DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Rich on June 13, 2008, 12:54:51 PM
-
BUSH'S AMERICA: 100 PERCENT AL-QAIDA FREE SINCE 2001
by Ann Coulter http://www.anncoulter.com/ (http://www.anncoulter.com/)
June 11, 2008
In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.
I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.
Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."
Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.
But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.
It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.
We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.
The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.
The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."
(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")
Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.
Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."
It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.
Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.
But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.
We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.
But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of b?arnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.
The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
-
And Ann Coulter aside, US Vampire-Free since 2001 as well!
Huzzah!
:D
-
Can't help but notice that the #1 issue on Democrats minds on exit polls, during the 1st caucuses between Hillary, Edwards, and Oblather was that the War in Iraq was #1. Now it's seems to have slipped all the way down to #4, if not lower. I wonder why that is? Couldn't possibly be because things are moving in such a positive direction now, could it?? naaaaaaaaaaa. I mean, if that were the case, Bush might actually be getting cudos for his perseverence & patience, despite how poorly executed the post-Saddam planning was, and we CAN'T have that now, can we.
-
And Ann Coulter aside, US Vampire-Free since 2001 as well!
Huzzah!
:D
That is an interesting take on the situation, has there been a vampire problem I didn't hear about?
There was definately a terrorist problem < surprise>I am surprised yoou didn't hear about it.
-
Juniorbush has also prevented us from being eaten by crocodiles and trampled by rogue hippopotomi.
-
Hm. I wonder if Ann Coulter would like to buy the Golden Gate Bridge. I've learned that they are tired of painting the damn thing all the time and want to dig a tunnel instead. I'm sure I could get her, and anyone else who thinks her column is spot on, in on a really good scrap metal deal.
-
>>And Ann Coulter aside, US Vampire-Free since 2001 as well!<<
I don't know about that. There are reports of bill1x1 taking little children by night.
That aside, don't you think you're lilttle joke is kind of ... well ... dumb? Vampires don't exist Brass. Really, they don't.
-
Hm. I wonder if Ann Coulter would like to buy the Golden Gate Bridge. I've learned that they are tired of painting the damn thing all the time and want to dig a tunnel instead. I'm sure I could get her, and anyone else who thinks her column is spot on, in on a really good scrap metal deal.
Her collum is spot on , and scrap metal is getting valuable as it requires energy to create new metal.
There was once a global reaching Al Queda , President Bush broke its back too well for it to be taken seriously anymore.
This is a grand success that must be discounted by tightly shut eyes.
-
scrap metal is getting valuable as it requires energy to create new metal.
For that very reason, so I am told, they are going to tear down the Eiffel Tower. Perhaps you'd like to get in early on bidding for the scrap metal?
There was once a global reaching Al Queda , President Bush broke its back too well for it to be taken seriously anymore.
This is a grand success that must be discounted by tightly shut eyes.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, Plane.
-
scrap metal is getting valuable as it requires energy to create new metal.
For that very reason, so I am told, they are going to tear down the Eiffel Tower. Perhaps you'd like to get in early on bidding for the scrap metal?
There was once a global reaching Al Queda , President Bush broke its back too well for it to be taken seriously anymore.
This is a grand success that must be discounted by tightly shut eyes.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, Plane.
What you say isn't real , isn't real , because you say it isn't real?
Being reluctant to credit the President with his greatest succsess I would understand if you were n=more partizan , but yo arn't really that slanted.
How can you call terrorism unreal in the face of every bit of evidence?
-
That is an interesting take on the situation, has there been a vampire problem I didn't hear about?
There was definately a terrorist problem < surprise>I am surprised yoou didn't hear about it.
Just more of that drive-by media not doing their jobs!
:-\
-
That aside, don't you think you're lilttle joke is kind of ... well ... dumb? Vampires don't exist Brass. Really, they don't.
Why don't just say you hate America and you want American children to become the UNDEAD!?!?!?
-
Can we get Barak Obama to say that he doesn't take a terrorist threat seriously?
Whos'e vote would he loose if he said he did take it seriously?
If "Terrorism is a joke" becomes a part of the Democratic platform ,this election might not be so close after all.
-
What you say isn't real , isn't real , because you say it isn't real?
No. I'm just questioning this blind acceptance that we haven't had any more terrorist attacks because of President Bush. In other words, I am skeptical that what you say is real is real because you say it's real. It's like the episode of the Simpsons where the family is out camping, Homer credits the Bear Patrol with keeping the bears away, Lisa explains there is no Bear Patrol, and Homer wants to know how she explains that there are no bears around. (That is, in my faded memory it went something like that.) Saying there were no more terrorist attacks therefore President Bush is a great president simply isn't a substantial argument to anyone who doesn't already agree with it.
How can you call terrorism unreal in the face of every bit of evidence?
I am quite certain that I never called terrorism unreal. So I have absolutely no reason and no intention to answer your question.
-
What you say isn't real , isn't real , because you say it isn't real?
No. I'm just questioning this blind acceptance that we haven't had any more terrorist attacks because of President Bush. In other words, I am skeptical that what you say is real is real because you say it's real. It's like the episode of the Simpsons where the family is out camping, Homer credits the Bear Patrol with keeping the bears away, Lisa explains there is no Bear Patrol, and Homer wants to know how she explains that there are no bears around. (That is, in my faded memory it went something like that.) Saying there were no more terrorist attacks therefore President Bush is a great president simply isn't a substantial argument to anyone who doesn't already agree with it.
How can you call terrorism unreal in the face of every bit of evidence?
I am quite certain that I never called terrorism unreal. So I have absolutely no reason and no intention to answer your question.
If Ypu are not calling it unreal then I have not understood you .
Al Queda attacked the US several times with a trend to escalate , without the actions of Preaident Bush they would have quit anyway?
-
Al Qaeda and like-minded folk have been able to kill 4,000 Americans (in addition to the almost 3,000 killed on Bush's watch in NYC and DC) and maim 25 to 50 thousand more since 9-11. They have forced the U.S. into spending 3 trillion bucks on a "war on terrorism" which as far as I can see has got the U.S. fixated on the impossible task of permanently pacifying Afghanistan and Iraq which at the same time is recruiting millions of fresh fighters, galvanizing world public opinion against the U.S. and undoing at least 100 years of progress in international law aimed at abolishing torture and wars of aggression and safeguarding basic human rights. In the course of promoting his nefarious goals, Bush has even managed to diminish your existing civil rights and threaten what's left of them.
The lack of further al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. mainland can be easily explained by any one or more of the following reasons:
1. They're diverting all resources into the armed struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan because it's so much more lucrative for them than a 9-11 attack could ever be and takes a lot less planning and effort, as well as offering immediate gratification in the form of dead and wounded U.S. soldiers on a daily basis; or
2. Simple measures of airport security, easily available to the Bush administration prior to 9-11, have made the task a lot harder;
3. They're preparing a strike of exponentially bigger magnitude than 9-11, so as not to lose propaganda momentum, but this would take years of planning and is still in the pipeline.
I think it's extremely foolish of Coulter to crow about a "great victory" for this idiot when he's still engaged in a war with a minuscule Third World country that has taken him more time than the U.S. spent in WWII with no tangible results to date and has not even killed or captured the guy responsible for the original 9-11 atrocity, (as if THAT would make any difference now!) who still regularly taunts and threatens him from a mountain hideout. While the dollar crumbles and the price of oil soars off into the stratosphere.
I think the time has come for even the most dedicated Republican to take a hard look at the situation bequeathed to the country by Bush and say "What a fucking mess!"
