A reader down in comments suggested that I respond to a post by just dave from the 14 points of Fascism thread. I want to say right off the bat that I really should do this more often. There are some really great things written in comments every day and from now on, I will take the time to bring them out top more often, as is the case with the post left by just dave.
His post also touches on some things I have wanted to talk about lately so without further adieu, let's break down this little ditty and have some fun.
His first point, in a nutshell:
I extended this to corporations in my comment as well and can provide examples of fascist policies...What party, here and now, looks for that kind of control? Who wants more and more regulation on business? The control looked for by the left should simply leave one gob smacked.
The real problem dave has here is that he is operating under a false paradigm. In 2008, we are not trying to protect business from government...we are trying to protect government (which is us, btw) from business. Take a look at most members of Congress and tell me who has more power...them or the lobbyists? This is true of both Democrats and Republicans. Honestly, does dave think that the US Congress is more powerful right now than Blackwater? KBR? Haliburton? I would like him to illustrate how this might be. What him and others that post here suffer from is corporate dick envy. They view companies such as these as being the way to succeed in life which, ironically, is the exact opposite of the values they purport to represent. I equate their beliefs about corporate America to an eternal school yard crush or blind love-whichever you want.
His second point, in a nutshell:
The media angle we simply will not agree on...it doesn’t matter a lick who “owns” the stations because they’re not the ones on the air talking.... must take people like Dan Rather at their word...
Ah, the "media is liberal" argument. How much money did Rush Limbaugh just get? How long of a contract extension? What are his ratings? What about Fox News? There are plenty of conservative owned media out there with far and wide tentacles that are akin to the so called liberal media. I say so called because it does matter who owns the stations. I challenge dave or anyone else for that matter to find me a liberal on the board of GE or Viacom. Or on any board in "liberal" Hollywood. In addition, compare the media's coverage of the Vietnam war with the current one. Iraq is heavily censored and all of the big networks are told by their corporate masters to not show images that make America look bad. It's bad for business.
His Third Point, in a nutshell:
Human rights… Why didn’t you provide an example? Liberalism cheapens life with policies of abortion and euthanasia.
Really, dave? How many people have we killed in Iraq? How many of them were children? When it comes to the sanctity of life argument, you will get no respect from me as long as you continue with this glaring hypocrisy. I think you need to re-read this post and take another look at these pictures which, btw, the "liberal" media has never showed anywhere and then, please tell me who cheapens life.
As for an example on human rights abuses, how about this one? Didn't you call me "loony" a long time ago for comparing our poor human rights record, under Bush Co, with that of China? Well, I guess your pals have decided that the Chinese method of torture (from 1957!) isn't all that bad and so they stole it. Would you like another one? Chained to the ceiling of an airplane hangar for days. Awesome! That really will show those bad guys....right to bin Laden's door to happily be fitted for a vest. Or about how about another one on the subject of water boarding? And this is from a guy who supports the Iraq War. Dave, we are acting the same way they do...doesn't this bother you at all?
His Third Point, in a nutshell
Religion. We have very different reads on our own history. Seems to me the Pilgrims were seeking religious freedom, not to have religion expunged from their lives. LIL already covered this in fine detail.
I would recommend that dave, and everyone else for that matter, read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. The book describes various accounts throughout our history of how we have glorified certain people (e.g. Woodrow Wilson, Stephen Douglas) and how we don't assign blame to anything bad that we have done. It all happens anonymously. It is the most honest account of our own history, which includes religion and government, that I have ever read.
His Last Point, parceled out with commentary:
Yes, I do believe we are safer today under George Bush than we would be under Al Gore or John Kerry. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind and no way that I could be dissuaded from this fact.
Thanks for proving my point about how open minded the right is when it comes to their thought process.
Here are some facts for dave and other who believe this line of thought, to consider.
Fact #1: President Bush spent the entire month of August, 2001, on vacation. Up to 9-11, he had spent more time on vacation than any other president in that same amount of time.
Fact #2: Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11.
Fact #3: Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahari are the heads of Al Qaeda.
