The Antiplanner

On This Historic Occasion

21st January 2009

On This Historic Occasion

posted in News commentary |

Yesterday was memorable for many reasons. Obviously, having the nation’s first non-white president gives hope and inspiration to many people for whom the American dream had previously only been a slogan.

Never before in American history — maybe all of history — have almost two million people — come together to listen to a speech. (I love the headline: “Inauguration Crowd Estimated At Up To 2 Million; No Arrests Reported Yet.”)

Never before has Washington Metrorail carried more than a million passenger trips in one day. If it carried that many everyday, it still would not have been worth the cost. Of course, they had to close the escalators at some of the popular stations because their trains can’t move people out as fast as the escalators can move them in. Trains that can move more people than an eight-lane freeway are somehow swamped by an escalator?

Most of these people would have been happy no matter what Obama said. Not to rain on anyone’s parade, however, but the Antiplanner was a little disappointed by President Obama’s inaugural speech. He said in advance that he was going to read President Lincoln’s second inaugural speech for inspiration: “With malice toward none, with charity for all.” But it sounded to me more like he was channeling Teddy Roosevelt, one of the most bellicose presidents in our history.

“We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.” Brave words for someone taking the reigns of a country whose economy is on the rocks, partly because it is hemorrhaging money in Iraq, and who has committed to escalating a war in Afghanistan that some say is unwinnable.

I was hoping for just a little better, perhaps an faint acknowledgment that some of the terrorists’ grievances were legitimate even if their methods were wrong. But maybe that is too much to expect even in America — during the election campaign, only Ron Paul and Mike Gravel were willing to extend that olive branch, and they were treated as kooks.

But then Obama said, “To all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.”

What if they don’t want to be led? Residents of France, Germany, Britain, Japan, and other democracies don’t regard the United States as their leader and never did. They may want to be our partners; they would never admit to wanting to be our followers. Why couldn’t he say, “We are ready to be your partners once more”?

His statements on the economy also seemed more attuned to what voters, at least Democratic voters, want to hear than what makes sense.

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.” Does he actually think he can find a program that doesn’t have defenders who will claim that it “works”?

“Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. . . . The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart.” But the real question is not whether markets are perfect, but whether government interference in the market will extend opportunity to more people or less.

Supposedly, Obama is a centrist. What does that mean? He sounds like a leftist on the economy, but he is almost a neocon on foreign affairs. He promises to get out of Iraq, but is he going to end the war on drugs? Is he going to urge Congress to repeal the Patriot Act?

Finally, I just have to point out an error in his second paragraph: “Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.” Obama is the 44th president, but Grover Cleveland was our 22nd and our 24th president. That means only 43 Americans have taken the presidential oath. A very minor point but someone who claims to be steeped in presidential history — or one of his aids — should have caught it.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under News commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 43 responses to “On This Historic Occasion”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On January 21st, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    Though I am certain that Highwayman [sic] noticed President Obama’s comments on transportation in his inaugural speech:

    roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together

    and that there was not even one mention of light rail transit or new intercity passenger rail lines.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 5:30 am

  2. 2 On January 21st, 2009, Frank said:

    but is he going to end the war on drugs?

    Not with Biden as his choice for VP. Is this a misprint?

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 6:09 am

  3. 3 On January 21st, 2009, bennett said:

    “But the real question is not whether markets are perfect, but whether government interference in the market will extend opportunity to more people or less.”

    I would argue that the question is, to what extent does government interference in the markets extend opportunity to people? There are some round here that would say that government intervention is always going to restrict opportunity. Often it does. But every now and the government intervention is needed for keeping the sleaze bag robber barons from robbing us all. There are other ways that I feel government intervention in markets is necessary and helpful in extending opportunity but I don’t really feel like fighting the libertarians today.

    Glad to see that the O’Toole’s critical eye is always focused. The Grover Cleveland slip up was a good catch no mater how dorky.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 6:17 am

  4. 4 On January 21st, 2009, D4P said:

    Does “ending the war on drugs” include repealing drunk driving laws?

