Tell me about your mother....
Never before, in all my days, have I seen such eloquence flow forth in reaction to some chick's PMS.
I am in awe of your professionalism.
I haven't read Beth's post yet,...I will in a minute, but I just have to say that was exceptionally well put, and expresses exactly what I think about the whole political state we are in right now. Well done! May I link to this post, as I could never say that any better myself!
Thank you, Suzanne. Eric, I'm not quite sure how to respond. I value my, er, values.
Regarding the red-letter part of your post, I agree that the article you cite is crazy and frightening. But, umm, excuse me, have you read any of the blog at EtherZone? It includes the recent post titled "Communist Judges Hammer Additional Nail In The Coffin Of Property Rights In The Name Of Community" and the statement "American-hating liberals and their pet savages in the Middle East expect us to have sympathy for this hemorrhoid on the rear-end of humanity that would hack apart his enemies, ship them back in a little bag to their families, and expected to be paid for doing them the favor." I'd say that the guys blogging there sound more right-wing than left-wing. I will grant that there are whackos at both ends of the political spectrum, but are you sure which end you're talking about here?
I think you're "remiss" in your characterization of the article you quoted as being an example of the radical left's output. Please explain how you read this guy Henry Makow (who wrote the article you quoted above) as being a far left extremist. To make your case, please provide examples from his website, entitled "Save the Males - Exposing Feminism and the New World Order". In my experience, most anti-communist, anti-feminist, anti-gay, Illuminati-spouting extremists are at the right end of the political spectrum... but maybe you have information that I don't.
C'mon, gentlemen, verify.
Kimberly, the anti semitism of the left is becoming legendary. The use of Makows article is no more than a mirror image of what is being promulgated by the left today.
For starters, see this http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?
ID=18477 and this http://frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?
ID=17310 Although Raimondo is somewhat confused politically, he worshipped by the left for his anti war stance.
There's more here http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?
ID=16917 and here http://
www.jewishworldreview.com...2003_07_10.php3
There aer many more examples.
"Becoming legendary" is a meaningless phrase, unless you can back it up (and I don't even begin to know how one backs up such a statement). And I'm sorry, but what are you saying about Makow? Your post still seems to be holding his article out as writing from the radical left. To call this disinformation is being polite (which you know I usually try to be). I laugh to think how Makow would react if he knew you were calling him a leftist.
You expect me to accept as evidence about "the left" articles posted on a web site that advertises conservative t-shirts bearing slogans like "Hippies Smell", and a weekend event featuring John Ashcroft and Rush Limbaugh? Oh, and the one that starts "Stick it to Hillary"? Try again.
I'll get back to you when I finish Fiamma Nirenstein's article at JWR.
I would describe Israel Shamir as a Nazi. Of course, I believe that the Nazis were insane as you can be, morally and cognitively, so that's not a contradiction really. Actually he's even more wacked out than a Nazi; he's sort of a hyper-Nazi.
I have been in a state of shock ever since I discovered that he was invited to speak to the British Parliament.
We are living in really frightening times.
Earthquakes and floods... fires from the sky...
I'm just waiting for my Christian friends to start dissapearing right before my eyes...
then i'll be Left (and) Behind...
So much to say, so little energy in the fingers, even less time at work. I'll boil it down:
1. You unfairly characterize "anti-war" as "pro-enemies-of-the-US" in a very clever political game of turnabout. Calling someone pro-Saddam or pro-communist or pro-totalitarian is fairly easy, and wins you lots of political points, my dear McCarthy -- that doesn't mean it's true. Radical lefties are just as interested in totalitarian ideas as radical righties, but not all "anti-war" protestors are radical lefties. The way you state it, you paint anyone who is pro-diplomacy, pro-multilateral initiative, anti-invasaion-and-occupation, and anti-collateral-damage as a flaming communists or a terrorist sympathizer. It just ain't true. Please remember that the earliest supporter in terms of arms, armaments, and economic assistance for the military machinations of Iraq was the US, during the '80s and its war with Iran, while the US was led by a Republican President.
As I've said before, Sig, I respect your opinions, but you too often paint with a rather large brush.
2. I agree with you that there are few similarities between Iraq and Vietnam -- except for poorly planned occupations, foreign assistance to the enemy (remember the Chinese in Vietnam?), and a lingering force of Americans in-country longer than expected. You're right, the insurgents don't have popular support -- but that doesn't seem to limit the effect of their attacks.
3. "Many anti war protestors are in reality, advocating for the success of those insurgents."
How? I've not seen a single comment, article, post, liberal propaganda flier, or wacknut protestor say, "I want American soldiers and innocent civilians to die." It's a wonderfully political accusation to make, but without support, it's only incendiary rhetoric.
4. "... every single non democratic regime, adopted by the left has failed miserably."
Along with every single non-democratic regime adopted by any other political ideologies. How many true monarchies (those with supreme power in the king) are left? How many empires? How many fascist governments? For that matter, even military juntas are fairly few and far between. The simple fact is that no non democratic system has lasted long, with the sole exception of communism in China (which has been stripped of its Maoist, "Little Red Book" party line) and Cuba (which is mostly just one of those few military juntas mentioned earlier). All non-democratic regimes supported by the right are just as replete with "moral emptiness and certain failure down the road." Show me a non democratic regime supported by the right, and I'll shut up. 'Til then, relax the "left is always wrong" talk, because, again, it just ain't true.
