The Black Republican

So, tell me again. Why did we go to war? Was it the WMDs we did not find? Was it to free the Iraqi people we are killing, and some of your friends wanted to nuke? Was it to set an example to North Korea and Iran? Good job with that by the way. Was it to have a "stable" democracy in the Middle East? Good job with that one too. Why don't we model their democracy after our own.

Hi Frank! How about them Colts?

I realy don't know how to respond to that Frank. Wait... yes I do!

(Ed.: for those who cannot hear the clip...)

"What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul."
- from the movie "Billy Madison"

I would add...

"Let's not get stuck on stupid." - Lt. Gen. Russel Honore

Why are they special?

Europe's democracy isn't modeled on our own.

Aw crap, Frank posted another comment, but it was so stupid it made me click "Delete" instead of "Approve". I guess the Billy Madison quote was accurate.

Sorry about that Frank. You might want to read the Instapundit link above before commenting again, or if you're pressed for time, go here for Glenn's favorite anti-revisionist, anti-stupid post. If after reading that, you have any non-stupid questions, you can take a chance on asking them here. I promise to try harder to control my trigger finger next time.

Have a great day!

Oh, and for the record, "Europe" is this place across the Atlantic where we sent 68 US Army divisions to liberate oppressed people from an evil dictator and build democracy - at a cost in men a hundred times greater than the casualties so far suffered in Iraq. Unlike you, Sandy is keeping up with the conversation so well that she can develop an original thought.

Please check out my latest posts, one done for the Nov. 4th anniversary of the declaration of Jihad by the Ayatollah Khomeni (remember him? Funny hat, burning eyes?)

Europe is paying the price of appeasement. The 'flypaper theory' looks better than ever to me!

Well, I guess so much for free speech around here. Just like a Repub: When the truth comes out, you run for cover, or hit delete. Whatever the case may be. I won't leave that easily! I'll still check in every now and then, just to see if anyone on this site starts to make any sense.

Thanks for the push, Frank. I've changed the comment template to include a link to a recent post that describes my thoughts on free speech here, and to clearly include a disclaimer stating our policy for anyone who posts. To summarize:

On several prior occasions, I've pointed out that this website is an expression of my free speech, and that it's a form of expression intended to prevent me from kicking my monitor screen in from excessive aggravation, when I would be so inclined. But while speech is free, webspace isn't, and while the First Amendment allows anyone to do the same thing, it doesn't require me to give anyone else a platform to spread what I believe is their misunderstanding, ignorance, or (in extreme cases) outright lies.

Did the Senator in my example violate my right to "free speech"? Certainly, he did not. Even the most cherished of our democratic (small-"D") principles has its limits. And were it not for your infantile understanding of the Constitution, you'd already know you haven't got a single right to do anything on my website without my expressed permission. That's "the truth" - but even though I've allowed it to "come out", I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize your way back from irrelevancy.

So, am I hiding from you by not giving you free reign to prove you're an idiot? Am I deleting your comments because I'm afraid you'll be persuasive? Well, actually, that's sort of what I'm doing in both cases, but I wouldn't put it quite that way.

"Hiding" implies I'm afraid of you, which I'm not. Most of the time, when I delete a comment, I'm just too exhausted by liberal stupidity, and too lazy to spend any of my valuable time responding to the same insane talking points over and over. You don't even listen to yourself, so why should I? But I have to respond, or other weak-minded people like yourself reading the site will interpret my failure to respond as capitulation. And as moronic as that is, the easily manipulated among us will take your trash-talk at face value and declare you the winner, and tell their friends you're right about this or that, even though you haven't really substantively persuaded them in any way.

In any event, please feel free to come back and visit any time you like. But please, for heaven's sake, bring your brain with you when you come.

Well, if I were included in the conversation, I would keep up. So answer the question and stop dodging like a repub from the courtroom. Who said anything about Europe's democracy being modeled after our's? And what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

[Ed.: The time of this post has been changed for the sake of clarity in the conversation.]

(Psst: There's no apostrophe in "ours".)