-
If Ypu are not calling it unreal then I have not understood you .
Clearly.
Al Queda attacked the US several times with a trend to escalate , without the actions of Preaident Bush they would have quit anyway?
We don't know what would have happened. I am skeptical of "without events going exactly as they did then the worst possible scenario would have happened" being the default position. It's sort of like the argument that without the "war on drugs" the country would be rampant with drug dealers, violence, useless drug addicts and massive casualties from people driving or operating machinery while high. There is no way to actually know that, and frankly, I find it highly unlikely. Similarly, that Al-Qaeda terrorists, who were, at best, only marginally successful prior to September 11, 2001, would have executed numerous attacks on the scale of the September 11 attacks if not for President Bush's actions is not only something we cannot actually know but something I find unlikely. Personally, I think folks like Coulter overestimate by far the capabilities of Al-Qaeda. With the Ruby Ridge incident and the Oklahoma City bombing we had an escalating scale of violence too, but we have obviously not been overrun with violence from white supremacist groups. No, the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian (a white supremacist group) is not the same as Al-Qaeda, but the point is we should not automatically assume the worst would necessarily have happened.
Would they have quit is a misleading question. I'm not suggesting Bush should have done nothing, and there is no real value in speculating about what might have happened (unless you're Harry Turtledove or someone like that) if only things had gone differently. This notion, however, that President Bush is "the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil" and that he is therefore "one of America's greatest presidents" is, at best, little more than wishful propaganda. Coulter is either really quite gullible or she is a liberal pulling off a great satirical masquerade as a conservative who spouts asinine nonsense and gets people to cheer her on. Seriously, comedy writers satirizing conservatives could not come up with a better character than Ann Coulter.
-
>>And Ann Coulter aside, US Vampire-Free since 2001 as well!<<
I don't know about that. There are reports of bill1x1 taking little children by night.
That aside, don't you think you're lilttle joke is kind of ... well ... dumb? Vampires don't exist Brass. Really, they don't.
Rich- I am sure you will be very happy to learn that Bill1x1 died of cancer almost a year ago. You hate-filled moron.
-
Rich- I am sure you will be very happy to learn that Bill1x1 died of cancer almost a year ago.
Very sorry to hear that , I havent checked in on him for more than two years.
-
The lack of further al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. mainland can be easily explained by any one or more of the following reasons:
1. They're diverting all resources into the armed struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan because it's so much more lucrative for them than a 9-11 attack could ever be and takes a lot less planning and effort, as well as offering immediate gratification in the form of dead and wounded U.S. soldiers on a daily basis;
Exactly , when Al Queda has to fight Americans that are able to shoot back they die like flies .But they are totally stuck they must fight us in their own neighborhood elese give up haveing credibility entirely.2. Simple measures of airport security, easily available to the Bush administration prior to 9-11, have made the task a lot harder;
Not really , quantify "harder" , it isn't going to become impossible.
3. They're preparing a strike of exponentially bigger magnitude than 9-11, so as not to lose propaganda momentum, but this would take years of planning and is still in the pipeline.
No this is not possible , ask UP or BM about it , a scenario of that sort is no more likely than a vampire attack.
-
>>Rich- I am sure you will be very happy to learn that Bill1x1 died of cancer almost a year ago.<<
I knew that knutty. I'm just repeating what I heard.
-
>>Rich- I am sure you will be very happy to learn that Bill1x1 died of cancer almost a year ago.<<
I knew that knutty. I'm just repeating what I heard.
Then you are a bigger prick than I even imagined and that is tough to accomplish.
-
Awwwww .... knutty loved ole Bill. You'll get to meet him in hell one day knutty, don't dispair.
-
<<Exactly , when Al Queda has to fight Americans that are able to shoot back they die like flies .>>
Refresh my memory here, plane, help me out here - - when al Qaeda did fight Americans who couldn't shoot back, on Sept. 11, for example, exactly what was their survival rate?
Now I'm a pretty simple guy, plane, without much mathematical sophistication at all, but it seems to me that the higher survival rate for al Qaeda lies in attacking Americans who CAN shoot back, as for example in Iraq. Not that an al Qaeda fighter is as obsessed with his own survival as the G.I.s seem to be about theirs.
<<But they are totally stuck they must fight us in their own neighborhood elese give up haveing credibility entirely.>>
??? As I said, it's easier and cheaper for them to kill Americans in Iraq than it ever was to kill them in the U.S.A. and as long as the dumb Americans are willing to come over there to be killed, it suits the al Qaeda fighters just fine.
-
>>Not that an al Qaeda fighter is as obsessed with his own survival as the G.I.s seem to be about theirs.<<
If it's death they want, the U.S. Marine Corps will be happy to oblige.
As for the G.I.'s "obsession" with survival, While you rejoice at dead Americans, we prefer our G.I's alive and well. So let them obsess.
-
<<Exactly , when Al Queda has to fight Americans that are able to shoot back they die like flies .>>
Refresh my memory here, plane, help me out here - - when al Qaeda did fight Americans who couldn't shoot back, on Sept. 11, for example, exactly what was their survival rate?
Now I'm a pretty simple guy, plane, without much mathematical sophistication at all, but it seems to me that the higher survival rate for al Qaeda lies in attacking Americans who CAN shoot back, as for example in Iraq. Not that an al Qaeda fighter is as obsessed with his own survival as the G.I.s seem to be about theirs.
<<But they are totally stuck they must fight us in their own neighborhood elese give up haveing credibility entirely.>>
??? As I said, it's easier and cheaper for them to kill Americans in Iraq than it ever was to kill them in the U.S.A. and as long as the dumb Americans are willing to come over there to be killed, it suits the al Qaeda fighters just fine.
It isn't the rate of survival that made a diffrence, it is the rate of attrition.
If a suicide attack on helpless Americans gets them a kill to killed ratio of 10/2970 they seem willing to make the sacrifice. Faceing Americans who are battle ready means that this ratio has reversed and they are starting to have recruiting problerms.
All we are going to need to do ,is to to surpass their rate of recruitment.
-
<<and they are starting to have recruiting problerms.>>
The U.S. is for sure having recruiting problems, now they're taking in ex-cons in fact, but I wasn't aware of recruiting problems for the Resistance. Sounds to me more like wishful thinking.
<<All we are going to need to do ,is to to surpass their rate of recruitment.>>
Yeah, that and kinda pare down the costs from $341.1 million per day. http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
-
<<While you rejoice at dead Americans, we prefer our G.I's alive and well. >>
In that case, this whole criminal enterprise hasn't worked out all that well for you, has it?
<<So let them obsess.>>
Sure, why not? For all the good it's done 'em.
-
>>In that case, this whole criminal enterprise hasn't worked out all that well for you, has it?<<
We prefer them that way, but thank God we have people willing to give their lives for liberty. Once Al Qaida dicover Canada is populated with people like you, good by hockey, goodbye Molsons.
>>Sure, why not? For all the good it's done 'em.<<
Just over four thousand versus ... what's the number you people use ... 600K ... I million?
-
<< . . . but thank God we have people willing to give their lives for liberty.>>
Yeah, sure, Rich. For liberty. If that's what you want to call it.
<< Once Al Qaida dicover Canada is populated with people like you, good by hockey, goodbye Molsons.>>
Fuck Molsons AND hockey. They're both un-Islamic. Time for a change. Change you can believe in.