Oh, and being left-leaning or liberal doesn't ALWAYS equate with support of communism or totalitarianism. Remember your outrage when conservatives were labeled Nazis (an extreme form of conservatism
... (an extreme form of conservatism)? Apply that outrage to labeling the left "communists" or "terrorist sympathizers."
5. "The war in Iraq is also fueled in part, by ideology -- that all men are destined to be free."
That may be the "fuel" now, but at the time the war started, and Congress and the rest of America agreed to let us enter the fray, the "fuel" was ONLY fear -- fear that Saddam was linked with terrorists, fear that he had WMDs that he would use on us, fear that he was the incarnation of Nostradamus's predicted "third antichrist".
"[R]emoving Saddam did not come fast enough for his victims...."
Then why didn't we go in and finish the job in '91/'92, when we already were at war with him and knew of his "killing field mass graves, the victims ... of the rape rooms and plastic chippers and those simply thrown off buildings or otherwise mutilated?"
"The only thing leaving Saddam in place would have accomplished, are [sic] the guaranteed deaths of millions of more in the region."
Same with the leadership in North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Algeria, Cuba, and others. The case for war with them has yet to be made -- so it's not all about "all men are destined to be free." There are other, more important factors that made our determination to go to war with Iraq (see our previous discussions on the topic).
6. As for Iraq's use of WMDs on the Kurds and Iranians, most of that happened on President Reagan's or President Bush the First's watch. Yet, nothing was done then. So, it is not entirely "clear that the radical left" is the only political ideology that chooses to "ignor[e] the reality" of the human rights abuses of that regime. I don't see you claiming that Presidents Reagan and Bush the First were "espousing" such beliefs, or supporting the perpetrators of those atrocities -- even though President Bush the First met PERSONALLY with Saddam Hussein during his rule and his atrocities.
7. The Etherzone article. Hmm. You claim it to be a rant from the radical left, but the term "Jewish messianic spirit" and the use of the conspiracy theory regarding the Protocols of Zion have long been mainstays of the radical Christian right's political oratory. See anything written by the Aryan Nation, the World Church of the Creator, or the KKK in the last 15 or 20 years. By the way, they're also favorite mantras of the very enemies of the US that we're currently fighting. So who's the one supporting the terrorists and dictators?
8. "Nevertheless, when the dissent turns to no more than an open call for destruction and vilification of all in opposition...."
How is this not a sin of the right, as well as the left? Look at American politics since ... oh, say ... the Clinton years, and you'll see that the right is very adept at "deliberately misrepresent[ing] the truth so as to gain political advantage and in the process, destroy [its] oppo
... destroy [its] opponents."
Conclusion: You make the very expedient mistake of labeling all of those who are anti-war "radical liberals" who support the current enemies of the US. There are many conservatives and moderate Republicans who would have preferred a more diplomatic solution (e.g., Colin Powell), but those are ignored in your post. Your argument also has the effect of labeling conservatives as in favor of war just for war's sake, because according to your logic you can't be conservative and anti-war (for any reason) at the same time. Again, the brush with which you paint is far too wide.
Radical liberals are just as bad as radical conservatives. Radicalism in any form is detrimental to the truth, and to the lives lost in the wars in which each side seems intent on getting us involved. But to label one side essentially traitors because they don't believe in war (or in war as the first or best recourse) is extrapolating a conclusion from way too little data.
Of course, such labeling is the natural result of a two-party system, in which one party is the sworn enemy of the other. Again, a third party in the middle of this debate might limit such knee-jerk name-calling.
Hey, Boomr,
If I baked... i'd bake u a cake...
and, btw: ditto...
Yes, I was going to comment, but Boomr said pretty much all of it. And just to reiterate a little, the right has backed many fascists regimes over the years (including Saddam, pinocet, etc). Does it really matter if someone is killed by a fascist or a communist? Dead is dead.
let's not forget my personal favorite: Somoza.
i'm thinking of posting a little story about america's unfailing desire to export democracy... soon...
let us not also forget that we supported Bin Laden when he was blowing up commies. Terrorist... freedom fighter... who cares about lables when its the Reds who are going home in body bags.
ok... i posted my 2 cents.
for what their worth.
geez.. i need drugs... how 'bout:
for what they're worth...
yeah.. that sounds like english...
"And this is what passes for some of the radical left's 'intellectual' output."
In arguing for fair and open debate, one would do well to avoid a single anecdote from a dubiously "liberal" source as a sufficient characterization of the "radical left's intellectual output."
Your response to a similar critique, that Makow's article is but a "mirror image," along with links to the infadous FrontPageMag, does not pass muster.
Finally, your statement condemning an"open call for destruction and vilification of all in opposition" would be greatly strengthened by acknowledging that such calls regularly and beyond all doubt occur on both sides.
party poker codes party poker codes party poker codes // c loans com c loans com c loans com
us online gambling us online gambling us online gambling // intercontinental san juan resort spa and casino intercontinental san juan resort spa and casino intercontinental san juan resort spa and casino
Commenting by HaloScan
