Why do so many folks who are against the war think that identifying with Dems and taking on Democratic strategies is any sort of reasonble means of protest? The Dems in Congress just like the Repubs voted for the war. Then the Dems put up a presidential candidate who not only voted for the war and said that he still would today (that was last year actually) but also said that if elected he would escalate the war effort?
Point being that being tricked by hypocrites into hating right-wingers as the only evil hawks in existance is little to be proud of as well as being completely unproductive when it comes to ending the war.
For instance I am against the war, but as soon as the argument on either side gets dragged into this embicilic left versus right dialiectic...I'm not trying to associate myself with any of it.
Ultimately we need to work these issues out apart from the definitions of the (and yes, this is as sweeping as it gets) the wholly destructive American political establishment.
Interesting too, how my previous valid point gets shit on because I'm merely suspected to believe in lizard people. More of the same, correct?
And I stand by my Dems only support democracy when it suits them point. In regard to the 2000 election if Dems were able to actually prove what they claim without throwing so much of their own cheating onto the fire, then the story would have ended differently. Either way at this point the 2004 election confirmed the results of 2000.
There is a systemic problem in Washington DC. Folks come up here to do their work, not the people???s work. Senators, for example, have to spend all of their time trying to keep their jobs rather than doing their jobs. Effective campaign finance reform could solve this in one fell swoop.
So there are no real differences between entrenched well-funded politicians in terms of what they actually accomplish [read: nothing] even though the press is constantly reinforcing this bullshit contrived right/left dichotomy.
Also.. I don't know if anyone outside Canada knows this. But the Liberals are taking a shit storm right now. Where the government is probably going to fall.
The whole thing is sickening. The amount of fraud with tax payers money is unbelievable.
So there are no real differences between entrenched well-funded politicians in terms of what they actually accomplish. [read: nothing] even though the press is constantly reinforcing this fake contrived right/left dichotomy.
I am pretty sure Vitamin, along with most neo-cons, does not share these insane far right pro-life views. But at the same time they have consolidated their power by this marriage between imperialist neo-cons and cultural conservatives. Therefore they have at least implicitly endorsed much of these issues.
some want a divorce...
Why I'm Rooting Against the Religious Right Save the Republic from shallow, demagogic sectarians. [/b]
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS Thursday, May 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
I hope and believe that, by identifying itself with "faith" in general and the Ten Commandments in particular, a runaway element in the Republican leadership has made a career-ending mistake. In support of this, let me quote two authorities:
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. . . . Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some god-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
"Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother." And he said, "All these have I kept from my youth up." Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." The first citation is from Barry Goldwater, moral founder of the Reagan revolution, who, when I interviewed him on his retirement from the Senate, vowed to "kick Jerry Falwell in the ass." The second citation is from Luke 18:20-22.
I am neither a Republican nor a Christian, and I don't propose that there is any congruence between Sen. Goldwater's annoyance and the alleged words (which occur in similar form in all four gospels) of the possibly mythical Nazarene. Yet two things are obvious. The first is that many conservatives appreciate the value of a secular republic, and do not make the idiotic confusion between "secular" and "atheist" that is so common nowadays. The second is that no "Moral Majority" type has yet proposed that the most important commandment, the one underlined by Jesus himself, be displayed in courtrooms or schoolrooms. It turns out that the Eleventh Commandment is not "Thou shalt speak no ill of fellow Republicans," but is, rather, a demand for the most extreme kind of leveling and redistribution. I have never understood why conservative entrepreneurs are so all-fired pious and Bible-thumping, let alone why so many of them claim Jesus as their best friend and personal savior. The Old Testament is bad enough: The commandments forbid us even to envy or covet our neighbor's goods, and thus condemn the very spirit of emulation and ambition that makes enterprise possible. But the New Testament is worse: It tells us to forget thrift and saving, to take no thought for the morrow, and to throw away our hard-earned wealth on the shiftless and the losers.
At least two important conservative thinkers, Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss, were unbelievers or nonbelievers and in any case contemptuous of Christianity. I have my own differences with both of these savants, but is the Republican Party really prepared to disown such modern intellectuals as it can claim, in favor of a shallow, demagogic and above all sectarian religiosity?
