park --> O
ball --> .
Ana one ana two...
Gimme that old time religion, gimme that old time religion, that's good enougth for me...
Except that the vast majority of people on "the left" don't believe those things at all; certainly not to such ridiculous absolutes. (Only a Sith deals in absolutes.)
But you'll post those sorts of statements ad infinitum, as if writing this stuff every day makes it true. You are knowingly taking whackjobs and claiming they represent the mainstream left. Fahrenheit 9/11 did not claim that the WTC was in inside job. Hillary Clinton is not claiming that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.
If you truly believe that "the left" think the victims of 9/11 were no big deal, doesn't it strike you as odd that you're arguing with people who are asking you to stop with the political propaganda--for just this day of all days--to show some respect for the fallen?
Anon -
The very vocal ones, the spokespeople for their brethren, the Koses and Atrioses - they're pretty much signed onto that.
From watching and trying to be level, giving all benefit of the doubt to the left as I could - I'm thinking Doc's hitting a lot closer to the actuality of the hard-core left than you're willing to admit.
Just my opinion - but I've seen a hell of a lot coming from the left the last 5 years that I can only understand by taking her assumptions as a foundation.
J.
This is the headline of the lead editorial in the Houston Chronicle this morning:
Lessons of 9/11
When attacked by terrorists based in one country, don't invade a country unrelated to the attacks.
There are actually three other points in the editorial, each of which I believe the good doctor covered.
The doctor's creed is dead on target. And so much for taking the day off for reflection.
You did indeed hit a nerve, Doc.
As to the Anon poster, I read an article about a poll saying that around a third of the people in the US believe that the US government either created or abetted the creators of 9-11. I'd say the Doc is supported by the polls, oh brave and passionate Anon!
This is exactly what a hefty portion of the left does believe, and they don't want to admit it straight on.
"You are knowingly taking whackjobs and claiming they represent the mainstream left. "
Hey Einstein (how up-PC of me, quotinga Jew), there are no great distances to be traversed in the search for left stupidity.
See this, for starters
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.co...ns-
publish.html
When attacked by terrorists based in one country, don't invade a country unrelated to the attacks.
I agree with that.
That's a whole lot different than saying that "the left" think Americans deserved to die and that the terrorists were innocent, and all this other hyperbole you relish.
I read an article about a poll saying that around a third of the people in the US believe that the US government either created or abetted the creators of 9-11
I might agree with that. You know as well as I do that the American government had shady alliances in the Middle East over the years whenever it was convenient. That's a lot different than saying that the Bush administration ordered the WTC to be destroyed.
This is exactly what a hefty portion of the left does believe, and they don't want to admit it straight on.
If by "this" you mean the ridiculous conspiracy theories, I don't agree one bit. The conspiracy theorists are an extremely small group, but they are VERY vocal.
See this, for starters
OK, some douche writes a stupid book and you think it automatically speaks for Christianity? They are printing 7,000 copies. Compare that to how many Ann Coulter sells with her nonsense?
The bottomless troll. Yes, Ann sold a butt-load of her book(s) didn't she? Now millions of people are enjoying her "nonsense" eh?
Your comment (well, all of them actually) was idiotic to the 3rd power. Just FYI. But I digress.
compare and contrast though doubtful you can/will.
Lotsa luck. Your going to need it.
Doctor Sanity:
You forgot to include the role of Halliburton (symbol of "evil" corporate America)in the Lefist Creed.
Anonymous: Here is the difference Conservatives and Leftist/Liberals: Just as "moderate Muslisms" do not speak out against the atrocities committed in the name of their religion,so, too, do most Democrats not speak out against the wild, unsubstantiated, imflammatory rhetoric of their whackos, whether they be in the blogosphere, in academia, in the media, or in the political arena.
BTW Bryan Preston complements the point of your commentary, Doc, in his observations about five years after 9/11/01: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/.../five-years-on/
If the conspiracy theorists are an extremely small group yet very vocal and do not represent the Left why then hasn't Hillary Clinton, or Reid, or Murtha, or any number of Democrat politicians openly state before the public just how absurd are the conspiracy theories?
One cannot go around raising funds for politcal ambitions using such conspiracies to defame the opposition then pretend one does not represent such conspiracies.
