89 years old?!
AND: Via Tapped:
Von Brunn maintains a white-supremacist Web site, HolyWesternEmpire.org. The biography of Von Brunn on the site states that he spent over six years in federal prison for attempting to "place the treasonous Federal Reserve Board of Governors under legal, non-violent, citizens arrest." A World War II veteran and resident of Maryland, Von Brunn is the author of a pamphlet entitled "Kill the Best Gentiles: A new, hard-hitting exposé of the JEW CONSPIRACY to destroy the White gene-pool." He is a Holocaust denier who has written that "Hilter's worse mistake" was that "he didn't gas the Jews."
पोस्ट्स
२९९ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 299 पैकी 201 – 299this was a rather poor day for Rev. Wright's comments about "them Jews" to be released.
Any good advisor would keep his President away from a loose cannon like Pastor Wright.
I read the story at the Sun-Times, where one commenter posted a list of "them Jews" who "surround the President" in aaron's words. It's kind of impressive.
Monica Sutphen is a biracial, halakhic Jew, by the way.
David Axelrod (2009- ) Senior Advisor to the President
Jared Bernstein (2009- ) Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to the Vice President
Rahm Emanuel (2009- ) Chief of Staff
Lee Feinstein (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor
Gary Gensler (2009- ) Chair of the Commody Futures Trading Commission
Elena Kagan (2009- ) Solicitor General of the United States
Ronald Klain (2009- ) Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Jack Lew (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State
Eric Lynn (2009- ) Middle East Policy Advisor
Peter Orszag (2009- ) Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Dennis Ross (2009- ) Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia to the Secretary of State
Mara Rudman (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor
Mary Schapiro (2009- ) Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission
Dan Shapiro (2009- ) Head of Middle East desk at the National Security Council
James B. Steinberg (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State
Lawrence Summers (2009- ) Director National Economic Council
Mona Sutphen (2009- ) Deputy White House Chief of Staff
Jim - "If it was so important to take out Saddam...why didn't we do it after Kuwait? Why did Rummy, Cheney and Powell advise Bush Sr. to leave Saddam where he was and to move on?"
Maybe Cheney made it clear when he said:
WASHINGTON --1992 In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Beth said: "Law enforcement, in addressing extremist violence, is, I hope, looking across the spectrums and at behaviors, not just belief systems."
Exactly.
***
I do want to make note that a tough thing is to be able to make note that certain types of perpetrators, or categories among certain types of perpetrators, may indeed share some specific background BUT AT THE SAME TIME (an "and," not an "or," to resurrect an old phrase of reader_iam's) to be able to recognize that the majority of people with that specific background DO NOT, AND WILL NEVER engage in the same type of behaviors as the specific perpetrators being studied.
Sorry for that helluva-mouthful-sentence. I deserve flung mud for slinging that sludge, but it's what I can do quickly.
Maybe someone else will want to pick up on the idea and do it better.
If it was so important to take out Saddam...why didn't we do it after Kuwait? Why did Rummy, Cheney and Powell advise Bush Sr. to leave Saddam where he was and to move on?
-Because Rummy and Cheney said no such thing, and Powell was, is and always will be a pussy who was traumatized by the images of the "highway of death" - except it turns out most of the cars were empty.
Someone labeled this guy a "hard-core Neo-Nazi" but at 88, shit, isn't he an original Nazi?
What irony, after spending last week honoring the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy.
Quayle - It's evident you have way too much time on your hands.
(The statement that prefaced about 200 lines of posting by Jeremy, ....., I mean Sunshine.)
Jeremy -
Do I have to school you on geo-politics too? During the 80s, Iraq and Iran were at war. The Islamic Revolution which led to the Iranian hostage crisis was threatening to spread and backing Saddam was pretty much the only choice America had to prevent the spread of that cancer.
Now you can live in your own little daydream world where sometimes you have to deal with the lesser of two evils in order to prevent a greater evil, but that's not the world we live in.
You Leftists who want to keep bringing up how "we supported Saddam" are either: a) completely ignorant about the even worse alternative that we were f
aced with, or b) are knowingly deceptive about when and why that support happened. So which is it Jeremy: are you a liar or just ignorant?
With regard to what happened at the end of the first Gulf War:
1) We SHOULD have taken out Saddam then, but the UN resolutions didn't give us authority to do so. So the elder Bush held back from doing so. It would have been in the country's interest to do so, but he was trying to place nice by international rules. So which is it: are we supposed to respect the UN or not? You can't have it both ways.
2) The sanctions regime that was put in place after the first war was irretrievably broken. I already explained this, but if you need further explanation then pick up a history book as I don't have time to make up for the fact that you don't have the first clue about world history.
Every post you make on the topic just makes it clear that you are either ignorant or a liar.
So which is it?
..."Nazi's are right wing" ... .
Yes they are. In Hitler's day he was allied with industrialists and attacked labor unions and leftists. .
Yet the Nazis were unabashed socialists which believed in State control over society and production which as everyone knows is a concept embraced by the right wing.
National Socialist German Worker's Party. Yep Alpha, even sounds like a right wing group.
What a maroon.
Someone labeled this guy a "hard-core Neo-Nazi" but at 88, shit, isn't he an original Nazi?
What irony, after spending last week honoring the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy.
In his artist's website autobiography, he claims to have skippered a PT boat during WW II, in the Med and Pacific theaters, receiving a commendation and four battle stars.
So at one point he fought the Nazis.
At 89, he could well have a screw loose. I wonder how long ago this anti-Semitism started.
Any good advisor would keep his President away from a loose cannon like Pastor Wright..
Any decent individual wouldn't have spent more than one Sunday with the man much less 20 years of Sundays.
Jeremy -
The more you post, the less you intelligent you look.
Are we still at war with Britain? Vietnam? Germany?
Time moves on. Reality moves with it. According to your logic, we should still be sending troops to invade Germany and Minutemen should be defending Lexington.
Because something didn't make sense in 1991 doesn't mean that the world wasn't a different place by 2003.
You're just spouting nonsense. Stop while you're only this far behind.
I seriously doubt that you have any knowledge about Iranian politics/society beyond you latent prejudices..
Opinions vary and if yours gets you through the day don't let me burst your bubble.
AlphaLiberal,
I'd like you to reference the study which shows FOX viewers or conservatives believe Saddam was behind 9/11. I recall the questionaires asking if the respondents believe Saddam supported terrorists. And I recall dishonest lefties claiming this meant they believe Saddam was behind 9/11. Since we have already established your intellectual dishonesty, I think the burden of proof is on you.
Any decent individual wouldn't have spent more than one Sunday with the man much less 20 years of Sundays.
As I said a year ago, Wright's week in and week out sermons were likely not like the four or so jeremiads the media seized upon.