Perhaps one could phrase the same question in two further ways. At the last election, the GOP succeeded in increasing its vote among American Jews by an estimated five percentage points. Does it propose to welcome these new adherents or sympathizers by yelling in the tones of that great Democrat bigmouth William Jennings Bryan? By insisting that evolution is "only a theory"? By demanding biblical literalism and by proclaiming that the Messiah has already shown himself? If so, it will deserve the punishment for hubris that is already coming its way. (The punishment, in other words, that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson believed had struck America on Sept. 11, 2001. How can it be that such grotesque characters, calling down divine revenge on the workers in the World Trade Center, are allowed a respectful hearing, or a hearing at all, among patriotic Republicans?)
Then again, hundreds of thousands of young Americans are now patrolling and guarding hazardous frontiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there a single thinking person who does not hope that secular forces arise in both countries, and who does not realize that the success of our cause depends on a wall of separation, in Islamic society, between church and state? How can we maintain this cause abroad and subvert it at home? It's hardly too much to say that the servicemen and -women, of all faiths and of none, who fight so bravely against jihad, are being stabbed in the back by the sunshine soldiers of the "crusading" right. What is one to feel but rage and contempt when one reads of Arabic-language translators, and even Purple Heart-winning frontline fighters, being dismissed from the service because their homosexuality is accounted a sin? Thus far, the clericalist bigots have been probing and finding only mush. A large tranche of the once-secular liberal left has disqualified itself by making excuses for jihad and treating Osama bin Laden as if he were advocating liberation theology. The need of the hour is for some senior members of the party of Lincoln to disown and condemn the creeping and creepy movement to impose orthodoxy on a free and pluralist and secular Republic.
He knows, but will never admit, the only way the conservatives can stay in power is to continue this bullshit cultural war. Going back to Nixon's "southern strategy" in varied contexts.
Really! How else can you get people to ignore their own economic interests in favor of morality at the voting booth? It's difficult to sort out policy nuances and propsed tax structures when there's fetus eating towel-head nigger faggots running you down.
He knows, but will never admit, the only way the conservatives can stay in power is to continue this bullshit cultural war. Going back to Nixon's "southern strategy" in varied contexts.
Really! How else can you get people to ignore their own economic interests in favor of morality at the voting booth? It's difficult to sort out policy nuances and propsed tax structures when there's fetus eating towel-head nigger faggots running you down.
Where? Over there.. Watch out!
And don't you think that perpetuating the left-right binary with such vigor inevitably perpetuates the cultural wars that the right needs?
What was the point of calling on Vitamin? I thought there were others on the board that had more of a understanding about "donkeys".
Question for strutters:
Can someone be just an economic conservative and not be a right wing "nutjob" ?
I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I'm also a twat. Also a closet racist.
But I just remembered reading some posts by Vitamin that were basically cheerleading some talking points from circa 2003 (wow, ever thought how much time is being stolen from us by the far right and their war mongering?)
If you throw your lot in with one you throw it in with all. Personally I'd rather be with the vegetarian eco-terrorists than the donkey-fucking proponents of reshaping the world in His image.
To everyone who's still jocking the Military-Industrial Complex: Your kids will really hate you one day. If you're lucky.
One thing we might all be able to agree on is it's not a question of right vs. left. So vote with your wallet.
Hey, anyone remember Ashcroft and Bush's first campaign in office? It was to stamp out the "bloodsucking vampires" aka plugged-in DC adapters that were increasing our demand on foreign oil. That was a great idea! Maybe they should have let the Ad Council deal with that and spent some time reading FBI memos.
He knows, but will never admit, the only way the conservatives can stay in power is to continue this bullshit cultural war. Going back to Nixon's "southern strategy" in varied contexts.
Really! How else can you get people to ignore their own economic interests in favor of morality at the voting booth? It's difficult to sort out policy nuances and propsed tax structures when there's fetus eating towel-head nigger faggots running you down.
Where? Over there.. Watch out!
And don't you think that perpetuating the left-right binary with such vigor inevitably perpetuates the cultural wars that the right needs?
He knows, but will never admit, the only way the conservatives can stay in power is to continue this bullshit cultural war. Going back to Nixon's "southern strategy" in varied contexts.
Really! How else can you get people to ignore their own economic interests in favor of morality at the voting booth? It's difficult to sort out policy nuances and propsed tax structures when there's fetus eating towel-head nigger faggots running you down.
Where? Over there.. Watch out!
And don't you think that perpetuating the left-right binary with such vigor inevitably perpetuates the cultural wars that the right needs?
