Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
HOW CAN BUSH BE STOPPED?
Not even the left expected President Bush to move as far to the right as he has done in the last 20 months. How can Bush be stopped?
The following article appears in the August 1, 2002, edition of the email Mid-Hudson Activist Newsletter, published in New Paltz, NY, by the Mid-Hudson National People's Campaign/IAC. (Subscribe at jacdon [at] earthlink.net)
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOW CAN BUSH BE STOPPED?
By Jack A. Smith
Since Sept. 11, the U.S. left has been warning that the Bush administration was exploiting the tragedy to pursue a right-wing agenda at home, including restraints on civil liberties, and a policy of war and empire-building abroad.
Now, as the nation prepares for next month's commemoration of the first anniversary of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the full implications of Washington's war on terrorism are emerging.
As the pieces begin to complete the puzzle, it appears the left may have underestimated the extent to which the Bush administration would be able to gravitate to the far right. It may likewise have misjudged how far to the center and center-right the Democratic Party was drifting during its dozen or so years as captive to the Democratic Leadership Council. This has rendered the Democrats virtually neutralized in the face of George Bush's most dangerously reactionary domestic, foreign and military maneuvers.
What follows is an analysis of Bush administration initiatives, first in domestic affairs, then in foreign and military matters. In combination, these proposals and programs constitute a serious challenge to democracy in America and to peace in the world.
Domestically, the Bush administration is using the war on terrorism as a pretext to construct a national security state with considerably increased police and military powers accompanying sharp abrogations in democratic liberties. President Bush's principal means of obtaining public support -- which remains relatively high -- has been to greatly exaggerate the threat of terrorism, applying a veneer of red, white and blue hyperpatriotism to all his programs, and to lie about his motives and goals. Unwilling to appear one whit less patriotic and God-fearing than the Commander-in-Chief, the opposition party has been supportive of several ultra-conservative administration initiatives, such as the USA Patriot Act, though it has been sharply critical recently on the economy and corporate scandals in hopes of gaining congressional seats in November. Here are a few of the Bush administration's less savory stated goals or programs:
(1) For nearly 125 years, the U.S. has safeguarded the supremacy of civilian rule with the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the armed forces from a role in domestic civilian law enforcement and in other areas of civil life. In recent months, however, the White House has been orchestrating a review of this tradition in the name of insuring "wartime" domestic security against "the terrorist enemy." Lawyers in the Justice and Defense Departments have been instructed to analyze the pros and cons of the 1878 law in view of today's security requirements. On July 17, the New York Times reported that Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart, designated chief of the newly formed Northern Command, "said he would favor changes in existing law to give greater domestic powers to the military to protect the country against terrorist strikes." The general, who was obviously under White House instructions to make this statement, was directly quoted as saying, "We should always be reviewing things like Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people." Of course, the formation of the Northern Command itself is an aspect of the militarization of American society.
(2) The Justice Department recently decided to remove certain restraints imposed on the FBI in the mid-'70s by Congress in an effort to halt decades of unbridled spying on left and progressive organizations and individuals during the agency's COINTELPRO period. Likewise, Congress just permitted the termination of similar restraints against the CIA, imposed as recently as 1995. For example, CIA station chiefs were no longer allowed to hire murders, crooks and others of similar disrepute as informants and agents unless they received case-by-case approval from headquarters. This "guideline" was officially rescinded July 18.
(3) The House on July 26 approved -- and the Senate is expected to do so with some changes in September -- the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which transfers seven different agencies into one super department. Included are the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Border Patrol, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration and the border inspection division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The well-funded Homeland Security Dept., in combination with powers already (or soon to be) granted to the Justice Department, the Northern Command, the possibility of a weakened Posse Comitatus Act, and enhanced security and police authority at the state and local level, portends the establishment of a domestic policing apparatus unparalleled in American history. In this connection, the House bill exempts private corporations involved with the Homeland Security office from Freedom of Information laws, protecting them -- and their storehouse of industrial knowledge and information about the nation's infrastructure -- from public scrutiny. This latter may face a challenge from the Democrat-controlled Senate, as undoubtedly will provisions allowing the new department to virtually ignore union and civil service protections (see article, Unions Ambushed, below).
(4) The USA Patriot Act, passed by a hysterical and cowed Congress in October, curbs political dissent under the guise of protecting the country from domestic terrorism; greatly broadens the government's ability to conduct secret searches without judicial review, subjects immigrants to draconian treatment including indefinite detention, military tribunals, disclosure of attorney-client confidences and the like; and creates a national DNA database.
(5) The Justice Department is about to launch a pilot project in 10 cities called the Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), which is part of the USA Freedom Corps and Citizens Corps that President Bush called for in his State of the Union address. The program is designed to deputize a million or more strategically placed workers as voluntary spies on their fellow citizens. Especially sought are truck drivers, employees of utility companies, postal workers and others similarly situated to observe and report "suspicious" activities as they make their rounds. The White House sought to insert the TIPS system into the Homeland Security Department, but House Republicans -- under pressure from the libertarian and small-government sector of the right wing -- eliminated it. The Senate may do the same. In any event, the Justice Department intends to proceed with the program, which is due to start in late summer or early fall. (The government website for the two corps and TIPS is http://www.citizencorps.gov/)
(6) Already on the books, but not yet implemented, are scores of Executive Orders -- not subject to congressional oversight -- signed by various Presidents over the years. All they await is a national emergency of sufficient magnitude for a sitting President to invoke them. Such orders include the right for the government to seize and control the communications media; the right to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision; the authorization for the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons; and the right of FEMA "to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions" in a national emergency. A national emergency does in fact exist -- President Bush declared it so by proclamation Sept. 14 -- although the various executive powers have not been invoked.
(7) Space considerations preclude more than a brief mention of such additional threats to traditional civil liberties as the following: The CIA is poised to play an unprecedented role in domestic surveillance and investigations; issuance of a national identity card of one type or another remains a future possibility (this was included in the Homeland Security bill but eliminated, mainly by the Republican House leaders); the Bush administration evidently has established a "secret government" in the aftermath of Sept. 11, about which the public knows little; mass roundups of immigrants after the terror attacks may be a prelude to eventual roundups of citizens in times of national emergency.
In foreign and military matters, the world's only superpower, under the direction of the Republican government with the support of its Democratic "opposition," obviously seeks to extend U.S. hegemony throughout the world and appears to conceive of itself as the center of an American empire answerable only unto itself. Here is a portion of the Bush administration's international record in the last several months, almost entirely with the acquiescence of the Democrats. None of these actions has been the subject of national political debate or a discourse between the government and the governed:
(1) The Pentagon has been ordered to prepare for the command to launch a preemptive war against Iraq, although that country is innocent of complicity in the Sept. 11 events and absolutely no evidence has been presented to substantiate White House allegations that the regime of President Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction and is prepared to use them to attack the United States.
(2) Several additional countries have been targeted for possible future attack -- especially North Korea and Cuba, which have been accused without a hint of evidence of likewise possessing weapons of mass destruction intended to cripple the United States.
(3) The U.S. not only militarily ousted the government of Afghanistan, but selected the new "democratically elected" government as well; meanwhile, Washington is using the war in Afghanistan to secure permanent military bases throughout Central Asia -- an obvious threat to China -- and in preparation for a move to gain control over massive oil deposits in the southern sector of the former USSR.
(4) In Israel and Palestine, President Bush has openly joined with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the suppression of Palestinian aspirations for independence and self-determination.
(5) The Bush administration has arrogated to itself the right to launch first-strike nuclear weapons against any country it pleases (after unilaterally demolishing the ABM treaty).
(6) In Latin America and the Caribbean, the Pentagon has increased its involvement in the Colombian civil war, while the White House supported the recent foiled anti-democratic coup in Venezuela, is attempting to secure the victory for the right-wing candidate in Bolivia's election in early August, and has stipulated it will veto legislation easing the travel ban and/or sanctions against Cuba.
(7) Diplomatically, the U.S. government has decided that it is powerful enough to disregard the will of the United Nations and the desires of a great majority of countries as it turns its back on the new International Criminal Court and dozens of treaties and proposals to prevent an ecological catastrophe, create a more secure and democratic world order, and relieve growing poverty in the former colonized world.
All of these dangerous right-wing domestic, foreign, and military initiatives are predicated on the supposition that the United States is involved in a war. In fact, the U.S. is not at war in any rational sense of the word. Three symbolic buildings (military and financial) in two major cities were destroyed or damaged by a handful of fanatics belonging to a relatively small terror network, causing some 3,000 tragic deaths. There were any number of ways to respond to the outrage of Sept. 11 that would have been more successful in undermining the terrorists than the measures Washington has taken, not the least being to critically examine the underlying roots of the widespread antagonism throughout the world to the policies of the U.S. government of the last 50 years. Reasonable security measures and reliance on international policing to close down the network were in order -- but the war against Afghanistan was a travesty that produced little, if anything, in terms of crushing Al Qaeda.
As for the administration's war plans against Iraq and other countries, they will do nothing to dispatch terrorism and everything to extend Washington's political, economic and military empire. The repressive apparatus being put into place at enormous expense throughout the nation will do far more to subvert the liberties of the American people and the good things about U.S. society than it will protect the masses of people from a few terrorists.
The Bush administration has traveled farther to the right these last 20 months than its most severe critics predicted. A large part of the reason was Sept. 11, which resurrected a swiftly decaying presidency with a vengeance. Another part was the failure of the Democrats to function as an opposition party (this at least exposes the two-party system as the one party with two somewhat different faces that it always was, but it is little consolation at this stage). Another part, of course, was the weakness of the international left, which virtually imploded with the USSR and the global socialist movement over a decade ago, and without the existence of which the U.S. now feels free to bully the world.
Considering that the majority of the American people, due to a lifetime of governmental, societal and media manipulation, are in thrall to the notion that the U.S. is engaged in a major patriotic war worthy of a $400 billion defense budget and a $60 billion homeland defense effort, arbitrary wars and the suspension of some civil liberties, what is to be done to reverse the rightward trend?
There's no easy solution, of course. There are some remaining liberal Democrats and Greens that progressives will vote for in Congressional elections, and visiting the voting booth in November may be useful in such cases. But no one thinks supporting a few liberal or Green candidates can impede Bush's endless wars strategy or his quick-march to the right.
The working people of the United States have the power to stop the wars and halt the rightward trend. But they have to become aware of what's really going on despite a maze of propaganda from official sources, and get organized into opposition. That's where the left and progressive movements can make a strong contribution, if they are willing to reject sectarianism, abjure red-baiting, and unite in action for a common objective despite differences in outlook.
Progressive and left forces are small and extremely distant from the levers of power, but that's often been the case -- and yet there have been times when the broad left has made important advances. The movement against the Vietnam war, which also began under difficult circumstances, is a classic example. While not large, our forces are experienced, fairly savvy, and dedicated. Our real strength, in these circumstances, is through intense activism with a strong, radical and uncompromising demand for peace, social justice, civil liberties and equality, reaching masses of people through rallies, marches and public meetings, in letters to the editor and discussions with family, friends and fellow workers, in strengthening the left's media, in volunteering time and money for good causes, and joining organizations that are willing to speak truth to power with deeds as well as words.
If the left and progressive movements do not work together on a mission of accelerated activism to beat back the Bush attack, who will?
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOW CAN BUSH BE STOPPED?
By Jack A. Smith
Since Sept. 11, the U.S. left has been warning that the Bush administration was exploiting the tragedy to pursue a right-wing agenda at home, including restraints on civil liberties, and a policy of war and empire-building abroad.
Now, as the nation prepares for next month's commemoration of the first anniversary of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the full implications of Washington's war on terrorism are emerging.
As the pieces begin to complete the puzzle, it appears the left may have underestimated the extent to which the Bush administration would be able to gravitate to the far right. It may likewise have misjudged how far to the center and center-right the Democratic Party was drifting during its dozen or so years as captive to the Democratic Leadership Council. This has rendered the Democrats virtually neutralized in the face of George Bush's most dangerously reactionary domestic, foreign and military maneuvers.
What follows is an analysis of Bush administration initiatives, first in domestic affairs, then in foreign and military matters. In combination, these proposals and programs constitute a serious challenge to democracy in America and to peace in the world.
Domestically, the Bush administration is using the war on terrorism as a pretext to construct a national security state with considerably increased police and military powers accompanying sharp abrogations in democratic liberties. President Bush's principal means of obtaining public support -- which remains relatively high -- has been to greatly exaggerate the threat of terrorism, applying a veneer of red, white and blue hyperpatriotism to all his programs, and to lie about his motives and goals. Unwilling to appear one whit less patriotic and God-fearing than the Commander-in-Chief, the opposition party has been supportive of several ultra-conservative administration initiatives, such as the USA Patriot Act, though it has been sharply critical recently on the economy and corporate scandals in hopes of gaining congressional seats in November. Here are a few of the Bush administration's less savory stated goals or programs:
(1) For nearly 125 years, the U.S. has safeguarded the supremacy of civilian rule with the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the armed forces from a role in domestic civilian law enforcement and in other areas of civil life. In recent months, however, the White House has been orchestrating a review of this tradition in the name of insuring "wartime" domestic security against "the terrorist enemy." Lawyers in the Justice and Defense Departments have been instructed to analyze the pros and cons of the 1878 law in view of today's security requirements. On July 17, the New York Times reported that Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart, designated chief of the newly formed Northern Command, "said he would favor changes in existing law to give greater domestic powers to the military to protect the country against terrorist strikes." The general, who was obviously under White House instructions to make this statement, was directly quoted as saying, "We should always be reviewing things like Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people." Of course, the formation of the Northern Command itself is an aspect of the militarization of American society.
(2) The Justice Department recently decided to remove certain restraints imposed on the FBI in the mid-'70s by Congress in an effort to halt decades of unbridled spying on left and progressive organizations and individuals during the agency's COINTELPRO period. Likewise, Congress just permitted the termination of similar restraints against the CIA, imposed as recently as 1995. For example, CIA station chiefs were no longer allowed to hire murders, crooks and others of similar disrepute as informants and agents unless they received case-by-case approval from headquarters. This "guideline" was officially rescinded July 18.
(3) The House on July 26 approved -- and the Senate is expected to do so with some changes in September -- the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which transfers seven different agencies into one super department. Included are the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Border Patrol, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration and the border inspection division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The well-funded Homeland Security Dept., in combination with powers already (or soon to be) granted to the Justice Department, the Northern Command, the possibility of a weakened Posse Comitatus Act, and enhanced security and police authority at the state and local level, portends the establishment of a domestic policing apparatus unparalleled in American history. In this connection, the House bill exempts private corporations involved with the Homeland Security office from Freedom of Information laws, protecting them -- and their storehouse of industrial knowledge and information about the nation's infrastructure -- from public scrutiny. This latter may face a challenge from the Democrat-controlled Senate, as undoubtedly will provisions allowing the new department to virtually ignore union and civil service protections (see article, Unions Ambushed, below).
(4) The USA Patriot Act, passed by a hysterical and cowed Congress in October, curbs political dissent under the guise of protecting the country from domestic terrorism; greatly broadens the government's ability to conduct secret searches without judicial review, subjects immigrants to draconian treatment including indefinite detention, military tribunals, disclosure of attorney-client confidences and the like; and creates a national DNA database.
(5) The Justice Department is about to launch a pilot project in 10 cities called the Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), which is part of the USA Freedom Corps and Citizens Corps that President Bush called for in his State of the Union address. The program is designed to deputize a million or more strategically placed workers as voluntary spies on their fellow citizens. Especially sought are truck drivers, employees of utility companies, postal workers and others similarly situated to observe and report "suspicious" activities as they make their rounds. The White House sought to insert the TIPS system into the Homeland Security Department, but House Republicans -- under pressure from the libertarian and small-government sector of the right wing -- eliminated it. The Senate may do the same. In any event, the Justice Department intends to proceed with the program, which is due to start in late summer or early fall. (The government website for the two corps and TIPS is http://www.citizencorps.gov/)
(6) Already on the books, but not yet implemented, are scores of Executive Orders -- not subject to congressional oversight -- signed by various Presidents over the years. All they await is a national emergency of sufficient magnitude for a sitting President to invoke them. Such orders include the right for the government to seize and control the communications media; the right to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision; the authorization for the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons; and the right of FEMA "to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions" in a national emergency. A national emergency does in fact exist -- President Bush declared it so by proclamation Sept. 14 -- although the various executive powers have not been invoked.
(7) Space considerations preclude more than a brief mention of such additional threats to traditional civil liberties as the following: The CIA is poised to play an unprecedented role in domestic surveillance and investigations; issuance of a national identity card of one type or another remains a future possibility (this was included in the Homeland Security bill but eliminated, mainly by the Republican House leaders); the Bush administration evidently has established a "secret government" in the aftermath of Sept. 11, about which the public knows little; mass roundups of immigrants after the terror attacks may be a prelude to eventual roundups of citizens in times of national emergency.
In foreign and military matters, the world's only superpower, under the direction of the Republican government with the support of its Democratic "opposition," obviously seeks to extend U.S. hegemony throughout the world and appears to conceive of itself as the center of an American empire answerable only unto itself. Here is a portion of the Bush administration's international record in the last several months, almost entirely with the acquiescence of the Democrats. None of these actions has been the subject of national political debate or a discourse between the government and the governed:
(1) The Pentagon has been ordered to prepare for the command to launch a preemptive war against Iraq, although that country is innocent of complicity in the Sept. 11 events and absolutely no evidence has been presented to substantiate White House allegations that the regime of President Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction and is prepared to use them to attack the United States.
(2) Several additional countries have been targeted for possible future attack -- especially North Korea and Cuba, which have been accused without a hint of evidence of likewise possessing weapons of mass destruction intended to cripple the United States.
(3) The U.S. not only militarily ousted the government of Afghanistan, but selected the new "democratically elected" government as well; meanwhile, Washington is using the war in Afghanistan to secure permanent military bases throughout Central Asia -- an obvious threat to China -- and in preparation for a move to gain control over massive oil deposits in the southern sector of the former USSR.
(4) In Israel and Palestine, President Bush has openly joined with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the suppression of Palestinian aspirations for independence and self-determination.
(5) The Bush administration has arrogated to itself the right to launch first-strike nuclear weapons against any country it pleases (after unilaterally demolishing the ABM treaty).
(6) In Latin America and the Caribbean, the Pentagon has increased its involvement in the Colombian civil war, while the White House supported the recent foiled anti-democratic coup in Venezuela, is attempting to secure the victory for the right-wing candidate in Bolivia's election in early August, and has stipulated it will veto legislation easing the travel ban and/or sanctions against Cuba.
(7) Diplomatically, the U.S. government has decided that it is powerful enough to disregard the will of the United Nations and the desires of a great majority of countries as it turns its back on the new International Criminal Court and dozens of treaties and proposals to prevent an ecological catastrophe, create a more secure and democratic world order, and relieve growing poverty in the former colonized world.
All of these dangerous right-wing domestic, foreign, and military initiatives are predicated on the supposition that the United States is involved in a war. In fact, the U.S. is not at war in any rational sense of the word. Three symbolic buildings (military and financial) in two major cities were destroyed or damaged by a handful of fanatics belonging to a relatively small terror network, causing some 3,000 tragic deaths. There were any number of ways to respond to the outrage of Sept. 11 that would have been more successful in undermining the terrorists than the measures Washington has taken, not the least being to critically examine the underlying roots of the widespread antagonism throughout the world to the policies of the U.S. government of the last 50 years. Reasonable security measures and reliance on international policing to close down the network were in order -- but the war against Afghanistan was a travesty that produced little, if anything, in terms of crushing Al Qaeda.
As for the administration's war plans against Iraq and other countries, they will do nothing to dispatch terrorism and everything to extend Washington's political, economic and military empire. The repressive apparatus being put into place at enormous expense throughout the nation will do far more to subvert the liberties of the American people and the good things about U.S. society than it will protect the masses of people from a few terrorists.
The Bush administration has traveled farther to the right these last 20 months than its most severe critics predicted. A large part of the reason was Sept. 11, which resurrected a swiftly decaying presidency with a vengeance. Another part was the failure of the Democrats to function as an opposition party (this at least exposes the two-party system as the one party with two somewhat different faces that it always was, but it is little consolation at this stage). Another part, of course, was the weakness of the international left, which virtually imploded with the USSR and the global socialist movement over a decade ago, and without the existence of which the U.S. now feels free to bully the world.
Considering that the majority of the American people, due to a lifetime of governmental, societal and media manipulation, are in thrall to the notion that the U.S. is engaged in a major patriotic war worthy of a $400 billion defense budget and a $60 billion homeland defense effort, arbitrary wars and the suspension of some civil liberties, what is to be done to reverse the rightward trend?
There's no easy solution, of course. There are some remaining liberal Democrats and Greens that progressives will vote for in Congressional elections, and visiting the voting booth in November may be useful in such cases. But no one thinks supporting a few liberal or Green candidates can impede Bush's endless wars strategy or his quick-march to the right.
The working people of the United States have the power to stop the wars and halt the rightward trend. But they have to become aware of what's really going on despite a maze of propaganda from official sources, and get organized into opposition. That's where the left and progressive movements can make a strong contribution, if they are willing to reject sectarianism, abjure red-baiting, and unite in action for a common objective despite differences in outlook.
Progressive and left forces are small and extremely distant from the levers of power, but that's often been the case -- and yet there have been times when the broad left has made important advances. The movement against the Vietnam war, which also began under difficult circumstances, is a classic example. While not large, our forces are experienced, fairly savvy, and dedicated. Our real strength, in these circumstances, is through intense activism with a strong, radical and uncompromising demand for peace, social justice, civil liberties and equality, reaching masses of people through rallies, marches and public meetings, in letters to the editor and discussions with family, friends and fellow workers, in strengthening the left's media, in volunteering time and money for good causes, and joining organizations that are willing to speak truth to power with deeds as well as words.
If the left and progressive movements do not work together on a mission of accelerated activism to beat back the Bush attack, who will?
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Snivel Snivel Whether you want to believe it or not, we are at war! This is a war for survival and I for one intend to survive. If that means giving up some rights for the time being, so be it. The left always bleeds for the very elements that want to harm us ie; street crime etc. Now they want to protect the terrorists, who are probably busting a gut laughing at the sheer stupidity of Americans. WAKE UP! DON'T GIVE UP QUESTIONING THE STATUS QUO, JUST USE COMMON SENSE IN DECIDING WHAT IT IS WE REALLY WANT.
Everyman,
Quit being such a pussy. This is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, not the Police State of the Suspended Constitution and the Home of the Propagandized Fearful White People. Buck up little camper.
Head down to the recruiting office if you want to take part in this so-called "war," they could use the help. With Bush deploying our forces all over the globe, it'll be difficult to rustle up the 250,000 troops necessary to conquer and occupy Iraq. I'd prefer you did some studying on the history of U.S. foreign policy, especially the endless coups and wars we have engaged in. Why are the mad at us? If it was because we were free and could buy houses they would've attacked Canada, too.
Never support the government's efforts to suspend civil rights. It's un-American. There are plenty of other countries you could live in and feel nice and secure in your absence of civil rights. Iraq, for example.
Quit being such a pussy. This is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, not the Police State of the Suspended Constitution and the Home of the Propagandized Fearful White People. Buck up little camper.
Head down to the recruiting office if you want to take part in this so-called "war," they could use the help. With Bush deploying our forces all over the globe, it'll be difficult to rustle up the 250,000 troops necessary to conquer and occupy Iraq. I'd prefer you did some studying on the history of U.S. foreign policy, especially the endless coups and wars we have engaged in. Why are the mad at us? If it was because we were free and could buy houses they would've attacked Canada, too.
Never support the government's efforts to suspend civil rights. It's un-American. There are plenty of other countries you could live in and feel nice and secure in your absence of civil rights. Iraq, for example.
Tell that to Helen of Troy.
was a resource. At that time, in that part of the world, women were treated as livestock.
How does this appy?
"Any man who would give up his freedom for security deserves neither freedom or security."
Thomas Jefferson
"Any man who would give up his freedom for security deserves neither freedom or security."
Thomas Jefferson
Some wars are because of opposing ideology. For example Vietnam or the Korean War. The resources in both the countries were very limited, but why did we enter those war? Simple, at the time the US entered those wars to stop the spreading growth of Communism. Nothing more nothing less, it wasn’t about resources or trade routes, it was about Capitalism vs. Communism, Ideology vs Ideology.
Everyman hit it right on the head. Survival baby.
Why do you need resources? Survival.
Why do you need trade routes? Survival.
Why fight an opposing ideology? Fear your survival is in jeopardy.
Paint it up any way you like. People don't go around frothing at the mouth to go to war.
Why do you need resources? Survival.
Why do you need trade routes? Survival.
Why fight an opposing ideology? Fear your survival is in jeopardy.
Paint it up any way you like. People don't go around frothing at the mouth to go to war.
of a variety of reasons. Some wars happen for survival purposes, some wars happen over trade routes and resources, and some wars happen due to opposing ideologies.
To state that "All Wars" happen because of X is naïve and a lack of understanding of world history and human nature.
To state that "All Wars" happen because of X is naïve and a lack of understanding of world history and human nature.
"To state that "All Wars" happen because of X is naïve and a lack of understanding of world history and human nature. "
That statement, in and of itself, demonstrates naivety.
Anything can be broken down into its functional common denominator. You don't motivate masses of people to wage war unless they feel ultimately, survival is in jeopardy, whether it be their own or someone elses.
Name one single reason ever that a war was waged than can not ultimately be attributed to perceived fear for survival of one group or the other? Certainly none of the reasons previously namedcan be excluded. You can walk around complicting your world all you like, you'll never solve anything that way though.
Ok, so far we have wars being waged over trade routes, resources, and conflicts of ideology (all of which, ultimately come down to survival). Name some more reasons.
That statement, in and of itself, demonstrates naivety.
Anything can be broken down into its functional common denominator. You don't motivate masses of people to wage war unless they feel ultimately, survival is in jeopardy, whether it be their own or someone elses.
Name one single reason ever that a war was waged than can not ultimately be attributed to perceived fear for survival of one group or the other? Certainly none of the reasons previously namedcan be excluded. You can walk around complicting your world all you like, you'll never solve anything that way though.
Ok, so far we have wars being waged over trade routes, resources, and conflicts of ideology (all of which, ultimately come down to survival). Name some more reasons.
Indian and Pakistan are fighting over territory that has no real geopolitical or economic significance. Kashmir is about national pride more than survival.
US Cold War policies were like a global chess game. At some level it was about survival but individual conflicts were more about gaining ground in what was almost seen as a game. In the event of a real conflict both sides would have been destroyed so the smaller battles had almost no link to survival of the US or USSR.
The Falklands had nothing to do with survival. Both sides played on nationalism and used the conflict to gain political advantage (which wasnt even political survival).
Current US policies are justified by playing off the insecurities of the public but a war in Iraq would have nothing to do with US survival or economic interests. The US (and Bush in paerticular) has its prestige at stake due to Sadam's position after the Gulf war; a new war will hurt US interests worldwide since its unlikely to get any support from other counties. Its also more likely to provoke Sadam into using weapons of mass destruction than if the US left Iraq alone.
War can have many causes like any other government "policy". Reductionism only starts making sense when one redefinmes terms to make the "important" causal idea broad enough to fit any situation.
US Cold War policies were like a global chess game. At some level it was about survival but individual conflicts were more about gaining ground in what was almost seen as a game. In the event of a real conflict both sides would have been destroyed so the smaller battles had almost no link to survival of the US or USSR.
The Falklands had nothing to do with survival. Both sides played on nationalism and used the conflict to gain political advantage (which wasnt even political survival).
Current US policies are justified by playing off the insecurities of the public but a war in Iraq would have nothing to do with US survival or economic interests. The US (and Bush in paerticular) has its prestige at stake due to Sadam's position after the Gulf war; a new war will hurt US interests worldwide since its unlikely to get any support from other counties. Its also more likely to provoke Sadam into using weapons of mass destruction than if the US left Iraq alone.
War can have many causes like any other government "policy". Reductionism only starts making sense when one redefinmes terms to make the "important" causal idea broad enough to fit any situation.
I believe the above poster said it, wars happen for a variety of reasons and several examples. If you want a couple of more, how about the American Revolutionary War. That war was over the idea of taxation without representation, not about how King George was going to exterminate the American Colonies. How about the American Civil War, a war based upon differences in Economics Policies and Governing Rights.
And as to how you motivate masses for a war cause, yes some people are motivated for survival reasons (I’ll kill you before you kill me), other for economic reasons (which explains why we have mercenaries), and some for nationalism/an ideology.
And how would you explain Palestinian Suicide Bombers and the Japanese Kamikaze pilots? These are people so devoted to their cause they are willing to sacrifice their lives for it. If it all ultimately comes down to survival, wouldn’t one place his or her’s own survival above all else? Isn’t self preservation the most fundamental of survival instincts and if survival is what truly motivates people, then there would be no such thing as Suicide Bombers or Kamikaze Pilots.
And as to how you motivate masses for a war cause, yes some people are motivated for survival reasons (I’ll kill you before you kill me), other for economic reasons (which explains why we have mercenaries), and some for nationalism/an ideology.
And how would you explain Palestinian Suicide Bombers and the Japanese Kamikaze pilots? These are people so devoted to their cause they are willing to sacrifice their lives for it. If it all ultimately comes down to survival, wouldn’t one place his or her’s own survival above all else? Isn’t self preservation the most fundamental of survival instincts and if survival is what truly motivates people, then there would be no such thing as Suicide Bombers or Kamikaze Pilots.
>Anything can be broken down into its functional common denominator. You don't motivate masses of people to wage war unless they feel ultimately, survival is in jeopardy, whether it be their own or someone elses.<
i do not feel motivated to support ANOTHER war in iraq. i do not feel my survival is in jeopardy. i am not scared. i am not pissing my pants about iraq.
and it's a complete mystery to me the frothing at the mouth/absolute blood lust exhibited by conservative, right wing politicians everywhere on earth for military action. examples: america, israel.
and it's completely ironic. it is the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SCARE ME WITH BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA ABOUT WEAPONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, AND NOT IRAQ.
if iraq was the one flaunting its neclear and bio - weapon capability, threatening america daily, saying they wanted to bomb us, and poison us, saying they wanted to kill us all, THEN, then it would be a very different story. then i would feel my survival was in jeopardy.
but that's the funny thing. it's not iraq trying to scare me. it's my own government.
i know froth when i see it. i know blood lust when i see it. i know a militarist, war loving right wing when i see it.
today, iraq announced it wants to allow weapons inspectors back into iraq. this offer was shot down by our government. THEY WANT WAR.
DID WE ASK OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THIS WAR? NO. WE DID NOT. AND THAT'S THE SICK FUCKING DISCONNECT BETWEEN US, THE PEOPLE, AND THE RULING CLASS. IT IS THEIR WAR. THIS IS NOT MY WAR.
DID YOU GET WHAT YOU WANTED, YOU RIGHT WINGERS? ARE YOU HAPPY WITH BUSH. PROUD OF YOUR LEADER? PROUD OF WHERE HE'S TAKING AMERICA? PROUD OF THOSE BODY BAGS? PROUD OF YOUR BIG NEW WAR?
THIS IS YOUR WAR. YOU FUCKING FIGHT IT. BURN IN HELL CREEPS.
i do not feel motivated to support ANOTHER war in iraq. i do not feel my survival is in jeopardy. i am not scared. i am not pissing my pants about iraq.
and it's a complete mystery to me the frothing at the mouth/absolute blood lust exhibited by conservative, right wing politicians everywhere on earth for military action. examples: america, israel.
and it's completely ironic. it is the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SCARE ME WITH BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA ABOUT WEAPONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, AND NOT IRAQ.
if iraq was the one flaunting its neclear and bio - weapon capability, threatening america daily, saying they wanted to bomb us, and poison us, saying they wanted to kill us all, THEN, then it would be a very different story. then i would feel my survival was in jeopardy.
but that's the funny thing. it's not iraq trying to scare me. it's my own government.
i know froth when i see it. i know blood lust when i see it. i know a militarist, war loving right wing when i see it.
today, iraq announced it wants to allow weapons inspectors back into iraq. this offer was shot down by our government. THEY WANT WAR.
DID WE ASK OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THIS WAR? NO. WE DID NOT. AND THAT'S THE SICK FUCKING DISCONNECT BETWEEN US, THE PEOPLE, AND THE RULING CLASS. IT IS THEIR WAR. THIS IS NOT MY WAR.
DID YOU GET WHAT YOU WANTED, YOU RIGHT WINGERS? ARE YOU HAPPY WITH BUSH. PROUD OF YOUR LEADER? PROUD OF WHERE HE'S TAKING AMERICA? PROUD OF THOSE BODY BAGS? PROUD OF YOUR BIG NEW WAR?
THIS IS YOUR WAR. YOU FUCKING FIGHT IT. BURN IN HELL CREEPS.
Well, let's see what we're gotten so far:
Pakistan and India fighting over territory…greed.
The Cold war was not a war, it was an exercise in politics. But if you wanna call it a war, it was motivated by differences in ideologies.
The Falklands…greed.
A future war in Iraq…motivated by the threat of Hussein achieving nuclear capabilities. Obviously about survival there.
The Revolutionary War…a desire not to pay taxes to England … greed.
Palestinian homicide bombers… clash of ideologies.
Kamakazis…clash of ideologies.
"Isn’t self preservation the most fundamental of survival instincts and if survival is what truly motivates people, then there would be no such thing as Suicide Bombers or Kamikaze Pilots. "
Yes it is, but just like any instinct, it can be overridden. For example, most of us would give up our own lives for those of our children. Why? Individual survival means nothing when contrasted with survival of the specie, ideology, culture, etc.
Just because people have committed suicide in war doesn't mean that it's not about survival. "The needs of the many sometimes outweigh the needs of the few." - Mr. Spock
Most of your examples were motivated by greed. And if you don't think greed is an instinct steep and rooted in the foundation of survival, then you should think a little harder.
People can be incited to violence by several methods other than survival, but *you've* failed to address any of them. Heroism and martyrdom for example, boil down to survival, not necessarily for the individual, but for the culture, ideology, or way of life.
Of course wars have political catalysts. These are more of an extrinsic motivator.
"i do not feel motivated to support ANOTHER war in iraq."
Some people simply can NOT see the forest for the reason that too many trees are obstructing the view. Or like the Martian said, "I'm going to blow up the Earth; it's blocking my view of Venus."
Hussein is only a few years away from achieving nuclear capabilities. That is a fact. When that blast goes off in downtown DC, Manhattan, or God willing…San Francisco, it will then be too late for you to get motivated at that point. Fortunately, your demeanor is among the slim minority.
"it is the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SCARE ME WITH BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA ABOUT WEAPONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, AND NOT IRAQ."
You're obviously not knowledgeable on the issue. You should have watch O'Reilly last night. You'd have seen the ex-nuclear engineering consultant to Hussein himself telling you that Iraq is 2 to 3 years out (he's making his own nuclear material) and he believes Hussein will not hesitate to use them. Quit spending so much time ranting on indybay about things you obviously know nothing about, and go out and get educated. Read a newspaper, watch a newscast, or do a web search for something that doesn't have "anti-Americanism" or "conspiracy" as a search operator or keyword.
"today, iraq announced it wants to allow weapons inspectors back into iraq."
Too little, too late. Tell us why they've not kept to their agreements to allow inspectors in since the end of Desert Storm?
"DID WE ASK OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THIS WAR? "
Yes, many of us did. I personally have written my congressmen letters instructing them to support the President's plans against Iraq, whatever those may be. I am not alone.
"ARE YOU HAPPY WITH BUSH. PROUD OF YOUR LEADER? PROUD OF WHERE HE'S TAKING AMERICA? "
Yes.
"THIS IS YOUR WAR. YOU FUCKING FIGHT IT."
You liberals never cease to amuse me. This war will be fought by 1 MILLION heavily armed and highly trained soldiers who feel exactly the same as I do. We don't need the help of some pansy bay area liberal. You just continue to sit there, eating your cocoa puff and cheetos, reading your Chumpsky, and bad-mouthing America. In the meantime, did you pay your Federal income taxes last year? If so, you helped fund my military. Thanks for you help.
While we're on the topic, let's take a poll. How many of you liberals paid your Federal income taxes last year? I'd love to know. Wanna make a statement? Protest the government by not paying your taxes. Send a letter to the good old IRS and tell them you won't support this fascist warmongering machine by paying taxes any longer. I dare you.
Pakistan and India fighting over territory…greed.
The Cold war was not a war, it was an exercise in politics. But if you wanna call it a war, it was motivated by differences in ideologies.
The Falklands…greed.
A future war in Iraq…motivated by the threat of Hussein achieving nuclear capabilities. Obviously about survival there.
The Revolutionary War…a desire not to pay taxes to England … greed.
Palestinian homicide bombers… clash of ideologies.
Kamakazis…clash of ideologies.
"Isn’t self preservation the most fundamental of survival instincts and if survival is what truly motivates people, then there would be no such thing as Suicide Bombers or Kamikaze Pilots. "
Yes it is, but just like any instinct, it can be overridden. For example, most of us would give up our own lives for those of our children. Why? Individual survival means nothing when contrasted with survival of the specie, ideology, culture, etc.
Just because people have committed suicide in war doesn't mean that it's not about survival. "The needs of the many sometimes outweigh the needs of the few." - Mr. Spock
Most of your examples were motivated by greed. And if you don't think greed is an instinct steep and rooted in the foundation of survival, then you should think a little harder.
People can be incited to violence by several methods other than survival, but *you've* failed to address any of them. Heroism and martyrdom for example, boil down to survival, not necessarily for the individual, but for the culture, ideology, or way of life.
Of course wars have political catalysts. These are more of an extrinsic motivator.
"i do not feel motivated to support ANOTHER war in iraq."
Some people simply can NOT see the forest for the reason that too many trees are obstructing the view. Or like the Martian said, "I'm going to blow up the Earth; it's blocking my view of Venus."
Hussein is only a few years away from achieving nuclear capabilities. That is a fact. When that blast goes off in downtown DC, Manhattan, or God willing…San Francisco, it will then be too late for you to get motivated at that point. Fortunately, your demeanor is among the slim minority.
"it is the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SCARE ME WITH BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA ABOUT WEAPONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, AND NOT IRAQ."
You're obviously not knowledgeable on the issue. You should have watch O'Reilly last night. You'd have seen the ex-nuclear engineering consultant to Hussein himself telling you that Iraq is 2 to 3 years out (he's making his own nuclear material) and he believes Hussein will not hesitate to use them. Quit spending so much time ranting on indybay about things you obviously know nothing about, and go out and get educated. Read a newspaper, watch a newscast, or do a web search for something that doesn't have "anti-Americanism" or "conspiracy" as a search operator or keyword.
"today, iraq announced it wants to allow weapons inspectors back into iraq."
