The saga of horror novelist Stephen King's disgraceful comments about America's military took an interesting turn Monday when shortly after instructing visitors to his website to send me a message stating "Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree," his own message boards were shut down.
This followed the creation of a number of threads by members that wanted to comment about King's remarks.
The cover-story for shutting down the boards came from the Moderator in a thread entitled "Stephen King Insults Soldiers":
The Board is just about to be shut down for the week for my vacation so this will all be coming to an end for now anyway.
Isn't that convenient, especially since just three hours before, a new member started this thread with the following:
card309vbmenu_register("postmenu_157222", true);
New MemberJoin Date: May 2008Posts: 1Steven King Insults Soldiers
King Quote:
"...the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got, the Army, Iraq"
Ummm... somebody want to tell Steven that studies show recruits are more educated than the equivalent general population?
See this link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...da05-08_t1.gif
On a personal note:
Hey Steven: I'm about to graduate with a Civil engineering degree, and I just enlisted, but hey - since you think I can't read, I guess I won't be reading YOUR books.
Don't disrespect the military. It is US who gives you the freedom to spew your garbage.
Roughly an hour later, the Moderator posted the following:
Steve asked me to post this reply:
"That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so, is beneath contempt. Noel Sheppard says, “Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen.” I guess he feels ignorance and illiteracy are OK when the country needs cannon-fodder. I guess he also feels that the war in Iraq has nationwide approval. Well, it doesn’t have mine. It is a waste of national resources. . . and that includes the youth and blood of the 4,000 American troops who have lost their lives there and for the tens of thousands who have been wounded. I live in a national guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career—military or otherwise. If you agree, find Sheppard on the internet, and send him an email: “Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree.”
Steve"__________________
Last edited by Moderator : 17 Hours Ago at 04:21 PM.
Now, assuming Ms. Mod was indeed going on vacation, and the message boards are closed during such, wouldn't it have been more appropriate for King to wait until she came back BEFORE sending his dogs out to attack me?
Regardless, on a related ironic note, one of the "older" members of King's website started his own thread concerning this subject before the boards were closed. See if you spot something hysterical given the context of King's comments that sparked this entire controversy:
Matticusvbmenu_register("postmenu_157379", true);
MembersJoin Date: Feb 2007Location: Parachute, ColoradoPosts: 545I'm sorry if this thread seems self serving, its really to offer my support.
Even if you don't agree, you must agree with the fact that we all joined the military to preserve the thing that makes a free society unique.
That is the right to speak your mind--have your opinions.
The only thing that angers me about this whole thing is how reactionary people are. Is it a surprise that we can't get along as a country when something like this can be so polarizing? Not to me.
Stephen King has a right to his opinion, just like you do.
Think our country is going to hell in a hand basket? Good for you, I fought for your right to think that.
Think the war in Iraq is wrong? Good for you, I fought for the right for you to say that where ever and however you feel.
Have strong opinions on why people join the military. Good, in this country you can voice them.
Lets stop taking this so personally you guys--we live in a free society and we all want the same thing for it. To preserve it.
So from me to you SK--you go right on saying what you feel, that's what we all fought for.
You really can't make this stuff up.
*****Update: A Stephen King fan e-mailed me the following:
Ms. Mod's vacation has been planned for quite some time now, and the board is routinely shut down on her vacation days and weekends because it is a fully moderated forum, an idea you might consider trying yourself in order to keep some of your readers from spewing forth such senseless drivel. If you'd take the time to check your facts, you would see there is no conspiracy to shut down the board over your little vendetta against Stephen. But, that wouldn't be quite as interesting, would it?
I guess this person conveniently missed this paragraph above:
Now, assuming Ms. Mod was indeed going on vacation, and the message boards are closed during such, wouldn't it have been more appropriate for King to wait until she came back BEFORE sending his dogs out to attack me?
As such, I did make it clear that this vacation might have been the real cause of the boards going down. However, if her pending vacation was known, and it is customary to close down the message boards when she's gone, then King shouldn't have posted a call-to-arms at his website until she returned.
Once again, that would have been the decent thing to do in my opinion.
*****Update II: I received this e-mail moments ago (with permission:
Dear Mr. King,
Since there is no way to contact you directly, I am reduced to emailing your webmaster.
Your comment concerning literacy and the military is one of the most ignorant, misinformed comments I have ever heard about the men in women in uniform. It is those brave soldiers, sailors and airmen who protect the right of people like you to make such idiotic statements.
As a former member of the U. S. Army Special Forces, I also take it as a personal affront. I served shoulder to shoulder with men who could read, write and speak multiple languages. And, that doesn't even take into consideration the technical requirements needed in the modern military.
The average person in the military today is at least as educated as the general public. Most likely they are more educated. Literacy is required by the military. It is not optional.
It is persons like you and the Hollywood elites on the left who are the uninformed and closed minded. But, that's ok. The next time you feel like showing your ignorance to the world be sure to end your statement by thanking those in the military for protecting the Constitution that gives you're the right to make such moronic statements.
Father Dennis O'Brian wrote the following:
It is the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.It is the soldier
who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag.He was a Marine. I would think you would agree he is fairly literate. But I don't hold out hope.
By the way. There was a tragic storm that hit the country of Myanmar. It will be our illiterate military who will respond first, not you or your elitist friends.
*****Update III: A King fan has asked me to post this:
I didn't want to go to the trouble of registering on your site just so I could make a comment, so I thought I would e mail you instead. I think that you have made a mountain out of a molehill regarding Stephen's comments about the troops and the war in Iraq. Clearly he does not support the war, but that does not mean he doesn't support the troops. It is a shame that people such as yourself can't make the distinction between those two things, for they are entirely different matters altogether.Stephen routinely honors autograph requests made by the soldiers and their family members, despite his policy of only doing that for the lucky ones that happen to be at his increasingly infrequent book signings. In addition, he has donated countless books to the troops overseas. And lets not forget the money he has donated so that soldiers on layover at his local airport may use cell phones to call their loved ones. Why haven't you noted any of this in your blog? Is it not flaming or controversial enough? I guess positive comments wouldn't draw as much traffic, would they?Stephen makes a very valid point. While some join the military because they feel the call of duty, or because it is a lifelong dream or family tradition, countless others do it simply because they don't have other options. This corrupt system makes it hard for the less fortunate to further their education through less dangerous paths. But you don't mention that in you blog either.I'm starting to see a pattern here.....Why don't you do the right thing and publicly apologize for your comments, Mr. Sheppard?Sincerely,A Stephen King fan that thinks you should shut up.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Methinks "solider" = sock
May 6, 2008 - 10:37 ET by Hunter12Methinks "solider" = sock puppet!
Sock Puppet, that terrifying new work from SK, where his alter ego tries to cover his a$$.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
LOL
May 6, 2008 - 10:40 ET by c5thenSo Steven King sends out his unwashed masses to flood the e-mail of Noel Sheppard and then immediately shuts down his own message board so that he doesn't get any responses himself.
Reminds me of a three-year-old sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "Nya NA na nya, I can't hear you!"
How mature and sophisticated of the author.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Another egotistical liberal
May 6, 2008 - 11:06 ET by motherbelthoist on his own petard.
I love it!!!
Let's Act Like Liberals
May 6, 2008 - 10:48 ET by Gothampc""Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree,"
Censorship! Censorship! The Democrat-controlled Congress is going to turn the US into a police state where we have no more free speech. Where does King get off censoring people? He's trying to shut us all up because we are speaking truth to power. The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
/sarc off
Yes you can
May 6, 2008 - 10:45 ET by MeanderingI suppose you can't make this up, but you can make up a person who doesn't exist. Sure we all have our freedom thanks to our military who have done something much greater with their lives than write about people being killed by a giant spider or a crazy clown. Supporting the troups is not calling them illiterate and stupid. Talk about clueless.
As a child, I remember my
May 6, 2008 - 10:49 ET by USA4freedomAs a child, I remember my Dad saying to me: ya know, that boy just does not look right.
Take a look at that picture and see if that statement does not fit..
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
Supporting the troups is not calling them illiterate and stupid.
May 6, 2008 - 11:59 ET by wizardjrBang on Meandering. And thanks for the real support for today's warriors.
Best Military in the World
May 6, 2008 - 12:44 ET by MeanderingKing, the scribe of truth (see Christine a living car), must have forgotten the part about our military being the Best in the World. Yet they are full of illiterate dropouts? Doubtful moron! Rock on Armed Forces!
It is kind of difficult to
May 6, 2008 - 12:56 ET by danboIt is kind of difficult to take Mr Kings support of the military seriously when he's kicking them and spitting on them.
Seems Mr King has comtempt not support for the military.
They're not canon fodder and I resent that term. The military are brave men and women who we owe more thanks than we can ever give for protecting us.
I would not just question his patriotism but also his courage. He sends people to Noel then runs. I guess I don't have a right to consider him a coward.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Dear Stephen
May 6, 2008 - 10:51 ET by Mike BrattonYou've lived a life unfettered by consequence, yet you feel comfortable attacking people who have some of the more consequential jobs on the planet?
You make a living scaring people, yet you toss verbal Molotovs at people who desire to make the world a safer, less-frightening place?
Whether or not you can write is a matter of debate, but you've made it transparently clear that reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, since blog-reading is such a taxing proposition for you.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
King Turtle
May 6, 2008 - 10:51 ET by dboWhat an outrage. It totally amazes me that someone that enjoys the fruits of a free society can not respect the insitution that gives him that freedom. Then he doesn't have the balls to take the heat. If you want to write your books-then write. If you want to spew your ugly politics, then grow some thicker skin and don't be such a spineless coward.
Adding insult to insult
May 6, 2008 - 10:55 ET by Hunter12Notice how in his message he does it again:
"I guess he feels ignorance and illiteracy are OK when the country needs cannon-fodder. I guess he also feels that the war in Iraq has nationwide approval. Well, it doesn’t have mine. It is a waste of national resources. . . and that includes the youth and blood of the 4,000 American troops who have lost their lives there and for the tens of thousands who have been wounded. I live in a national guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career—military or otherwise."
I wonder how Steve would do when faced with the complexities of modern equipment fielded in the war on terror. Would those strange twists in his mind work at the fire control system of an M1 or when field stripping an M16.
Those 4,000 lives will be wasted when terrorists learn all they have to do is bleed us enough and we'll quit with what is needed half done.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Exhibit A of many reasons
May 6, 2008 - 10:56 ET by taterExhibit A of many reasons why these people who spout off their rhetoric are cowards. If you really believe in what you say is true then there would be no problem defending it.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
We'll be waiting when his message board comes back up. :-)
May 6, 2008 - 10:59 ET by jazboThose who believe in nothing will believe anything.
Hi Jazbo... Being an avid
May 6, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Tim the EnchanterHi Jazbo...
Being an avid G.K. Chesterton fan, please permit me to correct your tagline (the actual quote is as follows):
"When people stop believing in God, the problem isn't that they believe in nothing, it's that they'll believe anything"
No offense intended!
Tim: Brevity is the soul of wit ;-)
May 6, 2008 - 13:31 ET by jazbo- Bill Shakespeare.
Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.
A question for Noel
May 6, 2008 - 10:59 ET by viluzionHave you gotten many emails from them? I'm just curious how many of his fans will follow his instructions.
V
May 6, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Noel SheppardV,
Still coming in. Probably about 20 up to this point, some sent through NB's contact form. Not a huge amount. ns
Well apparently his fans
May 6, 2008 - 11:13 ET by motherbeltWell apparently his fans are not buying his explanation either. Looks like he's getting more backlash than you are!
ROFL!!
Noel, any chance you might post those emails?
May 6, 2008 - 12:11 ET by R D Helm-Email addresses redacted, of course.
But, nobody will complain if you, ah, forget to delete them. Heck, Neal forgets all the time. Hint, hint.
:-)
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
"Probably about 20 up to
May 6, 2008 - 13:04 ET by danbo"Probably about 20 up to this point"?
Only 20?