I think Obama used Wright to help him understand what it was like to grow up a black man in America -- something he couldn't learn growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii, and something his family could not teach him.
fls -
You're probably right. A guy that just today was claiming to anyone who would listen that the Jews wouldn't let him see Obama probably never gave Obama a clue in 20 years years that he was a vicious anti-Semite or espoused a single tenet of the Black Liberation Theology upon which his entire church is based.
20 years and Obama never heard a word of it. The guy's been in the public eye for less than 2 years and he's given us a fill of his particular brand of hatred. But I'm sure that he just came to those beliefs yesterday and never uttered a word of them before the general public found out what a scumbag he is. Nary a word to Obama or any member of his congregation...Pure coincidence..
Yeah...I'm buying that fantasy....
As I said a year ago, Wright's week in and week out sermons were likely not like the four or so jeremiads the media seized upon. .
You know I heard that before but then again, lets see what the Reverend Wright himself has to say.
Wright also said that he had not spoken to his former church member since Obama became president, implying that the White House won't allow Obama to talk to him. He did not indicate whether he had tried to reach Obama.
"Regret for what... that the media went back five, seven, 10 years and spent $4,000 buying 20 years worth of sermons to hear what I've been preaching for 20 years?
Asked if he had spoken to the president, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...
Them Jews. Yeah this guy is a real piece of work but I'm sure Obama never heard any of that kind of stuff right?
Linky here
holdfast said..."Because Rummy and Cheney said no such thing, and Powell was, is and always will be a pussy who was traumatized by the images of the "highway of death" - except it turns out most of the cars were empty."
Again: WASHINGTON --1992 In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Get it?
"Any decent individual wouldn't have spent more than one Sunday with the man much less 20 years of Sundays."
So what are your thoughts about the 100+ attorneys hired into the Justice Department that graduated from Pat Robertson University?
Jim said..."Jeremy - The more you post, the less you intelligent you look. Are we still at war with Britain? Vietnam? Germany?"
That's your explanation for invading Iraq?
Duh.
As I said a year ago, Wright's week in and week out sermons were likely not like the four or so jeremiads the media seized upon..
You know what FLS, despite Wright's admission he preached his hatefilled bullshit for 20 years lets say for the sake of argument that he only had four sermons with US of KKA and chickens coming home to roost. So what? Can you with a shred of honesty say you'd cut a white conservative candidate the same slack if he attended a church that espoused the same kind of hate filled rhetoric? Or that such a candidate would have been swept in the dustbin of politics 24 hours after it hit the news cycle?
Jim - Why haven't you disputed what Master Cheney said in 1992?
Was he wrong?
So what are your thoughts about the 100+ attorneys hired into the Justice Department that graduated from Pat Robertson University?.
I'll let you know as soon as one of them runs for President.
Jeremy -
I don't know, Jeremy...have anything of them said to "Goddamn Amerikkka"? Have any of them expressed anti-Semitism?
If so, then name them. If not, then shut up.
My wife attended a Catholic university to get her Master's Degree. She is attended a different Catholic university to get her doctorate. Most of her classmates are not Catholic (or even Christian of any denomination), most of her professors are not Catholic (or Christian) and none of them have been asked to subscribe to the tenets of Catholicism or asked to convert...OR EVEN SO MUCH AS ATTEND A MASS...in order to get their degrees or teach at the university.
Just because someone attended Pat Robertson U doesn't mean that every word out of Pat Robertson's mouth can be ascribed to its graduates.
Once again, you open your mouth to attempt some sort of "guilt by association," and all you do is show that you have absolutely zero understanding of education beyond the high school level. Did you even get a high school diploma? Because at the rate you're going, the next thing you're going to demonstrate ignorance of is 9th grade math.
Jeremy -
I didn't dispute what Cheney said.
I simply repeated what President Bush said when he went before the nation and explained why we halted our advance before we got to Baghdad.
Your oversimplistic thinking continues to amaze me. Were there other considerations than the UN resolutions? Was part of the consideration in the potential difficulties in governing Iraq at that time the fact that the UN resolutions didn't support it? The answer to both questions is yes.
Cheney cited one reason. You leap at the conclusion that it was the only consideration or discussion that took place. You also have to ignore what Bush said when it actually happened in order to conclude that was it. Was Cheney in a forum to lay out all the possible permutations that were discussed contemporaneously? Since you could only find a single soundbite, the safe bet is that he was not. He gave a quick off-the-cuff answer which in no way either precludes or contradicts what I said.
So now you're combined the inability to think along more than one track or understand complex decision-making with more than a single input with historical ignorance. Any other flaws you want to expose before you stop embarrassing yourself?
"The truth is on alot of this crap the far left and the far right meet in the middle. People like Charles Johnson mock it, calling it "moronic convergence."
This is true with the violent psychos as well as other more benign convergences. I noticed the same thing with homeschooling where extremely conservative Christians and tofu and nuts hippies met each other on the other side.
Our bi-polar politics probably ought to be viewed as a series of circles. It makes little sense to insist on placing the extremists on the far ends of a line that can not meet. It results in ridiculous things such as trying to claim that anti-Semitism is on the right end of the line somewhere... presumably gotten to right through the powerful pro-Israel lobby.
In any case, AL, alliances do not require much in the way of shared values, and political or ideological differences do not stop groups from working together or forming alliances. Your link and picture presenting your "proof" may be right, but your initial basic assumptions are in error.
"Left" and "Right" might be useful short-hand for political tendencies sometimes, but neither of them describes anything very useful with any specificity.
In the end, the Nazis are hated and disavowed by everyone and calling them "right" or "left" is either equally legitimate or equally in error. There is certainly nothing liberal, classical or otherwise in them and nothing the least bit in line with any conservative values of individual liberty or freedom or the free market.
"Another day and just another stupid internet "debate" that consists of "the left are just a bunch of evil morons" and "the right are just a bunch of evil morons"
Why would anyone want to waste even an ounce of energy to take part in such an inane discussion?"
Sometimes people just get tired of being called evil morons everytime something tragic happens.
Imagine that.
"Someone labeled this guy a "hard-core Neo-Nazi" but at 88, shit, isn't he an original Nazi?"
It seems likely, doesn't it? I think that somehow the prefix "neo" has become a code for someone jumping on someone else's bandwagon... as such the bandwagon drivers can be blamed. Either that, or it's just laziness.
"What irony, after spending last week honoring the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy."
Maybe it put him over the edge. He might have known people who were there.
Jim said..."Yeah...Tenet wasn't covering his own ass or anything. We should believe his characterization of what happened because why?"
Bu when he says "slam dunk," and everybody in the White House climbs aboard...he's not covering his ass, he's telling the truth?
You can't have it both way, Dude.
You use his words to support your argument, then when he refutes what others have said...you say he's just covering his ass.