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 6:26 am

  5. 5 On January 21st, 2009, Dan said:

    Or no prescriptions for hillbilly heroin (cough Sarah Palins family cough).

    DS

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 6:41 am

  6. 6 On January 21st, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    D4P asked:

    Does “ending the war on drugs” include repealing drunk driving laws?

    I have not been especially enthused about the so-called War on Drugs, which has proven to be about as effective as the effort to force users of the U.S. transportation system to switch from private motor vehicles to mass transit running on steel rails (even though I have never used illegal drugs).

    Interestingly, both of these started to consume large amounts of federal tax dollars in the 1970′s.

    To answer your question above, the War on Drugs and laws against drunk/drugged/impaired driving are (IMO) entirely different matters. As I see it, if adults want to use mind-altering drugs (including alcohol, marihuana, nicotine, cocaine and others) in the privacy of their own homes, that is fine by me.

    But if persons using those substances venture out onto the public highway system (or onto mass transit) under the influence of these drugs (at the controls of a motor vehicle or on a bike or on foot), then they present a clear and present danger to others (and to themselves), and that should continue be illegal and subject to criminal sanction, regardless of what is done with funding of the War on Drugs.

    Note that I also am of the opinion that the legal age for alcohol should be reduced to 18 again. If a person can purchase firearms or purchase tobacco or sign a contract or serve in the U.S. military, then they should be able to purchase alcoholic beverages.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 6:45 am

  7. 7 On January 21st, 2009, D4P said:

    You seem to be arguing that people should have the right to use drugs up until the point that their use begins to affect other people (negatively), at which point society may be justified in curtailing their use.

    Some would apply the same rationale to land use.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 6:51 am

  8. 8 On January 21st, 2009, Dan said:

    Some would apply the same rationale to land use.

    No.

    Most do, evidenced by the resounding defeats of all the anti-zoning…er…Private Property Rights initiatives that were tried at the state level. After they failed at the federal level.

    DS

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 8:23 am

  9. 9 On January 21st, 2009, Hugh Jardonn said:

    Randal, you need to stick to domestic policy. You criticize Obama for saying “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

    That’s Obama’s best line. But you write “I was hoping for just a little better, perhaps an faint acknowledgment that some of the terrorists’ grievances were legitimate even if their methods were wrong.”

    Sorry, but the terrorists have no legitimate grievances, just a warped ideology that calls for westerners to be exterminated. 9/11 should have erased all doubts, but people have forgotten. Terrorists deserve to die.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 9:23 am

  10. 10 On January 21st, 2009, t g said:

    Randal,

    Legitimate grievances? What post-modern school of cultural relativism are you going to these days? Their grievance is our existence.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 9:43 am

  11. 11 On January 21st, 2009, prk166 said:

    “I would argue that the question is, to what extent does government interference in the markets extend opportunity to people? There are some round here that would say that government intervention is always going to restrict opportunity.”

    Thanks to the politicians wanting to extend opportunity in the housing market, it’s blew up and burst. It’s not only about restricting opportunity but about the issues that occur when an institution as large and powerful makes a unilateral decision that something will happen such as home ownership rates. The sword cuts both ways.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am

  12. 12 On January 21st, 2009, ws said:

    ROT:“Never before has Washington Metrorail carried more than a million passenger trips in one day. If it carried that many everyday, it still would not have been worth the cost.”…”Trains that can move more people than an eight-lane freeway are somehow swamped by an escalator?”

    So the millions of people would have gotten to the inauguration just fine with cars and buses? There would *never* be any backups on the on/off ramps of the highways, now would there? (Not to mention the fact that almost every major highway coming into the area experienced incredible delays, and that officials were asking people to rely on transit only).

    I actually predicted that you were going to make a negative article about this today. Metrorail moved almost 1 million people over a 100 mile subway network. How many miles would it take to move that many people with cars? Did everything go as planned? No, but considering just how many people there were, it was very impressive what occurred.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 10:40 am

  13. 13 On January 21st, 2009, Francis King said:

    Antiplanner wrote:

    “Trains that can move more people than an eight-lane freeway are somehow swamped by an escalator?”