Too little, too late. Tell us why they've not kept to their agreements to allow inspectors in since the end of Desert Storm?
"DID WE ASK OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THIS WAR? "
Yes, many of us did. I personally have written my congressmen letters instructing them to support the President's plans against Iraq, whatever those may be. I am not alone.
"ARE YOU HAPPY WITH BUSH. PROUD OF YOUR LEADER? PROUD OF WHERE HE'S TAKING AMERICA? "
Yes.
"THIS IS YOUR WAR. YOU FUCKING FIGHT IT."
You liberals never cease to amuse me. This war will be fought by 1 MILLION heavily armed and highly trained soldiers who feel exactly the same as I do. We don't need the help of some pansy bay area liberal. You just continue to sit there, eating your cocoa puff and cheetos, reading your Chumpsky, and bad-mouthing America. In the meantime, did you pay your Federal income taxes last year? If so, you helped fund my military. Thanks for you help.
While we're on the topic, let's take a poll. How many of you liberals paid your Federal income taxes last year? I'd love to know. Wanna make a statement? Protest the government by not paying your taxes. Send a letter to the good old IRS and tell them you won't support this fascist warmongering machine by paying taxes any longer. I dare you.
Well, let's see what we're gotten so far:
Pakistan and India fighting over territory…greed.
The Cold war was not a war, it was an exercise in politics. But if you wanna call it a war, it was motivated by differences in ideologies.
The Falklands…greed.
A future war in Iraq…motivated by the threat of Hussein achieving nuclear capabilities. Obviously about survival there.
The Revolutionary War…a desire not to pay taxes to England … greed.
Palestinian homicide bombers… clash of ideologies.
Kamakazis…clash of ideologies.
"Isn’t self preservation the most fundamental of survival instincts and if survival is what truly motivates people, then there would be no such thing as Suicide Bombers or Kamikaze Pilots. "
Yes it is, but just like any instinct, it can be overridden. For example, most of us would give up our own lives for those of our children. Why? Individual survival means nothing when contrasted with survival of the specie, ideology, culture, etc.
Just because people have committed suicide in war doesn't mean that it's not about survival. "The needs of the many sometimes outweigh the needs of the few." - Mr. Spock
Most of your examples were motivated by greed. And if you don't think greed is an instinct steep and rooted in the foundation of survival, then you should think a little harder.
People can be incited to violence by several methods other than survival, but *you've* failed to address any of them. Heroism and martyrdom for example, boil down to survival, not necessarily for the individual, but for the culture, ideology, or way of life.
Of course wars have political catalysts. These are more of an extrinsic motivator.
"i do not feel motivated to support ANOTHER war in iraq."
Some people simply can NOT see the forest for the reason that too many trees are obstructing the view. Or like the Martian said, "I'm going to blow up the Earth; it's blocking my view of Venus."
Hussein is only a few years away from achieving nuclear capabilities. That is a fact. When that blast goes off in downtown DC, Manhattan, or God willing…San Francisco, it will then be too late for you to get motivated at that point. Fortunately, your demeanor is among the slim minority.
"it is the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SCARE ME WITH BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA ABOUT WEAPONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, AND NOT IRAQ."
You're obviously not knowledgeable on the issue. You should have watch O'Reilly last night. You'd have seen the ex-nuclear engineering consultant to Hussein himself telling you that Iraq is 2 to 3 years out (he's making his own nuclear material) and he believes Hussein will not hesitate to use them. Quit spending so much time ranting on indybay about things you obviously know nothing about, and go out and get educated. Read a newspaper, watch a newscast, or do a web search for something that doesn't have "anti-Americanism" or "conspiracy" as a search operator or keyword.
"today, iraq announced it wants to allow weapons inspectors back into iraq."
Too little, too late. Tell us why they've not kept to their agreements to allow inspectors in since the end of Desert Storm?
"DID WE ASK OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THIS WAR? "
Yes, many of us did. I personally have written my congressmen letters instructing them to support the President's plans against Iraq, whatever those may be. I am not alone.
"ARE YOU HAPPY WITH BUSH. PROUD OF YOUR LEADER? PROUD OF WHERE HE'S TAKING AMERICA? "
Yes.
"THIS IS YOUR WAR. YOU FUCKING FIGHT IT."
You liberals never cease to amuse me. This war will be fought by 1 MILLION heavily armed and highly trained soldiers who feel exactly the same as I do. We don't need the help of some pansy bay area liberal. You just continue to sit there, eating your cocoa puff and cheetos, reading your Chumpsky, and bad-mouthing America. In the meantime, did you pay your Federal income taxes last year? If so, you helped fund my military. Thanks for you help.
While we're on the topic, let's take a poll. How many of you liberals paid your Federal income taxes last year? I'd love to know. Wanna make a statement? Protest the government by not paying your taxes. Send a letter to the good old IRS and tell them you won't support this fascist warmongering machine by paying taxes any longer. I dare you.
Pakistan and India fighting over territory…greed.
The Cold war was not a war, it was an exercise in politics. But if you wanna call it a war, it was motivated by differences in ideologies.
The Falklands…greed.
A future war in Iraq…motivated by the threat of Hussein achieving nuclear capabilities. Obviously about survival there.
The Revolutionary War…a desire not to pay taxes to England … greed.
Palestinian homicide bombers… clash of ideologies.
Kamakazis…clash of ideologies.
"Isn’t self preservation the most fundamental of survival instincts and if survival is what truly motivates people, then there would be no such thing as Suicide Bombers or Kamikaze Pilots. "
Yes it is, but just like any instinct, it can be overridden. For example, most of us would give up our own lives for those of our children. Why? Individual survival means nothing when contrasted with survival of the specie, ideology, culture, etc.
Just because people have committed suicide in war doesn't mean that it's not about survival. "The needs of the many sometimes outweigh the needs of the few." - Mr. Spock
Most of your examples were motivated by greed. And if you don't think greed is an instinct steep and rooted in the foundation of survival, then you should think a little harder.
People can be incited to violence by several methods other than survival, but *you've* failed to address any of them. Heroism and martyrdom for example, boil down to survival, not necessarily for the individual, but for the culture, ideology, or way of life.
Of course wars have political catalysts. These are more of an extrinsic motivator.
"i do not feel motivated to support ANOTHER war in iraq."
Some people simply can NOT see the forest for the reason that too many trees are obstructing the view. Or like the Martian said, "I'm going to blow up the Earth; it's blocking my view of Venus."
Hussein is only a few years away from achieving nuclear capabilities. That is a fact. When that blast goes off in downtown DC, Manhattan, or God willing…San Francisco, it will then be too late for you to get motivated at that point. Fortunately, your demeanor is among the slim minority.
"it is the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SCARE ME WITH BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA ABOUT WEAPONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, AND NOT IRAQ."
You're obviously not knowledgeable on the issue. You should have watch O'Reilly last night. You'd have seen the ex-nuclear engineering consultant to Hussein himself telling you that Iraq is 2 to 3 years out (he's making his own nuclear material) and he believes Hussein will not hesitate to use them. Quit spending so much time ranting on indybay about things you obviously know nothing about, and go out and get educated. Read a newspaper, watch a newscast, or do a web search for something that doesn't have "anti-Americanism" or "conspiracy" as a search operator or keyword.
"today, iraq announced it wants to allow weapons inspectors back into iraq."
Too little, too late. Tell us why they've not kept to their agreements to allow inspectors in since the end of Desert Storm?
"DID WE ASK OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THIS WAR? "
Yes, many of us did. I personally have written my congressmen letters instructing them to support the President's plans against Iraq, whatever those may be. I am not alone.
"ARE YOU HAPPY WITH BUSH. PROUD OF YOUR LEADER? PROUD OF WHERE HE'S TAKING AMERICA? "
Yes.
"THIS IS YOUR WAR. YOU FUCKING FIGHT IT."
You liberals never cease to amuse me. This war will be fought by 1 MILLION heavily armed and highly trained soldiers who feel exactly the same as I do. We don't need the help of some pansy bay area liberal. You just continue to sit there, eating your cocoa puff and cheetos, reading your Chumpsky, and bad-mouthing America. In the meantime, did you pay your Federal income taxes last year? If so, you helped fund my military. Thanks for you help.
While we're on the topic, let's take a poll. How many of you liberals paid your Federal income taxes last year? I'd love to know. Wanna make a statement? Protest the government by not paying your taxes. Send a letter to the good old IRS and tell them you won't support this fascist warmongering machine by paying taxes any longer. I dare you.
If the Iraqi soldiers throw up their hands and their white flags like they did last time, no one will get killed. Plain and simple. The Iraqis know who their enemy is, and it ain't America. That's why they have no stomache for war against us and that's why they they put no heart in their fighting.
They want the same thing we want, which is for them to be liberated from their tyrant master.
You'd think you liberals would understand that by now. I mean you guys are always the ones screaming about freedom.
They want the same thing we want, which is for them to be liberated from their tyrant master.
You'd think you liberals would understand that by now. I mean you guys are always the ones screaming about freedom.
I saw them surrender by the thousands. I saw them surrender to journalists covering the war. I saw them lay down their arms, kneel and put their hands on their head. I saw them choose to surrender to the "tyrrant" American soldiers rather than die for their "President" and nation in battle.
I am ex-military and 100% American. If some foreign nation invaded this country they'd have to pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers before I'd put it down.
I think from observing the way things went it Desert Storm, it's pretty obvious what the Iraqi people want. They just can't do it themselves for fear of being taken out back and never heard from again.
I am ex-military and 100% American. If some foreign nation invaded this country they'd have to pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers before I'd put it down.
I think from observing the way things went it Desert Storm, it's pretty obvious what the Iraqi people want. They just can't do it themselves for fear of being taken out back and never heard from again.
How come the military is antiwar, and the policy wonks want blood? It's very simple….
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
See also:
The Chickenhawk Database
http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
See also:
The Chickenhawk Database
http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
Then one can argue anything defending it. But it takes true intelligence to research the details and make an argument based on that argument. For example, I can say the true reason why wars are fought is ultimately for Oxygen. Sounds stupid huh, but by using both Eric’s and Nessie’s extremely broad definition of survival and resources one can make an argument the reason why wars are fought is for Oxygen. The one item both point to is the necessity to people for either survival or as a resource. For Eric, you need people to support greed and if you don't have any people supporting an ideology/culture/religion/government etc, then it ceases to exist. And for Nessie, people seem to be the ultimate resource and if you don’t have people providing the labor to extract or use the resource, then the resource ceases to have usefulness or if you don’t have people located near a strategic area, then that area cease to have value. And what do all people need, why oxygen, a person can live about 30 days without food and 3 days without water, but people can’t live as long without oxygen. Thus since oxygen is the ultimate need for survival and as a resource and the true reason why all wars are fought is over oxygen.
Rogus, you persist in obfuscatating the discussion while your responses become more and more far reaching.
Oxygen is needed for survival. If ever a war was waged over oxygen (which is quite possible), it would simply fall into the resources category. All wars are certainly not ALL about oxygen in the same way that all dogs are not brown. All dogs are in fact, dogs however, much in the same fashion all wars are ultimately about survival.
Oxygen is also an abundant resource over which it would be difficult for any single group to exercise control. Your analogy grossly misses the point.
As far as stopping Iraqui commandos that infiltrate our borders with weapons of mass destruction, Nessie is wrong. There is a way to stop them.
Preemptive attack.
Yes, innocent people will die, just as has happened in every war in history. Sometimes, the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
Oxygen is needed for survival. If ever a war was waged over oxygen (which is quite possible), it would simply fall into the resources category. All wars are certainly not ALL about oxygen in the same way that all dogs are not brown. All dogs are in fact, dogs however, much in the same fashion all wars are ultimately about survival.
Oxygen is also an abundant resource over which it would be difficult for any single group to exercise control. Your analogy grossly misses the point.
As far as stopping Iraqui commandos that infiltrate our borders with weapons of mass destruction, Nessie is wrong. There is a way to stop them.
Preemptive attack.
Yes, innocent people will die, just as has happened in every war in history. Sometimes, the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
You are defining survival in such a wide a broad version that you fail to see the specifics as to why wars happens and not all wars “boils down to one thing and one thing only is survival”. While there are elements to survival in all wars it’s not the whole of war. In a sense your argument is like the game 6-degrees of separation to Kevin Bacon, you make a long enough link, the reasoning behind wars can be linked to survival, or resources, or even oxygen. But survival, or resources, or oxygen is not the specific reason for why wars happen.
You've failed to name and *other* reasons for war. Feel free to cite examples that have not already been addressed. None of those previously stated are related to anything _other_ than survival.
"that's the single surest way to set them off."
You can't set off something that does not yet exist. You can however, prevent it from being brought into existance.
"For all we know, sleeper agents are already in place, awaiting only the signal to act."
For all we know, there are not.
"Indeed, it would be unlikely they were not.
That is ridiculous. What point would there be to building them, shipping them, sneaking them into the country, storing them, and waiting for them to be discovered while awaiting the order to set them off?
That serves absolutely no purpose. If they managed to get them here, rest assured, you would know about it.
The only thing patently absurd is your desire to risk millions of innocent lives by malingering. But it only stands to reason that someone who hates America so much could care less about innocent American lives.
You are an evil, evil person.
"that's the single surest way to set them off."
You can't set off something that does not yet exist. You can however, prevent it from being brought into existance.
"For all we know, sleeper agents are already in place, awaiting only the signal to act."
For all we know, there are not.
"Indeed, it would be unlikely they were not.
That is ridiculous. What point would there be to building them, shipping them, sneaking them into the country, storing them, and waiting for them to be discovered while awaiting the order to set them off?
That serves absolutely no purpose. If they managed to get them here, rest assured, you would know about it.
The only thing patently absurd is your desire to risk millions of innocent lives by malingering. But it only stands to reason that someone who hates America so much could care less about innocent American lives.
You are an evil, evil person.
>"that's the single surest way to set them off."
You can't set off something that does not yet exist. You can however, prevent it from being brought into existance.<
now you sound like you're on my side. why are we getting our underwear in wads about secret agents in bushes? oh, i see. to coerce our allegiance for a military action in iraq.
>"For all we know, sleeper agents are already in place, awaiting only the signal to act."
For all we know, there are not.
"Indeed, it would be unlikely they were not.
That is ridiculous. What point would there be to building them, shipping them, sneaking them into the country, storing them, and waiting for them to be discovered while awaiting the order to set them off?<
here it is again. what are the chances? how utterly stupid is iraq? to risk an actual attack on the u.s. mainland? last time they attacked anything, you'll remember, it was a neighboring arab country.
"o.k. boys and girls, when the government tells you to be afraid of the secret, evil, iraqi people, what do you do? that's right! very good! you be very afraid. good little children! and remember, all the iraqi people, and all the muslim people on earth, every single one of them, are all evil terrorists. and they hate you all and what you to die. so remember, when we say be afraid, you be afraid. when we say "arab muslims", you say, "terrorists." very good, children!"
>The only thing patently absurd is your desire to risk millions of innocent lives by malingering. But it only stands to reason that someone who hates America so much could care less about innocent American lives.<
i resent the implication, even if it wasn't directred at me. our soldiers, our troops, if they are sent in to iraq for bullshit reasons, for political gains back in the u.s.a., are just as innocent. where is your concern for them?
it's amazing how this "war" is such a Wanted Thing. but needed? that's when the questions really start.
i remember a town hall meeting held on CNN. i think it was in 1998. this was after iraq had thrown out the u.n. weapons inspectors. the clinton admin. wanted to stike iraq. there was some debate about the neccessity of it. so, madeline albright, along with two other officials, agreed to appear before an audience to talk about the question of a military strike.
the amount of hostility directed toward sec. of state albright, and toward the idea of military action, was amazing. the officials were sweating.
we did not strike.
i bring this up because AT LEAST, at the very least, the state dept. at that time offered to sit before america, before the people they work for, and listen to what we had to say. i doubt it ever happened before, and i doubt it will ever happen again.
the bush admin., knowing what happened that night, thinking itself smarter than it's own citizens, does not conduct foreign policy like that at all. it listens to no one, not even its allies. it acts unilaterally, for itself.
i could be mistaken, but if we strike iraq, unprovoked, (iraq not having struck at us or our "interests"), it will be the first time in american history that we will have STARTED a major war, all by our lonesome. that's quite a line to cross.
You can't set off something that does not yet exist. You can however, prevent it from being brought into existance.<
now you sound like you're on my side. why are we getting our underwear in wads about secret agents in bushes? oh, i see. to coerce our allegiance for a military action in iraq.
>"For all we know, sleeper agents are already in place, awaiting only the signal to act."
For all we know, there are not.
"Indeed, it would be unlikely they were not.
That is ridiculous. What point would there be to building them, shipping them, sneaking them into the country, storing them, and waiting for them to be discovered while awaiting the order to set them off?<
here it is again. what are the chances? how utterly stupid is iraq? to risk an actual attack on the u.s. mainland? last time they attacked anything, you'll remember, it was a neighboring arab country.
"o.k. boys and girls, when the government tells you to be afraid of the secret, evil, iraqi people, what do you do? that's right! very good! you be very afraid. good little children! and remember, all the iraqi people, and all the muslim people on earth, every single one of them, are all evil terrorists. and they hate you all and what you to die. so remember, when we say be afraid, you be afraid. when we say "arab muslims", you say, "terrorists." very good, children!"
>The only thing patently absurd is your desire to risk millions of innocent lives by malingering. But it only stands to reason that someone who hates America so much could care less about innocent American lives.<
i resent the implication, even if it wasn't directred at me. our soldiers, our troops, if they are sent in to iraq for bullshit reasons, for political gains back in the u.s.a., are just as innocent. where is your concern for them?
it's amazing how this "war" is such a Wanted Thing. but needed? that's when the questions really start.
i remember a town hall meeting held on CNN. i think it was in 1998. this was after iraq had thrown out the u.n. weapons inspectors. the clinton admin. wanted to stike iraq. there was some debate about the neccessity of it. so, madeline albright, along with two other officials, agreed to appear before an audience to talk about the question of a military strike.
the amount of hostility directed toward sec. of state albright, and toward the idea of military action, was amazing. the officials were sweating.
we did not strike.
i bring this up because AT LEAST, at the very least, the state dept. at that time offered to sit before america, before the people they work for, and listen to what we had to say. i doubt it ever happened before, and i doubt it will ever happen again.
the bush admin., knowing what happened that night, thinking itself smarter than it's own citizens, does not conduct foreign policy like that at all. it listens to no one, not even its allies. it acts unilaterally, for itself.
i could be mistaken, but if we strike iraq, unprovoked, (iraq not having struck at us or our "interests"), it will be the first time in american history that we will have STARTED a major war, all by our lonesome. that's quite a line to cross.
>You can't set off something that does not yet exist. You can however, prevent it from being brought into existance.<
>now you sound like you're on my side.
Not unless you love this country enough to die for it. Don’t flatter yourself. I am on the side of AMERICA! YOU are NOT! I am on the side of enduring freedom in THIS country. YOU are NOT. Don’t ever make the mistake of putting me on YOUR side. You are ANTI-everything America stands for. Remember:
“THIS IS OUR (NOT YOUR) WAR. WE (AMERICA) WILL FUCKING FIGHT IT” without your help, you pansy assed liberal from San Francisco.
>here it is again. what are the chances? how utterly stupid is iraq? to risk an actual attack on the u.s. mainland? last time they attacked anything, you'll remember, it was a neighboring arab country.
What are you talking about? Are you insane? The only reason they don’t have you in shackles right now is because they don’t (currently) have the resources. Give them time and they will. I say we don’t give them ANY MORE TIME.
>i resent the implication, even if it wasn't directred at me. our soldiers, our troops, if they are sent in to iraq for bullshit reasons, for political gains back in the u.s.a., are just as innocent. where is your concern for them?
Sounds like a guilty conscious to me. It wasn't directed at you but at your ilk. Obviously the statement bothers you for a reason. Because you fall in line with the “sit on our hands” reasoning that has resulted in the crumbling of our borders, sovereignty and freedom.
Wake the fuck up. We were attacked on September 11, 2001. Those weren’t Americans flying those planes. Those weren’t Christians.
As far as mentioning the lives of the men and women in the military, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT?? If you’ve never served this country then SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have absolutely no right to blaspheme the name of those HEROS by even allowing the words to roll from your lips. YOU are nothing. They are like the GODS on Olympus as far as YOU should be concerned. They willingly volunteered to do those jobs, for the good of this great nation. YOU sit here on your computer and banter like you know something of it, bad mouth American policies and then casually mention how concerned YOU are about the lives of our military while YOU are ready to sit there and DO NOTHING while foreign nationals who hate our way of life are building nuclear arsenals to extinguish our children. YOU PEOPLE ARE SICK. DISTURBED. Some people do not deserve the sanctity of freedom provided by America. My human side would have you expelled from MY COUNTY. That’s right, MY COUNTRY. I served it for 12 years in the military. I serve it now in many, many other ways. That makes it mine. You just take it for granted that YOU ARE OWED. You loudmouthed little child; you need a good old-fashioned trip to the woodshed. Yes, my human side would have you expelled from our borders, being that you are no better than a terrorist cell. My American side would defend you and your SICK opinions with my very life. SO SHUT YOUR MOUTH. Never mention your concern for the lives of those people again for your SICK political causes. Those people are heroes and volunteers and they could care less about your opinion or concern.
>it's amazing how this "war" is such a Wanted Thing.
No kidding? So a liberal finally admits he’s in the minority. Looky there. That’s right, it’s wanted and for very good reasons. Your opinions are second to those of the masses. Tough shit liberal. This is a Democracy right? Democracy sure is a bitch when your opinion ain’t in line with the masses. Thank God too. Because if everyone thought the way you do, I’d be on the first plane to Europe. That’s right, if you guys were in control, I’d leave! Why don’t you take a hint?
>i could be mistaken, but if we strike iraq, unprovoked, (iraq not having struck at us or our "interests"), it will be the first time in american history that we will have STARTED a major war, all by our lonesome. that's quite a line to cross.
UNPROVOKED? ARE YOU FREAKIN’ HIGH? Lay off the hemp for a while and let your brain air out for Christ’s sake.
>it will be the first time in american history that we will have STARTED a major war, all by our lonesome. that's quite a line to cross.
God you’re given to hyperbole. You’d rather sit here and wait for the blast to go off. You’d be one of the ones clawing at the hatch of a community bomb shelter to get in as the radiation cooks you from the inside out. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I hope if it does, they refuse to let you inside. Because YOU and your fantastically disturbed leftist logic would be the reason it happened in the first place.
>now you sound like you're on my side.
Not unless you love this country enough to die for it. Don’t flatter yourself. I am on the side of AMERICA! YOU are NOT! I am on the side of enduring freedom in THIS country. YOU are NOT. Don’t ever make the mistake of putting me on YOUR side. You are ANTI-everything America stands for. Remember:
“THIS IS OUR (NOT YOUR) WAR. WE (AMERICA) WILL FUCKING FIGHT IT” without your help, you pansy assed liberal from San Francisco.
>here it is again. what are the chances? how utterly stupid is iraq? to risk an actual attack on the u.s. mainland? last time they attacked anything, you'll remember, it was a neighboring arab country.
What are you talking about? Are you insane? The only reason they don’t have you in shackles right now is because they don’t (currently) have the resources. Give them time and they will. I say we don’t give them ANY MORE TIME.
>i resent the implication, even if it wasn't directred at me. our soldiers, our troops, if they are sent in to iraq for bullshit reasons, for political gains back in the u.s.a., are just as innocent. where is your concern for them?
Sounds like a guilty conscious to me. It wasn't directed at you but at your ilk. Obviously the statement bothers you for a reason. Because you fall in line with the “sit on our hands” reasoning that has resulted in the crumbling of our borders, sovereignty and freedom.
Wake the fuck up. We were attacked on September 11, 2001. Those weren’t Americans flying those planes. Those weren’t Christians.
As far as mentioning the lives of the men and women in the military, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT?? If you’ve never served this country then SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have absolutely no right to blaspheme the name of those HEROS by even allowing the words to roll from your lips. YOU are nothing. They are like the GODS on Olympus as far as YOU should be concerned. They willingly volunteered to do those jobs, for the good of this great nation. YOU sit here on your computer and banter like you know something of it, bad mouth American policies and then casually mention how concerned YOU are about the lives of our military while YOU are ready to sit there and DO NOTHING while foreign nationals who hate our way of life are building nuclear arsenals to extinguish our children. YOU PEOPLE ARE SICK. DISTURBED. Some people do not deserve the sanctity of freedom provided by America. My human side would have you expelled from MY COUNTY. That’s right, MY COUNTRY. I served it for 12 years in the military. I serve it now in many, many other ways. That makes it mine. You just take it for granted that YOU ARE OWED. You loudmouthed little child; you need a good old-fashioned trip to the woodshed. Yes, my human side would have you expelled from our borders, being that you are no better than a terrorist cell. My American side would defend you and your SICK opinions with my very life. SO SHUT YOUR MOUTH. Never mention your concern for the lives of those people again for your SICK political causes. Those people are heroes and volunteers and they could care less about your opinion or concern.
>it's amazing how this "war" is such a Wanted Thing.
No kidding? So a liberal finally admits he’s in the minority. Looky there. That’s right, it’s wanted and for very good reasons. Your opinions are second to those of the masses. Tough shit liberal. This is a Democracy right? Democracy sure is a bitch when your opinion ain’t in line with the masses. Thank God too. Because if everyone thought the way you do, I’d be on the first plane to Europe. That’s right, if you guys were in control, I’d leave! Why don’t you take a hint?
>i could be mistaken, but if we strike iraq, unprovoked, (iraq not having struck at us or our "interests"), it will be the first time in american history that we will have STARTED a major war, all by our lonesome. that's quite a line to cross.
UNPROVOKED? ARE YOU FREAKIN’ HIGH? Lay off the hemp for a while and let your brain air out for Christ’s sake.
>it will be the first time in american history that we will have STARTED a major war, all by our lonesome. that's quite a line to cross.
God you’re given to hyperbole. You’d rather sit here and wait for the blast to go off. You’d be one of the ones clawing at the hatch of a community bomb shelter to get in as the radiation cooks you from the inside out. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I hope if it does, they refuse to let you inside. Because YOU and your fantastically disturbed leftist logic would be the reason it happened in the first place.
I gotta go along with Eric on this one. Saddam has shown that he is interested in obtaining WMD's and he has shown that he will use whatever force he has at the time to molest his neighbors.
This thought of "don't upset them, just give them what they want and they won't bother us" amazes me. If the KKK were to threaten to or actually started setting off bombs in the country, would we say "Let's give them their own county or parrish and they can do what they want there and maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone"? I don't think so. I think we'd insist they be taken out of business. But we won't take that same principle and apply it towards those who would do us harm. If there are Iraqi operatives within our borders (...sleeper agents are already in place, awaiting only the signal to act....unlikely they were not), that tells me that they mean us harm and they are being aggressive about carrying it out. I, for one, don't care to be a sitting duck.
And what kind of image would that project to other countries around the world? "Hey, know how to scare the Americans away? Just place sleeper agents in their borders, or make them believe you have, who are ready to create domestic chaos if they act against us." I'm not open to blackmail either.
This thought of "don't upset them, just give them what they want and they won't bother us" amazes me. If the KKK were to threaten to or actually started setting off bombs in the country, would we say "Let's give them their own county or parrish and they can do what they want there and maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone"? I don't think so. I think we'd insist they be taken out of business. But we won't take that same principle and apply it towards those who would do us harm. If there are Iraqi operatives within our borders (...sleeper agents are already in place, awaiting only the signal to act....unlikely they were not), that tells me that they mean us harm and they are being aggressive about carrying it out. I, for one, don't care to be a sitting duck.
And what kind of image would that project to other countries around the world? "Hey, know how to scare the Americans away? Just place sleeper agents in their borders, or make them believe you have, who are ready to create domestic chaos if they act against us." I'm not open to blackmail either.
Because this country is worth dieing for. Because non-citizen citizens like yourself need to be protected. Because those ArabVerminBastards that attacked this beautiful glorious country are supported by saddam. Your propoganda stops at your nose. Why is it you can fill your head with all the hallucinastions you want and still you expect others to understand your lunacy, and beckon to it.
Delete my response to your childish puke nessie. Control me the only way you can. Edit me from your existance. There are hundreds of millions of me's lined up. You hate it so much that you've lost your mind. Microdespotic tiny tyrant you are. I bet you rule your yard with and iron blade.
Delete my response to your childish puke nessie. Control me the only way you can. Edit me from your existance. There are hundreds of millions of me's lined up. You hate it so much that you've lost your mind. Microdespotic tiny tyrant you are. I bet you rule your yard with and iron blade.
>This is a plutocracy.
Tomato, toemahto. Name a single world government that doesn’t have wealthy leaders (relative to the general population). The difference between here and there…here, anybody can hit the lotto, get rich, and call the shots.
>That's why our so-called leaders (front men, every one) are trying to sell us on the idea of conquering Iraq, which has oil, and not North Korea, which has none.
Big differences between the leaderships of the two countries. One is lead by a fascist dictator that has thumbed his nose at America on numerous occasions, has used CB weapons on his own people, is projected to be nuclear ready within this decade, and few people have any doubts that he would hesitate to use them. On the other hand, few people, other than Smashy, even know of KIM Chong-il. But certainly you heard the last State of the Union address? Mr. Chong-il is definitely on “W”’s radar. But there are priorities; one dictator at the time. Not to mention that no one wants to “conquer” Iraq. We simply want a favorable regime change.
>Why should honest American working people die so that a handful of super rich can get evn richer?
Which honest American people are you referring to?The military? If so, see what I wrote to “this thing here” above. Honest American people die every day. Five in the Hebrew University bombing in Israel last week. 3000+ on 9/11. Tell us, who got rich from these deaths? Which wealthy individual planted the bomb? Which Corporate CEOs were flying the planes? Why do you persist in blaming those who are not responsible?
>By brigg's logic, we should have struck the Soviet Union.
We were close on more than one occasion. The difference is in their capability to deliver a nuclear warhead. Iraq has no chance of sending us one, unless they’ve already “hand delivered” it as you previously, ludicrously suggested. Russia on the other hand, could have bitten us back. That’s the great thing about nukes, militaries, guns, ammo, etc. By virtue of their existence, somehow the peace is typically managed to be kept. In Saddam’s case, he has no say. We can take him out back and execute him, much the same as he’s done to his political opposition. A rather ironic and fitting fate for such a tyrant I think.
>He's advocating a course of action that will lead to American civilian casualties, maybe your own.
If you’re not willing to fight, die, or kill for the American way of life, then you don’t deserve to enjoy the benefits of our freedom. Get on a plane and go away.
>anybody who is trying to get you killed is the enemy.
I couldn’t agree more. I think it’s pretty obvious, as I’ve suggested previously, that Nessie is the one who’d have us killed. He advocates taking no action, doing nothing, complacency, and malingering until the 10 kiloton nuclear blast levels DC. There’s nothing more Nessie would like to see than that. Does anyone disagree? He hates America, plain and simple. Through his own admission, he’s on a 24/7 battle against capitalism and the American way of life.
> What's that make brigg?
A patriot and a hero. He wants to save us. Probably, against his better judgment, he even wants to save Nessie.
Tomato, toemahto. Name a single world government that doesn’t have wealthy leaders (relative to the general population). The difference between here and there…here, anybody can hit the lotto, get rich, and call the shots.
>That's why our so-called leaders (front men, every one) are trying to sell us on the idea of conquering Iraq, which has oil, and not North Korea, which has none.
Big differences between the leaderships of the two countries. One is lead by a fascist dictator that has thumbed his nose at America on numerous occasions, has used CB weapons on his own people, is projected to be nuclear ready within this decade, and few people have any doubts that he would hesitate to use them. On the other hand, few people, other than Smashy, even know of KIM Chong-il. But certainly you heard the last State of the Union address? Mr. Chong-il is definitely on “W”’s radar. But there are priorities; one dictator at the time. Not to mention that no one wants to “conquer” Iraq. We simply want a favorable regime change.
>Why should honest American working people die so that a handful of super rich can get evn richer?
Which honest American people are you referring to?The military? If so, see what I wrote to “this thing here” above. Honest American people die every day. Five in the Hebrew University bombing in Israel last week. 3000+ on 9/11. Tell us, who got rich from these deaths? Which wealthy individual planted the bomb? Which Corporate CEOs were flying the planes? Why do you persist in blaming those who are not responsible?
>By brigg's logic, we should have struck the Soviet Union.
We were close on more than one occasion. The difference is in their capability to deliver a nuclear warhead. Iraq has no chance of sending us one, unless they’ve already “hand delivered” it as you previously, ludicrously suggested. Russia on the other hand, could have bitten us back. That’s the great thing about nukes, militaries, guns, ammo, etc. By virtue of their existence, somehow the peace is typically managed to be kept. In Saddam’s case, he has no say. We can take him out back and execute him, much the same as he’s done to his political opposition. A rather ironic and fitting fate for such a tyrant I think.
>He's advocating a course of action that will lead to American civilian casualties, maybe your own.
If you’re not willing to fight, die, or kill for the American way of life, then you don’t deserve to enjoy the benefits of our freedom. Get on a plane and go away.
>anybody who is trying to get you killed is the enemy.
I couldn’t agree more. I think it’s pretty obvious, as I’ve suggested previously, that Nessie is the one who’d have us killed. He advocates taking no action, doing nothing, complacency, and malingering until the 10 kiloton nuclear blast levels DC. There’s nothing more Nessie would like to see than that. Does anyone disagree? He hates America, plain and simple. Through his own admission, he’s on a 24/7 battle against capitalism and the American way of life.
> What's that make brigg?
A patriot and a hero. He wants to save us. Probably, against his better judgment, he even wants to save Nessie.
>No country is worth dying for.
It's not the country you moron. It's not the land or the wealth, or the food. It's not the SUVs or the 2 story houses, with two car garages you buffoon. It's not the government, the leadership, the corporations, or the banks you idiot.
Patriotism: what makes an individual willing to die for his "country" (spoken: "way of life"). It is also the element that, through it's absence, makes an Iraqui soldier (by the thousands, I might ad) throw lay down his gun, throw his hand atop his head, kneel down on the ground and surrender to a journalist simply because it is an American.
It's not the country you moron. It's not the land or the wealth, or the food. It's not the SUVs or the 2 story houses, with two car garages you buffoon. It's not the government, the leadership, the corporations, or the banks you idiot.
Patriotism: what makes an individual willing to die for his "country" (spoken: "way of life"). It is also the element that, through it's absence, makes an Iraqui soldier (by the thousands, I might ad) throw lay down his gun, throw his hand atop his head, kneel down on the ground and surrender to a journalist simply because it is an American.
You have a point. I did plant some sod in my yard this season. But that doesn’t privilege you to grandeur of taking the high ground in this conversation. You live here. You partake of the American way of life as much as anyone. You pay your federal income taxes to support the military jus the same as the rest of us. And you’ve probably never given any food or money to a foreign national in your solitary existence. In short, I believe, on top of how evil you are, you are a hypocrite. But that should not surprise anyone.
>It's an evil "way of life" and I'm not going to fight for it.
No one has asked you. There’s no draft. You sit there and type your rants on your keyboard. We certainly wouldn’t want to inconvenience your campaign against the great evil of America. I just can’t figure out for the life of me why someone that hates America so much, chooses to stay? Enlighten me.
> I dare you to cite one single thing I would gain from being collateral damage in a war with Iraq.
Respect. Respect from those who would fight along side you in the name of freedom. Respect from those who’ve fought previously. Respect from every one who would fight if given the chance to be in keeping with the spirit of those who’ve fought and died for your right to type those words on you keyboard. In short, something I seldom see anyone here ever give you, even though you claim almost daily to having it abundantly lavished upon you. RESPECT.
>As for the much vaunted Iraqi surrenders, as I pointed out previously, they were numerically anomalous.
Bullshit. You really should review your history of the war.
>The vast majority of the Iraqi forces retreated in good order and escaped intact.
Wrong. They were ALLOWED to retreat. It was like shooting fish in a barrel, remember? And it certainly was not “the vast majority”. Saddam still has not recovered his losses to this day.
>Even the US government doesn’t deny this. Why do you?
Now it’s my turn. I dare YOU to state your source. Tell us so we can again rip you to shreds.
>It's an evil "way of life" and I'm not going to fight for it.
No one has asked you. There’s no draft. You sit there and type your rants on your keyboard. We certainly wouldn’t want to inconvenience your campaign against the great evil of America. I just can’t figure out for the life of me why someone that hates America so much, chooses to stay? Enlighten me.
> I dare you to cite one single thing I would gain from being collateral damage in a war with Iraq.
Respect. Respect from those who would fight along side you in the name of freedom. Respect from those who’ve fought previously. Respect from every one who would fight if given the chance to be in keeping with the spirit of those who’ve fought and died for your right to type those words on you keyboard. In short, something I seldom see anyone here ever give you, even though you claim almost daily to having it abundantly lavished upon you. RESPECT.
>As for the much vaunted Iraqi surrenders, as I pointed out previously, they were numerically anomalous.
Bullshit. You really should review your history of the war.
>The vast majority of the Iraqi forces retreated in good order and escaped intact.
Wrong. They were ALLOWED to retreat. It was like shooting fish in a barrel, remember? And it certainly was not “the vast majority”. Saddam still has not recovered his losses to this day.
>Even the US government doesn’t deny this. Why do you?
Now it’s my turn. I dare YOU to state your source. Tell us so we can again rip you to shreds.
It’s been close to 10 years since the Persian Gulf War and now we are looking to go back into Iraq to finish the job George Bush senior didn’t have the balls to do. This could be one of the biggest political blunders “W” could have gotten himself into and the rest of the world will see “W” as being the puppet to his dad whims. Despite the weapons of mass destruction Saddam is amassing, if we go into Iraq, the rest of the world will see this as the US invading another country. Why, because we don’t like Saddam and he is a threat to the US? China is also a threat to the US and why don’t we hear the war drums beating to invade China?
If there is to be an invasion of Iraq, let the UN do the planning and invading. If Iraq is such a rogue nation, then it should be a world issue not just a US issue. We had our opportunity and we blew it.
If there is to be an invasion of Iraq, let the UN do the planning and invading. If Iraq is such a rogue nation, then it should be a world issue not just a US issue. We had our opportunity and we blew it.
Not having the balls to do "finish the job" and being merciful are two different things.
"W" has a chance to make history and to do the right thing. Most of us support him. Just the same as any "free thinking" human doesn't care what you think of them as long as they feel they are doing the right thing, "W" (and the rest of America) doesn't care about the opinions of the world that much. They've all been involved in their own unilateral movements at some time or other. "W" is taking the actions that We, the people, want. Not what his daddy wanted. No what you want, not what "the world" wants, not even what I want.
What the MAJORITY wants.