Does this tell us something?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
ns is going to Iraq, soon
May 6, 2008 - 11:03 ET by ThisnThatns says: "The saga of horror novelist Stephen King ...". Noel, unless you upgrade your spelling, your're going to be sent to Iraq by NB'rs. You should have said: "The saga of horrible novelist Stephen King ..."
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
After getting all the
May 6, 2008 - 11:11 ET by mattmAfter getting all the responses from military personnel will Mr. King have a change of heart? Will he realize that his initial position was purely based on Liberal prejudices and hate, and then change his tune?
I guess not, since he seems to be closing off opposing views - like a true Liberal hypocrite.
You have that right,
May 6, 2008 - 11:14 ET by motherbeltYou have that right, matt....libs are the first to tell you that they think everyone's opinion should be heard. Right before they shut down the opposing viewpoint.
Amen to that. Leftists
May 6, 2008 - 11:53 ET by CortillaenAmen to that. Leftists love to talk about free speech right until someone disagrees with them. Soldiers offer their lives for that freedom regardless. Mr. King is free to spout his ignorant and insulting opinions of our soldiers purely because they give him that right. It'd be ironic if it weren't so disgusting.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Hypocricy
May 6, 2008 - 11:16 ET by shawn228One of the thngs I love to do more than anything is to expose hypocricy, it does not matter if it is on the left or right.
Mr. King here send his hitmen here to get Noel, now that he is getting heat he can't take the pressure. He probably feels like he is trapped in one of his own novels and will be having nightmares about NB for a while.
Welcome to the list
May 6, 2008 - 11:17 ET by red_dragon311Beyond a shadow of doubt
Stephen King, Douche
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
To Be Blunt
May 6, 2008 - 11:27 ET by stratmanStephen King took a lame cheap shot he thought would tickle the funnybones of Liberals. He was pandering to his audience at the time. And his slur was derivative and not original (John Kerry).
King is yet another turd on Hubris Highway going to Stupidville.
RRAM Tough!
Nuance
May 6, 2008 - 11:27 ET by BacchusKING: "That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so, is beneath contempt."
So, joining the military isn't on King's list of better jobs? Does he despise the military? Sounds like it.
KING: "I guess he feels ignorance and illiteracy are OK when the country needs cannon-fodder."
Is he also against joining the military during peacetime, or just right now?
The fact that that the military fully supports both missions, in Iraq and Afghanistan, means nothing to him. The fact that 50 million souls were liberated, means nothing to him. The fact that he's advocating throwing Iraqis back to wolves, speaks volumes about him. I can see him writing another horror story, this time a true story. Evil.
Hating America isn't the same thing as being unpatriotic, is it, Mr. King?
message boards are closed... figures!
May 6, 2008 - 11:32 ET by jgarciaMr. King, please pull your head out of your own books for a little while and come join us here at the NB... I am sure there are a few people here that would love to enlighten you. I also would be interested in how you came to the conclusion that our military has “limited options”. As I wrote earlier in a comment: Mr. King, you Sir, do not have “nationwide approval” when it comes to your own personal views on our military personal.
They will never get it
May 6, 2008 - 11:37 ET by HumblepieWhen will they learn that to spout "I support the troops, but, I don't support the war" is a oxymoron statement. You can't have one without the other. If you support the troops you support the war. If you don't support the war you are helping to kill US troops you say you support. Win the war through propaganda, the enemy has learned that lesson well since Vietnam.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Humble..According to your
May 6, 2008 - 19:37 ET by JerHumble..According to your logic, is it safe to assume you were equally outraged at the Republicans who criticized our military intervention in Kosovo during the Clinton presidency--criticism which persisted even while hostilities continued, and, in some cases, took the form of "we support the troops, but not the war"?
Jer
Actually Jer
May 7, 2008 - 11:00 ET by HumblepieI was in Kosovo. My objections with that operation is still:
1. Too little too late. Clinton decided to intervene after world opinion repeatedly questioned his defense. He did not see fit to stop ethnic cleaning until opinion turned against him.
2. Rules of engagement, Can't engage the enemy, unless they shoot you first. Then, depends on the volume of fire received.
3. Wanted to put US troops under direct control of the UN commander vs US commander. Nothing like seeing French Army soldiers strapped to light poles and such to be used as human shields. All the while, UN command would not use force to rescue them.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Humble...Those are rational
May 9, 2008 - 01:20 ET by JerHumble...Those are rational objections, although they contain at least some points and assumptions about which reasonable minds might differ. So, is it permissable, in your view, to criticize a Commander-in-Chief, or the war policies of a particular administration--but only if one's opposing arguments are sound?
I guess I'm having a problem fully understanding your position.
Jer
KING
May 6, 2008 - 11:52 ET by opnpt0I love his early books a lot so it is hard for me to hear this stuff....it is like when you hear a singer that you like talking nonsense. Very dissapointing - sometimes when they say they "Support The Troops" I wonder if these celebrities mean US Troops.
Stevie - what happened to regular guy who wrote great books....I want him back. :(
Wow
May 6, 2008 - 12:01 ET by kenro85So, Stephen King calls our troops stupid and that's just his opinion, good for him. Noel Sheppard says he disagrees with Stephen King and that's polarizing? I guess the grass is blue and the sky is green, too.
From me to you Noel Sheppard, you keep calling things as you see them. That's also what Mr. Solider fought for.
By the way, I give a pass on solider, personally. That's called a typo. But, I am a stickler for the difference between its and it's.
Noel, you had better be
May 6, 2008 - 12:07 ET by Roger the ShrubberNoel, you had better be careful: King just might write about about you, which will then be turned into a really, really, REALLY, crappy movie.
And not even a real
May 6, 2008 - 12:10 ET by Jack BauerAnd not even a real movie... a TV movie!
With a cameo from the toothsome King.
A mini-series. On
May 6, 2008 - 12:48 ET by Roger the ShrubberA mini-series.
On Lifetime.
*shudder* Now THAT's spooky!
Starring Rosie O'Donnell and
May 6, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Jack BauerStarring Rosie O'Donnell and Josh Brolin.
Or he might turn Noel into
May 6, 2008 - 12:24 ET by Clear thinkerOr he might turn Noel into a very large black man with special powers, or a mean dog, or a large alligator, or.......
"Abstain from McCain"
Right wingers aren't
May 6, 2008 - 12:12 ET by wiwfRight wingers aren't supposed to fight back! They're dumb!
/sarc
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
interesting how the
May 6, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Jack BauerNo doubt King will say this proves his thesis that soliders are indeed illiterate!
I support the war, but not
May 6, 2008 - 12:24 ET by seaniepI support the war, but not the troops I have never supported these phony troops, but the war is a noble cause
turnabout fair play?
May 6, 2008 - 12:28 ET by theduck6http://www.stephenking.com/messageboard.php
pompous idiot. Some of his stuff is extremely good and some of it is pure poop! It sells because King wrote it. By the time you figure out it's a dud, it's too late.
Noel
May 6, 2008 - 12:31 ET by DelsaI actually, went to King's site and guess what? It was DOWN, DOWN, DOWN!
I wanted to read what he and his followers had to say and couldn't.
I won't go back again though. I had to take a bath right after going there. I need to stay clean.
Once in this case is enough.
Libs
May 6, 2008 - 12:37 ET by jefflebowskiAnd the left accuses conservatives of being robots controlled by Rush Limbaugh!
Notice how Alan Combes looks
May 6, 2008 - 12:49 ET by marpelNotice how Alan Combes looks like the monsters in Sleepwalkers? LOL
That's the only thing I've ever taken away from a Stephen King anything. Now, I know he's an idiot.
King's platform
May 6, 2008 - 13:03 ET by candance-The military houses a lot of stupid people who couldn't make it in the real world.
-Our soldiers are currently serving as nothing more than cannon fodder.
-They're killing Iraqis in an illegal war.
-When I say our soldiers are illiterate trash waging a bogus war, that's how I show them I care.
Aging Hippie
May 6, 2008 - 13:09 ET by rammingspeedStephen King is an aging '60s hippie who has stayed in his own little world because he became rich beyond the dreams of Avarice (which is the hippie pinko equivalent of a mortal sin) and didn't have to face reality. He's got great brain power and creative ability, but zero wisdom. That's a dangerous combination.
By the way, creating wealth from his own abilities is one of the good, respectable things he has done.
It is the soldier
May 6, 2008 - 13:41 ET by BacchusI hope we have permission to reprint. ?
Color me curious. . .
May 6, 2008 - 13:54 ET by tracheostomySomething doesn't make sense here.
There are fan sites out there that are of much smaller scope than a site devoted to one of the most successful fantasy/horror novelists of our time.
Yet even these smaller sites (some even devoted to a single fictional character) usually support more than one moderator to cover for those who need time off.
Many are such devoted fans, that they're willing to serve for the status alone, and without pay.
So what's the deal here?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Same thoughts Trach...
May 6, 2008 - 14:37 ET by JPR1I think it must be one of three things:
A two-bit operation without the readership to warrant a substitute Mod.
A two-bit operation with an owner too cheap to pay a substitute Mod,
Or, a two-bit operation with an owner who is a chicken$^!t.
It'll be interesting to see how he saves his backside.
"That a right-wing-blog
May 6, 2008 - 14:10 ET by QueenMum"That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so, is beneath contempt. Noel Sheppard says, “Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen.” I guess he feels ignorance and illiteracy are OK when the country needs cannon-fodder."
Mr. King:
1. You did not simply say that children should learn to read and that doing so would assure them better jobs. You suggested that if they don't learn to read. the military is one of the few options open to them - sort of on a par with flipping burgers, digging ditches, or picking produce. Wake up, Mr. King. You obviously have not moved beyond the anti-war sentiments of the 1960's.
2. Your use of the term "cannon fodder" is disrespectful. And your suggestion that those currently serving are ignorant and illiterate only serves to point out your own ignorance.
3. Your ire concerning the comments on this "right-wing blog" shows you to be nothing more than a lib cry-baby.
Keep up the good work, Noel.
P.S. Just had to add this from King's own website:
"Stephen attended the grammar school in Durham and then Lisbon Falls High School, graduating in 1966. From his sophomore year at the University of Maine at Orono, he wrote a weekly column for the school newspaper, THE MAINE CAMPUS. He was also active in student politics, serving as a member of the Student Senate. He came to support the anti-war movement on the Orono campus, arriving at his stance from a conservative view that the war in Vietnam was unconstitutional. He graduated from the University of Maine at Orono in 1970, with a B.A. in English and qualified to teach on the high school level. A draft board examination immediately post-graduation found him 4-F on grounds of high blood pressure, limited vision, flat feet, and punctured eardrums." (Bolding mine)
For some reason, I find this interesting in light of his opinions re: military recruits.
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
This pisses me off since
May 6, 2008 - 14:17 ET by TheConservativeChemistThis pisses me off since this was a ridiculous and typical leftist elite comment from King. I've been a fan of his books for years (read them all) but have noticed the last 5-6 years a LOT of liberal jabs creeping in, so much so that his latest book (which was otherwise excellent) was marred, for me, by some retarded leftist comments stuck in.
I'm debating whether to give up reading King based on this. The hypocrisy is always so amusing on the left though...take take take the freedom while contributing nothing and insulting those who provide provide provide the freedom (the soldiers and "regular"=REAL Americans)
Being a bit petty, are we?
May 6, 2008 - 14:51 ET by DaveS'Interesting how the "solider" that came to King's defense -- a member of King's website since February 2007 -- misspelled "soldier."'
I think that this is not only decidedly uninteresting, but that it comes off as petty and childish. Why ruin an otherwise legitimate complaint of poor behavior on King's part by dedicating so much "space" to such irrelevant material?
I guess I got tired of the "you transposed two letters while rapidly typing and are therefore a moron" fallacy after seeing it for the first or second time in the mi-1990s.
DS
May 6, 2008 - 15:03 ET by Noel SheppardDS,
So much space? This was an ironic aside at the end of the post. If it was important, it would have come before the jump. Understood?