Fact #4: Both are still at large, nearly 7 years after the attacks, and, according to Bush's own NIE, have rebuilt their capabilities inside of Pakistan, to carry out attacks that would rival or surpass 9-11. This same NIE said that the war in Iraq has made it easier for Al Qaeda to recruit members and train them.
Fact #5: Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded in March of 2003.
You are supporting a belief, dave, not a fact. And it is a terribly blind one. If Al Gore had spent the entire month of August 2001 on vacation,was handed a report that said "Al Qaeda determined to attack inside US," and did nothing about it, even in light of all of the previous attacks (Cole, Khobar Towers), you and I would be an agreement. As it stands, your statement proves that you are stuck in belief system that ignores key facts, like those mentioned above. Or, perhaps you can't admit when you are wrong, which would make sense because that's how Bush Co acts all the time.
The bad guys say they want to get us…the bad guys have tried to get us but have been thwarted…and the bad guys are on the defensive because we’re not waiting for them to come get us, we’re actively going after them.
No, we're not. If we were, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan (see Gary Berntsen's Jawbreaker), conducted operations inside of Pakistan, and worked with our European allies to crack down on "bad guys" in places like Holland, Denmark, and England. Who are we fighting in Iraq now, dave? The Pentagon said last fall that Al Qaeda is all but eliminated in Iraq. Honestly, what is our mission there? First, it was WMDs. OK, fine. We took care of that. Then it was Hussein. He's dead. Done with that. Then it was Al Qaeda in Iraq. They're finished. And people like you are saying that if we leave now, we will be defeated? By whom?
You seem to constantly search for enemies that aren't there and, oddly, completely ignore the ones that are there and represent a very serious threat. Why is this so?
Clinton, Kerry, Obama are all on record as favoring “talk”, policing agencies and the courts to combat terrorism which is in fact the policy that was in place pre-9/11. How else can this be said? How can it even be debated?
Clinton bombed Al Qaeda when he was in office. He almost killed bin Laden and would've if bin Laden hadn't decided to go somewhere else. Can the same be said of Bush? Both Kerry and Obama want to bomb targets inside of Pakistan. So they aren't all just about talk. But talk is important (see Bush and North Korea). Talking does not mean appeasement. This another great example of your side's Orwellian doublespeak which preys upon the fear of the unknown.
Dave's PS, in a nutshell
I'm finishing this little nugget while watching the Euro2008 Championship. Events like this are great on so many levels. I particularly enjoy the patriotism the fans show throughout the tournament by displaying their flags and singing songs. It is so striking to think that you and your followers would never be at an event like that...would never show that type of pride in their country. How very sad.
Actually, what is sad is how little you understand "me and my followers." I have been to five baseball games this year and loved singing the national anthem every single time. I love this country. I think it is the best on the planet, even with all of its faults. And the faults are the real problem, aren't they? I look at them, reflect, and wonder how can we do better. You ignore them, re-direct, and say, "Fuck you, you are a traitor". As Mark Twain once said, "I support my country all of the time and my government when they deserve it."
Once the embarrassment that is our current administration leaves office, it is my hope that more people will be proud of this country. The real problem here, dave, and I think the Cliff May/Ed Schultz exchange below exemplifies this, is that you are under the impression that your side get exclusive rights to define what is and what isn't patriotic. You, and others on the right, also think, and this really makes sense in juxtaposition with your perceived grasp of patriotism, that you get exclusive rights to define what the Bible means and, in particular, who is and who isn't a Christian.
You don't get to.
Thankfully, there is a whole country full of people out there with different views then your own. Views that are much more reflective than "There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind and no way that I could be dissuaded from this fact." These are the people that are going to restore some since of respectability to America. From now on, when it comes to defining patriotism and Christianity, you are going to have to get through them first, dave.
And me.
One final parting word of advice: I would be careful as to who you define as not having pride in their country. There are plenty of liberals that I know that won't be as nice as I have been. You see, dave, they live in "flyover" country too and they don't take too kindly to people questioning their patriotism.