"W" has a chance to make history and to do the right thing. Most of us support him. Just the same as any "free thinking" human doesn't care what you think of them as long as they feel they are doing the right thing, "W" (and the rest of America) doesn't care about the opinions of the world that much. They've all been involved in their own unilateral movements at some time or other. "W" is taking the actions that We, the people, want. Not what his daddy wanted. No what you want, not what "the world" wants, not even what I want.
What the MAJORITY wants.
And most of the Germans supported Hitler. So what's your point?
fled the country. They certainly weren't allowed to actively oppose him.
That's the great thing about America. You dissidents can sit there in you homes and businesses in front of your $900 computers, with your $20 per month internet connections, eating your Big Macs and Super sized Whopper value meals, and curse the evil that is America.
Try that in Hitler's Germany. Oh that's right, you can't.
We deposed him too!
That's the great thing about America. You dissidents can sit there in you homes and businesses in front of your $900 computers, with your $20 per month internet connections, eating your Big Macs and Super sized Whopper value meals, and curse the evil that is America.
Try that in Hitler's Germany. Oh that's right, you can't.
We deposed him too!
But lets call it what it is, Bush Senior didn’t have the balls to finish the job. He had his opportunity, the world was behind us, the world viewed Saddam as a psychopath, had the strong military build up, and we were marching our way into Baddag and why didn’t he go in and finish the job? Because prior to the Persian Gulf War, Bush Senior was viewed as a wimp, and he proved what a wimp he was and showed as you deem it “mercy” where as I call it, doing the job half assed. He should have listened to his military advisors (does the name Norman Schwarzkopf mean anything to you?) and went into Baddag and bombed the hell out of Saddam’s bunker and finished the job. Unfortunately he didn’t and we are in our current situation with Iraq with our hands tied behind our backs because Bush Senior showed “mercy”.
As to what the majority wants, right now most of the polls I’ve seen show that it’s 50/50. But if you insist on using “what the majority wants theory”, then since Al Gore won the popular vote; by your logic you should support Al Gore as President.
Sometimes it's harder to do the right and unpopular thing in life and as long as Saddam sits tight in Iraq, we don't have any justification to invade Iraq.
As to what the majority wants, right now most of the polls I’ve seen show that it’s 50/50. But if you insist on using “what the majority wants theory”, then since Al Gore won the popular vote; by your logic you should support Al Gore as President.
Sometimes it's harder to do the right and unpopular thing in life and as long as Saddam sits tight in Iraq, we don't have any justification to invade Iraq.
. . . under FDR, overthrew Hitler. Right-wingers like Eric worshipped Hitler. They were more than happy to do business with him. Remember, G.W.'s grampa had his business siezed in '42 under the Trading With the Enemy act. His bank was funding Hitler even as our boys were dying fighting him. That's the sort of family that Eric and his ilk blindly support. Not to mention Reagan and Pappy Bush supported Saddam. Just read an article that Rummy Rumsfeld himself was the envoy that traveled to Iraq to normalize relations with Saddam in '83, even though it was known at that time that Saddam was using poison gas on his own people. Remember Iraq Gate, Eric? Pappy Bush was exporting the ingredients to Saddam for chemical and biological warfare right up to his invasion of Kuwait. And what about Scott Ritter, the Marine weapons inspector? He's a pretty hawkish dude, but he is now condemning Bush's plan to attack Iraq. He (and many other Pentagon officials, as well as the rest of the world) believes that an outright invasion of Iraq could unleash a shit storm on our friendly dictators in the Middle East. And another thing: 68% of our imported oil comes from the deadly Iraq. What will that do to our economy if Bush invades? Doesn't this mean anything to the Erics out there? It's just a bad idea. Iraq is not, nor has it ever been, a threat to the U.S. This Oil administration wants those massive oil fields. To send our sons and daughters off to die for oil is criminal. To buy into Bush propaganda is insane. Fucking think for yourself and quit aligning yourself with right wing power. I know it probably gives you a big hard-on to say you're on the side of the Pentagon and Wall Street and the Oil Cartels. But guess what: They don't give a flying fuck about you, except to go off and die. Most of the Republican leadership, including Bush and Cheney, are chicken hawks. The could've gone to Nam and killed commies, but they dodged the draft. How can you respect them? Fuck them. They are liars and thieves of the highest order, and should be in jail, every last one of them, and if you can't see that, shame on you.
You are making little sense.
The reason Bush Senior did not go in and crush Saddam was very simple. That was not what the war was about. The war was about repelling Saddam from invading a defenseless Kuwait. Mission accomplished, bring the boys home, it’s Miller time.
It’s real “manly” of you to sit there with your loud mouth and question the “balls” of one of the greatest men in history, a man that liberated a nation, when you in fact, have never done a great thing in your life. Your politics are pathetic, as are those of most liberals. Simply pathetic.
But here you are saying that 10 years ago you’d have supported an all out invasion, but now you’re not so sure. Tell us, what is different between then and now? What has changed? Public opinion? What polls are you looking at? Show me one that is 50/50. You’re living in la-la land old boy.
As far as the majority winning in the election, it did. The majority of the votes cast by the Electoral College. Life’s a bitch, ain’t it? You liberals will continue to whine about that election for the rest of this decade. I find it so utterly amusing! What a bummer! The system has been around for some 200 years with minimal complaints, but after it bites the Democraps in the ass, then the floodgates of the Whiny River come crashing down!
Hey look, it’s not my fault you guys lost that election. Blame it on the man that can’t define “sexual relations”. Blame it on the man who had everything in the world going for him, but couldn’t keep his pecker out of his intern’s mouth. Blame it on the man, who pissed on his family, abused his power as President, and then lied to all of OUR faces about it. People are just sick of the Democrats politics. Put blame where it’s due.
>Sometimes it's harder to do the right and unpopular thing in life
You’re absolutely right there. That’s why we’re gonna depose Saddam unilaterally. Thanks for making my argument.
>as long as Saddam sits tight in Iraq, we don't have any justification to invade Iraq.
I bet you a coke you’ll have to eat those words. Care to make a wager?
>A liberal government . . .under FDR, overthrew Hitler
Get the fuck out of here!! You fucking Revisionist utterly amaze me! The liberal government you so valiantly champion, favored an "isolationis" policy and stayed out of the whole mess. It wasn't until the Japs hit us hard at Pearl Harbor that that they caved to the will of the people.
It was the American military that won that war. It had nothing to do with the liberal government you schmuck.
Of course the rest of your propaganda doesn't deem a response. HAR!
The reason Bush Senior did not go in and crush Saddam was very simple. That was not what the war was about. The war was about repelling Saddam from invading a defenseless Kuwait. Mission accomplished, bring the boys home, it’s Miller time.
It’s real “manly” of you to sit there with your loud mouth and question the “balls” of one of the greatest men in history, a man that liberated a nation, when you in fact, have never done a great thing in your life. Your politics are pathetic, as are those of most liberals. Simply pathetic.
But here you are saying that 10 years ago you’d have supported an all out invasion, but now you’re not so sure. Tell us, what is different between then and now? What has changed? Public opinion? What polls are you looking at? Show me one that is 50/50. You’re living in la-la land old boy.
As far as the majority winning in the election, it did. The majority of the votes cast by the Electoral College. Life’s a bitch, ain’t it? You liberals will continue to whine about that election for the rest of this decade. I find it so utterly amusing! What a bummer! The system has been around for some 200 years with minimal complaints, but after it bites the Democraps in the ass, then the floodgates of the Whiny River come crashing down!
Hey look, it’s not my fault you guys lost that election. Blame it on the man that can’t define “sexual relations”. Blame it on the man who had everything in the world going for him, but couldn’t keep his pecker out of his intern’s mouth. Blame it on the man, who pissed on his family, abused his power as President, and then lied to all of OUR faces about it. People are just sick of the Democrats politics. Put blame where it’s due.
>Sometimes it's harder to do the right and unpopular thing in life
You’re absolutely right there. That’s why we’re gonna depose Saddam unilaterally. Thanks for making my argument.
>as long as Saddam sits tight in Iraq, we don't have any justification to invade Iraq.
I bet you a coke you’ll have to eat those words. Care to make a wager?
>A liberal government . . .under FDR, overthrew Hitler
Get the fuck out of here!! You fucking Revisionist utterly amaze me! The liberal government you so valiantly champion, favored an "isolationis" policy and stayed out of the whole mess. It wasn't until the Japs hit us hard at Pearl Harbor that that they caved to the will of the people.
It was the American military that won that war. It had nothing to do with the liberal government you schmuck.
Of course the rest of your propaganda doesn't deem a response. HAR!
I'm glad to see Jim Morison, The Lizard King, finally changed the title to one of his posts.
Same tired, boring drivel, but at least he changed his title.
Christ you're boring Jim. Please get off the internet and work on your freaking personality. Please! Don't make me beg. You are the most BORING person on indybay for Christ's sake. Always with the anti-Republican farsical spewage! It amazes me how one individual could be so utterly unentertaining!
Same tired, boring drivel, but at least he changed his title.
Christ you're boring Jim. Please get off the internet and work on your freaking personality. Please! Don't make me beg. You are the most BORING person on indybay for Christ's sake. Always with the anti-Republican farsical spewage! It amazes me how one individual could be so utterly unentertaining!
How come Bill Clinton ain't listed on that draft doging list?
you're the biggest moron i ever saw in my life, even dumber than anwan. i bet you can't even get dressed without someone helping you. why don't you get on a plane and then go for a walk on the wing when it's in the air? just make sure it's high enough so you completely disintegrate before you hit the earth so nobody has to go through the effort of cleaning up the mess. not that i wouldn't mind doing that myself; scoop up the gunk that used to be eric and throw it in the garbage where it belongs. good riddance to that porridge of blood and guts. no loss.
Gee Jim, perhaps you should go back to that "Lizard King" thing you used to always do in your titles. It's obvious that your lack of imagination is intruding on your abilities to think up a creative one. Oh well, we can all see the results of "personality deprivation".
You are so unimaginitive. Even more-so...BORING!!
HAR!
You are so unimaginitive. Even more-so...BORING!!
HAR!
>By brigg's logic, we should have struck the Soviet Union.
Churchill wanted too. In hindsight, it would have saved the countries that made up the Soviet Bloc 50 years of pure misery.
>He's advocating a course of action that will lead to American civilian casualties, maybe your own.
No, you are. I'm saying don't be a victim, to pick up a gun and protect your house. You're saying to hide beneath the bed, give the thief what he wants and maybe he'll leave you alone. I have no reason to believe they want to leave me alone. They want my money, my jewelry, and my life.
>...anybody who is trying to get you killed is the enemy, even if he's your commanding officer. What's that make brigg?
How come the Iraqi people haven't asked that of Saddam Hussien?
Let's see a show of hands. How many think that the Arab world has read Catch-22? That's right. So they've been programmed to follow the orders of their commanding officers and shoot your ass.
>why didn’t he (Bush 41) go in and finish the job?
Bush followed the UN mandate to the letter. You probably need to be older than 30 to remember that.
We were hoping the returning army would oust Saddam for promising victory in the "Mother of All Battles" and then to be deployed to endure a complete military pounding. A reasonable people would have gotten together and said "Hey, this asshole told us we would win and he just about got us all killed. Let's get him", and they would have overrun the palace and hung him by his balls. They didn't.
>...we are in our current situation with Iraq with our hands tied behind our backs...
Hands tied behind our back? I'd rather be us than them.
While you're busy debating whether or not you want to die, there are groups of Islamic militants planning right now on how its going to happen. And not "if", but "when". These people absolutely love you because they want voices of dissent to discourage us. But, they'll use you until there isn't any more you can offer them, and they'll kill you too.
I keep looking for an IMC in Baghdad, Tehran, Kabul, Riyadh, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, etc.... Is there a reason for this?
Churchill wanted too. In hindsight, it would have saved the countries that made up the Soviet Bloc 50 years of pure misery.
>He's advocating a course of action that will lead to American civilian casualties, maybe your own.
No, you are. I'm saying don't be a victim, to pick up a gun and protect your house. You're saying to hide beneath the bed, give the thief what he wants and maybe he'll leave you alone. I have no reason to believe they want to leave me alone. They want my money, my jewelry, and my life.
>...anybody who is trying to get you killed is the enemy, even if he's your commanding officer. What's that make brigg?
How come the Iraqi people haven't asked that of Saddam Hussien?
Let's see a show of hands. How many think that the Arab world has read Catch-22? That's right. So they've been programmed to follow the orders of their commanding officers and shoot your ass.
>why didn’t he (Bush 41) go in and finish the job?
Bush followed the UN mandate to the letter. You probably need to be older than 30 to remember that.
We were hoping the returning army would oust Saddam for promising victory in the "Mother of All Battles" and then to be deployed to endure a complete military pounding. A reasonable people would have gotten together and said "Hey, this asshole told us we would win and he just about got us all killed. Let's get him", and they would have overrun the palace and hung him by his balls. They didn't.
>...we are in our current situation with Iraq with our hands tied behind our backs...
Hands tied behind our back? I'd rather be us than them.
While you're busy debating whether or not you want to die, there are groups of Islamic militants planning right now on how its going to happen. And not "if", but "when". These people absolutely love you because they want voices of dissent to discourage us. But, they'll use you until there isn't any more you can offer them, and they'll kill you too.
I keep looking for an IMC in Baghdad, Tehran, Kabul, Riyadh, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, etc.... Is there a reason for this?
"I keep looking for an IMC in Baghdad, Tehran, Kabul, Riyadh, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, etc.... Is there a reason for this?"
There's not any spoiled, rich, liberal brats in those places with the courage to smart off at their governments.
There's not any spoiled, rich, liberal brats in those places with the courage to smart off at their governments.
"I keep looking for an IMC in Baghdad, Tehran, Kabul, Riyadh, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, etc.... Is there a reason for this?"
"There's not any spoiled, rich, liberal brats in those places with the courage to smart off at their governments."
You addressed none of my comments. First, it was pretty much split as to whether to enter WWII. There was a German lobby that wanted us to stay out, and a British lobby that wanted us in. Many people felt we had enough problems and should stay out, and a million other variations there of. Roosevelt wanted us in. A liberal. His administration ran the war, and crushed fascism, that's the point. You ignored my comment about G.W.'s Nazi loving grandpa and Saddam loving daddy. (As an aside, Clinton dodged the draft, but his rich daddy didn't do it for him, like G.W., he had to do it himself. ) You also ignored Scott Ritter's recent statements, and the opinions of other world governments, including the ones who live right next door to Iraq. How can you be so arrogant? And to accuse liberals of being rich and lazy. That's a tired lie. The Republicans are the party of the rich. That's a fact. Ever hear of the labor movement? Not exactly historically a bastion of conservatism. And that's LABOR, not the FINCANCIER movement. Doesn't it irk you that all those Republican CEOs are raping our economy and skipping off to the Caymans? Or do you chose to ignore that, like everything else I said. Don't chickenhawks irk you? Or is that more information inconvenient to your fucked up world view. What about Pappy Bush and Co. building up Saddam's capability to use chemical and biological warfare? Answer the fucking questions. Don't just unleash tired old invective. The fact is, right wingers always have aligned themselves with the most thuggish styles of politics. Why? Explain to me why you have such a hard on for Wall Street/Pentagon/CIA. Again, they don't give a flying fuck about you. I served during the Gulf War, so fuck you.
"There's not any spoiled, rich, liberal brats in those places with the courage to smart off at their governments."
You addressed none of my comments. First, it was pretty much split as to whether to enter WWII. There was a German lobby that wanted us to stay out, and a British lobby that wanted us in. Many people felt we had enough problems and should stay out, and a million other variations there of. Roosevelt wanted us in. A liberal. His administration ran the war, and crushed fascism, that's the point. You ignored my comment about G.W.'s Nazi loving grandpa and Saddam loving daddy. (As an aside, Clinton dodged the draft, but his rich daddy didn't do it for him, like G.W., he had to do it himself. ) You also ignored Scott Ritter's recent statements, and the opinions of other world governments, including the ones who live right next door to Iraq. How can you be so arrogant? And to accuse liberals of being rich and lazy. That's a tired lie. The Republicans are the party of the rich. That's a fact. Ever hear of the labor movement? Not exactly historically a bastion of conservatism. And that's LABOR, not the FINCANCIER movement. Doesn't it irk you that all those Republican CEOs are raping our economy and skipping off to the Caymans? Or do you chose to ignore that, like everything else I said. Don't chickenhawks irk you? Or is that more information inconvenient to your fucked up world view. What about Pappy Bush and Co. building up Saddam's capability to use chemical and biological warfare? Answer the fucking questions. Don't just unleash tired old invective. The fact is, right wingers always have aligned themselves with the most thuggish styles of politics. Why? Explain to me why you have such a hard on for Wall Street/Pentagon/CIA. Again, they don't give a flying fuck about you. I served during the Gulf War, so fuck you.
And how would invading Iraq stop them?
Brigg if you are arguing the point that the US should follow UN mandate, then as of right now we don’t have a resolution in the UN allowing the invasion of Iraq. And by your argument then we have no right to invade Iraq.
If you want to swing the other direction and say we are an independent nation and don’t need the UN to ok everything, then Bush Senior screwed up and didn’t get the job done and put us in our current situation with Iraq. Even though we decimated Saddam’s army, he still had more than enough firepower to withstand and crush anything the average Iraq Resistant Fighter could put up.
If you want to swing the other direction and say we are an independent nation and don’t need the UN to ok everything, then Bush Senior screwed up and didn’t get the job done and put us in our current situation with Iraq. Even though we decimated Saddam’s army, he still had more than enough firepower to withstand and crush anything the average Iraq Resistant Fighter could put up.
Both parties pander to the rich. I have yet to see one Democrat or Republican refuse a political donation from a corporation. Both the Democrats and Republicans had their hands deep in Enron monies. Same is true with Worldcom, AOL, and other major corporations. Both parties have long ago left supporting the average American, look at the New Corporate Fraud Bill that received support on both sides of the alley. It’s nothing but a fluff bill that still have plenty of loops and doesn’t sufficiently punish executives from robbing Americans. The current dropping of the stock market shows the public non-support of both the Republicans and Democrats in their handling of corporate thievery.
>"there are groups of Islamic militants planning right now " And how would invading Iraq stop them?
I didn't say it would. I didn't say it wouldn't. They may be too far along for us to do anything about it. They may change their minds once the regime is changed. They may be making their plans from Baghdad. You do it with the hope of discouraging other attacks. It may work. It may not. I'm convinced that doing nothing at all will invite attack and/or blackmail and is a sign to them of weakness. To sit idle is to die. If someone wants to kill me, I'd rather go down swinging. Who knows, I might kill them first and live.
>Brigg if you are arguing the point that the US should follow UN mandate, ...
I'm just pointing out what happened. As far as following the UN mandate or being "independent", hindsight is 20/20. Bush 41 went with the UN mandate. That's just what happened which was the only point I was making.
I didn't say it would. I didn't say it wouldn't. They may be too far along for us to do anything about it. They may change their minds once the regime is changed. They may be making their plans from Baghdad. You do it with the hope of discouraging other attacks. It may work. It may not. I'm convinced that doing nothing at all will invite attack and/or blackmail and is a sign to them of weakness. To sit idle is to die. If someone wants to kill me, I'd rather go down swinging. Who knows, I might kill them first and live.
>Brigg if you are arguing the point that the US should follow UN mandate, ...
I'm just pointing out what happened. As far as following the UN mandate or being "independent", hindsight is 20/20. Bush 41 went with the UN mandate. That's just what happened which was the only point I was making.
It's most likely to instigate more attacks. Why don't you care about that?
Fair enough, I can except pointing out to historical fact.
here's why i would fight and die.
- SO THAT I, AND FELLOW AMERICANS, CAN DO AND MAKE AND SAY AND THINK AND PRAY AND WORK AND LIVE FREELY.
here's why i WOULDN'T fight and die.
- for the health of our economy. for it's seamless expansion. so that it can run like a smoothly oiled engine forever.
- for shopping malls.
- for generals, for congressmen and women, for senators, for presidents, for executives, for the wealthy, for the bosses.
- for oil and automobiles. not when i've got legs and lungs and a bike.
- for $1.43 per gallon of gas. or for the bullshit geo-political games, the blood, and the wars that keep it at that price.
- for wall street. let it crumble. it's a betting parlour. it is not the economy.
the economy? that is paying someone a wage to paint your house. and they take the wage and use it for their family, for rent, for new brushes and paints and ladders, or for some new shoes. so what does that have to do with real time streaming stock quotes on the nasdaq? nothing. not one fucking thing.
and the point i'm trying to make is HOW, HOW ON THIS EARTH, HAS THE BETTING PARLOUR BECOME THE ECONOMY. HOW HAS THE BETTING PARLOUR BECOME THE HORSE RACE. WHY DOES IT EFFECT THE WELL BEING OF PEOPLE WORKING HARD AT SOME TRUCK STOP IN NEBRASKA?
capital? shit, if corporations want capital, they should get it from their profits, like small businesses do, instead of having it handed to them from stock holders. they want to keep growing? well shit sherlock, that's what profit is for. the more profit, the more employees, the more products. so how should a company get profit? what the hell happened to hard work and good ideas and quality products? because now days, it's all about cooking the books and taking all the profits to pay lawyers to justify the 9 figure salaries of c.e.o.'s. it's all about images and advertising. where's the beef? it's all about playing games. it's all about the big companies and not the little ones. it's all about destruction and not competition. it's all about looking good to attract investors and increase profits, and not about working hard and selling quality products and MAKING a profit.
wall street is a confidence game. keyword: game. keyword: fake. keyword: not real. keyword: extraneous. keyword: fifth wheel. but what's crazy is (not to some, because this is how they want it), it's as if the side show has become the main show. it's as if the icing on the cake has become the cake. there's a conspiracy for you. the validity and the honest worth of wall street, compared to hard work, quality products and an honest wage.
- for the consumer price index and the monetary exchange rate of the u.s. dollar.
- so that american corporations can find new markets in countries that have been made "safe" for their insertion.
- for the extraction of resources.
- so that i can buy a big house and a big car and a big stainless steel refrigerator and a pretty wife.
what does this have to do with iraq? i think iraq threatens what i DON'T want fight for. not what i would give my life for.
call me a "sucker". call me a "traitor". but we shall see, won't we. we all shall see.
- SO THAT I, AND FELLOW AMERICANS, CAN DO AND MAKE AND SAY AND THINK AND PRAY AND WORK AND LIVE FREELY.
here's why i WOULDN'T fight and die.
- for the health of our economy. for it's seamless expansion. so that it can run like a smoothly oiled engine forever.
- for shopping malls.
- for generals, for congressmen and women, for senators, for presidents, for executives, for the wealthy, for the bosses.
- for oil and automobiles. not when i've got legs and lungs and a bike.
- for $1.43 per gallon of gas. or for the bullshit geo-political games, the blood, and the wars that keep it at that price.
- for wall street. let it crumble. it's a betting parlour. it is not the economy.
the economy? that is paying someone a wage to paint your house. and they take the wage and use it for their family, for rent, for new brushes and paints and ladders, or for some new shoes. so what does that have to do with real time streaming stock quotes on the nasdaq? nothing. not one fucking thing.
and the point i'm trying to make is HOW, HOW ON THIS EARTH, HAS THE BETTING PARLOUR BECOME THE ECONOMY. HOW HAS THE BETTING PARLOUR BECOME THE HORSE RACE. WHY DOES IT EFFECT THE WELL BEING OF PEOPLE WORKING HARD AT SOME TRUCK STOP IN NEBRASKA?
capital? shit, if corporations want capital, they should get it from their profits, like small businesses do, instead of having it handed to them from stock holders. they want to keep growing? well shit sherlock, that's what profit is for. the more profit, the more employees, the more products. so how should a company get profit? what the hell happened to hard work and good ideas and quality products? because now days, it's all about cooking the books and taking all the profits to pay lawyers to justify the 9 figure salaries of c.e.o.'s. it's all about images and advertising. where's the beef? it's all about playing games. it's all about the big companies and not the little ones. it's all about destruction and not competition. it's all about looking good to attract investors and increase profits, and not about working hard and selling quality products and MAKING a profit.
wall street is a confidence game. keyword: game. keyword: fake. keyword: not real. keyword: extraneous. keyword: fifth wheel. but what's crazy is (not to some, because this is how they want it), it's as if the side show has become the main show. it's as if the icing on the cake has become the cake. there's a conspiracy for you. the validity and the honest worth of wall street, compared to hard work, quality products and an honest wage.
- for the consumer price index and the monetary exchange rate of the u.s. dollar.
- so that american corporations can find new markets in countries that have been made "safe" for their insertion.
- for the extraction of resources.
- so that i can buy a big house and a big car and a big stainless steel refrigerator and a pretty wife.
what does this have to do with iraq? i think iraq threatens what i DON'T want fight for. not what i would give my life for.
call me a "sucker". call me a "traitor". but we shall see, won't we. we all shall see.
yeah? well here's some plutocracy for ya.
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=26530&group=webcast
by the rich. for the rich. this clearly shows the lovey dovey between corporations and the u.s. gov. it would have been one thing if exxon was left to defend itself using it's own lawyers, but instead it is using the lawyers and influence of the u.s. gov.
one of the biggest lies, shams and fronts in everyday u.s politics is that business hates the u.s government.
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=26530&group=webcast
by the rich. for the rich. this clearly shows the lovey dovey between corporations and the u.s. gov. it would have been one thing if exxon was left to defend itself using it's own lawyers, but instead it is using the lawyers and influence of the u.s. gov.
one of the biggest lies, shams and fronts in everyday u.s politics is that business hates the u.s government.
Les miserables:
I just can't find it in myself to respond to your boring tripe and propaganda. You are just too boring for me to sift through all of your nonesense. After I read about the first 4 lines, commencing with the lunacy of how liberals won WWII I was compelled to ignore the rest of your garbage. Insanity is bad enough, but a boring crazy person, that I just can't handle. Please work on your personality and try again.
Rogus:
I applaud your ability to recognize historical fact when told. In college we used to say you have 2.5 knowledge of the subject. 4.0 knowledge is knowing the facts on your own, 2.5 knowledge is recognizing the facts when told. 2.5 is not stellar, but passing none-the-less. You will graduate.
this thing here:
>here's why i would fight and die.
- SO THAT I, AND FELLOW AMERICANS, CAN DO AND MAKE AND SAY AND THINK AND PRAY AND WORK AND LIVE FREELY. <
I am just glad that you would actually fight and die for something. I'm happy that there is something in this world that could motivate you to actions other than slurring up spit and vile and cussing America. The very same thing that WOULD bring you to fight and die (freedom) IS that which motivates the men and women of our armed forces. Your problem is that by the time you got motivated to fight for freedom, it would already be too late, it would be gone, it would be out of grasp, and quite possibly never returned.
The members of our military do not serve for the corporations, or the government, or the economy or any of the other pointless ramblings you mention. Those things only come as a consequence of freedom. Those are the tangible elements that we can point to in order to know that we are free. They are a direct "consequence" of freedom. If you hate those things then essentially, you hate freedom itself, which is of course, ridiculous. Look at the other nations of the world, those which you don't consider to be free, and study their economies and governments. I know that your character will compell you to, but try doing it without blaming America for every negative thing you learn about those nations.I bet you will notice a trend.
But defending our freedom is like a chain of dominoes. If everyone thought the same as you, if everyone said, "Hey, what are we defending the corporations?" or "why should we allow ourselves to to be sent off to die by our government?", taking no responsibility for the decisions that are made in country and claiming a war belongs to someone else so they should "Fucking fight it, not me!" then crucial links in the chain of dominoes would be removed. No one would be left to stand up for our freedom and it would most likely be taken from us.
I just can't find it in myself to respond to your boring tripe and propaganda. You are just too boring for me to sift through all of your nonesense. After I read about the first 4 lines, commencing with the lunacy of how liberals won WWII I was compelled to ignore the rest of your garbage. Insanity is bad enough, but a boring crazy person, that I just can't handle. Please work on your personality and try again.
Rogus:
I applaud your ability to recognize historical fact when told. In college we used to say you have 2.5 knowledge of the subject. 4.0 knowledge is knowing the facts on your own, 2.5 knowledge is recognizing the facts when told. 2.5 is not stellar, but passing none-the-less. You will graduate.
this thing here:
>here's why i would fight and die.
- SO THAT I, AND FELLOW AMERICANS, CAN DO AND MAKE AND SAY AND THINK AND PRAY AND WORK AND LIVE FREELY. <
I am just glad that you would actually fight and die for something. I'm happy that there is something in this world that could motivate you to actions other than slurring up spit and vile and cussing America. The very same thing that WOULD bring you to fight and die (freedom) IS that which motivates the men and women of our armed forces. Your problem is that by the time you got motivated to fight for freedom, it would already be too late, it would be gone, it would be out of grasp, and quite possibly never returned.
The members of our military do not serve for the corporations, or the government, or the economy or any of the other pointless ramblings you mention. Those things only come as a consequence of freedom. Those are the tangible elements that we can point to in order to know that we are free. They are a direct "consequence" of freedom. If you hate those things then essentially, you hate freedom itself, which is of course, ridiculous. Look at the other nations of the world, those which you don't consider to be free, and study their economies and governments. I know that your character will compell you to, but try doing it without blaming America for every negative thing you learn about those nations.I bet you will notice a trend.
But defending our freedom is like a chain of dominoes. If everyone thought the same as you, if everyone said, "Hey, what are we defending the corporations?" or "why should we allow ourselves to to be sent off to die by our government?", taking no responsibility for the decisions that are made in country and claiming a war belongs to someone else so they should "Fucking fight it, not me!" then crucial links in the chain of dominoes would be removed. No one would be left to stand up for our freedom and it would most likely be taken from us.
>It's most likely to instigate more attacks. Why don't you care about that?
I do care. But I believe the attacks are coming no matter what we do.
>the economy? that is paying someone a wage to paint your house...so what does that have to do with real time streaming stock quotes on the nasdaq?
I understand what you're getting at. But, the older I got, the more I realized that all businesses and services are interconnected. You pay the grocer who then buys shoes, who then buys gas, who then buys baseball tickets, who then buys tires, who then invests in the market,.....
>HOW HAS THE BETTING PARLOUR BECOME THE ECONOMY.
I don't think it has. It's just an indicator, like the Consumer Price Index, things like that. The economy is the people. Some people it seems pays too much attention to stock market.
>if corporations want capital, they should get it from their profits, ...
They do that too. But what's wrong with recognizing a company that you think will do well, taking your money and purchasing a portion of the company (stock) in hopes that your money will grow? That's just good business sense.
>because now days, it's all about cooking the books and taking all the profits...
A handful, and I do mean a handful, of corporations are crooked and you're ready to throw away the whole system? There are millions upon millions of corporations in our country who earn an honest dollar for an honest day's work. This is like a lot of things, purge the bad and keep the good.
Personally, I hope they nab all these corporate cheats and the states bring back public hangings on the town square. But I believe large corporations in general know they can't allow things like this to happen. You're right that consumer confidence plays a big role, and if consumers believe these people are out for themselves they'll flee not only the stock market but the stores. This kind of crap will lead to the collapse of the country. What good is $100 million US when there's no USA? It's worthless paper. And the world economy is very dependant upon the strength of the US dollar. They have no choice but to straighten up and fly right. That is, if they want to continue to be in business.
>it's all about looking good to attract investors and increase profits, and not about working hard and selling quality products and MAKING a profit.
Making a profit is one of the main reasons I get up in the morning. Companies make products or provide services for a profit. As far as working hard, I think if a company loses its work ethics, they'll go the way of the dinosaur. There's always someone in the wings willing to build a better mouse trap. K-mart and Sears have both been caught with their pants down. Wal-Mart will too if they don't pay attention to what got them there.
>wall street is a confidence game
I'll agree. It's a risk. The old line of "Don't invest more than you're willing to lose" still rings true. Diversifying is still the key. I know people who won't touch the stock market. They'd rather invest in rental property or raw land. You got to find your own comfort zone.
I'm not looking to change your mind. Just keep in mind there's a lot of people spead out across this country who are just getting up everyday, working hard, providing for themselves, looking forward to their childrens and grandchildrens birthdays, church, climbing a tree, Holiday Season, school, league baseball and softball, company cookouts, going fishing with GrandPa, the changing of seasons, friends, reading a book, vacation, remodeling the kitchen,... they're just enjoying their lives. To me, that's America.
this thing here, Best To You.
I do care. But I believe the attacks are coming no matter what we do.
>the economy? that is paying someone a wage to paint your house...so what does that have to do with real time streaming stock quotes on the nasdaq?
I understand what you're getting at. But, the older I got, the more I realized that all businesses and services are interconnected. You pay the grocer who then buys shoes, who then buys gas, who then buys baseball tickets, who then buys tires, who then invests in the market,.....
>HOW HAS THE BETTING PARLOUR BECOME THE ECONOMY.
I don't think it has. It's just an indicator, like the Consumer Price Index, things like that. The economy is the people. Some people it seems pays too much attention to stock market.
>if corporations want capital, they should get it from their profits, ...
They do that too. But what's wrong with recognizing a company that you think will do well, taking your money and purchasing a portion of the company (stock) in hopes that your money will grow? That's just good business sense.
>because now days, it's all about cooking the books and taking all the profits...
A handful, and I do mean a handful, of corporations are crooked and you're ready to throw away the whole system? There are millions upon millions of corporations in our country who earn an honest dollar for an honest day's work. This is like a lot of things, purge the bad and keep the good.
Personally, I hope they nab all these corporate cheats and the states bring back public hangings on the town square. But I believe large corporations in general know they can't allow things like this to happen. You're right that consumer confidence plays a big role, and if consumers believe these people are out for themselves they'll flee not only the stock market but the stores. This kind of crap will lead to the collapse of the country. What good is $100 million US when there's no USA? It's worthless paper. And the world economy is very dependant upon the strength of the US dollar. They have no choice but to straighten up and fly right. That is, if they want to continue to be in business.
>it's all about looking good to attract investors and increase profits, and not about working hard and selling quality products and MAKING a profit.
Making a profit is one of the main reasons I get up in the morning. Companies make products or provide services for a profit. As far as working hard, I think if a company loses its work ethics, they'll go the way of the dinosaur. There's always someone in the wings willing to build a better mouse trap. K-mart and Sears have both been caught with their pants down. Wal-Mart will too if they don't pay attention to what got them there.
>wall street is a confidence game
I'll agree. It's a risk. The old line of "Don't invest more than you're willing to lose" still rings true. Diversifying is still the key. I know people who won't touch the stock market. They'd rather invest in rental property or raw land. You got to find your own comfort zone.
I'm not looking to change your mind. Just keep in mind there's a lot of people spead out across this country who are just getting up everyday, working hard, providing for themselves, looking forward to their childrens and grandchildrens birthdays, church, climbing a tree, Holiday Season, school, league baseball and softball, company cookouts, going fishing with GrandPa, the changing of seasons, friends, reading a book, vacation, remodeling the kitchen,... they're just enjoying their lives. To me, that's America.
this thing here, Best To You.
"I just can't find it in myself to respond to your boring tripe and propaganda . . . " I might learn something, if you would take the time out of your busy life to debunk what I said.
I'd like to hear what the right wing has to say about Scott Ritter. They loved him when he was bashing Clinton. I'd like to learn about the right wing government that defeated Hitler. I'd like to learn the justifications for the Bushies dealing with Saddam and then turning him into a demon. Please, enlighten me.
What I typed is common knowledge. To dismiss it as "tripe and propaganda" is lunacy.
Bush versus Saddam is evil vs. evil. Impeach these right wing thugs and get a government in there that gives a shit. They are incapable of solving any of the problems facing us. A collection of cronies, corporate thugs, and religious zealots are too ingorant and incompetent to deal with this conflict. They can hand out tax cuts to the rich, maybe subvert one or two extremely poor third world nations, but that's about it.
I'd like to hear what the right wing has to say about Scott Ritter. They loved him when he was bashing Clinton. I'd like to learn about the right wing government that defeated Hitler. I'd like to learn the justifications for the Bushies dealing with Saddam and then turning him into a demon. Please, enlighten me.
What I typed is common knowledge. To dismiss it as "tripe and propaganda" is lunacy.
Bush versus Saddam is evil vs. evil. Impeach these right wing thugs and get a government in there that gives a shit. They are incapable of solving any of the problems facing us. A collection of cronies, corporate thugs, and religious zealots are too ingorant and incompetent to deal with this conflict. They can hand out tax cuts to the rich, maybe subvert one or two extremely poor third world nations, but that's about it.
I applaud your unwavering commitment to taut the party line, regardless of it being wrong or right. You’re like the bookworms I grew up with in college, yes they did get better grades than I did and could recite passages verbatim in a textbook. But when ask to formula their own opinion with the facts given, they would recite either the opinion of the textbook or look in their lecture notes for the professor’s opinion so this way they can have the “correct” answer.
Given the two options, I’m happy that I got the “2.5” grades because I questioned and analyzed the facts presented to me and was able to form my own opinion. You on the other hand seems happy regurgitating the text and teacher lectures so long as you can get your 4.0.
Given the two options, I’m happy that I got the “2.5” grades because I questioned and analyzed the facts presented to me and was able to form my own opinion. You on the other hand seems happy regurgitating the text and teacher lectures so long as you can get your 4.0.
“I'd like to hear what the right wing has to say about Scott Ritter. They loved him when he was bashing Clinton.”
Who loved him specifically? Everyone loves bashing Clinton. Scott Ritter has no more credibility that a bag of doughnut holes. But feel free to tell me what YOU think about him. Your insanity has intrigued me a little.
“I'd like to learn about the right wing government that defeated Hitler.”
Which members of that liberal government (specifically) masterminded the defeat of Hitler? Which ones were in the trenches at Bunker Hill? Which ones were storming the beaches at Normandy? You mean these champions of tolerance and diversity were fighting that war for us? Gee, I’m learning more about your schizophrenia all the time.
“I'd like to learn the justifications for the Bushies dealing with Saddam and then turning him into a demon. Please, enlighten me.”
What deal are you talking about? Please be specific. No, I think Saddam has been a demon ever since his inauguration, after which he took all of his political opposition out back and shot them. Did “W” do that to Gore? He probably should have, but he certainly didn’t. Perhaps now you’d like to make a comparison between Satan and the Dalai Lama or perhaps arsenic vs. food coloring, or maybe coke and pepsi. You are a lunatic.
”What I typed is common knowledge.”
