Some of the highlights:
The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad....so very few are so far Left that they think this ad is appropriate.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another contender for the Democratic nomination, did not vote, although he voted minutes earlier for an alternative resolution by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. That resolution condemned the MoveOn ad as an "unwarranted personal attack," but also condemned political attack ads that questioned the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., both Vietnam veterans. ....it is clear that Obam and others are flat out afraid of the far Left wing moonbats like the ones at moveon.org.
and Bush nailed it...
And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military," Bush said Thursday.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Senate Condemns "General Betray Us" Ad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
I am angry at the majority leadership for allowing this ridiculous waste of time to even reach the Senate floor.
It's a f**king newspaper ad!
Oh, but don't question their patriotism. They support the troops! Really!
That's just an asinine statement, Jason, and everyone is getting tired of it.
The people who don't support the troops are the ones who won't insist that they be given the proper amount of time at home with their families between tours in Iraq.
I support my neighbor who is going back for his third tour after only 6 months at home.
Republics who filibuster bills that support the troops do not support the troops.
I don't question anyone's patriotism. Why must you? Do you feel insecure about yours?
Bush should probably focus on the Iraq war, not on a newspaper ad! What do you think will happen when President and Senate spend time debating an ad, not the real problem!!
"The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad....so very few are so far Left that they think this ad is appropriate."
How do you figure? These politicians vote inexplicably, based on money and corruption, constantly. What would lead us to believe this is any different?
"It's a f**king newspaper ad!"
Was there a similar outcry from Ari Fleischer and his Jewish pro-war committee's ads, which appeared everywhere?
MoveOn's ad was at least TRUE, and reflective either of the average American's established convictions, or their deepest fears.
The nickname "BETRAY-US" was actually coined by the Republican military's troops on the ground in Iraq!
"I don't question anyone's patriotism. Why must you?"
Craftiness, trickery, and a spirit of manipulation, intimidation, and control.
"Bush should probably focus on the Iraq war, not on a newspaper ad!"
The Iraqi Holocaust is not even an issue at this point.
Even a casual observer of the shrub's personal afternoon appearances can not deny the fact that he is now noticeably drunk in public.
"What do you think will happen when President and Senate spend time debating an ad, not the real problem!!"
I do know that it is well known and understood that, the day after the primaries are finished, the war-mongering is OVER for them at that point, which only illustrates my long-stated conviction that Republicans are loyal only to party and could give a damn about the troops or the mission...
Not that I do, but I at least don't pretend to support the troops.
"...it is clear that Obam and others are flat out afraid of the far Left wing moonbats like the ones at moveon.org..."
GOOD! They better be...
Just wanted to say that I've been reading the link Jim gave to the 2004 Dem Party Platform. What a boor. But I must admit, by page 14 it's pretty much said nothing. It continues the lies still being said about Bush and his admin, then, it talks about doing pretty much what the admin has been doing. Some strong talk about what Kerry planned to do with foreign policy with nothing about what makes him think sovereign nations would put up with him dictating to them. I'm gonna try to read more. So far I stand by my statements about their lack of platform. This one is not saying much thus far. Stay tuned.
I question the patriotism of any and all that believe the MoveOn.org ad was true.
Jim and hash, the Senate got something right. This ad was out of bounds and so are the people behind it which includes you two.
"Why must you?"
Some people clearly do not like the United States of America, and have a political interest in its failure. In addition, some people love the enemies of America-- consider Dennis Kucinich trashing the USA on Syrian state tv, or Kerry signing autographs for the Ayatollahs while calling the USA an "international pariah."
Why progressives love religious fanatics so much these days is beyond me. But anyway. You guys talk about dissent. But evidently pointing out unpatriotic behavior isn't part of the dissent equation, but baselessly bashing our generals and our country is.
Leftwing universities like Harvard and Columbia, for example, invite dark age fundie monsters like Khatami and Ahmadinejad to have a "conversation" and "dialogue" with students. Meanwhile, they move heaven and earth to ban military recruiters on campus. Why shouldn't I question the patriotism of the left, given countless examples of this type of behavior?
