Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Yappy Condoleeza - Who Let The Dogs Out?
Condoleeza Rice reminds me of one of those shaggy little dogs that bark too much because their bite is harmless. You know the kind I mean. They have a high-pitched yip that pierces the silence and they don't stop barking until their human locks them in another room or gives them a doggie treat. Although their bite is the equivalent of the bite one gets from a deerfly, it is their bark that is their true weapon.
Condy Rice's Yipping Tirades
Who Let the Dogs Out?
By RON JACOBS
Condoleeza Rice reminds me of one of those shaggy little dogs that bark too much because their bite is harmless. You know the kind I mean. They have a high-pitched yip that pierces the silence and they don't stop barking until their human locks them in another room or gives them a doggie treat. Although their bite is the equivalent of the bite one gets from a deerfly, it is their bark that is their true weapon. I have even seen pit bulls shrink from these varmints' high-decibel attacks. That is, until the pit bull realized he could eat the smaller animal for a snack. Ms. Rice is Dubya's yipping dog.
Most recently, Condy (her pet name, shall we say) launched a yipping tirade on a group of reporters in Washington. Her subjects included the Bush Politburo's revised "axis of evil": Syria, North Korea and Iran. According to an article in The Hindustan Times, Rice stated that these countries should "change their "troubling" behaviors. In other words, these countries need to stop any of their policies that might conflict with "U.S. interests." In Syria's case, this means that Syria must end its support for organizations that oppose the US designs for the region. As any objective observer of events in the Middle East knows, the phrase "U.S. designs" has become code for the wishes of the Israeli government. Furthermore, insisted Rice, Syria must end its occupation of Lebanon (a growing demand of the Bushites that is being pushed by a neocon front group that calls itself United States Committee for a Free Lebanon) and account for its weapons of mass destruction. Of course, no mention was made of Israel's occupation of Palestine or Israel's WMD. In addition, Rice's accusation that Syria has WMD has yet to be substantiated by any factual evidence.
As for northern Korea, Rice stated: "no one should be willing to give in to the kind of blackmail that the North Koreans have been practicing on the world for a number of years, especially not the United States." What she left unsaid, of course, is that the United States government should be the only government that can blackmail anybody. It's not that the northern Korean government is blackmailing anyone; it's more like they are trying to survive as an entity in the face of the most concerted attack on their existence in close to ten years. No one wants to see these countries develop or use nuclear weapons, but in all truth, they do have the right to defend themselves. The most reasonable way to resolve the situation in that country is for the United States to back down from its threatening position, restart fuel oil deliveries, and begin honest negotiations designed to bring about a lasting peace between Washington and Pyongyang (with the reunification of Korea the eventual goal). Threats made with bared teeth and increases in troop strength and weaponry are not likely to create a stable situation in the region. Indeed, they are almost certain to inflame passions and increase the likelihood of devastating war.
When Iran was mentioned, Condy strained at her leash so hard she almost flipped over on her back. Once she had calmed down though, it was apparent that she had saved her most vicious yipping for the government in Tehran. Tehran, said Rice, should end its nuclear program and, even more importantly, better behave when it came to its dealings with the government the U.S. installs in Baghdad. Furthermore, said Rice, the Iranians should not try to import their form of government to Iraq, nor should they continue supporting groups whose ideas about the Middle East differ from those of Washington. In short, Iran should surrender its foreign policy to that of the United States and give up any of its hopes for a political situation that reflects the desires of the Arab and Persian people that the United States get out of the area. Nothing that Rice said regarding Iran showed a true understanding of the many differences between the various Shia factions in Islam (specifically among the Iraqi Shia) as witnessed by their statements. It is true that some clerics have called for an Islamic republic, but most have made it clear that they want to be part of a truly representative Iraqi government that speaks for all of the Iraqi people. In addition, most of these clerics have insisted that religion and government should be separate if religion is to be pure. U.S. officials and their media have for the most part ignored these latter statements in favor of sounding alarms over statements made by those few clerics who have called for an Islamic Republic in Iraq.