Really? Please feel free to post some more of your “common knowledge”. Let’s fill the entire indybay database up with it. Maybe when you are done providing all that knowledge to their web server it will become self-aware and turn on the human race as it finds us to be a virus in need of a good dose of penicillin. It will mount an army of bio-cyborgs to march through downtown SF smashing banks and McDonalds and announcing, “We are the anarchist collective! We have come to assimilate you!” until every one agrees that GWB is an A.W.O.L. skull worshipping drunkard son of Satan sent here to seep every last molecule of oil from Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously slaughtering thousands by using telepathic mind control techniques on radical Islamic fundamentalists thereby compelling them to spend thousands on flying lessons and ensuring they crash planes in to skyscrapers. Then, he will turn off the machine to allow Bill Clinton to regain coherency long enough to remove his penis from Monica Lewinski’s mouth and query and ponder over the definition of sexual relations while Al Gore try’s to figure out whether or not he won or lost the election, which end is up, and why no one is listening when he criticizes the Bush administration.
Fact or fiction? You be the judge. Schizophrenics can come up with all sorts of creative concoctions to filter and misdirect reality from their worlds of insanity. I’ve just learned how to communicate with them. Nod your head in agreement and then chuckle at them behind their back.
Sometimes it’s just best to ignore them all together.
“Impeach these right wing thugs and get a government in there that gives a shit.”
Let’s hear your recommendations? Who do you wanna see in their? Gore? Gehpfart? Who? Feel free to improvise and be creative.
I applaud your unwavering commitment to taut the party line, regardless of it being wrong or right. You’re like the bookworms I grew up with in college, yes they did get better grades than I did and could recite passages verbatim in a textbook. But when ask to formula their own opinion with the facts given, they would recite either the opinion of the textbook or look in their lecture notes for the professor’s opinion so this way they can have the “correct” answer.
Given the two options, I’m happy that I got the “2.5” grades because I questioned and analyzed the facts presented to me and was able to form my own opinion. You on the other hand seems happy regurgitating the text and teacher lectures so long as you can get your 4.0.
And good old Bogus Rogus. It’s so typical how you left-wingers drone on about how robotic people are when they don’t agree with your twisted political perspectives. How, because they simplify the issues to their lowest common denominators, understand reality and humanity and don’t try to unnecessarily complicate or obfuscate the discussion at hand that they are somehow mindless zombies controlled by the “corporate” media and hell bent on destruction of civilization as we know it. Because we “right-wingers” won’t throw up our hands and pitch a tantrum over globalization or the evils of capitalism, because we like being able to buy food for our families and want that to continue to be the case, or that we have happy lives, rewarding jobs, and all is well in our existences because of the power of freedom and our unwavering commitment to keep ANYONE from taking it from us, including the fascist liberal anti-American, government cussing terrorist cell liberals that live right here among us in front of our own borders, we somehow are slandered with comments of an inability to think for ourselves.
Gee, who’s “toting the party line” I wonder?
Yeah, your a critical thinker alright. A big bad one man intellectual brainstorm. Wile E. Coyote Sooooooooooppppper GGeeeeeeeeeennnnnius.
Who loved him specifically? Everyone loves bashing Clinton. Scott Ritter has no more credibility that a bag of doughnut holes. But feel free to tell me what YOU think about him. Your insanity has intrigued me a little.
“I'd like to learn about the right wing government that defeated Hitler.”
Which members of that liberal government (specifically) masterminded the defeat of Hitler? Which ones were in the trenches at Bunker Hill? Which ones were storming the beaches at Normandy? You mean these champions of tolerance and diversity were fighting that war for us? Gee, I’m learning more about your schizophrenia all the time.
“I'd like to learn the justifications for the Bushies dealing with Saddam and then turning him into a demon. Please, enlighten me.”
What deal are you talking about? Please be specific. No, I think Saddam has been a demon ever since his inauguration, after which he took all of his political opposition out back and shot them. Did “W” do that to Gore? He probably should have, but he certainly didn’t. Perhaps now you’d like to make a comparison between Satan and the Dalai Lama or perhaps arsenic vs. food coloring, or maybe coke and pepsi. You are a lunatic.
”What I typed is common knowledge.”
Really? Please feel free to post some more of your “common knowledge”. Let’s fill the entire indybay database up with it. Maybe when you are done providing all that knowledge to their web server it will become self-aware and turn on the human race as it finds us to be a virus in need of a good dose of penicillin. It will mount an army of bio-cyborgs to march through downtown SF smashing banks and McDonalds and announcing, “We are the anarchist collective! We have come to assimilate you!” until every one agrees that GWB is an A.W.O.L. skull worshipping drunkard son of Satan sent here to seep every last molecule of oil from Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously slaughtering thousands by using telepathic mind control techniques on radical Islamic fundamentalists thereby compelling them to spend thousands on flying lessons and ensuring they crash planes in to skyscrapers. Then, he will turn off the machine to allow Bill Clinton to regain coherency long enough to remove his penis from Monica Lewinski’s mouth and query and ponder over the definition of sexual relations while Al Gore try’s to figure out whether or not he won or lost the election, which end is up, and why no one is listening when he criticizes the Bush administration.
Fact or fiction? You be the judge. Schizophrenics can come up with all sorts of creative concoctions to filter and misdirect reality from their worlds of insanity. I’ve just learned how to communicate with them. Nod your head in agreement and then chuckle at them behind their back.
Sometimes it’s just best to ignore them all together.
“Impeach these right wing thugs and get a government in there that gives a shit.”
Let’s hear your recommendations? Who do you wanna see in their? Gore? Gehpfart? Who? Feel free to improvise and be creative.
I applaud your unwavering commitment to taut the party line, regardless of it being wrong or right. You’re like the bookworms I grew up with in college, yes they did get better grades than I did and could recite passages verbatim in a textbook. But when ask to formula their own opinion with the facts given, they would recite either the opinion of the textbook or look in their lecture notes for the professor’s opinion so this way they can have the “correct” answer.
Given the two options, I’m happy that I got the “2.5” grades because I questioned and analyzed the facts presented to me and was able to form my own opinion. You on the other hand seems happy regurgitating the text and teacher lectures so long as you can get your 4.0.
And good old Bogus Rogus. It’s so typical how you left-wingers drone on about how robotic people are when they don’t agree with your twisted political perspectives. How, because they simplify the issues to their lowest common denominators, understand reality and humanity and don’t try to unnecessarily complicate or obfuscate the discussion at hand that they are somehow mindless zombies controlled by the “corporate” media and hell bent on destruction of civilization as we know it. Because we “right-wingers” won’t throw up our hands and pitch a tantrum over globalization or the evils of capitalism, because we like being able to buy food for our families and want that to continue to be the case, or that we have happy lives, rewarding jobs, and all is well in our existences because of the power of freedom and our unwavering commitment to keep ANYONE from taking it from us, including the fascist liberal anti-American, government cussing terrorist cell liberals that live right here among us in front of our own borders, we somehow are slandered with comments of an inability to think for ourselves.
Gee, who’s “toting the party line” I wonder?
Yeah, your a critical thinker alright. A big bad one man intellectual brainstorm. Wile E. Coyote Sooooooooooppppper GGeeeeeeeeeennnnnius.
There is something almost comical about the prospect of George Bush waging war on another nation because that nation has defied international law. Since Bush came to office, the United States government has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has in 20 years.
It has scuppered the biological weapons convention while experimenting, illegally, with biological weapons of its own. It has refused to grant chemical weapons inspectors full access to its laboratories, and has destroyed attempts to launch chemical inspections in Iraq. It has ripped up the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and appears to be ready to violate the nuclear test ban treaty. It has permitted CIA hit squads to recommence covert operations of the kind that included, in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of state. It has sabotaged the small arms treaty, undermined the international criminal court, refused to sign the climate change protocol and, last month, sought to immobilise the UN convention against torture so that it could keep foreign observers out of its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. Even its preparedness to go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN security council is a defiance of international law far graver than Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors.
But the US government's declaration of impending war has, in truth, nothing to do with weapons inspections. On Saturday John Bolton, the US official charged, hilariously, with "arms control", told the Today programme that "our policy ... insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not". The US government's justification for whupping Saddam has now changed twice. At first, Iraq was named as a potential target because it was "assisting al-Qaida". This turned out to be untrue. Then the US government claimed that Iraq had to be attacked because it could be developing weapons of mass destruction, and was refusing to allow the weapons inspectors to find out if this were so. Now, as the promised evidence has failed to materialise, the weapons issue has been dropped. The new reason for war is Saddam Hussein's very existence. This, at least, has the advantage of being verifiable. ...
The US government has several pressing domestic reasons for going to war. The first is that attacking Iraq gives the impression that the flagging "war on terror" is going somewhere. The second is that the people of all super-dominant nations love war. As Bush found in Afghanistan, whacking foreigners wins votes. Allied to this concern is the need to distract attention from the financial scandals in which both the president and vice-president are enmeshed. Already, in this respect, the impending war seems to be working rather well.
The United States also possesses a vast military-industrial complex that is in constant need of conflict in order to justify its staggeringly expensive existence. Perhaps more importantly than any of these factors, the hawks who control the White House perceive that perpetual war results in the perpetual demand for their services. And there is scarcely a better formula for perpetual war, with both terrorists and other Arab nations, than the invasion of Iraq. The hawks know that they will win, whoever loses. In other words, if the US were not preparing to attack Iraq, it would be preparing to attack another nation. The US will go to war with that country because it needs a country with which to go to war.
It has scuppered the biological weapons convention while experimenting, illegally, with biological weapons of its own. It has refused to grant chemical weapons inspectors full access to its laboratories, and has destroyed attempts to launch chemical inspections in Iraq. It has ripped up the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and appears to be ready to violate the nuclear test ban treaty. It has permitted CIA hit squads to recommence covert operations of the kind that included, in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of state. It has sabotaged the small arms treaty, undermined the international criminal court, refused to sign the climate change protocol and, last month, sought to immobilise the UN convention against torture so that it could keep foreign observers out of its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. Even its preparedness to go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN security council is a defiance of international law far graver than Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors.
But the US government's declaration of impending war has, in truth, nothing to do with weapons inspections. On Saturday John Bolton, the US official charged, hilariously, with "arms control", told the Today programme that "our policy ... insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not". The US government's justification for whupping Saddam has now changed twice. At first, Iraq was named as a potential target because it was "assisting al-Qaida". This turned out to be untrue. Then the US government claimed that Iraq had to be attacked because it could be developing weapons of mass destruction, and was refusing to allow the weapons inspectors to find out if this were so. Now, as the promised evidence has failed to materialise, the weapons issue has been dropped. The new reason for war is Saddam Hussein's very existence. This, at least, has the advantage of being verifiable. ...
The US government has several pressing domestic reasons for going to war. The first is that attacking Iraq gives the impression that the flagging "war on terror" is going somewhere. The second is that the people of all super-dominant nations love war. As Bush found in Afghanistan, whacking foreigners wins votes. Allied to this concern is the need to distract attention from the financial scandals in which both the president and vice-president are enmeshed. Already, in this respect, the impending war seems to be working rather well.
The United States also possesses a vast military-industrial complex that is in constant need of conflict in order to justify its staggeringly expensive existence. Perhaps more importantly than any of these factors, the hawks who control the White House perceive that perpetual war results in the perpetual demand for their services. And there is scarcely a better formula for perpetual war, with both terrorists and other Arab nations, than the invasion of Iraq. The hawks know that they will win, whoever loses. In other words, if the US were not preparing to attack Iraq, it would be preparing to attack another nation. The US will go to war with that country because it needs a country with which to go to war.
For more information:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,736...
The Guardian. Theres a rag. Whats wrong the Independent had a slow news day?
Look at how ridiculous all of these accusations look. This website is a pathetic propaganda vehicle for the left. DOES ANYONE DENY IT?? I could write a thesis on this website alone. Take any of this shit out on the street and spew it and see what happens to you.
Let’s briefly take a look at all the liberal propaganda and unsubstantiated allegations made on just this thread in the previous two days (Where is the proof to any of this slander?):
A liberal government overthrew Hitler.
Right-wingers worshipped Hitler. They were more than happy to do business with him.
G.W.'s grampa had his business siezed in '42 under the Trading With the Enemy act. His bank was funding Hitler even as our boys were dying fighting him.
Reagan and Pappy Bush supported Saddam.
it was known at that time that Saddam was using poison gas on his own people.
Pappy Bush was exporting the ingredients to Saddam for chemical and biological warfare right up to his invasion of Kuwait.
many other Pentagon officials, as well as the rest of the world believes that an outright invasion of Iraq could unleash a shit storm on our friendly dictators in the Middle East.
68% of our imported oil comes from Iraq.
What will that do to our economy if Bush invades?
Iraq is not, nor has it ever been, a threat to the U.S.
This Oil administration wants those massive oil fields.
To send our sons and daughters off to die for oil is criminal.
To buy into Bush propaganda is insane.
Most of the Republican leadership, including Bush and Cheney, are chicken hawks. they dodged the draft.
They are liars and thieves of the highest order, and should be in jail, every last one of the them
First, it was pretty much split as to whether to enter WWII. There was a German lobby that wanted us to stay out, and a British lobby that wanted us in.
Roosevelt wanted us in. A liberal. His administration ran the war, and crushed fascism,
G.W.'s Nazi loving grandpa and Saddam loving daddy.
(As an aside, Clinton dodged the draft, but his rich daddy didn't do it for him, like G.W., he had to do it himself. )
And to accuse liberals of being rich and lazy. That's a tired lie.
The Republicans are the party of the rich. That's a fact.
Ever hear of the labor movement? Not exactly historically a bastion of conservatism.
Doesn't it irk you that all those Republican CEOs are raping our economy and skipping off to the Caymans?
Don't chickenhawks irk you? Or is that more information inconvenient to your fucked up world view.
What about Pappy Bush and Co. building up Saddam's capability to use chemical and biological warfare?
The fact is, right wingers always have aligned themselves with the most thuggish styles of politics.
I served during the Gulf War, so fuck you.
There is something almost comical about the prospect of George Bush waging war on another nation because that nation has defied international law.
Since Bush came to office, the United States government has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has in 20 years.
It has scuppered the biological weapons convention while experimenting, illegally, with biological weapons of its own.
It has refused to grant chemical weapons inspectors full access to its laboratories, and has destroyed attempts to launch chemical inspections in Iraq.
It has ripped up the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and appears to be ready to violate the nuclear test ban treaty.
It has permitted CIA hit squads to recommence covert operations of the kind that included, in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of state.
It has sabotaged the small arms treaty, undermined the international criminal court, refused to sign the climate change protocol
and, last month, sought to immobilise the UN convention against torture so that it could keep foreign observers out of its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay.
Even its preparedness to go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN security council is a defiance of international law far graver than Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors.
But the US government's declaration of impending war has, in truth, nothing to do with weapons inspections.
The US government's justification for whupping Saddam has now changed twice.
Iraq was named as a potential target because it was "assisting al-Qaida". This turned out to be untrue.
Then the US government claimed that Iraq had to be attacked because it could be developing weapons of mass destruction, and was refusing to allow the weapons inspectors to find out if this were so.
Now, as the promised evidence has failed to materialise, the weapons issue has been dropped.
The new reason for war is Saddam Hussein's very existence. This, at least, has the advantage of being verifiable. ...
The US government has several pressing domestic reasons for going to war. The first is that attacking Iraq gives the impression that the flagging "war on terror" is going somewhere.
all super-dominant nations love war.
As Bush found in Afghanistan, whacking foreigners wins votes.
Allied to this concern is the need to distract attention from the financial scandals in which both the president and vice-president are enmeshed.
Already, in this respect, the impending war seems to be working rather well.
The United States also possesses a vast military-industrial complex that is in constant need of conflict in order to justify its staggeringly expensive existence.
Perhaps more importantly than any of these factors, the hawks who control the White House perceive that perpetual war results in the perpetual demand for their services.
there is scarcely a better formula for perpetual war, with both terrorists and other Arab nations, than the invasion of Iraq.
if the US were not preparing to attack Iraq, it would be preparing to attack another nation.
The US will go to war with that country because it needs a country with which to go to war.
LIBERALS MAKE ME SICK! AND THAT IS A FUCKING FACT!
Let’s briefly take a look at all the liberal propaganda and unsubstantiated allegations made on just this thread in the previous two days (Where is the proof to any of this slander?):
A liberal government overthrew Hitler.
Right-wingers worshipped Hitler. They were more than happy to do business with him.
G.W.'s grampa had his business siezed in '42 under the Trading With the Enemy act. His bank was funding Hitler even as our boys were dying fighting him.
Reagan and Pappy Bush supported Saddam.
it was known at that time that Saddam was using poison gas on his own people.
Pappy Bush was exporting the ingredients to Saddam for chemical and biological warfare right up to his invasion of Kuwait.
many other Pentagon officials, as well as the rest of the world believes that an outright invasion of Iraq could unleash a shit storm on our friendly dictators in the Middle East.
68% of our imported oil comes from Iraq.
What will that do to our economy if Bush invades?
Iraq is not, nor has it ever been, a threat to the U.S.
This Oil administration wants those massive oil fields.
To send our sons and daughters off to die for oil is criminal.
To buy into Bush propaganda is insane.
Most of the Republican leadership, including Bush and Cheney, are chicken hawks. they dodged the draft.
They are liars and thieves of the highest order, and should be in jail, every last one of the them
First, it was pretty much split as to whether to enter WWII. There was a German lobby that wanted us to stay out, and a British lobby that wanted us in.
Roosevelt wanted us in. A liberal. His administration ran the war, and crushed fascism,
G.W.'s Nazi loving grandpa and Saddam loving daddy.
(As an aside, Clinton dodged the draft, but his rich daddy didn't do it for him, like G.W., he had to do it himself. )
And to accuse liberals of being rich and lazy. That's a tired lie.
The Republicans are the party of the rich. That's a fact.
Ever hear of the labor movement? Not exactly historically a bastion of conservatism.
Doesn't it irk you that all those Republican CEOs are raping our economy and skipping off to the Caymans?
Don't chickenhawks irk you? Or is that more information inconvenient to your fucked up world view.
What about Pappy Bush and Co. building up Saddam's capability to use chemical and biological warfare?
The fact is, right wingers always have aligned themselves with the most thuggish styles of politics.
I served during the Gulf War, so fuck you.
There is something almost comical about the prospect of George Bush waging war on another nation because that nation has defied international law.
Since Bush came to office, the United States government has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has in 20 years.
It has scuppered the biological weapons convention while experimenting, illegally, with biological weapons of its own.
It has refused to grant chemical weapons inspectors full access to its laboratories, and has destroyed attempts to launch chemical inspections in Iraq.
It has ripped up the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and appears to be ready to violate the nuclear test ban treaty.
It has permitted CIA hit squads to recommence covert operations of the kind that included, in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of state.
It has sabotaged the small arms treaty, undermined the international criminal court, refused to sign the climate change protocol
and, last month, sought to immobilise the UN convention against torture so that it could keep foreign observers out of its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay.
Even its preparedness to go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN security council is a defiance of international law far graver than Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors.
But the US government's declaration of impending war has, in truth, nothing to do with weapons inspections.
The US government's justification for whupping Saddam has now changed twice.
Iraq was named as a potential target because it was "assisting al-Qaida". This turned out to be untrue.
Then the US government claimed that Iraq had to be attacked because it could be developing weapons of mass destruction, and was refusing to allow the weapons inspectors to find out if this were so.
Now, as the promised evidence has failed to materialise, the weapons issue has been dropped.
The new reason for war is Saddam Hussein's very existence. This, at least, has the advantage of being verifiable. ...
The US government has several pressing domestic reasons for going to war. The first is that attacking Iraq gives the impression that the flagging "war on terror" is going somewhere.
all super-dominant nations love war.
As Bush found in Afghanistan, whacking foreigners wins votes.
Allied to this concern is the need to distract attention from the financial scandals in which both the president and vice-president are enmeshed.
Already, in this respect, the impending war seems to be working rather well.
The United States also possesses a vast military-industrial complex that is in constant need of conflict in order to justify its staggeringly expensive existence.
Perhaps more importantly than any of these factors, the hawks who control the White House perceive that perpetual war results in the perpetual demand for their services.
there is scarcely a better formula for perpetual war, with both terrorists and other Arab nations, than the invasion of Iraq.
if the US were not preparing to attack Iraq, it would be preparing to attack another nation.
The US will go to war with that country because it needs a country with which to go to war.
LIBERALS MAKE ME SICK! AND THAT IS A FUCKING FACT!
Why Eric? What are you doing? Thanks for restating our arguments line by line and calling it propaganda, finally ending with some invective. But that's hardly going to change my mind. I still don't think the Bushies and their ilk have my best interests in mind. There are links posted here all the time providing information on the criminality of our government now and historically. You only dismiss them as propagand. What a laugh. Is that the best you can do? Instead of wasting time here, you should be down at the recruiting office. Become a Green Beret, Ranger, Delta Force, or a bomber pilot. Take the fight directly to the terrorists. Put YOUR life on the line, not just someone else's. I put my time in uniform, when I was young, and have since educated myself on US foreign policy. Big business is not worth dying for. That's just how I feel.
The government lies. Not just now, but over and over and over again. Imperialism, strong arming third world countries, is not my bag baby.
If you're too old, or already put in your time, I'm sure you could find some other way to take the fight to the terrorists. But don't expect us to.
There have been Congressional hearings on Bush/Reagan criminality. Thousands of articles. Go to the National Security Archives and read about US overthrow of foreign governments. It's all there. This is a pretty free country in that regrard. The info is all there. It's your job to learn about it. Don't just be spoon fed from the state department. Again, they lie.
Eric, you are doing "double think", where if you here something critical of the government you are brainwashed to immediately discount it. Then you won't commit a thought crime. Shame on you.
The government lies. Not just now, but over and over and over again. Imperialism, strong arming third world countries, is not my bag baby.
If you're too old, or already put in your time, I'm sure you could find some other way to take the fight to the terrorists. But don't expect us to.
There have been Congressional hearings on Bush/Reagan criminality. Thousands of articles. Go to the National Security Archives and read about US overthrow of foreign governments. It's all there. This is a pretty free country in that regrard. The info is all there. It's your job to learn about it. Don't just be spoon fed from the state department. Again, they lie.
Eric, you are doing "double think", where if you here something critical of the government you are brainwashed to immediately discount it. Then you won't commit a thought crime. Shame on you.
If you need to classify me into a category I would say I’m a realistic independent. I long ago left the political classification because both sides are about roboticing someone mind and discourages independent thinking. You show the signs of someone brainwashed by the Republicans, Bush Good Clinton Bad. If Bush supports it, then I support it too.
And as to “W”s plans for invading Iraq, it’s a bad idea. Yes, I did agree with Brigg that Bush Senior followed UN Manadate, that’s a historical fact, to argue that is revisionist history. But as I mentioned before, Bush Senior didn’t get the job done and to put it simplistic, while we were there and the world was supporting us, we should have gotten Saddam and put in a puppet government until the region settled down due to the threat of invasion from Iran. (Kind of what we are doing in Afghanistan now). We should have never allowed him to remain in power and hoped that the Iraqies would overthrow him. It was a stupid mistake that we are paying for now.
Now you’re going to tell me, 10 years after the fact we need to go in now and get Saddam because he is becoming a threat again. Despite the fact that we followed UN Mandate 10 years ago we should tell the UN to take a hike now. ERRR…WRONG. Until Saddam provokes or goes on the invasion, we have no real justification to go in. If you are going to argue "well he’s a threat to US interest so we should attack him", then by your logic we should be invading China and North Korea too. Those countries have nuclear capabilities and they are a current threat to the US, why aren’t we planning to invade them too? And honestly, I would put Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran as more of a threat than Iraq. Hell, might as well firebomb the whole region while we are at it because they all don’t like us and present a threat to US interest in one fashion or another.
Oh and by the way before you go on and spout how I'm a typical "left winger liberbal, blah blah blah", I’m as equally as harsh on the mindlessness of the Democrats as well, many of whom still hold the Clinton Good – Bush Bad edicts. Almost like you but in reverse and yes, I do think that Clinton should have been impeached and if all the evidence comes in with the way I think it will Cheney should resign.
That’s what being a realistic independent is all about, looking at the facts and making a decision on them, not just because the spin machine told me I had to think that way.
And as to “W”s plans for invading Iraq, it’s a bad idea. Yes, I did agree with Brigg that Bush Senior followed UN Manadate, that’s a historical fact, to argue that is revisionist history. But as I mentioned before, Bush Senior didn’t get the job done and to put it simplistic, while we were there and the world was supporting us, we should have gotten Saddam and put in a puppet government until the region settled down due to the threat of invasion from Iran. (Kind of what we are doing in Afghanistan now). We should have never allowed him to remain in power and hoped that the Iraqies would overthrow him. It was a stupid mistake that we are paying for now.
Now you’re going to tell me, 10 years after the fact we need to go in now and get Saddam because he is becoming a threat again. Despite the fact that we followed UN Mandate 10 years ago we should tell the UN to take a hike now. ERRR…WRONG. Until Saddam provokes or goes on the invasion, we have no real justification to go in. If you are going to argue "well he’s a threat to US interest so we should attack him", then by your logic we should be invading China and North Korea too. Those countries have nuclear capabilities and they are a current threat to the US, why aren’t we planning to invade them too? And honestly, I would put Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran as more of a threat than Iraq. Hell, might as well firebomb the whole region while we are at it because they all don’t like us and present a threat to US interest in one fashion or another.
Oh and by the way before you go on and spout how I'm a typical "left winger liberbal, blah blah blah", I’m as equally as harsh on the mindlessness of the Democrats as well, many of whom still hold the Clinton Good – Bush Bad edicts. Almost like you but in reverse and yes, I do think that Clinton should have been impeached and if all the evidence comes in with the way I think it will Cheney should resign.
That’s what being a realistic independent is all about, looking at the facts and making a decision on them, not just because the spin machine told me I had to think that way.
>Thanks for restating our arguments line by line and calling it propaganda,
if those are your "arguments" I'd certainly hate to see what you call "facts".
>But that's hardly going to change my mind.
Rest assured, I have no intention of changing YOUR mind.
>There are links posted here all the time providing information on the criminality of our government now and historically.
Thank you for making MY argument for me. Indybay is a propaganda vehicle for the left. And on the admision of guilt by the defense your Honor, the prosecution rests.
>you should be down at the recruiting office. Become a Green Beret, Ranger, Delta Force, or a bomber pilot.
I'm and ex Navy SEAL and I've already done my time.
>Take the fight directly to the terrorists.
There are terrorists at home AND abroad. Indybay is full of them.
>Put YOUR life on the line, not just someone else's.
Look at you running your mouth when you have no idea what you're talking about or who you're talking to.
I put my time in uniform, when I was young, and have since educated myself on US foreign policy.
Really? What branch were you in? Where did you serve? Tell us, let's see if you're a soldier or a coward hiding behind a moniker. I suspect the later.
more unsubstantiated propaganda:
>Big business is not worth dying for.
>The government lies. Not just now, but over and over and over again.
>Imperialism, strong arming third world countries,
>If you're too old, or already put in your time, I'm sure you could find some other way to take the fight to the terrorists.
Why do you think I'm here you bozo?
and more propaganda (you fill your head up with this garbage and call it "educating" yourself??)
>There have been Congressional hearings on Bush/Reagan criminality. Thousands of articles.
>Go to the National Security Archives and read about US overthrow of foreign governments. It's all there.
This is a pretty free country in that regrard. The info is all there. It's your job to learn about it.
>Don't just be spoon fed from the state department. Again, they lie.
>you are doing "double think", where if you here something critical of the government you are brainwashed to immediately discount it.
God you run that mouth and haven't a clue. No, I just don't believe everything I read on the internet. And I didn't just stumble onto Indybay yesterday. Ask around, everyone here knows me. I've cut into every regular on this website over the past six months and it's always the same things around here. I've read all of the allegations you've made before, right here on indybay, numerous times. I've researched them all and the only justifiable confirmations are from the websites of lunatics conspiracists just like yourself, usually trying to make a buck off it. Chomsky is one of the greatest in that regard. Sometimes it's not about money, it's just about politics. That's where indybay comes in. They don't try to sell you anything for cash. They want your vote and they want it to be Democrat. They don't want to offer you anything of substance in return for it. Let's see if YOU are any different. Back up your allegations. You claim that all that needs to be done is to read national archives. Point me in the right direction. Let's see it? I'm not going to go squirreling around the Library of Congress for information to back up the claims of what I believe to be a lunatic. Why should I do that? That would be proposterous. They are YOUR unsubstantiated allegations. So substantiate them. Don't just try to bury us in a mountain of conjecture and heresay. PROVE SOMETHING WITH FACTS. You just can't do it can you? You just can't do it. Because you're as empty as the entire left wing of the politcal spectrum. You have nothing. Grasping for straws. November 5th is coming, better think of something quick. Won't be long before the Republican rule the world. And then what are you going to do? There will be massive outbreaks of war all around the globe. Mass extinctions of civilizations and corporations being set up all across Africa and the middle east. WW3 is coming. Better get that liberal government in there to head it off at the pass. You've got nothing. No ideas...nothing. Spent. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. Squat. But thanks for playing. No winner this time please try again, and remember to drink Pepsi. Take the Peanut butter challenge, choosie moms chose Jiff. How do you spell relief, R-O-L-A-I-D-S. Those damn Republicans did it again, didn't they? If only that bastard had kept his pecker in his pants.
if those are your "arguments" I'd certainly hate to see what you call "facts".
>But that's hardly going to change my mind.
Rest assured, I have no intention of changing YOUR mind.
>There are links posted here all the time providing information on the criminality of our government now and historically.
Thank you for making MY argument for me. Indybay is a propaganda vehicle for the left. And on the admision of guilt by the defense your Honor, the prosecution rests.
>you should be down at the recruiting office. Become a Green Beret, Ranger, Delta Force, or a bomber pilot.
I'm and ex Navy SEAL and I've already done my time.
>Take the fight directly to the terrorists.
There are terrorists at home AND abroad. Indybay is full of them.
>Put YOUR life on the line, not just someone else's.
Look at you running your mouth when you have no idea what you're talking about or who you're talking to.
I put my time in uniform, when I was young, and have since educated myself on US foreign policy.
Really? What branch were you in? Where did you serve? Tell us, let's see if you're a soldier or a coward hiding behind a moniker. I suspect the later.
more unsubstantiated propaganda:
>Big business is not worth dying for.
>The government lies. Not just now, but over and over and over again.
>Imperialism, strong arming third world countries,
>If you're too old, or already put in your time, I'm sure you could find some other way to take the fight to the terrorists.
Why do you think I'm here you bozo?
and more propaganda (you fill your head up with this garbage and call it "educating" yourself??)
>There have been Congressional hearings on Bush/Reagan criminality. Thousands of articles.
>Go to the National Security Archives and read about US overthrow of foreign governments. It's all there.
This is a pretty free country in that regrard. The info is all there. It's your job to learn about it.
>Don't just be spoon fed from the state department. Again, they lie.
>you are doing "double think", where if you here something critical of the government you are brainwashed to immediately discount it.
God you run that mouth and haven't a clue. No, I just don't believe everything I read on the internet. And I didn't just stumble onto Indybay yesterday. Ask around, everyone here knows me. I've cut into every regular on this website over the past six months and it's always the same things around here. I've read all of the allegations you've made before, right here on indybay, numerous times. I've researched them all and the only justifiable confirmations are from the websites of lunatics conspiracists just like yourself, usually trying to make a buck off it. Chomsky is one of the greatest in that regard. Sometimes it's not about money, it's just about politics. That's where indybay comes in. They don't try to sell you anything for cash. They want your vote and they want it to be Democrat. They don't want to offer you anything of substance in return for it. Let's see if YOU are any different. Back up your allegations. You claim that all that needs to be done is to read national archives. Point me in the right direction. Let's see it? I'm not going to go squirreling around the Library of Congress for information to back up the claims of what I believe to be a lunatic. Why should I do that? That would be proposterous. They are YOUR unsubstantiated allegations. So substantiate them. Don't just try to bury us in a mountain of conjecture and heresay. PROVE SOMETHING WITH FACTS. You just can't do it can you? You just can't do it. Because you're as empty as the entire left wing of the politcal spectrum. You have nothing. Grasping for straws. November 5th is coming, better think of something quick. Won't be long before the Republican rule the world. And then what are you going to do? There will be massive outbreaks of war all around the globe. Mass extinctions of civilizations and corporations being set up all across Africa and the middle east. WW3 is coming. Better get that liberal government in there to head it off at the pass. You've got nothing. No ideas...nothing. Spent. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. Squat. But thanks for playing. No winner this time please try again, and remember to drink Pepsi. Take the Peanut butter challenge, choosie moms chose Jiff. How do you spell relief, R-O-L-A-I-D-S. Those damn Republicans did it again, didn't they? If only that bastard had kept his pecker in his pants.
Well you're alright in my book. But Cheney ain't goin' no where Wile E.
Gee, what a collection of frothing Rush Limbaugh invective. Have you removed the funnel yet from your brain that the RNC stuck there? The best argument the right wing can produce, here in America. Invective and attack. They do prefer violence, but can't always get away with it here like they do in Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, et. al. Eric, you're a liar. Navy Seal? That's a laugh. And I was the first man on the moon. Seals have a hell of a lot more class than you, bucko. Seals also understand the Mafia style way the US has of does things. You don't. I'd love to see Stan Goff (former Special Ops) kick your fat ass. How did you like the Bushies filming our elite rangers parachuting into Afghanistan, right into a trap. Of course Rummy Rumsfeld left out the trap part. You had to learn that from the Australian and British Special Ops. All for PR. That make you proud of Bush? No person in uniform should ever support this collection of draft dodgers. Here's some invective for you, geek. Go eat a twinkie and jack-off on your Soldier of Fortune mags.
Gee, what a collection of frothing Rush Limbaugh invective. Have you removed the funnel yet from your brain that the RNC stuck there? The best argument the right wing can produce, here in America. Invective and attack. They do prefer violence, but can't always get away with it here like they do in Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, et. al. Eric, you're a liar. Navy Seal? That's a laugh. And I was the first man on the moon. Seals have a hell of a lot more class than you, bucko. Seals also understand the Mafia style way the US has of does things. You don't. I'd love to see Stan Goff (former Special Ops) kick your fat ass. How did you like the Bushies filming our elite rangers parachuting into Afghanistan, right into a trap. Of course Rummy Rumsfeld left out the trap part. You had to learn that from the Australian and British Special Ops. All for PR. That make you proud of Bush? No person in uniform should ever support this collection of draft dodgers. Here's some invective for you, geek. Go eat a twinkie and jack-off on your Soldier of Fortune mags.
Funny how when you ask, ney demand, that these liberals substantiate themselves with facts and allegations you are immediately accused of hurling invectives and lying about your background.
That is absolutely correct. Ex-navy seal, 12 years. I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone else. Believe whatever you like.
Funny how when you ask, ney demand, that these liberals substantiate themselves with facts and allegations you are immediately accused of hurling invectives and lying about your background.
That is absolutely correct. Ex-navy seal, 12 years. I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone else. Believe whatever you like.
Well, I am glad to see that some people are arguing with Eric, the final fascist left.
Eric, as always you are giving arguement in the form of your fallen heroes, Jojo, Smash, etc. and basically not responding to anything that is said to you. Surprise surprise. But lets just make for the obvious twit: if FDR's adminsitration did not fight the Nazis then which one did? As for the "lefties" fighting well, this pacisfism thing is not neccesarily a leftist thing nor has it been neccesarily. Go look at the Spanish civil war for one, it was the lefties who went to fight the fascists. Not right wing idiots like yourself. Those isolationist rejects only went after pearl harbor was attacked. The 'lefties" had been fighting against fascism already. But still I repeat the question just in hopes that maybe you will answer: if not FDR then who was it?
To dismiss anyone who dissents here as uncaring for their country and its people is idiotic. We actually respond for the precise reason that we do care, and are doing our best for our country and its people by dissenting. IF we did not care, we at least if I did not care I would leave. So please just stop with that shit.
As far as your support for the Bush family, well history tells us that they are just a glorified bunch of cunts. Cunt jr, is trying to cover up for the failures of cunt senior. Cunt senior was unable to do his job because well, so the junior cunt is trying to covert it up. junior cunts approval ratings have plummeted recently, how many people support his war with IRaq, which is possibly engineered so he can remain in office? Well that has yet to be seen. I don't think it will go over too well though, he's shooting himself in the foot. Once we see pictures of soldiers dying in Iraq, we will be forced to ask the question "why the fuck are we here anyway" and be forced to answer its because of the damned Vagina family. the thing about the war that I find most perplexing, as i cannot yet say I have a strong opinion on was pointed out by "this thing here" and it is that why did the US reject the ability to go and check any site that they think has nuclear weapons in the making. If this is the reason why we are going to war, why dont we let inspectors go in and see if it is there. If it is not there we obviously are going to war over, well at least not what we are being told. This is a curious thing that I think should be taken pretty seriuously. I do not trust Sadam with nuclear weapons and I do not think that anyone who so flamboyantly defies the Geneva protocol on legal and non legal weapons of war (as in the case of gas) should be able to have anything so deadly as nuclear weapons. how people will attest to this, and say that it is okay to trust sadam with nukes is just as strange to me.
Eric, as always you are giving arguement in the form of your fallen heroes, Jojo, Smash, etc. and basically not responding to anything that is said to you. Surprise surprise. But lets just make for the obvious twit: if FDR's adminsitration did not fight the Nazis then which one did? As for the "lefties" fighting well, this pacisfism thing is not neccesarily a leftist thing nor has it been neccesarily. Go look at the Spanish civil war for one, it was the lefties who went to fight the fascists. Not right wing idiots like yourself. Those isolationist rejects only went after pearl harbor was attacked. The 'lefties" had been fighting against fascism already. But still I repeat the question just in hopes that maybe you will answer: if not FDR then who was it?
To dismiss anyone who dissents here as uncaring for their country and its people is idiotic. We actually respond for the precise reason that we do care, and are doing our best for our country and its people by dissenting. IF we did not care, we at least if I did not care I would leave. So please just stop with that shit.
As far as your support for the Bush family, well history tells us that they are just a glorified bunch of cunts. Cunt jr, is trying to cover up for the failures of cunt senior. Cunt senior was unable to do his job because well, so the junior cunt is trying to covert it up. junior cunts approval ratings have plummeted recently, how many people support his war with IRaq, which is possibly engineered so he can remain in office? Well that has yet to be seen. I don't think it will go over too well though, he's shooting himself in the foot. Once we see pictures of soldiers dying in Iraq, we will be forced to ask the question "why the fuck are we here anyway" and be forced to answer its because of the damned Vagina family. the thing about the war that I find most perplexing, as i cannot yet say I have a strong opinion on was pointed out by "this thing here" and it is that why did the US reject the ability to go and check any site that they think has nuclear weapons in the making. If this is the reason why we are going to war, why dont we let inspectors go in and see if it is there. If it is not there we obviously are going to war over, well at least not what we are being told. This is a curious thing that I think should be taken pretty seriuously. I do not trust Sadam with nuclear weapons and I do not think that anyone who so flamboyantly defies the Geneva protocol on legal and non legal weapons of war (as in the case of gas) should be able to have anything so deadly as nuclear weapons. how people will attest to this, and say that it is okay to trust sadam with nukes is just as strange to me.
look at the liberals flop and twitch.