I don't see what the big deal is. Some people want to be free to hate America, but feel entitled to be treated as if they love it while spewing hate. Well, the left feels entitled to everything from free healthcare to peace, but that's beside the point.
Meanwhile, republiecans threaten to filibuster legislation to ensure adequate leave time for the troops and political contributions from the troops to Democrats vs. republiecans has nearly doubled since this point in the last presidential season. Even among republiecan candidates, anti war candidate Ron Paul leads the pack in contributions from the military.
The only ones that are buying this bullshit are you rubes.
Phil,
In typical liberal style, you try to deflect attention from an issue where you Anti-American libs are getting the shellacking you richly deserve to an issue you word in such a way not to convey it's true meaning, but to incite and create another liberal lie to hide behind.
You just want to cut and run. You have no real concern for the troops. You'd just as soon leave them in Iraq without munitions and provisions at the (no) mercy of Iran.
Sheriff Baca is a Republican, you lying piece of shit.
It's funny how you conservatives who are demanding worshipful reverence of a general were singing a different tune when Wesley Clark was running for president.
One of the prime mouthpieces of your brand of hateful rhetoric, approvingly quoted an email that had this to say :
"Generals are arrogant. Generals truly believe that they are completely right 100% of the time and woe to those underlings who demonstrate that this isn't so. This trait is what makes generals so dangerous. They will ignore sound advice and do the stupidest things imaginable, all because "Well, I'm a general, dammit, I know what I'm doing and. . . ugh, what was the question again?"...Hopefully I'll never have to experience the Wes Clark brand of hubris.
... Generals are dishonest. This is a tricky charge to throw out, but it's the sad truth. I've seen more out-and-out lies from general officers than any other people in the military. In a weird way, they are just like professional politicians in this regard. They act like the main character from "Memento", they can't remember a @#$% thing they said or wrote older than 15 minutes ago. If it wasn't so frustrating, it might be funny. Once again, just compare anything Clark says now to anything that came out of his mouth one year ago."
But, of course, hypocrisy is the republiecan stock in trade.
I was impressed that Herb Kohl voted to condemn the ad AND support the troops so I wrote him an email to thank him. Here's the reply:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your concerns with the MoveOn.org ad critical of General David Petreaus. As you know, the independent MoveOn.org group sponsored an ad in the New York Times critical of General David Petreaus and his report on the war in Iraq. Several prominent members of Congress have criticized the ads, citing its unfair attack on the character and personal integrity of General Petreaus. Recently, the Senate voted on two amendments by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), both of which reaffirmed the Senate's support for men and women in the Armed Forces and condemned attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism of those who have served honorably. I agree that the ads were inappropriate, and I do not approve of calling into question the patriotism of the General. I have nothing but respect for him, and I find this personal attack distasteful. Sincerely, Herb KohlU.S. Senator
Makes him sound like a neo-con compared to some of the libs around here....
Oh yeah, and I'm still waiting for Feingolds reply email. That should be some good reading that I'll post here as well (if it ever comes).
Will,
Makes him sound like a neo-con compared to some of the libs around here....
That's stupid. The liberals here aren't the one questioning anyone's patriotism.
BTW, Petraeus is a liar. He said that nobody could've predicted the successes that they've seen in Anbar, when he himself predicted the cooperation that they've received.
Additionally, he attributed the success in Anbar to the surge when in fact it was the threat of troop withdrawals that made the tribal leaders realize that they needed to step up and start to form alliances with each other and end the constant infighting because the US was not going to be there refereeing indefinitely.
Realism
I'm not questioning anyone's patriotism either, my democratic senator is:
I agree that the ads were inappropriate, and I do not approve of calling into question the patriotism of the General. -Herb Kohl
Jim said it best in that first post.. All you frightwingers get so bent out of shape.. then run us into and endless war. Blackwater kills 20(+/-) innocent civilians and you dont say anything. Soldiers are ill equipped and come home to a disastrous VA. And you want to complain about an advertisement? Oh.. You dont complain about the misleading ads running rampant in our society. Just crazy.
