick Cheney is the duly elected vice Commander-in-Chief). This remains an idiotic argument.

So, are you proposing that no one can discuss, or support a war unless they're a member of the military? Are you opposed to civilian rule of the country? Do you propose that these decisions be made by generals, rather than civilian authority?

If not, just what is your point?

Do you never tire of making an anonymous fool of yourself? But then, that's why you remain anonymous, isn't it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 23, 2006 08:24 AM

Obvously, Cindy Sheehans lack of military service disqualifies her commnetary.

At least she wasn't an Anonymous Coward.

Hey Anonymous Coward, you know wat the difference between think and know is?

You think we mistakes could have been prevented if we had pulled out of Iraq sooner, we know your father could have prevented one big mistake if he had pulled out of your mother sooner.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 23, 2006 08:24 AM

i dont think the chickenhawk argument is that only military people are qualified to comment on war and such, but rather that its striking that some of the most hawkish politicians didnt serve. it only applies to people who are overly ready to start wars (the hawk part of chickenhawk). the point is that they are only bold with other people's lives. people making the argument also seem to be implying that these people dont understand the gravity of war because they didnt serve, and that if they had they would use war only as a last resort.

that said, i dont think its a huge point.

i wouldve assumed you all understood the reasoning. its not saying only military people have the credentials to talk about war.

Posted by at June 23, 2006 09:52 AM

I know very few people (including myself) who are "overly ready to start wars." A much bigger problem is those who believe that war is never a solution, even when we are being warred upon.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 23, 2006 09:57 AM

there are very few, if any, strict pacifist politicians. if there are some, they have no chance of winning the presidency. i dont see how that is a remote danger. every single politician who is capable of recieving over 5% of the vote would respond militarily if we were being warred upon. iraq did not attack us.

Posted by at June 23, 2006 10:29 AM

"iraq did not attack us."

Nor did Germany directly attack the US prior to WWI or WWII.

And speaking of WWII, Franklin D. Roosevelt never served in the military. Was he a chickenhawk? And Gen Eisenhower never saw combat, never fired a shot in anger and was never shot at yet he lead one of the largest military assaults in history.

The entire "chickenhawk" argument is a simplistic and feeble attack based on emotion and political hatred.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 23, 2006 12:22 PM

Cecil Trotter :

Who declared war on who first? The US or Germany?

Posted by anonymous at June 23, 2006 02:52 PM

Anonymous Coward,

What conutry failed to abide by the cease fire terms declaring an end to the 1991 hostilities?

Was it:

A) Iraq

B) Iraq

C) Iraq?

""iraq did not attack us."

Please tell it to the crew of the USS Stark.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 23, 2006 05:36 PM

mike,
surely the first gulf war made up for that. if you go back far enough, britain has attacked us too, and yet they seem to be our ally. the point is, the iraq war could have been avoided. it was not a last resort. thats where the chickenhawk criticism comes in.

now, thats not enough reason to say the iraq war was necessarily a bad idea. you can argue it was a good idea (i would disagree though), perhaps your argument would go like "installing a democracy in the middle east will help to liberalize and stabilize the region, and therefore terrorism will go down, and other democratic dominos will fall", but the war obviously couldve been avoided. i dont really see how you can argue that point.

Posted by at June 23, 2006 09:48 PM

"surely the first gulf war made up for that. if you go back far enough, britain has attacked us too, and yet they seem to be our ally. the point is, the iraq war could have been avoided. "

AC,

This is STILL the first gulf war! We had an armistice with Britan, Iraq violated their cease fire agreement.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 24, 2006 12:19 PM

Cecil Trotter and Mike Puckett.

Who declared war on who first in Decmber 1941?
Germany or the United States?

Posted by anonymous at June 24, 2006 01:52 PM

Mike Puckett:

Israel atacked the USS Liberty. Does that mean we are at
war with Israel?

Posted by anonymous at June 24, 2006 04:01 PM

"Mike Puckett:

Israel atacked the USS Liberty. Does that mean we are at
war with Israel? "

Anonymous Coward:

North Korea captured and tortured the crew of the USS Pueblo? Are we still at war them?

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 24, 2006 04:17 PM

mike Puckett:

It appears you are alive and reading. Who declared war first
in december 1941. The US or Germany?

Posted by anonymous at June 24, 2006 05:50 PM

AC,

Ask Cecil, its his discussion.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 24, 2006 06:14 PM

I will state for your edification that we certaily did not quit after the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 24, 2006 07:23 PM

Mike
"that we certaily did not quit after the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor."

Glad you can make up facts as needed.

BTW, The US and North Korea are not at war, it was a police
action. No peace was signed, no War was declared.

Posted by anonymous at June 25, 2006 12:52 PM

"Glad you can make up facts as needed"

Anonymous Coward,

I am glad you are as ignorant of modern pop culture references as a dead horse. You are no doubt a Needlemeyer in real life.