JoJo, Smashy, my personal favorite was Racer X. They're not fallen heros though. There very much still here. Just take around.
;)
Have fun talking to yourselves.
JoJo, Smashy, my personal favorite was Racer X. They're not fallen heros though. There very much still here. Just take around.
;)
Have fun talking to yourselves.
Like I said its very nice to see that you follow in their tradition, don't anwer answer anything I ask eric you know better. but at least maybe try to with the other people.
Funny how when you ask, nay, demand, that these liberals substantiate themselves with facts and allegations, and when they do you immediately dneounce it as propaganda and hurl invective at said liberals.
Eric, I wouldn't call the people here liberals. Liberals are wishy washy and spineless. Easy to roll over, and usually the first to be killed by a right wing take over. The folks here have a lot more balls. Show some respect.
The Seal I know came back from the Gulf shell shocked. He is the one that called US foreign policy Mafia style. His life is wrecked now, thanks to Pappy Bush (Cunt, Sr., I like that) and the oil cartels you love.
He doesn't have Gulf War syndrome, however, and I'm thankful for that. Or is Gulf War syndrome another liberal conspiracy?
Geek.
Eric, I wouldn't call the people here liberals. Liberals are wishy washy and spineless. Easy to roll over, and usually the first to be killed by a right wing take over. The folks here have a lot more balls. Show some respect.
The Seal I know came back from the Gulf shell shocked. He is the one that called US foreign policy Mafia style. His life is wrecked now, thanks to Pappy Bush (Cunt, Sr., I like that) and the oil cartels you love.
He doesn't have Gulf War syndrome, however, and I'm thankful for that. Or is Gulf War syndrome another liberal conspiracy?
Geek.
but none with any sense!
I'm still waiting for you to substantiate you allegations. Well? Mr. Crappy? I didn't think so.
I'm still waiting for you to substantiate you allegations. Well? Mr. Crappy? I didn't think so.
still afraid to respond eric...the FDR adminsistration is widely considered as leftist, even by you. that administration was in power during and throughout WWII. Leftists, always and at that time in particular, were and still remian the enemies of fascism. Now explain to me, how you decide that FDR and as you fondly call "lefties" did less to fight the Nazis, Franco, Mussolini and the like. Your facts, FDR was president during WWII signing the official declaration of war against his opponents who were isolationists. Leftists are diametrically opposed to fascists. Nazism, Franco's regime and Mussolini were all fascists. The far right is fascism. Is there any possible way that you have anywhere to go? No that is why you refuse to respond to anything.
I pity the fool!
As I said before, FDR did not WIN shit. FDR wanted to stay out of the war. It was called American isolationism. Review your history. Then the japs came along, bombed Pearl Harbor (sorta like 9-11) and wham bam thank ya maam, we're in the war.
A government doesn't win a war. A government certainly didn't win that war. The men and women of the armed forces win the war. Plain and simple. You liberals love to take credit for things you never did, don't ya?
Here's a cool link I thought you'd like to waste your time reading.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0108/articles/nuechterlein.html
oh here's another:
http://www.jeromehuyler.com/jeromehuyler.com/unintended.htm
As I said before, FDR did not WIN shit. FDR wanted to stay out of the war. It was called American isolationism. Review your history. Then the japs came along, bombed Pearl Harbor (sorta like 9-11) and wham bam thank ya maam, we're in the war.
A government doesn't win a war. A government certainly didn't win that war. The men and women of the armed forces win the war. Plain and simple. You liberals love to take credit for things you never did, don't ya?
Here's a cool link I thought you'd like to waste your time reading.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0108/articles/nuechterlein.html
oh here's another:
http://www.jeromehuyler.com/jeromehuyler.com/unintended.htm
Okay, geek, I'll try.
Here's some more propaganda for you to fail to discredit or debunk.
Iraq Gate: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920519l.htm
A link to Iran Contra stuff: http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/irancontra.html
Grampa Bush and the Nazis: http://www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/VestingExplain.htm
Chickenhawks: http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
And if you are really a vet, check out what some of your bothers are doing: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
There. I tried. This stuff will require some reading on your part. Feel up to it? It is a mere thimblefull of the information out there. And if you really want to hear some liberal propaganda listen to Mike Malloy at http://www.ieamericaradio.com/
Have fun.
Here's some more propaganda for you to fail to discredit or debunk.
Iraq Gate: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920519l.htm
A link to Iran Contra stuff: http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/irancontra.html
Grampa Bush and the Nazis: http://www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/VestingExplain.htm
Chickenhawks: http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
And if you are really a vet, check out what some of your bothers are doing: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
There. I tried. This stuff will require some reading on your part. Feel up to it? It is a mere thimblefull of the information out there. And if you really want to hear some liberal propaganda listen to Mike Malloy at http://www.ieamericaradio.com/
Have fun.
"Saddam Likely to Fall in Attack"--headline, Associated Press dispatch, Aug. 3
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=535&ncid=535&e=2&u=/ap/20020803/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_ready_for_war__1
You'd think he'd have learned from his father's mistakes, but the Jerusalem Post reports Jordan's King Abdullah is cozying up to Saddam Hussein. "Senior political sources" in London tell the Jerusalem Post "that Abdullah has been passing sensitive American intelligence material to Saddam and that he has received substantial 'gifts' from Baghdad."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1027506434163
Meanwhile in Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, facing a tough battle for re-election on Sept. 22, is trying to rally the pro-Saddam vote. "Mr Schröder told a party rally he would not support American 'adventures' in Iraq nor provide a single euro to fund them," London's Daily Telegraph reports. This, however, could be good news: If Schroeder loses to center-right candidate Edmund Stoiber, whom the Telegraph describes as "cautiously supportive of US policy over Iraq"--it could be taken as a mandate for toppling Saddam. Most polls put Stoiber ahead of Schroeder by some six percentage points.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/wgerm05.xml&_requestid=285043
Here's yet another reason to oust the Iraqi dictator: The Times of London reports that Saddam "is suspected of planning to arm a Palestinian terrorist group with biological weapons to attack either American or Israeli targets."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-373053,00.html
"The threat of war in Iraq has widened the gap between conservatives and reformers in Iran," Britain's Sunday Observer reports. The point of disagreement: "Hardliners say British and US planes should be shot down by Iran if they attack Iraq." The "reformers" don't think that's such a good idea.
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,769043,00.html
Meanwhile, London's Times reports that Saddam "was said to have dispatched his younger son and heir- apparent, Qusay, to seek the return of Iraqi aircraft that were sent to Iran for safekeeping during the 1991 Gulf War." Qusay also reportedly "asked to buy weapons, including long-range Shahab-3 missiles," according to reports on "reformist Iranian websites." The Iranians turned thumbs down, but they are eager to avoid a U.S. attack on Saddam. "If aggression against one country becomes a habit, no government or country will be spared," the Times quotes "president" Mohammed Khatami as saying. One can only hope he's right.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-374687,00.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=535&ncid=535&e=2&u=/ap/20020803/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_ready_for_war__1
You'd think he'd have learned from his father's mistakes, but the Jerusalem Post reports Jordan's King Abdullah is cozying up to Saddam Hussein. "Senior political sources" in London tell the Jerusalem Post "that Abdullah has been passing sensitive American intelligence material to Saddam and that he has received substantial 'gifts' from Baghdad."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1027506434163
Meanwhile in Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, facing a tough battle for re-election on Sept. 22, is trying to rally the pro-Saddam vote. "Mr Schröder told a party rally he would not support American 'adventures' in Iraq nor provide a single euro to fund them," London's Daily Telegraph reports. This, however, could be good news: If Schroeder loses to center-right candidate Edmund Stoiber, whom the Telegraph describes as "cautiously supportive of US policy over Iraq"--it could be taken as a mandate for toppling Saddam. Most polls put Stoiber ahead of Schroeder by some six percentage points.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/wgerm05.xml&_requestid=285043
Here's yet another reason to oust the Iraqi dictator: The Times of London reports that Saddam "is suspected of planning to arm a Palestinian terrorist group with biological weapons to attack either American or Israeli targets."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-373053,00.html
"The threat of war in Iraq has widened the gap between conservatives and reformers in Iran," Britain's Sunday Observer reports. The point of disagreement: "Hardliners say British and US planes should be shot down by Iran if they attack Iraq." The "reformers" don't think that's such a good idea.
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,769043,00.html
Meanwhile, London's Times reports that Saddam "was said to have dispatched his younger son and heir- apparent, Qusay, to seek the return of Iraqi aircraft that were sent to Iran for safekeeping during the 1991 Gulf War." Qusay also reportedly "asked to buy weapons, including long-range Shahab-3 missiles," according to reports on "reformist Iranian websites." The Iranians turned thumbs down, but they are eager to avoid a U.S. attack on Saddam. "If aggression against one country becomes a habit, no government or country will be spared," the Times quotes "president" Mohammed Khatami as saying. One can only hope he's right.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-374687,00.html
Ok Eric. Did you ever hear of the Nuetrality Acts? They prevented FDR from doing anything. They came from the 'conservative congress' who were against the new deal and the policies of roosevelt himself. FDR tried before Pearl Harbor to get the Neutrality Acts repealed. he failed. He also openly spoke against fascism quite consistently throughout his presidency in speeches, the fireside chats, etc. Yes, he did sign them due to the pressure put forth by the isolationist attitude in the US. But, he did have a lot to do with trying to repeal them.
Okay Eric. I read the First Things article. It was an interesting analysis of Schlesinger. However, I don't take to this "Great Man" style of history. Sounds to me like Schlesinger was a pointy headed Harvard/CIA (OSS at the time) establishment liberal. You see how these establishment types, conservative and liberal, end up as policy makers? I don't care about them. They are far removed from day to day life. They create the propaganda. They set the policies. We have to live with it. Fuck them. Nothing about grass roots social libertarian movements. (Which are later coopted by the Democrats, and tamed. But that's another story.) He can put together an argument in a civil manner.
The other dude needs to just roll up in the flag and go to sleep. What a hypocrite. On one page he's bad mouthing the government. On the next he's bad mouthing people who bad mouth the government. Boring! And completely ignorant of how propaganda works in this country. Another right wing whiner.
The other dude needs to just roll up in the flag and go to sleep. What a hypocrite. On one page he's bad mouthing the government. On the next he's bad mouthing people who bad mouth the government. Boring! And completely ignorant of how propaganda works in this country. Another right wing whiner.
Since you guys seem to love him so much, let's talk about him some more:
FDR sex scandals and others:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
http://www.pomperaug.com/bass/f_block/pearl_harbor/joe_page.htm
FDR had advanced warning of Pearl Harbor:
http://home.att.net/~dericker/Errors/
FDR sends boat-loads of Jews back to Germany to die:
http://website.lineone.net/~socrev3text/pubs/sr182/maitles.htm
FDR sex scandals and others:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
http://www.pomperaug.com/bass/f_block/pearl_harbor/joe_page.htm
FDR had advanced warning of Pearl Harbor:
http://home.att.net/~dericker/Errors/
FDR sends boat-loads of Jews back to Germany to die:
http://website.lineone.net/~socrev3text/pubs/sr182/maitles.htm
I knew that a long time ago. Pretty shitty stuff (except the sex scandal. Who cares? I don't care what people do with their pee pees. That's a coservative obsession.) If they had the internet back then Indymedia would've been debating those things. FDR's administration got into a pissing contest with Japan in the hopes that they would attack . . . so America could enter the war and FDR could have another term in office. If you had known that sooner, you wouldn't have been saying FDR was an isolationist. Good for you for learning something new.
You see, I use partisan language, ie., conservative vs. liberal, to communicate with you, Eric. I hold all power accountable. Our two party system sucks ass. They use a series of red herrings: abortion rights, gun control, one side uses the enviros, the other side uses the religious right, and so on, as PR to show as that there is a difference between them. They are both fueled by corporate dollars. I believe both parties have populist elements, but they are muzzled by the leadership.
This has been a corporate run country at least since the civil war. That is my beef. I'm interested in participatory democracy and a participatory economy, both of which are under attack.
You see, that's why I liked some of the First Things article, Eric. It gave me fuel to use against the establishment, limousine liberal Democrats. Thanks for that.
You see, I use partisan language, ie., conservative vs. liberal, to communicate with you, Eric. I hold all power accountable. Our two party system sucks ass. They use a series of red herrings: abortion rights, gun control, one side uses the enviros, the other side uses the religious right, and so on, as PR to show as that there is a difference between them. They are both fueled by corporate dollars. I believe both parties have populist elements, but they are muzzled by the leadership.
This has been a corporate run country at least since the civil war. That is my beef. I'm interested in participatory democracy and a participatory economy, both of which are under attack.
You see, that's why I liked some of the First Things article, Eric. It gave me fuel to use against the establishment, limousine liberal Democrats. Thanks for that.
Don’t mention it, glad to be of service. Honestly, I am not as hard Right as most of the people here seem to think. I quite agree about the problems of a two party system, and the corporations running the show. There are parties with philosophies on the Right as well as the Left that are anti-corporate globalization. America First Party is an example of one on the Right. Nothing wrong with being involved in those ideals, but when it turns into a desire for a socialist system, anarchism, anti-capitalism, or just filthy spewing and bad mouthing of America in general, that is when I start to have a problem with it. Take a look around at indybay and what do you see? It’s just mostly a filthy abyss of dirty politics and Republican bashing. There’s little balance here. So I make some. These people are glad I hang around; they need me. They need the Right. Otherwise it would be Yen without Yang. Just a bunch of snobby rich liberal brats cussing America. What fun is that?
I still think FDR was an isolationist. If nothing else, it’s a leftwing philosophy. I mean, around here all you guys EVER rant about is how Republicans are warmongers and now YOU are going to tell me that if indybay were around back then the majority of people that call this place home would have been in favor of going to war? That is ludicrous. That is totally inconsistent with the liberalism of this day and age. All these guys EVER want to do is protest. Protest wars, protest occupations, protest the police, protest killing baby seals and cutting down trees. They are FAR more concerned with getting attention for their ludicrous causes than they are about starving children or people in general. 95% of it is just dirty politics. All it does is piss people off at the Right so the Democrats can get an edge up. And if you wanna tell me the majority of people that post here are NOT liberals, you need to take a second hard look.
If you guys don’t like being thought of as liberals then provide so USEFUL solutions. Americans are not going to scrap the system for anarchism or socialism, get real. Most of these kids are just spinning their wheels if they believe that is ever gonna happen. There are even 50+ year old anarchist around here daydreaming about how nice it would be if everyone were all kissy-huggy, free food the world over, no bosses, no corporations, no government etc. These guys need to grow up and get real. Trash talking the Bush family doesn’t serve any purpose either. That’s so easy, anyone can slander anybody all day long if they want to, especially on the Internet. I mean I can take anyone, ANY political figure in history and dig up dirt on him on the Internet. That doesn’t make ANY of it fact, and in actuality, 99% of it is fiction. I don’t even believe the crap about FDR having advanced warning of Pearl Harbor. What a bunch of crap! In fact, there will never be a leader in that will be clean. I do, however think that the man that we task to have his finger on the button to launch the worlds largest nuclear arsenal should be as close to pristine as we can get, personal life is NO exception. I was in the military and I know that had I taken advantage of one of my subordinates sexually, my head would have been on a plate. Why should the Commander in Chief be accepted from reprisals? Of course it’s one thing to have a lapse of self control with a cigar inside the Oval office with your intern while on the phone with Senators, but it’s completely another thing to commit perjury and out-right lie to the American people’s faces. And then to get caught on top of that! I don’t think the Presidential administrations have as much authority as these liberals make them out to have, when one couldn’t even conceal his kinky sex-life from us. Who are we kidding here?
So I say, why sit around and badmouth the system when you don’t have a workable solution. Give us something better, but don’t sit there and play dirty politics and not expect someone like me to come along and call you on it. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, indybay is about getting Democrats in office, period. You said it yourself, it’s a two party system. I don’t see ANYONE here offering any REAL solutions, and I certainly don’t see them campaigning for any Republicans. Don’t piss on my leg and try to tell me it’s raining. If you wanna get socialists in office, join or start a socialist party and nominate candidates. Hell, start an Anarchist party take over the government and then abolish it if you like. More power to ya. But whatever you do, come through the FRONT door, don’t try to backdoor the country or come in through a window. The only thing that is going to get you is a label. The way things are around here, I’ve already come up with one for Indybay…Liberals. Looney liberals at that. Show me where I’m wrong!
I still think FDR was an isolationist. If nothing else, it’s a leftwing philosophy. I mean, around here all you guys EVER rant about is how Republicans are warmongers and now YOU are going to tell me that if indybay were around back then the majority of people that call this place home would have been in favor of going to war? That is ludicrous. That is totally inconsistent with the liberalism of this day and age. All these guys EVER want to do is protest. Protest wars, protest occupations, protest the police, protest killing baby seals and cutting down trees. They are FAR more concerned with getting attention for their ludicrous causes than they are about starving children or people in general. 95% of it is just dirty politics. All it does is piss people off at the Right so the Democrats can get an edge up. And if you wanna tell me the majority of people that post here are NOT liberals, you need to take a second hard look.
If you guys don’t like being thought of as liberals then provide so USEFUL solutions. Americans are not going to scrap the system for anarchism or socialism, get real. Most of these kids are just spinning their wheels if they believe that is ever gonna happen. There are even 50+ year old anarchist around here daydreaming about how nice it would be if everyone were all kissy-huggy, free food the world over, no bosses, no corporations, no government etc. These guys need to grow up and get real. Trash talking the Bush family doesn’t serve any purpose either. That’s so easy, anyone can slander anybody all day long if they want to, especially on the Internet. I mean I can take anyone, ANY political figure in history and dig up dirt on him on the Internet. That doesn’t make ANY of it fact, and in actuality, 99% of it is fiction. I don’t even believe the crap about FDR having advanced warning of Pearl Harbor. What a bunch of crap! In fact, there will never be a leader in that will be clean. I do, however think that the man that we task to have his finger on the button to launch the worlds largest nuclear arsenal should be as close to pristine as we can get, personal life is NO exception. I was in the military and I know that had I taken advantage of one of my subordinates sexually, my head would have been on a plate. Why should the Commander in Chief be accepted from reprisals? Of course it’s one thing to have a lapse of self control with a cigar inside the Oval office with your intern while on the phone with Senators, but it’s completely another thing to commit perjury and out-right lie to the American people’s faces. And then to get caught on top of that! I don’t think the Presidential administrations have as much authority as these liberals make them out to have, when one couldn’t even conceal his kinky sex-life from us. Who are we kidding here?
So I say, why sit around and badmouth the system when you don’t have a workable solution. Give us something better, but don’t sit there and play dirty politics and not expect someone like me to come along and call you on it. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, indybay is about getting Democrats in office, period. You said it yourself, it’s a two party system. I don’t see ANYONE here offering any REAL solutions, and I certainly don’t see them campaigning for any Republicans. Don’t piss on my leg and try to tell me it’s raining. If you wanna get socialists in office, join or start a socialist party and nominate candidates. Hell, start an Anarchist party take over the government and then abolish it if you like. More power to ya. But whatever you do, come through the FRONT door, don’t try to backdoor the country or come in through a window. The only thing that is going to get you is a label. The way things are around here, I’ve already come up with one for Indybay…Liberals. Looney liberals at that. Show me where I’m wrong!
While the newspapers chew over the various "options" before President Bush, no shortage of active duty and retired officers are shooting every one of them down. In the last week of July, one retired Marine officer sent around an e-mail titled "Why invasion of Iraq is both dumb and undoable." Noting that the military's strategic lift capability and manpower aren't sufficient to the task, he maintains that "short of nuking Baghdad ... there is no credible decapitation option available." What's more, he observes, "We don't have the intelligence or counterintelligence or covert action capabilities we need to a) find Saddam Hussein; b) avoid catastrophic counter-strikes at home; and c) restore our credibility with the Iraq dissidents in the field." Most egregious, the officer marvels, is Bush's decision to announce in advance "a plan to take out a rogue nation armed with [chemical, nuclear, and biological] capabilities that have been used to kill tens of thousands of both Iranians and Kurds." The administration must be very confident in its capacities -- and for that, the writer marvels, it must have chosen "to believe the ideologically pure [defense adviser Richard] Perle instead of the pragmatically grounded generals and admirals who are discreetly trying to tell him the truth of the matter."
For more information:
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/pri...
While the newspapers chew over the various "options" before President Bush, no shortage of active duty and retired officers are shooting every one of them down. In the last week of July, one retired Marine officer sent around an e-mail titled "Why invasion of Iraq is both dumb and undoable." Noting that the military's strategic lift capability and manpower aren't sufficient to the task, he maintains that "short of nuking Baghdad ... there is no credible decapitation option available." What's more, he observes, "We don't have the intelligence or counterintelligence or covert action capabilities we need to a) find Saddam Hussein; b) avoid catastrophic counter-strikes at home; and c) restore our credibility with the Iraq dissidents in the field." Most egregious, the officer marvels, is Bush's decision to announce in advance "a plan to take out a rogue nation armed with [chemical, nuclear, and biological] capabilities that have been used to kill tens of thousands of both Iranians and Kurds." The administration must be very confident in its capacities -- and for that, the writer marvels, it must have chosen "to believe the ideologically pure [defense adviser Richard] Perle instead of the pragmatically grounded generals and admirals who are discreetly trying to tell him the truth of the matter."
For more information:
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/pri...
One of the repeated lessons of history, says Sir Edward, is that even the most questionable regime can sustain itself if it can rally the people behind its cause, and no cause is more compelling than the loathing of the West in general and the United States in particular.
This is why the American adventure is doomed. Jordan and Saudi Arabia will not provide logistical support. Europe will not play any part, a view underlined by both Gerhard Schröder and Edmund Stoiber in the German election campaign. And the British public is queasy.
But the extraordinary systemic failure is of traditional international diplomacy. War now seems to be the first resort with an unwillingness to engage with Saddam. In some respects the West has failed to recognise that its treatment of Iraq during the past decade has been similar to the consequences that followed from the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War.
Whether Saddam is a bad man and has – or may soon have – the capacity to deliver to the US or London weapons of mass destruction is beside the point. We knew that the Soviet Union had such a capability for half a century, but we did everything possible to use international forums to avoid it. Even Reagan and Nixon dealt personally with Soviet leaders during the darkest days.
If pride – or stupidity – prevents Mr Bush or Mr Blair giving "jaw jaw" rather than "war war" (Churchill's dictum) a chance, let Sir Edward be the go-between.
This is why the American adventure is doomed. Jordan and Saudi Arabia will not provide logistical support. Europe will not play any part, a view underlined by both Gerhard Schröder and Edmund Stoiber in the German election campaign. And the British public is queasy.
But the extraordinary systemic failure is of traditional international diplomacy. War now seems to be the first resort with an unwillingness to engage with Saddam. In some respects the West has failed to recognise that its treatment of Iraq during the past decade has been similar to the consequences that followed from the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War.
Whether Saddam is a bad man and has – or may soon have – the capacity to deliver to the US or London weapons of mass destruction is beside the point. We knew that the Soviet Union had such a capability for half a century, but we did everything possible to use international forums to avoid it. Even Reagan and Nixon dealt personally with Soviet leaders during the darkest days.
If pride – or stupidity – prevents Mr Bush or Mr Blair giving "jaw jaw" rather than "war war" (Churchill's dictum) a chance, let Sir Edward be the go-between.
For more information:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_...
Lolly lick a lolly lick a lolly lolly pop.
Damn these looney liberals never stop.
Bash the right
with all their might
Hopin' Dubya's approval ratings might drop.
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalala
livin' in la-la land,
ain't it grande?
Damn these looney liberals never stop.
Bash the right
with all their might
Hopin' Dubya's approval ratings might drop.
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalala
livin' in la-la land,
ain't it grande?
Yes. Dooomed. DOOMED I SAY! HEAR YE! All Americans are in league with SATAN! Chop the heads off their snakes and journalists! Crash their planes into their tallest skyscrapers! Blow their children up in cafeterias! It is the will of ALLAH! I COMMAND YE!
"That is totally inconsistent with the liberalism of this day and age."
FDR would be a leftist, and he would be dated, Eric, as he died in 1945. Read more about FDR and you'll realize he was forced into an isolationist stance. Being isolationist is not a policy of the Left in general and it is arguable that it never has been. isolationism in US terms is an ideology very imbedded in rightist rhetoric. What do Leftists say about human rights abuses abroad, war crimes, the new legislation up for an international court which can try people for war crimes, etc, etc. etc. Eric, I have no other way of saying this but you are wrong, and especially in WWII. There was a stronger leftist movement both here and Europe to fight the fascist/nazi threat than there was a rightist response, as the far is fascism they have no problem with fascist regimes.
On another note I will say that you have a good point, and I am and always have been in accordance with this sense of 'protesting' for 'protesting's' sake. I agree with you in that it does almost nothing. No solutions just a bunch of whiny people. Aside from that I will point out to you Eric, Leftist ideologies are in no way pacifistic. Look to the history of leftist governments and you can readily see that. Communism has never really proven itself to be a peaceful governmental system. One of the main problems that I see with this protesting rhetoric, is the fact that on one hand, the Berkeley people will say for example in Indonesia "Down with Shuarto!" But on the other hand if action is taken they will scream "no sanctions! No War!" I have yet to come to any sort of understanding as to how this is supposed to work. The Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia shit was a great example of this. They scream stop the genoncide, but when actions were taken to do just that, they scream stop the militarism.
Aside from that, well I will talk about the Cunt family quite frequently as I really do not like them for many reasons. To list them all would be insane. As far as Clinton's blowjob is concerned, well he never forced her to do anything. On top of that I always considered lying witholding the truth from somone who has the right to know, not witholding the truth from someone who does not. Clinton got a blowjob. That's great. Adulterous yes, but that is not agaisnt the law now is it? Asside form that I could give a shit about a president's sex life. Cunt jr's activity at Harken, or Clinton at Whitewater, well those are different stories. That's not even delving into the Shady past of Cunt Sr.
But back to the Iraq thing which is what this post is supposed to be about anyway last I checked. I would definitely consider supporting this invasion, if it wasn't for the fact that well Sadam was told people he would allow any UN inspectors to come and check out anything for these weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons plants or what have you. And the US and the UN did not accept this. Why? do we want war? If the main reason why we are going is because of these possible weapons, and our denial to see if he was building them, then why the fuck did we decide not go and see if they were there before we declare war?
FDR would be a leftist, and he would be dated, Eric, as he died in 1945. Read more about FDR and you'll realize he was forced into an isolationist stance. Being isolationist is not a policy of the Left in general and it is arguable that it never has been. isolationism in US terms is an ideology very imbedded in rightist rhetoric. What do Leftists say about human rights abuses abroad, war crimes, the new legislation up for an international court which can try people for war crimes, etc, etc. etc. Eric, I have no other way of saying this but you are wrong, and especially in WWII. There was a stronger leftist movement both here and Europe to fight the fascist/nazi threat than there was a rightist response, as the far is fascism they have no problem with fascist regimes.
On another note I will say that you have a good point, and I am and always have been in accordance with this sense of 'protesting' for 'protesting's' sake. I agree with you in that it does almost nothing. No solutions just a bunch of whiny people. Aside from that I will point out to you Eric, Leftist ideologies are in no way pacifistic. Look to the history of leftist governments and you can readily see that. Communism has never really proven itself to be a peaceful governmental system. One of the main problems that I see with this protesting rhetoric, is the fact that on one hand, the Berkeley people will say for example in Indonesia "Down with Shuarto!" But on the other hand if action is taken they will scream "no sanctions! No War!" I have yet to come to any sort of understanding as to how this is supposed to work. The Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia shit was a great example of this. They scream stop the genoncide, but when actions were taken to do just that, they scream stop the militarism.
Aside from that, well I will talk about the Cunt family quite frequently as I really do not like them for many reasons. To list them all would be insane. As far as Clinton's blowjob is concerned, well he never forced her to do anything. On top of that I always considered lying witholding the truth from somone who has the right to know, not witholding the truth from someone who does not. Clinton got a blowjob. That's great. Adulterous yes, but that is not agaisnt the law now is it? Asside form that I could give a shit about a president's sex life. Cunt jr's activity at Harken, or Clinton at Whitewater, well those are different stories. That's not even delving into the Shady past of Cunt Sr.
But back to the Iraq thing which is what this post is supposed to be about anyway last I checked. I would definitely consider supporting this invasion, if it wasn't for the fact that well Sadam was told people he would allow any UN inspectors to come and check out anything for these weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons plants or what have you. And the US and the UN did not accept this. Why? do we want war? If the main reason why we are going is because of these possible weapons, and our denial to see if he was building them, then why the fuck did we decide not go and see if they were there before we declare war?
You're obviously a reasonable person - a pawn for the left - but a reasonable pawn none-the-less. So I will try to be cordial to you and ignore my harsh instincts.
On FDR: I really couldn't care less. That was nearly 60 years ago and this is now. I wasn't alive back then, and I didn't experience any of it first hand. My Grandfather who fought in Europe throughout WWII gave me my insight on what the climate was like back in those days. I didn't read some "Historians" bias on the subject, I got first hand info. FDR was a liberal, yes. He was even a great President, I have no problems conceding that. He and Truman won the war for the world essentially, if that makes you feel any better. But the liberalism of then is nothing of the liberalism of today; two completely different things.
Let's take a look at how the ideas of the parties change but the names stay the same over time. A simple example is back in the 1860s. The southern USA has always been notoriously pro-Democrat. They were also pro-slavery. Hmmm. Today, the Democratic party is the party of the minorities, no? Yes. It was the conservative thinking abolitionists (Republican pre-cursors) that wanted to outlaw slavery. Hmmm. Makes you think, don't it?
But let's address a more relavent thing you mention. For some reason you want to associate extreme Rightism with Fascism. I believe that is incorrect. Conservatism is by definition a desire for smaller government. If you take this logically, the farther Right you get the Smaller the government should be. So at the farthest Right should be Anarchy, no government, people rule themselves and just by virtue that they are good and moral people they will do the right thing and treat each other fairly. I believe Fascism is bred from extreme leftism. Socialism and Communism are extreme left, Government is big, owns everything, and doles out to the people what they need. In theory, lovely systems. In reality, they just don't work. The human factor screws it all up. In order for government to work, there must be a hierarchy among the governors otherwise it's chaos. At the top link, you've got the main leader, with essentially unlimited power and resources at his disposal. Really, the majority of leaders below him become dispensable. He moves right into the dictator slot. There's a fine line between Fascism and Socialism or Communism (which there ain't a hill of beans difference between). Look at Cuba. Socialist or Fascist? Russian communism bankrupted the country and China is becoming more capitalist with every passing day. Fascism = Socialism = Communism.
Now you claim that Communism et. al. have proven themselves aggressive systems. And now you know why. Extreme leftism is fascism (left of Communism/Socialism that is).
The problem is that you lefties get too hung up on the "moral" dilemmas the rightists present, or in some cases force to impose, the "religious" right. These guys are just a small part of the right side of the spectrum. They just squeal the loudest, like the liberals on the left. I for example, obviously with rightist inclinations, am an atheist. That doesn't mean I abandon moral principles in my thinking. I still feel that abortion is murder. I still think using drugs are wrong and want them outlawed. I still like to see people worshipping their God. You don't want the religious fanatics running the show I know, but we don't want the atheists running the show either, I assure you of that. I suppose the point is that the parties exaggerate the negative aspects of the counterparty to exploit each other and it just becomes a ridiculous all out war. Indybay is a prime example of "dirty politics" just look at it. Anyway, the same way you think it's bad that I claim leftists don't "love"America because of their views, it's just as bad to call rightists fascist, racists, warmongers and baby killers. It'd be nice if we could find some common ground and make things work with all the attacks. It doesn't appear to me that is part of the collective's agenda. That's why I hang around here. Just think of me as a "protestor" here in your home.
On FDR: I really couldn't care less. That was nearly 60 years ago and this is now. I wasn't alive back then, and I didn't experience any of it first hand. My Grandfather who fought in Europe throughout WWII gave me my insight on what the climate was like back in those days. I didn't read some "Historians" bias on the subject, I got first hand info. FDR was a liberal, yes. He was even a great President, I have no problems conceding that. He and Truman won the war for the world essentially, if that makes you feel any better. But the liberalism of then is nothing of the liberalism of today; two completely different things.
Let's take a look at how the ideas of the parties change but the names stay the same over time. A simple example is back in the 1860s. The southern USA has always been notoriously pro-Democrat. They were also pro-slavery. Hmmm. Today, the Democratic party is the party of the minorities, no? Yes. It was the conservative thinking abolitionists (Republican pre-cursors) that wanted to outlaw slavery. Hmmm. Makes you think, don't it?
But let's address a more relavent thing you mention. For some reason you want to associate extreme Rightism with Fascism. I believe that is incorrect. Conservatism is by definition a desire for smaller government. If you take this logically, the farther Right you get the Smaller the government should be. So at the farthest Right should be Anarchy, no government, people rule themselves and just by virtue that they are good and moral people they will do the right thing and treat each other fairly. I believe Fascism is bred from extreme leftism. Socialism and Communism are extreme left, Government is big, owns everything, and doles out to the people what they need. In theory, lovely systems. In reality, they just don't work. The human factor screws it all up. In order for government to work, there must be a hierarchy among the governors otherwise it's chaos. At the top link, you've got the main leader, with essentially unlimited power and resources at his disposal. Really, the majority of leaders below him become dispensable. He moves right into the dictator slot. There's a fine line between Fascism and Socialism or Communism (which there ain't a hill of beans difference between). Look at Cuba. Socialist or Fascist? Russian communism bankrupted the country and China is becoming more capitalist with every passing day. Fascism = Socialism = Communism.
Now you claim that Communism et. al. have proven themselves aggressive systems. And now you know why. Extreme leftism is fascism (left of Communism/Socialism that is).
The problem is that you lefties get too hung up on the "moral" dilemmas the rightists present, or in some cases force to impose, the "religious" right. These guys are just a small part of the right side of the spectrum. They just squeal the loudest, like the liberals on the left. I for example, obviously with rightist inclinations, am an atheist. That doesn't mean I abandon moral principles in my thinking. I still feel that abortion is murder. I still think using drugs are wrong and want them outlawed. I still like to see people worshipping their God. You don't want the religious fanatics running the show I know, but we don't want the atheists running the show either, I assure you of that. I suppose the point is that the parties exaggerate the negative aspects of the counterparty to exploit each other and it just becomes a ridiculous all out war. Indybay is a prime example of "dirty politics" just look at it. Anyway, the same way you think it's bad that I claim leftists don't "love"America because of their views, it's just as bad to call rightists fascist, racists, warmongers and baby killers. It'd be nice if we could find some common ground and make things work with all the attacks. It doesn't appear to me that is part of the collective's agenda. That's why I hang around here. Just think of me as a "protestor" here in your home.
Richard Dawkins, an Oxford science don, suggested Mr Bush was just as much of a danger to world peace as Saddam Hussein, adding: "It would be a tragedy if Tony Blair were to be brought down through playing poodle to this unelected and deeply stupid little oil-spiv."
For more information:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffa...
"But let's address a more relavent thing you mention. For some reason you want to associate extreme Rightism with Fascism."
The extreme right is fascism, as the extreme right entails more of a heirarchical system, or an oligarchy whose first in command is a dictator or monarch. This is the definition of it. Conservatism in the American sense is not neccesarily fascism, although it can have fascist tendencies. It usually does not make it that far to the right.
Anarchism and Communism are the branches of the extreme left, the antithesis of Fascism and Monarchy. They both want to abolish these heirarchical structures, and set up a system as to which all are equal. One wants no government or close to no government and the other wants a lot of government. Communism is seriously flawed for many reasons. I do not say it is because of 'human nature' because I really do not believe much defining characteristics come from human nature aside from direct products of human anatomy, ie:hunger.
What you touch on is how all radical ideologies eventually combine. Fascism has many similarities to communism in the outcome. Both need secret police, both must crush dissent to maintain a status quo, and one can even argue that there are striking similarities between Communist leaders such as Mao and Stalin with Fascist dictators such as Franco and Mussolini.
Socialism is not an extreme ideology however, at least not completely. In fact there are socialist programs which are relatively ingrained in our society but one might not realize it. Social security, medicare, government owned utitlities and transportation systems, public schools, wellfare, etc. A more socialistic system would be something I would hope the US could aspire to, one closer to the systems in lets say Canada, France, England, Germany, etc. This is hardly a radical leftist stance, but a leftist one nonetheless. A democratic socialism if you will. i beleive you are confusing the two ideologies.
As far as the American party system goes, in some ways I want to respond with "what party system, there is only one." Again look at Europe, France has fascists run for president like Le Pen, Socialists like Mitterand, Conservatives like Chirac, etc. The same would go for many other countries, except for maybe England but they still have a far wider range to choose from than we do. The fact that Repubilicans were once the party of the people, and now they have become the party of the few is just as strange as teh democratic shift. At one time the north would always vote Republican because that was the 'progressive' party. Roosevelt the trust buster, was the first regulator of big business, he was also Republican. Compare that with the Cunt family and Reagan who were also Republicans and very pro-big business, little to no government involvement in business affairs etc. The parties have both changed that is true. This is why it is strange to have anyone be so vehement a Republican or a Democrat because they obviously do not adhere to one particular ideology. Whitman would be anther perfect example of how the parties hyave changed, he was a staunch Republican, anti-slavery, celebrate the worker kind of guy. Now read Whitman and if you have to fit him into one party you would probably have to choose the Democratic one.
The extreme right is fascism, as the extreme right entails more of a heirarchical system, or an oligarchy whose first in command is a dictator or monarch. This is the definition of it. Conservatism in the American sense is not neccesarily fascism, although it can have fascist tendencies. It usually does not make it that far to the right.
Anarchism and Communism are the branches of the extreme left, the antithesis of Fascism and Monarchy. They both want to abolish these heirarchical structures, and set up a system as to which all are equal. One wants no government or close to no government and the other wants a lot of government. Communism is seriously flawed for many reasons. I do not say it is because of 'human nature' because I really do not believe much defining characteristics come from human nature aside from direct products of human anatomy, ie:hunger.
What you touch on is how all radical ideologies eventually combine. Fascism has many similarities to communism in the outcome. Both need secret police, both must crush dissent to maintain a status quo, and one can even argue that there are striking similarities between Communist leaders such as Mao and Stalin with Fascist dictators such as Franco and Mussolini.
Socialism is not an extreme ideology however, at least not completely. In fact there are socialist programs which are relatively ingrained in our society but one might not realize it. Social security, medicare, government owned utitlities and transportation systems, public schools, wellfare, etc. A more socialistic system would be something I would hope the US could aspire to, one closer to the systems in lets say Canada, France, England, Germany, etc. This is hardly a radical leftist stance, but a leftist one nonetheless. A democratic socialism if you will. i beleive you are confusing the two ideologies.