Translation:
Phil,
Wesley Clark does not agree with my (or the white house) ideology, you fool.
We all know who the proven liar is here PCD. Sheriff Baca is a Republican.
"The US Defence Department said Gen Clark's early departure was not a result of dissatisfaction with his performance, but part of a general rotation of American senior ranks."
"The US Defence Department said Gen Clark's early departure was not a result of dissatisfaction with his performance, but part of a general rotation of American senior ranks."
Oh THAT bit of government info they believe.
Maybe someone would believe you if you hadn't been proved to be a blatant craven liar
"Maybe someone would believe you if you hadn't been proved to be a blatant craven liar...."
Here, here.
PRAISE General Wesley Clark, a real American and true military hero, whose loyalty is to AMERICA and not political parties, other principalities and powers, and the Bush Crime Family!
"You just want to cut and run..."
WAAAAAAH! Please don't leave our defenseless mercenaries Blackwater to die!!
"Jim and hash, the Senate got something right. This ad was out of bounds and so are the people behind it which includes you two...."
Son, I've already got the cattle prod, the warming gel, the boots, and my riding crop out....looks like you and me are gonna have a loooong night ahead of us...
"Son, I've already got the cattle prod, the warming gel, the boots, and my riding crop out....looks like you and me are gonna have a loooong night ahead of us..."
Thus we learn even more about the true character of one Hashfanatic! No real surprises here.
Well, I have to admit one thing. You are right that the Democrats in large are a bunch of spineless whimps. Those votes against were a shameless bunch that are scared of name calling. PCD,Jason I am a great American and I question the patriotism of anyone who would support and obfuscate for a President who would destroy or Constitution. I question anyones support for the troops who would vote against giving them the time at home that they spend in combat. Keep calling me a traitor if you must but I know the truth, no matter what you say. Iis just how I see it.t's actually YOU! Sorry Jim but I'm not asking them to play nice anymore. I'm joining the game.
Funny how these radical right wingers on this blog blow of facts with the statement that so and so has been proven to be a lair, ad infinitum but when they go to news busters or townhall its FACT! Shows they know little about serious debate or that they look for truth anywhere outside their own little mind.
PCD, outside the bounds is a matter of opinion no matter how much you would like to mold it into fact.
Where is the shellacing PCD. The ad or the Generals report pretty much made no difference in how people the the big issue. Making up more stuff that exists only in your own teeny weeny smallest of minds.
Yes I type poorly when I am angry, that is how you can tell. I will not tolerate the radical right destroying our country. Either it is a country for all of us or you can have it and give me a job and a visa and I will leave. Wouldn't that make you happy!? That is all you have to do if you want it ONLY for you.
Chill Ron. If you leave, the radicals have won.
Marshall, regarding cattle prods, why do you even pay attention to stuff like that?
"Yes I type poorly when I am angry,"
I must conclude you must always be angry. Which isn't abnormal among frenzied socialists.
;)
By "frenzied socialist", of course, he means "anyone who is not an ardent supporter of the burgeoning corporate-fascist state"
"Thus we learn even more about the true character of one Hashfanatic! No real surprises here."
That's what happens when you underestimate your enemy, marsh...
Some people only understand one form of discipline.
"Unfortunately, thanks to the state of government education, people are taught that fascism is limited government, supporting democracy, and individual rights. Columbia University even said that if Hitler was around today, they'd invite him, like Ahmadinejad, for "dialogue.""
It's pretty ironic that, for a pseudo-intellectual, you are anti-intellectual and opposed to critical thought, in favor of suppression, as well.
I guess bloodthirst and greed does that to a man...
There are fascists in our midst-- they want to be friends with every dictator on the planet, give the government complete control over our life decisions
Who wants to be friends with dictators, Jason? Do you equate talking diplomacy with friendship? We had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union for decades certainly without being friends.
Who wants to give the government complete control over our life decisions? The Republics? The religious right?
"I'm directly criticizing and dissenting from the nationalist radical socialist agenda."
