Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
235 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 235 of 235Seriously, what sort of dipstick writes comment after comment defending Obama's war in Libya, and then manages to write the words "I don't defend Obama's illegal war in Libya"?
To answer my own question - the sort of pathetic loser who is too gutless to even use his regular screen name.
Seriously, what sort of dipstick writes comment after comment defending Obama's war in Libya, and then manages to write the words "I don't defend Obama's illegal war in Libya"?
I said I don't defend it. I don't defend Obama's or Bush's actions. But it's clear that overthrowing someone guilty of terrorism against the West, at the cost of 4 American lives, is less bad than overthrowing people not responsible for terrorism against the West, at the cost of thousands of American lives. You're apparently too stupid to recognize this.
By your reasoning, it would have been better for Obama to invade, say, Papua New Guinea and overthrow its government at the cost of, say, 10,000 American lives.
Then the Islamic nutjobs we assisted in overthrowing him killed the US Ambassador.
"In US soldier's death, a window into Afghan insider killings"
"'Green on blue' attacks account for 1 in 5 NATO combat casualties"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/usa-afghanistan-insider-attacks-idUSL1E8KP8J220120926
"[H]is killer would be an Afghan army soldier, one of those the U.S. military is supposed to be training to take over security of the country ahead of the withdrawal of most U.S. troops by the end of 2014.
A surge in insider attacks (also known as green on blue attacks) has prompted NATO to temporarily curtail some joint operations. The move casts doubt on what exactly international forces can accomplish in those places where they cannot work alongside their Afghan allies."
"Insider attacks now account for one in every five combat deaths suffered by NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, and 16 percent of all American combat casualties, according to 2012 data."
But it was a democratic decision, not something Bush did.
LOL. Bush initiated and led the drive to war. And presidents have veto power over declarations of war, so it is ultimately up to the president.
How about "he was going to put an end to the war on terror excesses of Bush?"
Yes, I was including that in my first point, "get us out of foreign wars." Closing Gitmo and ending the torture and open-ended detention of terrorist suspects was also part of that, on which Obama has also failed miserably.
Of course, I predicted back then that he wouldn't scale back our involvement. Not because I'm particularly prescient, but because Obama himself said he wouldn't. He made it clear that he intended to increase troops in Afghanistan, and he did enough saber rattling that I predicted we'd be involved in at least one African war before long. I figured Darfur, not Libya, but I just knew he wouldn't be able to leave the continent alone. The important thing was that it would be a pointless exercise -- not for oil or anything that might be called the national interest, but because he'd want to meddle.
But, as usual, people ignored the candidates' words, and assumed that the Democrat would lean toward peace over war. Oops. That's not to say McCain (whom I loathed) would have been less warlike, of course. But even he probably wouldn't have managed to get us involved in more wars while simultaneously making us look like confused pansies.
When most people think of Mormon missions (or any other kind of overseas religious mission), they usually think of some third world hellhole. So Romney went to . ... France? Was Switzerland already taken?
>it's not exactly rocket science that a life-long proven winner like Romney will do a better job<
At what?
Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer, by David Stockman
>FDR and Bush did not create the conditions for Pearl Harbor and 9/11.<
That's the empire's line, of course. In the real world, FDR did all he could to back the Japanese into a corner and goad them into a first strike (the counter arguments are that he didn't know precisely where the strike would be - he knew approximately when; and that he was more devoted to his old memories of the Navy than to the necessity of defeating an enemy in wartime). As for 9/11...
>Carters [sic] economy was vastly better than Obama's.<
1. A minor point. Presidents are not 100% responsible for the state of the economy as it exists during, say, the first 2 or 3 years of their first term.
2. The major point. If you think the inflation rate etc. under Carter was better, then you simply weren't alive in the 1970s. Which is entirely possible, come to think of it.
This needs to be repeated every time someone invokes Intrade's numbers. It is extremely difficult for Americans to use Intrade because the federal ban on internet gambling makes it pretty much impossible to actually send them your money.
There is no federal ban on internet gambling.
"If you're a 19-year-old REAL man, who wants serve his country in the military, you serve your country in the military. A man makes his own decisions, Period."
So Barack Obama is not a real man. Got it.
What you're talking about is Mitt Romney not voluntarily pursuing the option to serve. Tens of millions of young men in his day didn't do that. Tens of millions of young men and women today aren't doing that, either for fear of death or injury, or because they feel they have better things to do with their time.