Furthermore, if I was a former soldier, and I was creating a thread at a message board encouraging other soldiers to speak out about something, I'd make DAMN SURE I spelled soldier correctly, especially in the headline!
But, maybe that's just me. ns
THIS WAR
May 6, 2008 - 15:11 ET by sajc05I tend to be more of a libertarian/ paleo-conservative, which makes me against this war. not all wars just wars that don't serve the national interest. i'm a nationalist - take care of your own country first.
so can somebody on this board explain to me how are our troops defending americas freedoms in iraq? afghanistan, yes they are. But if we didn't invade iraq would my freedoms be some how stomped on by the powerful iraqi army that was threatening to take over our country like the nazi's almost did to the UK in the 40's?
It's a joke to think Iraq could do anything to us, being that we could destroy that entire country with the push of a button. thousands of us soldiers have died in iraq because terrorists in afghanistan attacked us? does this sound weird to anyone else?
I agree with you, the
May 6, 2008 - 15:16 ET by shawn228I agree with you, the intelligence was flawed and we would be better off if we never invaded. However we are there now and retreat should not even be an option.
Iraq would become a haven for terrorist and there oil and resources will fall into the wrong hands. If we left now it would be a disaster.
"
May 7, 2008 - 19:05 ET by MightyMouth"
I agree with you, the intelligence was flawed and we would be better off if we never invaded."
But the point is Shawn, that as far as we all knew the intelligence was not flawed. Not even in doubt. That makes the decision to invade the only viable option. Congress thought so, and so did Dubya. Which means He (and they) did the right thing...right? And btw, at the time Obama did the wrong thing! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
That's a bit of a simplification....
May 6, 2008 - 15:43 ET by DaveSNobody was ever concerned about "the powerful iraqi army that was threatening to take over our country". The very legitimate concern was that Hussein would handoff WMDs to terrorist groups, or train them, or otherwise lend his nations considerable resources to terrorists.
Furthermore, "in Afghanistan" is a useless modifier for "terrorists". The terrorists you intended to reference (Osama et al) have spent time in Somalia and other countries as well. The middle east as a whole is pretty much their stomping grounds, and in many cases they have the support of states--the Taliban in Afghanistan being a prime example. Iraq under Hussein, for example, gave extensive support to terrorist groups, and even subsidized suicide bombers in Palestine.
So yes... they are fighting to make us safe, but not simply by directly confronting a hostile enemy (though they are doing that as well). This is a much broader struggle, and you have to think outside the box a bit to understand how it ultimately makes the US and the world safer.
--Iraq shows AQ and other terrorist groups that America can still stick it out in a fight long enough to wear them down through attrition and make their lives miserable.
--Iraq gives the people in the heart of the middle east something that they can call their own, and toward which they can channel their energy as an alternative to terrorism (whereas before they were either oppressed or joined the oppressors to escape oppression).
--Iraq kills LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of terrorists. They are swarming into Iraq and dying, so extensively that terrorist groups are having to resort to abducting people or tricking retarded kids into conducting suicide attacks.
--Iraq is reminding Arabs (in Iraq) of how horrible the fundamentalists/terrorists are, and they are beginning to cooperate with the US to crush them.
Etc... it's a lot of intangible things on top of the obvious.
"so can somebody on this
May 6, 2008 - 15:45 ET by ckc1227"so can somebody on this board explain to me how are our troops defending americas freedoms in iraq?"
No, no one here can, because if you still don't get it after 5 years of explanations, you aren't going to get it after reading a post here at NewsBusters. We could find nuclear missles buried under the sand with New York, D.C., and L.A. coordinates programmed into them and you still wouldn't get it.
The only person who can help the willfully ignorant is the willfully ignorant.
I tend to be skeptical of
May 6, 2008 - 16:35 ET by Dan The Man 2I tend to be skeptical of posts like yours that state such as this "I tend to be more of a libertarian/ paleo-conservative" and I was right to be. I looked at some of your past posts and find you to suffer from BDS and have leftist views. I guess you have beebn around long enough to see the posts about Iraq and Afghanistan but refuse to see any light.
You forget one thing about Hitler and WWII, in 1938 Chaimberlain signed a treaty, with Hitler, along with a few other world leaders and a few years later WWII escalated. And in 1941 the USA was brought into it.
Saddam in 1991 took Kuaitt and in 2003 we had to take Iraq from him. Just as Hitler was not at war with us, even after Japan bombed Hawaii, we attacked Hitler because he was a threat to us. And so Saddam appeared to be a threat we could take out before he became a menace. There were also strategic benifits in taht bargain which made taking Iraq even more attractive.
It was in the USA's interest at the time for long range security. You were probably against nukes in Europe too. Did that help the USA interests?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Skeptical?
May 6, 2008 - 17:15 ET by sajc05what are you skeptical of? if you've read some of my posts you would see that I dislike bush because I'm a true conservative and not BDS.
What conservative about the largest Fed gov't in our history and the most spending by any president?
True conservatives would never leave our borders wide open to everyone and anyone still almost 7 years after 9/11 as bush has done (psss 9/11 was an immigration problem, they were here illegally)
True conservatives would not serve mexico's interests over that of their own countries as bush has done.
and true conservatives wouldn't open up multiple fronts of battle w/out a plan or clear objectives (bush continues to lower and change the bar of success in iraq) at the expense of the primary objective which was to rid afghan of the taliban/al queda and capture bin laden
"you forget one thing about Hitler and WWII, in 1938 Chaimberlain signed a treaty, with Hitler, along with a few other world leaders and a few years later WWII escalated. And in 1941 the USA was brought into it."
we were brought into WWII because the germans had a direct affect on US interests, some being falling european allies and threatened shipping lanes... Nazi germany was not in check, they broke treaties and built up their army throughout the 30's under everyone's noses - that same thing cold not possibly happen today, we know everything going on over there whether it be by satellites or on the ground spies or isrealli intelligence - iraq was contained. but it is now a haven for terrorists so i agree that we cannot just walk away.
Yes all the posts were Bush
May 7, 2008 - 00:36 ET by Dan The Man 2Yes all the posts were Bush sucks and he is responsible for all the ills in the world, a classic definition of BDS. Do I worship the ground President Bush walks on, no, I think he is a good President. I dont like some of his policies like the border or his veto pen.
The idea you seemed to have missed is Hitler neede some whoping on in 1938 berfore he created all teh ahavoc and let loose his dogs of war jsut like we stopped Saddam from creating more WMD. He is and was a threat to the USA. I assume you are a Paul supporter and as such you really dont understand what securing teh USA means.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
sajc the holier than thou conservative
May 7, 2008 - 01:57 ET by UnsaneTrue conservatives And you are WHO to come in here and determine who is a "true conservative" and who isn't?
iraq was contained. sajc, I am sure the pilots and intel officers I know will be HAPPY to hear that. Yep, those missiles fired at them, the number of times the Iraqi radars were activated and "painted" our jets...why, those were just figments of the imagination!!!
Also, as the 1990s wore on, some countries showed less and less enthusiasm for enforcing the sanctions. France (for example)desperately needed (still does) more sources of income to finance their Nanny State with 9% unemployment, so they were chomping at the bit trying to end the sanctions themselves. In fact, they were flagrantly violating them left and right, and when caught, they would whine piously about how the sanctions were hurting the children and so on and so forth. What they had to say about their close-knit relationship with Saddam for oil investements and arms of course was not brought up.
The "Iraq was contained" whine is crap. Also, please do not forget that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorism by paying $25K per suicide bomber in Israel.
at the expense of the primary objective which was to rid afghan of the taliban/al queda and capture bin laden I know, sweetie, once we capture bin Laden, the bad guys will instantly vanish, the United States will NEVER have enemies ever again, world peace will spontaneously break out, and hell, the WTC towers I suppose will spontaneously resurrect themselves! Right? (and then, based on your past posts, the United States can recede to whiny isolationism, just the way you want it)
As I recall, I didn't hear people like you calling for us to pull out of Western Europe so that we could capture Abu Nidal in the 1980s.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
in this world there is no
May 7, 2008 - 10:46 ET by sajc05in this world there is no reason to be isolationists. so people on this board who have a hard time understanding that some one might not think that strategically the iraq was worth it, stop thinking they're isolationists.
i agree with american presence all around the world, we keep the world in check. i do not like iraq, because not even bush knows what victory is there anymore. everyday the bar of success is lowered.
and i never said that if you catch bin laden all is good again. but are you saying you have no problem letting the man responsible for 9/11 go just because it won't end terrorism?
i want that man caught and strung up, unlike bush who says "eh if we catch him we catch him"
Retort
May 8, 2008 - 02:58 ET by Unsanein this world there is no reason to be isolationists. so people on this board who have a hard time understanding that some one might not think that strategically the iraq was worth it, stop thinking they're isolationists. Too damn bad, isolationist. Especially considering your past posts on here. To me, Iraq was worth it, but what the hell do I know being in the military?
i agree with american presence all around the world, we keep the world in check. i do not like iraq, because not even bush knows what victory is there anymore. everyday the bar of success is lowered. Your whiny defeatism is showing itself once again. There is a government and a constitution here, and their military scored some key successes recently in Basra. It is NOT a bowl of cherries but not nearly as bad as you think it is.
and i never said that if you catch bin laden all is good again. With your focus on ONE MAN, you coulda fooled me. but are you saying you have no problem letting the man responsible for 9/11 go just because it won't end terrorism? If we catch him, for me it is icing on the cake. For too many people it is the be-all and end-all. There are too many people who are going to react to a capture of bin Laden like they did to the fall of the Wall: "Yay! We're all done! Let's start ignoring The Big Bad World once again!!!"
i want that man caught and strung up, unlike bush who says "eh if we catch him we catch him" The Bush approach is one I agree with. If we catch him we catch him. During the Mexican Revolution, we tried to capure Pancho Villa and as I recall, that didn't work out too well for us.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Excellent post, to which I
May 6, 2008 - 17:41 ET by BacchusExcellent post, to which I would like to add:
Alas, Iraq wasn't the menace. Saddam was. He financed terrorism. He used WMDs on his own people and against his neighbors.
Saddam convinced everyone, pre-invasion, and foolishly perhaps, that he still possessed stockpiles of WMDs. Have you read the report by Saddam's interrogator? Google it. He was on 60 Minutes too, try the CBS website for the video.
Saddam's facilities for WMDs were mothballed, not destroyed, he was waiting for the UN sanctions to be lifted. The man was going to be trouble if he was left unchecked, he needed to be taken out.
Defeating al Qaeda, wherever they are found, is a good thing no matter what. Their form of religious fanaticism failed miserably in Iraq. That fact should be widely disseminated, before al Qaeda tries to set up shop somewhere else. They're nothing but dead-enders who fight for the sake of fighting and there's no reconciliation with those hoods, the drugs they're bribed with must be too good for them to pass up.
The Iraqis want their freedom.
"The Iraqis want their
May 6, 2008 - 19:09 ET by sajc05"The Iraqis want their freedom"
yea? then why do the majority want us out?
and if you're so concerned about terrorists getting WMD then I hope you're willing to acknowledge that bush is completely derelict in securing the home. Studies have shown that its not just lettuce pickers sneaking across the borders. and 7 years after 9/11 no security, bush should be ashamed for letting the american people down so bad. i do not support that fake conservative anymore.
romney was my guy but all we have is juan mccain.
Majority of who?
May 6, 2008 - 19:26 ET by CobraMan"yea? then why do the majority want us out?"
The majority of who? The Iraqis? I think not. As a matter of fact, every citizen poll taken in Iraq in the past year all show that the Iraqis want us to stay until they're capable of taking care of their own security. Yes, the Iraqis want most of our troops to leave eventually, but they sure don't want us to leave today!
Survey says!
May 6, 2008 - 19:50 ET by CobraMan"I hope you're willing to acknowledge that bush is completely derelict in securing the home."
Derelict? You've got to be kidding! President Bush has done a wonderful job at protecting America.