<<Just over four thousand versus ... what's the number you people use ... 600K ... I million?>>
That's 4,000 DEAD Americans, Rich. They ain't never comin back. And 26,000 majorly fucked-up Americans in addition. Ain't none a them gonna play for the Cowboys anytime soon, Rich. That is one hell of a pile of fucked-up wasted lives, Rich, even if none a them is any skin off a your nose. You might think everything worked out fine, but I guess that's just from one person's POV.
-
What an even worse f'ed up war, WWII. 400,000+ DEAD Americans, they ain't never coming back. With those #'s we had no business even thinking about getting involved, right? ::)
-
<<What an even worse f'ed up war, WWII. 400,000+ DEAD Americans, they ain't never coming back. With those #'s we had no business even thinking about getting involved, right? Roll Eyes>>
I think there was a big difference between the publicly-stated goals of the Allies for fighting WWII and the real reasons they went to war. But at least the "official reasons" for going to war were understood by most of the Allied populations and were approved of, in the main. Maybe not 100% but with a solid majority. And by some fortunate coincidence, the "official reasons" for the war made a lot of sense to the average man in the street. Actually, they made more sense and were far more moral than the real Allied reasons for joining in the war. And by another fortunate coincidence, the war produced the desired results not only for the Allied ruling classes but for the people who had been persuaded to make war for the "official" and more altruistic reasons. So I would have to say that from either perspective, WWII DID make sense both for the ruling classes of the Allied Powers and for the common people, who were convinced that they had to fight racism and fascism.
By contrast, the Iraq war makes no sense, either to the ruling class or even for that segment of the general population dumb enough to buy into the "official reasons" of (a) WMD and (b) after the WMD idea was totally discredited, of "democracy for Iraq." It isn't working for either group - - even if viewed in terms of an oil grab, the cost so far exceeded the original estimates that there will never be a reasonable ROI before control once again, as it must inevitably do, reverts to the locals. And as for establishing "democracy" in Iraq, most Americans now don't give a rat's ass, since they can already see the futility and in any event don't wish to make the sacrifices required.
-
No, the only difference is the type of enemy we're facing Tee. that's pretty much it. So your backwards assignment of "all" those deaths, "soldiers never coming back", falls flat on its face, when we don't judge a war by how many deaths occur, but by why we went in, in the 1st place. Now, you can embrace your cockamamie notion that Bush alone lied, and that it was a bogus war to begin with, but you need to use that as your stepping stone. Using American military deaths as some rationale as to why the war is supposedly so f'ed up, becomes pretty idiotic when you compare it to the other wars that lost us exponentially more lives
The Iraq war made perfect sense, with what the intel was telling us combined with the events of 911. Now, I realize to a close minded america hating, miltary hating socialist like yourself, no manner of documentation, or public declarations, even if they were....let's say.... from Kofi Annan himself, would ever bring you to look at the events leading to the war OBJECTIVELY, for even a microsecond. You'd just rationalize how Kofi was hoodwinked and fell for the neo-cons fascist agenda. Or even became a neo-con convert. Which is fine. Call it the Elvis factor. Point being you can (ir)rationally judge the war as bogus until you're blue in the face. Doesn't make it so, but at least you feel better about it, and I guess that's what counts
-
Do you ever stop to wonder, sirs, how come the U.S. seemed to be so solidly in support of WWII despite the heavy casualty count (which in itself was about half of the British Empire casualties and less than a tenth of the Soviet Union's) and yet, so divided on Iraq, a war which in your opinion at least was equally virtuous, and produced far less U.S. casualties?
-
Did you ever stop to wonder, if we had the likes of CNN broadcasting death after death, death count after death count, failed attack after failed attack, 24/7, the same "support" would have been present??
Different day and age, Tee. Best go back to irrationally claiming how this is all for the oil, as we directly pump it into our freighters.....oh wait ::)
-
WWII radio broadcasters went with whatever troops they wanted to go with, wherever they could hitch a ride. "Embedding" wasn't reserved to a few carefully selected government lap-dogs who had to stick with the unit they were embedded with and couldn't hop around from one to the other.
CNN broadcasts interviews with "independent military analysts," who, as it turns out, are all government-briefed and cooperating to present the administration's side of the conflict as "independent analysis."
The papers in WWII carried casualty lists, "Killed in Action" and mothers got gold stars which they proudly displayed in their front windows when their boy was killed. I was just a little kid during the war, but I remember our cleaning lady, whose only son was a prisoner of the Japs, captured at the fall of Hong Kong. Americans and Canadians were not as shielded from the casualties of the war as you seem to think they were.
-
LOL....it wasn't CNN Tee. You're getting radio broadcasters and embedded reporters intertwined. They weren't. They were 2 seperate entities. There were no cable news networks broadcasting 24/7. SEEING the carnage goes alot deeper then hearing it on the radio. If there were such visual/video networks operating 24/7, there would have been barely any support watching "all our kids dying in the thousands".......just in 1 day for crying out loud
oy
also gotta love the continuous illogical MSM-in-cahoots-with-Bush-and-war diatribes. When are you opening at the Improv?
-
Well, you are forgetting about newsreels. There were newsreels which the theatres changed weekly, so the folks on the homefront DID get to see combat film. The Red Army stuff was hard-core combat and didn't pull any punches. The U.S., British and Canadian newsreels were more about the air war and their infantry films didn't show as much combat, also they tended to keep Allied dead out of the picture. I saw one U.S. newsreel of a Jap burning alive after being hit with a flamethrower that was absolutely horrific. I don't remember seeing the newsreels of the Normandy landings, which must have been very popular, but I guess there they couldn't avoid showing Allied dead.
In general, if you think the homefront was kept ignorant of casualties or the horrors of war by our media, I'd have to say you are dead wrong.
-
News reels were NOT broadcast 24/7, NOR were they focused on showing the death and maiming of American Soldiers, nor did they focus on the multitude of failed attacks & counter-attacks by our forces, nor were their "military analysts" explaining how flawed and poor such planning was, resulting in that many more deaths of American soldiers who "ain't never coming back"
Good gravy, you're desperate this evening
-
<<News reels were NOT broadcast 24/7>>
So what? Just because something is broadcast 24/7 doesn't mean the average viewer is watching it 24/7, nor is there any indication that multiple exposures would increase the awareness of what's seen the first time.
Today's couch potato is exposed to TV stimuli on demand every day, so if he sees a dead body on the news at 8:00 he sees in the same evening Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, Get Smart or Seinfeld re-runs, MTV, local news and weather, haemorrhoid commercials, bank commercials, etc. all night long, every night of the week. In the 1940s, nobody had TV, so the only visual stimulus they got was the weekly movie and the newsreel that usually came with it, and that was the entire week's entertainment, apart from radio, which of course was entirely non-visual.
<<NOR were they focused on showing the death and maiming of American Soldiers>>
Oh, yeah, like that's the focus of CNN - - dead Americans.
<< nor did they focus on the multitude of failed attacks & counter-attacks by our forces, nor were their "military analysts" explaining how flawed and poor such planning was, resulting in that many more deaths of American soldiers who "ain't never coming back">>
Well, when they reported them, as they had to, they did try to show the silver lining. Nothing was ever a wholly unmitigated disaster, not even the Dieppe landing. Point taken.
<<Good gravy, you're desperate this evening>>
Just trying to present the facts, sirs, although to someone as desperately committed to a ridiculous fantasy as you are, I can certainly understand how the truth can be misperceived as "desperation."
-
That's 4,000 DEAD Americans, Rich. They ain't never comin back. And 26,000 majorly fucked-up Americans in addition. Ain't none a them gonna play for the Cowboys anytime soon, Rich. That is one hell of a pile of fucked-up wasted lives, Rich, even if none a them is any skin off a your nose. You might think everything worked out fine, but I guess that's just from one person's POV.