I agree that, ideally, any U.S. leader should have served in the military. But politicians with military service are in short supply. Neither Biden nor Obama served.
"I think if you pursue deferments which not every young man pursues or is eligible to receive, then you are draft dodging."
I think that I am referring to the actual definition of the term "draft dodging" while you are referring to your own made-up definition. Not registering for the draft, or not going when you are called up, qualifies as draft dodging. Getting a high draft number in the lottery qualifies as luck.
Not every young man was eligible to receive a deferment for religious service, but then not every young man was eligible to receive one for college, either.
"If you're a 19-year-old REAL man, who wants serve his country in the military, you serve your country in the military."
Are you implying that all 'real men' want to serve their country in the military, or are you leaving yourself an escape for your buddy Barack by implying there are 'real men' who don't want to serve?
And actually there are plenty of REAL men who want to serve their country in the military but cannot do so for medical reasons.
Just because you guys are sexually aroused by my posts does not mean I'm describing my fantasies. :-)
Riiiight. :)
Neither Saddam Hussein nor the Taliban were involved in terrorism against the West - they attacked Shias, Kurds, Iranians, other Iraqis and Afghans, etc. They were overthrown, and then 4,486 Americans were killed.
The Taliban sheltered AQ. That's involved in terrorism in my book.
I think if you pursue deferments which not every young man pursues or is eligible to receive, then you are draft dodging.
AFAIK draft-dodging involves cheating to get out of the draft. Otherwise, our whole leadership class was "draft-dodging." Going to Canada, pretending to be a homo or insane, etc.
I said I don't defend it
He repeated, while defending it yet again.
You're apparently too stupid to recognize this.
You're apparently too stupid to recognize that we as a country decided to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush didn't do that. Your lefty pals voted for those wars.
it's clear that overthrowing someone guilty of terrorism against the West, at the cost of 4 American lives, is less bad than overthrowing people not responsible for terrorism against the West, at the cost of thousands of American lives
No, that's not clear at all. The only thing which is clear is that, a decade later, you still have not gotten over the fact that you lost the argument over whether to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
And on that topic, as on the topic of Libya, you the supposed "right winger" are parroting the hard left in every last detail.
I don't defend Obama's or Bush's actions.
You've just spent several hours defending Obama's actions. You defend his actions once more in this very same comment where you write the words "I don't defend Obama's or Bush's actions"!
If I was a stupid as you I'd post as Anonymous myself.
Banning all Anonymous commenters would raise the intellectual bar around here by several orders of magnitude. (We'd still be stuck with Truth of course ...)
Link
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.
One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
nvestigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing. He observes that although administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Stevens and his colleagues was launched, they call it a “mission.” What Mr. Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” that lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”
We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”
It gets worse. Last week, Center for Security Policy senior fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called “consulate” whose purpose has yet to be disclosed. As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed — and were known by the local jihadis to house — arms, perhaps administered by the two former Navy SEALs killed along with Stevens.
What we do know is that the New York Times — one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country — reported in an Oct. 14 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”
In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well.
"What you're talking about is Mitt Romney not voluntarily pursuing the option to serve. Tens of millions of young men in his day didn't do that."
You're right, but tens of millions of young men aren't running for president, Mitt Romney is.
"And actually there are plenty of REAL men who want to serve their country in the military but cannot do so for medical reasons."
You're right again, but Mitt Romney is not one of them.
"Are you implying that all 'real men' want to serve their country in the military, or are you leaving yourself an escape for your buddy Barack by implying there are 'real men' who don't want to serve?"
As a Romneyphile, you miss the entire point. Mitt Romney as a teenager was pro Vietnam, shortly afterward, he was anti-Vietnam. He is a wishy-washy liar now, and he was 45 years ago as well.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-spoke-out-against-the-vietnam-war-in-c
Now, do what do you think about a man speaking out IN FAVOR of the Vietnam war, and then not serving? (like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney).
" (We'd still be stuck with Truth of course ...)"
I like Truth, don't you like Truth?
"In a Real Debate..."
"...In a real debate, Obama would be put on the spot: Does “all options” include an all-out war? Air strikes alone, or occupation, partial or total? With what objective, timetable, and end-game? ...What is the calculus of Obama’s perceived costs and benefits in this scenario? If he does not include an all-out war in the said scenario, why make empty threats? If he does, what is the “threat to our national security” exactly? What are, specifically, Iran’s delivery capabilities? How does the threat to America of an Iranian bomb differ from that of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal?