As far as the American party system goes, in some ways I want to respond with "what party system, there is only one." Again look at Europe, France has fascists run for president like Le Pen, Socialists like Mitterand, Conservatives like Chirac, etc. The same would go for many other countries, except for maybe England but they still have a far wider range to choose from than we do. The fact that Repubilicans were once the party of the people, and now they have become the party of the few is just as strange as teh democratic shift. At one time the north would always vote Republican because that was the 'progressive' party. Roosevelt the trust buster, was the first regulator of big business, he was also Republican. Compare that with the Cunt family and Reagan who were also Republicans and very pro-big business, little to no government involvement in business affairs etc. The parties have both changed that is true. This is why it is strange to have anyone be so vehement a Republican or a Democrat because they obviously do not adhere to one particular ideology. Whitman would be anther perfect example of how the parties hyave changed, he was a staunch Republican, anti-slavery, celebrate the worker kind of guy. Now read Whitman and if you have to fit him into one party you would probably have to choose the Democratic one.
is because conservatism makes sense and liberalism is empty and pointless idealism. You are so caught up in the "historical" evolution of the "names" and "historical" ideologies of the parties, that you fail to see the logic in the two distinct philosophies or schools of thought. They are definately discreet and can be easily discerned by anyone willing to compromise what he "thinks" he knows. It's not about history, it's about mindset. Conservatism is by definition, being conservative with government. Liberalism means being "generous" with it (big government). Fascism is leftism, plain and simple. Believe whatever you like.
I thought I'd be nice to you, but you take advantage and continue to play politics and persist (as liberals often do) on obfuscating the facts. You are a liberal. You mindset doesn't deviate from those of liberals. You will always be a liberal. Call yourself whatever you like, but if you can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans that's not my problem. This isn't Political Science 101.
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/polsp.html
I thought I'd be nice to you, but you take advantage and continue to play politics and persist (as liberals often do) on obfuscating the facts. You are a liberal. You mindset doesn't deviate from those of liberals. You will always be a liberal. Call yourself whatever you like, but if you can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans that's not my problem. This isn't Political Science 101.
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/polsp.html
CAPTIVE STATE
The Corporate takeover Of Britain
Author:
A few years ago, George Monbiot was persona non grata in seven
countries and had a life sentence in absentia in Indonesia. During
seven years of investigative journeys in Indonesia, Brazil and East
Africa he was shot at, beaten up by military police, shipwrecked and
stung into a poisoned coma by hornets. He came back to work in
Britain after being pronounced clinically dead in Lodwar General
Hospital in north-western Kenya, having contracted cerebral malaria.
In Britain, he joined the roads protest movement. He was hospitalised
by security guards, who drove a metal spike through his foot,
smashing the middle bone. He founded The Land is Ours, which has
occupied land all over the country, including 13 acres of prime real
estate in Wandsworth belonging to Guinness and destined for a giant
superstore. The protesters beat Guinness in court, built an
eco-village and held onto the land for six months.
He became a visiting fellow of Green College, Oxford, then visiting
professor in philiosophy at the University of Bristol. He is now
honorary professor in politics at Keele and visiting professor in
environmental science at the University of East London. He is a
columnist for the Guardian.
In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500
Award for outstanding environmental achievement. He has also won a
Lloyds National Screenwriting Prize for his screenplay The Norwegian,
a Sony Award for radio production, the Sir Peter Kent Award and the
OneWorld National Press Award. He has been named by the Evening
Standard as one of the 25 most influential people in Britain, and by
the Independent on Sunday as one of the 40 international prophets of
the 21st Century. His other books include Poisoned Arrows,
Amazon Watershed and No Man's Land. George Monbiot was born in 1963.
http://www.panmacmillan.com/Features/CaptiveStatePaperback/author.htm
and...
Interview (excerpt):
Q: How frightening a prospect is the corporate takeover of Britain?
A: I feel that corporate influence has become Britain's most pressing
threat to democracy. I have shown how, time and again, the Government
has made decisions which help big business, while damaging small and
medium sized companies and compromising the quality of life of
everyone in Britain, bar a few well-placed executives. Britain is
coming, once again, to be run for the few, not the many.
http://www.panmacmillan.com/Features/CaptiveStatePaperback/interview.htm
The Corporate takeover Of Britain
Author:
A few years ago, George Monbiot was persona non grata in seven
countries and had a life sentence in absentia in Indonesia. During
seven years of investigative journeys in Indonesia, Brazil and East
Africa he was shot at, beaten up by military police, shipwrecked and
stung into a poisoned coma by hornets. He came back to work in
Britain after being pronounced clinically dead in Lodwar General
Hospital in north-western Kenya, having contracted cerebral malaria.
In Britain, he joined the roads protest movement. He was hospitalised
by security guards, who drove a metal spike through his foot,
smashing the middle bone. He founded The Land is Ours, which has
occupied land all over the country, including 13 acres of prime real
estate in Wandsworth belonging to Guinness and destined for a giant
superstore. The protesters beat Guinness in court, built an
eco-village and held onto the land for six months.
He became a visiting fellow of Green College, Oxford, then visiting
professor in philiosophy at the University of Bristol. He is now
honorary professor in politics at Keele and visiting professor in
environmental science at the University of East London. He is a
columnist for the Guardian.
In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500
Award for outstanding environmental achievement. He has also won a
Lloyds National Screenwriting Prize for his screenplay The Norwegian,
a Sony Award for radio production, the Sir Peter Kent Award and the
OneWorld National Press Award. He has been named by the Evening
Standard as one of the 25 most influential people in Britain, and by
the Independent on Sunday as one of the 40 international prophets of
the 21st Century. His other books include Poisoned Arrows,
Amazon Watershed and No Man's Land. George Monbiot was born in 1963.
http://www.panmacmillan.com/Features/CaptiveStatePaperback/author.htm
and...
Interview (excerpt):
Q: How frightening a prospect is the corporate takeover of Britain?
A: I feel that corporate influence has become Britain's most pressing
threat to democracy. I have shown how, time and again, the Government
has made decisions which help big business, while damaging small and
medium sized companies and compromising the quality of life of
everyone in Britain, bar a few well-placed executives. Britain is
coming, once again, to be run for the few, not the many.
http://www.panmacmillan.com/Features/CaptiveStatePaperback/interview.htm
A true conservative wouldn't stick up for this administration.
They would be offended by the roll-back of civil liberties.
They would condemn the arrogant secrecy in policy making (as the conservative Judicial Watch is doing in regards to the Energy Task Force.)
The massive expansion of executive power.
The creation of an entire new Office (of Homeland Security) employing tens of thousands of people.
The connections to fraudulent business practices that are wrecking our economy.
The deficit.
A true conservative would understand the roll of and condemn the massive and unaccountable National Security apparatus.
A true conservative would be offended by the ridiculous, moronic rhetoric that the frat boy G.W. uses in promoting the "war on terra" (evil evildoers doing evil.)
In fact, a true conservative would be offended to have a president that was a rich frat boy that has had everything in his life handed to him on a silver platter.
And on and on and on.
Sounds more like you're just a partisan flack for the RNC.
And before you ironically accuse me of being partisan, fuck Clinton and the DNC. I guess you can resort to the "Look at the crazy liberals" response, instead of actually responding.
And no, I don't feel like providing you with a bunch of hyperlinks supporting my allegations. Use Google and do it yourself. It's not that hard.
They would be offended by the roll-back of civil liberties.
They would condemn the arrogant secrecy in policy making (as the conservative Judicial Watch is doing in regards to the Energy Task Force.)
The massive expansion of executive power.
The creation of an entire new Office (of Homeland Security) employing tens of thousands of people.
The connections to fraudulent business practices that are wrecking our economy.
The deficit.
A true conservative would understand the roll of and condemn the massive and unaccountable National Security apparatus.
A true conservative would be offended by the ridiculous, moronic rhetoric that the frat boy G.W. uses in promoting the "war on terra" (evil evildoers doing evil.)
In fact, a true conservative would be offended to have a president that was a rich frat boy that has had everything in his life handed to him on a silver platter.
And on and on and on.
Sounds more like you're just a partisan flack for the RNC.
And before you ironically accuse me of being partisan, fuck Clinton and the DNC. I guess you can resort to the "Look at the crazy liberals" response, instead of actually responding.
And no, I don't feel like providing you with a bunch of hyperlinks supporting my allegations. Use Google and do it yourself. It's not that hard.
"And no, I don't feel like providing you with a bunch of hyperlinks supporting my allegations. Use Google and do it yourself."
As I said before, I don't believe everything I read on the Internet like you do. Do your Google searches all day long YOU FAT FUCKING LIBERAL PIECE OF EXCREMENT and make sure to include a lot of keywords such as:
conspiracy
hate
Bush
anti
America
protest
etc.
etc.
ad
nauseum
I
am
a
jobless
wanking
liberal
that
has
nothing
better
to
do
than
to
peddle
left
wing
propaganda
on
indybay
all
freaking
day
long
because
I
think
I
know
the
meaning
of
life
and
hate
conservatives
even
though
they
are
more
of
an
intellectual
than
I
will
ever
be
and
come
november
5th
much
to
my
dismay
they
will
rule
the
world
and
there
is
little
I
can
do
about
it
except
pout
and
claim
the
elections
were
fixed
because
it
is
all
a
big
freaking
conspiracy
against
me
nobody
likes
me
everybody
hates
me
I
think
I'll
go
eat
worms.
As I said before, I don't believe everything I read on the Internet like you do. Do your Google searches all day long YOU FAT FUCKING LIBERAL PIECE OF EXCREMENT and make sure to include a lot of keywords such as:
conspiracy
hate
Bush
anti
America
protest
etc.
etc.
ad
nauseum
I
am
a
jobless
wanking
liberal
that
has
nothing
better
to
do
than
to
peddle
left
wing
propaganda
on
indybay
all
freaking
day
long
because
I
think
I
know
the
meaning
of
life
and
hate
conservatives
even
though
they
are
more
of
an
intellectual
than
I
will
ever
be
and
come
november
5th
much
to
my
dismay
they
will
rule
the
world
and
there
is
little
I
can
do
about
it
except
pout
and
claim
the
elections
were
fixed
because
it
is
all
a
big
freaking
conspiracy
against
me
nobody
likes
me
everybody
hates
me
I
think
I'll
go
eat
worms.
Thought there was some dialogue taking place. Looks like someone snapped! Ouch! Sad, sad person named Eric. You need a hug.
Thought there was some dialogue taking place. Looks like someone snapped! Ouch! Sad, sad person named Eric. You need a hug.
Eric, Eric Eric...What can possibly say to someone who does not know how to use the dictionary. Fascism is rightist doctorine. Anarchism is a leftist one. If you want to embarass yourself further by stating otherwise go right ahead, but you my dear friend are only making yourself sound stupid. It is precisely for this reason that the whole conservativism vs liberalism spiel never read made sense anyway in terms of political discussion, it created a new sort of paradigm in order for sacks of lard like Rush Limbaugh to give a name to everything they don't like. Even according to your definitions it still does not make sense. you say conservativism = being conservative with government right? however, at the same time you turn around and say liberals are too isolationistic and do not want the government to exert its force on the sovereignty of other states while conservatives do. Liberals are 'conservative' with the military in general in that they traditionally spend less on military research campaigns etc. While conservatives are rather liberal with the military. See Eric it's a giant fucking tongue twister, void of meaning with no place in political discourse. Except the B-rate people I guess like that fat pig Rush Limbaugh.
forget "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative", "democrat" or republican"
who/what is fighting the people for the benefit of power...
and who/what is fighting power for the benefit of the people.
fuck the categoties and the labels and the sub-divisions and the in trays and the out trays that get thrown about so easily on this website, or any time you talk with anyone about politics or sexaulity or capitalism or...
because conversations just start to talk about who fits in what category according to whom... as if calling somebody something is an argument in itself. "talk loud, say nothing". which is just stupid and pointless. it doesn't lead anywhere or go anywhere. then people get all angry or frustrated and start throwing about more categories and then it just escalates...
it must be the modern, numerical, black, white, 1, 0, on, off, scientific, western mindset, that must divide everything up into parts, fits the parts in packages, gives the package a label, and puts the package on a shelf in people's brains... not very much fun. not very exciting. not going anywhere. like we're being secretaries of our own lives...
who/what is fighting the people for the benefit of power...
and who/what is fighting power for the benefit of the people.
fuck the categoties and the labels and the sub-divisions and the in trays and the out trays that get thrown about so easily on this website, or any time you talk with anyone about politics or sexaulity or capitalism or...
because conversations just start to talk about who fits in what category according to whom... as if calling somebody something is an argument in itself. "talk loud, say nothing". which is just stupid and pointless. it doesn't lead anywhere or go anywhere. then people get all angry or frustrated and start throwing about more categories and then it just escalates...
it must be the modern, numerical, black, white, 1, 0, on, off, scientific, western mindset, that must divide everything up into parts, fits the parts in packages, gives the package a label, and puts the package on a shelf in people's brains... not very much fun. not very exciting. not going anywhere. like we're being secretaries of our own lives...
Thats funny as hell Eric.
I'm by no means a conservative and judging by the liberals on this board, I'm not liberal either. I'm athiest and I dont own a suit. I freaking hate rush limberger cheese and I would never vote for a republican. Despite the gaping differences in the autonomous characters you and I are, we both love this amazing wonderful country the same.
I guess its like a microscopic version of the civil war in a way. Where brothers fought against each other though they loved their mother equally. When the civil war was over they would resume life together as family. I can trace my blood to virtually hundreds of men who have fought for this country for the last three hundred plus years. I'm sure you can too.
The sickness you feel at these verbose idiots rings true for me as well.
United we stand. Divided we stand. Rock forward half brother.
I'm by no means a conservative and judging by the liberals on this board, I'm not liberal either. I'm athiest and I dont own a suit. I freaking hate rush limberger cheese and I would never vote for a republican. Despite the gaping differences in the autonomous characters you and I are, we both love this amazing wonderful country the same.
I guess its like a microscopic version of the civil war in a way. Where brothers fought against each other though they loved their mother equally. When the civil war was over they would resume life together as family. I can trace my blood to virtually hundreds of men who have fought for this country for the last three hundred plus years. I'm sure you can too.
The sickness you feel at these verbose idiots rings true for me as well.
United we stand. Divided we stand. Rock forward half brother.
Funny how Rush Limbaugh's name suddenly popped up. He must really dig underneath the skin of some here. He's one guy with an opinion and a large listening audience who finds what he says to be entertaining and informative. No reason to make an issue of it.
You just can't reason with fanatical liberal minded people. It's sort of a mental illness I suppose. They yap and yap about tolerance and diversity and when someone doesn't agree with them it's: attack, attack, attack, invective, expletive, attack, psyop, propaganda attack. If they ask them to substantiate their allegations it's: "you stupid, racist, homophobic, fascist, warmonger, rush limberger lovin'" attack, attack, expletive, invective, psyop, propaganda, attack, attack.
For some reason these guys seem to think I'm talking about politics here. On the contrary, I'm talking about thought, mentalities, ideologies and reasoning ability. When I call them liberals, it's because I see fanatical liberal reasoning (if you want to call it "reasoning") in their patterns of thought. It's a fantastic mental depravity that infatuates me. I feel like a doctor must when he discovers a new virus strain. Let's cite our most recent example put forth by one of our local liberals. He claims that because I can't use a dictionary to define certain political terms of which he is supplying historical (and not reasonable or logical) backgrounds to descibe, that fascism is characterist of right wing philosophy and anarchism is left wing philosophy and blah de blah blah blah blah, followed by typical leftist name calling "you're stupid" etc. etc. ad nauseum. Ok, so let's humor this liberal and look at the dictionary:
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
I don't see anything in there about conservatism, small government, restrictions on government, Republicanism, rightwing philosophy or anything of that nature. Do you? If you do, I would argue that you simply have your leftwing fantastically disturbed blinders on and need to take them off because they are clouding your abilities to reason.
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Now I really like this definition; I think it says it all. It epitomizes my person philosophies. Nothing in there connected to fascism, racism, homophobia, radical religious beliefs or a desire to wage war, is there? Hmmm, bet you still haven't taken off those blinders yet, have you T?
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
- lib·er·al·ist /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
- lib·er·al·is·tic /"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective
This one is a little tougher to nail down from it's definition. But we are looking at "c" above. Again it reads:
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Nothing wrong with that either. I like it. I wish that were all it stands for. But fanatics have corrupted that definition. Under the guise of "the essential goodness of the human race" they are compelled to bust into Political leader's conventions and chant "Cheney is a corporate crook!" Now does that make any sense? Why not just say "a crook", why does it have to be a "corporate" crook"? The anti-corporate globalists are so consumed with anger and hatred that their vision is skewed. All they want is to get attention for their little, insignificant causes by pitching tantrums and at the expense of the rights and freedoms of others.
Now, I could stop there, but they don't, so why should I? We could talk about the environmentalist climbing trees to make statements, but they neglect their own safety and fall to their deaths. It's just natural selection, and there's no reason to beat up on a dumb animal so I'll leave it at that. But how about the gays? Lesbians kissing and chanting at basketball games and when asked why they do it, they don't have a clue. I'll tell you why, they want attention and they want it in spite of whether or not we want to give it to them. It's like a spoiled child that has to have its way, even though mommy says "no". And they do it even though it obviously impinges on the freedoms of the rest of us who don't care, and really don't want to see it, and certainly don't want to explain to our 7 year old daughters why two women are kissing sexually in front of the masses and all the sick and perverted, twisted sick things they do behind closed doors. Don't get me wrong, I like lesbians ;) really I do. I just prefer them on my adult porno collection doing their thing, not at basketball games or on Nickelodian in front of my children.
We could go on and on. The bottom line is that Western liberalism is a mental illness that has reached epic proportions. It's like the aids virus and we desparately need and innoculation.
Now:
Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles
Main Entry: an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1678
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
- anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic /"a-n&r-'kis-tik, -(")när-/ adjective
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM
Is just insanity, pure and simple. It's craziness. To desire it is the height of mental depravity. It's illogical.
Now I claim that it is a shift to the right side of the spectrum. I stand by that. It's off scale right as a matter of fact. Off scale means that it is unattainable. Can not be achieved. Anarchy is a synonym for chaos. Bottom line.
But these "liberal free thinkers" have twisted it to mean Utopianism, which is something completely different from anarchism. They obfuscate what anarchy really means in order to subvert a system that for some strange reason their mental depravity will not allow them to embrace, even if it were the best system in the world. And it doesn't matter what system you are talking about, "anarchists" exist amid them all. These are just people that are hell bent on destroying "order" both social and politcal, in the world. But they want you to believe anarchy is:
One entry found for utopianism.
Main Entry: uto·pi·an·ism
Pronunciation: -pE-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: circa 1661
1 : a utopian idea or theory
2 often capitalized : the body of ideas, views, or aims of a utopian
Main Entry: 1uto·pi·an
Pronunciation: -pE-&n
Function: adjective
Usage: often capitalized
Date: 1551
1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2 : proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3 : impossibly ideal : VISIONARY <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes -- C. S. Kilby>
4 : believing in, advocating, or having the characteristics of utopian socialism <utopian doctrines> <utopian novels>
Main Entry: 2utopian
Function: noun
Date: circa 1873
1 : one that believes in the perfectibility of human society
2 : one that proposes or advocates utopian schemes
Anarchists are nasty, nasty, evil, sneaky, conniving people trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It's like Satan's greatest trick, geeting you to believe he doesn't exist. Disguising hell, painting the flames with gold spray paint and the gates a pearly white (painting right over the sign that say "abandon hope all ye who enter here") and wrapping it all up in a nice little package and labeling it "Heaven".
Welcome to Heaven folks. We're temporarily out of ice water and the snowball melted yesterday. The air conditioner is on the fritz but the gargoyles...errr...I mean angels will do whatever they can to make your stay pleasant (snicker, chuckle). Hope you enjoy eternity.
For some reason these guys seem to think I'm talking about politics here. On the contrary, I'm talking about thought, mentalities, ideologies and reasoning ability. When I call them liberals, it's because I see fanatical liberal reasoning (if you want to call it "reasoning") in their patterns of thought. It's a fantastic mental depravity that infatuates me. I feel like a doctor must when he discovers a new virus strain. Let's cite our most recent example put forth by one of our local liberals. He claims that because I can't use a dictionary to define certain political terms of which he is supplying historical (and not reasonable or logical) backgrounds to descibe, that fascism is characterist of right wing philosophy and anarchism is left wing philosophy and blah de blah blah blah blah, followed by typical leftist name calling "you're stupid" etc. etc. ad nauseum. Ok, so let's humor this liberal and look at the dictionary:
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
I don't see anything in there about conservatism, small government, restrictions on government, Republicanism, rightwing philosophy or anything of that nature. Do you? If you do, I would argue that you simply have your leftwing fantastically disturbed blinders on and need to take them off because they are clouding your abilities to reason.
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Now I really like this definition; I think it says it all. It epitomizes my person philosophies. Nothing in there connected to fascism, racism, homophobia, radical religious beliefs or a desire to wage war, is there? Hmmm, bet you still haven't taken off those blinders yet, have you T?
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
- lib·er·al·ist /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
- lib·er·al·is·tic /"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective
This one is a little tougher to nail down from it's definition. But we are looking at "c" above. Again it reads:
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Nothing wrong with that either. I like it. I wish that were all it stands for. But fanatics have corrupted that definition. Under the guise of "the essential goodness of the human race" they are compelled to bust into Political leader's conventions and chant "Cheney is a corporate crook!" Now does that make any sense? Why not just say "a crook", why does it have to be a "corporate" crook"? The anti-corporate globalists are so consumed with anger and hatred that their vision is skewed. All they want is to get attention for their little, insignificant causes by pitching tantrums and at the expense of the rights and freedoms of others.
Now, I could stop there, but they don't, so why should I? We could talk about the environmentalist climbing trees to make statements, but they neglect their own safety and fall to their deaths. It's just natural selection, and there's no reason to beat up on a dumb animal so I'll leave it at that. But how about the gays? Lesbians kissing and chanting at basketball games and when asked why they do it, they don't have a clue. I'll tell you why, they want attention and they want it in spite of whether or not we want to give it to them. It's like a spoiled child that has to have its way, even though mommy says "no". And they do it even though it obviously impinges on the freedoms of the rest of us who don't care, and really don't want to see it, and certainly don't want to explain to our 7 year old daughters why two women are kissing sexually in front of the masses and all the sick and perverted, twisted sick things they do behind closed doors. Don't get me wrong, I like lesbians ;) really I do. I just prefer them on my adult porno collection doing their thing, not at basketball games or on Nickelodian in front of my children.
We could go on and on. The bottom line is that Western liberalism is a mental illness that has reached epic proportions. It's like the aids virus and we desparately need and innoculation.
Now:
Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles
Main Entry: an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1678
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
- anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic /"a-n&r-'kis-tik, -(")när-/ adjective
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM
Is just insanity, pure and simple. It's craziness. To desire it is the height of mental depravity. It's illogical.
Now I claim that it is a shift to the right side of the spectrum. I stand by that. It's off scale right as a matter of fact. Off scale means that it is unattainable. Can not be achieved. Anarchy is a synonym for chaos. Bottom line.
But these "liberal free thinkers" have twisted it to mean Utopianism, which is something completely different from anarchism. They obfuscate what anarchy really means in order to subvert a system that for some strange reason their mental depravity will not allow them to embrace, even if it were the best system in the world. And it doesn't matter what system you are talking about, "anarchists" exist amid them all. These are just people that are hell bent on destroying "order" both social and politcal, in the world. But they want you to believe anarchy is:
One entry found for utopianism.
Main Entry: uto·pi·an·ism
Pronunciation: -pE-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: circa 1661
1 : a utopian idea or theory
2 often capitalized : the body of ideas, views, or aims of a utopian
Main Entry: 1uto·pi·an
Pronunciation: -pE-&n
Function: adjective
Usage: often capitalized
Date: 1551
1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2 : proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3 : impossibly ideal : VISIONARY <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes -- C. S. Kilby>
4 : believing in, advocating, or having the characteristics of utopian socialism <utopian doctrines> <utopian novels>
Main Entry: 2utopian
Function: noun
Date: circa 1873
1 : one that believes in the perfectibility of human society
2 : one that proposes or advocates utopian schemes
Anarchists are nasty, nasty, evil, sneaky, conniving people trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It's like Satan's greatest trick, geeting you to believe he doesn't exist. Disguising hell, painting the flames with gold spray paint and the gates a pearly white (painting right over the sign that say "abandon hope all ye who enter here") and wrapping it all up in a nice little package and labeling it "Heaven".
Welcome to Heaven folks. We're temporarily out of ice water and the snowball melted yesterday. The air conditioner is on the fritz but the gargoyles...errr...I mean angels will do whatever they can to make your stay pleasant (snicker, chuckle). Hope you enjoy eternity.
I read one of your posts about the Danny Thomas being deceased. My condolences. He was one of the first people I recognized when I stumbled onto this forum some 6 or 8 months ago that stood up to this band of crazies that run the place. Danny and I shot a few emails back and forth and I could tell he was a real, stand up kind of patriot. I have the utmost respect for him. Even though I never knew the man personally, I can guarantee that I’ll never forget him. I have a few of his posts that he made here on indybay on my bulletin board. Among those is one he entitled “Verbull” and another where he gave the greatest insult to an anarchist piece of shit I’ve ever read. The anarchist told Danny to post his address and Danny called him a “Hollywood, false front, back lot, B-movie, video game, thunderous bar chord signifying nothing anarchist piece of shit”.
I still love that one.
I still love that one.
is that it flies in the face of human nature.
Liberalism is against itself. The few cannot support the many. Remove incentives that encourage rugged individualism, and the worker will only fulfil what he must. I point to the economies of the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, and the repression that is China and North Korea..
If any feel compeled to quote the "USSR was state capatilism", you can refrain. The USSR was socialist/communist. The anarchism/marxism/liberalism/fascism surrounded by socialism/autonomy/statism/capatilism model is your own propaghanda and I've pointed that out before. The sky is blue in my world. This propaghanda says the sky is orange.
Liberalism is against itself. The few cannot support the many. Remove incentives that encourage rugged individualism, and the worker will only fulfil what he must. I point to the economies of the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, and the repression that is China and North Korea..
If any feel compeled to quote the "USSR was state capatilism", you can refrain. The USSR was socialist/communist. The anarchism/marxism/liberalism/fascism surrounded by socialism/autonomy/statism/capatilism model is your own propaghanda and I've pointed that out before. The sky is blue in my world. This propaghanda says the sky is orange.
Danny was quite a guy. I learned more from him than any other person Ive ever known. Not from his words though, but from his actions. He was also pretty mysterious. In the 20+ years I knew him he went through lots of personal transformations. For years extremely into literature. Then for years extremely into art, then extremely into music. He was always the most caring passive loving gentle guy. Unless someone messed with one of his family or friends or workers. Then he was fierce and sleepless. He took that anger to the high ridge over his ranch and could spend days there. We sometimes wouldnt see him for weeks. The stuff you mentioned that he wrote and you enjoyed sounds just like him. He had a way of speaking that could cut to the quick and make you laugh, even if you were the quick he cut to. His creative language stuck to all of us. He is quoted and mimicked still constantly. He left a lot of himself here. We all miss him so much. Youre quite the hilarious guy to E. Keep it up.
does not exist of and by itself.
Now I've never been to it, so I don't have first hand knowledge. But if you are selling books in exchange for American greenbacks, you are no more an "anarchist" business than say, Walden Books, Books-A-Million, Amazon.com, or Barnes & Noble.
Do you write the books yourself? Do you cut down the trees to make the paper they are printed on yourself? Do you make the ink? Do you procure all of these materials through barter? Do you simply give away your finished products to anyone who comes by asking? Or do you do all of the above via "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum"?
Anarchists shmanarchist. Who are you kidding?
Now I've never been to it, so I don't have first hand knowledge. But if you are selling books in exchange for American greenbacks, you are no more an "anarchist" business than say, Walden Books, Books-A-Million, Amazon.com, or Barnes & Noble.
Do you write the books yourself? Do you cut down the trees to make the paper they are printed on yourself? Do you make the ink? Do you procure all of these materials through barter? Do you simply give away your finished products to anyone who comes by asking? Or do you do all of the above via "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum"?
Anarchists shmanarchist. Who are you kidding?
Doesn't have a boss. Does that make them an anarchist?
I mentioned this earlier. Thought I'd put it up again since it struck such a chord with me the first time. Danny Thomas will be missed...
verbull
by danny thomas • Thursday April 18, 2002 at 01:43 PM
verbosity crapity falsity
you could spend greatly less time proving yourself wrong, than you waste trying to prove you are right.
to see all the sickness put here by social defectives.
to know of so many lackies who want so much to belong to something.
to see the writings of the broken arrows whose pride and passions crawl down old dead ends. the sickness of there defeat leads them to control this site.
nessie alone so proud of busting bank windows, destroying property, with innocent citizens behind the glass.
imc leads the lost into darkness, to dead ends visited down through the ages by malcontent misfits.
taking advantage of innocents derailed by simple moments of delusionment.
YOUTH , LISTEN : the fire in your heart will be lost to these angry old men fighting old battles with your steam.
America is a living growing changing organism. Changing its characteristics can be done through the front door if your ideas arent bullshit.
What is bullshit ? That which 51.5 % of voting Americans think is bullshit.
Vote. Organize every last downtroidden victim you fight for to VOTE.
America, love it or hate it. Hurt it ? , Bring it !!
verbull
by danny thomas • Thursday April 18, 2002 at 01:43 PM
verbosity crapity falsity
you could spend greatly less time proving yourself wrong, than you waste trying to prove you are right.
to see all the sickness put here by social defectives.
to know of so many lackies who want so much to belong to something.
to see the writings of the broken arrows whose pride and passions crawl down old dead ends. the sickness of there defeat leads them to control this site.
nessie alone so proud of busting bank windows, destroying property, with innocent citizens behind the glass.
imc leads the lost into darkness, to dead ends visited down through the ages by malcontent misfits.
taking advantage of innocents derailed by simple moments of delusionment.
YOUTH , LISTEN : the fire in your heart will be lost to these angry old men fighting old battles with your steam.
America is a living growing changing organism. Changing its characteristics can be done through the front door if your ideas arent bullshit.
What is bullshit ? That which 51.5 % of voting Americans think is bullshit.
Vote. Organize every last downtroidden victim you fight for to VOTE.
America, love it or hate it. Hurt it ? , Bring it !!
it still amazes me how you resort to name calling all the time, while accusing me of such. Eric, Eric, when will you learn? Aside from your reluctance to respond to my post on 'liberalism' and 'conservativism' which of course I could go further into detail, you pinned up definitions and used some sorry attempt at logic to prove that fascism is a leftist doctorine oh and anarchism is a rightist one. Well nessie were you aware of your status on the far right? and as far as that fascist being a leftist or a liberal ideology as you call it here is a defintion from dictionary.com
fascism
n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
That is a relatively straightforward defintion that you I hope shall understand. But then again you never know.
In terms of your rather strange way of defining conservativism, well this is what I found again the same source:
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Do you see anything about small vs. large government in there Eric? Maybe you need to work on your reading skills buddy.
Now for your other definition:
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
The main idea here, in the debate of liberalism vs. conservativism, is that of one wants to conserve the other to reform, not, not assurdly anything about government being big or small.
Fascism as something being the direct oppostion of a liberal philosophy comes in that second part of the definition, Eric, that part about the protection of civil liberties. Fascism does not really do that.
Now eric was that so hard for you to understand?
fascism
n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
That is a relatively straightforward defintion that you I hope shall understand. But then again you never know.
In terms of your rather strange way of defining conservativism, well this is what I found again the same source:
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Do you see anything about small vs. large government in there Eric? Maybe you need to work on your reading skills buddy.
Now for your other definition:
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
The main idea here, in the debate of liberalism vs. conservativism, is that of one wants to conserve the other to reform, not, not assurdly anything about government being big or small.
Fascism as something being the direct oppostion of a liberal philosophy comes in that second part of the definition, Eric, that part about the protection of civil liberties. Fascism does not really do that.
Now eric was that so hard for you to understand?
Well, well, well. T back for more I see. I certainly do pity the fool. It seems Meriam-Webster’s Textbook definitions weren’t good enough for him; He had to resort to some second rate dictionary website to find a definition for fascism that suited his needs. How pathetic. Very resourceful, but pathetic nonetheless.
What you posted is not a definition. It’s someone’s opinion. It just happens to be one you agree with, so if it said something along the lines of:
http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp
which clearly depicts historically how liberalism can be a precursor to fascism, you of course would not agree with that.
> The main idea here, in the debate of liberalism vs. conservativism, is that of one wants to conserve the other to reform, not, not assurdly anything about government being big or small.
Oh let’s see, he defines conservatism as a desire to conserve government. Even though that is much like defining a car as “an automobile” it is still true. Exactly the in keeping with the spirit of my arguments.
Conservatives want the government to stay as it is; they are restrictive on government expansion, hence a desire to keep it small and simple. A small and simple government with extensive individual freedoms governed by the individual's respect for the rights of others.
Similar to what the anarchists preach, isn't it. They want no government at all because they feel that people should have maximum freedom and infinite respect for others. So let's recap:
CONSERVATISM = RESISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT EXPANSION = KEEP GOVERNMENT SIMPLE = FEWER RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON INDIVIDUAL = RELIANCE ON INDIVIDUAL'S RESPECT FOR OTHERS TO MAINTAIN ORDER
ANARCHISM = NO GOVERNMENT = ULTIMATE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM = NEED OF EXTENSIVE INDIVIDUAL RESPECT FOR OTHERS TO PREVENT CHAOS = NOT PLAUSIBLE
Does that clear things up for you?
However, liberalism has little to do with “reform”. It has to do with “progress”.
PROGRESS = PROGRESSION OF GOVERNMENT = EXPANSION
I see nothing about “reform” in ANY definition of liberalism.
Do you?
What you posted is not a definition. It’s someone’s opinion. It just happens to be one you agree with, so if it said something along the lines of:
http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp
which clearly depicts historically how liberalism can be a precursor to fascism, you of course would not agree with that.
> The main idea here, in the debate of liberalism vs. conservativism, is that of one wants to conserve the other to reform, not, not assurdly anything about government being big or small.
Oh let’s see, he defines conservatism as a desire to conserve government. Even though that is much like defining a car as “an automobile” it is still true. Exactly the in keeping with the spirit of my arguments.
Conservatives want the government to stay as it is; they are restrictive on government expansion, hence a desire to keep it small and simple. A small and simple government with extensive individual freedoms governed by the individual's respect for the rights of others.
Similar to what the anarchists preach, isn't it. They want no government at all because they feel that people should have maximum freedom and infinite respect for others. So let's recap:
CONSERVATISM = RESISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT EXPANSION = KEEP GOVERNMENT SIMPLE = FEWER RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON INDIVIDUAL = RELIANCE ON INDIVIDUAL'S RESPECT FOR OTHERS TO MAINTAIN ORDER
ANARCHISM = NO GOVERNMENT = ULTIMATE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM = NEED OF EXTENSIVE INDIVIDUAL RESPECT FOR OTHERS TO PREVENT CHAOS = NOT PLAUSIBLE
Does that clear things up for you?
However, liberalism has little to do with “reform”. It has to do with “progress”.
PROGRESS = PROGRESSION OF GOVERNMENT = EXPANSION
I see nothing about “reform” in ANY definition of liberalism.
Do you?
progress, usually defined by most of the english speaking public as moving forward; reform is form of moving forward. Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me, but it is quite funny, I must admit you're are one of the only people here I find truly funny. Keep it up E.
Conservativism, I used your definition of it, although I am noticing you are more than a little bit slow, is the ideology centered around conserving the present form of governemnt rather than atempting reforms. Not once, at all, ever will you read big vs. small in there. You have tried time and time again yet you have failed time and time again.
Fascism is the far right, anarchism and communism are different branches of the far left. It is amazing that somewhere in your pitiful life you have failed to see this. In a fascist regime, reform is not possible, because my mentally challenged buddy, part of the very definition of fascism is to crush any and all oppostion. Reform, progress, liberalism is not at all in any way possible in a fascist regime. It is the polar opposite. It is like say black is really white. This is the way that is read, it has been interpreted this way for years and years and years. I could go into the eytomolgy of the way right and left were first thought out but as you have already pointed out some information is just beyond your pathetic level of comprehension.
PS you dumb shit I did use all of your definitions except one, just because I know that yes you are a dumb shit and need to have things spelt out right infront of you.
Now come on Eric make me laugh again I am really getting a kick out of your pathetic ways of saying that fascism is liberal ideology. Did you ever think of a career in comedy? You really should, you'd do well for some great slapstick.
Conservativism, I used your definition of it, although I am noticing you are more than a little bit slow, is the ideology centered around conserving the present form of governemnt rather than atempting reforms. Not once, at all, ever will you read big vs. small in there. You have tried time and time again yet you have failed time and time again.
Fascism is the far right, anarchism and communism are different branches of the far left. It is amazing that somewhere in your pitiful life you have failed to see this. In a fascist regime, reform is not possible, because my mentally challenged buddy, part of the very definition of fascism is to crush any and all oppostion. Reform, progress, liberalism is not at all in any way possible in a fascist regime. It is the polar opposite. It is like say black is really white. This is the way that is read, it has been interpreted this way for years and years and years. I could go into the eytomolgy of the way right and left were first thought out but as you have already pointed out some information is just beyond your pathetic level of comprehension.
PS you dumb shit I did use all of your definitions except one, just because I know that yes you are a dumb shit and need to have things spelt out right infront of you.
Now come on Eric make me laugh again I am really getting a kick out of your pathetic ways of saying that fascism is liberal ideology. Did you ever think of a career in comedy? You really should, you'd do well for some great slapstick.
Communism = an ideology which puts everything in the hands of the community, the collective. Everything is owned by the collective in particular industrialized factories utilities banks commerce, etc.
Anarchism = two types communal and individualistic, communal anarchism would be similar in many ways to communism, only there is no state with no real autonomy in the normal way in which we think of communism. Indiviual anarchism, no government no rules, nothing. Basic belief of anarchism, is that the institutions of the world cause the ills of the world. Remove them.
Fascism = totalitarian regimes, dictatorships, based highly on NATIONALISM, oppressive government which falls in unequal pattern. Stress here is mainly on the idea that the best way to keep order is to pull away freedom, and have a strong leader implement laws.
These are of course overly simplified definitons, but the main thing Eric that I want to point out to you once again is the very idea of heirarchy. Fascism, Nazism, Monarhcies, military dictatorships, etc. These policies put government above people, above the individual in particular and the masses as well. They are not progressive, they do not reform, they do not allow consent, and they do not bend.