Isn't getting killed a lot a good reason for Al Quieda to throw in the towel?
-
>>Yeah, sure, Rich. For liberty. If that's what you want to call it.<<
Glad you agree.
>>Fuck Molsons AND hockey. They're both un-Islamic. Time for a change. Change you can believe in.<<
I'm sure your muslim friends will have a laundry list of things that are un-Islamic. Coming to a video near YOU. that thing you're sitting in front of right now will surely piss them off. Not exactly 17th century.
>>That's 4,000 DEAD Americans, Rich. They ain't never comin back. And 26,000 majorly fucked-up Americans in addition.<<
True. They're not coming back. on the other hand, I'll bet you they'd do it all over again. That's what Americans do Mike. We fight, so people like you can hate us and wish us dead. It's a dirty job, but we do it so folk like you can sleep soundly at night. Dreaming sick little dead American dreams.
>>Ain't none a them gonna play for the Cowboys anytime soon, Rich.<<
Fuck the Cowboys.
>>That is one hell of a pile of fucked-up wasted lives, Rich, even if none a them is any skin off a your nose.<<
The fact is, the veterens Hollywood has sold you are a lie. Let me clue you in on something Mike. Not everything you see on TV is true, and not everrything you read on the internet is true. Communist/liberals like yourself eat that shit up. Why? My guess is because it's easier than thinking and it fits the template. It's not true Mike. The facts don't bear it out. But then we're back to the old Sirs and lima beans again aren't we. The only thing that will make those lives wasted is if demcrats are allowed to surrender. Then they'll be wasted. Only if demcrats are allowed to snatch victory and make it defeat will those lives be wasted.
>>You might think everything worked out fine, but I guess that's just from one person's POV.<<
And you see disaster for America and it's brave fighting men and women. I'm sure it's the only thing that gets you a chubby Mike.
-
<<That's what Americans do Mike. We fight . . . >>
You sure do, Rich. In Grenada, in Panama City, in Iraq - - wherever you think you find somebody small enough and weak enough to invade and conquer, with minimal casualties of your own. Only sometimes (Vietnam comes to mind) you miscalculate a little. You miscalculate because you are racists and because you are stupid. You never seem to be able to believe that little brown people can stand up to you, fight back, stop you dead in your tracks.
<< . . . so people like you can hate us and wish us dead. >>
The only people who hate you and wish you were dead are the people whose land you invaded, whose homes and children you have blown to bits, whose daughters and sisters you have raped, whose brothers you have imprisoned and tortured. No one hates you and wants you dead without a good reason, Rich, and that good reason is what you've done to them and the lies you tell yourselves to justify it all. Lies like <<It's a dirty job, but we do it so folk like you can sleep soundly at night.>> That's bullshit, Rich, I know it's bullshit and more importantly, there isn't a single one of your victims that doesn't know that it's bullshit. Everyone knows what you do and everyone knows why you do it. So you can save all that lying bullshit for people who don't know any better, only there aren't any.
<<Dreaming sick little dead American dreams.>>
I'm dreaming that the Americans will be driven out of Iraq like they were driven out of Vietnam, like a bunch of whipped dogs with their tails between their legs, and that the cost in body bags and broken lives will be such that they'll never dream of invading another country without just cause for the next 20 generations.
<<The fact is, the veterens Hollywood has sold you are a lie. Let me clue you in on something Mike. Not everything you see on TV is true, and not everrything you read on the internet is true. Communist/liberals like yourself eat that shit up. Why? My guess is because it's easier than thinking and it fits the template. It's not true Mike. The facts don't bear it out. >>
That's good news then, Rich. All those guys gonna throw away their crutches and Hallelujah! they're gonna walk again!! That's wonderful.
<<But then we're back to the old Sirs and lima beans again aren't we. >>
Sorry, Rich. That one went right over my head. LIMA beans??
<<The only thing that will make those lives wasted is if demcrats are allowed to surrender. Then they'll be wasted. Only if demcrats are allowed to snatch victory and make it defeat will those lives be wasted.>>
Well, Rich, if that's all it takes, then you better get ready for the biggest waste your country's seen since the Fall of Saigon. Not now, not even in the first six months of Obama's inauguration, but soon, Rich - - a lot sooner than you think.
-
I'm dreaming that the Americans will be driven out of Iraq like they were driven out of Vietnam, like a bunch of whipped dogs with their tails between their legs, and that the cost in body bags and broken lives will be such that they'll never dream of invading another country without just cause for the next 20 generations.
You may as well praise Hitler and Tojo for the good they did for the world killing Americans , they killed more Americans than the Viet Cong did.
I hope that Iraq becomes free and prosperous , I even hope that you do not feel too bitter at our success when Iraq is Free and prosperous .
And if President Barak Obama does everything.... everything in his power to surpress Iran from gaining Atomic wepons , I hope you are not bitter at him either.
-
What an even worse f'ed up war, WWII. 400,000+ DEAD Americans, they ain't never coming back. With those #'s we had no business even thinking about getting involved, right? ::)
The difference being, of course, that they died in service to stopping an actual threat that everyone can see not a manufactured boogey man that everyone has to close their eyes and imagine lurking out there in the dark.
I would hardly call the ragtag operation known as Al Queda anywhere near equal to the threat of the Nazi invading armies with the full support of a wealthy nation behind it. Of course, AQ did allegedly make a real strike within the US borders, something the Nazis only dreamed of doing for the most part. But then the Nazis did take over several countries and hold them for months to years and wipe out 6 million Jews something the AQ club can only dream about.
The mistake Bush is making is that he is not a reluctant warrior. That's the only kind of warrior chief a whole nation can get behind. Only the more trusting, more easily led half of a nation will follow an ambitious warrior of choice and even most of that half will eventually wake up and realize that guy is a moron and that they have made a grave error in giving him power.
-
>>You sure do, Rich. In Grenada, in Panama City, in Iraq - - wherever you think you find somebody small enough and weak enough to invade and conquer, with minimal casualties of your own.<<
You're forgetting WWI, WWII, Korea. You remember those little wars. The ones in which America liberated 100 million or so people.
I'm done with you. You make me sick.
-
<<You're forgetting WWI, WWII, Korea. >>
WWII was a different America, FDR's America. The last time you ever did the right thing. Korea was morally questionable because it was in support of a puppet right-wing dictatorship. I won't comment on WWI because I don't really know that much about it, but I am sure that your late, late, late entry into that war after most of the blood had been spilled had a lot less to do with "liberating millions of people" than it did with protecting J. P. Morgan investment in British war bonds.
<<You remember those little wars. The ones in which America liberated 100 million or so people.>>
I remember them a little more accurately than you do, not surprisingly - - most of those liberated in Europe were liberated by the Red Army, not America and the rest by American, British Empire, French, Polish and other Allied troops. In the Pacific also, the Americans didn't do it alone although that seems to be what egotistical moronic jackasses like you seem to have learned somewhere. Plenty of Americans know the real story of WWII, so I would assume that your knowledge of it is derived mainly from comic books.
<<I'm done with you. You make me sick.>>
Sorry to hear that. I was having fun exposing your ignorance, bigotry and hatred with truth and facts and logic. You were persistent in your lunacy and misinformation and were giving me a run for my money. But you know what they say - - if you can't stand the heat . . . .
-
<<You're forgetting WWI, WWII, Korea. >>
WWII was a different America, FDR's America. The last time you ever did the right thing.
