How to Lose Your Yob in Talk Radio (FR mentioned)

The American Conservative Magazine ^ | Jan 12, 2004 | Charles Goyette

[narby]

That wouldn't fly if Clinton were the CinC, and it won't fly now. Otherwise, the President could deploy troops anywhere, anytime and it would be our patriotic duty to support it. The real mistake is to continue to let our men and women die for no good reason.

I don't remember any promenent Republicans arguing that Clinton should stop actions in Bosnia. There were some Reps that tepidly suggested that we were in there for the wrong reasons, but I remember none who suggested we leave after the action began.

Politically opposing a war is a move that litterally "aids and comforts" the ememy, giving them reason to hang on until the domestic political anti-war movement wins.

Almost 60k Americans were killed in SE Asia for nothing, because the anti-war people "won" it for the North. Books have been published since 1975 by North Vietnamese leaders saying they hung in there because of the US domestic help they were being given.

Between 2-3 million people died in SE Asia after the North "won" in 1975. The American anti-war people have blood on their hands.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are accomplishing anti-terrorism goals beyond their borders. I'm proud of what Bush is doing, and I support it.

[narby]

(BTW: Declaring War, per the US Constitution, would have eliminated all this fuss to begin with. So, why didn't we follow the Constitution in the first place?)

Is there some specific required language the Constitution requires the Congress to use in order to "declare War"?

If the Congress authorizes "use of force", is that not making war?

The bottom line is that despite large numbers of very influencial people who are anti-war, none of them have gotten a case through the supreme court to halt actions in places from Korea through Vietnam to Iraq.

Under the Constitution, the SC is the arbiter, and obviously it hasn't stopped those actions, so my opinion is that all those actions were authorized. They just may not have used the exact phrase "Declaration of War".

[hchutch]

Congressman Billybob did a fine opinion article on just that subject.

[Burkeman1]

McGovern lost in 72 - and launched the left's takover of the Dem party

Totally disagree with you on this war. But read your tagline and more than agree. It has got even worse since then. If Dean is the Dem nominee- there is a serious chance even Massachusetts will vote Bush. Dean will be defeated so badly it might even be the death knell of the Democratic Party.

Just a comment on the Democratic party now. When the McGovern faction took over - they were at least still idealistic and believed in their policies and ideology. They don't believe in anything anymore than pure power. Do you think there is one Democrat who actually thinks Federal no frills Welfare is a "good policy"? Or that their support of teacher's unions and their anti choice stances is going to "help kids?" Nope. They don't believe one word they themselves say anymore. I need only point to one example of how easily they betray anything they once stood for- the Impeachment vote and Senate trial of Bill Clinton. And who is the head of the DNC? Terry MaCauliffe- who resembles the small town near-do-well who peddles pyramid schemes in between used car sales jobs.

When the Dems critisize the war in Iraq it is worthless jibberish. If they were in power they would be calling any opposition to the war "treason" just as they did against Republicans who raised doubts and objections to Clinton's disgusting "wag-the-dog" wars.

[DLfromthedesert]

I think he came across as arrogant, and I turned him off.

[Focault's Pendulum]

After all, we sell radio time on the basis of its ability to influence people’s behavior

Oh crap!!! I am hypnotized!!!!

That does it!!!

I'm gonna go burn down every AM Station in the country and blame it on FM.....wait.... is it the other way around???......regardless...my defense at trial will be.......It's not my fault!!!

[Congressman Billybob]

We "declared war" with respect to Iraq TWICE by action of the Congress, as required by the Constitution. Both times, the action of Congress used almost identical language as Congress did when it authorized President Jefferson to conduct the war against the Barbary Pirates in 1802.

If you would do your homework, you would know this. I wrote up seven "declarations of war" more than a year ago, in a UPI article that was published nationally. Please stop repeating this factually false statement that Congress never declared war with respect to Iraq.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to stick a thumb in the eye of CFR, "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob."

[Congressman Billybob]

You are absolutely right. There is no magic language that Congress must use to "declare war." A majority of both Houses of Congress authorizing the "use of military force" in all "necessary ways" is quite sufficient, today, as it was with regard to the Barbary Pirates, two centuries ago.

John / Billybob

[Snuffington]

But real peace is not their heartfelt concern, is it? They will wait until another tyrant forces our hand and then ignite their street theater in a show of solidarity for surrender to socialist domination.

Bumpity-bump.

Excellent comments. More worthy of attention than the "look-at-me" article this thread follows.

[Snuffington]

Most leftists/liberals are insincere, but this is about principled, conservative dissent.

Which just goes to show, conservative principles, once divorced from reality, are no better guide than their liberal equivalent. I don't hate this guy. I just find his screed silly and immature.

[Snuffington]

When the McGovern faction took over - they were at least still idealistic and believed in their policies and ideology. They don't believe in anything anymore than pure power.

Piling on here...

I look at the New Deal coalition (updated of course), upon which Democratic power is based, as inevitably decaying as well. What platform can possibly satisfy outspoken gays, blue-collar workers, African-Americans, Latino immigrants, radical feminists, and limosine liberals? Kick out a single one of those groups and national power is gone for them. Yet the interests of those groups are in frequent conflict. And any balancing act eventually fails.

[Burkeman1]

Kick out a single one of those groups and national power is gone for them. Yet the interests of those groups are in frequent conflict. And any balancing act eventually fails.

YES! And therein lies the paradox of the Dems. They seek to unite all these divergent groups into one party that seeks one law and standard of morality for the entire nation under the dictat of a liberal Supreme Court! Meanwhile - The GOP and Conservatives are more often than not to live and let live from one town, to country, to state, and are willing to accept many standards of morality at the local level outside of Federal control.

[Snuffington]

The GOP and Conservatives are more often than not to live and let live from one town, to country, to state, and are willing to accept many standards of morality at the local level outside of Federal control.

Yep. Unlike the smarmy college-set stereotype (and even that is a dated view, since smarminess itself is aging), federalism is the conservative ace-in-the-hole. To quote esteemed statesman and international man-of-mystery, Austin Powers, "It's freedom, baby! It's a very groovy bag."

[Burkeman1]

One could write a whole political treatisie on "Austin Powers." I quoted Dr. Evil the other day when someone had made a particularly ridiculous assertion as to Sadaam's threat level to us and his "power":

"Is to much to ask to have a shark tank with friggin lazer beams strapped their heads!"

[adam_az]

Goyette is the most boring guy on KFYI, hands down. He has nothing on "Frick and Frack," as he calls Austin Hill and Tom Liddy for an evening drive-time program.

I tuned in to Charles "Yob" Goyette last night, he started off by asking why his ears were itching, suggesting that the only reason he was there was because his key still worked.

He then said he wasn't going to talk about the article.

Then, after listening to him talk about the article for another 5 minutes, it became clear that he wasn't on the air with the purpose of entertaining an audience, that's for sure.

He started making fun of his critics, and then criticizing them for daring to criticizing him.

Charles is just a boring talk show host, trying to ignite some listenership.