If you had served in Viet Nam, you would have undoubtedely been shot by your own troops.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 25, 2006 04:58 PM

Mike Puckett:

If I had served in Vietnam, I'm quite sure,
I would never have seen Limbaugh, simberg or the
rest of the chicken hawks in country.

Would you have been there?

PS I have the Anniversary Edition of Animal House on
my shelf, I'm still waiting for you Mike to answer who
declared war on who first in 1941. Germany or the US?

Posted by anonymous at June 25, 2006 09:53 PM

anonymous, dont hold your breath. people on this site rarely respond to things unless they think they see some flaw in your reasoning. that flaw can be as small as punctuation or capitalization. they wont respond if the question doesnt help their argument. earlier this week, in a post many down ("dems deride, truth dies"), i got into a discussion about the senate refusing to investigate the administration over mis/use of intelligence in the runup to the iraqi war (which they promised to do, and which is their duty), and i was told an investigation found conclusively he never misused intelligence, so i asked what the name of that investigation was. i asked that question 4 times, but never got an answer. you will never win an argument on this website. there are two choices, you lose the argument, or the argument ends prematurely.

Posted by at June 26, 2006 03:59 AM

Everyone knows that Germany declared war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbor, as a result of the Axis pact. I know that won't make you happy, though--you'll continue to whine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 26, 2006 04:55 AM

"If I had served in Vietnam, I'm quite sure,
I would never have seen Limbaugh, simberg or the
rest of the chicken hawks in country.

Would you have been there?

AC"

I have served my country with the United States Army. I would have gone wherever they ordered me. You however, protest far too much to be credibly believed as ever serving in any capacity.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 26, 2006 12:52 PM

RS:

Glad you know Germany declared war on the US on December 11
1941. I was curious if Mike Puckett and Cecil know it. I've asked
several times, because they brought up the claim
"Did the germans attack us in WW2"

So Cecil and Mike, do you know who declared war first in
1941, Germany or the US?

And if you want to compare DD214's feel free.

Posted by anonymous at June 26, 2006 03:18 PM

"And if you want to compare DD214's feel free."

So now you are the "Unknown" Soldier huh? Or more likely the unknown swift boat poseur.

Hard to compare anything with an anonymous coward. Hell, I win any comparison simply by not being anonymous. Ain't it cool how that works?

"So Cecil and Mike, do you know who declared war first in
1941, Germany or the US?"

So AC, have you put down your 201 file and Purple Hearts long enough to learn how to google yet?

Mabey mastering this skill will provide you with knowledge common to others that you yourself are unwilling to seek out without assistance.

Is there actually a point to your continued anonymous posting or are you simply here for the on going amusement of your not-so-anonymous betters?

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 26, 2006 06:27 PM

Mike Puckett:

"Unknown swift boat poseur" Interesting quote.
Are you saying the "Swift boat veterans for truth" were
poseurs?

as for cecil, he made a ridiculous comment about the
US not being attacked by the germans, and I thought I would
focus on it.

Posted by anonymous at June 27, 2006 05:19 PM

...as for cecil, he made a ridiculous comment about the US not being attacked by the germans, and I thought I would focus on it.

Stupidly, as it turns out (even ignoring your inability to find the shift key appropriately). Saddam had been in a continual state of war with us (and an associated UN coalition) since 1990, with no resolution other than a (long) temporary and oft-violated truce.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 27, 2006 05:26 PM

"Mike Puckett:

"Unknown swift boat poseur" Interesting quote.
Are you saying the "Swift boat veterans for truth" were
poseurs?"

No.

Does all your lame attempts at strawman arguments wear football helmets and ride the short bus to school?

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 27, 2006 06:02 PM

Mike

So what does "Unknown swift boat poseur" mean?

I never said i was in a swift boat unit, or even in Nam.
I managed to miss all those parties.
AC

I'll grant simberg finally made a coherent argument above
but, i'm still waiting to hear from cecil on why he even
mentioned the germans in this string context.

Posted by anonymous at June 28, 2006 09:16 AM

It was a witticism or a quip that others seem to have no difficulty getting. Please continue to seek meaning where none is implied in minutae and ignoring bigger points like Iraq breaking the terms of the 91 cease fire.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 28, 2006 08:37 PM

no, the "bigger point" is that the invasion could have been avoided. we were not being "warred upon". it was a pre-emptive action, not a defensive one.

Posted by at June 29, 2006 04:33 AM

No, the even "bigger poit' is that it was entirely within the power of Saddam Hussein to have avoided all the unpleasantries. he made his choices and any account for payment due is his responsibility.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 29, 2006 06:53 PM

No, the even "bigger point' is that it was entirely within the power of Saddam Hussein to have avoided all the unpleasantries. he made his choices and any account for payment due is his responsibility.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 29, 2006 06:53 PM

Post a comment