But, hey, by all means, ignore what I say and please continue to do so. It just means another pile of votes for my guy!
25 comments:
Never posted here but been reading for awhile. Great response, Mark. Keep up the good work. Maybe someday you will get through!
we are trying to protect government (which is us, btw)
Wow, M, you couldn't even get through your first point without screwing up. Way to go!
If the govt is us, we have met the enemy. Fortunately, it isn't. If you bothered to read the Declaration of Independence, you would note that government is instituted by the people, but that does not make them the same thing. Which in turn leads to the Constitution - which describes the powers that the government is allowed to have (by the people), followed by the Bill of Rights which describes LIMITS on the government's powers (such that the peoples' rights aren't abused). Now, who would care about THAT, if the govt "was us"?
The govt = the people. That IS fascist assumption number 1.
Honestly, does dave think that the US Congress is more powerful right now than Blackwater?
Honestly M, do you think you are more likely to be arrested by a govt agent, or a Blackwater lackey? If you say Blackwater (or that perennial favorite WalMart), I want the tin foil concession in your neighborhood.
Blackwater just got tossed from building a training center out in my neck of the woods. And you SERIOUSLY expect me to think they are more powerful than Congress? Dude, lay off the hallucinigens.
You really don't get it, do you juris? What Mark is saying is that the corporations of this country are using their stoolies in the government to fuck us over. We are supposed to elect people that represent our interests and instead they represent the interests of corporations. The free market isn't free. It's an oligarchy.
The government is for the people, juris, not for Blackwater. Please explain to me your interpretation of the relationship between Blackwater and our government.
Good point, Mark. Exactly who are we fighting in Iraq now? Most of the militants responsible for sectarian violence have given up and joined the government. Al Qaeda is done there and has shifted its focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I actually think it isn't unpatriotic to question your government's strategy on an issue that is this important. The Bush administration hasn't done a very good job in addressing the threat of Al Qaeda as we are too focused on Iraq.
They view companies such as these as being the way to succeed in life?
You define that as a bad thing?
More proof that you don't listen to what conservatives say. Again I suggest less talking and more listening. I think the conservatives on this blog have said repeatedly that there are downsides to capitalism and that our system has inherant, unavoidable flaws. I think that working for a company is one of the ways to succeed (depending on how you define success which, to me, involves more than a paycheck). If you think there are criminals in corporate America who need to be thrown is jail I don't disagree. They are the exception, not the norm....or are you telling us that more than 50% of the employed people of this nation are criminals? Is it everyone in certain industries? if so, which industries? Too many broad strokes here....need specifics.
As a teacher, aren't you going to be teaching a certain group of kids a certain skill that they will use down the road when they go out into corporate America to work for some company? I'd like anyone who believes Marks above point to tell me how any of us would be able to succeed in life in a country without corporations or even small companies.
'tell me how any of us would be able to succeed in life in a country without corporations or even small companies'
hi LIL.. i don't think that anybody thinks (including you) that a corporation or company is the problem (in itself) -- organising individuals to channel their talents and skills or develop both through corporate training, to generate services and much needed productivity for communities or society, is and never was a problem.
But when corporations (unelected and productivity-oriented) become so large and so influential as to eclipse the (so-called democratic) government (so-called -- not because of the voting process that elects it which is representative, but because once elected, the government's role is to work for the demos or people or public good.) By eclipse, i mean, writes/dictates vital foreign, fiscal and domestic policies, to work not for the public good (as intended) but for the private enrichment of the tiniest minority of the most corrupt people on the planet. Whose number 1 priority is self-enrichment and whose very last thought on their mind, despite hypocritcal rhetoric -- because judge a person by action not talk -- is improving the rights security or welfare of the majority at home or abroad. joanne.
Thanks for the reply my love.
Know that what you typed is a far cry from "They view corporations as the best way to succeed in life" (the statement to which I was responding).
I would be careful as to who you define as not having pride in their country - and they don't take too kindly to people questioning their patriotism.
---------------------------------
Then why did you call John McCain a douchebag who doesn't support the troops Markadelphia? What are your credentials that gives you the right to make that determination?
I don't need any credentials, sw. As with President Bush, I go on McCain's statements and his actions. He didn't support Webb's bill and explained why. That is why I called him a douche bag.
Not much more to add to jt's comment except that I must say, again, that I have no problem with good capitalism. That is NOT the culture that we have now. The last eight years of non regulation and corporate boot licking by our CEO president have created a culture where the company rules and the government drools. I'd like to see more of a balance. Is it possible?
elizabeth & riley-
Did you FAIL TO READ what I wrote? Blackwater got kicked out of [rather conservative & very pro-military] San Diego County. This is the all fucking powerful company you cower in fear of?
Better watch out, or your own shadow will give you the willies.
Thank u for the clarification dear Lil. Got it :) The posts from everyone are intelligent / fun, to read. joanne.
Golly, a whole article devoted to little ‘ole me; must have struck a nerve…
In regard to liberal/fascist control over the daily lives of citizens and business…well, what can I say…I’ve provided quotes, examples, etc (and can provide more) as to who’s looking to control whom and you’re only response is this mind-boggling tripe about your fear of American business. Sounds a lot like that scape-goating you were blaming on the Republicans. I suggest you lay off reruns of the X-Files for a while.
Quick quiz: what’s so hard a diamond can’t scratch it? A liberals head! Yuck, yuck, yuck... How many times, when discussing the media must you bring up Rush Limbaugh? How many times do conservatives say that Rush is an entertainment program, he’s not the traditional nightly news; i.e. that’s not the point? If I were your teacher I’d make you write “The Rush Limbaugh program is an entertainment program, not the nightly news” 1,000 times on the chalkboard.
Is it the military’s obligation to bring a CNN correspondent along for the ride on missions?
Oh, and Hillary Clinton’s advisor, Howard Wolfson, just joined Fox News because he found it a fair & balanced network. Go figure…
Human rights… Sorry, I’m just not going to lose any sleep over a bunch of terrorists getting 3 hots & a cot on my tax dollars. You did stumble on another primary difference between right & left, though. Equivalence. Moral equivalence, specifically. The death of an unborn baby or the unfortunate death of innocents in time of war verses making a terrorist wear panties on his head. As a parent of 2, I’m here to tell you, there is a difference between my boys and the boys at Gitmo.
I actually skimmed that book while browsing at Barnes & Noble. …didn’t much care for it, politically speaking, and found the little bit I did read didn’t make sense. I probably didn’t read enough to get it in context, but his views on coverage of the Vietnam War, for instance, were completely backward. Describing the media coverage and educational review as somehow “pro war” seems to me a bit off. Protests. Riots. Hmm, yeah, it was really a “tie a yellow ribbon” type of time in America.
We’re not going after the bad guys? Did I read that right? Are we not in Afghanistan? Are we not in Iraq? Are we not working w/ allies in other areas to go after them proactively? Maybe not to your likely, but, hello, we most assuredly ARE going after them. We’re not just lobbing missiles at empty tents to distract from intern problems.
Iraq: Wow, that’s a great list of the accomplishments that have occurred in Iraq. Pity you couldn’t list any of them off in a positive way or even acknowledge them until you try to make a separate point. So, you’re giving GW a big thumbs up now on really cleaning up Iraq? Never thought I’d hear it. Interesting dichotomy: in your recent post you list a year old (a year old) comment from an Admiral Mullen who stated things weren’t going so hot in Iraq but ignore his recent testimony to congress this year that details the progress being made since the surge that changed his mind. So, what is it? Is Iraq a quagmire and we need to get out with our tail between our legs or is Iraq so thoroughly won that we can leave with ‘a job well done’?
Afghanistan: Do you have 2 hands? I do. And when I look down at one, well, you know what? The other hand is still over there. Crazy, huh? Simply because we’re in Iraq does not mean that we’re also not in Afghanistan. We are still in Afghanistan aren’t we? Thought so. Could we do more there? Now that Iraq is going so well (in your own words) perhaps we could/should/will shift more of a focus to Afghanistan. I’ve no problem with that and have never said otherwise and have no idea where you come up with the notion that I did. And perhaps we’ll be able to work more closely w/ Pakistan (our Allie in case you forgot) to make more headway there, too. One of the wonders of America is that we have a military that can fight in 2 places at once. More than 2 actually. Lots more than 2 if we didn’t feel the need to keep so many troops in, say, Germany, Korea, etc.
Patriotism. Actually I use Webster’s to define it, not a political party. And I go to church and read the Bible to understand that, no help needed. And perhaps if you expressed a speck of this self-professed love of country once in a while, people wouldn’t doubt yours. I don’t profess to understand you or your followers; the exact opposite actually, I don’t understand you folks at all and frequently wonder why I even try. I simply call ‘em like I see ‘em. And what I see is people embarrassed to even admit they’re Americans; who bash America at every turn; who focus only on the negative. People like that may very well be patriotic, but I doubt it, and how could I tell even if they were, given their behavior?
…but my example is somewhat of a misnomer because I must admit that in environments such as I use in my example, one’s not discussing politics and I really don’t have a way of knowing their views (nor would I want to…there’s a time & place for everything). I tossed it out there as an example of people who simply love their country and wear it on their sleeve and how much I enjoy events like that. I remember queuing at Wimbledon (in the rain, of course) and seeing groups who’ve brought their colors, painted their faces with their flags, drape themselves in their flags to cheer on their home guy/gal. It’s not a political statement, simply love of country & supporting their team. But when I talk to people (like you, I’m sorry to say), I get the distinct impression that you’d never do that. Am I wrong? Or if the US makes the World Cup, should I buy 2 flags rather than 1?
Thanks for the advice…I’m sure there are good number of liberals who’ll have a bone to pick with me…and I’ll take my chances.
Whatever. So just looking at someones voting record without any consideration for the context surrounding the vote (procedural vote, preferring a different bill, etc) gives you the authority to tell people that a former POW doesn't support the troops? You're still covering your ass from being completely embarassed in that other discussion where you failed to even mention that McCain had his own version of the bill that he proposed before Webb proposed his. Even the readers who agree with you saw you only give half the story on that one you liar.
Speaking of Limbaughs new contract - setting aside whether he is right or wrong for a moment...the figures in it kind of contradict the whole "...but nobody is listening to them" line of thinking, correct?
The people that listen to Rush Limbaugh the most are the ones that hate him the most. It's the same thing with Howard Stern. They listen more because they want to hear what he is going to say next.
He signed a new contract a year before his old one was up. That is...interesting. His ratings are slightly down, though, but he is still the most popular radio show host on the airwaves.
What I find the most interesing is the most of what he is saying these days isn't sticking-especially with Obama. Are people listening? Yes. Are they LISTENING? No.
SW, I did mention the other bill he had in a later post. And it's not just his voting record...it's what he says. I'm sorry if you don't like what he says--I don't either--but that is what I am going on in regards to my criticism.
The people that listen to Rush Limbaugh the most are the ones that hate him the most. It's the same thing with Howard Stern. They listen more because they want to hear what he is going to say next.
There is a word for that: masochist.
How is everyone doing today?
Dave,
Some thoughts on your post above...
-I don't have a mind boggling fear of American business. Our nation has become an oligarchy. Deal with it. When we get back to good capitalism again, I will be happy.
-Compare and contrast the media's coverage of the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. It is a chasm. We saw what actually happened in Vietnam and we don't have a clue what is happening in Iraq because the media is heavily censored by the government...just as it is everywhere else. If you think it is nasty now, then I don't think you could handle it all if they told the truth.
-You don't have a clue as to who is at Gitmo and who isn't. Most of those people are completely innocent. They are victims of bounty hunters. I would suggest you watch some of the docs that have come out about Gitmo. I know you probably won't so basically your opinion will remain uninformed. No comment on the Chinese torture manual, huh?
-You should read that book. Especially since you have intimated to me on more than one occasion that you ignored most of what your teachers told you.
-We are not pursuing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the level of intensity that lends is synonymous with post 9-11 thinking. I find this to be very disturbing and it should make you reflect as to why this is so. Many members of our armed forces are now starting to speak out about this. Admiral Mullen is one of them.
-Speaking of Admiral Mullen, who cares that his quote was a year old? I think it is better that it is older. It showed courage when everyone else was saying everything was fine. If he says it now, it doesn't make much sense. Mullen is speaking up more and more. Check out the post above this one for more on Mullen. My chief complaint about Iraq was always been that it should have been much later on the to do list if at all. Al Qaeda is who attacked us not Saddam Hussein.
I also think that changing the goal of the mission every few months shows demonstrative proof that they really don't know what they are doing...except going for the oil of course.
Working closely with Pakistan....um, dave, what happened to if you harbor terrorists you are a terrorist. Pakistani Intelligence was behind the attempts on Karzai's life and probably the Bhutto assassination. They were the only country who recognized the Taliban for crying out loud and you consider them an ally? Talk about naive...
The real dichotomy here is that you want to "talk" with Pakistan, where Al Qaeda actually is, and not talk to anyone else because it's "appeasement." How laughable and how clear the only reason why you think this way is your ilk can't stand the left being tough, militarily (e.g. Obama wanting to bomb Pakistan)..in fact, it's simply not allowed in the land of make believe, is it?
-The reason why you don't understand is that you are equating support of government with support of country. The two are mutually exclusive. I find this funny that a liberal has to tell a conservative not to trust the government.
You also have a very warped sense of patriotism. Supporting corporations like KBR and Blackwater is not patriotic. Supporting ideas like freedom from religious tyranny is patriotic.
If you want to understand "us" dave, I will make it real simple: "we" don't like criminals. In fact, we think they should be in prison, and not allowed to fuck over this country for eight years. Go find some candidates who aren't criminal and put them up for office. If they are elected, I will support them even if I disagree with their policies. McCain is close but you need more guys like Giuliani or Ron Paul.
The Republican Party is filled with criminals now. They are scumbags but don't feel so bad. The Democratic Party was filled with scumbags like LBJ for a long time too. Buck up, son, it might not be a good year for you this year but I have confidence that the Republican Party will find some decent people . The question is...will you support them?
…didn’t comment on a few things because there’s only so much time to be wasted on such things; but I’ll elaborate a bit as needed.
Chinese torture… If research (if you can call it that) is out there (despite how sick and/or vile the source), should we ignore it, if portions of it suit our needs? An ethical dilemma, indeed, but in times of war, agencies that are there for our protection cannot get all wobbly. But, regardless, I suspect we’re not utilizing the full Chinese torture manual since those that come in contact with our “torturers” end up fatter & more rested after their stay in Club Gitmo than when they were living their previous residence…a mountain cave. I guess a simple test would be, which prisoners will walk out one day and which will be buried in an unmarked mass grave.
The date of the Mullen article is important because he’s generally supportive of Iraq now. Cautious. Thoughtful. But supportive. The courage bit is irrelevant. What courage? Ya think he was going to be taken out and shot if he didn’t toe the line? He was entitled to his opinion and gave it freely, and now his opinion has changed. I respected but disagreed with it before and I respect and find it more agreeable now. I think you just found the quote and were so excited to print something from an admiral supporting your view that you just used whatever negative comments you could find and didn’t bother to look deep enough into it to see that his position had actually evolved.
Pakistan is a complicated one. I can see how it looks like a contradiction. I would call them an Allie in the sense that I’d have called the Soviet Union an Allie during WWII. I don’t like them. I don’t trust them. But, their gov’t is working with us (kind’ve…) which in and of itself is a lot to ask for in that region. And they have nuclear weapons…that’s a big one. That goes a long way toward shaping policy. To say we’d simply go into Pakistan and/or bomb willy-nilly, as some candidates have said, is very irresponsible. (For the sake of argument, we’ll ignore that bombing in mountain terrain is very ineffective, which is why we had to put troops in Afghanistan in the first place.) But, let’s say we go ahead with that bombing or even send in troops without their permission and we even get bin Laden and/or just really make a mess of some of the al-Qaida strong holds. What if our presence destabilizes the gov’t and Musharraf falls from power, replaced by someone highly radical? That would be a bad thing, no? How long until a suit-case nuke shows up somewhere? I’d like to put a lot more pressure on them and see if our military could even work hand-in-hand with theirs, but I’d approach it very, very cautiously. This is a situation that calls for diplomacy rather than quick action. Obama is completely backwards on this. He calls for endless diplomacy against threats that are (questionably) easier to deal with, with a stick, but calls for quick action in the scenario that calls for diplomacy.
I’m not sure I’d say that we’re changing the goal of the mission so much as changing tactics.
I am not equating support of gov’t with support of country. As I’ve said ad nausea, I’m simply calling it like I see it. And I simply do not see liberals doing anything that would resemble patriotic behavior to me. I see them hide from their nationality. I see them look at Europeans with misty eyes but burn w/ contempt at the ugly Americans. I see them burn the flag. I see them bash our culture. None of this has anything to do with the gov’t or big business per se. I see liberals (not all, of course) as people who simply do not like America and/or American culture.
Yes, supporting freedom from religious tyranny is indeed patriotic…and your point is what? That conservative somehow support religious tyranny? How stupid is that?
You say criminal, but you don’t use the word properly. There are people far smarter than us who debate on this on a daily basis and try to find laws that are/were broken and nothing, not a one, has been brought against this President. I am a stickler for law enforcement; and if you can find a verifiable law that was broken, we should hang ‘em up. But we’ve been down this road, haven’t we.
…And I could do a whole article on criminality. It’s a very strange topic for liberals on many levels; from street cop to FBI, etc. You make the laws more and more difficult to enforce. You make it harder on the gov’t. You make it so that a street cop has to know in a split second what constitutional lawyers argue over for years. You give the criminals that benefit of the doubt. You take the word of criminals and terrorists over those of our law enforcement officers/officials. You take away the dots but expect people to follow the dots. You erect walls to prevent one agency to share information with another. You take away the tools of law enforcement. You spend more energy spying on our gov’t to try and expose how they’re catching the bad guys rather than trying to find new & better ways to catch the bad guys. You make society easier for the bad guys to operate. You make prison sentences shorter. You make prisons comfy. I could go on and on. And then you say, “it’s real simple…we don’t like criminals.” Seems to me you’re quite comfortable with them.
If we don't have a clue what is happening in Iraq because the media is heavily censored by the government then how the hell do you know what is happening over there markadelphia? don't say because you talk to people either because you don't have the market cornered on that. Yeah you mentioned Mccains bill but only in a later post after you were busted only telling half the story.
Steve
Giuliani? Mark, please. He is one of the biggest criminals in politics today. Please talk to someone from NY and they will tell you how mobbed up he is. I agree with most everything you say but Rudy is rotten.
SW, if you think I was busted, fine by me. I don't. McCain's version of the bill treats the troops about the same way Bush does: like shit. His lack of support of the Webb Bill, which basically returns the support to the troops that my grandfather enjoyed in WWII, is the right thing to do-and not just politically. The real problem here is that any break from canon (conservatives always are more supportive of the troops) is just not done. This would be an example of how conservative brains and liberal brains are different...conservative brains simply can't take in new information. This is a scientific fact, proven by a study.
And the example of Dave, from above, regarding Bush protecting our country more than Gore or Kerry is further proof of this. Regardless of what information comes down the pike, he will not accept it.
I don't presume to know EVERYTHING going on Iraq but I do know that the media is told by their bosses to not show America in a bad light. This was not the case in Vietnam. The five people I know that went to Iraq (2 are still there) have told me stories that will never air on the nightly news because of this reason.
Post a Comment