I hope you're willing to acknowledge that America hasn't been attacked in almost 8 years. Not a single repeat of 9//11, not a single repeat of the USS Cole attack, not a single repeat of the embassy bombings of the 90’s that killed hundreds of innocent foreign citizens, not a single repeat the “shoe bomber” (who failed, btw). All in all, I would say that President Bush is doing an excellent job protecting America, wouldn't you?
(on edit: that almost 8 years and not over 8 years)
"President Bush has done a
May 6, 2008 - 21:27 ET by sajc05"President Bush has done a wonderful job at protecting America."
you're joking, right? don't call yourself a conservative if you think our borders are secured. real thinking people don't worship a man simply because he has R next to his name. wake up and stop being such a partisan that you cannot see failing with a republican.
it has been extensively covered that middle easterners are sneaking into our country via mexico because THE SECURITY CHIEF HIMSELF has sold us out to mexico and will not secure our borders
are you literally blind, or just blindly swallow everything bush says without question?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24987
"I hope you're willing to acknowledge that America hasn't been attacked in almost 8 years"
no need for al queda to hit targets like the USS cole, they are happily killing american soldiers on a daily basis. we have 150 thousand soldiers with targets on their backs just waiting to see who takes the next IED.
they couldn't be more successful at attacking american interests since 9/11
More blather
May 7, 2008 - 02:10 ET by Unsanebecause THE SECURITY CHIEF HIMSELF has sold us out to mexico and will not secure our borders And how has that happened? Ah, let me guess, you are a protectionist. Well, last I checked, NAFTA was ratified in 1993.
No one wants to secure our borders because of the most cynical reason of all: fear of losing a particular block of voters.
no need for al queda to hit targets like the USS cole, they are happily killing american soldiers on a daily basis. we have 150 thousand soldiers with targets on their backs just waiting to see who takes the next IED So you have zero faith in our military. Amazingly, we have lost 4000 soldiers in 5 years. We lost 3000 alone on one December morning in 1941. Sounds to me like you couldn't stomach WWII.
I hate the loss of life even more than you do. But all the same, unlike you I'd really rather have our nation's finest whack the terrorists in Baghdad, rather than have the cops in Boston try to take them out after they have killed a few hundred civilians. Let the terrorists try to take on the military; they get their asses handed to them every single time.
they couldn't be more successful at attacking american interests since 9/11 Huh?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane: 7 Loser NB Noob:
May 7, 2008 - 18:29 ET by Roger the ShrubberUnsane: 7
Loser NB Noob: 0
Where are they?
May 7, 2008 - 22:36 ET by CobraMan"it has been extensively covered that middle easterners are sneaking
into our country via mexico because THE SECURITY CHIEF HIMSELF has sold
us out to mexico and will not secure our borders"
If these "middle easterners" are "sneaking" in as you claim, just where are they?
You DO realize, don't you, that Mexico has a very strict immigration policy and that they let VERY FEW foreigners into Mexico. That's ALSO "extensively covered." I highly doubt that many "middle easterners" are "sneaking in" from a country that lets so few "middle easterners" into their borders.
I also find it hard to believe that these "middle easterners" are "sneaking in" through the very routes that so many Mexicans use (and don't like to share, btw) to enter this country and yet not a single "middle easterner" terrorist has been pick up by the INS (and common citizens) who patrol the border 24/7 and who pick up illegal trying to cross the border every day.
So, tell me again, if these "middle easterners" ARE sinking in as you claim in order to attack us, where are they and why aren't they attacking?
150 thousand targets?
May 7, 2008 - 22:57 ET by CobraMan"no need for al queda to hit targets like the USS cole, they are happily
killing american soldiers on a daily basis. we have 150 thousand
soldiers with targets on their backs just waiting to see who takes the
next IED. "
Let me get this straight; Less that 6,000 of those"150 thousand soldiers" have been killed in over 5 years of continual war with al Queda in 2 foreign countries and these "150 thousand soldiers" have killed tens of thousands of al Queda militants and devastated their origination to the point where we haven't had an attack on the citizens here in America in almost 8 years, and that we’ve freed over 50 million people so that they now have the chance to create a democratic society and become a valuable ally of ours, yet you think that this a failure by the Bush Administration? Man, you ARE insane!
Get this straight; Our troops are fighting and dying in foreign lands so our citizens won't be killed here in America. They voluntarily put themselves in danger so that you and I won't be attacked here at home. They, and a lot of American business men and women as well as private aid originations, also voluntarily help the Iraqis and Afghani's build a free and just society in those countries so those citizens no longer have to live in fear of their own governments. They do all this and more, not because they're forced into it, but because they care.
Insanity do not an argument make
May 8, 2008 - 00:13 ET by CobraMan"you're joking, right? don't call yourself a conservative if you think
our borders are secured. real thinking people don't worship a man
simply because he has R next to his name. wake up and stop being such a
partisan that you cannot see failing with a republican."
What makes you think that I worship anyone? Do you really think that I agree with every policy and statement made by ANY politician? If so, I’d like to know how you made that determination as I have no idea why you would make such a baseless claim.
If anyone needs to "wake up" here it's you. Tell me how President Bush has failed to defend America? Are hordes of terrorists pouring across the border ready to kill innocent Americans? No? I didn't think so. Are weapons of mass destruction being smuggled across the border and are being planted in major cities and ports across America? No? I didn't think so. Are resident, domestic terrorists carrying out attacks in America? No? I didn't think so. Is their any evidence AT ALL that we're in danger of a terrorist just because we don't have a 20-foot high wall separating is from Mexico? No? I didn't think so.
You may think that you have a perfect argument about the Mexican/American border, but you don't. I do have concerns about the number of illegal immigrants that cross into America from Mexico, as do may others, but those concerns DO NOT include Mexican (or even foreign) terrorists crossing the border and attacking us,. That wouldn't be in the best interest of the Mexican immigrants now, would it? So why would the people who help the Mexican immigrants cross into America let a bunch of terrorists cross the border? They wouldn’t. As a matter of fact, they would capture and turn in any foreigner to their government for a reward
If you really want to debate the threat of terrorism and what needs to be done to protects us, that's fine, but you better have some good arguments and some valid and current information in which to make those arguments. If not, than stop wasting your time as you're just looking more and more like a fool who's just ranting and raving due to advanced Bush Derangement Syndrome. If that’s the case, Seek Help Now!
Oh, and do me a favor, will ya? Stop telling me what a "true"" conservative is and what I should call myself. From the tone and content of your posts, it's very apparent that you're a terrible judge of just about everything, especially other people's political beliefs and strength of character.
yea? then why do the
May 6, 2008 - 20:15 ET by Bacchusyea? then why do the majority want us out?
That's a myth. The Iranians, al Qaeda, Sadr's gang, and the Democrats, don't constitute a majority in Iraq.
bacchus get your facts
May 6, 2008 - 21:33 ET by sajc05bacchus
get your facts from journalist other than sean hannity
http://www.washingto...
i guess your response will be, because its the washpost "facts have a well known liberal bias"
sajc05: Still living in the
May 6, 2008 - 22:01 ET by Bacchussajc05: Still living in the past? Can't find a more recent article than from 2006? It's stale news. Even the washpost has moved on since then.
BTW: Hannity is a Great American.
"BTW: Hannity is a Great
May 7, 2008 - 10:54 ET by sajc05"BTW: Hannity is a Great American."
i used to like hannity until i realized that he makes an argument with no depth to it, all he says is "freedom" and "liberty" over and over again. and "if you don't agree with me you hate freedom" great insight.
GEN. George Washington was a great man, and a smarter man than bush could ever be (and most american presidents save reagan-truman-teddy maybe) who warned about getting tangled up in foreign affairs like this war that will go on for ever and drain our treasury.
this war will cost over a trillion dollars, so what does bush do? cuts taxes and borrows hundreds of billions from china... REAL SMART MAN THAT BUSH IS.
Yoohoo, it's not 2004
May 7, 2008 - 18:25 ET by Roger the ShrubberYoohoo, it's not 2004 anymore...
Please do not come back until you have an updated, pertinent set of arguments. You are definitely out of your league, Pumpkin.
Someone correct me if I am
May 7, 2008 - 18:56 ET by RESTLESS 1Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Saj's link above pre-surge? Here is something more current. In addition, even the Obama campaign doesn't believe him.
Yep, it sure is. That is why
May 8, 2008 - 08:04 ET by Roger the ShrubberYep, it sure is.
That is why this noob deserves the abuse he is getting.
He is about two-to-four years behind the rest of us. He probably still has a Gore/Edwards bumper sticker on his 82 Mazda.
Contradictions and shrieking populism
May 9, 2008 - 08:01 ET by UnsaneGEN. George Washington was a great man, and a smarter man than bush could ever be Yes, I get it, you hate Bush with an extreme passion and believe him to be the anti-Christ. Yawn. (and most american presidents save reagan-truman-teddy maybe) who warned about getting tangled up in foreign affairs like this war that will go on for ever and drain our treasury. He also was President during a time when the United States was focused on internal self-development...and even THEN, the world (you know, that damned inconvenience you keep wanting to run away from) STILL kept knocking. John Adams became President and the United States was confronted with a near-war with France. Thomas Jefferson had to defend U.S. interests against the Barbary States. Yeah, isolationism really was an effective tool even then. Say, weren't you whining awhile a few posts back that isolationism was bad, and crying about me calling you an isolationist? Well, well, well. Don't you love the sight of contradictions collapsing? I do.
And quit whining about "draining the treasury". We can't spend money on defending the nation's interests because THAT will drain the treasury, yet NOT A PEEP from you ever about REAL threats to the treasury, like Congresscritters on a spending spree, and Nanny State programs like Social Security and Medicare.
this war will cost over a trillion dollars again, you WHINE relentlessly if we spend as much as a PENNY on national defense. And what? Let's say we focus solely on capturing one little pissant. You think THAT'S free? Besides, you are an extremely poor student of history. (h/t to Mr. Sheppard) In 1943, the U.S. government got $24 billion in revenues, yet spent $79 billion, mostly on defense. Again, you couldn't possibly stomach WWII., so what does bush do? cuts taxes and borrows hundreds of billions from china... 1) Study some economics sometime. Look at something called the Laffer Curve. You cut taxes, your revenues INCREASE. And that is EXACTLY what has happened thanks to the effort of who you consider to be the most horrific, evil human being on the planet. (Now, about how that cash was spent, I lay that at the feet of Congress and Bush for not being effective stewards of finance.) 2) Shut up with the shrieking populism on China. I have YET to see you whine even a little about Japan, a nation that has FAR MORE TREASURIES than does China. Besides, how can hundreds of billions be borrowed from a nation that MAY have had a GDP of $300 billion? Of course, you populist shriekers can't answer that question. REAL SMART MAN THAT BUSH IS. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, Bush is EVIL, Bush is the anti-Christ, Bush this, Bush that, blah blah blah. He is far smarter than you, based on your posts here and your past posts.
You may want to stop further posting on NB before you even more severely embarrass yourself.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
BTW: Hannity is a Great
May 7, 2008 - 18:27 ET by balboaBTW: Hannity is a Great American.
Oh barf...
Bal, YOU'RE a great
May 7, 2008 - 18:31 ET by Roger the ShrubberBal, YOU'RE a great American!
LOL... "Abstain from
May 7, 2008 - 18:34 ET by Clear thinkerLOL...
"Abstain from McCain"
Now you're talkin'!
May 7, 2008 - 18:55 ET by balboaNow you're talkin'!
Know of what you speak
May 7, 2008 - 02:02 ET by Unsaneyea? then why do the majority want us out? REALLY? That's not what I see from MY perspective, but what the hell do I know, I am only sitting in the middle of the place. There's 25 million of them versus 130,000 of us. According to my math, if the majority of them wanted us out, that could be arranged.
But again, that is not what I see at all here.