I have as of yet no heard one word from any Democrat politician that these conspiracies are invalid, worthless, insane, ridiculous or unprovable. Until such time the Left will be seen as idiots working on behalf of destroying American.
I'd like to see 7,000 lefties repudiate that book.
I'd like to see 7,000 lefties repudiate the 'Bush did it with Jews' libel.
Right on Doc! Remember when Howard Dean said - on one of the Sunday chat shows before the '04 election -that Bush knew, and probably abetted, 9/11? I believe he was on Tim Russert. Remember the audio tape of Gore literally screaming "George Bush betrayed this country! He played on our fears!" There are more damning tapes out there from Dem leaders.
Your comment (well, all of them actually) was idiotic to the 3rd power. Just FYI. But I digress. compare and contrast though doubtful you can/will.
You see that? You throw around ad hominems and think you've made some sort of smug and clever reply, and there's no chance anyone else is going to call you on it.
Hatemongering.
To complete my point about Conservatives: They do, indeed, call each other out, disagree in degree, and bring facts to their arguements in mighty public ways when they diverge in opinion. The wide spectrum of Right/Conservative thinking contrasts to the lockstep of the Left/Democrat agenda.
Anonymous: Here is the difference Conservatives and Leftist/Liberals: Just as "moderate Muslisms" do not speak out against the atrocities committed in the name of their religion,so, too, do most Democrats not speak out against the wild, unsubstantiated, imflammatory rhetoric of their whackos, whether they be in the blogosphere, in academia, in the media, or in the political arena.
Do you genuinely believe that Democrats have a responsibility to do so? The conspiracy theories are absurd, and don't deserve any credibility or exposure. I prefer that my politicians worry about real issues rather than some college kids who post a crap video on Google.
To complete my point about Conservatives: They do, indeed, call each other out, disagree in degree, and bring facts to their arguements in mighty public ways when they diverge in opinion. The wide spectrum of Right/Conservative thinking contrasts to the lockstep of the Left/Democrat agenda.
They do that now, because Bush is polling badly and is a lame duck. In the past, this administration has been as lock-step as it gets. Come on, you know that.
You have to stop feeding the troll.
It is also obvious that such people believe in Empire to get what they want.
"Do you genuinely believe that Democrats have a responsibility to do so?"
That remark strikes me as very naive. This is POLITICS. Image means an awful lot. Your party might be as correct as anything, but if it is PERCEIVED as the worse option of two choices, it doesn't get votes. A very simple PR issue.
And if you are that confident about the Democratic party, it has a responsibility to you to try and get elected as well as clean itself of any sort of tarnish that it reasonably can. Not rebuking a rabid Hollywood director who vouches for you in a very irrational and paranoid manner for 3 years running is shirking that responsibility. Guilt by association? Perhaps. But it certainly hurts to not have any overt problem with said association.
This, from a registered Democrat.
No one can honestly believe that that ridiculous list contains "unquestioned beliefs of the liberal left."
There seemt to be two ways something makes it onto that list. I see gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of liberal positions. Or, Some random nut whose views are at least vaguely leftist makes an outrageous statement and it's added to the strawman image of "liberals". To demonstrate, I will compare my views to the ones on that list. I will assume I am a typical member of the loonie left, whose views are completely homogeneous, anyway.
We believe that Bush, Cheney, and Republicans bear sole responsibility for 9/11.
No. The events of 9/11 were not the "sole responsibility" of any one person or group. There were certainly things that the Bush administration could have done better, but to assign sole blame to them is just stupid.
We believe that the United States and its policies are responsible for making terrorists attack this country;
While US policy since the end of WWII has done much to create resentment in many third world countries, to say that US policies are "responible" is too simplistic and minimizes the responsibility of the spread of radical Islam.
We believe that if we get rid of George Bush and the Republicans, we will once again be safe;
I believe that Bush's anti-terror policies are ineffective and making the problem worse, but to say that we will be safe once Bush is out of office is stupid.
We believe that the people of America who supported those policies over the years (during Republican administrations) are little Eichmanns, and deserved to die on 9/11 ;,/i>
Ward Churchill does not represent me or the American left.
We are ready to believe (if the polls support thinking that way) that Bush and Cheney actually planned the events of 9/11 as a prelude to taking over this country, destroying our civil liberties; and instituting a fascist state.
Stupid conspiracy theories.
