The history of billiards goes back all the way to the 15th Century. Throughout the centuries, billiards has been seen as a sport for bad boys, from the highest aristocracy to the lowest street thugs. For hundreds of years, churches and governments deno…

I never thought about this ….

You call him a “shout show clown.” When was the last time he was on one of these “shout shows?”.

How about you step up to the plate and offer some acceptable conservative alternatives (Andrew Sullivan doesn’t count).

You most certainly called Mr. Cooper, the owner of this blog, by a title straight out of the Little Jonah-Bill O’Reilly handbook of well-reasoned debate tactics.

To refresh your memory:

“James Robertson Says:
November 30th, 2005 at 9:50 am

Before you call someone an idiot,”

Is that your name? Are those your words?

Lemme guess. You were misquoted.

No. I’ve got it now. The mainstream media must be out to get you.

Certainly you’d never call someone with whom you disagree an “idiot.” Nope. Not you!

Certainly in defense of your hero, Little Jonah, you’d never reach into a deep bag of childish slurs and post one on this site. Couldn’t be. Never. Not your style!

Robertson, what ever did come over me?

My sole point had to do with the absolutely ridiculous layout this blog has when you look at individual posts. No word wrap except at paragraph breaks.

Makes it very hard to read.

Now, if that’s a political argument of any sort, then I’m the Queen of Romania.

I forgot to include that you, as a follower of Little Jonah, would no doubt cuss at those with opposing points of view.

Cussing is, of course, an action, written or verbal, that crosses the Bible about which Rev. James, Rev. Pat, and Rev. Jerry so often speak.

Thankfully, you did not cuss at me, Robertson.

Instead, Tigger opted to cuss and live, by his actions, counter to the teachings of the Bible.

Cussing and hypocrisy, two more signs of the blind follower of Little Jonah.

You put style over substance.

That’s a sure sign of a blind follower of Little Jonah.”

Mark, that’s fucking BRILLIANT logic. It’s also complete bullshit but I won’t let that get in your way of a good snarky comment or two.

Robertson’s a hacker!

That explains his well-reasoned, well-read defense of Little Jonah.

Re-read Coop’s lengthy post that started this thread. Two paragraphs. It ought to just about kill you.

Find the word “idiot.”

Coop never used it to comment on Little Jonah.

The “idiot” tag belongs to your post.

I soon expect that you will attack my:

A.) Patriotism;

B.) Capitalist position;

C.) Choice of literature;

D.) Mother.

Oh, and you’ll use either “moron” or “Islamo-facist” to attempt to slay me.

You put style over substance.

That’s a sure sign of a blind follower of Little Jonah.

Thank you for proving my point. Little Jonah offers no serious intelligent commentary, favoring fluff over well-reasoned and well-researched position.

Robertson, I think it’s time for Little Jonah to beam you up.

First impressions count for a lot, and having your page look horrid is a sure-fire way to give your argument less weight.

Little Jonah is a Trekkie with a wife who couldn’t cut it as John Ashcroft’s speechwriter and now cannot find even a cheap Neo think tank in D.C. to hire her sorry self.

‘Nuff said.

The only reason Little Jonah got the LA gig is because Little Jonah’s Mommy, Luci, the madame of the D.C. rough-type crowd, is continuing her more than four decade run with a member(s) of the Times hierarchy.

But Luci ain’t no kid anymore, and the batteries always run out on her playthings. When they do, the Times power bosses will dump Luci and Little Jonah right along with her.

Expect Little Jonah to be out of LA within four months.

This wasn’t the case as described in the run up to war as an abolutely necessary immediate security need, just an ad hoc response to the whole lame operation, a move the goal posts as you go method of CYA… ”

Actually Mark, this was the underlying concept that the Bush Administration spoke of frequently, but not loudly. You’re making the mistake of confusing the effort to sway the UN and the appeals to public opinion with the underlying strategy that made Iraq a logical place to continue the efforts to shake up the Middle Eastern autocratic hegemony (that began in Afghanistan of course.)

I argued as much at a college forum on the issue shortly after the start of the war. It’s obvious that this strategic aim was not going to be forwarded as the primary reason for going into Iraq, given that the public generally doesn’t buy into strategic thinking that involves substantial risk, and that the vast majority of people had confidence in the intelligence that Saddam had WMDs (so much so that many opponents of the war were sayign we shouldn’t invade because Saddam would use the WMDs.)

Nonetheless, the Bush Administration has been thinking along these lines since 9/11. The next logical step would be to support internal change in Iran, via democracy advocates, but as Michael Ledeen has pointed out, the Administration hasn’t committed itself fully to that, in part because of the constant undermining of sections of State and the CIA, who are still quite committed to the “pragmatic” view of the Middle East - that it’s a poltical cesspool that isn’t likely to change no matter what - and that we can deal with the autocrats anyway, so who cares.

That attitude is a relic of the Cold War, when the Russian Bear was always the main target and threat, justifying numerous foreign policy moves, including support for Iraq in the Iraq - Iran war (in part because Iraq also had ties to the USSR, whereas Iran was for the most part nonaligned under the Mullahs.)

Make no mistake, this was not only on the table in the run up to war, it was the underlying strategy, and not a tacked on lower the goalposts effort (which is a good way to describe the current Democratic mania to convince people that the Administration willfully mislead everyone.)

As for Jonah, he’s a talented writer (English major speaking, for what it’s worth) who’s not afraid to leaven his arguments with a generous dose of irreverent humor. This sometimes leaves the impression that he’s not being totally serious, but being a frequent reader of his columns, he’s not only capable of sustained and consistent argument, he’e quite good at it and seems to have a thorough grounding in political science and logic to boot, which is more than many journalists and editorialist can boast.

If you can show an example by the Democrats equivalent to the auto-da-fe that the Republican leadership pressured Arlen Specter into doing in order to maintain his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, please enlighten us.

The current Senate Minority Leader opposes abortion. David Bonior, the House Minority Whip in the 1990’s opposes abortion. No one to my knowledge in a leadership role in either house in the Republican Party is pro-choice, despite the presence of several senators and congressmen who are pro-choice.. We’re hardly the intolerant ones here.

John Moore,

Your ridiculous ad hominem aside, we know who Saddam liked:

The jailed former Iraqi leader described how Reagan,
who was president during the time of Iraq’s 1980-88 war with Iran, sold
him planes and helicopters. "Reagan and me, good,’" Saddam said,
according to the article by Lisa DePaulo in the July issue that goes on
sale June 28.Say what you will about Saddam, he remembers his benefactors.