Sounds like someone is positively aching for a whiny, isolationist America.
bush is completely derelict in securing the home Really? Explain why no terrorist attacks have happened here since 9/11/01. Your point on illegal immigration is valid, BUT it wasn't like the borders were opened on 20 January 2001 at 1100 CST. That has been a problem for decades now, and something that needs to be addressed.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"there's 25 million of them
May 7, 2008 - 11:01 ET by sajc05"there's 25 million of them versus 130,000 of us. According to my math, if the majority of them wanted us out, that could be arranged. "
yes, just like they threw out saddam, right?
BUT it wasn't like the borders were opened on 20 January 2001 at 1100 CST. That has been a problem for decades now, and something that needs to be addressed.
it has been a problem for decades, but only 9/11 were thousands killed because of our relaxed immagration stances - so a SMART president might take some initiative on that front more so since 9/11. Bush? doesn't seem to care, he's too busy courting calderon.
and pointing out that something has been a problem for decades is no reason to not address that problem... everybody loves excusing bush when all i want is for him to start acting like a conservative.
Sure the Iraqis want us to
May 7, 2008 - 18:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberSure the Iraqis want us to leave. Leave eventually, once their country is safe. The only Iraqis who want us to leave right this minute are the ones getting their asses whipped (ie: Iranian-backed Shiites).
As for Bush sucking up to Calderon, Calderon has only been in office since 2006. Oh, and the majority of people here at NB consider Bush's immigration policy to be pathetic, so the BDS rant really does seem old and tired, not to mention ineffective. You are sooooo 2004.
you're right roger, i'm
May 7, 2008 - 22:07 ET by sajc05you're right roger, i'm sorry. bush is the greatest conservative ever.
which conservative doesn't love huge federal gov't- increased bureaucracies- massive spending - huge deficits - open borders - borrowed money flooding the market?
only great conservatives right, pumpkin?
if the borders rant seems old maybe its because its STILL A PROBLEM. if a terrorist kills one american and it is found that he snuck across our border, then i hope you'll stop being condescending to people who think border security is linked to nat'l security...
pumpkin
we need an orientation program for our trolls
May 7, 2008 - 22:18 ET by candanceSince you seem to be new around here and bent on screaming about immigration, lemme give you some advice...
Before assuming anyone here thinks Bush is the best president ever, take some time to research what folks on here consistently say. There is a very long paper trail of everyone on NB complaining about Bush's immigration stance and outrageous spending. Roger commented on your assertion that Iraqis want us to leave - YOU went into a tirade about immigration of your own will.
Geez, first goldbar thinks Republicans wil riot in Denver, and now this genius thinks Republicans want the border open....
Please NB, give these new trolls a starter class on the culture aroung NB before they start up more stupid arguments.
candance, lol-we could call it Remedial Troll Orientation 099.
May 7, 2008 - 23:04 ET by R D HelmOr in sajc05's case, Double Remedial Troll Orientation 098.
Obvioulsy he hasn't troubled himself to learn very much about those he wishes to mix it up with.
Bush's failings as POTUS have been wrung out pretty completely here at NB.
LOL-Heck, he could spend the better part of a week just looking up my critical comments about Mr. Bush.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
That's a mighty big "if"
May 7, 2008 - 23:33 ET by CobraMan"if a terrorist kills one american and it is found that he snuck across
our border, then i hope you'll stop being condescending to people who
think border security is linked to nat'l security..."
You fail to understand something. The terrorists who attacked us here on 9/11 DID NOT "sneak in" across the Mexican/American border, they came here LEGALLY though the use of the Student Visa program. Most of them stayed past the expiration date of their visas, but they arrived here though legal, and not illegal, means.
I don't think you fully understand just how hard it would be for someone from the Middle East, or any other country outside of Mexico, to travel into Mexico and try to cross the Mexican/American border. Mexico doesn't let a lot of Middle Eastern people into their country, and they let even less in their country now than they did before 9/11. It may be possible that a terrorist could cross illegally through the Mexican/American boarder, but the odds are greatly against it.
Build the fence now
May 8, 2008 - 00:11 ET by RaFBI agents on Wednesday busted 10 people they termed "special interest illegal aliens" for allegedly trying to use fraudulent documents to get New Mexico drivers licenses.
Oh an update!
Text Size
Kazakhstan resident among 10 busted in license case
http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=8256631&nav=menu588_2
The sun is not set by a thermostat.....
Secure the border, yes
May 8, 2008 - 00:24 ET by CobraManSecure the border, yes and I never said that we shouldn't, but it's foolish for someone to blame this on Bush as this type of situation, trying to created fraudulent documents in order to gain entry, has been going on since the early 1900's at least.
It's good to see that private citizens here are observant enough to notice this and report it, wouldn't you agree? Now, if we could just do something about the sanctuary cites like LA.
OK
May 8, 2008 - 03:08 ET by UnsaneI also like OK's recent approach to the problem. It seems to be working IIRC a recent blog post here on NB. Start demanding the same from YOUR state governments!
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Neighbors to the North
May 8, 2008 - 11:45 ET by CobraManI would, but, since I live in Minnesota, I doubt that our government would put up a fence between Canada and us. ;)
On a serious note, I DO live in one of those sanctuary cites and I wish that would change. Since this is a liberal city, I doubt that’s going to any time soon. This state hasn't been the same since 1976 when “Minnesota Madness” took effect and so many liberals gained control of our local and state governments. Man, I DO miss the old days sometimes!
Where did I ever say Bush
May 8, 2008 - 07:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhere did I ever say Bush was a great conservative?
Spare me your out-dated, lame "debate", Pumpkin. your 2004 bumper-sticker leftis slogans make me chuckle.
Like I said before (and you have yet to prove me wrong), you have come here poorly-equipped. you have been getting your ass kicked on this thread, yet still you come back. Are you Leon? I mean, only a dumbass like Leon would take this kind of verbal thrashing like a little girl and not leave.
roger
May 8, 2008 - 09:34 ET by sajc05yes, i should stop coming back because i'm getting "thrashed" with such arguments as "you're soooo 2006" or "you're an isolationist" "you're a lefty" ... i'm sooo busted.
seriously though, i'm not trying to piss anyone off, i have a fundemental disagreement with the iraq war, most conservatives respect disagreement on some issues (its why its only crazy leftists and not conservatives who rush stages or shout down speakers at universities) there is room in the party for some disagreement.
but you keep blowing off border security like its some dumb rant, but if you're so worried about WMD then how are terrorists going to get WMD into the US if not through our open BORDERS and open PORTS as well? drop it on us with the al queda air force?
and a previous poster just posted this: http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=8256631&nav=menu588_2
sorry if my posts seemed like i was angrily ranting, believe it or not i was actually trying to have a civil debate. and if i'm wrong about iraq (which i accept i could be cause some pretty good arguments have been made here) then thank god and the troops.
No, it's not your ranting
May 8, 2008 - 11:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberNo, it's not your ranting about the borders, it's your odd belief that everybody here are Bushbots, who think he's the greatest president ever. That was your first mistake. Then you throw in the usual BDS lines that grew old during the 2004 election. That was your second mistake. Your third mistake was coming here with this attitude that you were going to "School us dumb kunservativs" with your dazzling liberal intellect.
You are ill-equipped to be here for those reasons. Many noobs have come here before with the same attitude, and were treated wth the same disdain as you've already earned.
Everything you say is from the "I suffer from BDS and all my news is at least 2 years old" point of view.
why do you insist i'm a
May 8, 2008 - 12:09 ET by sajc05why do you insist i'm a liberal minded person when i said i'm:
1>for small gov't
2>decreased spending fiscal responsibility
3>secure borders (which no liberal/democrat is for save schuler maybe)
and i think the greatest thing bush has done in office was nominate roberts and alito.
so how liberal minded am I?
Your first mistake was making assumptions about people who disagree with you.
your second mistake was thinking that my intentions were to "school dumb conservatives"
your third mistake was thinking that nat'l security debate is about a point system of who "schooled" who
i did want to point out that there is a great difference between paleo conservative idealogy - which i believe to be, among other things, take care of your own country first. and neo conservatives who seem to think, among other things, that spending trillions to promote the interests of other countries is best for our country... ie iraq and the billions bush is giving to mexico for them to secure their southern border!
if border security is not a big problem or a current problem but only a problem of the "past" then answer me this: if we're worried about WMD, how are terrorists supposed to get said WMD into this country? their airforce? checked luggage? ups? really really big catapult?
You are so astute, yet where
May 8, 2008 - 13:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou are so astute, yet where did I ever say you were a liberal? I correctly caled you a BDS-sufferer, which you are.
You are, actually, only one step away from being a liberal moonbat dipsh*t. You are a Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan moonbat dipsh*t, because only Paulbots would use a term like "paleo-conservative" in conversation, and trying to reason with a Ronulan is like trying to reason with a liberal.
i agree with ron paul on no
May 8, 2008 - 15:25 ET by sajc05i agree with ron paul on no income tax, no DOE either. but he doesn't want american presence anywhere practically, which i disagree with. but i guess that makes me a dip sh*t. nice words.
I'll answer that.
May 8, 2008 - 14:29 ET by CobraMan"answer me this: if we're worried about WMD, how are terrorists supposed
to get said WMD into this country? their airforce? checked luggage?
ups? really really big catapult?"
You can be sure of one thing; they won't be smuggling them across the Mexican/American border. What makes you think that they would be capable of that? Do you know how RUGGED that terrain is? Carrying anything but a small rucksack is damn near impossible if you want to survive the trip. Carrying anything large will just slow you down and you would be more likely to be caught in the process. The biggest advantage the illegals have in those routes is SPEED!
How would they get WMD's here? Well here's a few ways:
1. Standardized Shipping Containers. The easiest way would be to smuggle them into this country by hiding one aboard a cargo vessel and brining them into a port. Remember the Chinese who were being smuggled into America this way? Several shipping containers were adapted to carry people instead of cargo. We only know of the ones where people died and were discovered by customs officials, we don't know how many actually got through.
2. Small Planes. Small planes have been used for decades to smuggle drugs, and people, into America. If you can smuggle drugs, you can smuggle WMD's as well.
3. High Speed Boats. Just like with planes, boats have been used for decades to smuggle drugs, and people, into America. If you can smuggle drugs, you can smuggle WMD's too.
3. Here's the most likely scenario; They make the damn things right here in America. Remember Timothy McVeigh? That was a domestic terrorist attack if I ever saw one. It didn't take a lot of effort on his part to plan, construct, and detonate a large explosive device right here in America. It wouldn't be that hard to add some rather nasty chemicals to a weapon like that, chemicals that would harm or kill thousands in a large city. Chlorine Bleach, for example, would be a good choice.
The point I’m trying to make is that there are lot of ways a WMD could be smuggles into America by a determined foe. But we do have good customs controls and so far, this has not happened. The biggest threat come from people already residing in America. Remember, those terrorist who committed 9/11 didn't arrive here illegally, they enter this country by the use of legal student visas.
The best and only way, to guard against another terrorist attack is through the vigilance of our fellow Americans. By keeping our eyes open and acting quickly, we can, and already have, avoid another attack. Remember the “shoe bomber?" That was a perfect example of an alert and involved citizenry stopping an act of terrorism in progress.
Is this a guarantee against another attack? No, there are no such guarantees no matter what we do to prevent them. The world, and this country, is just too big to watch everything that is happening 24/7. Eventually something will be missed, just like on 9/11.
yes i agree with shipping
May 8, 2008 - 15:15 ET by sajc05yes i agree with shipping containers, we inspect about 1% of all the cargo that comes in here, a task that would be conquerable if we had the money to fund it. thats what i mean by secure ports.
overstayed visa people, especially those from questionable countries has not been addressed by this administration... (9/11 hijackers?)
Rog... I've been reading
May 8, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Clear thinkerRog...
I've been reading this guys stuff for the past few days and I have come to the conclusion that his "dazzling liberal intellect" is sorely lacking.
One things for sure, he ain't no Conservative!