What the fuck are you talking about?
I was refering to f16's over-simplifying all-left vs all-right stuff, basically making the point that to continue with that logic is precisely the type of cycle that will perpetuate the cultural wars so poor folks will continue to vote against policies that will help them. But, mostly, nevermind because I confused you and f16 for a half-a-second and thought you were contradicting yourself.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."[/b]
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."[/b]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
Was Eisenhower some kinda psychic swami, or what[/b]???
"Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws" M.A. Rothschild
People think the Federal Reserve is part of the government, but in actuality its a private bank which lends money to the government at interest. There is a group of families who own the Federal reserve and by proxy control our government. Its basic synthesis. Play two apparently divergent sides against each other to further the goal of each, which in this case is the consolidation of power through control of the money supply. If people had any idea what they were really supporting, i.e. the Lawrence Kings of the world, it would sicken them.
"Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws" M.A. Rothschild
People think the Federal Reserve is part of the government, but in actuality its a private bank which lends money to the government at interest. There is a group of families who own the Federal reserve and by proxy control our government. Its basic synthesis. Play two apparently divergent sides against each other to further the goal of each, which in this case is the consolidation of power through control of the money supply. If people had any idea what they were really supporting, i.e. the Lawrence Kings[/b] of the world, it would sicken them.
Actually I was referring to the former legislator from Kansas who was caught using orphans from Boys Town as child prostitutes for businessmen and politicians in the 1980s.
Why do so many folks who are against the war think that identifying with Dems and taking on Democratic strategies is any sort of reasonble means of protest? The Dems in Congress just like the Repubs voted for the war. Then the Dems put up a presidential candidate who not only voted for the war and said that he still would today (that was last year actually) but also said that if elected he would escalate the war effort?
Very true. Clear and on point.
Either way at this point the 2004 election confirmed the results of 2000.
No I am not pro-life as the abortion criminalizers would use the word. And yes I argued on this board as I still would for the toppling of Saddam Hussein. At the time, I made what was a liberal argument for the war. I ended up voting for Bush because Kerry said he would seek to replace American troops with those loyal to the tyrant neighbors of Iraq. I have always thought that the strategy for the Middle East was one where America worked (largely through nonviolent means) to undue to the constellation of torture states it helped erect after world war II.
Now, most of the anti-war left is guilty of not knowing recent American history, a point that can be forgiven since they also fail to understand international trade, fundementalist Islam or any number of topics for which they hold teach ins. But there is no disputing that America was intertwined with recent Iraqi history and therefore had an obligation to the Iraqi people to end the state of fear that was the rule of Saddam Hussein. To quote from a slogan of the anti-war activists before the war, "we knew Saddam had chemical weapons, we have the receipts." Exactly. In the muddled fog that passes for anti-war dissent, this was proposed as an argument against the war. It was the opposite. So let's recap. The CIA works with Saddam Hussein well after the coup of 1979 and his invasion of Iran. During this time, it is American policy to not only sell weapons to Iraq, but to prohibit western europe from selling weapons to Iran. We gave Saddam grain vouchers after Halabja because he was depopulating his grain belt of Kurds during the Anfal campaign. In 1991, the president's father urged the Shiites and Kurds to rise up against Saddam only to abandon them and let Saddam mow them down with the attack helicopters we once sold him. Throughout the 1990s, we established a UN sanctions regime that had the effect of enriching Saddam's family and allowing him to starve his people. At the time, commondreams, ANSWR, Chomsky and others said the sanctions were the problem. They were half right. The problem was Saddam Hussein.
Now I am the first to admit that the intelligence estimates of wmd were wrong. To hear some of you, these overestimates are evidence of a lie. Another matter, but rarely discussed here is that we underestimated the cruelty of the regime. There have been more mass graves, more amputees than even the most reckless human rights groups estimated. While not perfect, Iraqis voted in a free election for the first time in their nation's history since 1958. Insurgent attacks have escalated, but there is also evidence that most of the population does not support them. It is a war that is being fought by the remnants of a regime we tried to coopt and the Islamic nihilists encouraged to slip into the country by Syria, Saudi Arabia and probably Iran.
This is and has been my argument for the war. An argument I might say that puts me to the left, at least as far as human rights goes, than spliff, corners, fatback and others. You may say that these are talking points, which I can assure they are not. How you would assume that taking seriously America's humanitarian debt to Iraqis makes me a pro-lifer is beyond me.
