Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

41 comments

  1. DTOzone

    yes, it would be “legal” under the rules of war for our enemy to kill our head of state, that’s why we have Secret Service and heavy security around him. No one is going to bitch it would be “illegal.” They would call it an act of war.

    That said, we declared war on Pakistan now?!?!?!

  2. IL JimP

    You have to stop reading this stuff.  I never read his stuff because I knew his reputation and now I’m cutting myself away from the idiocy that is the GOS.

    I’m a lot more calm now and can actually accomplish the things I want to politically, like building my local party.

  3. jsfox

    is not the legality. The argument can be made what is good for the goose is good fro the gander. It was Greenwald is trying to do in short hand. See you are outraged so my argument that this was an assassination of Osama was right all along. Which isn’t, wasn’t and is never going to be.

  4. Kysen

    cuz he is hurt and upset that he was removed from the Moose blogroll.

    Heh.

    Not a day too soon it seems.

    He’s a Douchebag. Someone over on GOS said it best by saying he was like Glenn Beck…screaming louder and louder and saying crazier and crazier things in attempts to hold on to his waning audience.

  5. Kysen

    ..but did not really know where else to drop it.

    I can’t remember which Mooses were talking about a possible Huntsman entry into the Republican battle for the Presidential nod…but, based on our friend that guy from RedState has to say…I would not give him great odds:

    Why I Will Not Support Jon Huntsman

    Interesting take from someone I seldom agree with.

  6. spacemanspiff

    …here:

    I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

    But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

  7. DeniseVelez

    but to be very honest, I kinda wonder how do people like this GG person achieve such a lofty perch to pontificate on stuff and then have a coterie of people who hang on their every pronouncement as if they were handed down on Moses tablets?

    I mean – from my pov (excuse me for borrowing a Maoism) they are “paper-tigers’.

    Used to be that leftists and progressives actually admired and respected people who “did” things as well as perhaps writing down their theories.

    So please enlighten me 🙂

    Seems to me that a slew of Jonnie and Jane come-latelies suck up far too much wind in “left” circles.

    Where I come from – you gotta earn “cred” to get “props”.

    When this guy first came into my radar (p.o.i – I don’t read Salon” I had to go goggle him when he attacked me)

    I read this:

    In the preface to his first book, How Would a Patriot Act? (2006), Greenwald begins by giving some of his own personal political history, describing himself as at first neither liberal nor conservative but as one who had taken positions that can be ascribed to both liberals and conservatives, voting neither for George W. Bush nor for any of his rivals, indeed not voting at all. Bush’s ascendancy to the U.S. Presidency “changed” Greenwald’s previous uninvolved political attitude toward the electoral process “completely”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…

    Ummm…since I also discovered he has a close association with a certain racist Miz Jane he went onto my “ignore” list, since she also appeared as a full-blown “leftist” (ha) with zilch background in left-wing struggle (though she seems to have made her bones in Hollywood)

    Whatever.

    There are times I’m glad to be relatively clueless about these folks who seem to be prog-media darlin’s.  

    From the black and brown observational sidelines, I shake my graying head at the sheer wonder of it all.

    I have a long list of people who I admire – of all colors and classes who have helped move us forward on the slow path to sanity but I pay close attention to “theory and practice”  for me – unless you have both you are just vying for NY Times Bestseller list fame and fortune.

    The championing of Bradley Manning (while managing to virtually ignore the cause of 80,000 prisoners in the US incarcerated for up to and over 30 years in solitary under conditions that make Manning’s look like the Hilton) raised my left eyebrow for a moment – but again,   this seems to be a peculiar phenomena of the online media age.

    I’m gonna quote myself

    “The revolution will not be blogged; it will be slogged”

    Since this dude is also the number one hero of the attack Obama crew (who have morphed into the defend Osama bunch)

    I tend to be even less likely to take the dude seriously.

    Some of the most ardent racist lefties are part of his devoted coattails.  

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    Know thee by thy followers?  

    Maybe that is not fair – but in my neck o’ the woods we tend to pay attention to shit like that.

    We tend to notice who the members of your posse are.

    Jus’ sayin’

    Time for a second cup of coffee.

Comments are closed.