"Abstain from McCain"
1>for small
May 8, 2008 - 12:23 ET by sajc051>for small gov't
2>decreased spending fiscal responsibility
3>secure borders (which no liberal/democrat is for save schuler maybe)
and i think the greatest thing bush has done in office was nominate roberts and alito.
so how liberal minded am I? conservatism is much much more than a war in iraq... i hope you understand that.
only liberals disagree on the war? no conservatives can disagree with bush? wow, you guys are more so like the dems in the 90's when they wouldn't let gov. casey speak at their convention because he was pro life.
Civil Debate? My A$$!
May 8, 2008 - 12:06 ET by CobraMan"sorry if my posts seemed like i was angrily ranting, believe it or not i was actually trying to have a civil debate."
Civil debate? My A$$! Not unless you consider it “civil” to call someone an unintelligent ("real thinking people don't"), idol worshiping ("worship a man"), partisan ("such a partisan"), visionless ("you cannot see failing"), faux conservative ("don't call yourself a conservative"), who's unaware ("it has been extensively covered") about current events and who's willing to accept everything someone says at face value ("are you literally blind, or just blindly swallow everything bush says without question?") without being able to make determinations on my own (“wake up”) as to the complex issues facing America today.
You did all of this in a SINGLE post! So, tell me again how you're "actually trying to have a civil debate" as I don't see that in your posts. As far as I could tell, you weren't debating at all, you were PREACHING!
you're right
May 8, 2008 - 12:18 ET by sajc05fine preaching - ranting whatever you want to call it - i was. with sincere apologies. i tend to get a little preachy about border security cause i care about this countries future more so than a country on the other side of the globe. i guess here that makes me "liberal"
and it is my personal belief, that you can disagree with, that conservatives who think border security is "living in the past" or "not important to the war on terror" "has nothing to do with nat'l security" are doing the conservative movement a disservice. like bush calling minutemen vigilantes, mccain courting la raza ect... to me its very frustrating.
Nice false quotes
May 8, 2008 - 12:47 ET by CobraManNice false quotes:
"living in the past"
"not important to the war on terror"
"has nothing to do with nat'l security"
I never said ANY of those things. You shouldn't falsely a quote person, that’s not a good debating tactic. If you're just summarizing one or more comments here, then leave out the quotation marks.
"fine preaching - ranting whatever you want to call it - i was. with sincere apologies."
Apology accepted. You need to carefully choose your words and arguments here. This is a site visited by people of all political persuasions and members, and former memebers, of the military (veterans, like myself), so please try to use a little restraint and be cognitive of the knowledge, experience, and beliefs of others when presenting an argument. This site can be a great place to learn and hone your debating skill, but you should remember to treat people with respect and dignity, otherwise they are going to jump all over you as a troll.
Not a liberal
May 8, 2008 - 13:19 ET by CobraMan"i tend to get a little preachy about border security cause i care about
this countries future more so than a country on the other side of the
globe. i guess here that makes me "liberal""
That doesn't make you a liberal, just uninformed. Most of the people here agree with your concern about our porous border. Myself included, to some extent. But there's something you need to understand. Immigration and border security is NOT just a conservative issure. Several conservatives , myself included, believe in open immigration policies, just not in supporting ILLEGAL immigration.
As a matter of fact, one of great men you named, President Reagan, was an open-borer conservative. He not only proposed amnesty of the illegal immigrants living here in the 80's, he got Congress to agree and GAVE them blanked amnesty in hopes that it would help solve the problem. It didn’t, of course, as the problem lays in Mexico's corrupt political and economical systems.
Roosevelt was also an open-border President. He was the one who, during WWII, started the immigrant work visa program in order to allow Mexican nationals to enter America and work in the farms and d other labor intensive job like service industries (janitors and the like) because so many of your young men were overseas fighting WWII. It was this policy, continued today, that brought so many Mexicans, and there families, here.
After WWII ended, the Mexican nationals here found themselves without any form of income and they were denied access to America when our men started returning from overseas. The Mexican could not find work at home; all possible jobs were already taken. Desperation drove the Mexicans to start entering America illegally in large numbers in order to feed their families.
Mexico hasn't done anything to help their own poor SINCE WWII, they have no choice but to continue to come here seeking work. I can't really blame them, they are poor and they desperately need the income and I would allow them to enter America legally so that they may have access to a better life then they have back in Mexico. But that doesn’t mean I’m not a conservative.
it was teddy that said this
May 8, 2008 - 15:21 ET by sajc05it was teddy that said this is america there is room for only one culture, the american culture - one flag the american flag and - one language the english language.
also jefferson spoke of the harm it can do to a country if you accept millions of unchecked people into your country from all over the world with no means of assimilating them. something this administration (nor any other) has made an effort to do.
we accept 2 million legally a year, great. but something has to be done with the millions who come here for our taxpayer subsidies and do not assimilate... a ucla study says that even by 4th generation, mexican immigrants see themselves as mexican not american. (very off topic i know)
so i just get bothered when even republicans won't do anything about this. it reminds me of rome.
Please think before you type
May 8, 2008 - 03:05 ET by Unsaneyes, just like they threw out saddam, right? Saddam had ONE tiny advantage in his favor. Logistics. I can think of all sorts of ways they can kick us out of here, and all of them are relatively easy. Yet, they don't. Why is that?
it has been a problem for decades, but only 9/11 were thousands killed because of our relaxed immagration stances - so a SMART president might take some initiative on that front more so since 9/11. Bush? doesn't seem to care, he's too busy courting calderon. The relaxed immigration stances have existed for DECADES. And Bush courting Calderon? Uh, sweetie, LOTS of presidents have developed relationships with...Echeverria, Portillo, de la Madrid, Salinas, Zedillo, and Fox. Once again ALL you are showing me is that you think the problem began with Bush. And then...
and pointing out that something has been a problem for decades is no reason to not address that problem...um, please point out for me where I said that just because this has been ongoing, we shouldn't address it. everybody loves excusing bush unfortunately for you I have yet to excuse him. I am pointing out cold hard reality. Yes, I wish Bush would be more aggressive when it comes to the borders. But YOU seem to be pinning THE ENTIRE THING on him. As it stands now he will get the blame from me, along with legions of others. when all i want is for him to start acting like a conservative.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Helping an Ally
May 6, 2008 - 19:47 ET by CobraMan"can somebody on this board explain to me how are our troops defending americas freedoms in iraq?"
Our troop are not protecting American freedom in Iraq, they are protecting Iraqi freedom in Iraq. That's a noble mission and is worthy of our respect and continuing support, wouldn't you agree?
You see, we're helping an ally. That's our mission now. We’re not at war with Iraq anymore and we’re defending the Iraqi citizen’s freedom. You may not be aware of this, but Iraq is now an ally of America and we like to assist our allies. Like Great Briton during WWI and WWII, for example.
In case you're confused about our current mission; We're in Iraq today because we're helping them defend themselves from internal and external terrorism and insurrection and protecting their democratically selected government from those who would return Iraq to a dictatorship. We're also helping them recover from over 30 years of despotic rule. We not only have troops stationed there, we have business advisor and contractors there helping the Iraqis create a new and vibrant economy, something they desperately need. We're also helping them withstand financial and political attacks from such countries such as Iran and Syria who would love to see us leave and let Iraq fall into chaos.
"powerful iraqi army that
May 6, 2008 - 23:52 ET by Carl Kolchak"powerful iraqi army that was threatening to take over our country like the nazi's almost did to the UK in the 40's?"
Are you an expert on the Battle of Britain, or are you just using the term nazi? The Battle of Britain was fought between airplanes, so I'm no sure how you've come to the conclusion that the Nazi's almost took over the UK, considering the British won the Battle of Britain. I also don't think Operation Sealion was possible, and from what I've read, Operation Sealion was used as a decoy to try to fake out the Soviets so the Nazis could launch Operation Barbarossa.
Comparing everything to nazis usually works only when you are making sense.
you missed my point. The
May 7, 2008 - 10:38 ET by sajc05you missed my point. The german army was bombing the sh** out of the UK. today, no army of any country could possibly do that to the US. it's like some people expect the al queda "army" to march through time square if we don't bomb the crap out of iraq
The German ARMY wasn't
May 7, 2008 - 10:42 ET by NL207The German ARMY wasn't bombing the "s***" out of anybody, you ignorant fool.
NL207
May 7, 2008 - 11:00 ET by mandrakeAre you actually making fun of someone's poor choice of words?
Ok, it was the German Luffwaffles that was booming London...on orders from Madhalf Heatlump.
Apologizes to John Lennon..
No. I am disgusted by his
May 7, 2008 - 11:14 ET by NL207No. I am disgusted by his gross ignorance. The Luftwaffe is not the Wehrmacht and neither of them are the SS. Much of the difference was the degree of Nazification of these organizations and it is worth noting that they didn't even cooperate with one another particularly well. The SS was pure Nazi. The Luftwaffe was headed by the ranking Nazi and war's end, Herman Goering. The Wehrmacht was largely traditional Prussian Army.
This poster was equating the Wehrmacht with the Luftwaffe. This is as unfair as equating either one of them with the Waffen SS, or worse, the Allgemaine SS, the latter of whom were simply war criminals.
you're still engrossed in
May 7, 2008 - 16:42 ET by sajc05you're still engrossed in semantics and missing the point... whatever branch or german command or german military bombed london by air doesn't matter. what matters is the gross comparison to 1940 germany to 2003 iraq. one was a formidable war machine that the world let get powerful, and iraq was depleted country with no military power to speak of any substantial military build up (like weapons manufacturing) were easily taken out by isreali air strikes.
Say what?
May 7, 2008 - 23:10 ET by CobraMan"iraq was depleted country with no military power to speak of any
substantial military build up (like weapons manufacturing) were easily
taken out by isreali air strikes."
Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?
Saddam may not have had an effective air force, but he DID have a fully equipped military that was almost 1 million troops strong even though most of those troops were CONSCRIPTED (drafted) and didn't have the will, or the proper training, to defeat us.
His Republican Guard, on the other hand, was a well equipped, well trained, formidable force over 100,000 troops strong and they put up a determined, yet futile resistance to our ground assault. Iraqi Freedom was a relatively quick victory for us, but it was in no way an easy one.
that crumbled in days to the
May 8, 2008 - 14:52 ET by sajc05that crumbled in days to the us forces twice. in 03 and in 90, is that the powerful iraqi army you're talking about? there is no comparison to the war machine in germany in the 30's/40s and the iraqi army, i'm sorry.
What are you talking about?
May 8, 2008 - 15:35 ET by CobraManDays? Where did you get that impression? The first Gulf War lasted several MONTHS before Saddam agreed to a cease-fire. And that was AFTER he had already invaded Kuwait and had tried to invade Saudi Arabia. Never mind that fact that he fired missiles into Israel.
Saddam thought he could run roughshod over the Middle East and, after the Vietnam War, that America wouldn't have the stomach to face him in battle. Well, he learned the hard way that his foolish dreams of becoming another Saladin or Ganges Khan, a great ruler of the Middle East, was nothing more than a pipe dream. All his planning, all his wars, all his despotism, came to naught. He was hung like the lowly criminal he really was.
You keep making referrals to WWII, but I can't understand why. Is this an attempt to impress us with you knowledge of warfare or something?
If so, why just bringing up WWII? Why not Vietnam, Or Korea, Or the Balkan States or Somalia, Or Panama or any other armed conflicted we've had since WWII? Why always WWII? You don't even now much about the history of WWII. As a matter of fact, I’d say you know almost nothing about WWII.
I hope that you realize that America was NOT prepaid to fight WWII when we entered that war. It took YEARS to build up our military and armament in order to take on TWO well -equipped governments who were fighting us on TWO fronts. At the beginning of WWII, our troops were so under-equipped that they had to train using wooden guns and cloth targets.
Our Navy was decimated by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Once again, it took YEARS to build up our navy to the point where we started to defeat the Japanese and the Germans as sea.