Jim - You're a right wing ideologue and no matter what I or anybody says, you're locked into believing and supporting George W. Bush.
Over the past eight years I have quite a few friends who were in the same boat, but damn near all of them have realized they were on the wrong side of this fight.
You evidently still believe everything you were told by Bush, Cheney and others.
I don't.
Can you with a shred of honesty say you'd cut a white conservative candidate the same slack if he attended a church that espoused the same kind of hate filled rhetoric?
No, if a white pastor ranted about how the black man had kept the white man down for centuries I would have thought he was a lunatic. The same with anyone who listened to him.
"I do not think these killers represent the great majority of American conservatives. Not by a long stretch.
One would hope that goes without saying, but..."
Sure... and that's why you took the opportunity to drop this gem in another thread...
Speaking of killing, more rightist terrorism today, this time at the Holocaust Museum.
NPR reported this AM that shortages of ammo persist as panic buying continues by right wingers. Why they are stocking up on guns and ammo I can't say for sure (ideas?) but it is a disturbing trend.
Have I missed the calls for calm from conservative leaders? Any examples out there? Seems more like the opposite."
Oh, yes... "rightist terrorism", panic buying of ammo by "right wingers" and an assertion that not only are conservative *leaders* not calling for calm but are doing the *opposite*.
But please... I can't imagine how anyone at all would ever get the idea that you were talking about conservatives.
You only implied that conservative leaders (which don't seem to exist, but whatev,) are doing the opposite of calling for calm.
I have no notion what can possibly be getting into our tiny little minds to lead us so astray.
No, if a white pastor ranted about how the black man had kept the white man down for centuries I would have thought he was a lunatic. The same with anyone who listened to him..
Ah I see. Preaching the word of the Lord is about how whitey kept the black man down and how we had 9/11 coming to us and how Bill was doin the nasty in the White House and how in the 21st Century we're still the US of KKA.
Gotcha. I'll make a note for future reference that you're simply not interested in an honest discussion.
Here's what the guy who got the most votes in a recent polling of Republicans as to who the leader of the GOP has to say...think any of it's racist?
Rush Limbaugh:
1. "I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
2. "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed."
3. "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
4. "Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
5. "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
6. "They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"
7. "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back(to an African American female caller)."
8. "I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve."
9. "We are being told that we have to hope Obama succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president."
It's no problem??
Hypocrites.
"No, if a white pastor ranted about how the black man had kept the white man down for centuries I would have thought he was a lunatic. The same with anyone who listened to him."
Obviously you're trying to make the point that the Rev is talking about something real, and thus it's okay to deliver the sorts of rants we know Wright delivered.
The thing is... hate is hate. If I have reason to hate one person and take out my foul mood on others... that's not okay. It perpetuates the problem.
It kills the soul, I think.
I read a post yesterday about how all Pixar heroes were male. (Since my "oppressed class" is female, this is the only example I can legitimately use, right?) It was like a psychic suck to even read it. The comments afterward nearly sent me reeling into depression.
In any case, the fact that "men" kept "women" down for centuries should excuse a rant about sexism... totally excuse it, right?
But suddenly I discovered that movies I thought had wonderful, strong, women characters actually only had "love interests" and I discovered that the only female in "Up" after the first 10 minutes was a non-vocal bird named "Kevin."
Before I read that I'd thought that the character of Ellie was dominant and overwhelming, so much so that even after she died she propelled the entire plot. Wow, was I wrong.
It took a while to shake off, actually. I feel like I ought to go to my blog and write a post but I just don't want to go back there... it was toxic. Turned strength into dismissed weakness, joy into despair.
The teenage girl in "The Incredibles" no longer triumphed over her "invisibility" but became nothing more than a symbol of how we dismiss women... stuck there... invisible... for ever.
My point for this long digression, fls, is that understanding where the Rev Wright is coming from, the very real oppression that informs his world view... a person can do that without having to pretend that ranting about keeping the black man down does anything to lift *anyone* up.
And should we tolerate what does nothing to lift people up?
Jeeze, you guys are still arguing about this? I left two hours ago and no minds have been changed.
BTW, I withdraw my whole Christian right-wing thing. Just leave it at right-wing and the left STILL believes they are more of a threat than Islamic radical terrorism.
It would be amusing except that it isn't.
Preaching the word of the Lord is about ... how we had 9/11 coming to us
I agree with Hoosier; I've never watched the 700 Club after Falwell and Robertson told us that we had 9/11 coming to us. Here's the transcript:
JERRY FALWELL: ... since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil, first time, and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters; the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats, what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, if in fact God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.
JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.
JERRY FALWELL: Amen. Pat, did you notice yesterday? The ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, the People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang 'God Bless America' and said 'let the ACLU be hanged'. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time- calling upon God.
PAT ROBERTSON: Amen.
Jeremy -
Once again, you display the ability to only think in a single straight line. Any deviation completely throws you for a loop.
Tenet was covering his ass in claiming that the White House was bound and determined to go to war with Iraq no matter what he said.
Let's see. He said it was a "slam dunk," and he ended up with egg on his face. So when questions start being raised, he says - in essence - that "Yeah I said it, but hey look over there! A squirrel!" trying to deflect the blame for the his agency's failures.
Do I believe he was covering his ass when he says that it didn't matter whatsoever that he said it was a slam dunk. You'd have to be an idiot to not recognize that. Is that why you're having such a difficult time understanding?
What matters is whether or not he told President Bush that it was a "slam dunk" WHEN IT MATTERED and whether a president should be able to rely on the Director of the CIA giving him accurate information to make a decision. The answer to both of those questions is a resounding yes. What Tenet says to cover his ass later is irrelevent. He admitted that he said what he said when it counted. Everything else is just so much noise.
If the DoD calls up President Obama and says there are missiles inbound from Russia, should he have to second-guess what they told him? Your position that the president should second-guess them and go look for himself before he responds. That's stupidity of the highest order.
And if President Bush couldn't count on the CIA to give him a straight answer, why on earth would he be able to count on intelligence agencies from other countries or even other domestic agencies which didn't have access to the same data that the CIA did? The answer is: they were the most reliable source of information available and they said that Saddam was not bluffing and that he indeed did have WMD.
By your own admission, and by Tenet's own admission, Tenet told President Bush that it was a "slam dunk," and the president would have been irresponsible in the extreme to have ignored an answer like that.
Let's pretend for a moment that the CIA had been right, Bush did nothing even after being told that it was a "slam dunk" and then Saddam had used them in a terrorist act that killed Americans. You would have been first in line to crucify Bush for not taking action when he was given the information beforehand. You're the one who can't have it both ways.
When you're the president, you don't get do-overs. You don't have the luxury of looking back after 5 years and saying "Gosh. If I had known then what I know now, things would have been different." That's the kind of idiocy that armchair ignoramuses like yourself engage in.
