Thanks, but you certainly have the intellectual tools to hold your own in any debate, and you express your intellect very well.

I am aware that I am sometimes more direct and plain-spoken than is easily digested, even by friends. I make no apologies for this, however. More absolutely candid discourse is needed in this country.

The very wide social adoption of concepts like ‘Political Correctness’ and ‘Sensitivity’ are artifacts of successful social engineering by the left. These concepts have no validity, certainly in the left’s own discourse, but are useful tools in the effort to try to control and frame the language of dissent from those of of us who remain un-indoctrinated and free in thought.

Anyone who finds my observations and questions too strong should examine the motives behind the actions that are occurring today in government.

Why have the last 3 financially enormous bills been submitted / completed ‘in the dark of the night’, with House members not even reading the legislation before the vote, despite Obama’s “commitment” to publish all legislation to a public website for a minimum of 5 days of public review before any vote?

Where did all those thousands of pages of bad law come from, virtually overnight? Seriously, we all have to agree that it takes a long time to type up thousands of pages of bad law. I’ve heard many rumors, like the core of the Energy Tax bill came out of Al Gore’s bottom drawer. The same Al Gore, by the way, who stands to become the first ‘GREEN’ billionaire created by the ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ boondogle.

There is never an action executed , absent a reason. There is a group of people who, while opposing Obama’s policies, seems to think that the Alinsky trained Obama is simply incompetent, under-trained, or under-qualified for the job. That is too forgiving. There are motives in play.

Obama is not ignorant on the real issues, nor is he necessarily unqualified to execute the “the agenda” he’s been taught. He may even be a “True Believer”, though I would be surprised to find that he believes in anything other than furthering his own power. Although he may believe he’s in charge, he’s just a tool, being used by people far smarter than he is, to execute long-standing plans to destroy America’s free market democracy.

There have been those who have tried to link Obama to a Muslim background to explain his unapologetic, anti-Israel, pro-Islam stance in the mid east. I believe those folks are wrong, because I think the only thing Tio Obama believes in is Tio Obama.

You Obama supporters need to try to turn your brains on, even though you may be feeling a “tingle up your leg” when you see him on TV. It is, after all, your future at stake.

What should have been done? Seriously. No sarcasm from me. The President was day or two from distributing ballots to conduct and extra-constitutinal election to elect himself to a third term which would have violated the two term limit for President which is stipulated in the Honduran Constitution. The Honduran Congress voted, 100%, that the sudden election (which would’ve ignored the Constitutional Election already scheduled for November) was illegal; the Honduran Attorney General announced he would arrest anyone who proceeded forth in efforts to conduct the extra-Constitutional Election. So I ask for specifics: what should have been done? And John Holmes asks for specifics: what should have been done in the real, actual world situation, and not in a fantasyland situation? And Dan asks: why was Zelaya not arrested for treason and shot? And Some Old Guy asks … um …. are you a tassle loafered Harvard MBA type? But, skip Some Old Guy. Seriously, and not sarcastically: how would you have prevented Zelaya from conducting the coup he was attempting? What should have been done?

If George W. Bush had tried to run for a third term and been denied by 535 members of congress, and then the US Supreme Court, in support of the Constitution, would you have been in favour of his sending out a mob to force an illegal election to give himself the veneer of propriety as he set himself above the law and above the Constitution?

I thought not.

You would be upset, and rightly so, if the would-be dictator was exiled instead of thrown in prison, or shot for treason, and so would I.

You should be so ashamed of yourself.

What has taken place in Honduras is a military coup. No rational person can call it anything else. You would think that it would be a sign of deep mental disturbance (I’m serious, here. I don’t mean this remark as a cheap shot) to construe this sad event as a bold stroke for democracy.

Yet, because the democratically elected leader of Honduras is a left winger, American conservatives are falling all over themselves to find some pathetic, implausible justification to applaud it.

Guys, I’ve read your comments above, and I’ve read the same thing a hundred times, over the last couple of days. Calling a coup democracy in action is a malignant lie, and if you cannot even come that far in rejecting your fantasy world, there is no place for you in civilized discourse.

You should be so ashamed of yourselves.

I have learned the entire Honduran Congress voted 100% to oust Zelaya. Given the rushed circumstances(Zelaya’s people were about to begin illegally distributing election ballots), that’s as good as an impeachment vote, and I don’t see how the Congressional action is illegal.