No, you're dissembling, and trying to smear the left by equating us with neo-Nazis...
"You're saying I'm opposed to critical thought since I'm being critical of your worldview. You realize how illogical your complaint is, no?"
No, you are engaging in character assassination, following it up with misstatements of position and projection of beliefs and thoughts deemed socially unacceptable and politically correct and attaching them to emerging perspectives that ARE gaining currency with the American public in order to discredit THAT sea change in opinion, because free thought and our debunking of your culture of fear scares the living shit out of you.
"If people promote socialist doctrine..."
Blah, blah, blah. To a neocon, "socialist" is a code word used to denote anything not totally infected with neocon philosophy, or any opinion not strictly philo-semitic.
"there is no reason to act offended if they're identified as socialists."
I'm not offended at all, but your use of code words to substitute for honest refutations and obfuscate your true mission is transparent.
"...If you're a socialist of the fascist variety,..."
Sigh. Palmolive is green in the bottle, Ivory is white, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
"...like the moonbat professors at Columbia,..."
Why do you hate the idea of educational institutions that serve OTHER people?
Why, as a pseudo-intellectual, do you have such a passionate disgust for any intellectual activities?
I thought this was permitted in America.
"This kind of exact and precise thinking would be easy and uncontroversial in an earlier age."
Can you understand that the vast majority of Americans are tired of reminiscing about the past, and wish to move ahead?
Do you understand that YOU may have to conform and realign your perspective toward what most Americans want for their nation, the future, rather than YOUR vision of the past, repeated ad nauseam?
"And again, calling me bloodthirsty because I would not invite literally Adolf Hitler to preach at an American University, is clearly an irrational claim."
You neocons have, according to the British Lancet, killed over one million in your Iraqi Holocaust, without a trace of guilt or remorse.
Over 3,700 of our soldiers killed for some shitty little country in the desert.
No, I don't feel my claim is irrational.
If Columbia wants to have Ah...jad in, that's their business...or does every major educational institution have to clear their speaker's choices with Abraham Foxman and Malcolm Hoenlein now?
As for comparing Ah...jad to Hitler, you know perfectly well his supposed "wipe the Jews off the earth" comment was completely mistranslated (by a Jewish interpreter, surprise, surprise!!)
so I do not see the comparison. Why should Iran, a modern nation that reveres the West, be stopped from having nukes? Because Israel demands it? Why?
Israel has them, and Israel threatens, tortures and bombs its neighbors every day (the Jews bombed their innocent neighbor Syria recently, under the guise of "North Korean weapons" *rolls eyes*)so why does Iran have to ASK to have permission to have nukes when the Jews LIED FOR YEARS and had a veritable stockpile of hundreds and hundreds of their neighbors, while sneakily saying they were for "peace"?
"Unless, of course, you think Hitler actually had a point about exterminating those greedy Jooooooos Ahmadinejad-style, which would not surprise me."
Really?
I don't happen to have an antisemitic bone in my body but if you need to project that image upon me to boost your own filthy neocon self-image.
I do believe Israel will get what she deserves, for torturing the world, and I believe that God will deliver this, and I pray for this and pray our nation is delivered from the curse of Zionism.
I'm not quite sure why you repeatedly bring up tired, boring Holocaust imagery repeatedly, unless you really are a Jew and lied about it, or if you want yet another museum built in your neighborhood with our tax dollars.
I do know you are far more of a threat to the people than any imaginary "Islamofascists", no matter whose identity you assume.
And your first allegiance is not to this land.
I wonder if the Senate will condemn this:
LIMBAUGH: Right. By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betrayus. New name for Senator Hagel.
And you guys have the nerve to call us fascist? Look in the mirror.
Jason,
Here's what FDR had to say on the subject:
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power
Due to the structure of the electoral system in the US, and the vast amounts of money required to mount a successful national campaign, it is clear that wealthy corporate interests serve as a "controlling private power"
Robert Paxton, in his book Anatomy of Fascism, describes it thusly:
1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; AKA "9/11 changed everything"
2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; Because the Muslims are coming to destroy our way of life and impose Sharia law!!!
