Firestarter

What? That Goldberg can be a prat, or that he can write a decent column on occasion? On the first point I refer you to most things he's written. On the second I can refer you to his articles on Teddy Kennedy's opposition to windmills and critics of Bennett's comments on black abortion rates. Do try to be more precise.

Read just two sentences into a Kondracke column, for comparison, and you'll understand. I'll freely admit that Goldberg can be a prat, but on occasion he does write a decent column.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Well let's see. How about having donated over $20k to it for a start? When he'd never donated anything near that to all charities combined year after year in the past? Mosques: No, I'm not a fan of having my breasts cut off, my neck sliced in half, and my torso stamped on to get more blood to pour out of my torso while Mohammedans record the scene on their cell phones to transmit over the internet later. MEMRI, Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Reverend Peterson, Robert Spencer, and Alan Dershowitz do a good enough job of keeping me apprised with original sources and audiotapes so that I don't necessarily have to risk my personal safety in such places. Black churches: all those I've been to have been wonderful, I'll admit that right off the bat. Those comprise 6 in total. People like Reverend Peterson have vastly more experience, however, so I defer to their judgement. Also, please note that it was B.O. Hussein's supporters who immediately stated that Wright's anti-American ravings were "typical" of black churches. Not me. And if that's "typical," then what's "extreme?"

No, I said that it bothered me that he was running and had a chance. If I corrected every single thing that every liberal said on this board, I'd be typing 24/7 for the next 1000 years, and who has that kind of time? I don't. No, I really don't. Take a look back over my posting history. You'll find that I'm fairly nice even to liberals so long as they don't try to antagonize me, and I've called out more than one so-called "conservative" in the meantime. I'm not an ideologue. Never have been. You are simply wrong.

Yeah, god forbid, people, like, make money and prosper. And benefit from it. Which is the part you "take things away from you for the common good" liberals seem to have a problem with. Quite. You obviously are unaware of his complete history, when he lost two elections. He only started winning after he affiliated himself explicitly with Trinity. Won't argue with any of that. I won't deny that either. But it's far more prevalent in mosques and black churches than it is in white churches. Plain and simple fact. Even blacks don't deny this; they've brushed off Wright's comments by flat-out admitting that they're "typical" of black churches. You're not getting anywhere with this. No, I'm over thirty, I'm a colonel in the USAF, and I'm an adviser to the SRPC who was invited to be on the Steering Committee for the GOP platform before I told them I'd vote for Hillary before McCain.

There's a winning electoral narrative.

Welcome to EUmerica. 'cause B.O. Hussein had just been defeated by another black who had charged him not being authentically black enough. Since, among other reasons, most of his financial support was coming from outside the congressional district, from rich white liberal academics. And also teaches that AIDS was invented by that white man to kill the black woman. Nice. Y'know, you're really not going to get any points by defending Wright. Sorry, I rarely pay attention to your posts. Watch me care.

The New Yorker is okay IMO from time to time. I prefer City Journal though, Heather McDonald and Silverstein. The Atlantic used to have Michael Kelly, who was brilliant until the day he died, but still features the occasional article by PJ O'Rourke, whom I love, and has a couple of other halfway decent columnists. On the right I'd suggest Noemie Emery at the Weekly Standard, but stay far away from Mort Kondracke (who's just a hack) and Fred Barnes (who's also a hack, though to a lesser extent). On Fox, the one guy on the left who occasionally manages to make a bit of sense is Juan Williams. At NRO, try Jonah Goldberg (on occasion) and Byron York, their best writer. Avoid Derbyshire and Nordlinger. They're just annoying.

Some people think that moral values are more important than their bank accounts. Laugh it up. You'll pay at the polls. Indeed, this is nothing new. Get a new schtick, will you? AFAIK he never wrote one article for the Law Review while he was editor there. He went into "community organization" in order to build up "black cred," same goes for his affiliation with Wright's racist church (he lost an election before that to someone who seemed "more black") and promptly began associating with slimeballs like Rezko, not to mention terrorists like Ayers, in order to fatten his bank account and increase his liberal bona fides. I'm not going to support McCain, you idiot. I hate the motherfucker. As I've stated several times.

Not once did you clear that up, even when Superjerk said that "even if someone was Hitler's illegitimate son, that wouldn't disallow him from running for president," or specifically making a rebuttal to your post, which insinuates that a legal bastard cannot run for president. As far as I'm aware Hitler never set foot in the United States. So why should I have bothered? I "insinuated" nothing of the sort and I CLEARLY stated that B.O. Hussein COULD become President regardless of his illegitimacy. I just said that that fact would bother me. Irony. No, we can't. I think we need to increase our defense spending over 100%. And rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War. No, it's merely poor comprehension on your part, and, as I mentioned earlier, a complete ignorance of politics and political figures. The people I cited aren't obscure. They're rather high-profile, in fact (and not due to Fox), and I chose their names in particular because of that. You clearly recognized none of them, and formed your own risible conclusions in light of your ignorance. Don't blame me for your stupidity.

I won't. Neither. -link Issues like gay marriage and abortion are quite important to many Americans. You may not like it, but it's a fact.

It's a pretty weak fuckin' ad, but B.O. Hussein is the one who really thinks that voters are idiots. At least Hillary's willing to pander. He still doesn't see anything wrong with what he said.

Agreed. Barone, though he's pretty firmly on the right, is pretty much the most objective and most insightful these days. On the left, I like Blumenthal and Mellman, personally.

I think that's actually a requirement for a job at the Washington Post.

You have a point, given how utterly incompetent NASA has shown itself to be in the past, when it's not merely useless.

You didn't make this clear. From the way you said it, I thought you were going to use an "unpatriotic" quote from each to show that his "group" was unpatriotic. My bad! Wait, no, that is what she said. No it's not. If you weren't as ignorant as you are, you'd know that each of the people I'd cited had specifically criticized the group to which he belongs as unpatriotic and/or anti-American. By using their names I was demonstrating the futility of identity-group politics.

Actually Dana Milbank has proven to be a fairly insightful reporter on Beltway antics. I remember having been impressed by more than one of his stories.

I agree wholeheartedly that I don't want my tax dollars supporting their promiscuity, but the idea of requiring the state to administer tests to determine suitability for parenthood is unworkable and downright fascist. That's one point on which I'll agree with the UNDHR as well.

You also can't run for President of the United States. ^ sounds a lot like it. Note the second word in my sentence: "You also can't run for President of the United States." I thought I remembered (maybe I was mistaken) that godthedog was British. I was merely noting that his own illegitimacy was irrelevant. Which would be? No, I'm not. You cited one specific expense as excessive, without taking into account anything we may or may not be accomplishing with it, and then you claimed that we can put it to better use. It behooves you to explain how. Without meaningless generalities such as "prioritizing and redistributing budgets." From you lot? Nothing more, honestly. So I'm in the minority.

Have NASA start doing something useful for a change and fire it off into the sun.

CUT HIS MIC! CUT HIS MIC!

Really? I'll readily admit that I never watch his show anymore, so maybe it's changed. A few years ago, though, when he was going through the letters and things and his "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day," there wasn't any off-camera tittering.

Wow. This is a subject on which I can finally agree wholeheartedly with the liberals. You're nuts.