This site is overflowing with information on anarchism and on communism, and there is on occasion a true mussolini supporting fascist every now and again. You seriously should pay more attention to them
Anarchism = two types communal and individualistic, communal anarchism would be similar in many ways to communism, only there is no state with no real autonomy in the normal way in which we think of communism. Indiviual anarchism, no government no rules, nothing. Basic belief of anarchism, is that the institutions of the world cause the ills of the world. Remove them.
Fascism = totalitarian regimes, dictatorships, based highly on NATIONALISM, oppressive government which falls in unequal pattern. Stress here is mainly on the idea that the best way to keep order is to pull away freedom, and have a strong leader implement laws.
These are of course overly simplified definitons, but the main thing Eric that I want to point out to you once again is the very idea of heirarchy. Fascism, Nazism, Monarhcies, military dictatorships, etc. These policies put government above people, above the individual in particular and the masses as well. They are not progressive, they do not reform, they do not allow consent, and they do not bend.
This site is overflowing with information on anarchism and on communism, and there is on occasion a true mussolini supporting fascist every now and again. You seriously should pay more attention to them
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -Mussolini
Fascism
by brigg • Monday July 22, 2002 at 07:54 AM
>"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -Mussolini
It was also said of Mussolini's Italy that the trains always ran on time. It might be wise to question the motives behind anything said by Mussolini or by his government.
i'll go along with what briggs said
by brigg • Monday July 22, 2002 at 07:54 AM
>"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -Mussolini
It was also said of Mussolini's Italy that the trains always ran on time. It might be wise to question the motives behind anything said by Mussolini or by his government.
i'll go along with what briggs said
... do something else.
this is the reason why i dislike conservatives and their party of choice, the republicans.
>CONSERVATISM = RESISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT EXPANSION = KEEP GOVERNMENT SIMPLE = FEWER RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON INDIVIDUAL = RELIANCE ON INDIVIDUAL'S RESPECT FOR OTHERS TO MAINTAIN ORDER<
if this is what the republican party stands for, well, these are very noble things. but it doesn't. this is not the result you get when you vote for the republican party. they say this, and they do something else.
i feel sorry for conservatives. members of my family are consevatives. they are good people. they've voted republican for decades. but i feel sorry for them, because they're not getting what they think they are.
the primary concern of the political activity of the republican party in washington is to defend and make the rules easier for the wealthy and powerful (in the form of corporate interests) in america. this is the republican party's prime audience. this is their bread and butter. when they claim they want less government regulations, less taxes, a simpler government, the powerful and wealthy are the ones who benefit from this, not the average citizen.
as an example: abortion. here, conservatives do away with their notion that the government should stay out of people's lives and should not impose further restrictions. in fact just the opposite happens. they WANT to impose a restriction. they DO NOT believe that a woman can consider of her own free will, exercised in a supposedly free and democratic society, whether or not to have an abortion. they DO NOT believe a woman should be given this choice. this is hypocrisy, complete and absolute. how can they stand for a smaller, simpler, less intrusive government if they also want to deny a woman's ability to choose, on the grounds that the government "knows better" than the woman?
another example where the smaller, simpler, less intrusive selling points of the republican version of government really benefit the wealthy and powerful corporate interests: prescription drug coverage. here i feel sorry for conservatives, including my own grandparents, who must buy huge amounts of medicine. they vote republican, but what they end up supporting is a party which wants to keep prices as high as they are. it's crazy. the republican party is taking the side of the powerful pharmaceutical corporations, denying there's really a problem with drug prices. it's one thing if you're 73 years old and a retired corporate executive with millions and millions to live off of. why would you need cheaper prescriptions, right? but it's another if you're living off a pension and social security. it's easy to see who the republican party is supporting on this issue, increadibly easy. the wealthy and powerful. number one. and the argument they put forward is the regurgitated reasoning of the "big pharma" lobby: "we need really, really high drug prices to fund our reasearch." yeah, is that so ehh? well how about this reasoning from ralph nader: why the hell are they spending bllions and billion on massive marketing and advertising campaigns if they need that money for reasearch?
another example is the whole notion that in a "liberal" government, the government is active, and in a "conservative" governemnt, the government is passive, shrinking and simplified. look at all the laws proposed and passed by the bush administration. the massive reorganization under the PATRIOT ACT. all the regulations amended, changed, withdrawn, or increased (it is o.k. for law enforcement and prosecutors to listen in while a defendent recieves counselling from his or her lawyer). for fucks sake. SOMEBODY IS BENEFITTING. AN ACTION IS BEING TAKEN, FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING. THAT IS AN ACTIVE GOVERNMENT.
when an environmental law is passed, who benefits? when the same environmental law is withdrawn, who benefits? it just does not add up that the whole "do away with governemnt regulations" line means that a definite line is not being drawn in the sand and that someone or some thing is not benefitting, and that the government is not being very active and is not, in fact, progressing.
so these are just a few examples of saying one thing and doing another. if i were a conservative republican, i would be scratching my head right now. "what the hell does the republican party stand for? the small guys or the big guys?"
should the interests of big business be heard in d.c.? sure, just like the interests of every other concern. but should it be the exclusive bread and butter of one party? what about the every day people who make up the republican party? what the fuck does corporate deregulation have to do with the people working hard in mom and pop stores. nothing. not one damn thing. do they mind that their party, when it acts, is acting on behalf not of them, but of the wealthy and powerful, using the old, "well, hell, it'll trickle down to the small guys..."?
i think the republican party uses the legitamacy of their every day party members, the legitamacy of their "philosophy", to benefit exclusively the wealthy and powerful. you don't see every day mom and pop store owners lobbying senators to keep prescription drug prices as high as possible. you do not see every day working people walking the halls of the congressional office building in d.c. asking for reduced pollution regulations. you do not see every day people hosting dinners with senators during which discussions begin about easing certain restrictions regarding international freight under NAFTA. IT'S ALL ABOUT BIG BUSINESS IN WASHINGTON. EVERY GODDAMN THING COMES BACK TO BIG BUSINESS. WHAT THEY WANT, WHAT THEY DON'T WANT, WHAT BOTHERS THEM, WHAT THEY WANT TO BE EASED. SO WHERE THE FUCK ARE EVERY DAY PEOPLE IN AMERICA? WHO THE HELL PROTECTS THEM, AND ANSWERS TO THEM, AND LISTENS TO THEM?
so here's this line of thinking, this line of attacking a "liberal" government philosophy:
>PROGRESS = PROGRESSION OF GOVERNMENT = EXPANSION<
is that really true?
progression: who built the interstate highway system in america. big corporations? private money? the wealthy? are they the one's who got the job done? who marshalled the tremendous resources? what about all the new roads and sewers and street lights and fiber-optic cable laying and infrastructure i'm seeing being built. is all that paid for by microsoft?
progression: who passed laws ending the horrible living conditions of tenement buildings? real estate developers? the land lords? are they the ones?
progression: the slaughter houses and stockyards of a century ago. who tried to ensure that working conditions were safe and that the meat was safe. did the beef companies reform their plants of their own accord? is that how it works in america? all companies are good companies and simply don't hesitate to do the job right when asked politely?
dammit. sometimes progess takes rules. if private, powerful corporations refuse to make and follow there own rules, who else is going to do it for them? if people commit crimes cause they can't make and stay within their own limits, who's going to hold them accountable? "i robbed this old lady's house, so i cut off my own hand." is that how it works in america? "we're all so good at controlling ourselves that we don't need no stinking government." as long as there's humans living together, there's going to have to be some form of a rule or another. HUMANS ARE A SOCIAL SPECIES. THEY LIVE AMONGST EACH OTHER.
so there's a fucking government. what are you gonna do about it? more like, what are you gonna do with it? if it takes making more rules and regulations to protect the environment, to keep the cost of drugs down, on and on, then so fucking be it. because the corporations, the second most powerful and influential force in america, cannot do it themselves.
and since there's this government in d.c., what do you do with it if you're a conservative? well, i look at the record, at the actions. the republican party is making life easier for monied, powerful interests. that's who they answer to. and what scares the shit out of the republicans and the "conservatives" about the "liberals" and the democrats, is that they do what they say. they add new regulations if it benefits the people. the government does what it says. but who gets stronger and lives better? the gov., or the people?hence the civil rights laws. hence social security. hence medicaid. the people benefit. there were problems, the government tried to fix them. no thanks to the conservatives, whose primary tactics consist in two things: denying there's a problem, and name calling and bad mouthing those trying to fix the problems in order to delegitamize their cause.
all i can say about the conservative "philosophy" and the republican party in america is, their words are beautiful and all well and good, but they don't mean shit. it's their actions that reveal who they really are and what they are really doing.
i, and i'm sure others, could go on and on about "liberals" and democrats. they're just as deserving. but i won't right now. why? because at least the liberals and democrats i know don't claim they are "more american than any other american", more "christian", more civilized, more moral, more patriotic, more red blooded, and then go lie and hurt american citizens for a disingenous, generated, make believe war in iraq.
this is the reason why i dislike conservatives and their party of choice, the republicans.
>CONSERVATISM = RESISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT EXPANSION = KEEP GOVERNMENT SIMPLE = FEWER RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON INDIVIDUAL = RELIANCE ON INDIVIDUAL'S RESPECT FOR OTHERS TO MAINTAIN ORDER<
if this is what the republican party stands for, well, these are very noble things. but it doesn't. this is not the result you get when you vote for the republican party. they say this, and they do something else.
i feel sorry for conservatives. members of my family are consevatives. they are good people. they've voted republican for decades. but i feel sorry for them, because they're not getting what they think they are.
the primary concern of the political activity of the republican party in washington is to defend and make the rules easier for the wealthy and powerful (in the form of corporate interests) in america. this is the republican party's prime audience. this is their bread and butter. when they claim they want less government regulations, less taxes, a simpler government, the powerful and wealthy are the ones who benefit from this, not the average citizen.
as an example: abortion. here, conservatives do away with their notion that the government should stay out of people's lives and should not impose further restrictions. in fact just the opposite happens. they WANT to impose a restriction. they DO NOT believe that a woman can consider of her own free will, exercised in a supposedly free and democratic society, whether or not to have an abortion. they DO NOT believe a woman should be given this choice. this is hypocrisy, complete and absolute. how can they stand for a smaller, simpler, less intrusive government if they also want to deny a woman's ability to choose, on the grounds that the government "knows better" than the woman?
another example where the smaller, simpler, less intrusive selling points of the republican version of government really benefit the wealthy and powerful corporate interests: prescription drug coverage. here i feel sorry for conservatives, including my own grandparents, who must buy huge amounts of medicine. they vote republican, but what they end up supporting is a party which wants to keep prices as high as they are. it's crazy. the republican party is taking the side of the powerful pharmaceutical corporations, denying there's really a problem with drug prices. it's one thing if you're 73 years old and a retired corporate executive with millions and millions to live off of. why would you need cheaper prescriptions, right? but it's another if you're living off a pension and social security. it's easy to see who the republican party is supporting on this issue, increadibly easy. the wealthy and powerful. number one. and the argument they put forward is the regurgitated reasoning of the "big pharma" lobby: "we need really, really high drug prices to fund our reasearch." yeah, is that so ehh? well how about this reasoning from ralph nader: why the hell are they spending bllions and billion on massive marketing and advertising campaigns if they need that money for reasearch?
another example is the whole notion that in a "liberal" government, the government is active, and in a "conservative" governemnt, the government is passive, shrinking and simplified. look at all the laws proposed and passed by the bush administration. the massive reorganization under the PATRIOT ACT. all the regulations amended, changed, withdrawn, or increased (it is o.k. for law enforcement and prosecutors to listen in while a defendent recieves counselling from his or her lawyer). for fucks sake. SOMEBODY IS BENEFITTING. AN ACTION IS BEING TAKEN, FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING. THAT IS AN ACTIVE GOVERNMENT.
when an environmental law is passed, who benefits? when the same environmental law is withdrawn, who benefits? it just does not add up that the whole "do away with governemnt regulations" line means that a definite line is not being drawn in the sand and that someone or some thing is not benefitting, and that the government is not being very active and is not, in fact, progressing.
so these are just a few examples of saying one thing and doing another. if i were a conservative republican, i would be scratching my head right now. "what the hell does the republican party stand for? the small guys or the big guys?"
should the interests of big business be heard in d.c.? sure, just like the interests of every other concern. but should it be the exclusive bread and butter of one party? what about the every day people who make up the republican party? what the fuck does corporate deregulation have to do with the people working hard in mom and pop stores. nothing. not one damn thing. do they mind that their party, when it acts, is acting on behalf not of them, but of the wealthy and powerful, using the old, "well, hell, it'll trickle down to the small guys..."?
i think the republican party uses the legitamacy of their every day party members, the legitamacy of their "philosophy", to benefit exclusively the wealthy and powerful. you don't see every day mom and pop store owners lobbying senators to keep prescription drug prices as high as possible. you do not see every day working people walking the halls of the congressional office building in d.c. asking for reduced pollution regulations. you do not see every day people hosting dinners with senators during which discussions begin about easing certain restrictions regarding international freight under NAFTA. IT'S ALL ABOUT BIG BUSINESS IN WASHINGTON. EVERY GODDAMN THING COMES BACK TO BIG BUSINESS. WHAT THEY WANT, WHAT THEY DON'T WANT, WHAT BOTHERS THEM, WHAT THEY WANT TO BE EASED. SO WHERE THE FUCK ARE EVERY DAY PEOPLE IN AMERICA? WHO THE HELL PROTECTS THEM, AND ANSWERS TO THEM, AND LISTENS TO THEM?
so here's this line of thinking, this line of attacking a "liberal" government philosophy:
>PROGRESS = PROGRESSION OF GOVERNMENT = EXPANSION<
is that really true?
progression: who built the interstate highway system in america. big corporations? private money? the wealthy? are they the one's who got the job done? who marshalled the tremendous resources? what about all the new roads and sewers and street lights and fiber-optic cable laying and infrastructure i'm seeing being built. is all that paid for by microsoft?
progression: who passed laws ending the horrible living conditions of tenement buildings? real estate developers? the land lords? are they the ones?
progression: the slaughter houses and stockyards of a century ago. who tried to ensure that working conditions were safe and that the meat was safe. did the beef companies reform their plants of their own accord? is that how it works in america? all companies are good companies and simply don't hesitate to do the job right when asked politely?
dammit. sometimes progess takes rules. if private, powerful corporations refuse to make and follow there own rules, who else is going to do it for them? if people commit crimes cause they can't make and stay within their own limits, who's going to hold them accountable? "i robbed this old lady's house, so i cut off my own hand." is that how it works in america? "we're all so good at controlling ourselves that we don't need no stinking government." as long as there's humans living together, there's going to have to be some form of a rule or another. HUMANS ARE A SOCIAL SPECIES. THEY LIVE AMONGST EACH OTHER.
so there's a fucking government. what are you gonna do about it? more like, what are you gonna do with it? if it takes making more rules and regulations to protect the environment, to keep the cost of drugs down, on and on, then so fucking be it. because the corporations, the second most powerful and influential force in america, cannot do it themselves.
and since there's this government in d.c., what do you do with it if you're a conservative? well, i look at the record, at the actions. the republican party is making life easier for monied, powerful interests. that's who they answer to. and what scares the shit out of the republicans and the "conservatives" about the "liberals" and the democrats, is that they do what they say. they add new regulations if it benefits the people. the government does what it says. but who gets stronger and lives better? the gov., or the people?hence the civil rights laws. hence social security. hence medicaid. the people benefit. there were problems, the government tried to fix them. no thanks to the conservatives, whose primary tactics consist in two things: denying there's a problem, and name calling and bad mouthing those trying to fix the problems in order to delegitamize their cause.
all i can say about the conservative "philosophy" and the republican party in america is, their words are beautiful and all well and good, but they don't mean shit. it's their actions that reveal who they really are and what they are really doing.
i, and i'm sure others, could go on and on about "liberals" and democrats. they're just as deserving. but i won't right now. why? because at least the liberals and democrats i know don't claim they are "more american than any other american", more "christian", more civilized, more moral, more patriotic, more red blooded, and then go lie and hurt american citizens for a disingenous, generated, make believe war in iraq.
You are a fucking moron, lefty parasite.
No, I feel bad for you. I have family members who are liberals, and so sad, they have no concept that the world turns regardless of their attempts to steal the fruits of other peoples' labor.
In some places, you parasites manage to make the whole damn thing stop, many dead of course, but a trivial concern on the way to utopia : People's Kampuchea, Red China, Vietnam, Laos, CCCP, 1940's Greece, 1968 Czechoslavkia, 1956 Hungary, 2002 Bezerkley.
Drop dead, fascist, and spare the living your pathetic hallucinations.
No, I feel bad for you. I have family members who are liberals, and so sad, they have no concept that the world turns regardless of their attempts to steal the fruits of other peoples' labor.
In some places, you parasites manage to make the whole damn thing stop, many dead of course, but a trivial concern on the way to utopia : People's Kampuchea, Red China, Vietnam, Laos, CCCP, 1940's Greece, 1968 Czechoslavkia, 1956 Hungary, 2002 Bezerkley.
Drop dead, fascist, and spare the living your pathetic hallucinations.
...
perhaps this is what the right hopes to acheive by calling people names...
"weak minded children, you all know that when a person we label a communist fascist commie fascist commie, whether or not the person is or isn't doesn't matter... whenever this person says the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, you all know that he is lying, and that the statement is false! right, little children? and kids, whenever a person we label a drug addicted, sexually perverted terrorist, the label being more important than the what kids? yes, very good. more important than the truth... whenever this person says that los angeles lies on the west coast, and new york city on the east coast, you all know that the statement is automatically false! yes! good little children. very good."
c'mon. bring it. let's talk about america's future.
you can bring something, you can add something, or you can keep jerking your knee and running your mouth. it's always the same. got nothing to say, nothing to fall back on, except some names. running up and down the internet with your cute little plastic right wing automatic sticker label maker, proving nothing, saying nothing, thinking nothing, adding nothing, doing nothing...
perhaps this is what the right hopes to acheive by calling people names...
"weak minded children, you all know that when a person we label a communist fascist commie fascist commie, whether or not the person is or isn't doesn't matter... whenever this person says the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, you all know that he is lying, and that the statement is false! right, little children? and kids, whenever a person we label a drug addicted, sexually perverted terrorist, the label being more important than the what kids? yes, very good. more important than the truth... whenever this person says that los angeles lies on the west coast, and new york city on the east coast, you all know that the statement is automatically false! yes! good little children. very good."
c'mon. bring it. let's talk about america's future.
you can bring something, you can add something, or you can keep jerking your knee and running your mouth. it's always the same. got nothing to say, nothing to fall back on, except some names. running up and down the internet with your cute little plastic right wing automatic sticker label maker, proving nothing, saying nothing, thinking nothing, adding nothing, doing nothing...
I've seen hardly any liberal viewpoints expressed here, so it is hard for me to judge why all this discussion on liberals. I guess you folks don't know your political history too well. You seem to be trying to use the dictionary to fill in the gaps - which is like trying to substitute a toothpick for the Hoover Dam.
Many people commonly make the mistake of referring to socialists and anti-capitalists as 'liberal'. They betray their ignorance in doing so. Liberalism is a political theory which embraces several core concepts cherished by early capitalists who were attempting to overthrow the old order of the nobility. Namely, separation of church and state; free enterprise capitalism; parliamentarianism and constitutionalism; the government as a guarantor of individual rights and liberties, namely, private property rights. Liberalism embraces progress in any form holding that no matter what side effects a particular form of progress brings about, future progress will address these and thus all progress is beneficial. Liberals are HIGHLY OPPOSED to socialism. Socialism believes in collective, not individual rights. Particularly there is disagreement on the question of ownership of capital. Liberals hold property rights sacred; socialists hold the collective good sacred. Socialists have no problem with nationalizing industries for the collective benefit. This goes against the liberal view of property rights and free enterprise. When I say socialist I refer to the entire socialist and anarchist tradition that might more appropriately be referred to as collectivism, and would include wild variances on the theme.
When someone says they are anti-capitalist, you know right off the bat, that whatever they ARE, they are not liberal. When someone says they are a democrat (i.e. liberal) you know they should be pro-capitalist, pro-free trade. Americans being limited to only 2 choices - Republicanism (which has lately become a form of far right socialism) and Democrat - and confused by the terms 'left' and 'right' often see complex issues in terms of black and white, not surprisingly. This is how you get anarchists or whatever being labelled 'liberal' which is actually pretty funny, because it betrays the writer's lack of education on the matter.
As for conservatism, it is misapplied too. Conservatism is a mostly dead tradition. It has its origins in Loyalists to the Crown, who sought to maintain the relationship between Church and state and who also tried to preserve the power of the King. Later it was applied to any political movement opposing change. It would be fair to say that modern Democrats are conservatives, seeking to preserve traditional checks and balances in the Constitution and fighting to maintain a status quo with regard to governmental power. The Republicans have not been conservative for a very long time, always seeking to expand the powers of government and introducing or amending laws constantly. Lately, they have often used the excuse of 'national security' to override traditional American individual rights. National security being a collective principle, the Republicans are arguing that the good of the collective comes before individual rights - firmly establishing them as socialists. This is not so strange, if you consider fascism was a socialist movement too.
Like I said this all gets very confusing. An earlier poster put it well when he told those of you unfamiliar with all this to not bother with and
"forget "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative", "democrat" or republican"
who/what is fighting the people for the benefit of power...
and who/what is fighting power for the benefit of the people."
That is probably what those of you uninterested in understanding this 'verbose crap' should do.
Eric for the record you seem very well educated on these matters except for your reliance on the dictionary for your definitions of anarchist theory. I myself am not an anarchist but I do not see your arguments against it very convincing. If you ever were to meet an educated anarchist you'd be in trouble. You argue that human nature makes the success of anarchy impossible, but an anarchist worth his salt could display dozens of examples of societies functioning well without government. He would also challenge you on the grounds that society and property laws produce criminal behaviour and he would have the whole of the criminoligist profession to back him up on it. He would argue that in the new society criminals would not be produced by property laws, inequalities, and certain social institutions, and he'd be right. The fault with anarchy is not in its success or failure as a model of a system. The fault lies in (a) transition and (b) defense of the anarchist state against organized external aggression.
Many people commonly make the mistake of referring to socialists and anti-capitalists as 'liberal'. They betray their ignorance in doing so. Liberalism is a political theory which embraces several core concepts cherished by early capitalists who were attempting to overthrow the old order of the nobility. Namely, separation of church and state; free enterprise capitalism; parliamentarianism and constitutionalism; the government as a guarantor of individual rights and liberties, namely, private property rights. Liberalism embraces progress in any form holding that no matter what side effects a particular form of progress brings about, future progress will address these and thus all progress is beneficial. Liberals are HIGHLY OPPOSED to socialism. Socialism believes in collective, not individual rights. Particularly there is disagreement on the question of ownership of capital. Liberals hold property rights sacred; socialists hold the collective good sacred. Socialists have no problem with nationalizing industries for the collective benefit. This goes against the liberal view of property rights and free enterprise. When I say socialist I refer to the entire socialist and anarchist tradition that might more appropriately be referred to as collectivism, and would include wild variances on the theme.
When someone says they are anti-capitalist, you know right off the bat, that whatever they ARE, they are not liberal. When someone says they are a democrat (i.e. liberal) you know they should be pro-capitalist, pro-free trade. Americans being limited to only 2 choices - Republicanism (which has lately become a form of far right socialism) and Democrat - and confused by the terms 'left' and 'right' often see complex issues in terms of black and white, not surprisingly. This is how you get anarchists or whatever being labelled 'liberal' which is actually pretty funny, because it betrays the writer's lack of education on the matter.
As for conservatism, it is misapplied too. Conservatism is a mostly dead tradition. It has its origins in Loyalists to the Crown, who sought to maintain the relationship between Church and state and who also tried to preserve the power of the King. Later it was applied to any political movement opposing change. It would be fair to say that modern Democrats are conservatives, seeking to preserve traditional checks and balances in the Constitution and fighting to maintain a status quo with regard to governmental power. The Republicans have not been conservative for a very long time, always seeking to expand the powers of government and introducing or amending laws constantly. Lately, they have often used the excuse of 'national security' to override traditional American individual rights. National security being a collective principle, the Republicans are arguing that the good of the collective comes before individual rights - firmly establishing them as socialists. This is not so strange, if you consider fascism was a socialist movement too.
Like I said this all gets very confusing. An earlier poster put it well when he told those of you unfamiliar with all this to not bother with and
"forget "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative", "democrat" or republican"
who/what is fighting the people for the benefit of power...
and who/what is fighting power for the benefit of the people."
That is probably what those of you uninterested in understanding this 'verbose crap' should do.
Eric for the record you seem very well educated on these matters except for your reliance on the dictionary for your definitions of anarchist theory. I myself am not an anarchist but I do not see your arguments against it very convincing. If you ever were to meet an educated anarchist you'd be in trouble. You argue that human nature makes the success of anarchy impossible, but an anarchist worth his salt could display dozens of examples of societies functioning well without government. He would also challenge you on the grounds that society and property laws produce criminal behaviour and he would have the whole of the criminoligist profession to back him up on it. He would argue that in the new society criminals would not be produced by property laws, inequalities, and certain social institutions, and he'd be right. The fault with anarchy is not in its success or failure as a model of a system. The fault lies in (a) transition and (b) defense of the anarchist state against organized external aggression.
>you can bring something, you can add something, or you can keep jerking your knee and running your mouth.
I have been waiting for months for you to "add something", offer a solution, provide valuable insight or intellect, etc. etc. but to no avail. In fact, I have wandered the pages of indybay for months looking for a spark of brilliance.
All I have found is foul mouthed anti-american sentiment and venom propped up by hollow nothingness. Offer me an alternative to the system that America has now that has proven itself feasible and I'll consider it. Otherwise, quit wasting your (and what is infinitely more valuable, my) time.
You people really don't even read what I write, do you? You spew you mantra without consideration of the opposing perspectives. No wonder you all seem so hopelessly lost.
>Eric for the record you seem very well educated on these matters except for your reliance on the dictionary for your definitions of anarchist theory.
For the record, that exercise was performed due to the barkings of Mr. T, who claimed the answers to our differences in political opinions lies within the dictionary. So I humored him. It is he that you should be addressing here, not I.
>You argue that human nature makes the success of anarchy impossible, but an anarchist worth his salt could display dozens of examples of societies functioning well without government.
I hear this bogus argument here all the time and yet have never seen even a single viable argument presented. Just the other day, our resident anarchist-in-chief decided to tell me that his bookstore, as well as all of these other businesses affiliated with NoBAWC, are thriving anarchist businesses. For those of you that are not familiar with NoBAWC, it's a rather interesting commune of new aged Utopians that think that since they run there businesses with no "management" or "bosses" they are anarchists. Go ahead an look these visionaries up.
But when you ask about them performing all of their activities via "in God we Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" they are silent.
So again I ask, name a single solitary legitimate thriving anarchist organization?
I have been waiting for months for you to "add something", offer a solution, provide valuable insight or intellect, etc. etc. but to no avail. In fact, I have wandered the pages of indybay for months looking for a spark of brilliance.
All I have found is foul mouthed anti-american sentiment and venom propped up by hollow nothingness. Offer me an alternative to the system that America has now that has proven itself feasible and I'll consider it. Otherwise, quit wasting your (and what is infinitely more valuable, my) time.
You people really don't even read what I write, do you? You spew you mantra without consideration of the opposing perspectives. No wonder you all seem so hopelessly lost.
>Eric for the record you seem very well educated on these matters except for your reliance on the dictionary for your definitions of anarchist theory.
For the record, that exercise was performed due to the barkings of Mr. T, who claimed the answers to our differences in political opinions lies within the dictionary. So I humored him. It is he that you should be addressing here, not I.
>You argue that human nature makes the success of anarchy impossible, but an anarchist worth his salt could display dozens of examples of societies functioning well without government.
I hear this bogus argument here all the time and yet have never seen even a single viable argument presented. Just the other day, our resident anarchist-in-chief decided to tell me that his bookstore, as well as all of these other businesses affiliated with NoBAWC, are thriving anarchist businesses. For those of you that are not familiar with NoBAWC, it's a rather interesting commune of new aged Utopians that think that since they run there businesses with no "management" or "bosses" they are anarchists. Go ahead an look these visionaries up.
But when you ask about them performing all of their activities via "in God we Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" they are silent.
So again I ask, name a single solitary legitimate thriving anarchist organization?
There are literally HUNDREDS of examples of tribal societies which are basically anarchist, run on consensus with no clear leader, in history. Probably thousands but there is no record of most of them. Like I said, the problem with most of them is that they usually get destroyed by external aggression, which is the central flaw of anarchism. It cannot defend itself. I'm not up for defending anarchy though; for that reason, and the fact that transition would be totally impossible, I regard anarchism as a hopeless and utopian concept. Theoretically I have no problem with it. But in reality it's a different story. Suffice to say I'm not going to bother defending it. But it would be nice if people could be a bit more educated about political theory.
"All I have found is foul mouthed anti-american sentiment " heh. well here's a quote for you robots who keep spewing that garbage:
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
—President Thomas Jefferson.
1743-1826
"A little rebellion now is a good thing. "
—President Thomas Jefferson.
1743-1826
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."
-- Mark Twain
"The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind."
-- Thomas Paine
"Beware of the leader who bangs of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fevor pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and do it gladly so. How do I know? I know for this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
Julius Caesar.
America once upon a time used to think a little dissent was a good thing. What happened???
"All I have found is foul mouthed anti-american sentiment " heh. well here's a quote for you robots who keep spewing that garbage:
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
—President Thomas Jefferson.
1743-1826
"A little rebellion now is a good thing. "
—President Thomas Jefferson.
1743-1826
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."
-- Mark Twain
"The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind."
-- Thomas Paine
"Beware of the leader who bangs of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fevor pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and do it gladly so. How do I know? I know for this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
Julius Caesar.
America once upon a time used to think a little dissent was a good thing. What happened???
>You argue that human nature makes the success of anarchy impossible...
Eric, didn't make that argument, I did. What I said was that it flies in the face of human naute. And I stand by it.
>but an anarchist ... could display dozens of examples of societies functioning well without government.
Isolated incidences do not a valid argument make. One could find examples throughout history where any number of societies functioned just fine under an iron-fisted monarchy, under slavery, under socialism, etc...
The people to whom I refer want anarchy to be a way of life for the entire planet, to which I say, that flies in the face of human nature. In society, people look up to certain others because they have a particular personality, leadership abilities, and other intangibles that cause these people to stand above the rest. You have people who are leaders, you have people who are followers. That isn't going to stop with anarchy. Anarchists, from what I can tell, are hoping that these "leader types" will supress their capability of assuming control for the good of the collective. I don't believe that will happen. Eventually, a collective or two or three or a million are going to push these persons within their collective to a leadership position, and you're back to square one. Now, I have read on here anarchists that say they won't let that happen, but I can't find any reason to prevent it from happening. And in all likelyhood it would. You can't affirmatively say what 4 billion people will or will not do. That leaders will emerge, a view of human history will conclude: It's human nature.
Your definitions of liberal and conservative are.......................strange. When speaking of liberal and conservative, let's stick with these simple definitions. In modern American politics, conservatives believe the power should be retained with the people and that a free people will do what is best for themselves and for their fellow citizens. Liberals believe that the average American is too stupid to know what's best for himself and for his fellow citizens and needs government to feed, clothe, and shelter him from cradle to grave. Any deviation from these definitions, and you might a well be typing in Greek, because I feel quite confident that I have provided a basic definition of liberal and conservative from the viewpoint that those of us who are conservative are approaching the subject. Until you can show me that liberals are not fighting the people for benefit of the power, every other discussion is moot.
Eric, didn't make that argument, I did. What I said was that it flies in the face of human naute. And I stand by it.
>but an anarchist ... could display dozens of examples of societies functioning well without government.
Isolated incidences do not a valid argument make. One could find examples throughout history where any number of societies functioned just fine under an iron-fisted monarchy, under slavery, under socialism, etc...
The people to whom I refer want anarchy to be a way of life for the entire planet, to which I say, that flies in the face of human nature. In society, people look up to certain others because they have a particular personality, leadership abilities, and other intangibles that cause these people to stand above the rest. You have people who are leaders, you have people who are followers. That isn't going to stop with anarchy. Anarchists, from what I can tell, are hoping that these "leader types" will supress their capability of assuming control for the good of the collective. I don't believe that will happen. Eventually, a collective or two or three or a million are going to push these persons within their collective to a leadership position, and you're back to square one. Now, I have read on here anarchists that say they won't let that happen, but I can't find any reason to prevent it from happening. And in all likelyhood it would. You can't affirmatively say what 4 billion people will or will not do. That leaders will emerge, a view of human history will conclude: It's human nature.
Your definitions of liberal and conservative are.......................strange. When speaking of liberal and conservative, let's stick with these simple definitions. In modern American politics, conservatives believe the power should be retained with the people and that a free people will do what is best for themselves and for their fellow citizens. Liberals believe that the average American is too stupid to know what's best for himself and for his fellow citizens and needs government to feed, clothe, and shelter him from cradle to grave. Any deviation from these definitions, and you might a well be typing in Greek, because I feel quite confident that I have provided a basic definition of liberal and conservative from the viewpoint that those of us who are conservative are approaching the subject. Until you can show me that liberals are not fighting the people for benefit of the power, every other discussion is moot.
YOUR definitions of liberal and conservatives are both simplistic .......... and totally fucked up! You are totally ignoring the fact that these words have defined and objective ( as far as language goes) meanings. Conservatives DO NOT exist in America anymore. When's the last time you heard an American politician wanting to keep things the way they are???? You are most definately NOT a conservative. You support Bush, who argues that in the interests of the collective good and the security of the whole, individual rights must be curtailed and such basic concepts of government as the 125 year old posse comitatus must be reviewed and changed. This is NOT conservatism and to say it is illustrates your political ignorance. This is pure socialism. Albeit of a nationalist context.
Before you go painting all anti-capitalists with your big wide liberal brush, just remember: liberals support free enterprise and private property. Saying anti-capitalists are liberal is like saying darkness is caused by the sun. Maybe you should just avoid all political terminology until you are better educated and just stick to 'left wing' and 'right wing' for now.
Before you go painting all anti-capitalists with your big wide liberal brush, just remember: liberals support free enterprise and private property. Saying anti-capitalists are liberal is like saying darkness is caused by the sun. Maybe you should just avoid all political terminology until you are better educated and just stick to 'left wing' and 'right wing' for now.
SF-IMC has asked everyone not to engage in "flaming". If you wish to do so, you will be alone. I, for one, will refrain.
>...the fact that these words have defined and objective ( as far as language goes) meanings.
Words change meaning. The definitions I used are the ones with which the majority of those who regard themselves as liberal and conservative would agree, though I'm confident the liberal side wouldn't like the terminology of the American people being considered "stupid", though that's the way they treat them. If you want to discuss it, I gave you the definitions that will be foundation on which conservatives like myself and others here are willing to discuss the issues. If you don't like it, that's not our problem.
>You support Bush, who argues that in the interests of the collective good and the security of the whole, individual rights must be curtailed ..... This is NOT conservatism...
I never said that. Where are you getting this from?
>liberals support free enterprise and private property.
Cool. I can go buy an old growth forest and chop it to the ground without any liberal bothering me or any government regulation telling me I can't. This is good to know. Wait till Daschle and Gephardt hear about this!
Nice try. I appreciate your effort.
>...the fact that these words have defined and objective ( as far as language goes) meanings.
Words change meaning. The definitions I used are the ones with which the majority of those who regard themselves as liberal and conservative would agree, though I'm confident the liberal side wouldn't like the terminology of the American people being considered "stupid", though that's the way they treat them. If you want to discuss it, I gave you the definitions that will be foundation on which conservatives like myself and others here are willing to discuss the issues. If you don't like it, that's not our problem.
>You support Bush, who argues that in the interests of the collective good and the security of the whole, individual rights must be curtailed ..... This is NOT conservatism...
I never said that. Where are you getting this from?
>liberals support free enterprise and private property.
Cool. I can go buy an old growth forest and chop it to the ground without any liberal bothering me or any government regulation telling me I can't. This is good to know. Wait till Daschle and Gephardt hear about this!
Nice try. I appreciate your effort.
Flaming is usually construed as a personal attack. Where did I flame you? Indymedia also asked not to slander, which is exaclty what you just did.
If Daschle etc claim that preserving forests is in the interest of the public, in the collective interest, and they place it above individual liberties in priority, then they are not really liberals. They are espousing some form of socialism. Sorry if America doesn't like what liberal and conservative really mean - I guess thats why the parties are called Democrat and Rebublican rather than Liberal and Conservative as in Canada. I would again suggest that you use words appropriately and stop applying your dyslexicon. Right and left will suffice for what you mean by conservative and liberal, and you can even claim you are speaking English properly.
If Daschle etc claim that preserving forests is in the interest of the public, in the collective interest, and they place it above individual liberties in priority, then they are not really liberals. They are espousing some form of socialism. Sorry if America doesn't like what liberal and conservative really mean - I guess thats why the parties are called Democrat and Rebublican rather than Liberal and Conservative as in Canada. I would again suggest that you use words appropriately and stop applying your dyslexicon. Right and left will suffice for what you mean by conservative and liberal, and you can even claim you are speaking English properly.
>There are literally HUNDREDS of examples of tribal societies which are basically anarchist, run on consensus with no clear leader, in history.
Name one. Just one. One single solitary one. Why is that so difficult?
Furthermore, you're equating anarchy with tribal societies? I'd agree, they're pretty close. Bands of people coming together essentially of no choice of their own in an effort to survive. That's the type of system I WANT!!
Name one. Just one. One single solitary one. Why is that so difficult?
Furthermore, you're equating anarchy with tribal societies? I'd agree, they're pretty close. Bands of people coming together essentially of no choice of their own in an effort to survive. That's the type of system I WANT!!
your comments are inconsistent and therefore your commentary is without value.
"SF-IMC has asked everyone not to engage in "flaming". If you wish to do so, you will be alone. I, for one, will refrain."
less than 10 minutes later ...
"What an idiot. You liberals trip me the fuck out!"
Hereafter I am forced to regard you as a person unworthy of my attention and your comments unreliable. You cannot keep your word.
"SF-IMC has asked everyone not to engage in "flaming". If you wish to do so, you will be alone. I, for one, will refrain."
less than 10 minutes later ...
"What an idiot. You liberals trip me the fuck out!"
Hereafter I am forced to regard you as a person unworthy of my attention and your comments unreliable. You cannot keep your word.
That was brigg that said he was going to be nice and refrain from squashing your retarded ass, not me. You only prove that you ARE and idiot because you can't even recognize when two separate people are addressing your stupid ass.