No I am not pro-life as the abortion criminalizers would use the word. And yes I argued on this board as I still would for the toppling of Saddam Hussein. At the time, I made what was a liberal argument for the war. I ended up voting for Bush because Kerry said he would seek to replace American troops with those loyal to the tyrant neighbors of Iraq. I have always thought that the strategy for the Middle East was one where America worked (largely through nonviolent means) to undue to the constellation of torture states it helped erect after world war II.
Now, most of the anti-war left is guilty of not knowing recent American history, a point that can be forgiven since they also fail to understand international trade, fundementalist Islam or any number of topics for which they hold teach ins. But there is no disputing that America was intertwined with recent Iraqi history and therefore had an obligation to the Iraqi people to end the state of fear that was the rule of Saddam Hussein. To quote from a slogan of the anti-war activists before the war, "we knew Saddam had chemical weapons, we have the receipts." Exactly. In the muddled fog that passes for anti-war dissent, this was proposed as an argument against the war. It was the opposite. So let's recap. The CIA works with Saddam Hussein well after the coup of 1979 and his invasion of Iran. During this time, it is American policy to not only sell weapons to Iraq, but to prohibit western europe from selling weapons to Iran. We gave Saddam grain vouchers after Halabja because he was depopulating his grain belt of Kurds during the Anfal campaign. In 1991, the president's father urged the Shiites and Kurds to rise up against Saddam only to abandon them and let Saddam mow them down with the attack helicopters we once sold him. Throughout the 1990s, we established a UN sanctions regime that had the effect of enriching Saddam's family and allowing him to starve his people. At the time, commondreams, ANSWR, Chomsky and others said the sanctions were the problem. They were half right. The problem was Saddam Hussein.
Now I am the first to admit that the intelligence estimates of wmd were wrong. To hear some of you, these overestimates are evidence of a lie. Another matter, but rarely discussed here is that we underestimated the cruelty of the regime. There have been more mass graves, more amputees than even the most reckless human rights groups estimated. While not perfect, Iraqis voted in a free election for the first time in their nation's history since 1958. Insurgent attacks have escalated, but there is also evidence that most of the population does not support them. It is a war that is being fought by the remnants of a regime we tried to coopt and the Islamic nihilists encouraged to slip into the country by Syria, Saudi Arabia and probably Iran.
This is and has been my argument for the war. An argument I might say that puts me to the left, at least as far as human rights goes, than spliff, corners, fatback and others. You may say that these are talking points, which I can assure they are not. How you would assume that taking seriously America's humanitarian debt to Iraqis makes me a pro-lifer is beyond me.
Gulf War 2 has been and still is about getting access to more cheap oil.
Without cheap oil the US Economy will tank along with other global economies. Things don't look good for developing countries, either.
Sorry Vitamin, I'm still not buying the humanitarian aspect of your argument, it's still just window dressing. Peace.
What the fuck does knowing anything about recent American history or international trade have to do with blowing a sovereign country to rubble? Hundreds of thousands of God???s children???DEAD!
Wait???recent American history? Hmm. Oh, I see you are being a moral relativist. Now that???s left. What are you fucking living Takoma Park now?
And international trade? Dude, that???s just flat out greedy.
Come on. You know it's all about getting on the beltway gravy train by the pundit* with the cutest byte.
*Being informed (especially with regards to practicing journalism) is letting evidence guide your conclusions. This approach is currently the exception rather than the rule. Evidence is collected to support predetermined conclusions.
And don't you think that perpetuating the left-right binary with such vigor inevitably perpetuates the cultural wars that the right needs?
Actually no. The left in America could be almost completely dormant, and by the way, I think it actually it holds little actual sway in mainstream politics, and the right-wing would still use it as a whipping boy. If anything history has taught people is that if you have power and repeat something enough times, even if it isn't based on any facts, people will begin to believe it.
Look at a famous example of the Bush administration trying to pin 9-11 on Iraq. No evidence at all, yet they implied it so many times the majority of America continues to believe this lie.
Conservatives were able to call New Deal Democrats communists and communist sympthizers after WWII as a way to gain back power during McCarthyism based on nothing.