Once we were committed to the enterprise, we had no choice but to finish the job. Leaving the job halfway done or before a democracy was firmly established weren't options. To have done so would have been to display a fatal weakness and put America in a far worse place.
There is a world of difference between the theoretical and the actual. You want to pretend that the world is a wonderful place if not for the evil conservatives who screw it up for the oh so ignorant but self-styled enlightened individuals like yourself.
contd.
Here's a news flash:
1) The world is a messy place.
2) As the leader of a country (US or otherwise) your first obligation is to protect your citizens - whether or not it's politically popular and whether or not they voted for you.
3) When the best information available at the time tells you that there is a threat to those citizens you don't have the luxury of holding salon debates over the next couple of years.
4) The bad guys don't work on your timetable. They don't care about political correctness. They hate you for being American. They hate you for the freedoms you enjoy. No matter how nice you are to them, they will still hate you. They will lie to your face and stab you in the back the second you turn your back to them.
5) Given #4, you can never show them your back and you must make it, at the very least, extremely painful for them to even think about pulling the knife.
6) If they say they have a knife, then you can't afford to assume they don't. You have to act as if they do. (And Saddam DID claim to have WMD.)
7) Let the small-minded idiots second-guess you later. You did your job.
You want to live in a world where you have perfect information and you get to dictate what countries do what and when so that you can always pick and choose which regimes you back.
We had to back Musharaaf in Pakistan. Does that mean we support military coups? No, that means we don't want nuclear bombs in the hands of Islamic terrorists. The level of stupidity and/or naivete you display is so staggering as to beggar belief.
Do you even understand how little you understand about how the world works?
"I agree with Hoosier; I've never watched the 700 Club after Falwell and Robertson told us that we had 9/11 coming to us. Here's the transcript:"
I never watched it much before that happened.
My pastor at the time denounced Falwell from the pulpit for presuming to speak for God on extra-biblical matters.
Jeremy -
You can claim I'm a "right wing ideologue" all you want, but none of that changes the clear fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You have spouted inanity after inanity and have had to be corrected time and again on both this and other threads.
I didn't agree with Bush or Cheney on everything. I'd be willing to bet that you'd be surprised on how many things I disagreed with Bush.
You, on the other hand, have never met a Leftist that you wouldn't defend. You went to the mats defending Letterman joking about the rape of a 14-year old girl, for God's sake. In your eyes, conservatives are completely evil and Leftists are pure sweetness and light.
It's a ridiculously simplistic worldview that you have. All I have done in this thread and others is correct your bogus assertions, set your historical ignorance aright, and informed you that your black and white view of right and wrong fails to account for reality.
If that makes me an idealogue, then I'd hate to know what you call your own particular brand of aggressive ignorance.
"We had to back Musharaaf in Pakistan. Does that mean we support military coups? No, that means we don't want nuclear bombs in the hands of Islamic terrorists."
Good thing Obama started talking tough about Pakistan, huh? Or the whole place might be unstable today.
A thread about the Holocaust Museum shooting turning into a debate on the Iraq war, George Tenet, Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Terrific.
(And no, nobody's forcing me to read this thread.)
Apparently, the killer was an artist.
Fucken artists (?). For all we know this was an art-motivated shooting, not politically-motivated. :^)
Very interesting tidbit, Alpha. I remember when artists lost their minds, they just did a Vinny Van Gogh, and chopped off one of their ears.
Jeremy -
I can't, and won't speak to or defend most of those statements. I don't know the context of those statements, and I'd be willing to bet that you don't either. You cut and pasted them from one of bookmarked radical Lefty sites that someone else posted there. Perhaps those statements are defensible, perhaps they're not. But simply putting a quote up without context isn't proof of anything. Isn't that what you kept saying about Sotomayor? Double standards much?
However, I CAN, and will, speak to #8 and #9.
#8 is self-evidently true. There are large portions of the media who wants a black quarterback in the NFL to succeed because they have historically performed very poorly in the post-season. It's another form of pulling for the underdog which Americans often do. That's a fact. It's not racist to say that, nor is it racist to say that many people were/are pulling for McNabb purely based on his race. It's a fact, and - if anything - it would point to the inherent racism of those who base their support for McNabb on his race rather say anything about the person who pointed it out.
It's also a fact that the quarterback, no matter what his race, is often given more credit for the success of a team (and blame for the failure) than he is due. That's also an indisputable fact.
So what you have in #8 are indisputable assertions of fact. You may not like them. But they are facts, and no matter how much faux outrage you generate will change them.
As far as #9 is concerned, that is also a fact. Every criticism of Obama is met with the same answer: "you're a racist." Gee, when his defenders say that not liking his economic policies is racist who is the one who is bringing race into it? When every criticism is met with the inevitable "you just hate black people," what Rush said is perfectly reasonable thing to say. When you Leftist get past viewing everything a black man says or does in terms of his race and can take criticism of him at face value instead of reading racism into every statement then you can criticize people who talk about his race.
(And let's not forget that this line of "you're a racist for criticizing Obama" defense was directed at Democrats who disagreed with him in the primaries before Republicans or conservatives ever had a word to say about Obama one way or the other.)
Whenever Leftists are ready to stop claiming that Obama's critics are de facto racists, then you can criticize Rush for what he said. Until then, he was just describing the world as it is - not the fantasy world you evidently live in.
But that won't stop the pondscum of the Earth from doing their best to exploit the incident for their own low-bred political purposes.
I worked with someone who listened to a lot of conservative talk radio back at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, and I remember the immediate response once it became clear that it wasn't foreigners.
So, having some familiarity with this commentariat, I went to this post seeing how long it would take to find the same.
Eleven comments in. You're slipping, Palladian.
Ooh, I'm shaking in my shoes that those "extremely conservative Christians" will come waving their bibles to get me. On the other hand if all my neighbors were extremely conservative Christians I'd never ever have to fear for the safety of my property or person. Those reactionary ten commandments folks. Scary. So scary.
The things speaks for itself:
Shepard Smith calls out way out Fox News emailers.
Really, it's a must-see. And, no, I don't get how this guy keeps his job.
Alpha -
1) Shep Smith keeps his job because, contrary to what you and many other Leftists say, FoxNews actually presents both sides of the argument over an issue and does employ liberals such as Shep, Greta Von Sustern and others.
You're so used to hearing the news slanted so far to the Left that anything else is practically a foreign language. Your idea of opposite viewpoints is hearing the difference of opinion between a Hard Leftist and a liberal Republican and who can agree with the most politically correct answer the fastest.
That you would even ask how Shep keeps his job says everything about how little knowledge you have about FoxNews.
2) I keep having to remind people that the ones who brought the lawsuits about Obama's citizenship are HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTING DEMOCRATS. Not conservatives. Not Republicans. Democrats. Try again.