The changes in the USA since then have been negative overall?
We went to war in WWII same as WWI with racially segregated regiments. White suprimacy was spoken of by President Wilson as a good thing and President Roosevelt was indiffrent to it , Elinor Rosevelt was active in the Civil rights movement , but she was an early stand out , most of our politicians were reluctant to pay the price of promoteing the welfare of minoritys.
There is a long list of changes , not all of them this positive , but which changes in particular would you like to point to as being the reason that we are diffrent now and no longer interested in makeing the world safe for democracy?
-
But which changes in particular would you like to point to as being the reason that we are diffrent now and no longer interested in makeing the world safe for democracy?
How many brutal dictatorships or fascist leaders did we support during FDR's tenure? How many did we support afterwards? Quite a startling change of policy for a country that "makes the world safe for democracy."
-
How many brutal dictatorships or fascist leaders did we support during FDR's tenure? How many did we support afterwards? Quite a startling change of policy for a country that "makes the world safe for democracy."
Latin America was a shining beacon of democracy during FDR's time? I did not know that.
-
How many brutal dictatorships or fascist leaders did we support during FDR's tenure? How many did we support afterwards? Quite a startling change of policy for a country that "makes the world safe for democracy."
Latin America was a shining beacon of democracy during FDR's time? I did not know that.
I did not realize that I claimed it was.
That didn't answer my question. And don't think that I'm some sort of FDR worshipper either.
-
How many brutal dictatorships or fascist leaders did we support during FDR's tenure?
That was your question.
Was Latin America a beacon of democracy or not?
Which is my question, the answer to which will go a long ways towards answering yours.
Your feelings concerning FDR are not relevant to the issue at hand.
-
How many brutal dictatorships or fascist leaders did we support during FDR's tenure?
All of them , excepting the Facists.
How many did we support afterwards?
All of them excepting the Communists.
Quite a startling change of policy for a country that "makes the world safe for democracy."
No , it was pretty much the same policy from the same presidential staff, only FDR himself was unavailible to Harry Trueman
-
There is a difference between making the world safe for democracy (i.e., so WE can have a democratic government) and making the world a democracy.
The US wants a democracy only to the extent that the democracy in question is one we can manipulate. The Juniorbushies are on much better terms with the Saudis who inhabit a country where basically the entire nation and all its resources are property of the ruling family, and Iran, where regular elections are held and a choice of candidates is offered voters to choose between. We like the Saudis because the royal family can be bribed. We dislike the Iranians because they are refuse to be bribed by Americans and American companies.
There were rather a few Saudis involved in 9-11 and zero Iranians. Saudis still behead people in public, won't let women drive cars, and hack the hands off thieves. Still, our leaders invite the Saudis over here, and their leaders invite ours over there, and the Bushes and the Al Sauds are such good pals that their oil minister calls himself Bandar Bush. Actually Prince Bandar has held a number of important jobs in the Royal Saudi government.
-
There were rather a few Saudis involved in 9-11
I thought that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi?
-
The US wants a democracy only to the extent that the democracy in question is one we can manipulate.
This is an unsupported assumption on your part.
In France there is a democracy we are freindly with sometimes and in India there is a democracy we are freindly with sometimes .
Manipulation is not required.
-
I don't want to idealize FDR as some kind of paragon of virtue. He was a good man for his time. America has always been a battleground between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. It's easy to make America look good by emphasizing the good works of those who tried to change America for the better while hiding the bad stuff (lynch mobs, Jim Crow) under the rug. Nobody gets a fully balanced picture and any imbalance is always heavily weighted towards the Shining City on a Hill side of the scale.
America has supported fascist dictatorships in Latin America, especially since the Bolshevik Revolution, when they were seen as the most reliable and strongest bulwark against communism. America has always paid lip service, however, to human rights and democracy, in Latin America and around the world. I think today their thinking has evolved to the point of probably preferring a stable, prosperous, right-of-centre "democracy," so long as the leaders of the major political parties are pro-American, pro-business and don't make waves. But in a pinch, they'll turn to the Pinochets and their ilk in any unstable situation.
I think overall the negative changes since FDR were in international rather than domestic relations. The racial issue has been slowly improving since FDR's time. Eleanor Roosevelt can take a lot of the early credit for that, but other Democrats followed in her wake, including Hubert Humphrey and LBJ and ultimately the blacks achieved a kind of very belated de jure equality, if not a de facto one.
In the international arena, things went from bad to worse. Even in FDR's time, he allowed the British to take sides in the Greek Civil War as early as 1944, leading to the defeat of the Communist guerrillas, who almost certainly represented the will of the Greek people, and the triumph of Royalist guerrillas representing the old, pre-War elites. Stalin sat that one out, abandoning the Greek people and their Communist champions in return for what he believed would be a free hand in Eastern Europe, but even there, on ground won by the might of the Red Army, the Western Allies, especially after the death of FDR, began badgering him with a lot of crap and nonsense about the "freedom of Poland" and other garbage they had absolutely no idea of the complexities of. As the Americans and British began cozying up to the defeated Nazis, many of whom had committed horrific atrocities in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, Stalin began to feel that he was again being surrounded by a capitalist-backed series of pro-Western, pro-business regimes run by the same pre-war elites which had easily flocked to Hitler's banner. This was followed by Stalin making sure that his grip on Eastern Europe was solidified, while the Western Allies, which had agreed to all of this at the Yalta Conference, began bitching, griping and threatening their former Soviet Ally notwithstanding Stalin's acquiescence his former Allies' intervention in the Greek Civil War.
So in a nutshell, while FDR and his VP Henry Wallace had believed in U.S.- Russian cooperation, under the Cold War policies of Truman and Acheson, these policies were overthrown and replaced by Cold War hostility and never-ending wars of aggression, basically a betrayal of our former Allies and an embrace of everything that we and they stood against, that continue to this very day despite the "collapse" of communism. Essentially this policy was a product of the so-called "military-industrial complex" referred to by Pres. Eisehhower in his farewell address. A good expository outline of the military-industrial complex can be found in "The Power Elite" by C. Wright Mills. There is no question in my mind that in its international relations, since the death of FDR and the electoral defeat of Henry Wallace in the 1948 Presidential election, it's been downhill all the way for the U.S.A.
-
"...of the Communist guerrillas, who almost certainly represented the will of the Greek people, ...."
How would they know?
Communists do not beleive in elections , they don't even beleive in changeing the head man untill the crowd is shouting "Timişoara!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timi%C5%9Foara
-
In France there is a democracy we are freindly with sometimes and in India there is a democracy we are freindly with sometimes .
Manipulation is not required.
========================================
In the case of France and Italy, the US routinely supported the Christian Democrats with clandestine funds as well as CIA dirty tricks and anything else to assure that the Communists would not win. This lasted in France until De Gaulle came to power and France was economically and politically able to tell the CIA and the US State Dept to go to Hell, which they did. In Italy this took a bit longer.
India is too big for the US to manipulate. It was a former British colony, and the British were seriously resented in India because of the British manipulation up until independence. It was cheaper for the US to manipulate Pakistani politics, anyway.
The US routinely dabbles in South American, Mexican, Eastern European, African and Pacific Island nations. Even Australia has been furgled in the past, when the Aussies elected a Labour government and the US finagled a takeover by the UK appointed Governor General.
-
<<How would they know?>>
How would who know what?
-
Communists do not beleive in elections , they don't even beleive in changeing the head man untill the crowd is shouting "Timişoara!"