3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; Which is why its ok to spy on American citizens without a warrant, Detain people indefinitely without charges, access to a lawyer or the right of Habeas Corpus
4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; "Chosen People" dominating others without restraint? Sounds familiar...
5. fear of foreign `contaminationYes, because those Muslims want to kill all of the unbelivers and impose Sharia law, remember? Plus, we need to protect our "national character" against the hordes of illegal immigrants
Umberto Eco wrote in his essay "Eternal Fascism" about some of the other characteristics of facism;
"The Cult of Tradition"
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake"
"Disagreement is Treason"
"Fear of Difference"
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class"
"Obsession With a plot"
"Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy"
"Life is Permanent Warfare"
"Contempt for the Weak"
"Selective Populism"
Damn, it sounds like the GOP Platform!!!
Yes I type poorly when I am angry,"
I must conclude you must always be angry. Which isn't abnormal among frenzied socialists.
------
At this point in history I can't argue with you on this Jason. :-)
My profession is speaking, not typing.
realism, your description of fascism is pretty much the way I learned it but hell that's coming from a damned socialist America hater(right) so I guess we are in a revolving debate on semantics.
"Marshall, regarding cattle prods, why do you even pay attention to stuff like that?"
Good point, Jim. Then again, I like giving a boob like Hashpuppie the business. He takes it so well.
"I wonder if the Senate will condemn this:"
Jay, certain Dem Senators have been condemning Rush for years.
Realism,
"ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power"
Where is this happening exactly? With both parties receiving donations from individuals, groups and businesses, who's being controlled except by the whims of all of them? Thus far, corporate control is a fantasy. Certainly the threat always exists, but it isn't quite a reality yet. Who would patronize the corporation who sought to exert such control? I wouldn't, would you?
Let's look at your list:
1) The fact is, 9/11 DID change things. We now have to realize that we are not immune from the actions of Islamic assholes. We now have to realize that we are dealing with a new kind of threat that acts in a unique manner not seen before. This is not a change of our choosing or construction.
2) We do not act, nor have we been acting, without legal or moral limits. There have been opposing opinion on such things as a result of the current situation and the new challenges that came with it, but limits are in place. And we HAVE been victimized by assholes seeking to impose Sharia law worldwide. Why you refuse to see this is beyond me. Even if you don't agree as to the level of the threat, to deny the threat exists is foolhardy.
3) Our current leader does not consider himself to be above the law. That is only the lefty accusation of him because they don't like his leadership style. And all leaders are prone to and to some extent expected to act on their instincts. The hope is that those instincts are good. That Bush understands the threat of Islamic radicalism shows at least some of his instincts are pretty good. And really, Realism. Enough with the domestic spying crap. That's not what is being done as your words imply.
4) Is this a shot on Israel? Have you been talking to Hash? Or are you referring to us? In any case, see #2 about restraints.
5) This does not exist except by the Klan and other supremist groups with whom conservatives are not aligned. (You might want to talk to Hash about his Jew-phobia.) We are concerned with radical Islamofascist fundamentalist assholes, not all Muslims in general. It helps you argument to make that false claim, but it is false indeed. And your illegal immigrant crack is off base as well. Though it is our national economy that is most threatened by them, we have a problem with the assault on our sovereignty by these invaders and also, our national character can hardly be hurt any more than it already has been by liberalism.
For Senor Eco:
-Tradition is good. It helps to shape who we are. A family bonds more strongly when traditions are formed. Perhaps the term "Cult of Tradition" needs explaining.
-Where is there action being taken for the sake of taking action? How does this goofy expression apply to us? Seems to me that we've taken actions when a need for the actions has presented itself. Perhaps you've something specific in mind.
-Disagreement isn't treason, but treasonous statements are. Some are merely seditious. But more precisely, ragging on the actions and policies of your opponents isn't disagreement, it's obstruction and, really, immaturity.