Just recently , Bill O'Reily, commenting on the L.A. cops shooting 120 bullets at an unarmed man, said the cops shot in self-defenset! He said the driver had a gun and shot at the police first. Wasn't right, but who'se going to correct him? Then the next day he said that the real culprit in the alleged "shoot-out" between cops and the driver was a failed justice system, destroyed by liberal judges who let out the driver early from prison!
I've always liked F16's tone when getting political -- just the right level of disdain and engagement for responding to pricks. However, sometimes you just gotta say it like Denmark.
And Vitamin, really, an essay is still an essay (Fr, n.: "attempt")
You must know some of the facts about how monumentally arrogant and stupid your guys have been... it's thanks to ponies like you that they still ridin' fool.
???The rules of the game[/b],??? says Ignatius, ???make it hard for us to tee up on an issue without a news peg.??? He offers a case in point: the debacle of America???s occupation of Iraq. ???If Senator So-and-so hasn???t criticized postwar planning for Iraq,??? says Ignatius, ???it???s hard for a reporter to write a story about that.???
Mermin also quotes public television???s Jim Lehrer, whom I greatly respect, acknowledging that unless an official says something is so, it isn???t news. Why were journalists not discussing the occupation of Iraq? ???Because,??? says Jim Lehrer, ???the word ???occupation??? was never mentioned in the run up to the war. Washington talked[/b] about the war as a war of liberation, not a war of occupation. So as a consequence, those of us in journalism,??? says Lehrer, ???never even looked at the issue of occupation.??? ???In other words,??? says Jonathan Mermin, ???if the government isn???t talking about it, we don???t report it[/b].???
...Hanley attributes this lack of interest to the fact[facts![/b]], (quote), ???it was not an officially-sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source[/b]."
Shit, I was reading about this more than 5 years ago in the Guardian. Article was saying that after Watergate, the far-right has been slowly and surely gaining control of the American press through actually leaking damaging info... once the American press had become dependent on it's 'leaked' info, the right-wing was free to dictate the news.
Comments
There is a systemic problem in Washington DC. Folks come up here to do their work, not the people???s work. Senators, for example, have to spend all of their time trying to keep their jobs rather than doing their jobs. Effective campaign finance reform could solve this in one fell swoop.
So there are no real differences between entrenched well-funded politicians in terms of what they actually accomplish [read: nothing] even though the press is constantly reinforcing this bullshit contrived right/left dichotomy.
Question for strutters:
Can someone be just an economic conservative and not be a right wing "nutjob" ?
Yes, absolutely. And I wish they would reclaim their party.
-e
The whole thing is sickening. The amount of fraud with tax payers money is unbelievable.
Any thoughts?
YES
ha!
some want a divorce...
Why I'm Rooting Against the Religious Right
Save the Republic from shallow, demagogic sectarians. [/b]
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Thursday, May 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
I hope and believe that, by identifying itself with "faith" in general and the Ten Commandments in particular, a runaway element in the Republican leadership has made a career-ending mistake. In support of this, let me quote two authorities:
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. . . . Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some god-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
"Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother." And he said, "All these have I kept from my youth up." Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."
The first citation is from Barry Goldwater, moral founder of the Reagan revolution, who, when I interviewed him on his retirement from the Senate, vowed to "kick Jerry Falwell in the ass."
The second citation is from Luke 18:20-22.
I am neither a Republican nor a Christian, and I don't propose that there is any congruence between Sen. Goldwater's annoyance and the alleged words (which occur in similar form in all four gospels) of the possibly mythical Nazarene. Yet two things are obvious. The first is that many conservatives appreciate the value of a secular republic, and do not make the idiotic confusion between "secular" and "atheist" that is so common nowadays. The second is that no "Moral Majority" type has yet proposed that the most important commandment, the one underlined by Jesus himself, be displayed in courtrooms or schoolrooms. It turns out that the Eleventh Commandment is not "Thou shalt speak no ill of fellow Republicans," but is, rather, a demand for the most extreme kind of leveling and redistribution.
I have never understood why conservative entrepreneurs are so all-fired pious and Bible-thumping, let alone why so many of them claim Jesus as their best friend and personal savior. The Old Testament is bad enough: The commandments forbid us even to envy or covet our neighbor's goods, and thus condemn the very spirit of emulation and ambition that makes enterprise possible. But the New Testament is worse: It tells us to forget thrift and saving, to take no thought for the morrow, and to throw away our hard-earned wealth on the shiftless and the losers.