    Quite probably. The escalators are moving people all of the time, whereas the trains turn up infrequently.

    Antiplanner wrote:

    “What if they don’t want to be led? Residents of France, Germany, Britain, Japan, and other democracies don’t regard the United States as their leader and never did. They may want to be our partners; they would never admit to wanting to be our followers. Why couldn’t he say, “We are ready to be your partners once more”?”

    I agree. I’m a British citizen, and don’t want a foreign president, no matter how wise or well-intentioned, ordering me around. That’s one of the things that the previous president did, that annoyed people all around the world.

    Hugh Jardonn wrote:

    “Sorry, but the terrorists have no legitimate grievances, just a warped ideology that calls for westerners to be exterminated. 9/11 should have erased all doubts, but people have forgotten. Terrorists deserve to die.”

    Antiplanner is right on this one. Terrorist organisations come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them have clearly legitimate gripes, and people only notice that they are treading on others when the others start behaving in a violent way.

    A good example is piracy off the coast of Somalia. Whilst Somalia was in chaos, foreign fishermen helped themselves to the fish in Somalian territorial waters. There were also accounts of illegal dumping in these waters. We see the Somalian pirates as criminals, but they have a different take on who the criminals are, and are now (as they see it) rebalancing things a bit. As with terrorism in general, there is no military solution here.

    I grew up with the Provisional IRA. The violence of their campaign polarised the political situation. Only after the violence stopped did people start to reassess the grievances on all sides. The UK government did not come out of that assessment smelling of roses.

    No one deserves to die. If we become free and easy at taking human life, how do we then distinguish ourselves from Al Qaeda?

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  14. 14 On January 21st, 2009, Frank said:

    Hugh Jardonn wrote:

    “Sorry, but the terrorists have no legitimate grievances, just a warped ideology that calls for westerners to be exterminated. 9/11 should have erased all doubts, but people have forgotten. Terrorists deserve to die.”

    We created the situation. The Saudis who flew the airliners into the WTC were highly trained, possibly even by the CIA. We have been meddling in the Middle East for almost a century, and heavily since WWII. We backed the mujahideen in Afghanistan, supplying them with money and arms to fight the Soviets, and training a new generation of terrorists. We supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Our empire has bases in Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Bahrain, Qatar, thousands of military personnel afloat of the shores of these sovereign nations.

    Could you imagine the outrage if any or all of these nations had military personnel or bases on American soil? I think these nations and their peoples have some serious and legitimate grievances against the American government. And Obama should have addressed that and our failing empire.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm

  15. 15 On January 21st, 2009, Owen McShane said:

    “…..and we are ready to lead once more”.
    That line made me sit up too, and I am sure he lost many friends with that unfortunate turn of phrase.
    I am surprised that one of his diplomatic core didn’t pick it up in the draft.

    This kind of statement just confirms many foreigners’ greatest discomforts with America.
    As a member of the Great Anglo-American tradition I and many of my friends and colleagues recognise and admire the “idea of America” while recognising that America is as much an “idea” as a place or nation, in many people’s minds.

    We are happy to be led by the “idea of America” but as soon as this notion is expressed as being led by the the American Government or led by its President, our hackles understandably rise.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 2:05 pm

  16. 16 On January 21st, 2009, Dan said:

    That line made me sit up too, and I am sure he lost many friends with that unfortunate turn of phrase.

    I’m not so sure.

    First, this was rallying the country, as most of us know we lost our way with this last crew and their BS ideology.

    Second, the US leads in many ways, not just arms sales and covert raids into sovereign nations, and many other countries want to have our might behind their ideas – be it economic, military, ideology.

    But I agree that this Imperialistic turn as “leading” is not the way to go. Hopefully the new crew will right the ship and change course.

    DS

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 2:10 pm

  17. 17 On January 21st, 2009, Hugh Jardonn said:

    Sounds like Frank is into blaming the victim. Are you one of those “truthers?” There’s no defense for people who like to blow up innocent civilian noncombatents here, in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East. Don’t justify it on the grounds that they hate the US government because al jazeera told them to.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 3:51 pm

  18. 18 On January 21st, 2009, Scott said:

    Regarding interference in the economy:

    Limited government still involves protection, our republic’s basic purpose.