We believe that Israel probably had a part in the events of 9/11, working with Bush and Cheney in some sort of neocon plot;
Stupid conspiracy theories.
We believe that the only people who are innocent of 9/11 are the actual terrorists who plotted and executed it;
Too retarded to even address.
We believe that Bill Clinton and his administration had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that, if Al Gore had won the 2000 election then 9/11 would never have happened;
No, Clinton could have been tougher on terrorism. 9/11 would probably have still happened even with Gore in the White House.
We believe that anyone who disagrees with the above statement is trying to distort history and their views should be prohibited. Only we --and Michael Moore-- know the truth and should be heard.
Oh, and now I like Michael Moore and support censorship!
We believe that Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger have never lied;
No, both have lied.
We believe that the most serious outcome of 9/11 is the Islamophobia and the unconscionable backlash that has victimized Muslims in the U.S.;
While the rise in prejudice agaimst Muslim Americans is lamentable, it is by no means the most serious outcome of 9/11.
We believe that the greatest threat to freedom in this country occurs when images of 9/11 are used to further the warmongering plans of the Bush Administration;
I hate superlatives like "greatest", but 9/11 exploitation for war support exists and is, indeed, a threat. You got me on one!(Sorta)
We believe that all the rhetoric used by the Bush Adminsitration is pure evil, designed to manipulate people to hate; but that the rhetoric used by Iran and the fatwas of Al Qaeda are "only words" and should not be taken at all seriously;
No.
We believe that the people who flew airplanes into buildings on 9/11 are reasonable people who you can trust, and with whom you can discuss reality;
Yes, I think that men who hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, killing thousands, are completely reasonable and actually OK guys. Christ, do you honestly believe that "liberals" agree with this?
We believe that the Bush Administration is irrational, unreasonble and certainly cannot be trusted; and that they are completely out of touch with reality.
Yes.
We believe that Iraq had nothing--nothing--to do with 9/11 because Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants have clearly said so, and we believe and trust them.
No, I believe that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because of a complete lack of evidence that they did.
We believe that the deaths of almost 3000 Americans on 9/11 is not a big deal; certainly doesn't deserve the disproportionate response that the Bush Adminsitration has taken in the last 5 years; and that the threat to the U.S. has been grossly overblown and manipulated so that the Bush Adminsitration and Republicans can accumulate political power.
I believe that US deaths on 9/11 are a very big deal, and Bush's response, for the most part, has no been so much overblown as completely ineffective.
We believe that our motives in saying all this are pure, holy, and extremely patriotic; because we have no desire to acquire political power for ourselves and that it is our selfless duty to make sure the American people accept our creed.
Since I'm not saying all that I don't know how to respond.
I'll stop here because this is getting long and pointless. To sum up, that list is a ridiculous strawman that doesn't represent hardly anyone.
I've always said, Islam is a political ideology masquerading as religion. Liberalism is a religion masquerading as a political ideology. Though their methods may be different, they are merely different facets of a broader Bush bashing, anti-American anarcho-socialist movement. Strange bedfellows they.
This kind of sick psychosis on the part of the radical left in this country is almost unimaginable ... except that we're seeing played out right before our eyes. When you get a moonbat like Cindy Sheehan going public about having dreams of killing George Bush when he was a baby, a sane person knows your dealing with a real sicko. And Cindy Sheehan is an icon to probably 90% of the left-wing base of the DemDonk Party.
I can't possibly be the only one who has noticed that the commentors who are being the most reasonable and respectful here are the ones being labeled as trolls. I'm just sayin'.
> Since an anonymous commenter on the last post has seen fit to call me a "hatemonger" for choosing to focus on the left's paychological denial since 9/11;
I wouldn't make too much of it. That's a standard technique of the Left - like calling someone a 'racist' to make them feel guilty and stifle debate. (see Horowitza on the ;art of political warfare
. It used to work, but it has lost its effectivenvess via overuse and the increased awareness of these tactics.
Thank the internet for that. Any time a Leftist calls me a name, I simply reply by saying that it's a fine way to avoid addressing substantive issues, so can we stop the name calling and actually debate?
Oh, Mr. Silverstein, it's like rain on our wedding day.
> But you'll post those sorts of statements ad infinitum, as if writing this stuff every day makes it true. You are knowingly taking whackjobs and claiming they represent the mainstream left. Fahrenheit 9/11 did not claim that the WTC was in inside job. Hillary Clinton is not claiming that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.