3) Shep makes the jump from questioning Obama's citizenship to shooting abortionists as if there was an obvious connection there. There isn't. Unless, of course, you think Hillary Clinton supporters are out shooting abortionists.
That isn't what you're saying is it?
Check this out:
When the DHS report on right wing extremism and possible political violence came out, mainstream Republican leaders denounced it as an attack on all conservatives.
Now, after the second case of right wing extremism and possible political violence in two weeks, the conservatives DENY this is a reflection on all conservatives.
These two claims are not compatible in the same reality.
Alpha -
The report said veterans were potential terrorists. Is that accurate or not?
Is either Dr. Tiller's killer or this guy a member in good standing of the Republican party? Have they ever held office or been appointed as spokesman for any conservative cause? No and no.
You're such a hypocrite in disclaiming responsibility for the Muslim terrorists who killed the soldier in Arkansas. He was only following the logical ends of what Sheehan, Reid, et al have been advocating, but yet Leftists have no responsibility for his actions.
I happen to agree that they don't, but you can't have it both ways. Either whackos are the inevitable product of the the ideology or they aren't. You don't get to say "I, Alpha Liberal, will decide who is and isn't representative. And I declare that no terrorist act is ever the responsibility of the Left, but all acts - no matter how much they don't represent conservative values - of terrorism are the responsibility of the Right."
It's moronic, and you sound like an idiot every time you repeat it.
Jim denies more of the obvious reality all around us:
I keep having to remind people that the ones who brought the lawsuits about Obama's citizenship are HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTING DEMOCRATS. Not conservatives. Not Republicans. Democrats. Try again. .
The people in the here and now pushing the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a natural born citizen are NOT Clinton supporters. They are conservatives and far rightists, such as Von Brunn.
As far as FoxNews, well, your views are amazing. You seem unaware of who runs the network, the falsehoods they broadcast and their hardline right wing bias.
Good luck with that.
Alpha -
You mean the falsehoods like the Bush National Guard memo? Oh...that's right...that wasn't Fox, was it?
Should I go on?
Which falsehoods have they presented as factual news? How many lies are liberal news outlets allowed before you are willing to condemn them?
As far as Fox having a right wing tilt, I would say that it does tilt to the right but it gives liberals a chance to respond. On the other hand, every other network on the air is Hard Left and won't give conservatives a fair shot as responding to the slanders they regularly spout.
So your complaint is, in essence, you and your Leftist friends, are no longer free to provide news Big Brother style and deny people opposing viewpoints or the knowledge of how often they are lied to by the other networks and newspapers.
Much like Obama you can't stand dissent and seek to silence it. Too bad.
I never watched it much before that happened.
My pastor at the time denounced Falwell from the pulpit for presuming to speak for God on extra-biblical matters..
Well that's how FLS debates. Wright is bad so lets show some white pastor saying the same thing as if McCain or any other GOP candidate was part of his congregation for 20 years and was their spirtual leader.
In other words, FLS doesn't know what the term relevance means but he knows what deflection is.
Jeremy - what are you up to on this thread - 400 lines? 500 lines? 600?
Man, take a vicodin or something and chill out.
You're taking blah, blah, blah to a whole new level.
Alpha -
You're absolutely right. How could I believe that Hillary's supporters have all fallen into line 100% and none of the people questioning his citizenship could POSSIBLY be from the Left.
That would intrude on your reality, and it's pretty obvious how much having your worldview interfered with upsets you.
Enjoy your reality. Let us know when you're ready to join the rest of us in the real world.
Jeremy sez:
Show me any military person, or even any government official who says we've “won the war in Iraq.”
Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2009:
“Iraq's Casualty Decline: The month of May had the fewest deaths from violence since 2003.
“Now that the Iraq war is going well, media coverage in America has all but vanished. So we thought you might like to know that the month that ended yesterday saw the fewest deaths from terrorist violence in that country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
“According to official Iraqi government figures, some 124 civilians, six soldiers and 25 policemen were killed by attacks in May. Another 344 were wounded, but the number of deaths by violence fell by more than half from the 355 killed in April, which was the deadliest month since September and had inspired fears that perhaps Iraq was heading back into sectarian strife as the U.S. military ceded ever more anti-insurgency responsibility to Iraqis.”
Sounds like the war is pretty much over to me. (Excepting in the vicinity of Mosul, where Al Qaeda in Iraq as assembled to make its last stand.)
Regarding the DHS report on right wing extremism that conservatives claimed was a slur against all conservatives, we have this from Jim:
The report said veterans were potential terrorists. Is that accurate or not? .
Hey, Jim. Suggest you read the new on Von Brunn. He was a veteran.
Neither that report nor stating that fact is a slur against all vets. It's a reality that people concerned with defending the people of this country should give a shit about.
Alpha -
Gotcha. So since this guy was a veteran that justified the DHS report that law enforcement should be on the lookout for returning veterans and anybody who disagrees with the president. That isn't slurring all veterans or Republicans or anything.
The report painted all conservatives and veterans with the same brush - as you often do with those who disagree with you politically - without distinguishing between extremists and those who simply have policy differences. Had the DHS report been more specific about watching out for groups like Stormfront or Freemen or something of the kind it would be different. The report was a politically motivated hit job - even DHS staffers protested against its contents before it was released because it was so obviously prejudicial toward conservatives and veterans as a whole.
You can't pretend it isn't true and your self-serving characterizations of the report are just about as far from the actual truth of the matter as possible.
A quick comment on Regent University. It is a normal university and does not just teach Bible courses as one might find in a Baptist Church College like Liberty University. Regent is fully accredited and has a better Doctoral Program than most schools.Falwell may be an early charismatic TV preacher, but he is highly educated and founded the Regent University to compete with U of Richmond and UVA in intellectual level. Their students are not penalyzed for any beliefs, not even Christianity.
Whenever I hear some innocent person's life is snuffed out suddenly and violently, my first thought is !!!!!!!11!1! How can I score political points with this!?!? So, carry on. Right there with you.
Beth, thank you for your classy R.I.P. to the security guard. Thank you also for injecting a note of sanity into this thread. Also props to Roger J., ZPS, Lee, and some others who tried to talk sense.
EKatz, bless you for bringing in Orwell. Maybe everyone should check EKatz’s comment and go and read some Orwell before they comment again. It would help a lot.
ricpic, not cool. That security guard was an honest and dedicated man. Let us honor him, not mock him.
Worst comment thread ever.
Well that's how FLS debates. Wright is bad so lets show some white pastor saying the same thing as if McCain or any other GOP candidate was part of his congregation for 20 years and was their spirtual leader.
What I'm saying is what I said from the beginning: You can't assume that 20 years of sermons are just like one (or two or three or four) sermons cherrypicked for their heinousness by a political opponent.