In a real debate, when Obama boasted that during the Arab Spring uprisings “we have stood on the side of democracy,” his opponent would challenge him on two obvious points:
Has the American interest been served—and in what way exactly—by Egypt’s transformation into a Muslim Brotherhood fiefdom, in which “democracy” came handy as a single-use device in the one-way street to Sharia? Or by Libya’s descent into Hobbesian failed statehood?
Has democracy been served, and how, by the continuing Administration support for the Islamo-Stalinist regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Emirates, or for the deliveries of U.S. arms to the dictatorial Sunni monarchy in Bahrain when it battled the country’s Shia demonstrators last year?"
by Srdja Trifkovic
Yes, and unlike Qaddafy, neither Saddam Hussein nor the Taliban were involved in terrorism against the West.
Um, the Taliban was sheltering and protecting al Qaeda. The two were very strongly allied (bin Laden was married to one of Mullah Omar's daughters). So it was imperative to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. That of course doesn't excuse to complete cock-up we've made of it since. But I don't see how you could go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan without taking down the Taliban.
He repeated, while defending it yet again.
I didn't defend it. You apparently don't know what "defend" means.
You're apparently too stupid to recognize that we as a country decided to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush didn't do that. Your lefty pals voted for those wars.
You're apparently too stupid to recognize that Bush initiated and led the drive to war, and that presidents have veto power over and thus the ultimate say on declarations of war.
No, that's not clear at all.
It's absolutely clear. Most people recognize by now who was and wasn't guilty of terrorism against the West, and most people can count and can see that 4 is many times less than thousands.
And on that topic, as on the topic of Libya, you the supposed "right winger" are parroting the hard left in every last detail.
I opposed the Libya action. I believe those on the left that supported the Libya action did so on the grounds that Gaddafi was oppressing freedom fighters or something. I haven't discussed that aspect at all. I've only analyzed it on 2 grounds: 1) Gaddafi's guilt in terrorism against the West 2) Its cost in American lives.
You've just spent several hours defending Obama's actions. You defend his actions once more in this very same comment where you write the words "I don't defend Obama's or Bush's actions"!
I don't defend Obama's actions. I was opposed to both Obama's and Bush's actions. I said it was less bad as far as debacles go than Bush's wars. Numbers clarify matters. Learn to count.
Donnie Trump's bombshell landed!*
*(no casualties reported)
He repeated, while defending it yet again.
I didn't defend it. You apparently don't know what "defend" means.
You're apparently too stupid to recognize that we as a country decided to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush didn't do that. Your lefty pals voted for those wars.
You're apparently too stupid to recognize that Bush initiated and led the drive to war, and that presidents have veto power over and thus the ultimate say on declarations of war.
No, that's not clear at all.
It's absolutely clear. Most people recognize by now who was and wasn't guilty of terrorism against the West, and most people can count and can see that 4 is many times less than thousands.
And on that topic, as on the topic of Libya, you the supposed "right winger" are parroting the hard left in every last detail.
I opposed the Libya action. I believe those on the left that supported the Libya action did so on the grounds that Gaddafi was oppressing freedom fighters or something. I haven't discussed that aspect at all. I've only analyzed it on 2 grounds: 1) Gaddafi's guilt in terrorism against the West 2) Its cost in American lives.
The Taliban was not directly involved in terrorism against the West, unlike Gaddafi. Al-Qaeda is a distributed network of self-organizing individuals and cells. Anyone, anywhere on Earth, can be a member of Al-Qaeda. A man in Montana can convert to Islam in 5 seconds by reciting a short phrase, and declare himself to be a member of Al-Qaeda. He is just as legitimately a member of Al-Qaeda as any other member. If some foreign body then refuses to hand over this man, then Montana or the US could be accused of "sheltering" Al-Qaeda.
I think that I am referring to the actual definition of the term "draft dodging" while you are referring to your own made-up definition. Not registering for the draft, or not going when you are called up, qualifies as draft dodging. Getting a high draft number in the lottery qualifies as luck.
I'm not sure what you mean by "actual definition". "Draft dodging" is a pejorative term with a relatively varied meaning. It's not a technical term with a precise definition. If you're interested in "official" or "actual" definitions, Webster's Unabridged Dictionary from the Vietnam War era simply defined draft dodger as "one who avoids military service" regardless of how it was done.