Okay - just this once, I'll spell it out for you in small words so you can catch up, but after this, you're on your own.

YOU asked a question, and we've been answering YOU.

Frank: Why don't we model their democracy after our own

Ed. (me): (Psst: There's supposed to be a question mark there if you're asking a question.)

Sandy: Why are (the Iraqis) special? Europe's democracy isn't modeled on our own.

Frank: (now-deleted comment: "Who brought up Europe?" yadda, yadda... "Answer the question..." more yadda, yadda...)

Chris: "Europe" is this place across the Atlantic where we sent 68 US Army divisions to liberate oppressed people from an evil dictator and build democracy - at a cost in men a hundred times greater than the casualties so far suffered in Iraq.

Thus, we're in Iraq for the exact same reason we were in Europe in WWII:

Two of our enemies were allied with one another.

One of these enemies killed our citizens in a sneak attack on our own soil.

The other enemy was a brutal dictator hurting our friends and threatening the security of a large portion of the planet.

We took action against the brutal dicator even though he wasn't the start of our involvement in the new war.

We beat the evil dictator and took over his country.

We encouraged the people of the country - sans evil dictator - to form a democratic government based on their own culture and traditions.

The difference lies in the fact that the SS were beaten to a bloody pulp and basically gave up, while Zarqawi continues to murder and terrorize Iraq with the remnants of Saddam's Ba'ath loyalists. Any attempt by cowards like you to tuck tail and run is to waste every American and Iraqi life lost trying to stabilize the country, and deliver her people into the hands of the same thugs we went over there to liberate it from. Our troops know why they're dying, and they're standing there taking it trying to prevent the same pathetic waste of an opportunity that occurred after the Gulf War.

When you act all stupid, and whine and cry about how "It's too costly", "Bush lied", "Why are we there?", and "Bring the troops home" - you're telling THE ENEMY that he just needs to wait just a wee bit longer for us to be more tired of you than we are scared of him. If you want the answer to why it's too costly and why we haven't brought the troops home sooner, look in the mirror.

Could you possibly summon just a little common sense and courage to understand this?

Why do so many serious discussions become interrupted by the vanities of the commenters? Brats!

I continue to ask the same question of those who criticize our foreign policy: where is your resolve to win this war? I ask the question now of those who called for this farcical closed door session.

I also ask, what was said behind closed doors that could have been said in an open session? here in Florida we have "Sunshine Laws" that prohibit law makers from meeting secretly; which is exactly what Tom Daschle's puppet Harry Reid caused to happen.

Well well well Chris,

It has been a while and I find it lucky that by happenchance I stumbled on your site and a time that I (Walter) am mentioned twice....once in a post to Frank and in the policy section of the "post your comment section". If you noted, I never responded. This was out of kindness because I thought to myself "This is a guy that screams at his monitor and threatens to kick it in on many occasions. Maybe the strongest move is to back off and join a real debate instead of making this guy's life Hell simply by using questions, facts, and challenges. My only intention was to foster a debate, not make this guy feel like he is under attack and feel threatened somehow."

Now that you exploit our conversation over and over again, I think it deserves a response. Can't do that and expect me to be silent. So here it goes Buddy:

My Response To This Post:

First things first....nowhere on your site back in AUG did it state that you MUST use TypeKey (which, honestly, I had no idea what that was until today as I revisited your response....and I registered). So my failure to use it was not a sign of disrespect. It needs to be more clear that one SHOULD NOT post a comment unless they have a TypeKey Account. Showcasing your PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS post is probably still misleading. A one sentence statement stating "DO NOT POST W/OUT TYPEKEY". So I offer my apologies. An e-mail to me way back then explaining this difficulty would have been appreciated.

Secondly, I find it astonishing that you have time to post my "see ya later" e-mail, but still refuse to post my actual posts. But, as you said, you are choosing to ignore them. Frank appears to be experiencing this as well. As I said, this is your site. It is your right. So you will find more people saying "Sayonara".