    That includes fraudulence & misrepresentation not being tolerated. People & businesses should be fined, jailed or executed for hurting (financial or physical) others.

    Bush & Congress, as well as states & localities, increased government scope, interference & force. We only have more coercion & bigger government to look forward to through the socialistic B.O. However, he wants to give more freedom to our enemies. Club Gitmo has a lot more comfort & safety than these combatants’ home countries. Iran will probably go nuclear under the new unqualified administration.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  19. 19 On January 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:

    C. P. Zilliacus Says:
    Though I am certain that Highwayman noticed President Obama’s comments on transportation in his inaugural speech:

    roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together

    and that there was not even one mention of light rail transit or new intercity passenger rail lines.

    THWM: Actions will speak louder than words, though for that matter fighting the status quo has been never easy.

    Roads are pretty much viewed as sacrosanct, even by the extreme political left. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Marx-Allee

    Also I’m not against roads, I’m just for inclusive transportation policy.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 5:44 pm

  20. 20 On January 21st, 2009, Owen McShane said:

    Earlier this year the Centre recommended Robert Higgs paper “Regime Uncertainty” which emphasised that while any Government’s natural response to a crisis is “to do something” the necessary ingredient for ending a recession or depression is to remove all possible obstacles to private investment.
    This was an important message then and is even more important now.
    We should ask every politician, on waking in the morning, to ask not “What can I do for my country?” but to ask “What can I UNDO for my country?”

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 7:40 pm

  21. 21 On January 21st, 2009, Scott said:

    Rail? Why is that significant with less than 1% of all passenger miles?

    That’s not a Federal function anyway, except for Amtrak.
    BTW, Federal gas taxes are paid via the states & returned to them, although at different proportions.

    Public transit, in general, has about a 30% farebox recovery.
    Roads are paid for with about 60% user fees & could easily be 100% with about $0.30 tax per gallon more. Regardless of the 40% funding from general taxes, it’s kind of irrelevant when about 80% of people drive, & the other still benefit from roads. Actually, most of the 20% who don’t drive, pay very little in taxes.

    When public transit is used by less than 5% of the population, yet paid for mostly by general taxes… ???

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 9:53 pm

  22. 22 On January 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Scott Says:
    Roads are paid for with about 60% user fees & could easily be 100% with about $0.30 tax per gallon more. Regardless of the 40% funding from general taxes, it’s kind of irrelevant when about 80% of people drive, & the other still benefit from roads. Actually, most of the 20% who don’t drive, pay very little in taxes.

    THWM: That’s an apples to oranges comparison.

    Automobiles need roads, but roads don’t need automobiles to exist.

    posted on January 21st, 2009 at 11:46 pm

  23. 23 On January 22nd, 2009, Dan said:

    Scott 18:

    The atmosphere of fear was shown the door. let go of your reflexive thought process.

    HTH.

    DS

    posted on January 22nd, 2009 at 8:49 am

  24. 24 On January 22nd, 2009, Owen McShane said:

    This is good stuff from Richard Epstein – A toxic mix of regulation and subsidy.
    He writes:
    “One telling sign is the Obama program does not contain a single proposal to deregulate any area of health, education, real estate or labor, which would signal stability to potential investors at home and abroad. Instead there are scores of dubious gimmicks and subsidies in service of some national industrial policy that is likely to entrench the worst features of a command and control economy.”

    http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/24/obama-economy-regulation-oped cx_rae_1124epstein.html

    posted on January 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm

  25. 25 On January 22nd, 2009, Scott said:

    highwayman: “That’s an apples to oranges comparison. Automobiles need roads, but roads don’t need automobiles to exist.”

    Mutually exclusive, non-comparable, how so?

    What’s your point? That’s pretty meaningless.
    Buses need roads. Trains need rail tracks. So what?