-We don't fear difference, liberals do. They like to pretend they don't exist and everyone is just exactly the same. This is seen in the radical feminists' agendas for example. We recognize the differences for what they are and respond accordingly, not pretending they aren't significant, when usually they're quite so. However, mere racial, ethnic, gender differences? No problem.
-I believe your own candidates pander exhaustively to the middle class.
-Obsession with a plot? C'mon! Who has been spewing the conspiracy theories like the anti-administration liberal left? Hash refers to them as the Bush Crime Family!! "War for Oil"?? Jeez!
-No. Pretending the enemy isn't a threat is trafficking with the enemy. Your side was never as anti-war as they have been anti-Bush. The obstructionist tactics of your Party has been tantamount with siding with the enemy, treason, sedition, etc, for the effect it has on our ability to handle the challenge before us, as well as the morale boost to the enemy when they see this crap happening among us.
-Don't know anyone who's ever made the suggestion that life is warfare in any way, shape or form. However, history has shown that there is usually war going on somewhere in the world. Is that the same?
-No contempt for the weak on our side of the aisle. I'd say that's also more of a lib characteristic when considering their support for abortion. It also shows in your support for affirmative action, in that you assume the weakness of those who you think NEED such programs in order to succeed.
-Selective Populism? Who is more selective in determining who's point of view has worth than the left? You damn near dictate such things, much less worry about the peoples' opinions.
Damn, it sounds like more liberal fantasy!
realism--
At a more highbrow level, it is the left who worships thinkers like Heidegger, Nietzsche, Gadamer and so forth, and hence has an intellectual affinity with fascist-like thought.
But anyway. First, Conservatives prefer humble leaders. Socialists like people who yell and scream-- Gore, Dean, Hitler, et cetera. Today's left values authenticity-- they'll take the Hitler that has military service over the Roosevelt that has none. (I don't know how many times I've been asked to enlist by the Leftstapo!) Not that the left really wants to me to-- people like Murtha call the military cold blooded killers, Hillary is silent while her comrades call General Petraeus General BetrayUs, the left bans military recruiters from campus while inviting fascists like Ahmadinejad to speak-- you can get where they are coming from very quick.
I'm not certain tradition is a feature of fascism. Alles muss anders sein! i.e. everything must change -- was a slogan of the Nazi party, after all. And it is the left that preaches constant change. Radical socialists also have a conspiratorial worldview, and obsess about the Jooos.
As far as the sense of overwhelming crisis, again, look at the left-- they always think the sky is falling! They think there is a healthcare crisis, environmental crisis, energy crisis, employment crisis, and Iraq crisis, without putting things in context. In Iraq, for example, Americans have only lost 3,500, and the media acts like it is a colossal disaster, even though we lost more than that on one day on the beaches of Normandy.
Americans are not the only ones being victimized by Islamic Supremacists--- the left's favorite fundies are racking up huge body counts in Sudan, Kashmir, Thailand, Iraq, Somalia, Russia. So I would disagree that Americans see themselves as a unique victim group like the German Volk. If anything, the right sees the world in universal terms, while today's left never shuts up about the national interest, national healthcare, national this, national that, nation! nation! nation! I personally think immigration is great, and would like to see more legal immigration and less illegal immigration.
So by your own set of criteria, I would say the left shares the characteristics of fascism. Hash's conspiratorial Joooooo hatred should be a big clue, along with the left's defense of fascists like Ahmadinejad and Saddam, support of Planned Parenthood (created during the eugenics movement to stop the breeding of inferior races), support of giving everything to the state Mussolini-style (health, education, retirement, energy, commerce), I need not go on.
Read the NAZI platform. They rant about social security, war profiteers, the usual leftwing bull,and end with the exclamation: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD in bold letters. That's the most evil thing ever written. The right believes in individual good before common good-- the human individual is our standard of value, and both the bourgeois doctrine of the autonomous consumer and the Christian concept of the unique person are in harmony in this regard.