Secondly, as far as being nice to you liberals, I could give a rat's a-hole. You people are parasites that leach off America in my book, and don't give a flying fuck what the collective has to say about it. If they don't like the way I deal with you slime-balls then they can ban me from this forum. Have a fucking ball. But until then I will treat you the way I choose. Like it or lump it you liberal piece of shit.
Secondly, as far as being nice to you liberals, I could give a rat's a-hole. You people are parasites that leach off America in my book, and don't give a flying fuck what the collective has to say about it. If they don't like the way I deal with you slime-balls then they can ban me from this forum. Have a fucking ball. But until then I will treat you the way I choose. Like it or lump it you liberal piece of shit.
I wrote what I did to assist you. I saw no reason for you to read something I or another conservative here wrote and wonder what we meant. Given your definiton, I could see where that could happen. Now that I laid it out, you'll have a grasp and can move forward with any conversation. And, again I'm confident we'll stick with the "liberal" and "conservative" terms. In fact, when you read "left" and "liberal" they are the same, we use them interchangably. Same with "right" and "conservative". Just trying to help.
"For the record, that exercise was performed due to the barkings of Mr. T, who claimed the answers to our differences in political opinions lies within the dictionary."
Eric, I was trying to teach you the gentle art of reading. You showed probably the worst reading comprehension skills I have seen thus far. You remain to be the only person that will ever claim that fascism is a product of the far left and not the far right contrary to the definitions of billions upon billions of people of the past century.
Second, what I was trying to point out earlier is this whole idea of liberal vs. conservative is really just a bunch of "tripe" as Eric would say. To say a person is a liberal vs. being a conservative is dated at best. It no longer holds any water, better yet any sense. Brigg conservatives we would agree are people like Bush right? Reagan, Bush sr, etc. These people definitely do not fall within either your framework of what consercative means, Eric's or mine, or X's or whoever. A conservative approach would entail, according to X's and my and the Oxford English dictionary's definition of conservative, one who tries to conserve the current existing political system. This would of course not be true with let's say Regan who pushed for various types of legistlation against well certain things like the aWar on Drugs. Mandatory jail sentences in particular. These were of course new laws, and would be a form of reform. This also extended the power of government, effectively negating Regan's conservativeness in Eric's weird definition that connects conservative with being strictly attached to small government. And as for you brigg and your strange definitions is that this took away choice for the people when you make more restrictive laws.
Basically, this whole arguement as I was trying to say earlier is completely dated. Possibly at one time it made sense it no longer does. It did not two years ago, and this debate is completely absurd in a post 9/11 political arena. Bush and Republicans in general would be whom we would previously call conservatives. According to our definitions as various as they may be, the campaign agaisnt terror and its new legislation, its infringement on individual rights and its vast expansion of government power shows us that we can no longer call them "conservative."
Eric, I was trying to teach you the gentle art of reading. You showed probably the worst reading comprehension skills I have seen thus far. You remain to be the only person that will ever claim that fascism is a product of the far left and not the far right contrary to the definitions of billions upon billions of people of the past century.
Second, what I was trying to point out earlier is this whole idea of liberal vs. conservative is really just a bunch of "tripe" as Eric would say. To say a person is a liberal vs. being a conservative is dated at best. It no longer holds any water, better yet any sense. Brigg conservatives we would agree are people like Bush right? Reagan, Bush sr, etc. These people definitely do not fall within either your framework of what consercative means, Eric's or mine, or X's or whoever. A conservative approach would entail, according to X's and my and the Oxford English dictionary's definition of conservative, one who tries to conserve the current existing political system. This would of course not be true with let's say Regan who pushed for various types of legistlation against well certain things like the aWar on Drugs. Mandatory jail sentences in particular. These were of course new laws, and would be a form of reform. This also extended the power of government, effectively negating Regan's conservativeness in Eric's weird definition that connects conservative with being strictly attached to small government. And as for you brigg and your strange definitions is that this took away choice for the people when you make more restrictive laws.
Basically, this whole arguement as I was trying to say earlier is completely dated. Possibly at one time it made sense it no longer does. It did not two years ago, and this debate is completely absurd in a post 9/11 political arena. Bush and Republicans in general would be whom we would previously call conservatives. According to our definitions as various as they may be, the campaign agaisnt terror and its new legislation, its infringement on individual rights and its vast expansion of government power shows us that we can no longer call them "conservative."
But hey, in the real world, my definition is in the majority.
I've tried to point out to those on here that your definition of left and right, liberal and conservative are not the mainstream. It is for that very reason that I believe you're having a hard time getting your message out. Daschel and Gephardt regard themselves as left-wing. You don't. To you they are right-wing in that they are in bed with corporations. The rest of the population doesn't view it that way. The rest of the population doesn't think in terms of "corporate" vs. "non-corporate", at least not the way you do. Go up to DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe and call him a right-winger, see what kind of answer you get. I'm trying to help you here but no one wants to pay attention.
That's why I've encouraged those here to use the word "fascist" every other word. Call someone a "fascist" and they're gonna go "OK, I don't follow Hitler, I don't wanna kill Jews, I don't believe in a master race, I don't own a Nazi flag. So this guy calling me a fascist is a nut. Ignore him.". They're not gonna go "Oh, he's saying I prefer statism and capitalism". No one's gonna think like that. Is any of this sinking in?
Quite honestly, I hope you continue to use terms that only you agree with the definition. It only isolates you further than you already are.
I've tried to point out to those on here that your definition of left and right, liberal and conservative are not the mainstream. It is for that very reason that I believe you're having a hard time getting your message out. Daschel and Gephardt regard themselves as left-wing. You don't. To you they are right-wing in that they are in bed with corporations. The rest of the population doesn't view it that way. The rest of the population doesn't think in terms of "corporate" vs. "non-corporate", at least not the way you do. Go up to DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe and call him a right-winger, see what kind of answer you get. I'm trying to help you here but no one wants to pay attention.
That's why I've encouraged those here to use the word "fascist" every other word. Call someone a "fascist" and they're gonna go "OK, I don't follow Hitler, I don't wanna kill Jews, I don't believe in a master race, I don't own a Nazi flag. So this guy calling me a fascist is a nut. Ignore him.". They're not gonna go "Oh, he's saying I prefer statism and capitalism". No one's gonna think like that. Is any of this sinking in?
Quite honestly, I hope you continue to use terms that only you agree with the definition. It only isolates you further than you already are.
Its not my fault if you guys are reluctant to abide by the dictionary. I was saying you cannot divide by these lines anymore, they are dated. Time passes things change. If you would please respond to my arguement I would greatly appreciate it.
throw their propaganda out there and expect that you refute it.
>If you would please respond to my arguement I would greatly appreciate it.
As I've always said, it's like arguing with a schizophrenic. I mean, if I said "the sky is red. Prove me wrong." would you waste your time trying to convince me otherwise? Feel free to believe whatever you like. I have cited numerous references explaining how liberalism has historically been the precursor to fascism and I maintain this position. Your fanatical rantings don't serve to convince anyone but reaffirm your schizophrenic conspiracist position. Liberalism and conservatism are philosophical mentalities, rationale and reasoning. These can be applied across a spectrum of thought on ANY issue. You've demonstrated that you think like a liberal and hence, I label YOU as a liberal. Look to any dictionary you like; that won't change the fact that you are a liberal. You claim that anarchism is left wing philosophy and then ask these indybay losers if they can believe I consider anarchism on the right. You should be asking an anarchist that, not a Utopianist. Utopianism is liberalism and that's what the so called "anarchists" around here *really* are. But like brigg said, please keep calling us conservatives (and anyone else that doesn't agree with your dementia) fascists, racists, homophobes, etc. until your faces turn blue. Isolate yourselves right into that corner. We have you right where we want you. It's hilarious! All I have to do is come here and type the word "liberal" and it sends you into a tizzy. I love how you guys hate Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. It cracks me up! I love how you guys spew all of you banter, banter, banter. It entertains the hell out of me! You guys are like my little dancing monkeys. Dance monkey, dance dance dance!
>If you would please respond to my arguement I would greatly appreciate it.
As I've always said, it's like arguing with a schizophrenic. I mean, if I said "the sky is red. Prove me wrong." would you waste your time trying to convince me otherwise? Feel free to believe whatever you like. I have cited numerous references explaining how liberalism has historically been the precursor to fascism and I maintain this position. Your fanatical rantings don't serve to convince anyone but reaffirm your schizophrenic conspiracist position. Liberalism and conservatism are philosophical mentalities, rationale and reasoning. These can be applied across a spectrum of thought on ANY issue. You've demonstrated that you think like a liberal and hence, I label YOU as a liberal. Look to any dictionary you like; that won't change the fact that you are a liberal. You claim that anarchism is left wing philosophy and then ask these indybay losers if they can believe I consider anarchism on the right. You should be asking an anarchist that, not a Utopianist. Utopianism is liberalism and that's what the so called "anarchists" around here *really* are. But like brigg said, please keep calling us conservatives (and anyone else that doesn't agree with your dementia) fascists, racists, homophobes, etc. until your faces turn blue. Isolate yourselves right into that corner. We have you right where we want you. It's hilarious! All I have to do is come here and type the word "liberal" and it sends you into a tizzy. I love how you guys hate Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. It cracks me up! I love how you guys spew all of you banter, banter, banter. It entertains the hell out of me! You guys are like my little dancing monkeys. Dance monkey, dance dance dance!
Name one.........................
"I have cited numerous references explaining how liberalism has historically been the precursor to fascism"
Now I guess you have lost the ability to count as well. Let's see you showed one, only one and again he was talking about a similarity between the two when liberalism goes in extreme forms.
"You claim that anarchism is left wing philosophy and then ask these indybay losers if they can believe I consider anarchism on the right. "
What can I say, certain things are just too damned funny to keep to myself.
Volataire once said the best way to understand the concept of infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity. Thank you for letting us all see the infinite.
Eric, the reason why I called you a fascist, is because you have openly lamented the passing of people who were pretty openly fascist: JoJo, Smash, Racer X. The openly professed a desire for a totalitarian state. You ally yourselves with them, I consider you a fascist. If you promote ethnic cleansing too, like they did, you are also bordering on the Nazi side of Fascism. Its really not that difficult to understand. Brigg as far as I can remember i never really called you a fascist, if I did well I am sorry I do not really think you are one.
And brigg, I am very sorry you find the dictionary not to your liking its sad. When people speak of the definitons of words most of us consider the dictionary to be one of the more reliable sources. You differ. Its quite an extreme and hardly defendable position, but each to his own I guess.
How you could not understand why I was saying those terms no longer apply is quite a mystery. But let's try it at another angle, name a conservative, I will show you how he/she is not according to your definition, mine and X's, and our last little fascist troll. Try it, and I'll show you.
Now I guess you have lost the ability to count as well. Let's see you showed one, only one and again he was talking about a similarity between the two when liberalism goes in extreme forms.
"You claim that anarchism is left wing philosophy and then ask these indybay losers if they can believe I consider anarchism on the right. "
What can I say, certain things are just too damned funny to keep to myself.
Volataire once said the best way to understand the concept of infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity. Thank you for letting us all see the infinite.
Eric, the reason why I called you a fascist, is because you have openly lamented the passing of people who were pretty openly fascist: JoJo, Smash, Racer X. The openly professed a desire for a totalitarian state. You ally yourselves with them, I consider you a fascist. If you promote ethnic cleansing too, like they did, you are also bordering on the Nazi side of Fascism. Its really not that difficult to understand. Brigg as far as I can remember i never really called you a fascist, if I did well I am sorry I do not really think you are one.
And brigg, I am very sorry you find the dictionary not to your liking its sad. When people speak of the definitons of words most of us consider the dictionary to be one of the more reliable sources. You differ. Its quite an extreme and hardly defendable position, but each to his own I guess.
How you could not understand why I was saying those terms no longer apply is quite a mystery. But let's try it at another angle, name a conservative, I will show you how he/she is not according to your definition, mine and X's, and our last little fascist troll. Try it, and I'll show you.
>Eric, the reason why I called you a fascist, is because you have openly lamented the passing of people who were pretty openly fascist: JoJo, Smash, Racer X.
If you’ve followed my work so closely to know who my friends are then you should know by now that I couldn’t care less what any of you indybay liberals think about me. It’s a badge of honor every time one of you hypocritical leftists squawk and label one of us “fascist”. We parade it around like marching bandleader and his baton.
But there’s no reason for me to “lament the passing” of these folks. They are very much still around, posting here regularly. They’re still stirring you guys up nearly every day. Really! Just open your eyes and look around! It’s just become less overt and more of a covert operation now. No wonder you guys are so concerned about a global corporate takeover! You can’t even figure out when you have spooks in YOUR own house, never mind the world!
>The openly professed a desire for a totalitarian state.
No they didn’t. You freakin’ slanderous liberals crack me up! It’s almost as if you believe your own drivel! So paranoid that it causes you all to see shadows! Like little children at bedtime when the lights are turned out. If you stare off into that dark room long enough you are bound to see some ghosts. Just pull those covers up over your head and close your eyes real tight. And when you open them the spooky pookies will all go away.
>You ally yourselves with them, I consider you a fascist.
And I consider you a liberal. So what is your point?
>If you promote ethnic cleansing too, like they did, you are also bordering on the Nazi side of Fascism.
Someone please tell me where in the hell this came from? Isn’t it bizarre how these liberals come up with these clever little tactics to change the discussion to fit their agendas.
From this one statement alone I can tell Mr. T here, is pro-palestinian, even though I’ve never met or chatted with him ever before. I’ve never read any more than the first line of any of his posts that weren’t directed towards me, mainly because he doesn’t have anything interesting to say. He’s a pretty boring guy. But I bet you five bucks that he can spew forth mountains of banter on the Israel-Palestine thing that would make hyenas seem like quiet little gerbils.
Personally, I think the Israelis and the Palestinians should fight it out, winner take all, and spare the rest of the world this thespian drama club theatrical display that’s been going on now for the last 60 years.
>Its really not that difficult to understand.
You’re absolutely right, it’s not. I totally understand why you think I’m a fascist. I have no problem understanding it. Just like a Doctor recognizes schizophrenia, I recognize liberalism. Which one of us is the crazy one I wonder?
Hey, I have an idea! Let’s you and me go out into the streets together and gather a big random crowd of people around us. Then you bellow your mantra to them about how I’m a fascist, racist, Zionist Nazi. And when you’re done, I’ll explain to them why I think you are a liberal. Then we’ll let the crowd decide which one of us is insane! Are you up for it T? I bet you’re not.
If you’ve followed my work so closely to know who my friends are then you should know by now that I couldn’t care less what any of you indybay liberals think about me. It’s a badge of honor every time one of you hypocritical leftists squawk and label one of us “fascist”. We parade it around like marching bandleader and his baton.
But there’s no reason for me to “lament the passing” of these folks. They are very much still around, posting here regularly. They’re still stirring you guys up nearly every day. Really! Just open your eyes and look around! It’s just become less overt and more of a covert operation now. No wonder you guys are so concerned about a global corporate takeover! You can’t even figure out when you have spooks in YOUR own house, never mind the world!
>The openly professed a desire for a totalitarian state.
No they didn’t. You freakin’ slanderous liberals crack me up! It’s almost as if you believe your own drivel! So paranoid that it causes you all to see shadows! Like little children at bedtime when the lights are turned out. If you stare off into that dark room long enough you are bound to see some ghosts. Just pull those covers up over your head and close your eyes real tight. And when you open them the spooky pookies will all go away.
>You ally yourselves with them, I consider you a fascist.
And I consider you a liberal. So what is your point?
>If you promote ethnic cleansing too, like they did, you are also bordering on the Nazi side of Fascism.
Someone please tell me where in the hell this came from? Isn’t it bizarre how these liberals come up with these clever little tactics to change the discussion to fit their agendas.
From this one statement alone I can tell Mr. T here, is pro-palestinian, even though I’ve never met or chatted with him ever before. I’ve never read any more than the first line of any of his posts that weren’t directed towards me, mainly because he doesn’t have anything interesting to say. He’s a pretty boring guy. But I bet you five bucks that he can spew forth mountains of banter on the Israel-Palestine thing that would make hyenas seem like quiet little gerbils.
Personally, I think the Israelis and the Palestinians should fight it out, winner take all, and spare the rest of the world this thespian drama club theatrical display that’s been going on now for the last 60 years.
>Its really not that difficult to understand.
You’re absolutely right, it’s not. I totally understand why you think I’m a fascist. I have no problem understanding it. Just like a Doctor recognizes schizophrenia, I recognize liberalism. Which one of us is the crazy one I wonder?
Hey, I have an idea! Let’s you and me go out into the streets together and gather a big random crowd of people around us. Then you bellow your mantra to them about how I’m a fascist, racist, Zionist Nazi. And when you’re done, I’ll explain to them why I think you are a liberal. Then we’ll let the crowd decide which one of us is insane! Are you up for it T? I bet you’re not.
Look guy, I've never argued with the dictionary definition of these terms. But the political game has defined "conservative" and "liberal" beyond the dictionary definitions. Certainly you are aware of this.
I've pointed some things out to you and others. If you choose to ignore them, no sweat off my back. I've seen writing on here indicating that the anarchists/leftist message is one you want to appeal to the common man. If you continue to use the phraseology you do, the common man isn't going to understand. You ignore this to your own peril.
I've pointed some things out to you and others. If you choose to ignore them, no sweat off my back. I've seen writing on here indicating that the anarchists/leftist message is one you want to appeal to the common man. If you continue to use the phraseology you do, the common man isn't going to understand. You ignore this to your own peril.
"If you’ve followed my work so closely to know who my friends are then you should know by now that I couldn’t care less what any of you indybay liberals think about me. It’s a badge of honor every time one of you hypocritical leftists squawk and label one of us “fascist”. We parade it around like marching bandleader and his baton.
But there’s no reason for me to “lament the passing” of these folks. They are very much still around, posting here regularly. They’re still stirring you guys up nearly every day. Really! Just open your eyes and look around! It’s just become less overt and more of a covert operation now. No wonder you guys are so concerned about a global corporate takeover! You can’t even figure out when you have spooks in YOUR own house, never mind the world!"
Oh. So you guys ARE trying to prevent intelligent discussion here. I wonder why. Could it be because you couldn't hope to win on the basis of rational, mutual consensus? So you have to resort to chilidish tactics of disruption? Puh-leeese. Get a goddamn life already. I don't think this phantom majority you squawk on endlessly about (wherever they are) would agree with that. Maybe some undereducated drunken slobs farting around in rusty, semen stained pickup trucks. That's about it.
But there’s no reason for me to “lament the passing” of these folks. They are very much still around, posting here regularly. They’re still stirring you guys up nearly every day. Really! Just open your eyes and look around! It’s just become less overt and more of a covert operation now. No wonder you guys are so concerned about a global corporate takeover! You can’t even figure out when you have spooks in YOUR own house, never mind the world!"
Oh. So you guys ARE trying to prevent intelligent discussion here. I wonder why. Could it be because you couldn't hope to win on the basis of rational, mutual consensus? So you have to resort to chilidish tactics of disruption? Puh-leeese. Get a goddamn life already. I don't think this phantom majority you squawk on endlessly about (wherever they are) would agree with that. Maybe some undereducated drunken slobs farting around in rusty, semen stained pickup trucks. That's about it.
"So you guys ARE trying to prevent intelligent discussion here."
Yeah. That's it. Trying to prevent intelligent conversation on indybay. May as well try to catch a fart and paint it green.
"Could it be because you couldn't hope to win on the basis of rational, mutual consensus? ...I don't think this phantom majority you squawk on endlessly about (wherever they are) would agree with that."
Go out in the street and ask them for yourself, asswipe.
Really, go ask them. They're right outside you door. On the streets, in the buildings, restaraunts, Wal-marts, McDonalds, etc. etc. Go freaking asking them. I dare you.
Yeah. That's it. Trying to prevent intelligent conversation on indybay. May as well try to catch a fart and paint it green.
"Could it be because you couldn't hope to win on the basis of rational, mutual consensus? ...I don't think this phantom majority you squawk on endlessly about (wherever they are) would agree with that."
Go out in the street and ask them for yourself, asswipe.
Really, go ask them. They're right outside you door. On the streets, in the buildings, restaraunts, Wal-marts, McDonalds, etc. etc. Go freaking asking them. I dare you.
Ask them what? Ask them if you are always correct?
If you think you are doing some wonderful job at disrupting Indymedia, think again. This is really great practice for debating in the real world, and lately I have found myself being able to win out in many arguments with mindless right wingers.
I asked some people on the street if they thought they agreed with being proud to be called a fascist, and wearing it as a badge of honour. They said no, unanimously. I will keep looking for this phantom majority of yours, but I think you did some bad LSD when you were younger, personally.
I asked some people on the street if they thought they agreed with being proud to be called a fascist, and wearing it as a badge of honour. They said no, unanimously. I will keep looking for this phantom majority of yours, but I think you did some bad LSD when you were younger, personally.
Leftwing Defeatism
Not long ago, I saw the great thinker of the Left, Naom Chomski, talking on a cable channel at a diner. He spoke very convincingly, albeit with 10 syllable words, about imperialist/corporate America. I listened to him on the edge of my stool.
Apparently I was the only one who found Chomski intriguing. Several people 'protested' his lecture and the channel was promptly changed to Sports. In fact, an ad for Nikes was playing out. Ironic, considering that the old man had accused Nike only moments before, of supporting abysmal labor conditions throughout the developing world.
Did the people around me see the irony? No. Not one. What they saw, I'm afraid, was an intellect with an oversized head, talking Greek. Worse, the sour looking old guy appeared to be bitching about anything and all that most people happen to enjoy.
Is this how the Left cares to reach the masses?
Okay, so the masses 'enjoy' whatever few choices the market permits. When this occurs in politics, we call it propaganda; and as the 'preemptive war' effort winds up against Iraq, you can be sure that the people are going to buy it. Strong men with many medals stand at the podium at the Pentagon and sell Americans on this outlandish war, all on the basis of appealing to our best interests.
The only real left wing candidate in recent times? Ralph Nader, who attempted to shore up his presidential bids with ZIP charisma.
Face it. The left is at a deficit in terms of showing anything appealing that people might, well, find attractive.
Lately, as I read the top conservative Websites, I find that more and more of these people are becoming wary of Bush. Conservative Cato analyst, Alan Reynolds, recently wrote, "The government's fatal assumption was that stocks fell mainly because of accounting problems," rather than cooking the books. Here we have a true affront to the Bush administration, who, for the sake of image made a few high profile arrests to appear tough.
Conservatives are seeing through the Bush charade, but who in the Left reads the Cato reports? We know we hate the Heritage Foundation, right? But their best thinkers are every day reading The Nation, and amending our ideasto their program, which bottom line, appeals to the masses: love of family, love of country, and finally, love of (gasp!) the status quo.
The status quo sucks. But tell that to the guy on the stool beside me. He looks like an average American, what, with an American flag airbrushed across his t-shirt. To look at him, he is just another old guy sitting at the counter, sipping coffee. But Saed is an Armenian, born in Iraq.
He tells me he had to leave his homeland, considering the persecution of Armenians in Iraq, "And so I lived from one country to another, where no one would take me for who I am, not until I came to America."
Saed succeeded in the US. He bought property and ran a number of successful convenient stores. He does not like Saddam Hussein, and is not unaware of the thousands of Kurds whom Saddam gassed to death in the streets.
"You a liberal?" he asked. "You must be if you don't want to see that butcher contained. And for me? While you fight the US government, I am grateful for the security I have living in this country, and the freedom I have to be who I am. But you liberals? You make a hate fest of all of it, and who will listen to you when you are right?"
I smirked. "When we are right, or do you mean - on the right?"
Saed laughed. And he handed me a feature from today's paper, of Bush on his ranch wearing a cowboy hat, wrist bleeding, carrying cedar logs. "You know how a picture is said to be worth a thousand words?" he asked.
I nodded.
"You liberals should get a load of this," he said. "Here is the president who alone defies bans on greenhouse gasses, who is paid by the factories to lower pollution standards (how he won his office!). But all he need do here is say how he has 'liberated' his oaks from the strangling cedars to allow them water, and he is a great conservationist.
"But you tell me, what about you liberals? You are defeatists, too full of hatemongering to show the little people even a little of the strength conveyed by the president in this picture."
And I realized: He has a point. When I sought to gain big time support for InterNation in order to compete with the likes of the mainstream media, my liberal friends sent messages of PROTEST!!! What, they wondered, Did I want money? A virtual hug? "Forget it, man, we're radicals over here," one guy said.
Another left-winger snipped, "Free information hogs!"
I was accused of "entrepreneur activism." -Hummm do you see a financial opportunity? (My reply: If I wanted your fucking money so much I wouldn't risk assailing the time worn platitudes of my fellow leftwingers!)
I am strong, and resolute, trying to find stratagems to beat the big guys at their own game, but guess what? It appears that only Republicans are allowed this sense of exhilaration these days! The attitude of my liberal minded friends? Expect nothing less than DEFEAT! They are generally angry, and whatever hostility that comes their way from others, the more they feel PERSECUTED. Enemies of the state! And when the FBI doesn't come knocking? They're a little miffed.
The left is in dire straits not because we do not engender images of strength, or success. We come across as a reactive, intellectual elite. In a nutshell? The left is like Naom Chomski, totally out of touch with ordinary people.
Not long ago, I saw the great thinker of the Left, Naom Chomski, talking on a cable channel at a diner. He spoke very convincingly, albeit with 10 syllable words, about imperialist/corporate America. I listened to him on the edge of my stool.
Apparently I was the only one who found Chomski intriguing. Several people 'protested' his lecture and the channel was promptly changed to Sports. In fact, an ad for Nikes was playing out. Ironic, considering that the old man had accused Nike only moments before, of supporting abysmal labor conditions throughout the developing world.
Did the people around me see the irony? No. Not one. What they saw, I'm afraid, was an intellect with an oversized head, talking Greek. Worse, the sour looking old guy appeared to be bitching about anything and all that most people happen to enjoy.
Is this how the Left cares to reach the masses?
Okay, so the masses 'enjoy' whatever few choices the market permits. When this occurs in politics, we call it propaganda; and as the 'preemptive war' effort winds up against Iraq, you can be sure that the people are going to buy it. Strong men with many medals stand at the podium at the Pentagon and sell Americans on this outlandish war, all on the basis of appealing to our best interests.
The only real left wing candidate in recent times? Ralph Nader, who attempted to shore up his presidential bids with ZIP charisma.
Face it. The left is at a deficit in terms of showing anything appealing that people might, well, find attractive.
Lately, as I read the top conservative Websites, I find that more and more of these people are becoming wary of Bush. Conservative Cato analyst, Alan Reynolds, recently wrote, "The government's fatal assumption was that stocks fell mainly because of accounting problems," rather than cooking the books. Here we have a true affront to the Bush administration, who, for the sake of image made a few high profile arrests to appear tough.
Conservatives are seeing through the Bush charade, but who in the Left reads the Cato reports? We know we hate the Heritage Foundation, right? But their best thinkers are every day reading The Nation, and amending our ideasto their program, which bottom line, appeals to the masses: love of family, love of country, and finally, love of (gasp!) the status quo.
The status quo sucks. But tell that to the guy on the stool beside me. He looks like an average American, what, with an American flag airbrushed across his t-shirt. To look at him, he is just another old guy sitting at the counter, sipping coffee. But Saed is an Armenian, born in Iraq.
He tells me he had to leave his homeland, considering the persecution of Armenians in Iraq, "And so I lived from one country to another, where no one would take me for who I am, not until I came to America."
Saed succeeded in the US. He bought property and ran a number of successful convenient stores. He does not like Saddam Hussein, and is not unaware of the thousands of Kurds whom Saddam gassed to death in the streets.
"You a liberal?" he asked. "You must be if you don't want to see that butcher contained. And for me? While you fight the US government, I am grateful for the security I have living in this country, and the freedom I have to be who I am. But you liberals? You make a hate fest of all of it, and who will listen to you when you are right?"
I smirked. "When we are right, or do you mean - on the right?"
Saed laughed. And he handed me a feature from today's paper, of Bush on his ranch wearing a cowboy hat, wrist bleeding, carrying cedar logs. "You know how a picture is said to be worth a thousand words?" he asked.
I nodded.
"You liberals should get a load of this," he said. "Here is the president who alone defies bans on greenhouse gasses, who is paid by the factories to lower pollution standards (how he won his office!). But all he need do here is say how he has 'liberated' his oaks from the strangling cedars to allow them water, and he is a great conservationist.
"But you tell me, what about you liberals? You are defeatists, too full of hatemongering to show the little people even a little of the strength conveyed by the president in this picture."
And I realized: He has a point. When I sought to gain big time support for InterNation in order to compete with the likes of the mainstream media, my liberal friends sent messages of PROTEST!!! What, they wondered, Did I want money? A virtual hug? "Forget it, man, we're radicals over here," one guy said.
Another left-winger snipped, "Free information hogs!"
I was accused of "entrepreneur activism." -Hummm do you see a financial opportunity? (My reply: If I wanted your fucking money so much I wouldn't risk assailing the time worn platitudes of my fellow leftwingers!)
I am strong, and resolute, trying to find stratagems to beat the big guys at their own game, but guess what? It appears that only Republicans are allowed this sense of exhilaration these days! The attitude of my liberal minded friends? Expect nothing less than DEFEAT! They are generally angry, and whatever hostility that comes their way from others, the more they feel PERSECUTED. Enemies of the state! And when the FBI doesn't come knocking? They're a little miffed.
The left is in dire straits not because we do not engender images of strength, or success. We come across as a reactive, intellectual elite. In a nutshell? The left is like Naom Chomski, totally out of touch with ordinary people.
For more information:
http://www.inter-nation.org
George Orwell wrote, regarding the stupidity of intellectuals, the following from his May 1945 essay "Notes on Nationalism":
"It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the LEFT believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."
"THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE FOLLIES THAT CAN BE SWALLOWED IF ONE IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF FEELINGS OF THIS KIND"
i.e. "lately I have found myself being able to win out in many arguments with mindless right wingers."
Welcome to the world of the left.
"It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the LEFT believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."
"THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE FOLLIES THAT CAN BE SWALLOWED IF ONE IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF FEELINGS OF THIS KIND"
i.e. "lately I have found myself being able to win out in many arguments with mindless right wingers."
Welcome to the world of the left.
"Ask them what? Ask them if you are always correct?"
No. Ask them if you liberals EVER are correct.
"I asked some people on the street if they thought they agreed with being proud to be called a fascist, and wearing it as a badge of honour. They said no, unanimously."
Now go back and ask them if they hate America. Ask them if they want "Under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance. Ask them if they want to see lesbians kissing at a basketball game to get attention for "gay rights". Ask them if they want to throw our capitalist system out and adopt a system of socialism, communism, or anarchy. Ask them if they think America is a Police State and if they feel all cops should be done away with. Ask them if they want to do away with age of consent laws so we won't have any legal recourse when our children fall victim to pedophiles. Ask them if they want their handguns taken away. Ask them if they think Dick Cheney is a crook that compares to the likes of Bill Clinton and if he deserves to be heckled by some loser women's activist group that has never done a God damned productive thing for this country. Ask them if they think George W. Bush is a criminal that conspired to kill thousands in the WTC so he could pipe all of the oil from the middle east and take over Iraq. Ask them if you can take the American flag they have flying in their yard down and burn it. Ask them you fucking moron.
In short, go out there and retake your poll. Ask them if they agree with any of the bullshit "articles" posted here on you propaganda newswire, you loser fucking liberal.
You couldn't debate your way out of shoe store.
"I will keep looking for this phantom majority of yours, but I think you did some bad LSD when you were younger, personally."
You do that la-la boy. You do it, and maybe you'll learn something. Oh, and I've never done ANY LSD, I'll leave that to the hippies that were the precursor of the liberals of today. But if it weren't for people like ME, then people like YOU would make it perfectly legal to buy and use all the LSD one could want, isn't that true?
No. Ask them if you liberals EVER are correct.
"I asked some people on the street if they thought they agreed with being proud to be called a fascist, and wearing it as a badge of honour. They said no, unanimously."
Now go back and ask them if they hate America. Ask them if they want "Under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance. Ask them if they want to see lesbians kissing at a basketball game to get attention for "gay rights". Ask them if they want to throw our capitalist system out and adopt a system of socialism, communism, or anarchy. Ask them if they think America is a Police State and if they feel all cops should be done away with. Ask them if they want to do away with age of consent laws so we won't have any legal recourse when our children fall victim to pedophiles. Ask them if they want their handguns taken away. Ask them if they think Dick Cheney is a crook that compares to the likes of Bill Clinton and if he deserves to be heckled by some loser women's activist group that has never done a God damned productive thing for this country. Ask them if they think George W. Bush is a criminal that conspired to kill thousands in the WTC so he could pipe all of the oil from the middle east and take over Iraq. Ask them if you can take the American flag they have flying in their yard down and burn it. Ask them you fucking moron.
In short, go out there and retake your poll. Ask them if they agree with any of the bullshit "articles" posted here on you propaganda newswire, you loser fucking liberal.
You couldn't debate your way out of shoe store.
"I will keep looking for this phantom majority of yours, but I think you did some bad LSD when you were younger, personally."
You do that la-la boy. You do it, and maybe you'll learn something. Oh, and I've never done ANY LSD, I'll leave that to the hippies that were the precursor of the liberals of today. But if it weren't for people like ME, then people like YOU would make it perfectly legal to buy and use all the LSD one could want, isn't that true?
You are a liberal that I would consider meeting half way.
Before I label ya all ah bunch ah.....TERRORISTS! I would like ta say ah somting and or something.PS: This is my good friend Gleny Danzigar talkin'....We aren't at war we don't even "need" to survive, and if we did why did we make separate countries....And keep them that way.America just ,because we're born here doesn't mean we owe it to our country.What countries do is:They assume we have no rights to begin with then they give us some rights.Really we don't need rights they can go ahead and take half of our rights away we are still able to do that right that we don't have. Animals lived in nature for about 3 billion years or so without laws,a country or anything...Really it doesn't matter if we live or die,because don't seem to be showing we want people to live.That ah...........Was............Gllll.........eny....Danzig!Now go to ahhhhhh HELLL!!!!
Eric, Eric, your stupidity never ceases to be hilarious. I truly think that you may be one of the sole reasons for me to post here. First, you say fascism is a left wing ideology and anarchy is a right wing ideology. That was really funny. My European friends really enjoyed that one. Now you tend to think that the majority of people think fascism is good thing? That's even funnier.
What's funniest though, happens to be your utter reluctance to ever, answer anything. You lack the intellect, you lack the ability, and you are too damned pig headed to be able to admit you're wrong. For example it looks like you just said fascism was a right wing ideology to me. Oh and your comments about Smashy et al, well i remember on several different occasions me and others arguing with them when they were talking about ridding the earth of those damned filthy Arabs. Now I know you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, possibly the dullest one yet, that would be a form of ethnic cleansing. Peroid. That is all that has to be said about that. You agree with that, well like I said you are now in not mere fascist territory that is more a Nazi one. Go salute your Fuhrer.
Your generalizations of people I find truly disgusting. Anytime someone seriously groups people together to the sort of extreme as your "ask them tirade" let's just say I find you dangerous. The bottom line is generally we do not follow that strict of a guidelines or codes. It's just funny how some people, could be so isolated, so stuck in their own putrid bubble that they could honestly believe half of what they say. Over the course of this arguement you have never said anything of any sort of value. You use bad logic, and usually go off about some crap along the lines of "you damned liberals make me sick." Yeah it would be pretty funny for me to debate with you in public, like I said you should try out to be a comedian. Of course though nobody would honestly take you seriously. It really does show that you are more than a bit slow. In fact I think you are in reverse.
Now, that I have dealt with the buffoon, I will talk with someone else who has a little bit more to say. Brigg my whole point about that whole liberal vs. conservative is something of the past it cannot hold any weight anymore. I said give me a conservative and I will show you how the lines are blurred, by your definition, by my definition and even by our Nazi friend here. According to all definitions it holds true. I think today its more about moderates against radicals, Jacobins agaisnt Girodins, and they defy typical left vs right, conservative vs. liberal lines.
What's funniest though, happens to be your utter reluctance to ever, answer anything. You lack the intellect, you lack the ability, and you are too damned pig headed to be able to admit you're wrong. For example it looks like you just said fascism was a right wing ideology to me. Oh and your comments about Smashy et al, well i remember on several different occasions me and others arguing with them when they were talking about ridding the earth of those damned filthy Arabs. Now I know you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, possibly the dullest one yet, that would be a form of ethnic cleansing. Peroid. That is all that has to be said about that. You agree with that, well like I said you are now in not mere fascist territory that is more a Nazi one. Go salute your Fuhrer.
Your generalizations of people I find truly disgusting. Anytime someone seriously groups people together to the sort of extreme as your "ask them tirade" let's just say I find you dangerous. The bottom line is generally we do not follow that strict of a guidelines or codes. It's just funny how some people, could be so isolated, so stuck in their own putrid bubble that they could honestly believe half of what they say. Over the course of this arguement you have never said anything of any sort of value. You use bad logic, and usually go off about some crap along the lines of "you damned liberals make me sick." Yeah it would be pretty funny for me to debate with you in public, like I said you should try out to be a comedian. Of course though nobody would honestly take you seriously. It really does show that you are more than a bit slow. In fact I think you are in reverse.
Now, that I have dealt with the buffoon, I will talk with someone else who has a little bit more to say. Brigg my whole point about that whole liberal vs. conservative is something of the past it cannot hold any weight anymore. I said give me a conservative and I will show you how the lines are blurred, by your definition, by my definition and even by our Nazi friend here. According to all definitions it holds true. I think today its more about moderates against radicals, Jacobins agaisnt Girodins, and they defy typical left vs right, conservative vs. liberal lines.
Hello.........Im a dildo.........Pappa has something to say!This is dubya ya know what fuck all the countries!We must have a global country maybe some laws like if you kill more than one person on purpose you get thrown off a building! Hey then we'll only have to worry about civil crap.And with anarchy you get free food.Oh only a crazy mad person would kill in this dream country.Also if alot of people are crazy it will reduce world population!
If that country doesn't work out I will just shoot 15 h-bombs in the center of our mainland and ya know maybe if try blowing some 100 megaton bombs!!!!Whhhoooooooooooooooohhhhhhoooooi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If that country doesn't work out I will just shoot 15 h-bombs in the center of our mainland and ya know maybe if try blowing some 100 megaton bombs!!!!Whhhoooooooooooooooohhhhhhoooooi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Screw the time conservers, and destroy the fake democracy! Then after that make an army to kill the world!!!!! After that take all the relatively smart people ,and put them on a fusion rocket to the asteroid belt. After that plant millions of trees on mars hope the gravity can actually hold the growing atmoshere which it won't,and throw all the ceos there! Then rampage on Earth ,and do want you want.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network