Every Communist nation has or had regular elections. The concept is not alien to them. The general idea is that the most hard-working and honest citizens are invited to become party members, and they make the decisions. Then they ask the public to ratify those decisions, which also include the choice of leaders.
Of course, this encourages the same ideas and the same officials to stay in power long after they have run out of any creative thought, and in the worst cases, the people get really pissed as they did in Romania.
Not coincidentally, this model is almost exactly the process used for elections of officers and approval of changes in US corporations. The Board of Directors recommends that the new candidates when the old ones die, usually due to age, death or ill health. They also recommend amendments to the corporate charter. It is very rare that alternative candidates or proposals are given as an option.
The recommendations of the Board, like the recommendations of the Politburos and central and district committees, and nearly always approved.
Strangely, no one ever protests that the way corporations are organized leads to a lack of innovation and poor management. They tend to mumble something about how the possibility of going broke or losing market share will provide enough impetus to make management more responsive to shareholders. If one studies, say AT&T over the years, it seems to resemble Stalin's USSR a lot more than Southwest Airlines or Microsoft.
One thing that is a constant with AT&T: they always have the highest rates, no matter what they are selling.
If you are a customer, they also have the greatest number of restrictions and fees. If you find their service sucks, they will be glad to let you discontinue service for a huge penalty. Like Uncle Joe, they prefer compulsion to satisfaction.
It's not like you get more: they allowed the administration to spy on their customers at will.
If Stalin were a US corporation, he would strongly resemble AT&T.
-
<<Communists do not beleive in elections , they don't even beleive in changeing the head man untill the crowd is shouting "Timişoara!">>
That is just totally non-factual. I see that XO has already given the lie to that statement, so I needn't bother with more examples, but I would like to point out that communist leaders who DO cling to power are no more remarkable for that than many right-wing leaders and U.S. puppets bought and paid for with U.S. dollars. A very silly comment fueled by nothing more than knee-jerk anticommunism which unfortunately is characteristic of the massive brainwashing of the U.S. public that goes on non-stop from cradle to grave.
-
<<How would they know?>>
How would who know what?
Quote from: Michael Tee on June 17, 2008, 05:18:53 PM
"...of the Communist guerrillas, who almost certainly represented the will of the Greek people, ...."
How would they know?
How would they know that they represented the will of the Greek people?
I don't think they would have had a referendum that early. There was still some opposition alive.
Dear XO and MT , the Communists do not hold elections .
Elections held after the opposition has been shot or imprisoned do not deserve the name "election" , "fraud " would be more accurate.
Us Business can write their own bylaws and enforce themn as strictly or as lax as the US law will allow them , generally competition is not from within the company but is from other companys.
However when ever a company is run poorly enough to loose the confidence of its stockholders , it must change or it will become cheap stock , then it is prone to hostile takeover.
Does that have a parrellel in International relations?
-
Dear XO and MT , the Communists do not hold elections . Elections held after the opposition has been shot or imprisoned do not deserve the name "election" , "fraud " would be more accurate.
Kinda like Saddam's 100% "election wins"
-
But they DO hold elections. You may disagree with the way they hold them, just as I disagree with the way AT&T holds its elections. These vary greatly with the country, by the way, which you would know if you actually read up on it, which you haven't, and I suspect, won't.
Why not go after corporations for their equally bogus elections?
-
How would the Greek communist guerrillas know that they represented the will of the Greek people? By a number of things - - the popular support they received from the people during the war against the fascists and the relatively tepid support given to the Royalist guerrillas; the fact that Greece was a very poor country and the Metaxas dictatorship was a direct response to the demands of the Greek working class for higher wages and better conditions. I think it's just common sense that if a dictatorship seizes power on behalf of the propertied classes to suppress workers' and peasants' demands, in a poor country where the rich are very few and the poor are very many, that a fighting Communist guerrilla movement will have the support of the masses.
The Greeks are very tough and experienced fighters and if the people had wanted a Royalist regime after the overthrow of the Nazi occupation, a Royalist guerrilla force would have easily prevailed, with popular support, against a Communist minority. The very fact that the Royalists had to call in British army support to me is the strongest indication that the people were on the side of the Communists, and that without foreign military intervention, the Communists would have won.
As far as elections go, I think it's extremely silly to claim that Communists don't have elections or don't "believe in" elections. They obviously have elections and the people can and do vote in them. The candidates may be selected a little differently than in the U.S.A. but the U.S. candidate selection process that produces Tweedledum and Tweedledee candidates who basically promise the same things to the country and vie with each other for the support of the Israel Lobby is just as skewed as any Communist election ever was.
-
I just held an election , then I flushed it.
Does the word mean nothing or everything ?
Define "election " or "Referendum" in terms that are meaningfull or loose the power of speech.
In a country that outlaws all opposition partys there is no election , There is an earstaz sham foux election like product , but this is like an election the way that Wax is like cheese.
-
I don't think the typical Communist election is as phony as you think it is and I don't think the American elections are as democratic as you think they are. Both systems manipulate the elections in various ways so that the ruling class continues to enjoy the status quo. Frankly, I think you're wasting an enormous amount of intellectual energy putting down Communist elections when your own aren't all that much better. You are fulminating over truly marginal differences and distinctions.
-
I don't think the typical Communist election is as phony as you think it is and I don't think the American elections are as democratic as you think they are. Both systems manipulate the elections in various ways so that the ruling class continues to enjoy the status quo. Frankly, I think you're wasting an enormous amount of intellectual energy putting down Communist elections when your own aren't all that much better. You are fulminating over truly marginal differences and distinctions.
Is there in history , a Communist run country that ran the risk of allowing another party to debate and campaign and appear on the ballot?
I am not aware of it , if there ever was , haveing elections is incompatable with Communism ,but haveing something that is not an election and calling it an election is perfectly Orwellian.
-
<<Is there in history , a Communist run country that ran the risk of allowing another party to debate and campaign and appear on the ballot?>>
Typically, there is one party, but within that party there are different "strains" - - in Hungary, for example, the "communism" of Imre Nagy, Matyas Rakosi and/or Janos Kadar were of very different kinds. Elections held to ratify Party leadership can often promote one strain of communism over another, hard-liners over soft-liners, for example
Your own country has devolved a "two-party" system in which the candidates of both parties will try to out-do each other in swearing fealty to the State of Israel, or continuing the fight for "freedom" of the "Cuban People," and even in war vs peace, it seems the "peace" candidate of 1964 invaded Viet Nam shortly after his "election" and this year's "peace candidate" seems to be in favour of peace in Iraq so that more troops can be transferred to fight Afghanistan or even possibly Pakistan. Your elections mimic the APPEARANCE of "two parties" which "fight" each other for the right to make "changes" but all the changes are purely illusory: "universal" health-care in any form, so long as it's not single-payer, government-run; war in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but not in Iraq, or war in Iraq; the essence of the American Empire is not threatened by either candidate.
And yet you cling to ridiculous and arbitrary distinctions to "prove" that your phony "Tweedledum vs. Tweedle" elections are somehow vastly superior to their more clumsily contrived and poorly presented little farces. The differences between YOUR one-Party state and THEIR one-Party state are marginal.
-
<<Is there in history , a Communist run country that ran the risk of allowing another party to debate and campaign and appear on the ballot?>>
Typically, there is one party, but ...
That is enough.
Within the party there may be factions that can assinate each other , but forbidding all the other partys is the same sin as cornering the market in a vital resorce.Monopoly is corrupt , andy monopoly that is not corrupt will soon be. Monopoly itself is corrupt.
There is no requirement to the USA that there be only two partys , in fact there are several partys but only two are strong at present .
