Jay Maynard (jmaynard) wrote,
Jay Maynard
jmaynard

  • Mood:

More leftist drivel

Since I can't comment on wbwolf's LJ directly...

First off, he says that, commenting on a Canadian government official calling President Bush a "moron":

I feel its like someone finally said what much of the world feels like dealing with our Little Tin God in Chief. Having said that, I find it reprehensible that any media outlets would seize upon this incident as a chance to berate Canada. Yes, the US should care, but not as a opprotunity to defame Canada, but as a wake up call that we are too inwardly focused and we must take into account other countries.

To that, I politely reply "bullshit!". Since when does Canada get to tell us who to elect or how we should look at the person once elected? He's not Canada's president, nor did he try to become such. wbwolf's comment is nothing more than the bleating of a leftist unhappy that the country has repudiated his views. If Canada thinks president Bush is a moron, then it's acceptable for us to take them to task for it.

He then went on, in a bit of HTML misformatting (the source code is horrible, but that's probably his client, not his own doing), to say:

The second promo is for a show that poses the following query: [Terrorism: Mission Impossible?]. The short answer is yes. Ever since President Bush has launched this fool's errand of "eliminating terrorism" in the wake of 9/11, I felt like it was similar to communism: good idea in theory, but impossible to impliment. Terrorism will always be with us. Whereever there is a small group that is suffering a real or imagined injustice, they will resort to violence to get point across.

Perhaps they will. Whenever they do, however, it falls to us to find the culprits and deal with them harshly. If we do that enough times, and harshly enough, those who feel that violence is the only way to call the world's attention to their problems will learn that it's always counterproductive.

Furthermore, even if we get rid of Al Qaida, there will be other terrorist groups elsewhere in the world. Are we then going to hunt all of those groups down? I thought the goal of the post Cold War military was not become police man to the world.

It appears that nobody else is willing to do the job. Someone must; if that someone winds up being the US, so be it. I'd much rather be policeman to the world than have more World Trade Center-scale attacks happen.

Finally a comment from CNN's Final Edition: "Until conservatives have a way of dealing with SUVs, then they will not serious deal with Saudi Arabia." The whole conversation stemmed from evidence that some of the hijackers received money from the Saudi governement. As noted, it is our country's reliance on oil, especially from the Middle East, that is keeping us in an increasingly awkward alliance with Saudi Arabia. We should be encouraging oil conservation and alternate energy sources, but given Bush and Cheney's ties to the oil industry, I serious doubt this will happen any time soon. On a related notes, I am heartened to see that Toyota is starting to lease fuel cell vehicals to the Japanese and California governments.

Finally, the standard leftist eco-drivel. Whenever they want to bash conservatives, they throw in a gratuitous anti-SUV insult. The simple fact of the matter is that, when they call for "conservation", they really mean "deprivation". It is impossible to provide a safe vehicle that has the carrying capacity of an SUV or a minivan and gets 40 MPG or better, as I've heard some eco-extremists claim - or at least to do so under $50,000. Alternative fuels don't provide the simple basics of a safe, driveable car: DaimlerChrysler has announced fuel-cell vehicles to be introduced next year. Sounds good, right? Yeah, until you find out that it has a total range of 90 miles between fillups and a pathetic 0-60 acceleration time of 16 seconds. That car would be swatted flat on a Houston freeway. That's not alternative transportation, unless you're looking for a way to get to the morgue.

The simple reason that we're so dependent on oil is that there's no better alternative. Anyone who can come up with one - as long as it provides comparable vehicle performance at the same price - will become rich. Until then, we need to admit that we're stuck on oil, and the only way to lower our dependence on foreign oil is to develop domestic sources. There are plenty of those, but the eco-extremists won't let us have those. They've gotten away with it so far, but we should come to our senses and tell them that we no longer have the luxury of ignoring our own natural resources.
Subscribe

  • Someone should print this poster

    In case you can't read it, it says: VINDICATION: When the loudest critic of your policies achieves his greatest success because of them. (hat…

  • Took him long enough...

    So, President Obama finally released his birth certificate. Now we can put the matter to rest. Personally, I've always thought that whether he was…

  • Fun fact for the day

    1337% of pi is 42.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 6 comments