gdp's Comments

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:21:17 +0000

Well, in that case, there's no need to apologize. A rational position like yours is the kind I hope to find as opposed to the frothing vitriol that frequently arises. Besides, the call for "apologies" wasn't serious. The folks that will get enraged over a perceived crescent aren't the kind that will admit when they're wrong when the facts say otherwise.

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:46:42 +0000

Thanks, dude. I strive to suck a little less every day. (This comment did make me laugh. Good work!)

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:45:54 +0000

Brother, the big picture is what I'm worried about. Just because I can craft a response quickly and just because some meatheads tanked my rating doesn't negate any truth in my message. That message is to stick to taking on Obama for his actual mistakes. We don't need to reach for things like a crescent in a logo to slam the guy, and doing so casts a bad light on any real message.

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:41:35 +0000

Trust me, my feelings are no more hurt than they were yesterday or last week or any other time. The day one starts taking Internet comments personally is the day one should stop going online. My comments are meant to put some sense back into the debate. The original post from last week was silly because it feels like grasping at straws to discredit Obama. We don't need straws to discredit the guy; his own actions are enough to do it. Wild accusations of Obama trying to insert Islamic symbolism into the government are absurd, just like the birthers or truthers. Mixing them in and treating them as legitimate only serves to dilute and warp any real message that's trying to be conveyed. Stick to things that the guy's actually doing, and he's nailed because his policies are absolutely awful. Making up issues like this one discredits anything else that you say. And lastly, I credited Gaffney for being so upfront and honest about being wrong in the initial story. That takes guts, but it doesn't take away blowing up a molehill to begin with, nor does it take away all the nutjobs that took it at face value to begin with.

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:53:05 +0000

He could be the greatest man in the history of the universe, but that wouldn't make him right about getting worked up over a supposed crescent in this logo. I'm not even questioning his views, but of his judgment in making a big flap over this. I even gave him credit for publicly and openly saying that he was wrong. But even if this logo had been designed yesterday, it would still be a non-issue, and those making it into an issue would look foolish.

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:50:28 +0000

Until, of course, nobody listens to the alarms anymore.

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:50:04 +0000

No, it wasn't. The question was "Was there a crescent placed in the logo as a means of making nice with Islam?" That's not a question of opinion. And I thought that a group of conservatives would be more concerned about the content of the message than in using flowery language to dull the point.

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:12:42 +0000

The only comment I've made was to say that being concerned about reduction in the missile defense network is a valid issue. If anything, that's a statement agreeing with a strong defense. (Which I certainly think we should have.) So, what, pray tell, do you think I said about bombs or missiles that was "mordantly stupid?" And the first priority of this nation is protecting the individual rights of it's citizens. It secures that from outside threats with a strong and capable military. I've never disparaged the military in this thread or any other because I have great respect for the military and know that it's one of the valid functions of government. I believe that you may be confusing me with someone else, which, on its own, is a harmless mistake. However, your assumptions about me and what I believe, simply because I don't scream with indignation at every opportunity, cast you in the light of the ignorant and unthinking.

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:04:59 +0000

They do when it's a disagreement of fact rather than opinion, which is what this was.

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:50:44 +0000

That you think I'm a liberal shows that you've put no thought into your reply. For the record, I'm a vehement small-government, liberty-minded capitalist. I'm sorry if it hurts that I was right about the non-symbolism of the logo, but I find it much more jarring that you guys would look for said symbolism. That I was right about the lack of a crescent also shows that I was right about you guys that saw it looking like unhinged cranks. Also, I didn't put a thumb down on a single post in this thread.

Big Government : Can This Possibly Be True? New Obama Missile Defense Logo Includes A Crescent

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:19:00 +0000

I look forward to apologies and retractions of negative feedback: http://biggovernment.com/fgaffney/2010/02/27/it-c...

Big Government : It Can't Be True: More on that Missile Defense Agency logo

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:16:34 +0000

I look forward to apologies to those who disagreed with me and tanked my IntenseDebate rating because I said that people were reading into this too much. Respect is due to the author for admitting he was wrong. (The missile defense issue is a valid concern; looking for Islamic symbols where they aren't is not.)