The Wigg party went defunct the same way the Communist are and after a few decades of single party politics we held our worst war.
Single party means there are no "elections" , there is no debate or fight outside the party itself , this is no less than a fatal error.
-
plane, you're just making up your own rules as you go along. There is no reason, no rhyme and no rule that an election must be between "Parties." The U.S. Constitution, if I'm not mistaken, does not even mention political parties. Elections can be for individuals or they can be between parties. The defining element of an election is that the electorate is presented with a choice between proponents of one policy and proponents of a different policy and asked to choose by voting, the votes to be counted and the majority to rule. THAT is an election as I understand it.
Your system is fake through and through because your two "parties" are beholden to the same special interests and offer remarkably little to choose between in their programs. Undying support of Israel, check, endless war, check (choose between Iraq and Pakistan for the site,) no single-payer health insurance, check, Cuban embargo continued, check . . . it goes on. IF the system gave the people a serious choice between candidates - - Bush against Chomsky, Kucinich against McCain - - then the elections would mean something other than the shams that they actually are. Talk about monopoly and corruption - - you've got 'em both, in spades.
Your vision of communism as a system without debate and without factions is laughable, it is just not based in reality. They have some debate, obviously there are no McCain-type candidates in their Party, but in your system, there are never any Kucinich-type candidates ever being allowed on the national stage for anything other than cosmetic ("See? He can run!") purposes.
-
plane, you're just making up your own rules as you go along. There is no reason, no rhyme and no rule that an election must be between "Parties." The U.S. Constitution, if I'm not mistaken, does not even mention political parties. Elections can be for individuals or they can be between parties. The defining element of an election is that the electorate is presented with a choice between proponents of one policy and proponents of a different policy and asked to choose by voting, the votes to be counted and the majority to rule. THAT is an election as I understand it.
Your system is fake through and through because your two "parties" are beholden to the same special interests and offer remarkably little to choose between in their programs. Undying support of Israel, check, endless war, check (choose between Iraq and Pakistan for the site,) no single-payer health insurance, check, Cuban embargo continued, check . . . it goes on. IF the system gave the people a serious choice between candidates - - Bush against Chomsky, Kucinich against McCain - - then the elections would mean something other than the shams that they actually are. Talk about monopoly and corruption - - you've got 'em both, in spades.
Your vision of communism as a system without debate and without factions is laughable, it is just not based in reality. They have some debate, obviously there are no McCain-type candidates in their Party, but in your system, there are never any Kucinich-type candidates ever being allowed on the national stage for anything other than cosmetic ("See? He can run!") purposes.
Your imaginings of a Communist nation hoasting debates that are between serious rivals is laughable and based on no reality. I am trying to remember who the cheif rival for power against Ho Chi Minh was in North Viet Nam , I wonder what his manner of exicution was.
The US does not quash political opposition the way that All Communist governments have.
Kuchinich , if the people wanted him , would have been President , why not?
There is no rule against a person running as an individual , about a dozen do this every election.
But how do they persuede the people to vote ?
http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm
-
Typically, there is one party, but within that party there are different "strains" - - in Hungary, for example, the "communism" of Imre Nagy, Matyas Rakosi and/or Janos Kadar were of very different kinds. Elections held to ratify Party leadership can often promote one strain of communism over another, hard-liners over soft-liners, for example
In the USA there is no Republicanism or Democratism that can monopolise the public debate with the power of the police.
Imagine the Democrats locking up all of the Republicans , shooting half of the leaders , and shooting all the smaller partys 100%.
Then telling the people that they should choose between the diffrent Democrats , do you want Kerry or Kuchinich?
-
<<Imagine the Democrats locking up all of the Republicans , shooting half of the leaders , and shooting all the smaller partys 100%.>>
I guess what you're really saying is that the military-industrial complex, the War Party, the Power Elite, the Secret Government or whatever anyone wants to call it has found a less brutal way of ensuring its perpetual grip on power than the Communists did. Not that I accept your analogy, it's shot full of holes reality-wise in that it probably never happened, but even if that is the distinction you wish to draw between Communism and the U.S. system - - it's pretty meaningless.
What you'd be left with - - accepting your bizarre premises as fact - - would be equally farcical and bogus "elections" on both sides of the divide, one being more brutally achieved than the other, but farces nevertheless.
-
I observe that you have no comments on corporate elections.
They are essentially the same thing as elections in Communist countries.
I never said that the Communists were actually democratic. They weren't, except in a few places like Bologna and San Marino.
But they do understand the concept of elections and how the majority chooses the winner of the contest.
It was not difficult for Poland or the Czech Republic to hold elections. It was a lot easier than what happened in places unfamiliar with elections, like Nepal and East Timor, or for that matter Taiwan or South Korea.
-
I observe that you have no comments on corporate elections.
Corporations are not governments. They cannot enforce their will on you at gunpoint as a government can. I would have thought that would be obvious to you.
-
One must consider the source
-
<<Imagine the Democrats locking up all of the Republicans , shooting half of the leaders , and shooting all the smaller partys 100%.>>
I guess what you're really saying is that the military-industrial complex, the War Party, the Power Elite, the Secret Government or whatever anyone wants to call it has found a less brutal way of ensuring its perpetual grip on power than the Communists did. Not that I accept your analogy, it's shot full of holes reality-wise in that it probably never happened, but even if that is the distinction you wish to draw between Communism and the U.S. system - - it's pretty meaningless.
What you'd be left with - - accepting your bizarre premises as fact - - would be equally farcical and bogus "elections" on both sides of the divide, one being more brutally achieved than the other, but farces nevertheless.
More brutal doesn't matter?
Haveing free speech , and a right of assembly , the USA hoasts more than a dozen partys , so far only three have ever gained more than 20% of the vote , but one of those died out , from unpopularity and confusion.
The Greens and the Libertarians are looking for one of the present strong partys to trip up and drop a constituancy they can appeal to.
I am a stalwart Republican , but I do not favor "the two party system" being supported by law , I regret that incumbancy is such an advantage that it ensures so many safe seats in the legislature.
-
Corporations are not governments. They cannot enforce their will on you at gunpoint as a government can. I would have thought that would be obvious to you.
Technically, your statement may be true but Halliburton exerts its corporate will daily using the US government's proxy.
Considering the oil companies are getting away with taking our money the way they are, I'd say that even technically, your statement is demonstrably false.
-
<<More brutal doesn't matter?>>
Don't change the subject. You started with the ridiculous assertion that the Communists didn't hold real elections and the issue is really the meaningfulness of Communist vs U.S. elections. My point was that in both, the candidates were selected by a process guaranteed to leave the existing power structure intact, basically to preserve the status quo. I already conceded that the U.S. system of candidate pre-selection was probably less brutal than the Communists. I never said that brutality didn't matter, but the issue was electoral manipulation, not the means of manipulation. I take it you have no rebuttal now to my point that under both systems, the elections are gamed by the selection of the candidates.
If you now want to discuss brutality, I'm prepared for that too. I wouldn't suggest that the land of the Lynch Mob, Jim Crow and the Genocide of the American Indians really needs to have discussions focused on which regime is the more brutal, but if you wish to engage in this, I'm all ears.
<<Haveing free speech , and a right of assembly , the USA hoasts more than a dozen partys , so far only three have ever gained more than 20% of the vote , but one of those died out , from unpopularity and confusion.>>
Bullshit. The whole system is structured so that only two "parties" have a snowball's chance in hell of putting a man or woman in the Oval Office and that would apply if the U.S.A. boasted a dozen parties or a thousand dozen parties.