Let me recap the argument for you:
You: No decent person could listen to twenty years of sermons like that.
Me: The few sermons (~4/1000)hat received massive attention were likely unrepresentative.
You: Wright said the media bought all 1000 sermons and listened to them. (This would have taken six man months, so I doubt it. The Republican Senators are complaining about only having a month to read Sotomayor's decisions -- no way the media co-ordinated to listen to 1000 hours worth of sermons in any reasonable time.)
You: You wouldn't support a white candidate listening to a white pastor who said the same hateful things.
Me: Illogical, Captain Kirk.
You: I mean someone who talks crazy, like about deserving 9/11
Me: Famous white preachers -- with a huge track record of sermons delivered over the teevee to uncomplaining multitudes -- said we deserve 9/11.
Had to go back to see what ricpic said about the guards -
reader iam speaks for me: Good Lord, ricpic.
thanks, Frodo.
"Me: Famous white preachers -- with a huge track record of sermons delivered over the teevee to uncomplaining multitudes -- said we deserve 9/11."
When it's on the teevee, most people don't complain, they just switch the channel. But I think that a whole heck of a lot of people complained about Falwell and complained loudly. Just as they complained about the "we deserved it" remarks coming from various far-left academics.
Another example of people meeting on the other side?
It looks like every single one of Alpha, Jeremy and FLS' posts on this topic are officially non-operative as the loon was evidently a LEFTIST anti-Semite who hated Bush, McCain, and "neocons" (there's that Leftist code word for "Jewish conservatives" again.) He wrote that the Bush administration was part of the new world order and that JFK was a hero for fighting against that new world order.
Waiting for Alpha/Jeremy/FLS to switch arguments 180 degrees and argue how this has absolutely nothing to do with the Left and is absolutely no reflection on Leftists in general....in 3..2..1..
(I still happen to believe the guy was a lone nut job. I'm just revelling in the delicious irony of watching Jeremy and crew spending an entire evening condemning conservatives as hatemongers and harboring extremists in our midst, denying the existence of anti-Semites on the Left, and how it was unreasonable for conservatives to claim that their beliefs had nothing to do with what this guy did.)
Any time you guys want to belly up to the dinner table for a heaping helping of crow, dinner's waiting...
"See: Wearing Confederate cap."
Wonder what he thought of Grant's General Order #11. Or Judah P. Benjamin. Maybe, JUST maybe, he wasn't educated or sane enough to have heard of either.
"Well that's how FLS debates."
It seems to me that fls is being uncommonly reasonable on this. (each thread being a new slate and all) Arguing that an otherwise reasonable person might go off the rails a couple of times in 20 years seems like an obvious truth to me.
I don't think it outweighs the casual prejudice displayed, but... as a wise Scandi woman my rich experiences suggest that not everyone has the same practice watching every word that comes from their mouths because they know they're going to get jumped on if they slip.
What I'm saying is what I said from the beginning: You can't assume that 20 years of sermons are just like one (or two or three or four) sermons cherrypicked for their heinousness by a political opponent..
I suggest you go back to the link I provided where Wright himself, admits that he has been preaching those kinds of sermons for 20 years and has no regrets. I didn't make that claims, Wright did. Comprende?
Arguing that an otherwise reasonable person might go off the rails a couple of times in 20 years seems like an obvious truth to me..
Synova, Wright admitted that he preached those kinds of sermons for 20 years.
If FLS wants to compare Jerry Falwell with Wright be my guest. That argument would work dandy if McCain or one of the GOP candidates was a 20 year member of the 700 Club and looked to Falwell as his spirtual mentor but alas, they didn't.
And again so what if it was only 3-4 times? Trent Lott was crucified for praising a 90 year old senator that ran on a Segregationist platform half a century ago. OJ walked in large part because Mark Furhman was painted as a racist because he said the N word a decade ago.
Sorry but hyprocrisy only goes so far before I throw the bullshit flag.
You: Wright said the media bought all 1000 sermons and listened to them. (This would have taken six man months, so I doubt it. .
I didn't say it, Wright said it. Evidently you're not bothering to read the evidence I provided. If Wright is full of shit then direct it to him not me. I'm merely quoting the man.
Jeremy wrote: "Maybe you can pass on the good news about how we've won the war in Iraq to the families and friends of the Americans who have died or been wounded in the last few days."
Later he doubled down with sarcasm and left out the wounded: "The people who have died in just the last few days...really didn't die."
In fact, they didn't. Jeremy is apparently too stupid to check the facts before commenting, and just assumes that American troops are dying in Iraq every day. No American troops have been killed in Iraq in "the last few days". Deaths are listed here: the total for June is one on the 2nd, two on the 4th, one by non-hostile action on the 5th, none since then. (I'm writing on the 11th.) Casualties have run as high as 137 in one month (11/04) so 3 in 11 days is a huge improvement.
Looks like maybe we (a pronoun that does not include Jeremy) did win the war, even if the fact has not penetrated the skulls of those too lazy to check the easily-checked facts.
Alpha
Don’t cite mediamutters to me on dishonesty. They are not honest enough to trust when calling someone else a liar. K?
> Oh, bullshit! What a typical lie. An "alternate reality," "if you will." Not a shred of truth. [on the claim that liberals claim that saddam did nothing to us.]
Mmm, yeah, and when Michael Moore said Iraq never attacked us...?
Or how about the persistent claims that we had no legal right to attack saddam. Of course the gulf war ended not with a treaty, but a “cease fire agreement.” Now I know this is complicated, but under a cease fire agreement, you have to CEASE FIRING. Saddam never did. But the left never acknowledges that.
> Conservatives were supporting and courting Saddam when he was gassing his own people.
I never supported Saddam, but then I am not a conservative.
But it was defensible to support him. Sometimes you have to ally with Stalin to beat Hitler.
> Liberals were decrying Saddam's gross violation of human rights back in real time as it happened.
And stopped caring when a republican decided to do something about them, even though they were still going on. Indeed, liberals like Michael Moore portrayed Iraq as a peaceful country, ignoring the state of war that existed between its government and its people.
> The report said veterans were potential terrorists. Is that accurate or not?
Imagine if the report said “black people were potential terrorists.” You would be angry, and frankly so would I. And it wouldn’t be a defense to say “yeah, but that guy who shot Pvt. Long was black.”
Why? Because it is bigoted to say that because one black guy did something wrong, that all black people are bad, or even more likely to be bad. And it is wrong to smear all veterans as potential terrorists because of one or two bad apples. Sheesh.
The question is whether veterans are uniquely likely to be terrorists, and I think the answer is a resounding “no.” the fact was that DHS report was nothing more than a lot of speculation and stereotypes, without actual, you know evidence.