At least two important conservative thinkers, Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss, were unbelievers or nonbelievers and in any case contemptuous of Christianity. I have my own differences with both of these savants, but is the Republican Party really prepared to disown such modern intellectuals as it can claim, in favor of a shallow, demagogic and above all sectarian religiosity?
Perhaps one could phrase the same question in two further ways. At the last election, the GOP succeeded in increasing its vote among American Jews by an estimated five percentage points. Does it propose to welcome these new adherents or sympathizers by yelling in the tones of that great Democrat bigmouth William Jennings Bryan? By insisting that evolution is "only a theory"? By demanding biblical literalism and by proclaiming that the Messiah has already shown himself? If so, it will deserve the punishment for hubris that is already coming its way. (The punishment, in other words, that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson believed had struck America on Sept. 11, 2001. How can it be that such grotesque characters, calling down divine revenge on the workers in the World Trade Center, are allowed a respectful hearing, or a hearing at all, among patriotic Republicans?)
Then again, hundreds of thousands of young Americans are now patrolling and guarding hazardous frontiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there a single thinking person who does not hope that secular forces arise in both countries, and who does not realize that the success of our cause depends on a wall of separation, in Islamic society, between church and state? How can we maintain this cause abroad and subvert it at home? It's hardly too much to say that the servicemen and -women, of all faiths and of none, who fight so bravely against jihad, are being stabbed in the back by the sunshine soldiers of the "crusading" right. What is one to feel but rage and contempt when one reads of Arabic-language translators, and even Purple Heart-winning frontline fighters, being dismissed from the service because their homosexuality is accounted a sin?
Thus far, the clericalist bigots have been probing and finding only mush. A large tranche of the once-secular liberal left has disqualified itself by making excuses for jihad and treating Osama bin Laden as if he were advocating liberation theology. The need of the hour is for some senior members of the party of Lincoln to disown and condemn the creeping and creepy movement to impose orthodoxy on a free and pluralist and secular Republic.
Really! How else can you get people to ignore their own economic interests in favor of morality at the voting booth? It's difficult to sort out policy nuances and propsed tax structures when there's fetus eating towel-head nigger faggots running you down.
Where? Over there.. Watch out!
And don't you think that perpetuating the left-right binary with such vigor inevitably perpetuates the cultural wars that the right needs?
I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I'm also a twat. Also a closet racist.
But I just remembered reading some posts by Vitamin that were basically cheerleading some talking points from circa 2003 (wow, ever thought how much time is being stolen from us by the far right and their war mongering?)
If you throw your lot in with one you throw it in with all. Personally I'd rather be with the vegetarian eco-terrorists than the donkey-fucking proponents of reshaping the world in His image.
To everyone who's still jocking the Military-Industrial Complex: Your kids will really hate you one day. If you're lucky.
One thing we might all be able to agree on is it's not a question of right vs. left. So vote with your wallet.
Hey, anyone remember Ashcroft and Bush's first campaign in office? It was to stamp out the "bloodsucking vampires" aka plugged-in DC adapters that were increasing our demand on foreign oil. That was a great idea! Maybe they should have let the Ad Council deal with that and spent some time reading FBI memos.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I was refering to f16's over-simplifying all-left vs all-right stuff, basically making the point that to continue with that logic is precisely the type of cycle that will perpetuate the cultural wars so poor folks will continue to vote against policies that will help them. But, mostly, nevermind because I confused you and f16 for a half-a-second and thought you were contradicting yourself.
-e
unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and
farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political
history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you
can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an
occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is
negligible and they are stupid."[/b]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
Was Eisenhower some kinda psychic swami, or what[/b]???
Like Nostrodamus with a golf cart...
M.A. Rothschild
People think the Federal Reserve is part of the government, but in actuality its a private bank which lends money to the government at interest. There is a group of families who own the Federal reserve and by proxy control our government. Its basic synthesis. Play two apparently divergent sides against each other to further the goal of each, which in this case is the consolidation of power through control of the money supply. If people had any idea what they were really supporting, i.e. the Lawrence Kings of the world, it would sicken them.
"Bow before me human cattle!!!"[/b]
Very true. Clear and on point.
Very wrong. Confused and off point.