Back at home, our civilian infrastructure was totally geared towards war production. Everything from food to metal to nylons to gasoline, to rubber was rationed. 60 to 70 percent of all manufacturing was committed to the war effort. Even with all this commitment, it still took YEARS for us to equip and train the men that fought and died in Europe.
After the war ended, we never stopped training and supplying our military. Literally TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent in the last 60 years to make sure another war like that will NEVER occur again. The cost of that war in human lives alone ran into the tens of MILLIONS! America, and our allies, made a decision that this will never happen again.
relax, i know fair share
May 8, 2008 - 16:53 ET by sajc05relax, i know fair share bout WWII, if you know more good for you. stop this " i bet you don't know anything" whining. and back in those days leaders asked their citizenry to sacrifice for the war effort, today we have leaders saying "please keep shopping" and cutting taxes... great sacrifice.
the reason i've mentioned WWII is because some one brought it up on this thread saying that if we didn't do anything about saddam it would end up being like leaving hitler unchecked... so the only reason i brought it up as well was to say the two states are not comparable. not trying to "impress" anyone so relax with that crap.
and i'm sorry you're never going to get me to agree that the iraqi army ever stood a chance against our military, thats insulting to the military and the billions we pour into defense spending. how many us soldiers died in the gulf war? or our initial invasion in the current war? almost none, many have died since, but thats for other reasons.
sajc, actually, it was the Luftwaffe, not the German army.
May 7, 2008 - 23:24 ET by R D HelmWhat the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
i'm sorry what i meant to
May 8, 2008 - 15:08 ET by sajc05i'm sorry what i meant to say was that the germans bombed pearl harbor.
How soon they forget.
May 8, 2008 - 12:33 ET by CobraManHave you forgotten about the Germans advance throughout most of Europe, including half of Russia, and how that "army" conquered more territory in one year than is contained in all of America?
You make it sound like WWII was just a bombing run on England when it was much more complicated than that. MILLIONS of people died during WWII and the Germans only attacked American SHIPPING because we were supplying England with money, food and equipment DURING the Battle of Briton.
Had we not intervened by sending vital food, support, and supplys during the Battle of Briton, England would have been quickly overrun and destroyed. Hitler had several divisions of well equipped, well trained assault troops waiting in French ports just across the English Channel, ready to invade England after England's Air Force was destroyed. That attack never occurred because of our commitment to our English allies. Because of our massive support to a country under siege, England survived the Battle of Briton and Germany declared war on the US. BIG mistake on Hitler’s part, wouldn’t you agree?
Any comparison between Germany in WWII and Iraq in 2003 is beyond pale, it is actually foolish.
i agree, that was the point
May 8, 2008 - 15:06 ET by sajc05i agree, that was the point i was trying to make, iraq could never do anything like germany did, so i do not like the saddam - hitler comparisons.
Then why keep bringing them up?
May 8, 2008 - 15:43 ET by CobraManThen why do you keep bringing them up? You're the one who keeps making comparisons between WWII and Iraq. They are totally different situations.
i'm not an expert i'm just
May 8, 2008 - 15:11 ET by sajc05i'm not an expert i'm just trying to make the point that germany/hitler and iraq/saddam are not comparable, one had a pwerful military one had a militry that crumbled in days to the us forces.
Hitler/Saddam....comparable
May 8, 2008 - 15:17 ET by bassndudeHitler/Saddam....comparable armies....the real difference is that while Hitler embraced technology and modern weapons, Iraq, like most Islam dominated countries, remain in the relative stone age and convince themselves they are modern and formidable. The war in Iraq and Afghanastan were examples of the mid 20th century meeting the 21st century. Wake up call.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Yep. Ironically, the US used
May 8, 2008 - 15:30 ET by Roger the ShrubberYep. Ironically, the US used similiar tactics as the Germans did, having complete air superiority(Luftwaffe) and fast-moving units/tactics(Wehrmacht Heer Panzers/Blitzkrieg), facing an out-dated army (France, Belgium, Poland, etc...)
i agree completely and
May 8, 2008 - 17:08 ET by sajc05i agree completely
and just to make it clear one last time, the only reason i brought it up in the first place was in response to some one who said that if we left saddam unchecked it would be like leaving hitler unchecked. i disagreed. thats all.
Man, some people just don't get it!
May 8, 2008 - 15:57 ET by CobraManMan, some people just don‘t get it!
Buddy, do you know that Saddam had the forth largest military in the world prior to the first Gulf War, that he fought a ten year war with Iran that killed over a million people, that he invaded Kuwait and tried to invade Saudi Arabia, that he was building weapons of mass destruction and was building and testing medium range missiles in order to deliver those weapons, and that he actually fired several of them at Israel during the first Gulf War?
Do you also realize that, after his defeat during the Gulf War, Saddam signed a cease-fire with America which he violated on several occasions, that he faced sanctions by the UN which he ignored, that he bribed several UN officials to look the other way when he violated those sanctions, that he made deals with several countries to rearm his "destroyed" military, that he never stopped torturing and killing his own people who disobeyed him, that he never stropped trying to acquire more weapons of mass destruction, that he never stropped planning on taking over the Middle East, and that had he been allowed to continue his rearmament programs, he would have done just that and would have plunged the entire planet into another World War?
If not, I suggest you do some serious research into Saddam, his goals, his capabilities, and his methods as you REALLY don't have a clue.
cobra I'm sorry if the
May 8, 2008 - 16:59 ET by sajc05cobra
I'm sorry if the iranians and the saudis respective armies couldn't handle the mighty iraqi army.
"did you know he had the 4th largest army" oh my god, how did the US ever deal with them!?
hell i don't care if their army was ranked #2. it's still not #1 and is in no way a match for the US army.
don't compare armies of the middle east to the US army, it offensive.
You don't care
May 8, 2008 - 17:31 ET by CobraMan"hell i don't care"
That is all you need to say. Everything else is just fluff.
You don't care about the millions of people Saddam and his henchmen controlled using fear, intimidation, torture and murder. You don't care about the citizens of Iraq that Saddam gassed to death. You don't care about the million people that Saddam killed in his fruitless war with Iran. You don't care about the innocent citizens of Kuwait who were raped, tortured, and murdered when Saddam's troop invaded and pillaged that country. You don't care about the Saudis who were next on his list. You don't care about the Israelis who Saddam swore he would destroy and was making WMD‘s to do just that. You don’t care that Saddam wanted to take over the entire Middle East and plunge the world into a global war.
You don't care about anything outside our own borders. You're an isolationist and that is the most dangerous position to take in the global environment we have today. You would rather just let the rest of the world fall into chaos and ruin until that global chaos entered this country and destroyed us all. You just don't care, PERIOD!
Don't EVER compare your lack of morals and judgment with the honorable troops and veterans like myself who are willing to fight and die in foreign lands so that others may be free by claiming that you're concerned about national security or the welfare of our troops, it's obscene. Your true colors have come shining thought, and I’m done with you.
hey, cobra i tried to extend
May 8, 2008 - 19:22 ET by sajc05hey, cobra i tried to extend an olive branch but you're just being an a**hole now. stop making sh*t up about people.
really? thats what you took away from my comment? the "i don't care if people die" rant you just made had no basis, it just seemed like you were angrily typing and making sh*t up about me. but thats fine some people have do that.
next time you respond to some one TAKE TIME TO READ WHAT THEY WROTE, because you look ignorant if you don't.
hey, cobra i tried to extend
May 8, 2008 - 19:23 ET by sajc05hey, cobra i tried to extend an olive branch but you're just being an a**hole now. stop making sh*t up about people.
really? thats what you took away from my comment? the "i don't care if people die" rant you just made had no basis, it just seemed like you were angrily typing and making sh*t up about me. but thats fine some people have do that.
next time you respond to some one TAKE TIME TO READ WHAT THEY WROTE, because you look ignorant if you don't.
One of Kings followers?
May 8, 2008 - 17:28 ET by general companyHorror Author Tells Fans to Email NB, Shuts Down Discussion of Anti-military Remarks
Yep some folks dont get it, some folks dont even try.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
paleo conservative
May 8, 2008 - 13:41 ET by candanceSajc, I hate to break it to you, but you're a libertarian through and through which is not always the same as being a conservative. When asked about your conservative credentials, you simply point to smaller government and SCOTUS. Okay, that's a start, but what about a slew of other issues?
As for your concerns about Iraq, our good friend Free Stinker has already made the case for that right here on NB which leaves us no need to defend it on every thread.
As for an open border, you are preaching to the choir here and don't even know it. Here's but one example of how NBers consistently feel about immigration. We are thankful that there hasn't been another terror attack since 9/11 (which was the only point NBers made to you) but that doesn't mean we have blinders on to the danger.
And as to your track record on NB, I gotta go with the others. You never come on here to discuss deep issues - it's always a random "drive by" complaint about George Bush with no follow up. One doesn't have to be liberal to suffer from BDS, and I gotta tell you, it looks an awful lot like you have BDS. You claim that you're here to debate things in a civil way, but you quickly devolve into name calling, sarcastic comebacks, and unweildy rants whenever someone pokes you with a stick. I see that you apologized for your behavior in this thread, but you've a track record of nothing but angry rants thrown out at random, so until I see otherwise I'm going to assume that's your MO.
Since you seem to be an expert on all things conservative, by all means, educate us on conservative views in something other than small government and national security. And please try to go an entire post without bashing George Bush.
i know NB has covered
May 8, 2008 - 15:04 ET by sajc05i know NB has covered illegal immigration, a quite well.
my point to bring up in an iraqi war context is that there seems to be so much support for bush and him being great on nat'l security, and all these years after 9/11 and our borders and ports are wide open - visa overstayers (9/11 hijackers) all these issues have remained unsolved nor even attempted to be tackled by bush.
as for some conservative issues that i'm for, one is the fact that we don't pay for anything ourselves anymore. we lower taxes then borrow money and print it off, which, among other things, affects the dollar. I want flat tax. I believe in sovereignty of our country, a unifying national language, an emphasis on education like in the 50's (newt speaks well on this) judges who interpret the strict letter of the constitution not use foreign law to push a liberal agenda... I mean i could go on but if there are still doubts that i'm conservative than i'm sorry.
but i agree, i'm probably more libertarian than conservative.
sajc...when was the last
May 8, 2008 - 15:09 ET by bassndudesajc...when was the last terrorist attack on US soil? Seems that Bush, for all lapses in the borders, is doing ok there. The scary part is if Obama was to get into office.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
i cant disagree with you on
May 8, 2008 - 15:32 ET by sajc05i cant disagree with you on obama, things wold be very bad.
but i think al queda hasn't attacked the home land for two reasons,
1>the patriot act, a great anti terror too, along with the nsa wire tapping. credit to bush on that.
2>they are killing american soldiers every day, so to them its like having the uss cole attack all the time. the troops are doing a good job killing much more of them, but you can't kill an ideal thats bread from childhood in other countries like saudi arabia (our great ally)
Democrat talking points
May 8, 2008 - 16:18 ET by CobraManAre you SURE you're a conservative? You seem to be using the same old, and discredited, talking points that the democrats use just about every day.
cobra, you're being
May 8, 2008 - 17:04 ET by sajc05cobra, you're being rediculous.
"same old democratic talking point"
thats a line used to discredit anyone who is not an iraq fanatic. get some new come backs please... or don't. your call.
i'm a conservative, and you insult the army by saying that the iraqi army is some how a match for us.
Who the hell is saying the
May 8, 2008 - 17:16 ET by RESTLESS 1Who the hell is saying the the Iraq army was any match for the U.S. army? They waltzed into baghdad, and the only thing that slowed them down was a sandstorm and waiting for supply lines. It is the touchy-feely left that has kept us there this long. If given the authority to take care of problems properly, not the PC way, this would have been over long ago, and the rebuilding could have been farther along. When their hands are tied behind their backs by pc libs and the msm's faulty, and downright misleading reporting, the mission is slowed. The surge has done what it was supposed to and now much of what happens over there is up to the Iraqi people and government.
i agree completely.