Pursuing deferments is not as egregious as, say, fleeing to Canada. But even fleeing to Canada is not a sure thing - there is always the probability however slight that the authorities will find and hunt you down and force you to serve. It lowers the probability of serving in combat. Pursuing and receiving a deferment lowers the probability as well. Multiple deferments lower the probability even further. Any action which serves to lower the probability of having to serve in combat could qualify as "draft dodging".
If the war against Libya is justified because of G'duffy's past terrorism against the West, then the war against Iran is even more justified. Iran is responsible for many more dead Americans than Libya.
If the war against Libya is justified because of G'duffy's past terrorism against the West
I didn't argue that the Libya action was justified. I argued that it was less justified to remove people with fewer or no direct links to terrorism against the West.
If the war against Libya is justified because of G'duffy's past terrorism against the West, then the war against Iran is even more justified. Iran is responsible for many more dead Americans than Libya.
Two dimensions are being looked at here - guilt in direct links to terrorism against the West, and cost in American life.
If it indeed is the case that Iran is more guilty and the cost in American life of removing Iran's gov't would be 4 or fewer, then it would be reasonable to conclude that removing Iran's government would be less bad than the Libya action, and certainly much less bad than the Iraq and Afghanistan actions. If Iran was more guilty but it would cost more than 4 American lives, then the magnitude of this cost would have to be considered before determining whether it was less bad or not.
The Taliban was not directly involved in terrorism against the West, unlike Gaddafi. Al-Qaeda is a distributed network of self-organizing individuals and cells. Anyone, anywhere on Earth, can be a member of Al-Qaeda. A man in Montana can convert to Islam in 5 seconds by reciting a short phrase, and declare himself to be a member of Al-Qaeda. He is just as legitimately a member of Al-Qaeda as any other member. If some foreign body then refuses to hand over this man, then Montana or the US could be accused of "sheltering" Al-Qaeda.
You can construct stupid hypotheticals about what ISN'T sheltering terrorists all you like; doesn't change the fact that the Taliban sheltered AQ. I was in favor of bombing the shit out of Afghanistan after 9/11, Iraq Attaq II notwithstanding.
The Taliban was not directly involved in terrorism against the West, unlike Gaddafi. Al-Qaeda is a distributed network of self-organizing individuals and cells. Anyone, anywhere on Earth, can be a member of Al-Qaeda. A man in Montana can convert to Islam in 5 seconds by reciting a short phrase, and declare himself to be a member of Al-Qaeda. He is just as legitimately a member of Al-Qaeda as any other member. If some foreign body then refuses to hand over this man, then Montana or the US could be accused of "sheltering" Al-Qaeda.
You can construct stupid hypotheticals about what ISN'T sheltering terrorists all you like; doesn't change the fact that the Taliban sheltered AQ. I was in favor of bombing the shit out of Afghanistan after 9/11, Iraq Attaq II notwithstanding.
Any action which serves to lower the probability of having to serve in combat could qualify as "draft dodging".
Anyone as tendentious as you definitely qualifies as an asshole. Uncle Joe fell off the ladder in 1964 and broke his neck, the draft-dodging paltroon.
Linda said: "But Obama looked TOUGH. That look in his eyes tonight was absolutely menacing. He looks like he would be an extremely good physical fighter, in fact he looks like a dark skinned version of a super tough tall thin white guy who would startle much more muscular opponents with the speed and precision of his punch."
Svigor is correct. Most women have no ability to judge a man's fighting ability. He doesn't look like a wiry white or West African ancestry guy who could fight. He looks like what half of him is: a frail, East African distance runner type with no burst or explosive athletecism. I doubt he could beat up his wife, let alone most "muscular black youths in a street gang."
no one's ever argued that the Taliban engaged in terrorism against the U.S., it's that they allowed al Qaeda to operate from there. unless you want to dispute that
the person in this thread acting as though the Taliban was just passively not-really-sheltering al Qaeda is a total idiot
Al-Qaeda's leadership wasn't in Afghanistan. A "senior leader" of Al-Qaeda named al-Rahman indicated that Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda leadership were based in Pakistan. Which is why Bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan, 10 years after we mucked around in Afghanistan.
Anyone as tendentious as you definitely qualifies as an asshole. Uncle Joe fell off the ladder in 1964 and broke his neck, the draft-dodging paltroon.
You're an idiot. I said "could qualify". Obviously if he did it deliberately in order to avoid serving in combat, then it would be draft-dodging.
I believe the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders after evidence of their complicity was given to them.
Gaddafi of course never offered to stand trial or turn himself and face evidence of his complicity in terrorism.
Post a Comment