Brilliant Barack, chess player extraordinaire to the checker players (if not Cro Magnon rock chunkers) who inhabit the rest of the world; Brilliant Barack, a man who breathes deep strategy in his sleep: is too arrogant to overcome his ignorance.

Brilliant Barack is ignorant of history. What he doesn’t know is bad enought. But what he does know that ain’t so is killing us.

Brilliant Barack is ignorant of human nature, and thus doesn’t understand the freedoms and protections which speak to the human soul, and which consequently make America great.

Brilliant Barack was ignorant of the Iraq Surge, and on the wrong side of the Iraqi Surge, long after it was obvious the Surge was a gigantic strategic success. June 30, 2009 Iraq Independence Day would have never happened if a President Obama had been in office in 2007 and 2008. And Barack doesn’t see why that is such a bad thing. He likely believes Iraqis would be just as happy under the thumb of Iran as they are living in freedom. It’s all about food on the table, you see. None of it is about freedom and self-determination.

Brilliant Barack is ignorant of Iran for the same reasons stated above about Iraq. Barack is also ignorant of Iran b/c he is ignorant of human nature and of Islamic fundamentalism. Iran is an area where what Barack “does know that ain’t so” is killing us. In the Asia Times, Spengler describes Barack’s Iran strategy which now lies in tatters:

America also sought Iran’s help in suppressing the Taliban in Afghanistan. In Obama’s imagination, a Sunni Arab coalition – empowered by Washington’s turn against Israel – would encircle Iran and dissuade it from acquiring nuclear weapons, while an entirely separate Shi’ite coalition with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would suppress the radical Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was the worst-designed scheme concocted by a Western strategist since Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery attacked the bridges at Arnhem in 1944, and it has blown up in Obama’s face.
[...]
Offering Iran a seat at the table in exchange for setting a limit to its foreign ambitions – in Lebanon and Gaza as well as Iraq – seemed to make sense on paper. But the entity that calls itself revolutionary Islam is not made of paper, but of flesh and blood. It is in danger of internal collapse and can only assert its authority by expanding its influence as aggressively as it can.

After the election disaster, Iran’s revolutionary leadership urgently needs to demonstrate its credibility.

And now we come to Brilliant Barack’s pronouncement about Honduras: an epically idiotic pronouncement which encapsulates Barack’s lack of understanding of history and of human nature, and spotlights Barack’s lack of intellectual engagement and curiosity, as well as his arrogance in knee-jerking a statement of the U.S.A.’s position before understanding all the facts. Simply. Incredible. Incompetence.

Barack is not ready for prime time. It’s killing the U.S.A. It’s killing the world. Spengler again:

Obama’s continuing obsession with America’s supposed misdeeds – deplorable but necessary actions in time of war – is consistent with his determination to erode America’s influence in the most troubled parts of the world. By removing America as a referee, he will provoke more violence than the United States ever did. We are entering a very, very dangerous period as a result.

That’s about right. The world is a serious place, and the U.S. has a child behind the wheel of the vehicle. The world has depended on the U.S. to make some hard decisions and some corrections in direction and course, i.e. to keep world matters moving along in a sane fashion. Barack is abdicating that role. Danger, Will Robinson.

The only mistake the legitimate Honduran legislature, military, and courts have made is not immediately arresting and charging this clown with Treason, and all the other violations he has perpetrated on the Honduran Constitution. By accepting the easy road of expulsion from their country over the time and fund consuming effort of impeachment and trial for his indiscretions.

I say open the door for him, Chavez, Ortega, Hillary and any other of his cronies to walk onto to Honduran soil and arrest all of them for attempting to overthrow the legitimate constitution of Honduras. If Zelaya isn’t happy being a house boy for Chavez, Ortega or Castro, let him enjoy a life in a Honduran jail.

I’ll state whatever the hell I like. If I misrepresent the “Left” or whomever, please feel free to correct me …

Also, yea, I hope we can agree on Honduras if the facts above end up as true. The only other thing me and Macswain agreed upon was the Music Industry post.

Then, of course, in addition to the hair-raising monetary policy (Obama’s policies, not Bush’s) there are the other 10 or 15 mind boggling things afoot. By design, so many things, so fast, we don’t have time to digest one before the next is rammed down our throat. And these things, necessarily, interconnect. But we can’t see the grand plan because these people do not want us to see it. They are playing the cards close to the vest, I believe, because the vast majority of Americans would not support their vision.

