Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"Nothing has changed ?" I'm not sure I'd say that when we have maybe as many as 20 Republican Senators turning against Bush on Iraq.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at January 23, 2007 04:02 PM

I meant nothing has changed in terms of reality in the economy or the world situation in general. Of course I expect weak politicians to to turn tail, rather than stick by principles (most of whom had none to begin with).

Do I have to remind you (once again) that I'm not now, and have never been, a Republican, or a Bush sycophant?

I expect Anonymous Moron to not understand that. I had higher hopes for you...

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 23, 2007 05:35 PM

Typical Simberg, Linking to someone who is banging the drum
to invade Iran.

Also I find it sad that the Neo-cons are arguing that we
could have won Vietnam. The French were defeated there,
the Japanese were defeated there, The Chinese got 3
divisions wiped out in 3 days on the border.

Come on, And it's not like That wonderful war was
going to be won by the strenous efforts of
PFC Limbaugh, 2LT Cheney and Sgt Wolfowitz.

The russians invaded Hungary in 1956 long before
vietnam, and frankly the russian invasion of
Afghanistan while tragic for the Afghan people
was even more destructive to the Russian
empire.

Rather much like will happen to us when we leave
after Bush looses this war too.

As for Blaming the American People, that's Just Bull-Hockey.
Shrubya, was all about war without sacrifice.
His message was that more americans need to shop,
not to buy Liberty Bonds, Not to cut domestic
spending, not to join the army.

I'll believe Bush is about Leadership when those
two drunken slatterns of his are in Army green,
and he's raised taxes on capital gains.

Posted by anonymous at January 23, 2007 05:39 PM

Rand, please lock Anonymous Moron out. I'm tired of having to look at his tripe.

Posted by Rich at January 23, 2007 06:58 PM

kind of amusing that Simberg advocates for the free speech
coalition on his home page. Unfortunate that
none of his readers believe in it.

Posted by anonymous at January 23, 2007 07:51 PM

I believe in free speech. I also believe in responsibility and civility (to those who reciprocate).

So my solution for you Mr. Anonymous Moron Arsewipe:

START YOUR OWN BLOG.

And STFU at this one.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at January 23, 2007 08:00 PM

Do I have to remind you (once again) that I'm not now, and have never been, a Republican, or a Bush sycophant?

For someone who insists that he isn't a Bush sycophant, you seem downright resentful of most of the criticism. Sure, you have your own brand of Bush criticism, but your beef is that he should do even more of what most Americans no longer want from him.

Posted by Jim Harris at January 23, 2007 10:28 PM

That's where you're just a tad mistaken.

A lot of folks who are unhappy with the President are unhappy because he's not doing *enough* of the things that throw you into a fit.

Posted by Big D at January 23, 2007 10:55 PM

A lot of folks who are unhappy with the President are unhappy because he's not doing *enough* of the things that throw you into a fit.

It doesn't contradict what I said. You say "a lot of folks", while I said "most Americans". They aren't mutually exclusive.

Posted by Jim Harris at January 23, 2007 11:13 PM

> your beef is that he should do even more of what most Americans no longer want from him.

Most Americans no longer want the President to protect free speech, limit out-of-control spending, win the war in Iraq, and respect the Constitution? Do you have any evidence to back up your belief?

Posted by What's Your Beef? at January 23, 2007 11:33 PM

Typical Simberg, Linking to someone who is banging the drum to invade Iran.

Also I find it sad that the Neo-cons are arguing that we could have won Vietnam. The French were defeated there, the Japanese were defeated there, the Chinese got 3 divisions wiped out in 3 days on the border....[more idea salad]...

Rand, please, by no means ban this fellow. My father became a psychiatrist later in life and used to talk with me about some of the principles when he was in school. Since then I've always found it interesting and satisfying (sort of like the way bird-watching is fun) to be able to spot some of the classic schizoid types and personality disorders.