Now, most of the anti-war left is guilty of not knowing recent American history, a point that can be forgiven since they also fail to understand international trade, fundementalist Islam or any number of topics for which they hold teach ins. But there is no disputing that America was intertwined with recent Iraqi history and therefore had an obligation to the Iraqi people to end the state of fear that was the rule of Saddam Hussein. To quote from a slogan of the anti-war activists before the war, "we knew Saddam had chemical weapons, we have the receipts." Exactly. In the muddled fog that passes for anti-war dissent, this was proposed as an argument against the war. It was the opposite. So let's recap. The CIA works with Saddam Hussein well after the coup of 1979 and his invasion of Iran. During this time, it is American policy to not only sell weapons to Iraq, but to prohibit western europe from selling weapons to Iran. We gave Saddam grain vouchers after Halabja because he was depopulating his grain belt of Kurds during the Anfal campaign. In 1991, the president's father urged the Shiites and Kurds to rise up against Saddam only to abandon them and let Saddam mow them down with the attack helicopters we once sold him. Throughout the 1990s, we established a UN sanctions regime that had the effect of enriching Saddam's family and allowing him to starve his people. At the time, commondreams, ANSWR, Chomsky and others said the sanctions were the problem. They were half right. The problem was Saddam Hussein.
Now I am the first to admit that the intelligence estimates of wmd were wrong. To hear some of you, these overestimates are evidence of a lie. Another matter, but rarely discussed here is that we underestimated the cruelty of the regime. There have been more mass graves, more amputees than even the most reckless human rights groups estimated. While not perfect, Iraqis voted in a free election for the first time in their nation's history since 1958. Insurgent attacks have escalated, but there is also evidence that most of the population does not support them. It is a war that is being fought by the remnants of a regime we tried to coopt and the Islamic nihilists encouraged to slip into the country by Syria, Saudi Arabia and probably Iran.
This is and has been my argument for the war. An argument I might say that puts me to the left, at least as far as human rights goes, than spliff, corners, fatback and others. You may say that these are talking points, which I can assure they are not. How you would assume that taking seriously America's humanitarian debt to Iraqis makes me a pro-lifer is beyond me.
Dan
An Okie once told me "I'm a country boy, I've fucked everything on the farm but the tractor, and I climbed up on that and jerked off".
We were standing around talking about nothing when he said this.
Dan
Gulf War 2 has been and still is about getting access to more cheap oil.
Without cheap oil the US Economy will tank along with other global economies. Things don't look good for developing countries, either.
Sorry Vitamin, I'm still not buying the humanitarian aspect of your argument, it's still just window dressing. Peace.
Wait???recent American history? Hmm. Oh, I see you are being a moral relativist. Now that???s left. What are you fucking living Takoma Park now?
And international trade? Dude, that???s just flat out greedy.
Come on. You know it's all about getting on the beltway gravy train by the pundit* with the cutest byte.
puke
Actually no. The left in America could be almost completely dormant, and by the way, I think it actually it holds little actual sway in mainstream politics, and the right-wing would still use it as a whipping boy. If anything history has taught people is that if you have power and repeat something enough times, even if it isn't based on any facts, people will begin to believe it.
Look at a famous example of the Bush administration trying to pin 9-11 on Iraq. No evidence at all, yet they implied it so many times the majority of America continues to believe this lie.
Conservatives were able to call New Deal Democrats communists and communist sympthizers after WWII as a way to gain back power during McCarthyism based on nothing.
Just recently , Bill O'Reily, commenting on the L.A. cops shooting 120 bullets at an unarmed man, said the cops shot in self-defenset! He said the driver had a gun and shot at the police first. Wasn't right, but who'se going to correct him? Then the next day he said that the real culprit in the alleged "shoot-out" between cops and the driver was a failed justice system, destroyed by liberal judges who let out the driver early from prison!
I've always liked F16's tone when getting political -- just the right level of disdain and engagement for responding to pricks. However, sometimes you just gotta say it like Denmark.
And Vitamin, really, an essay is still an essay (Fr, n.: "attempt")
You must know some of the facts about how monumentally arrogant and stupid your guys have been... it's thanks to ponies like you that they still ridin' fool.
Shit, I was reading about this more than 5 years ago in the Guardian. Article was saying that after Watergate, the far-right has been slowly and surely gaining control of the American press through actually leaking damaging info... once the American press had become dependent on it's 'leaked' info, the right-wing was free to dictate the news.
+
=