    Dan: ~”Get rid of fear & reflexivity.” Sounds like nonsense, pretending to be intellectual. Please elaborate.

    You guys seem to want to disagree but have no valid points or logic to make any substantial counter.

    posted on January 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  26. 26 On January 22nd, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Scott Says:
    highwayman: “That’s an apples to oranges comparison. Automobiles need roads, but roads don’t need automobiles to exist.”

    Mutually exclusive, non-comparable, how so?

    THWM: It’s not a technological question, it’s a political one.

    posted on January 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm

  27. 27 On January 22nd, 2009, Dan said:

    Soshulizm. Fraydum fer th’ enemy. Club Gitmo. Unqualified administration.

    Scott, this isn’t ClownHall or a FReeper board, where fear and reflexive bed-wetting while uttering old, moribund political talking points rule the day.

    DS

    posted on January 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 pm

  28. 28 On January 23rd, 2009, Scott said:

    Dan:

    I have never heard of those 2 web sites. Of 8 words that you attribute to me, I only typed 2. Maybe you’re reading nearby posts & thinking I typed it.

    As for fear & reflexiveness, I don’t know what you’re referring to. In fact I even called out somebody else to explain themselves when using the same words, rather than blabbering nonsense.

    So, Dan, if you have anything objective to say, please feel free, otherwise, using name-calling & twisting items is unproductive & doesn’t carry any meaning.

    I can’t even tell if you disagree with points that I’ve made. You really have no content. However it seems that you do disagree, so I have to assume that you don’t mind government coercion & intrusion. You want to pay more taxes or take the immoral route & make others pay taxes for you.

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 am

  29. 29 On January 23rd, 2009, Dan said:

    My objective thing to say is your puerile rhetoric doesn’t work with me. Objectively, I objected to your simplistic talking points, especially the socialism and the unqualified – these talking points are moldering now and their substrate is practically unrecognizable.

    DS

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 6:44 am

  30. 30 On January 23rd, 2009, Frank said:

    Hugh Jardonn said:

    Sounds like Frank is into blaming the victim.

    I don’t think it’s as black and white as you would paint it. There are no simple cardboard cutouts to be labeled “victim” in this situation. What happened on 9/11 was the result of a long and complex chain of events, events that our government had a role in creating or at least manipulating.

    Are you one of those “truthers?”

    Not sure what you mean by this. I am always seeking factual information.

    There’s no defense for people who like to blow up innocent civilian noncombatents [sic] here, in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East.

    You mean such as the US military and government, which has blown up tens of thousands of innocent civilian noncombatants in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 am

  31. 31 On January 23rd, 2009, Hugh Jardonn said:

    Frank, don’t let your hatred of the US military cloud your thinking. Terrorists brutally kill innocent civilians and play the victim card when we try to fight back. Don’t buy it. The terrorists deserve to die, in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else. Yes, it’s too bad about the civilians who get caught in the crossfire but the blame for that goes to the terrorists who hide amongst the civilians to maximize suffering.

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 am

  32. 32 On January 23rd, 2009, Dan said:

    Hugh,

    there were no terrists in Eye-rack when we satisfied the puerile urges of the Shock and Awe crowd.

    Yes, its too bad about the ~.5M excess deaths caught in that crossfire, and the 1-2 + M refugees. We got the PNAC’s oil, right? Right?

    But back OT. We lost our way. Can we regain it? The rejoicing all over the world is a good sign.

    DS

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 am

  33. 33 On January 23rd, 2009, Hugh Jardonn said:

    No terrorists in Iraq. Right.

    What about the dictator who tortured his own people, who gassed the Kurds? He also was bankrolling Palestinian suicide bombers, you might recall. War for oil? total bullshit. Saddam would have sold us all the oil we wanted.

    As for the rejoicing all over the world, that will fade as Obama learns that it’s lots harder to govern than it is to BS people during a campaign. When he screws up, I’ll be here to say “I told you so.”

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm

  34. 34 On January 23rd, 2009, Scott said:

    Dan, you continue typing with no substance, @29. Names & labels don’t carry weight if you want to make a point.

