Comments on: It’s An Outrage!

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:59:29 +0000

I trust those in power? You mean right now, or generically? I’m not sure I follow your point. What I’m saying is the ports deal got caught up in political considerations that had very little to do with reality…the Kerry comment was to point out the partisan nature of many of the attacks – but yes, the Republicans were compromised on this issue as well, for the most part.

If you want me to say the shame was bipartisan, you’ve got it – but I didn’t hear any Republicans grumbling about the Hong Kong deal…thus, the reference to the lefty blogs.

In any event, this thread has lasted longer than the uproar…

By: CDB

CDB — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:49:34 +0000

So your saying you trust those in power? I thought the “if Kerry where Pres” statement was a jab at just that type thinking.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:55:16 +0000

James, what the hell are you talking about? I mean, seriously…if a blogger didn’t get knee-deep into his comments, you could accuse him of not looking for debate – but I’m trying to engage my readers – jeez, can’t win for losing…

In any event, I’m not trying to please everyone, just doing my best here – and anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I have acknowledged at length that the paranoia was bipartisan.

You’re tilting at windmills, my friend…

By: James Richardson

James Richardson — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:31:43 +0000

When a blogger spends every other comment defending his or her post, they’re obviously not looking for open debate. Rather, they’re just spinning, and spending so much time in the comments section is just spinning the spin.

However, if Kerry did this in the aftermath of 9/11, I do think Congress et al would have thrown a fit. This paranoia was bi-partisan, as any intellectually honest reader of the news and blogs could see.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:22:58 +0000

Josephine, sorry, my spam blocker got you…I just saw it.

I’m not aware of the statement you refer to – does sound rather Orwellian, doesn’t it?

I suppose, however, that he is making a variation of the well-known paradox that sometimes you have to get to peace through war…in this case, I assume he means a more democratic Middle East will be more likely to live in peace with the West..

I don’t make any guarantees that that’s the right interpretation, however, without seeing the statement in its full context.

By: Josephine E. Ortez

Josephine E. Ortez — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:09:05 +0000

O.k. I’m assuming you are a supporter of Bush-if so, what do you make of his statement (a la 1984)
“When we are talking about war, what we’re really talking about is peace” Is that what you mean by being a
peaceful sort? No wiseass intended, I’m just curious.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:44:32 +0000

No, no, Pesci didn’t off anybody after he said that – he said it to his best friend Henry, and he was yanking his chain…

We’re peaceful sorts in the these parts… guess that’s why I’m such a weinie…

By: Josephine E. Ortez

Josephine E. Ortez — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:25:15 +0000

Well of course you are. Oh wait a minute. Did Joe Pesci’s character say that just before he offed somebody?????
Hmmmmmm. Maybe I’d better get back on my meds before I get hurt. But then that would make me a weinie.
I’ll consult my ET friends and get back to you on that. Or maybe my people can get in touch with your people.
What ever…………

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:46:50 +0000

What am I, a clown? Am I here to amuse you?

—- Joe Pesci, Goodfellows…

By: Josephine E. Ortez

Josephine E. Ortez — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:51:00 +0000

Sheesh Mark-what a weinie you are. I expected a way snappier comeback. I promise I won’t stalk you or anything…… I think.