But Rockefeller believes we'd be better off with Saddam, Professors Walt and Mearsheimer believe in the Jewish cabal, and John Kerry believes he was in Cambodia in Christmas Eve and that the US military are a bunch of Genghis Khans.
Annoymous #3, you know, my mother makes excellent spaghetti.
I don't ascribe to any of those points. And, I don't know a single Liberal who does either.
It's right wing pablum. They've been telling Liberals what they believe for so long they really believe it.
Sad that.
If conservatives spent as much time trying to find some common ground as they do hating their fellow American's, we truly be safer and have our Liberty intact to boot.
Aren't both worth working towards?
"Not if we have to bow to a bunch of traitors" is the answer.
Keep on telling Liberals what they believe.
It's working so well for you too!
Dr Sanity,
> nce the hyperreligiosity of their position-- which relies on feelings and emotions rather than facts or reason--eludes any attempt to be reasonable with them;
I may borrow this line for a critique I'm writing on the Walt/Mearsheimer Jewish Lobby paper.
> I don't ascribe to any of those points. And, I don't know a single Liberal who does either.
Perhaps you need to distinguish 'liberal' from Leftist. I know quite a few on the left who believe a lot of those points.
"> I don't ascribe to any of those points. And, I don't know a single Liberal who does either."
Maybe you just don't know YOU DO. Doc's helping you face up.
YOU DO, you know. The terrorists know you do, too. They're counting on you.
David de SNAFU. The denial and projection is strong in this one, How appropriate you would demonstrate for all on this site.
“...if Al Gore had won the 2000 election then 9/11 would never have happened;”
What do you mean if?
I think you meant to say this instead: “...if Bush hadn't stolen the 2000 election from Al Gore then 9/11 would never have happened;”
Ah, Watcher, you really MEAN: : 'since Al Gore was prevented by the Highest Law in the land FROM STEALING the 2000 election,' we were spared a REAL idiot as the last President.
I do mean 'last.'
Bill C. nearly did us; Al would have. Osama was hoping.
It's funny how all the "leftists" here are saying one thing, and the pseudo-patriots are saying "no! no! THIS is what you believe! this guy with a blog told me!"
Watcher:
Point 1 - Every vote count in FL showed Bush the winner. Even the one by the media. Therefore, Bush didn't steal the election. Gore sure as hell tried, however, using every legal and semilegal trick he could muster. (The disqualification of military absentee ballots by the Dems was a particularly nasty thing, pointing out just how far they'd go to make sure they'd win.)
Point 2 - the planning for 9/11 was well underway before the 2000 elections. Whether the president was Gore or Bush wouldn't have made a difference. Sorry - but Osama was striking against the Great Satan US - not Clinton, not Bush, not Gore.
J.
I don't think a real leftist would use the word "Amen."
George Bush himself said Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 in tonight's address.
Funnily enough, many on the left DO believe these things. Take a look at the stuff Flopping Aces found at lefty sites for 9/11. They're saying exactly these things: Clinton never lied; Gore would have prevented 9/11.
Kohut...that's nothing new. Bush NEVER said Saddam Hussain had anything to do with 9/11. He did say (as did Clinton before him) that Saddam had WMD and in a post 9/11 world that would be unacceptable.
Anon 2:59 pm is right. Fliberals really don't believe anything. They are more akin to rabid Parrots.
> Anon -
JL, anyone -- DON'T FEED THE TROLL. If he's too chickenshit to even come up with a name, then he's not here to do anything but throw out little accusatory stinkbombs, usually insulting ones.
> I'd like to see 7,000 lefties repudiate the 'Bush did it with Jews' libel.
Hey! That's not libel! He almost certainly did it with A Jew or two back in his wild youth!!
:o9
Josh, I'll grant you're probably one of the more rational people on the so-called Left.
However, you extend to your peers behaviors and attitudes which their own behaviors, actions, comments, and attitudes do NOT demonstrate any connections to.
Just today the local university newspaper had an editorial letter by one student who claimed that the only way to assure no further attacks was to pull out of the ME entirely, "leave the democratic governments there alone", "stop interfering in the democratic processes at work there", etc., etc.