The issue of nuclear development in northern Korea and Iran is a troubling one, just like it is in every country that has a nuclear program. It is of course essential to oppose the spread of nuclear weapons wherever they threaten to spread. However, it is equally important to challenge the current dynamic that attacks these two countries for going ahead with their nuclear programs while not seriously addressing the even greater threat that those countries already in possession of nuclear weapons presents. I don't sleep easier because of my knowledge that the Pentagon has a nuclear arsenal. Nor does Israel's nuclear arsenal make me feel secure. Actually, in all honesty the fact that these two countries possess as many nuclear weapons as they do (and continue to develop more lethal versions) makes me considerably more nervous than any threat posed by Iran or northern Korea.
There was no room for compromise in Rice's statements. It was clear that this toy poodle (or Shih-Tzu or whatever) has some serious backup. There's an ill-tempered Doberman named Rummy, a Rottweiler named Colin, a couple German Shepherds with military collars named Tommy and Dick, and a chimp who thinks he's running the show named George (and it's not Curious George). To make matters worse, they have all escaped from the kennel and are on the loose. Where's animal control?
Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground.
He can be reached at: rjacobs [at] zoo.uvm.edu
Who Let the Dogs Out?
By RON JACOBS
Condoleeza Rice reminds me of one of those shaggy little dogs that bark too much because their bite is harmless. You know the kind I mean. They have a high-pitched yip that pierces the silence and they don't stop barking until their human locks them in another room or gives them a doggie treat. Although their bite is the equivalent of the bite one gets from a deerfly, it is their bark that is their true weapon. I have even seen pit bulls shrink from these varmints' high-decibel attacks. That is, until the pit bull realized he could eat the smaller animal for a snack. Ms. Rice is Dubya's yipping dog.
Most recently, Condy (her pet name, shall we say) launched a yipping tirade on a group of reporters in Washington. Her subjects included the Bush Politburo's revised "axis of evil": Syria, North Korea and Iran. According to an article in The Hindustan Times, Rice stated that these countries should "change their "troubling" behaviors. In other words, these countries need to stop any of their policies that might conflict with "U.S. interests." In Syria's case, this means that Syria must end its support for organizations that oppose the US designs for the region. As any objective observer of events in the Middle East knows, the phrase "U.S. designs" has become code for the wishes of the Israeli government. Furthermore, insisted Rice, Syria must end its occupation of Lebanon (a growing demand of the Bushites that is being pushed by a neocon front group that calls itself United States Committee for a Free Lebanon) and account for its weapons of mass destruction. Of course, no mention was made of Israel's occupation of Palestine or Israel's WMD. In addition, Rice's accusation that Syria has WMD has yet to be substantiated by any factual evidence.
As for northern Korea, Rice stated: "no one should be willing to give in to the kind of blackmail that the North Koreans have been practicing on the world for a number of years, especially not the United States." What she left unsaid, of course, is that the United States government should be the only government that can blackmail anybody. It's not that the northern Korean government is blackmailing anyone; it's more like they are trying to survive as an entity in the face of the most concerted attack on their existence in close to ten years. No one wants to see these countries develop or use nuclear weapons, but in all truth, they do have the right to defend themselves. The most reasonable way to resolve the situation in that country is for the United States to back down from its threatening position, restart fuel oil deliveries, and begin honest negotiations designed to bring about a lasting peace between Washington and Pyongyang (with the reunification of Korea the eventual goal). Threats made with bared teeth and increases in troop strength and weaponry are not likely to create a stable situation in the region. Indeed, they are almost certain to inflame passions and increase the likelihood of devastating war.
When Iran was mentioned, Condy strained at her leash so hard she almost flipped over on her back. Once she had calmed down though, it was apparent that she had saved her most vicious yipping for the government in Tehran. Tehran, said Rice, should end its nuclear program and, even more importantly, better behave when it came to its dealings with the government the U.S. installs in Baghdad. Furthermore, said Rice, the Iranians should not try to import their form of government to Iraq, nor should they continue supporting groups whose ideas about the Middle East differ from those of Washington. In short, Iran should surrender its foreign policy to that of the United States and give up any of its hopes for a political situation that reflects the desires of the Arab and Persian people that the United States get out of the area. Nothing that Rice said regarding Iran showed a true understanding of the many differences between the various Shia factions in Islam (specifically among the Iraqi Shia) as witnessed by their statements. It is true that some clerics have called for an Islamic republic, but most have made it clear that they want to be part of a truly representative Iraqi government that speaks for all of the Iraqi people. In addition, most of these clerics have insisted that religion and government should be separate if religion is to be pure. U.S. officials and their media have for the most part ignored these latter statements in favor of sounding alarms over statements made by those few clerics who have called for an Islamic Republic in Iraq.