At a more highbrow level, it is the left who worships thinkers like Heidegger, Nietzsche, Gadamer and so forth,
Care to support that observation with an example? Due to the anti-intellectual streak in the right, almost any philosophical current will find more acceptance on the left than on the right, even pomo (which I personally detest)
Conservatives prefer humble leaders. Socialists like people who yell and scream-- Gore, Dean, Hitler, et cetera. Well, first of all, we are talking about fascists, not socialists. Your statement here is irrelevant to the discussion, other than to reinforce an untrue stereotype.
Today's left values authenticity-- they'll take the Hitler that has military service over the Roosevelt that has none. Have you been smoking crack? First of all, which major Dem presidential candidate has made his/her military experience part of their campaign? Second, your statement that the left would "take Hitler" is more dishonest, inflammitory rhetoric. That makes you sound very shrill and ignorant. The left are the ones that actually DID "take Roosevelt", and the conservatives, like Henry Ford, are the ones that "took Hitler".
Hillary is silent while her comrades call General Petraeus General BetrayUs, You have now crossed the line into incoherentland. First you are saying that the left wants military people as leaders, then, in the same paragraph, you are claiming that we hate the military? Is this your attempt to "baffle 'em with bullshit"? Cause it's not working.
I'm not certain tradition is a feature of fascism Perhaps you should study fascism more. Just kidding, I know you're just saying that because you know I'm right.
everything must change -- was a slogan of the Nazi party, Yes, they thought that a respect for tradition needed to be pushed to the forefront, and the changing socio-economic conditions (as represented by their hatred for the Jews) needed to be set right by turning back the clock.
As far as the sense of overwhelming crisis, again, look at the left-- they always think the sky is falling! I won't disagree with that. But you have to admit that the terrorist threat, the immigration threat, the "war on Christmas", and whatever other "outrage of the week" all get you guys up in arms and inflamed with anger. That is different than looking at problems that we are facing rationally, and trying to secure logical solutions. You guys find crises in the War on Christmas, we find a crises in actual wars.
Americans have only lost 3,500, and the media acts like it is a colossal disaster, even though we lost more than that on one day on the beaches of Normandy. Of course, you neglect to mention that Normandy is entirely disanalogus to Iraq, seeing that Iraq had no significant military force, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that your leaders predicted that we would be "welcomed as liberators". But the main point is that the invasion at Normandy ACTUALLY SERVIED THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ACHIEVED A CONCRETE OBJECTIVE, UNLIKE THE IRAQ WAR WHICH HAS SACRIFICED OUR SOLDIERS FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN INFLAMING THE HATRED OF THE ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD AGAINST US
the left's favorite fundies are racking up huge body counts I'll ignore your dishonest grouping of widely disparate groups with different goals, motives and actions together, and just focus on your dishonest attempt to link these fundimentalists to the left. Religious fundimentalism is a characteristic of the right. I know this because you are always calling us godless heathens.
So I would disagree that Americans see themselves as a unique victim group like the German Volk. I'm not talking about Americans, I'm talking about the right. You know, the ones that are always under assualt by the Godless secular liberals, the militant feminists, the muslims, the Mexicans, the ACLU, the liberal media, the communists, etc. I mean, you guys think that there's a "war against Christmas" for God's sake!
If anything, the right sees the world in universal terms, while today's left never shuts up about the national interest, That is HILARIOUS! The right has made rampant nationalism part and parcel of its ideology for decades!
Read the NAZI platform. They rant about social security, war profiteers, the usual leftwing bull,and end with the exclamation: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD Yes, and in Mein Kampf, the idea of the global struggle between Jews and Aryans, with the assertion that the other is hell bent on world domination, and that the Aryans, with their superior culture in danger must take any measures necessary to prevail, foreshadows many of the comments that we've seen on this blog. One need merely to substitute "American" for "Aryan" and "Muslim" for "Jew", and Mein Kampf could easily be a posting on Powerline, Hot Air, Free Republic or Little Green Footballs. Additionally, once again you are being doubly dishonest by first inferring that Democrats are communists, and then by inferring that Nazis hold the same ideology as Communists. Anyone with half an education knows that the Nazis viewed Communists as one of their main enemies.
Post a Comment