An example of this opaque interconnectivity is the provision in H.R. 2454 (Energy Tax) for the creation of “Green Banking Centers” (without any detail) coupled with the strengthening of the power of the Federal Reserve coupled with bullying banks to take TARP money and refusing to accept repayment to the obvious end of nationalizing and controlling the industry. What is the grand plan here? It smells like cronyism on a grand scale is brewing. I believe in a few years, bankers will have either toed the Green line and joined the Holy Eco Church, or they will have been shut down by Tio Obama.

The examples just go on and on and on. Talk to the police and teachers in Indiana who lost their retirements to Obama’s union cronies in the Chrysler nationalization and subsequent US Treasury illegal financial raid.

I have no love for these tassel-loafered Harvard MBA morons looting the country either, but the Obama cronies are no better. It’s like being a serf in 16th century Europe. It didn’t matter whether the Church or the King was starving and enslaving them, because starving is starving.

You just go ahead and keep your head in the sand. You will be very surprised when you pull your head out in an AmeriCorps re-education camp in a few years because it’s the only place to get a meal and a bed.

You misinterpret “ad hominem”. Wikipedia:

“Ad hominem … consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”

I was not refusing to address the substance of an argument. I was sharing personal opinion and observation which I cannot prove, and which I never represented as other than speculative.

Your larger point, i.e. if you have never walked in my shoes you don’t know how I feel, is a frequently cited affectation and dodge which is used to shut off conversation and accountability, and to increase drama and attention to the speaker. I have walked in your shoes, b/c I am human.

You have feelings? I am human and I have had feelings. You have extreme feelings? I am human and I have had extreme feelings. What do you feel? Anger? Hatred? Love? Fear? Bitterness? Frustration and confusion? Pain? Grief? I have felt all those, and I have felt them in extremes. If you will describe your feelings, I will understand them. If you will not describe your feelings, then you are reaping some benefit from withholding your feelings. That benefit is a comment about you, and about your circumstance, and is not a comment about me.

And the same dynamic plays out vis a vis reasoning. If you will describe your reasoning, I will understand it (which doesn’t mean you ought to describe your reasoning, but only that I will understand your reasoning if it is skillfully explained).

Even though I cannot prove my speculation about many left persons’ intermingling of self-virtue and self-worth and proper and virtuous and self-evidently correct political ideology, I can explain my reasoning about it.

The mean-spirited part troubles me. I see it again and again: people who loudly proclaim their concern for the downtrodden are the first to stomp on and oppress the downtrodden. Meanwhile, the greedy and uncaring conservatives and Christians which progressives denounce are opening their wallets, their hearts, and their lives to those same downtrodden persons. I don’t have an explanation for it. I have some suspicions, yet they are too speculative to put into a public forum.

The close-minded part which you speak of is self-defense. Many on the left (unconsciously?) believe their political opinions confer virtue upon them. Conversely, I believe my political opinions are just opinions, and my personal virtue and self-worth are an entirely separate issue. My opinions are going to be wrong sometimes, and if I learn of it I am going to change them, and I am not going to feel that I am unvirtuous or unworthy b/c I changed them. OTOH, my virtue and my self worth come from a more sacred place.

It is different for many on the left. Their sense of their own self-worth is tied into their advocacy of virtuous political opinions and ideology. Therefore, when you disagree with their opinions, you are not merely disagreeing with an opinion(as you would be if you disagreed with my opinion). Rather, you are threatening their very concept of themselves as virtuous persons. You are threatening their self image and self-construction of themselves as worthy persons. They are not trying to understand your point of view so much as they are trying to attack that person who they perceive as attacking them.

So, anyway, you touched on some good points.

I am honor bound to restate, however: as facts become clearer, I expect if Macswain and you and I can agree on what is happening in Honduras, then Macswain and you and I will agree on what the U.S. should say about it. This is not an instance where I expect disagreement. This is a case where it is good to examine what are the true facts. Then our opinions will fall harmoniously into place, probably. I have been wrong, so many times, when I thought opinions could fall harmoniously into place between me and some bloggers here. And, in a very few instances, such has occurred. I expect this will be another such instance. We shall see.