The issue of nuclear development in northern Korea and Iran is a troubling one, just like it is in every country that has a nuclear program. It is of course essential to oppose the spread of nuclear weapons wherever they threaten to spread. However, it is equally important to challenge the current dynamic that attacks these two countries for going ahead with their nuclear programs while not seriously addressing the even greater threat that those countries already in possession of nuclear weapons presents. I don't sleep easier because of my knowledge that the Pentagon has a nuclear arsenal. Nor does Israel's nuclear arsenal make me feel secure. Actually, in all honesty the fact that these two countries possess as many nuclear weapons as they do (and continue to develop more lethal versions) makes me considerably more nervous than any threat posed by Iran or northern Korea.
There was no room for compromise in Rice's statements. It was clear that this toy poodle (or Shih-Tzu or whatever) has some serious backup. There's an ill-tempered Doberman named Rummy, a Rottweiler named Colin, a couple German Shepherds with military collars named Tommy and Dick, and a chimp who thinks he's running the show named George (and it's not Curious George). To make matters worse, they have all escaped from the kennel and are on the loose. Where's animal control?
Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground.
He can be reached at: rjacobs [at] zoo.uvm.edu
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Say it ain't so! There is rumor flying around Stanford that Con-woman Rice will run against Arrrrnold for the Republican nomination for CA governor. Anyone out there have any info. on this?
Typical of the far left that as soon as a truly brilliant, independant, strong willed, educated black woman rises to the top of the power structure, she is labelled a "yipping dog" because she is not a leftist.
Pathetic. The truth is that the Republican Party freed the slaves, outlawed the KKK, voted in higher percentages than Democrats for the Voting Rights Act (which Al Gore Sr. voted against, by the way). They continue to recruit and appoint to high office the most talented, articulate black Americans- and they get zero credit for it. I guess if your name is Sharpton, and you made your name by fraudulent race hucksterism you have a better chance at respect than a brilliant defense analyst such as Dr. Rice.
Pathetic. The truth is that the Republican Party freed the slaves, outlawed the KKK, voted in higher percentages than Democrats for the Voting Rights Act (which Al Gore Sr. voted against, by the way). They continue to recruit and appoint to high office the most talented, articulate black Americans- and they get zero credit for it. I guess if your name is Sharpton, and you made your name by fraudulent race hucksterism you have a better chance at respect than a brilliant defense analyst such as Dr. Rice.
"They continue to recruit and appoint to high office the most talented, articulate black Americans-..."
Unsubstantiated Allegation
For more about logic, see:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
Unsubstantiated Allegation
For more about logic, see:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
Dr. Condi Rice is the first obvious example. The other is Colin Powell. You may have heard of him. He is the Secretary of State, and happens to be black.
There are numberous other examples of prominent black conservatives whose ideas (not their skin color) are the reasons they are so influential in this administration.
There are numberous other examples of prominent black conservatives whose ideas (not their skin color) are the reasons they are so influential in this administration.
Balderdash. Yankee soldiers, many of them former slaves themselves, freed the slaves. The GOP just took the credit, that's all.
Those two are black, yet they are FAR from talented and articulate.
You are joking, right? The Republican Party was FOUNDED as an anti-slavery party!! The Democratic Party split in two in 1860 with the Southern Democrats seceeding from the Union over Lincoln's election!!! The Draft Riots in (heavily Democrat) New York featured lynchings, and targeted murder of blacks!! You need to read a book, man. Try Bruce Catton's Battle Cry of Freedom as a start....not too many big words...
That is your opinion. I have read some of her National Security papers, and seen her on TV numberous times, and she is clearly quite intelligent and articulate. I personally hope Bush picks her as his VP in 2004.
Dr. Condoleeza Rice was born on November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama. She entered the University of Denver at age 15 (!!!!)and graduated in 1974 with a bachelor's degree in political science. Rice then went on to earn a master's degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1975 and a doctorate Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981.
Dr. Rice has also received honorary doctorates from Morehouse College, the University of Alabama, and the University of Notre Dame.