Now what's confusing is that you say that this is not a debating society. Yet Richard creates a post inspired by your post where he is anxiously awaiting a response from Cobra [Ed.: His name is Darrin. - Chris] in order to CONTINUE a debate. So which is it....honestly? A site that reflects opinions/ideas/current events that encourages responses that either compliment the points or foster a debate (which I call exchanging and challenging ideas and platforms -- you call it hand-to-hand combat....why so violent?) or is it a site strictly for your ideas where people can agree and nod 100% of the time -- those who disagree need not reply. Your clarity on this would be much appreciated.

Debate, in my mind, is an exchange of ideas to where opposition may create enlightenment. I am sure Steve remembers our Schiavo conversation.

This is probably my last post on the site. Why? Respect for you and myself. Why soil your site and "cause anyone else grief, too" with my POVs. For myself -- why would I continue to post when you clearly state that my posts and thoughts will be ignored. This seems like the epidamy of wasting one's time. Today, when I saw my name used so much, could not go unposted. Will I continue to "visit" your site. Probably....I did today. I like to educate myself by reading what's on other people's minds...y'know...different POVs. My personal library has right-wing and left-wing books. I gather as much information as possible "in pursuit of happiness" and "in pursuit of a response".

Steve, in regards to your response:

This is an interesting take on pro-choice. I agree with you. Chris has a right to censor and carefully select what goes on HIS site. What I disagree with you is that "they are only words" and I shouldn't be upset that they have been abotrted". I also think that Shakespeare, MLK, those who wrote the accounts of Jesus' life, and those who composed our Constitution would further disagree with you. Does that make me anti-choice then to disagree with you? No. It makes me pro-information....perhaps anti-complacency.

Chris, I know this won't be posted as you have already displayed fear in retoring/responding with people who have opposing ideas (I never used insults or vulgarities....just logic). But, as I said, if you are going to USE me in this site as a policy, then I have a right to respond regarding policy and this site.

I await your response.....

Hiya, Walter.

The word is: epitome. Perhaps you should add a dictionary to that library.

OK Walter... I cannot believe I have to explain this, but you seem not to have picked up on the fact that I was being ironic with my comments. You are absolutely right - aborting the words of Shakespeare, Martin Luther King, Jr., the apostles accounts of Jesus' life (The Gospel), and the authors our Constitution would be wrong, but no less wrong than aborting the lives of the people who spoke or wrote those words - wouldn't you agree? And therein lies the irony! You see, you support politicians and a political philosophy that favor and promote "reproductive rights" - otherwise known as abortion - but you bristle and take exception when your words are aborted and...

Oh, nevermind! I don't think you'll get it even if I spend the time to explain it to you.

Move along Walter, nothing to see here.

Sorry Frank, but we've got several problems with your latest comment.

First off, Walter says I'm not allowed to accept anything that's sent without a TypeKey login, and I'm doing my best to listen to him because he's so much smarter than me. So maybe he can teach you how to figure that out.

Next - and far less important, but a problem all the same - is that you've made a number of assertions without substantiating any of them with links to evidence. I wouldn't want to pass along any unsubstantiated rumors as "truth" - people might think I was lying to them! - so you'll have to provide links to what evidence you have for each of your claims.

Oh, and just to make sure that you're not "cherrypicking the evidence" you want us to see, could you possibly provide links to credible arguments that support an opposing position?

Thanks, Frank. I know you'll be only too happy to do this to avoid misunderstandings, misestimatings (is that a word?), ignorances (can that be plural?), ignants (wow, even Webster's doesn't know that one...), and lies (or as Foxnews [sic] sees it, spin). Enjoy.

What's this TypeKey thing? Do I need it to post comments? I've never needed it before.

Nice to know that YOUR free speech thing is working out just fine. Keep it up, I'm pretty sure you'll be working for O'Rielly within the year at this pace. By the way, I took the time to find out this info on my own. t suggest you do the same instead of having someone tell you from the boob tube. It is also great to know that you are such the perfectionist.

Oh, crap - I'm sorry. It seems my improv has pushed Frank completely off the script. You guys want to take it back a few pages and start over again?