May 8, 2008 - 19:25 ET by sajc05i agree completely.
i agree completely.
May 8, 2008 - 19:25 ET by sajc05i agree completely.
Bush IS doing a great job on Nationa Security
May 8, 2008 - 16:41 ET by CobraManPresident Bush IS doing great on national security. The fact that we HAVEN"T been attacked since 9/11 proves that.
As for Iraq, I think we're doing a damn good job there. We are creating a democratic ally in a place where we only had one, Israel, before and we‘re giving millions of people the chance to rise above their horrible past and create a new future for their children. That's a HUGE improvement over what was happening in Iraq just 10 years ago, wouldn't you agree?
As for our troops "dying every day," they're NOT "dying every day," that’s an exaggeration, for if they were dying every day, the death count would be in the tens of thousands by now. Besides, they're protecting democracy and securing the rights and freedoms of over 50 MILLION people in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Isn't that worth the effort? Isn’t that worth their sacrifice? After all, it's what we did in Europe in the 40’s and look how well THAT turned out for us?
As to the border situation, you keep blaming Bush but it's really the Democrats in congress that have done everything in their power to make sure Bush CAN'T do anything to change a situation that has been with us since WWII. It‘s the Democrats in congress who‘s interfering with every policy and every decision that the Bush administration makes, just like they have done since he took office. How can anyone blame ANY President for what the members of Congress are preventing him from accomplishing? Bush isn't an emperor you know, he can only do what Congress and the law allows.
All in all, I’d say that President Bush is doing a wonderful job for America, much better than most Presidents have done in the past. Is he the best? Probably not, but that's something only history can decide.
S. King has written some
May 6, 2008 - 15:30 ET by BlazerS. King has written some truly horrific and creepy stuff through the year's and on more than one occasion he has raised my goosebumps, got the hair to stand up on the back of my neck and made me sleep with the light's on.
I've alway's thought his work's were the product of a macabre mind and that he was drawing from his own greatest fear's.
Who woulda thunk, that all this time, his greatest fear's and horror's are not possesed automobiles, a coven of vampires,re-animated pet's and people, or even a super-virus, no not at all,.........it's a right-wing blog.
O.K. Stephen, you can come out now, we're not " Low Men In Yellow Coat's" or "The Library Police", we're just NB'ers........muuuuhahahahahahahah. : )
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
All I can say is thank God
May 6, 2008 - 16:19 ET by mjgAll I can say is thank God I haven't bought or read any of his books in a while. Now I don't plan on doing it at all
Noel: Can you comment on
May 6, 2008 - 16:38 ET by QueenMumNoel: Can you comment on this statement from the Moderator on King's website.
"I did try to register for an account with Mr. Shepard's blog to inform him of his oversight, but have had my account immediately deleted without ever being allowed to post."
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
QM
May 6, 2008 - 17:09 ET by Noel SheppardQM,
Where are you seeing that? I don't see any new message board posts there. I thought it's down. Can you provide a link?
Anyway, this must be the same person that's been e-mailing me. To my knowledge, nobody's been deleted. It just takes time to get registered here as you know. ns
Noel: Under the Topic Title
May 6, 2008 - 18:27 ET by QueenMumNoel: Under the Topic Title "Board Closed" (Addendum added at 3:44 p.m. today)
How convenient that said Webmaster will be gone on vacation immediately after accusing NB of refusing her/him admittance.
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
QM
May 6, 2008 - 19:26 ET by Noel SheppardQM,
Thanks. I've spoken to Matt, and he not only said this was nonsense, but made it clear that if someone from King's website wanted to post a comment here, his/her registration would have been expedited to facilitate the request.
The "Webmaster" has been sent an e-mail message asking for him to prove his allegations, or amend his posting. Stay tuned. ns
Oh now this is getting
May 6, 2008 - 19:29 ET by bigtimerOh now this is getting verrry interesting...
QM...glad you found this...I have been following even though I haven't posted.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
BT
May 6, 2008 - 19:31 ET by Noel SheppardBT,
As I wrote the message to King's Webmaster, I don't think he's going to be pleased. :-) ns
Noel... ;-) "Never
May 6, 2008 - 19:35 ET by bigtimerNoel...
;-)
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Noel and BT - someone at Newsbusters deleted a king fan
May 8, 2008 - 17:22 ET by Dee BunkDo you guys know what happened? We were discussing this on another King thread.
Someone named Shasta posted that he was being blocked from posting and gave the address for a site with Noel's name in it and a few of us responded to him and all of the comments were deleted.
The original incident happened on the King thread with the Psycho picture.Then we were talking about it on the King/Military thread.
It would be nice to get an explanation of why the comments were deleted.
I saw them too, Dee
May 8, 2008 - 17:26 ET by sarcasmoAnd the comments weren't offensive. Whoever did this wasn't helping -- hell, we could have made some converts instead of reinforcing preconcieved notions WRT conservative blogs. Oh well, maybe whoever it is has differing loyalties...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc - It did make Newsbusters look Bad
May 8, 2008 - 17:37 ET by Dee BunkI'm guessing that who ever did it, did it to protect Noel because of the website but I don't know.
I don't think Noel would have deleted it.
It was a dumb move because
May 8, 2008 - 17:51 ET by balboaIt was a dumb move because it reinforced any preconceptions they had before coming here.
Not only that
May 8, 2008 - 19:20 ET by sarcasmoI'd just made a good point (so I'll make it again). Anybody in the service since at least WW2 probably spent his/her first couple of days FILLING OUT WRITTEN FORMS. While being watched. Anyway, it was a bad decision for NB, IMO.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Hi Dee... I logged in
May 8, 2008 - 17:28 ET by bigtimerHi Dee...
I logged in this morning, checked out what the latest subjects were for the day, went about my business, haven't followed this much at all, maybe they don't want to give these guys that much attention...just really got back to my computer and here the last hour.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
BT - it was strange
May 8, 2008 - 17:43 ET by Dee BunkI wish they would explain their reasoning
ROFL @ King's webmaster
May 6, 2008 - 19:38 ET by candanceApparently when they discovered they'd have to wait a few days, they thought they could get away with saying NB didn't want them here. Too bad for them the devil is in the details.
A few days?
May 6, 2008 - 19:58 ET by CobraManMaybe it was just my good luck, but when I registered here, that registration was approved almost immediately. It took less that a few minutes before I was authorized to post a comment.
Hell
May 8, 2008 - 17:07 ET by RESTLESS 1it took me a about a whole week. I guess they like you more. :>/
Same here Restless...one
May 8, 2008 - 17:11 ET by bigtimerSame here Restless...one week.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Hi, King and fans- Noel
May 6, 2008 - 17:38 ET by muh-oonHi, King and fans- Noel doesn't have to shut up and you know who says so? The American soldier. Now quit being petty and take your online flogging like a man or at least like John Kerry did. I think Kerry finally did at least apologize, sort of, called it a botched joke or something. Maybe that could be a way out for you, too. Man, I can't believe you weren't paying attention when Kerry went through all this before- you actually went and said the same thing.
Stephen King
May 6, 2008 - 17:51 ET by KansasgirlBy corrupt system, is he referring to the Teachers Unions? They have done irreparable harm to the educational system in this country. They no longer teach, they indocrinate for social structuring!
Are you kidding me, you
May 6, 2008 - 18:08 ET by The PresbyterAre you kidding me, you felt it necessary to mention that he spelt soldier as solider?
I was a big fan of this site about a year ago, but now I've lost most interest. You and Hudson have lost your minds. There's almost no rationale anymore.
Out of the whole post, you
May 6, 2008 - 18:18 ET by RESTLESS 1Out of the whole post, you focus on the mention of a spelling error? It was mentioned in passing for Pete's sake. Any substantive comments on the rest of the post? If not, perhaps you should not let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
I probably would have
May 6, 2008 - 23:59 ET by The PresbyterI probably would have ignored it, but he decided to add "You really can't make this stuff up." for extra emphasis. Either way, why mention it in the first place. Is pointing out someone else's spelling mistakes going to win an argument?
As for the post itself, the whole thing is a game of who got who. Pretty lame in its own right. Even lamer on the internet, but I'd probably be an excited little school boy too if I was arguing with Stephen King.
Actually, I think the "you
May 7, 2008 - 00:07 ET by RESTLESS 1Actually, I think the "you really can't make this stuff up" quote is in reference to the entire article, not just the spelling error.
As for the tit for tat, King should be intelligent enough to remember how similar comments got Kerry into hot water. The bigger question is, why do liberals feel such need to denigrate the military. The saddest part about all of this is that hatred for the military is so ingrained on the left, they don't see their comment as insults.
The irony is, military personell have more smarts than King and Kerry combined.
→ tit for tat
May 7, 2008 - 00:13 ET by Cool ArrowI knew a girl who had a rose tattooed on her left breast.
Would you call that a tat for . . . never mind.
♣ a seal
I agree with you, trust me
May 7, 2008 - 00:19 ET by The PresbyterI agree with you, trust me on that. There's nothing King could say that would make me think he didn't mean what he really said. He deserves a swift kick in the nards by R. Lee Ermey if you ask me.
TB
May 6, 2008 - 18:24 ET by Noel SheppardTB,
Amazing. Another person with no sense of irony.
BTW: Spelt is an ancient form of wheat NOT the past tense of spell thereby adding to irony I'm sure will escape you.
But thank you for playing my game, and please come back when it becomes clearer just how rational we are. If not, happy trails, and sorry to be such a disappointment. ns
Irony? Spelling retard with
May 7, 2008 - 00:14 ET by The PresbyterIrony? Spelling retard with a 't' is ironic. Someone spelling soldier the wrong way is a type-o.
Oh no! I spelled something the way I say it on occasion. Yeah, your impressive wit went way over my head.
Bantering aside, as for the site, focus on substantial things the media spins. That's the stuff I appreciate. To me, it seems lately that I've been going into some of the postings and the author is trying desperately to make a mountain out of a mole hill. IDK, it's just how I feel. Perhaps my steady march toward liberterianism has made me less willing to eat this stuff up.
→ Presbyter
May 7, 2008 - 00:19 ET by Cool ArrowGotta admit it's ironic to misspell spelled.
If it were any other word, your outrage would be solider.
♣ a seal
Yeah, I guess so. That's
May 7, 2008 - 00:27 ET by The PresbyterYeah, I guess so. That's what I get for going to a technical school I guess. My vocabulary is worse now at 22 then it was back in highschool.
Don't worry, Presbyter
May 7, 2008 - 00:31 ET by Cool ArrowI'm 55 and my vocabulary is getting even worser.
♣ a seal
Read !!!
May 8, 2008 - 13:00 ET by LionKingIf you would read Steven Kings book, yur vocabulary cud git gooder.
Lion King... It's not
May 8, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Clear thinkerLion King...
It's not "gooder", the proper word is "betterer".
"Abstain from McCain"
more better
May 8, 2008 - 17:41 ET by general company"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Oh yeah, and Hillary may be
May 7, 2008 - 00:32 ET by The PresbyterOh yeah, and Hillary may be dropping out of the race. Or is she just regrouping/hiding her head in the sand? Oh please be gone Lucifer.
http://tpmelectionce...
→ Stay and fight Hillary
May 7, 2008 - 00:37 ET by Cool ArrowThe longer she stays in, the more we find out about Gollum Obama.
McAnus doesn't have the skills necessary to paint a good picture of Bambi.
♣ a seal
Probably true, I just can't
May 7, 2008 - 00:41 ET by The PresbyterProbably true, I just can't stand Hillary and this should help me sleep better tonight.
Spelt?
May 7, 2008 - 00:05 ET by Cool ArrowI think "spelled" would be a "solider" rendering.
Spelt is a grain.
♣ a seal
~
May 6, 2008 - 19:56 ET by Free StinkerNoel: 5
king: 0
Now, the rest of the internet is jumping on Stephen King for his mean, ignorant remarks. For starters: Here, here, and here (NSFW)
Once again, Noel Shepperd leads the way!