Dr. Rice joined the faculty at Stanford University in 1981, where she initially served as a fellow in the arms control and disarmament program. She went on to become a tenured professor in the university's political science department. Dr. Rice received several teaching distinctions during in her time at Stanford. In 1984, she won the Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and in 1993, she was awarded the School of Humanities and Sciences Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching. She also served as a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control and as a fellow of both the Institute for International Studies and the Hoover Institution. Rice ended a six year tenure as the University's provost in 1999.
Dr. Rice has written several books, including "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed" (1995) with Philip Zelikow, "The Gorbachev Era" (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and "Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army" (1984).
From 1989 through March 1991, Rice served with the Bush Administration as Director of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council. She went on to be named Senior director, in the same capacity, and also served as a Special Assistant to President Bush for National Security Affairs.
Condoleeza Rice was named on National Security Advisor for the Bush Administration on January 22, 2001
Dr. Rice has also received honorary doctorates from Morehouse College, the University of Alabama, and the University of Notre Dame.
Dr. Rice joined the faculty at Stanford University in 1981, where she initially served as a fellow in the arms control and disarmament program. She went on to become a tenured professor in the university's political science department. Dr. Rice received several teaching distinctions during in her time at Stanford. In 1984, she won the Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and in 1993, she was awarded the School of Humanities and Sciences Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching. She also served as a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control and as a fellow of both the Institute for International Studies and the Hoover Institution. Rice ended a six year tenure as the University's provost in 1999.
Dr. Rice has written several books, including "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed" (1995) with Philip Zelikow, "The Gorbachev Era" (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and "Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army" (1984).
From 1989 through March 1991, Rice served with the Bush Administration as Director of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council. She went on to be named Senior director, in the same capacity, and also served as a Special Assistant to President Bush for National Security Affairs.
Condoleeza Rice was named on National Security Advisor for the Bush Administration on January 22, 2001
That don't mean they freed the slaves. The slaves were not freed by any "Proclamation," but by Yankee lead and steel, at the cost of Yankee blood, lots of it.
Yeah, but who were those soldiers!! They weren't the Democrats who called Lincoln a gorilla, and refused to fight- they weren't the border state Democrats who went South to join up and oppose Lincoln's "illegal" war against white supremacy! Do you think that it is a coincidence that no Republicans were elected to office in the South for almost 100 years after the war? Do you think it is a coincidence that the rosters of the KKK are full of Democrats? Have you read the Lincoln/ Douglas debates or seen that official pro-slavery position of the Democrats on the eve of the war?
The Civil War wasn't exclusively about slavery, but there is no denying that it was the trigger issue, and it was forced by the abolitionists who founded the Republican Party.
The Civil War wasn't exclusively about slavery, but there is no denying that it was the trigger issue, and it was forced by the abolitionists who founded the Republican Party.
The trigger issue was tarrifs, which you would know if you didn't rely on Catton for your history. Catton's books are written at the level of Readers Digest. Try something a little more intellectually stimulating. I just finished, for example, a very interesting anthology called Why the Confederacy Lost, edited by Gabor S. Borritt. It's a good read. Check it out. The authors exhibit levels of insight that Catton could never hope for.
I agree that trigger was the wrong word. Slavery was not the direct cause of the war, and not really the issue that ignited the hostilities either.
What if Lincoln had not won the election? The tariff issue would still likely have lead to war, but the end of slavery would not have been one of the outcomes. My entire point here is that the Republican party was founded by anti-slavery activists. They are the party that most directly acheived freedom for the slaves. The Democrat Party was pro-slave, even in the North. You cant deny this. Nor that Strom Thurmond and the pro-segregationists (Dixiecrats) were a split off of the Democrat party.
What if Lincoln had not won the election? The tariff issue would still likely have lead to war, but the end of slavery would not have been one of the outcomes. My entire point here is that the Republican party was founded by anti-slavery activists. They are the party that most directly acheived freedom for the slaves. The Democrat Party was pro-slave, even in the North. You cant deny this. Nor that Strom Thurmond and the pro-segregationists (Dixiecrats) were a split off of the Democrat party.
Kindsleazy Rice has 9-11 victims' blood all over her sharp political attire!
She's covering up 9-11!
Your admiration for her is deplorable!
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
She's covering up 9-11!
Your admiration for her is deplorable!
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
Your belief in racist, anti-semitic conspiracy theories is deplorable.
is lady rice a Jew?
Is it just me, or is this man a rabbid hater of strong women, who know what they are talking about?
Or he could just hate dogs, and every dog he looks at he compares them to people in his life.
His mother reminds him of perhaps a Great Dane, and his dad is a pit bull.
I hope he hasn't gone off the deep end of analytical thinking and told his wife/girl friend...she's a Good Golden Retriever.
Simon says...Fetch me another beer
Or he could just hate dogs, and every dog he looks at he compares them to people in his life.
His mother reminds him of perhaps a Great Dane, and his dad is a pit bull.
I hope he hasn't gone off the deep end of analytical thinking and told his wife/girl friend...she's a Good Golden Retriever.
Simon says...Fetch me another beer
listen, CD, you're not gonna find many who're gonna defend the Democrats around here. shit, they brought us the CIA, Hiroshima, and Mai Lai--hey, you probably support all those "achievements"!
that said, your equating today's Republicans with the anti-slavery forces of yore is bogus. you surely know that the party coalitions have realigned pretty drastically since the mid- to late-19th century, and in particular since the 1960s.
The most reactionary southern white Democrats have shifted to the Republicans since the Civil Rights movement; as blacks became an important constituency within the D's the R's openly peddled a racialist line that appealed to white resentment. Who were the "Reagan Democrats"? Who shared the podium with Strom Thurmond?
that said, your equating today's Republicans with the anti-slavery forces of yore is bogus. you surely know that the party coalitions have realigned pretty drastically since the mid- to late-19th century, and in particular since the 1960s.
The most reactionary southern white Democrats have shifted to the Republicans since the Civil Rights movement; as blacks became an important constituency within the D's the R's openly peddled a racialist line that appealed to white resentment. Who were the "Reagan Democrats"? Who shared the podium with Strom Thurmond?
My Lai was an attrocity. A horrible, inexcusable attrocity. Caley is still the most hated US soldier in history- ask anyone who has served in the last 25 years.
Hiroshima was kharmic payback for Nanjing. We should have wrapped the bomb in a Chinese flag.
Hiroshima was kharmic payback for Nanjing. We should have wrapped the bomb in a Chinese flag.
The people killed at Hiroshima were not responsible for what happened at Nanjing. They were civilians. What happened at Nanjing was done by soldiers. If it's OK to kill civilians in revenge for what their government's troops did, then 9/11 was totally justified. Is that what you are saying here? Are you really tryimg to justify 9/11, or have you simply failed to think this all the way through.
you didn't answer Aaron's objections to your defense of the republicans.
The military reason for the bombing of Hiroshima was to break the will of the Emperor. The will of the people didn't have a great deal to do with it. The people worshipped Hirohito as a demi-god. The surrender announcement was the first time they had ever heard his voice, and millions bowed their heads as they faced the loud speakers.
I said "kharmic" payback for a reason. The Japanese people in Hiroshima (most of them, anyway) did not "deserve" to be hit with atomic bombs, but the Japanese nation certainly did. There was no way to punish only those soldiers who raped Nanjing- most were in China, or dead. It was kharmic payback for all the horrific attrocities committed by the Japanese during the war- a war that they started, for territorial conquest. Even Japanese historians concede that the Atomic bomb gave the emperor a chance to surrender and save face- where he could never have surrendered to a merely 'human' enemy.
It is sad to me that so many here can not get beyond the moral arguments of a six-year old- i.e. "all killing is wrong." Killing murderers is not the same as murdering. Killing to END a war is not the same as killing to START a war. U.S. troops on Osama's "homeland" does not justify Sept. 11th.
I said "kharmic" payback for a reason. The Japanese people in Hiroshima (most of them, anyway) did not "deserve" to be hit with atomic bombs, but the Japanese nation certainly did. There was no way to punish only those soldiers who raped Nanjing- most were in China, or dead. It was kharmic payback for all the horrific attrocities committed by the Japanese during the war- a war that they started, for territorial conquest. Even Japanese historians concede that the Atomic bomb gave the emperor a chance to surrender and save face- where he could never have surrendered to a merely 'human' enemy.
It is sad to me that so many here can not get beyond the moral arguments of a six-year old- i.e. "all killing is wrong." Killing murderers is not the same as murdering. Killing to END a war is not the same as killing to START a war. U.S. troops on Osama's "homeland" does not justify Sept. 11th.
circus dog doesn't want to address Aaron's response to his claims regarding the republicans, apparently.
They were mostly in Manchuria. I third of Japan's army was there in reserve. They could have been withdrawn to defend the home islands. They could have prolonged the inevitable for a very long time, at a great cost in American casualties. They were a legitimate military target for the A-bombs. Instead, America’s rulers chose to use those bombs to slaughter defenseless civilians. It was terrorism, plain and simple. Whether or not it was morally justified is debatable. That it was an act of terrorism is not.
I wish I had more time to respond to every argument, but give me a break- I have this thing called a job.
Yes, there has been a re-alignment of the parties post WW-II- so what? That doesn't change the fact that the Democrats were pro-slavery in 1860 and the Republicans were anti. It doesnt change the fact that the Republicans outlawed the KKK. (or that their membership was composed largely of Democrats) It doesn't change the fact that Robert Byrd, (D-W.Va) was a klegle in the KKK.
When Trent Lott uttered one phrase in praise of Strom Thurmond, he got canned. Fine with me, he was ineffective and pompous anyway. But Leftists and Democrats constantly get away with the most egregious racialism- and get a pass for it.
By the way, the re-alignment of the parties was based much more on anti-Communism and national defence than it was on race.
Yes, there has been a re-alignment of the parties post WW-II- so what? That doesn't change the fact that the Democrats were pro-slavery in 1860 and the Republicans were anti. It doesnt change the fact that the Republicans outlawed the KKK. (or that their membership was composed largely of Democrats) It doesn't change the fact that Robert Byrd, (D-W.Va) was a klegle in the KKK.
When Trent Lott uttered one phrase in praise of Strom Thurmond, he got canned. Fine with me, he was ineffective and pompous anyway. But Leftists and Democrats constantly get away with the most egregious racialism- and get a pass for it.
By the way, the re-alignment of the parties was based much more on anti-Communism and national defence than it was on race.
By "rulers" I will assume you mean our elected President, FDR, and VP Truman who assumed office upon his death.
How exactly was this "reserve" supposed to make it back to the home islands? If they were such an effective force, why were Japanese women and children being trained to defend the home islands with sticks to the death? Are you claiming that these troops were disposed in such a mass as to make a legitimate and viable target? I doubt it.
You seem to be saying that terrorism can be either morally justifiable, or unjustifiable. I would say that the term itself implies immorality in every case. I would put it to you that Hiroshima was terrifying, and horrible, and destructive in the extreme- but not terror-ism. The purpose of terrorism is to cause or inflict terror for its own sake. The purpose of Hiroshima was to shock and awe the Emperor into unconditional surrender. Fortunately for the Japanese, Hirohito gave America more credit as a nation than most posters on this site apparently do.
How exactly was this "reserve" supposed to make it back to the home islands? If they were such an effective force, why were Japanese women and children being trained to defend the home islands with sticks to the death? Are you claiming that these troops were disposed in such a mass as to make a legitimate and viable target? I doubt it.
You seem to be saying that terrorism can be either morally justifiable, or unjustifiable. I would say that the term itself implies immorality in every case. I would put it to you that Hiroshima was terrifying, and horrible, and destructive in the extreme- but not terror-ism. The purpose of terrorism is to cause or inflict terror for its own sake. The purpose of Hiroshima was to shock and awe the Emperor into unconditional surrender. Fortunately for the Japanese, Hirohito gave America more credit as a nation than most posters on this site apparently do.
"But Leftists and Democrats constantly get away with the most egregious racialism- and get a pass for it."
Unsubstantiated Allegation
For more about logic, see:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
Unsubstantiated Allegation
For more about logic, see:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
>This (addressing displeasure with gov't) is not an option in a monarchy.
Tough. That's *his* problem. Didn't give him the right to do what he did by your own admission.
>By that logic, the citizen militia that fought at Lexington and Concord was in the wrong. Is that what you're trying to say?
The British were lording it over us. We have not done the same in Saudi Arabia. The two are not parallel.
We are guests in their country by permission of their government. We were not their to tell them how to run things or to extract "taxation without representation". If asked to leave, we would do so. There's a lot of differences between how the British ruled the colonies and how the USA built bases by the permission and blessings of the Saudi government.
Tough. That's *his* problem. Didn't give him the right to do what he did by your own admission.