Big Government : Can This Possibly Be True? New Obama Missile Defense Logo Includes A Crescent

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:19:10 +0000

There was nothing wrong with the old logo, and I like it better than this one. The redesign is, at best, a waste of taxpayer money. Nothing I've said has indicated any approval of Obama whatsoever. What it does say is that this is a non-issue, and treating it seriously makes you look ridiculous.

Big Government : Can This Possibly Be True? New Obama Missile Defense Logo Includes A Crescent

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:17:51 +0000

What's wrong is that there are bigger issues than this. There are all kinds of important and real issues with which to disagree with Obama. This isn't one of them.

Big Government : Can This Possibly Be True? New Obama Missile Defense Logo Includes A Crescent

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:16:27 +0000

Wow, yeah, I did post that on Twitter and Facebook. I didn't realize that playing a game like Star Trek Online and making a comment about said game somehow compromised my ability to have an opinion on other issues. I humbly prostrate myself before your clearly superior logic and intellect.

Big Government : Can This Possibly Be True? New Obama Missile Defense Logo Includes A Crescent

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:14:22 +0000

I'm saying that it's not placed there intentionally as some kind of homage to Islam. I'm also saying that making a big deal about perceived slights like this make you guys look like crackpots and ruin your credibility.

Big Government : Can This Possibly Be True? New Obama Missile Defense Logo Includes A Crescent

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:02:19 +0000

Are you kidding me? Looking for crescents in things is what you think is a threat? And you guys wondering why you're often not taken seriously. Crap like this puts you in the camp with the birthers and the people that think that Obama is a terrorist himself. Believing that he's sneaking a crescent into a logo makes you look stupid and nutty and petty. Look, there are tons of things to dislike with Obama, but when you grasp at straws like this one and present it like it's a serious concern, you're demeaning everything else that's posted here. Go after him on the things that matter. Passing off crap like this as an issue is an insult.

Big Government : Palin, Perry a New Breed of Western-style Conservatism

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:29:39 +0000

Make no mistake, neither Palin nor Perry are libertarian in their beliefs by any stretch. They are more classically conservative, though. Conservatism used to promote fiscal responsibility ahead of the social programs. It's only a crawl over the past few decades that the roles have been flipped. Modern, or neo-, conservatism is more about big social programs coming from the altruist morality of religion rather than the idea that large government is a larger hindrance to freedom. If we take the assumptions of the article as valid, that Palin and Perry put economics before social programs, then they are more classically conservative. But not libertarian. Like him or not, Paul is operating as a libertarian by limiting government in the economic and social realms. (And to clarify my position, I don't particularly care for Paul, though I think he'd be better than all the viable alternatives.) By the logic of this article, then all conservatives and liberals are libertarian, because they believe in half of the libertarian philosophies. The traditionally conservative belief in limited government in the way of economics is consistent with libertarianism, but it's negated by the belief in government imposing social controls. The traditionally liberal belief in limited government socially is negated by it's economic muddling. It's wholly erroneous to try to label Perry or Palin as libertarian, and I'm not sure why the author would try to do such a thing, especially to a conservative audience. (In reality, conservatives should dislike libertarians about as much as they dislike liberals.)

The Wiire : Wii MotionPlus Gets Release Date

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:14:02 +0000

Hmm. Interesting about the releases. Personally, I'll wait to get it until Sports Resort comes out; that'll at least hedge my bets a bit by getting a game and the WMP for $50, rather than getting a game and WMP separately for $70.

The Wiire : What Do YOU Want From the Virtual Console Arcade?

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 23:07:20 +0000

That arcade X-Men game would be very welcome (especially if it could support widescreen to emulate the double-screen version of the original). It was all sorts of fun back in the day. Simpsons and TMNT arcade would also be cool. I have good memories of both of those games. There was a good game that got a totally crappy SNES port: Captain America and the Avengers. I remember having a lot of fun playing a game whose name I don't remember. It did get a Dreamcast port. You played as fighting robots, but the controls were based around using two joysticks (with buttons to shoot). I wish I remember what it was called...