Jeremy
The claim that Bush made it all up hit the dust at around Jan 20, 2009, when a Democratic president came in. Now there is no part of the government that the democrats can’t control and therefore no bush-era information you can’t obtain. If Obama found proof that bush lied us into war, he would have trumpeted it for the world to see. He didn’t. it’s the dog that didn’t bark.
> he was secular and had absolutely no reason to allow Osama or anybody else to operate in his country
You mean besides hatred for America, right?
> If it was so important to take out Saddam...why didn't we do it after Kuwait?
Bush Sr. hoped the Iraqis would do it for him. I was critical of the decision at the time, and my criticism was borne out.
As for those rush quotes, um, and your proof he said any of those things is...?
Former law student and current bigot
> list of "them Jews" who "surround the President" in aaron's words
Not my words. Reverend Wrights’.
Remember, you are the one with racial, sexual and disability prejudice. Not me.
And seriously, why would it matter that the people surrounding the president are jewish or not? What is the relevance?
By the way, isn’t that an interesting coincidence. A person who went to a racist and anti-semitic church then nominates to the supreme court someone who says some stuff that sounds pretty racist. And then is defended by a guy who actually is racist, sexist, and bigoted toward disabled people.
And as for the theory that these sermons were unusual... do you know how they got the tapes in the first place? They were being sold as the “best of” Wright, by his own church. His own church was proud of them!
Indeed in the sermon from which obama got his title “the audacity of hope” he talked about the need to resist “white greed.”
> No, if a white pastor ranted about how the black man had kept the white man down for centuries I would have thought he was a lunatic.
How about if they said that God should be “for white people.” that is what wright’s church doctrine was.
But way to dodge the actual issue.
We get it. you are a racist, against white people. I suspect that is self-hate, but I really don’t care.
Jeremy: If it was so important to take out Saddam...why didn't we do it after Kuwait? Why did Rummy, Cheney and Powell advise Bush Sr. to leave Saddam where he was and to move on?
You must not have been followng international politics at the time. The UN would not give us a mandate to take out Saddam - only to liberate Kuwait. State was also concerned that such a move would leave our troops and their logistics surrounded by our former arab "allies".
How about if they said that God should be “for white people.” that is what wright’s church doctrine was.
via Dr Cone, Rev Wright's champion: "Black liberation theology will only accept the love of a God that participates in the destruction of the White Enemy"
Following the Left's logic (x creates more terrorists), everytime people like Cone and Wright open their mouths, another white man is radicalized into a terrorist.
"...destruction of the White enemy"
btw, the shooter not only hated jews, obviously, but christians, and george bush. and he believe 9-11 was an inside job.
Pigeonholing him ideologically as "right wing" seems more silly by the hour. In truth the concept that everyone is "right or left" is simplistic. It assumes life is one dimensional--everyone is on one end or the other on a string. but in reality life and politics is not one dimensional, two dimensional, but three dimensional.
So i would no more call the idiot who shot up the holocaust museam a conservative, than i would call the guy who shot up the recruitment center a "liberal."
Here's a video of conservative media personalities and such claiming the DHS report on rightwing extremists was a smear on ALL conservatives.
This week, they say there is no connection between conservatives and extremists.
Who do you guys even keep track of these shifting positions?
Don’t cite mediamutters to me on dishonesty. They are not honest enough to trust when calling someone else a liar. K? .
No. not okay. All they do is post the actual recorded words of controversial righties.
That's dangerous stuff for a movement that shifts their preferred reality on a weekly basis.
Man, modern conservatives would give Orwell the shivers. "Our enemy is Oceana. It has always been Oceana."
Alpha
Its not enough to record them but to record them in context. mediamutters has been caught too many times in blatant distortions to be a trustworthy news source.
I suppose you will cite Dan Rather next.
It looks like every single one of Alpha, Jeremy and FLS' posts on this topic are officially non-operative as the loon was evidently a LEFTIST anti-Semite who hated Bush, McCain, and "neocons"... .
What a dumb statement. So you can't think of any conservatives (not even extremists) who dislike Bush or McCain?
The guy was:
anti-immigrant - a conservative position.
anti-government - a conservative position.
allied with the White Supremacists, far RIGHT extremists.
etc, etc.
this response it pathetic. You guys think inventing a new reality where far righties are ACTUALLY lefties accomplishes something beyond making you look idiotic.
And alpha, if you are going to pin this idiot yesterday on conservatives, what about the death of pvt. long and all the liberal hate whipped up over the years, including by you? I seem to remember that every time someone pointed out that the anti-war rhetoric emboldened our enemies, liberals screamed bloody murder.
What we really have here is the conservative movement reacting to this anti-semitic murder by trying to muddy the waters over who the shooter was while continuing to demean efforts to warn people of rising right wing extremism.
The words and actions of conservatives are making it more difficult for our law enforcement agencies to deal with this threat of violence.
Conclusion: Conservatives don't really give a rat's ass about the safety and security of the American people, unless it can be a political football to help them gain power.
Aaron:
And alpha, if you are going to pin this idiot yesterday on conservatives, what about the death of pvt. long and all the liberal hate whipped up over the years, including by you? I .
I've already addressed this several times on the web site and you've probably read my response.
Conclusion: It's a waste of time to address this diversionary argument. You'll just keep bringing it up to deflect attention and responsibility.
Alpha writes:
> The guy was:
> anti-immigrant - a conservative position.
> anti-government - a conservative position.
> allied with the White Supremacists, far RIGHT extremists
Conservatives aren’t anti-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigration.
Nor are conservatives 100% opposed to government and liberals 100% committed to government intrusion.
And two can play this game, too.
He was a racist. And which party is more racist these days? Well, let’s see here, which party nominated a person to the surpreme court who claimed that race and gender made a person a better justice? Which party elected a president who spent 20 years in a racist church?
He is also anti-semitic. Which party is more anti-semitic? Let’s see here, Jim Moran and Cindy Sheehan both blamed jews for the Iraq war... Reverend Wright had his whole comment about “them jews” keeping him from Obama...
And tell me is it the right wing or the left that claims that bush was involved in 9-11?
And he hates isreal. Tell me which party stands up more for Israel these days?
If you think of left and right as one-dimensional then life gets really confusing. If you instead recognize that things are a little more complicated than that...
Alpha
> I've already addressed this several times
And got your ass handed to you each time.
Aaron, did you ever address this issues?
On the DHS report regarding rightwing extremists, conservatives claimed it tarred ALL conservatives by focusing on extremists. As if they are the same thing. (See video link for samples of these statements, above).
Now that the warning has proven accurate, you guys are arguing the opposite: right wing extremists have nothing to do with conservatives.
Do you even bother to be consistent with your won arguments?
"won arguments?" = "own arguments?"
And got your ass handed to you each time. .
Only a delusional person would think so. I was personally attacked, conservatives erected their strawman arguments (mental masturbation), conservatives restated their ignorant hatred of Muslims.