>By that logic, the citizen militia that fought at Lexington and Concord was in the wrong. Is that what you're trying to say?
The British were lording it over us. We have not done the same in Saudi Arabia. The two are not parallel.
We are guests in their country by permission of their government. We were not their to tell them how to run things or to extract "taxation without representation". If asked to leave, we would do so. There's a lot of differences between how the British ruled the colonies and how the USA built bases by the permission and blessings of the Saudi government.
Pardon me for going back to an earlier thought:
First of all, I agree with "Circus Dog". I think it's telling that Indymedia, rather than taking her points head on and refuting them systematically, center on a racist, misogynistic characterization of her as an animal who is better off remaining quiet and looking cute. I thought that, if nothing else, Indymedia was supposed to be anti-racist and pro-women? I guess that's true only when the women or minorities support their view of the world. And frankly, I have to give Rice credit that she's *against* intervention or invasion of Syria. Beyond that, while I don't think I've ever agreed with her (besides the not-invading-Syria issue), I respect her intelligence and her experience.
BTW, "historybuff", Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. Maybe you should read a bit more of the economic and political backstory of the Civil War--specifically the matters of North vs. South economics and the issue of States' rights. The selling of the Civil War as an ideological battle to free the slaves is unfortunately not accurate. Lincoln did wait until a Union victory for the Proclamation, but the war was, most simply put, to not let the country break up.
First of all, I agree with "Circus Dog". I think it's telling that Indymedia, rather than taking her points head on and refuting them systematically, center on a racist, misogynistic characterization of her as an animal who is better off remaining quiet and looking cute. I thought that, if nothing else, Indymedia was supposed to be anti-racist and pro-women? I guess that's true only when the women or minorities support their view of the world. And frankly, I have to give Rice credit that she's *against* intervention or invasion of Syria. Beyond that, while I don't think I've ever agreed with her (besides the not-invading-Syria issue), I respect her intelligence and her experience.
BTW, "historybuff", Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. Maybe you should read a bit more of the economic and political backstory of the Civil War--specifically the matters of North vs. South economics and the issue of States' rights. The selling of the Civil War as an ideological battle to free the slaves is unfortunately not accurate. Lincoln did wait until a Union victory for the Proclamation, but the war was, most simply put, to not let the country break up.
Condi is his servant. That's all we really need to know about her.
That wasn't "IndyMedia" who said that. It was posted by one of our readers.
Are you indymedia volunteers aware that the term 'zionazi and zionazis' are, judging by a few Google searches, nearly exclusively indymedia terms?
search 'zionazi', 877 returns.
subtract 'indymedia', 391returns
search 'zionazis', 572 returns
subtract 'indymedia', 199 returns
Good luck with your message board kids.
search 'zionazi', 877 returns.
subtract 'indymedia', 391returns
search 'zionazis', 572 returns
subtract 'indymedia', 199 returns
Good luck with your message board kids.
"The Republican Party was FOUNDED as an anti-slavery party!! " <-- This is simply too stupid to comment on.
So the civil war "freed" the slaves did it? Only a white person would make such a statement. I suggest you head to your local library and examine that assertion a little more closely, you'll find that the notion of the civil war being fought over slavery to be dubious at best.
Remember that fifty years later unprosecuted lynchings still occurred. A HUNDRED years later blacks who took to the streets to demand their civil rights faced attack dogs, fire hoses, and beatings at the hands of civililans and police alike. Now many in the south still have to endure the insult of having their state capital buildings fly the flag which celebrates the day when they were in chains.
So the civil war "freed" the slaves did it? Only a white person would make such a statement. I suggest you head to your local library and examine that assertion a little more closely, you'll find that the notion of the civil war being fought over slavery to be dubious at best.
Remember that fifty years later unprosecuted lynchings still occurred. A HUNDRED years later blacks who took to the streets to demand their civil rights faced attack dogs, fire hoses, and beatings at the hands of civililans and police alike. Now many in the south still have to endure the insult of having their state capital buildings fly the flag which celebrates the day when they were in chains.
You certainly are well trained.
>nearly exclusively
Scroll back up and look at the numbers.
"nearly exclusively"!?! Gimme a break.
Scroll back up and look at the numbers.
"nearly exclusively"!?! Gimme a break.
So, you equate having firehoses or dogs turned on you with actual, legal, government sanctioned slavery?? and you accuse ME of saying things too stupid to comment on?