Unfortunately that was as a long time ago and my memory is rusty, so I'm having a hard time pinning down this guy's exact diagnosis. More data will help, and I'm sure if you don't ban him he'll provide it generously.

Also, Mr. Anonymous, if you are already under a doctor's care, may I ask that you not spoil my fun by revealing your diagnosis? Thanks much!

Posted by Carl Pham at January 23, 2007 11:53 PM

For someone who insists that he isn't a Bush sycophant, you seem downright resentful of most of the criticism.

I don't resent it. I just think it mostly idiotic. Stupid criticism crowds out legitimate criticism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 24, 2007 05:30 AM

Carl,
I hear you, and there is certainly preverse pleasure in provoking anonymous. However, the persistent attempts to discredit Rand is taking their toll. I get annoyed with Rand's posts (not comments) that directly attempt to disabuse the false claims. These posts seem pointless, as anonymous is not a rational person. I enjoy Rand's blog, like Glenn's, because almost all the posts make good points.

Rand,
You won't persuade these characters (I include "TnT" for many reasons to include his dumb alias). Your posts are fine without the add in remarks to disprove false theories about you. Those who read you rationally know that it is absurd to consider you a: neo-con, chicken-hawk, republican, democrat, christer, athiest, etc... Don't defend... attack!

Posted by Leland at January 24, 2007 06:55 AM

Anonymous is so retarded, he can't even grasp the concept of free speech after having it explained to him repeatedly.

But then it is an anathema concept to the jack boot squad so that might explain his dislike of it.

Hey anonymous retard, where do you live? I want to come in your house at 2:00 AM and pontificate on everything.

If you don't cooperate, then it proves you hate free speech and are totally opposed to it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 24, 2007 07:14 AM

Most Americans no longer want the President to protect free speech, limit out-of-control spending, win the war in Iraq, and respect the Constitution?

To take the biggest two cases, he isn't winning the war in Iraq, and he has done less than nothing to "limit" spending. I know that until recently it has been heresy in partisan circles to say that he isn't winning, but as of this month, even Bush himself admits it. So does Petraeus, who said, "The situation in Iraq is dire".

As for spending, it was 18.4% and 18.5% of GDP in the last two budgets that Clinton signed, and as of FY2006, it was 20.3% of GDP. (This is straight from the Congressional Budget Office.) The economy has expanded some, but spending has grown even faster. Nearly half of the percentage increase is due to the war in Iraq, which is some of the most undisciplined spending in American history.

So yes, most Americans want less, not more, of this story. They do not want to escalate the war in Iraq with a troop increase, as Bush is doing. Nor do they want to escalate it by bombing Iran, as Rand wants to do. They would also like to see real limits on spending with rules such as PAYGO, instead of the philosophy that if you first cut tax rates, you can then spend as much as you want.

Respect for the Constitution would also be nice; unfortunately it's another travesty of the past 6 years. But most Americans are at least less angry about that one than about defeat in Iraq.

Posted by at January 24, 2007 08:54 AM

Most Americans no longer want the President to protect free speech, limit out-of-control spending, win the war in Iraq, and respect the Constitution?

Respect for the Constitution would also be nice; unfortunately it's another travesty of the past 6 years. But most Americans are at least less angry about that one than about defeat in Iraq.

Posted by Jim Harris at January 24, 2007 08:55 AM

Stupid criticism crowds out legitimate criticism.

The bottom line is that what you call "stupid criticism" is the position that Bush is too much of a bad thing, while what you call "legitimate criticism" is the view that he is too little of a good thing. So this "legitimate criticism" isn't really criticism at all, it's extreme partisanship. Bush himself doesn't much mind hearing it, because he never would have minded even more radical policies, he only concluded that he couldn't get away with them.

Posted by Jim Harris at January 24, 2007 09:03 AM

I believe the apropriate reason to remove A J-H is that it negativley impacts the 'signal to noise' ratio of this site.

It's not so much his arguments as it is the slathering of retardation he insists on dipping them in.