    If you disagree with ideologies that include freedom, property rights & limited interference, then state your objections directly, rather than dancing around and trying to make broad exaggerations.

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  35. 35 On January 23rd, 2009, Dan said:

    That was 5-10 years before we invaded that sovereign country, Hugh. We were a little late to the party, maybe because we misplaced the bills of sale for the chemicals. But anyways, that’s not our stated reason for invading – it was a post-hoc excuse after BushCo bungled the job.

    The PNAC outlined the war for oil. You should read about it sometime.

    Saddam would have sold us all the oil we wanted.

    I guess we showed him, huh, after the first Gulf War. Hoo-ah!

    When he screws up, I’ll be here to say “I told you so.”

    Excellent. Surely you had lots to say about our former resident, eh?

    DS

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  36. 36 On January 23rd, 2009, Dan said:

    34:

    Please Scott. I disagreed with your cut-pasted talking points of soshulizm and ‘underqualified’. They appeared during the campaign to try to gain advantage, which didn’t work. Move on.

    No need to mischaracterize the topic unless you have no play.

    DS

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  37. 37 On January 23rd, 2009, Scott said:

    Dan, I do not paste any of my ideas. I don’t know what your made up word of “soshulizm” means; I have not used the word “underqualified” either.
    Your use of the terms “talking points & mischaracterize” carries no meaning. Perhaps you are trying to pander to certain people who respond to name-calling & don’t rely on substance.

    Again you have not communicated anything of validity, trying to use certain buzzwords to object to…hell, you’re are not even clear enough to see what you are objecting to.

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 pm

  38. 38 On January 25th, 2009, Frank said:

    The terrorists just struck again, killing 16 civilians in Afghanistan. Those terrorists deserve to die!

    Hugh Jardonn said:

    Frank, don’t let your hatred of the US military cloud your thinking.

    How dare you presume to know my attitude toward the US military? How dare you?

    posted on January 25th, 2009 at 7:41 am

  39. 39 On January 26th, 2009, Hugh Jardonn said:

    Frank wrote: “How dare you presume to know my attitude toward the US military? How dare you?”

    I can only surmise your attitude from the trash you’ve posted on this thread.

    posted on January 26th, 2009 at 9:13 am

  40. 40 On January 26th, 2009, Dan said:

    I have not used the word “underqualified” either.

    Oops – my bad it was unqualified .

    Nonetheless, step up your game, son.

    DS

    posted on January 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  41. 41 On January 26th, 2009, Frank said:

    Hugh, you’ve offered nothing but empty neo-conservative rhetoric and personal attacks. You sanction the state killing of civilian populations while condemning the resistance for the very same thing. Valid questions are met with hypocrisy and slurs.

    You, sir, are the one posting “trash”.

    I posted:

    “…[The American government] created the situation. The Saudis who flew the airliners into the WTC were highly trained, possibly even by the CIA. We have been meddling in the Middle East for almost a century, and heavily since WWII. We backed the mujahideen in Afghanistan, supplying them with money and arms to fight the Soviets, and training a new generation of terrorists. We supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Our empire has bases in Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Bahrain, Qatar, thousands of military personnel afloat of the shores of these sovereign nations.

    Unless you care to dispute–by supplying evidence rather than slinging mud–any of the independently verifiable facts in my statement above, I suggest you retract your qualification of my posts here.

    Put up or shut up.

    posted on January 26th, 2009 at 6:10 pm

  42. 42 On February 15th, 2009, Scott said:

    Dan, I just checked to see if you added anything of value. No, never.
    I think my last attempted post didn’t work here.

    You have posted nothing to refute my points, just very juvenile meaningless comebacks with the help of a Thesaurus.

    Try typing something that has content.

    This is similar to your type of “argument”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
    It’s a Monty Python sketch.
    You offer no reasons or justification against my contentions & you don’t even have a position except pretending to disagree.

    posted on February 15th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

  43. 43 On February 28th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    The Antiplanner(sic) blog is a running gag, no body wins!

    posted on February 28th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.