What do you know about the history of the Republican Party? Are you denying that Abolitionist played a critical role in the founding of the party, and that "free soil" policies were one of the key planks in the party platform?
It is certainly true that Lincoln was pragmatic, and waited for a Union victory to announce the Emancipation Proclamation. To have done so otherwise would have looked like a move made in desperation.
Slavery in the U.S. ended in 1965 because of the blood sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and the persistant moral pressure exerted by the Republicans and the Abolitionists.
Hey Stu...who ran the governments in the South that turned those firehoses and dogs on peaceful protestors, anyway? Did those states have Republican Governors? or Legislatures? or Police Chiefs? NO, NO, and NO. The "Civil Rights Movement" was also a major internal fight between Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats for the soul of the Democrat Party.
Thank you "Just a Thought" for having the intellectual honesty to admit that Condi Rice was treated horribly in that article. If Josyln Elders, or Maxine Waters were described that way, the Left would come unglued, and fling charges of fascism and racism at the author. When an educated, erudite, sincere, and accomplished black woman (or man) also holds conservative views, the Left treats them as pariahs. Colin Powell was called the equivalent of a "house slave"!!! Disgusting.
It is pretty clear to me that the caricature of conservatives has become so vivid and wicked in the minds of some on the Left that anyone who holds those views is automatically called stupid, evil, or compared to an animal. The Left in this country needs to pull itself back from the brink of irrelevance and blind hatred.
What do you know about the history of the Republican Party? Are you denying that Abolitionist played a critical role in the founding of the party, and that "free soil" policies were one of the key planks in the party platform?
It is certainly true that Lincoln was pragmatic, and waited for a Union victory to announce the Emancipation Proclamation. To have done so otherwise would have looked like a move made in desperation.
Slavery in the U.S. ended in 1965 because of the blood sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and the persistant moral pressure exerted by the Republicans and the Abolitionists.
Hey Stu...who ran the governments in the South that turned those firehoses and dogs on peaceful protestors, anyway? Did those states have Republican Governors? or Legislatures? or Police Chiefs? NO, NO, and NO. The "Civil Rights Movement" was also a major internal fight between Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats for the soul of the Democrat Party.
Thank you "Just a Thought" for having the intellectual honesty to admit that Condi Rice was treated horribly in that article. If Josyln Elders, or Maxine Waters were described that way, the Left would come unglued, and fling charges of fascism and racism at the author. When an educated, erudite, sincere, and accomplished black woman (or man) also holds conservative views, the Left treats them as pariahs. Colin Powell was called the equivalent of a "house slave"!!! Disgusting.
It is pretty clear to me that the caricature of conservatives has become so vivid and wicked in the minds of some on the Left that anyone who holds those views is automatically called stupid, evil, or compared to an animal. The Left in this country needs to pull itself back from the brink of irrelevance and blind hatred.
Only a white person would make such a statement. -stu
this is laughable, you are so in doubt of your statements that you will open using the race card?
this is an all time low. even Johnnie Cochran would be rolling his eyes.
but after viewing your assertions, as ridicules as they are I can see why you open in this manner. by throwing everything on the fire at once you now have the opening to play the poor little me card, or the race card, on any responder who dares to question your statements. and as unrealistic as your assertions are you will need it.
will your next logical fallacy be a dissertation on the political attributes of Barbara Lee.. :-(
this is laughable, you are so in doubt of your statements that you will open using the race card?
this is an all time low. even Johnnie Cochran would be rolling his eyes.
but after viewing your assertions, as ridicules as they are I can see why you open in this manner. by throwing everything on the fire at once you now have the opening to play the poor little me card, or the race card, on any responder who dares to question your statements. and as unrealistic as your assertions are you will need it.
will your next logical fallacy be a dissertation on the political attributes of Barbara Lee.. :-(
You're right, I apologize. My post was misleading and inaccurate. It should have read:
Indymedia with big lead over white supremacist sites in use of terms zionazi and zionazis.
Indymedia with big lead over white supremacist sites in use of terms zionazi and zionazis.
I completely forgot what first caught my attention about Condi Rice. At the GOP convention in 2000, she told the audience why she has been a lifelong Republican....because her father was one- and he was one because only the Republican Party would register him to vote in the South in the 1950's.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$215.00 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