Or to put it another way, there are ways to disagree with the host (Rand) without being deliberately insulting.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 24, 2007 09:10 AM

perhaps if Simberg encouraged positive discourse,
intellectual debate, and honest discussion things might
have a higher tone. Perhaps if Simberg were honest
about his motivations, things might have a higher tone.

Posted by anonymous at January 24, 2007 10:10 AM

"perhaps if Simberg encouraged positive discourse,
intellectual debate, and honest discussion things might
have a higher tone."

That's news to me. I did not know he has done one single thing to discourage that higher tone.

The only possible thing he has done that could have impared this higher tone is to allow your continued posting of vitriolic hate-filled propaganda and delusional nonsense.

Posted by A Little Bird at January 24, 2007 11:05 AM

Rand, my apologies if I misunderstood the context in which you were framing your comments. No intention on my part to be insulting or rude; I was just trying to indicate that the political climate has certainly changed in Congress vis-a-vis the Iraq war, whereas I realize now your focus was different...and by the way I'm NOT an alias for anonymous as some moron seems to think.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at January 24, 2007 02:26 PM

T&T, I don't have a problem with your comments though I often (usually?) disagree. Apology accepted, and I've never thought that you were Anonymous Moron. I just wish that (s)he would get over the obsession with me and this blog. Most trolls get tired after a while, but this one seems particularly persistent (and vile).

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 24, 2007 02:33 PM

> I just wish that (s)he would get over the obsession with me and this
> blog. Most trolls get tired after a while, but this one seems particularly
> persistent (and vile).

Mr. Anonymous bears a strange resemblance to Mark Whittington's alter ego (apart from the fact that he has not yet claimed to be an astronaut, a carrier air commander, or a Navy Seal).

Posted by at January 24, 2007 05:17 PM

I doubt it's a regular poster like Mark. Probably someone (of which there are legion) who feels honor bound (or perhaps uncontrollably compulsive) to spread the Truth to those in Error. They're probably anonymous because either they're doing something they could get in trouble for (eg, posting from work) or have circumstances that would undermine any authority they might muster (eg, posting from prison or a junior high school).

Posted by Karl Hallowell at January 25, 2007 12:43 AM

> I doubt it's a regular poster like Mark.

Not Mark, but his evil twin Robert.

Posted by at January 25, 2007 01:40 AM

Rand can see IP's so he probally has a pretty good idea who it ain't. I think the allegation it is Mark is absurd and a cheap shot at Mark.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 25, 2007 07:51 AM

Anonymous Moron doesn't have a fixed IP. It uses some kind of IP spoofing service. It apparently highly values its anonymity. Of course, if I wrote the kind of vile nonsense that it does, I would, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 25, 2007 08:00 AM

Either that or he travels alot. Perhaps he is a traveling Jackboot salesman.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 25, 2007 08:20 AM

Mike, I did not say Mark, I said Mark's evil twin. The dread pirate Robert was Mark's sidekick, his best friend and worst enemy, a more disfunctional version of himself from some mirror universe who played John Kerry to Mark's George Bush. Both of them used to haunt the same space boards, posting off-topic political garbage, but Robert has vanished lately.

Posted by at January 25, 2007 11:16 AM

Are you referring to Robert Oler?

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 25, 2007 01:36 PM

Simberg thinks it's a good idea to fight a war for Oil.

In Iraq, the annual production is at best 800 million
barrels per year available for export.

We are spending over a Hundred Billion dollars last year
occuptying iraq, we will spend twice that this year.

This means Iraqi Oil exports are costing about 100-200
dollars per barrel. It's kind of sad, Simberg either can't
do this math or hates thinking about it.

Posted by anonymous at January 25, 2007 08:24 PM

> Are you referring to Robert ****?

Yes, although I hesitate to type his full name for fear of invoking his appearance (if he isn't already here in anonymous form).

Posted by at January 26, 2007 02:23 AM

Post a comment