Bereft of the slightest concept of reality:
1) As though the people of Iraq actually elected Saddam
2) As though the people of Iran actually elected Ahmadamnutjob
3) As though ANY of the nations of the ME were true democracies which carried out the will of their people in the first place (oh... wait. there is ONE: *Israel*).
4)As though "isolationism" would work when we are clearly The Big Dog that everyone who wants to make a rep for themselves by attacking us won't bother if we just don't respond.
5) As though "isolationism" would work when/if we are clearly The Rich Kid Who Won't Defend Himself When Attacked And Stolen From.
Denial. It's not a river, it's a state of mind.
> Yes, I think that men who hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, killing thousands, are completely reasonable and actually OK guys. Christ, do you honestly believe that "liberals" agree with this?
Christ, do you actually believe liberals DON'T?
jgr, JLawson, Oh Bloody Hell, and whoever else didn't get it...
My comment was just a suggestion to the good doctor about editing the leftist creed to more accurately show what THEY think, not what I think.
So, can you please calm the hell down now?
> I can't possibly be the only one who has noticed that the commentors who are being the most reasonable and respectful here are the ones being labeled as trolls. I'm just sayin'.
Look, pick a friggin NAME. Stick with it, so we might have a clue which, if any, you are. THEN you can make an argument about not being a troll. Until then, you're no different from someone who's popping in and flinging poo.
We'll discuss things with you, but referring to someone who won't even pick a name as "troll" is pretty damned standard on the internet.
Can you be such utter newbies that you don't know this?
> z "no! no! THIS is what you believe! this guy with a blog told me!"
Yeah, we're all mindless parrots repeating what Rush "Told Us To".
We could not POSSIBLY have observed the behavior of Dems/Lefties/Libs and come to similar conclusions about what's really going on in their heads as opposed to the rhetoric they spout.
After all -- it's not rhetoric, if you really believe it... Right?
Anon = sock puppet. But then, rabid Parrots are really all the same, anyway - henpecking Chickens. What else is new? [I extend my deepest apologies and sympathies to the true birds.]
THIS is what you believe! this guy with a blog told me!"
Don't you even bother to read the "About Me" section, or even look at HER pic? Pat is a dame, anon. (At least she SHOULD be knighted.)
I guess you are too wrapped up in that world of hate you have wrapped around yourself to bother with picky little details.
There's something I do not understand about al queda in the years before 9/11:
Most people agree the US foreign policy has been abusive and generally nasty ... even most in the States who bother to look up US foreign policy actions agree.
Why didn't al queda go on a major war of words using US freedom of speech? They'd have won their point with ease ...
Run a few major newspaper ads, get a documentery done and run on US TV, get a few good spokesmen to be interviewed by the major networks, get some spokeswomen on Oprah and generally get the message out. It's not as if it would be hard to win their point. It's not as if they did not have the money.
Instead they blow up a pile of innocent people and now we have war ... a war they cannot win.
DUMB! REAL DUMB!
It just doesn't make sense to me.
I find I cannot agree with the left for the simple reason that when faced with someone who would do something as daft as al queda did one MUST take the hard road ... there's simply no other road to walk.
Great Post Dr, sanity. Thank you. As interesting as the comments and back and forth with Anonymous are, just curious that everyone realizes that he/she notes "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" immediately indicates this is not a reality based debate, right? Sorry, but if you quote Goerge Lucas to rebut a medical doctor, you've lareday lost my respect.
Except for the fact that we followed many of the escaping Al Qaeda types fleeing Afghanistan TO Iraq, and later picked up more on the battlefield when we invaded, I'd say "yeah" there wasn't much a connection between AQ and Iraq.
But then, there wasn't much in the way of a practical connection between Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan either but they were allies - even though their ideologies were both racially based and thus contradictory. Ideological differences didn't keep Hitler from signing a non-aggression pact with Stalin and working together with him to invade and divide Poland...so why does the so-called (self-called) "nuanced" and "sophisticated" Left think it's impossible for AQ to want friendly relations, quid pro quo relations with Saddam's Iraq? Or Iran?
Amazing how simple minded the Left is all while claiming moral and intellectual superiority. Their argument for abortion? It's my body! It's my right! (complete ignorance of biology 101 and 'human rights 101'). Their argument for gays re-defining Marriage and getting courts to impose this novel redefinition on the rest of us? "I want it therefore it's my Constitutional right" (so...when does the rest of us get this super-duper right to redefine words and get courts to impose our novel definitions on the rest of humanity?)