But the argument itself was avoided. No con had the stones to take it on.
Alpha,
Sorry, what is the inconsistency in saying that the nuts are not conservatives?
> "won arguments?" = "own arguments?"
Don’t worry. I am dyslexic, so I am fluent in “typo.”
> Only a delusional person would think so.
You mean you didn’t whip up hatred about the Iraqi war that might blow back on our troops? Oh, wait, you did.
Seriously, to pretend that the left generally hasn’t demonized the war and by our extension our soldiers is bull. From the pounding on abu ghraib, claiming it was policy rather than a few idiots, to the hysterics of Korans in the toilet, indymedia photoshopping our soldiers to look like SS, endless cries of “bush lied,” “no blood for oil,” calling this a racist war, calling it a war caused by jews, the boston city counsel publishing false photos of a rape of an “iraqi women”: that turned out to be really a porn site (first hint it was fake? The girl was asian, not middle eastern), Al Gore screaming that Bush betrayed us and played on our fears, Joe Wilson claiming that he proved that Iraq didn’t try to get uranium from African (when in fact he lied), and so on, you truly have to be living in an alternate reality to say that none of that might have influenced the guy who shot Long, or the guys continually murdering our troops.
Don’t go down this route. When it comes to which side is more venomous, the left will win every time.
Btw, alpha, the shooter said that
"socialism is the future of the west"
How does that fit into your right wing stereotypes?
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-right-wing-christian-hate-crime/
Oh, and he might have been targeting the weekly standard. you know that really liberal magazine.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Weekly_Standard_may_have_been_shooter_target.html?showall
A few choice lines from the article:
> The suggestion that the Standard may have been a target complicates any view of the racist shooter in contemporary left-right terms. Von Brunn's white supremacist roots put him under the rubric of a "right-wing extremist," but the substance of his views -- which included everything from believing that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks to denying that President Obama is an American citizen -- are too far on the fringe to fit into conventional political classification.
> The focus on the Standard, though, appears to be of a piece with his central motivation: Anti-Semitism. In one essay, Von Brunn attacked "JEWS-NEOCONS-BILL O’REILLY," and the suggestion that neoconservatism is a specifically Jewish conspiracy is common on the racist fringe.
So he is a typical right winger who believes in socialism, hates the weekly standard and bill o'reilly. and hates christianity, too. and is a truther.
mmm, okay.
is there a point where you will admit that he doesn't seem like a right winger?
AlphaLiberal's a stitch as he attempts again and again to tie ordinary conservatives in America to radical extremists like Nazis and the KKK. But, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, a true American socialist, the late Michael Harrington, had a much clearer idea of what America including its conservatives is all about.
AL, no doubt, will try to arm-wave away Michael Harrington's words, charging that modern conservatives (the interview below occurred a score years ago) are somehow different from what Harrington's talking about back then — but Ronald Reagan, for instance, was castigated by liberals of that era in almost exactly the same way as today's conservatives are demonized by folks like AL now.
Jimmy Carter, for instance, assured us all that if Ronnie Raygun were ever elected President by the American people he was sure to start all-out thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union.
Contrariwise, Michael Harrington (former co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and thus a real American socialist) had some choice words to say about such feverish imaginings, in an interview with Robert MacNeil of the PBS Newshour back in 1989. Moreover, Harrington's clearly not talking about fringe types like Nazis and the KKK — unlike folks like AL, he was able to keep simple but glaringly obvious distinctions straight in his mind.
MacNeil: “Finally, tonight, we remember political activist Michael Harrington, who died yesterday — he was 61 years old.
“Harrington began his career as a leftist political organizer, author, lecturer, and teacher in the early 50's. He became co-chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America in 1983. Among his books was The Other America: Poverty in the United States, published in 1962; it was widely viewed as helping set the scene for the Johnson Administration's War on Poverty.
“I spoke with Harrington a year ago, when he was already suffering from the cancer that led to his death. I asked why he thought socialism had never caught on in the United States.”
Harrington: “I think that's very complicated, but to just tick off a number of the reasons:
“Number one, we're a presidential country, not a parliamentary country. In Canada, so much like us, there's a socialist party which in the polls right now is at about 28-29 percent, which has been 20 percent or better for years. In part that's because in Canada you can vote for your socialist candidate for Parliament, and he or she can then affect the Executive in the Parliament.
“Number two. Because the United States in the period when most European workers were becoming socialist — which was the period roughly from 1880 to 1914 — in the United States that was the period in which it was more important that you were Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, white or black, Italian, Irish, etc. That is to say, our race, our ethnicity, all of those complexities made it difficult to develop a class consciousness when people were much more ethnically and religiously and racially conscious.
“Finally, the most complex of all, in my opinion. There's a sense in which I think America is the most socialist country on the face of the earth right now — which is one of the reasons we don't have a socialist movement. By that I mean that the United States I think has always been one of the most egalitarian, open, non-deferential societies. We've never had any real Tories — any real conservatives — in America. One of the reasons that Canada has a socialist movement is that our Tories went to Canada after the Revolution, and sat around and told the workers that they were human refuse — that they were no good! And one of the things that generates socialist consciousness is having a bunch of upper-class snobs trying to push people down — we've never had it. And, I think, in a crazy way — socially — I've always thought that America is really much more socialist than Sweden!”
(MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, Robert MacNeil's interview with Michael Harrington, broadcast August 2, 1989; transcribed by me.)
Jimmy Carter, for instance, assured us all that if Ronnie Raygun were ever elected President by the American people he was sure to start all-out thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union. .
Did not happen.
Michael Harrington was a smart guy. I never read much of his stuff. His book was quite the hit. As socialists go, he's a conservative one.
Interesting quote. Hope you faithfully transcribed it.
This is remarkable evidence that conservatives think of themselves as extremists.
AlphaLiberal says:
“Jimmy Carter, for instance, assured us all that if Ronnie Raygun were ever elected President by the American people he was sure to start all-out thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union.”
Did not happen.
Sure it did (Carter's slam against Reagan, not the nuclear war). I don't have the exact quote, but I remember Carter making that allegation during the 1980 election. Moreover, as this Citizendium article on Reagan said about that election: Reagan “crusaded against the failures of incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter. Carter fought back, lashing out at Reagan as a dangerous radical who would unleash nuclear war.”
Michael Harrington was a smart guy. I never read much of his stuff. His book was quite the hit. As socialists go, he's a conservative one.
I believe that.
Interesting quote. Hope you faithfully transcribed it.
Oh, it's accurate. I no longer have the videotape I taped off the air when that interview was broadcast, but I carefully transcribed the text of it from that tape. (There was a bit more to the interview after what I quoted, but I didn't believe it was relevant to the point being made.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा