Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: News+Opinion: Jack Hunter

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

Damon,

Jack is only concerned with "liberals", otherwise we have to explain the entire concept of the bounding of the discussion within a traditional framework that holds Stewart, et al, as the outside edges of polite discussion.

(Not counting MHP, who has been the target of Dr. West recently).

(yes, I know this post barely makes sense but I've had a long day)

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by mat catastrophe on February 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

Jack, are you familiar with Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornel West? They are both leftists who speak out against President Obama and this issue of the drones, as well as Melissa Perry of MSNBC and Bob (BA) Avakian of the ultra-extreme leftist Revolutionary Communist Party of America.

1 of 2 people like this.
Posted by Damon Fordham on February 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

"@P&F - Put down the crack pipe. Only a fool, idiot, or another progressive would think progressives have been right on everything. More like wrong on everything. As usual, those on the left can not distinguish between ideals and policies. Nearly everyone on the left and right have the same ideals, minus a few obvious social issues. It's not typically a question of ideals, but the policy path to achieve said desired ideal. From a policy perspective, progressives and the left are almost always wrong and history has proven that. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Benjamin Carson ave been excellent communicators of this.

Great article, Jack, as always. Stewart, unlike most liberal mouth pieces, does have ethics and is not afraid to openly discuss and defend his views. He has been one of the few on the left to engage people on the right in open forums. His debates with Bill O'Reilly are a perfect example of his willingness to have a public dialog.

People on both sides are hypocrites, but the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty from the left under Clinton, and now even more so under Obama, dwarfs the sins of the right."

See if you can find BOTH instances where Ned directly contradicts himself in this post.

First prize is a chance to appear in the video for my kickstarter project to raise money to make a better video for my other kickstarter project (which is either going to be a book or an artisanal SEO company).

2 of 4 people like this.
Posted by mat catastrophe on February 21, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

The most heinous example of this inhumanity was during Obama's State of the Union Address when he droned on and on and on...

3 of 5 people like this.
Posted by And if elected... on February 20, 2013 at 11:59 PM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

@P&F - Put down the crack pipe. Only a fool, idiot, or another progressive would think progressives have been right on everything. More like wrong on everything. As usual, those on the left can not distinguish between ideals and policies. Nearly everyone on the left and right have the same ideals, minus a few obvious social issues. It's not typically a question of ideals, but the policy path to achieve said desired ideal. From a policy perspective, progressives and the left are almost always wrong and history has proven that. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Benjamin Carson ave been excellent communicators of this.

Great article, Jack, as always. Stewart, unlike most liberal mouth pieces, does have ethics and is not afraid to openly discuss and defend his views. He has been one of the few on the left to engage people on the right in open forums. His debates with Bill O'Reilly are a perfect example of his willingness to have a public dialog.

People on both sides are hypocrites, but the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty from the left under Clinton, and now even more so under Obama, dwarfs the sins of the right.

2 of 8 people like this.
Posted by Ned Hill on February 20, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

As Larry outlines, there are plenty who have spoken out against the drone strikes. They are called progressives, automatically categorized as loons by liberals and conservatives, in spite of the fact that they have been on the right side of every important public policy issue since the 1950s. It's just taken the rest of the country 20 years to catch up to them, in most cases. Unfortunately, waging illegal wars and military maneuvers cannot be undone, so there is no catching up here, just regret.

4 of 5 people like this.
Posted by P&F on February 20, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

fact checking is not the strong suit of rubber stamps of the left or right.... Jack Hunter may spend much of his column space upon Jon Stewart as a prepared interviewer, book reader and "voice" of some progressives, but it is just plain stupid to pretend talking heads like Maddow or Hayes or Stewart are lone voices.... Veterans For Peace voted over 2 years ago to impeach our President for war crimes, and drones are committing war crimes ADMITTEDLY by the CIA with body counts exceeding 52 people INNOCENT PEOPLE for every single targeted murder of alleged terrorist "threats" ..... next time ask an informed citizen, a Veteran For Peace, a Green Party Leader for the facts why Jill Stein was the best choice for President last year.... but of course the DUOPOLISTS only pretend there are 2 parties WHEN Republocrats & Rethuglicans are joined at the hip of NEVER CUTTING MILITARY SPENDING OR NEVER SAYING NO TO CIA murders of people from Mossadeq to Allende to Grenada to Libya to Baghdad to Pakistan to Africa to Yemen to the Phillipines to Indonesia where all the killings illegally are continuing 843-926-1750 @LarryAccomplish PEACE CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS who will vote to impeach Obusha next May

4 of 5 people like this.
Posted by AmericanAtheistFORMERClinicEscort on February 20, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

Thanks for the info, Chris.

2 of 3 people like this.
Posted by Paulius on February 20, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

Paulius,

Jack's hed and sub as submitted to me were:

Stewart Strikes Obama
The President's drone assassination of American citizens has at least one liberal critic in Jon Stewart

3 of 3 people like this.
Posted by chrishaire on February 20, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

Rick, I'm not sure the author is responsible for the title which implies there's only one. His website has this column under "Jon Stewart Strikes Obama on Drones." It may be the editors' call what's written at the top of the page. Mat, maybe you can tell us?

Anyway, it says "prominent." I'd say Stewart fits that description. But outside of MSNBC viewers, I doubt many people would know who Maddow and Hayes are.

5 of 6 people like this.
Posted by Paulius on February 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

Liberals in general are silent on war measures under Obama just like the Teahadists were silent on deficits, debt and government spending under W. We're all fucked up. Let's move on.

10 of 12 people like this.
Posted by Ron Liberte on February 20, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

Where are the massive protests in the streets and the massive uproar from both chambers of Congress that we had during the Bush years? Its remarkably quiet in the anti-war circles now that the bulk of the left has just shut their mouths and sat on their thumbs.

9 of 12 people like this.
Posted by Charlie Vick on February 20, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Re: “At least one prominent liberal opposes the president's drone strikes

There are plenty of liberals questioning this practice. You obviously don't watch Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes among others.

7 of 11 people like this.
Posted by RickS. on February 20, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Re: “Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons bill is a sign of things to come

Here ya go, Fish.

http://us.cnn.com/2013/02/06/justice/dc-fa…

When Tony Perkins talks about the SPLC, he sounds just like you talking about Jack. And, he's just as wrong.

Posted by Paulius on February 6, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Re: “Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons bill is a sign of things to come

No, but you could clarify your definition of violence.

Posted by Paulius on February 6, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Re: “Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons bill is a sign of things to come

I agree that it wasn't the work of one person, but every movement needs a figurehead I guess. David Halberstam's The Children is an excellent book about the heroics of people like James Lawson and the kids from Nashville. I came away with tremendous respect for people like John Lewis who endured the the violence of the Freedom Rides and Bloody Sunday, the march to Selma. His courage, bravery and commitment to peaceful protesting still make me weep. He was here in Charleston last month and unfortunately I was unable to see him speak.

Paulius, must I explain to you the meaning of the word war?

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Fish Pimp on February 6, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Re: “Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons bill is a sign of things to come

"It was not self defense or the threat of self defense that brought about a change in the culture of the 1960s."

It was also not the work of just one person, yet our culture deifies the individual over the collective, so that's what we're taught in schools and why we have holidays.

So, there's equality inside a broken system. Hmm. That sounds familiar. I think I read that somewhere else this morning.....

Posted by mat catastrophe on February 6, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Re: “Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons bill is a sign of things to come

Oh. So, writing a column that says you can't be too extreme when defending your rights is support for violence, but actually ordering drone strikes that blow people up at weddings isn't? And I'm the one that needs word meanings explained? Hmm. I know what these two words mean: twisted logic.

2 of 2 people like this.
Posted by Paulius on February 6, 2013 at 3:58 AM

Re: “Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons bill is a sign of things to come

Paulius, I'm done trying to explain the meaning of words to you.

Mat, re Stalin, Paulius made a weak attempt to tie you to support for Stalin's policies and facetiously called for you to repudiate them. It was a poor attempt at analogy by him and a poor attempt at humor by me.

As far as Malcolm, I think we're on the same page, however I don't happen to agree with him, and believe history proved him wrong. It was not self defense or the threat of self defense that brought about a change in the culture of the 1960s.

Yes, I believe it is our collective responsibility to make sure we do nothing to encourage or legitimize the most fanatical fringes of society who have always been prone toward over-reaction. Unfortunately, some still feel that it serves their political goals to set loose the dogs.

Re Obama's bombing of civilians, that has been a part of warfare for a long time. Dresden and Hiroshima are the classic modern examples of indiscriminate bombing. I find it difficult to categorize drone attacks as support for violence. It's simply war until 2014.

Posted by Fish Pimp on February 6, 2013 at 12:51 AM

Re: “Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons bill is a sign of things to come

Well, you could have actually posted the next bit from the wikidiki:

"We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."

This is not necessarily a call to violence but it still fits within Malcolm's worldview (at that time) that meeting violence with non-violence was, on the whole, counter-productive.

Most of that, though, was made moot following his break with the NOI and his Hajj. When he returned to the States, he was most definitely changed by his experience overseas and expressed interest in meeting with MLK.

Funny, they both died soon after that, didn't they?

I don't know what you're getting at with Stalin, though.

Now, the funny part is that if we take Malcolm's words above and incorrectly attribute them to Patrick Henry or some other Founding Firebrand, then everyone would stand up and applaud and say, "America, Fuck Yea" and that would be the end of it.

The trick is, and this is something that I think you're trying to get to, that now - over 200 years into our collective history as a nation, we've got to get past not just the violent rhetoric of our past, but also of our present.

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by mat catastrophe on February 5, 2013 at 11:06 PM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2017, Charleston City Paper   RSS