Their argument for 'saving the planet' - Sign Kyoto and even though Russian, China, India and the entire 3rd world don't have to do ANYTHING, while the US would need draconian cuts of our economy (massive unemployment that would cause notwithstanding) this will 'save the world'" un huh. Brilliant.
What's their brilliant "plan" for solving terrorism? Pull out of the ME and then focus on the first responders - so we'll just do a really good job picking up pieces after attacks, not preventing attacks.... Give the UN MORE power and then preferably play "the victim" to win sympathy from the G8 nations?
Um...how does that stop terrorism exactly? It doesn't. It changes the subject.
I'd welcome any liberal to a spirited dialogue of "their plan" for the future but I don't think they are a) nuanced b) sophisticated, and c) informed enough to do more than sputter sound bites and slogans.
As example of the Left's refusal to see nuance...look at the whole Ports deal - here a foreign company gets bought out by Dubai - which just so happens to be a major player in the world and just so happens to be one of the safest ports in the world and major supplier for the USNavy...but suddenly the Left is all about "this is tantamount to giving ports to Al Qaeda" - even though port security was not part of the deal.
No, they say it as a chance to beat up the President, facts be damned. In fact, better that the facts DON'T get exposed... conflate or downplay key details, qualifiers, distinctions and claim "they're putting our ports in the enemy's hands".
No nuance there. Or honesty.
How about the NSA program - lots of hyperventilating about "domestic spying" when all along it was known that the program was conducted OUTSIDE THE USA and on FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS, not domestic to domestic calls... in other words, NOT A BREACH OF THE LAW. But the "nuanced Left" couldn't be troubled with distinctions when again, conflating something could confuse people and help them score points.
Plamegate - hyperventilating in the Press and DNC and blogworld about "bush outing" a CIA agent... utter lack of distinction between someone who works at Langley and "an undercover agent". Because to have made such a distinction clear would have required nuance and sophistication and also made obvious that no crime was committed by mentioning that Joe Wilson's wife worked at CIA and thus this is why he got the junket to Africa (all true, and none of this "secret").
Remeber the sunset of the famed "Assault Weapons Ban"? The Left hyperventilated about AK-47s falling into kids hands and rashes of massacres and drive by shootings the sunset of the law would provoke.
Never mind that fully automatic rifles weren't covered by the law in the first place and that the law only covered cosmetic details (pistol grips, bayonet lugs, hi-cap magazines)... which didn't affect the SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle's nature one whit.... nope, the LEFT couldn't be troubled with facts, distinctions, differences in kind... for them, any thing that LOOKS like an "assault weapon" IS ONE. Even though NO MILITARY ON EARTH USES SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES ANYMORE.
I could go on... but it's obvious that the Left simply is unequiped - in their major publications, in their major webblogs, in their political leaders... to deal with 'nuance' and distinction, sophisticated arguments and fine details. They're the party of 4th grade sound bites and slogans.
Stem-cell debate...while Bush and the right draw clear and detailed DISTINCTIONS between adult and umbillical cord stem cells BOTH OF WHICH HAVE CURED DOZENS OF DISEASES... they say "no" to the unethical destruction of human beings in their embryonic stage of life for the 'pie in the sky' hope that ONE DAY, DECADES FROM NOW, some cures to current illnesses will be discovered!
But the Left - from the NYT to the MSM pooh pooh and downplay or IGNORE the real life, CURRENT cures being achieved by adult stem cells.... and hyperventilate about the crucial breakthroughs PROMISED to ONE DAY come from killing thousands of human beings in their embryonic stage of development!
Talk about lack of 'science' and 'nuance'... the list of issues Liberals bloviate on and hold opinions on (all while claiming that it's impossible to know absolute truths of course, until they do) are full of a LACK of sophistication and nuance.
"HALLOWED ARE THE CLINTONS..."
Just thought I'd stop by to find out if you've made any progress since February. I see you have not. Turd-throwing monkeys. What a waste of time.
Well, let's see... if you're not capable of dealing with sed contra arguments, then you're the one throwing excrement.
Dear Doc Sanity-
The words right/left and liberal/conservative have become virtually meaningless, at least when used to describe positions people take on issues. I am beginning to look at myself as neither, and yet, definitely not a centrist. Perhaps my beliefs are not assignable to a 2D grid.
I ran into your blog accidentally, but reading this I simply cannot remain silent.
You and your friends speak of denial on the part of, let's just say, anyone who's not "with" the Shrubbery, and thus is "against" America.
Let me give you an idea what MY stand is. Take it or leave it; I'm fairly certain it will be the latter. But at least, consider the WHY, not just the WHAT, of "my stand". Or as you put it, credo. I'll change the wording you put forth, to align with reality-as-I-perceive-it, which may or may not be congruent to reality-as-it-is.
I believe that the United States and its policies could be more responsible - especially in this century. Violence begets violence. It is not "denial" to avoid getting caught up in this cycle; it is denial to stubbornly remain unaware of it, no matter what one's alignments or beliefs.
I do not believe that if we get rid of George Bush and the Republicans, we will once again be safe; the Democratic Party being but a mostly false opposition. It may or may not have not always been so but it is, now.
I am convinced that the Shrubbery, including Karl Rove, very likely actually planned the events of 9/11 as a prelude to taking over this country, destroying our civil liberties; and instituting a state that "fascism" does not adequately describe, seeing as the days of Hitler did not give him the technology to do what could be done here, and now. Polls be damned. I believe the evidence. And by "evidence" I don't mean the crackpot crap, I mean the behavior of this administration which refuses to release any of the video which could have vindicated it, which destroyed the evidence, completely departing from protocol...and the Commander in Chief choosing to remain in a room full of little kids while ostensibly believing our nation under attack. (If the enemy knew where the President was, he was very putting those children in harm's way. He knew something. Furthermore, his speech on the day of the event was lacking in gravitas, which I notice was replaced on the White House website with a version that DID sound like perhaps the man WAS upset. On the day? Sounded like a man who had been waiting long for a special present to arrive, which finally arrived.)
I never believed that Israel had any part in the events of 9/11; I never use the word "Zionist".
I FIRMLY believe no one (save for VERY obvious incitors to violent crime) has views which should be prohibited...not in any nation calling itself a free country;
I believe that to imagine Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger - or ANY politician, really - has never lied represents utter folly and ignorance;
I do indeed believe that ONE serious outcome of 9/11 is Islamophobia and the unconscionable backlash that has victimized Muslims in the U.S. - but the far worse outcome will be what will happen if this foments a storm that turns to pre-emptive nuclear strike by the US against another nation, thereby inviting retribution that could be a terrible danger to every citizen, not just Muslims.
I do believe that images of 9/11 are used to further the warmongering plans of the Bush Administration;
I believe that all rhetoric of hate, whether by the Shrubbery or the extremists in the Islamic nations, have equal seriousness of consequence.
I believe that the people who flew airplanes into buildings on 9/11 are all dead. Were they alive, I'm sure I could discuss reality with them, but whomever side they actually were on, or thought they were, it would not be a particularly lucid discussion.
I DO strongly believe that the Bush Administration is irrational, unreasonble and certainly cannot be trusted; and that they are completely out of touch with reality. Not only that, but on the basis of waging war based on lies and against Constitutional convention, they are criminals, who need to be removed from office and put on trial in the Hague.
We believe that Iraq had nothing--nothing--to do with 9/11 simply because it obviously did NOT serve their interests.
We believe that the deaths of almost 3000 Americans on 9/11 is indeed a VERY big deal. Consequently, it is our moral duty to see a REAL outside investigation of this event and get to the bottom of the "conspiracy theory" - for conspiracy theorizing is worthless. What I believe in is transpiracy research, to discover WHAT TRULY TRANSPIRED and HOW.
The motive of my belief is a sincere appreciation of truth as I understand it: willfully promulgating ideas to cover up or counter truth is wrong, no matter whether it occurs by my "liberal" compatriotes or by the Shrubbery.
I indeed believe this country has suffered horribly under George W. Bush,
whose policies have caused us to
become less the Good America we were and more of something else.
Unfortunately, due to the compromised Democratic party, full of sell-outs and perhaps even neocon 'plants' who talk a blue streak and vote with a red check, I believe the turnover of Congress in November 2006 meant all too little.
I believe the UN is imperfect, but so far, no one has come up with anything better.
I believe that multi-culti should never be enforced; if it is worth happening it will happen on its own.
So mote - NOT moot - it be.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