<<The Greens and the Libertarians are looking for one of the present strong partys to trip up and drop a constituancy they can appeal to.>>
Yeah and in whose lifetime? In what century?
<<I am a stalwart Republican , but I do not favor "the two party system" being supported by law , I regret that incumbancy is such an advantage that it ensures so many safe seats in the legislature.>>
Regret all you like, my friend, the fact remains that the system is structured in a way that only one of two "parties" will ever capture the White House and as far as the fundamentals of the class war and foreign policy are concerned it won't make a God-damned bit of difference as to which one it is. You are as much of a one-party state as the U.S.S.R. ever was, albeit with less brutality and a broader range of permissible commentary.
-
I observe that you have no comments on corporate elections.
They are essentially the same thing as elections in Communist countries.
You mean to say that persons with more money invested get more votes?
I didn't know that.
-
You mean to say that persons with more money invested get more votes?
I didn't know that.
Clearly, a person with thousands of disposable dollars can use those dollars to advertise in an attempt to convince others to vote, so, in a way, they can deliver more votes than say me.
-
<<More brutal doesn't matter?>>
Don't change the subject.
Did I bring up Brutal?
You started with the ridiculous assertion that the Communists didn't hold real elections and the issue is really the meaningfulness of Communist vs U.S. elections. My point was that in both, the candidates were selected by a process guaranteed to leave the existing power structure intact, basically to preserve the status quo.
Ok but it isn't supposed to change the power structure , it is supposed to enable the people to change the leadership of the powerstructure without resorting to revolution. This it does quite well.
I already conceded that the U.S. system of candidate pre-selection was probably less brutal than the Communists. I never said that brutality didn't matter, but the issue was electoral manipulation, not the means of manipulation. I take it you have no rebuttal now to my point that under both systems, the elections are gamed by the selection of the candidates.
Do you mean it is a matter of degree? The canadates are selected by voteing within the parties, this is called "primarys" or "caucuses" and the partys both are constantly seeking people who can appeal to the people and win.
If you now want to discuss brutality, I'm prepared for that too. I wouldn't suggest that the land of the Lynch Mob, Jim Crow and the Genocide of the American Indians really needs to have discussions focused on which regime is the more brutal, but if you wish to engage in this, I'm all ears.
I am prepared to admit your were right to claim the greater Bruatality for the Communists.
<<Haveing free speech , and a right of assembly , the USA hoasts more than a dozen partys , so far only three have ever gained more than 20% of the vote , but one of those died out , from unpopularity and confusion.>>
Bullshit. The whole system is structured so that only two "parties" have a snowball's chance in hell of putting a man or woman in the Oval Office and that would apply if the U.S.A. boasted a dozen parties or a thousand dozen parties.
So what law prevents the fate of the Wigs from comeing to a party that can't please a lot of people?
In the present?
<<The Greens and the Libertarians are looking for one of the present strong partys to trip up and drop a constituancy they can appeal to.>>
Yeah and in whose lifetime? In what century?
<<I am a stalwart Republican , but I do not favor "the two party system" being supported by law , I regret that incumbancy is such an advantage that it ensures so many safe seats in the legislature.>>
Regret all you like, my friend, the fact remains that the system is structured in a way that only one of two "parties" will ever capture the White House and as far as the fundamentals of the class war and foreign policy are concerned it won't make a God-damned bit of difference as to which one it is. You are as much of a one-party state as the U.S.S.R. ever was, albeit with less brutality and a broader range of permissible commentary.
The number of the partys don't matter after it rises to two, three partys would work fine so would four .
But one is the lonely number with a problem.
Even zero partys would be better than one , our first President was selected without help from a party , he joined the Wigg after the elections , reluctantly.
-
You mean to say that persons with more money invested get more votes?
I didn't know that.
Clearly, a person with thousands of disposable dollars can use those dollars to advertise in an attempt to convince others to vote, so, in a way, they can deliver more votes than say me.
I knew that about us , I didn't know it about Communists.
I observe that you have no comments on corporate elections.
They are essentially the same thing as elections in Communist countries.
I never said that the Communists were actually democratic. They weren't, except in a few places like Bologna and San Marino.
But they do understand the concept of elections and how the majority chooses the winner of the contest.
It was not difficult for Poland or the Czech Republic to hold elections. It was a lot easier than what happened in places unfamiliar with elections, like Nepal and East Timor, or for that matter Taiwan or South Korea.
-
It was not difficult for Poland or the Czech Republic to hold elections. It was a lot easier than what happened in places unfamiliar with elections, like Nepal and East Timor, or for that matter Taiwan or South Korea.
You mean that a real election is easy after four decades of dry runs?
Ok . . . I can accept that.
-
<<Did I bring up Brutal?>>
I brought up brutality in distinguishing U.S. preselection of candidates for phony "elections" from Communist pre-selection. Regardless of who brought it up, YOU were the one who attempted to suddenly change the issue from which elections were more genuine measures of popular will to which were more brutal. Presumably because on the issue of which election system more realistically represented the popular will, you were all out of arguments that favoured the American way.
<<Ok but it isn't supposed to change the power structure , it is supposed to enable the people to change the leadership of the powerstructure without resorting to revolution. This it does quite well.>>
My point was that the people who are on the top of the power structure in both communist and U.S. systems have gamed the election process so that the system and their privileged position within it will be preserved regardless of the election results. The people have no power to change the system through their elected representatives. When you say "it isn't supposed to change the power structure," that is pure bullshit. There were no limits other than the Constitution on what the people through their elected representatives could do. They could for example elect a government that would stop supporting Israel, and they could elect another government in the next election that could sign a mutual defence treaty with Israel. Today the system is gamed to protect special Israeli interests such that regardless of the winner of the election, it won't make a damned bit of difference to Israel. Similar protection exists for the interests threatened by single-payer healthcare insurance, for the entire foreign policy structure and for the banks. There will be no radical restructuring of any aspect of the system in which powerful vested interests would stand to lose.
<<Do you mean it is a matter of degree? The canadates are selected by voteing within the parties, this is called "primarys" or "caucuses" and the partys both are constantly seeking people who can appeal to the people and win.>>
No, come on, you know it is more complicated than that. They are seeking people within a very narrow political spectrum of opinion who can appeal to the people and win. Cynthia McKinney is an example of someone who can very obviously "appeal to the people and win," yet who was totally destroyed when she ventured outside the narrow spectrum of politically acceptable opinion and stepped on the toes of the Israel Lobby.
<<I am prepared to admit your were right to claim the greater Bruatality for the Communists.>>
I don't think you understood me. In the narrow area of electoral fixing, I conceded that the Communists were probably the more brutal overall. In general, I don't think it's at all clear that Communism was any more brutal than America.
<<So what law prevents the fate of the Wigs from comeing to a party that can't please a lot of people?
In the present?>>
Basically it's the complex of laws starting with the Constitution that govern how elections are held and the ability of moneyed interests working within that legal framework (and sometimes outside it) to game the system that prevents today's "two" political "parties" from suffering the fate of the Whigs. The interests know that they have to preserve the fiction of electoral choices, and so the maintenance of two so-called political parties (even though both promote essentially the same version of American policy) is essential to the preservation of that fiction. It's a stable system and it'll last a long time, although of course nothing lasts forever. I would expect that as the American Empire enters its final state of decline, a lot of things are going to change radically, the Constitution itself and the two parties that now dominate its process.
<<The number of the partys don't matter after it rises to two, three partys would work fine so would four.>>
I beg to differ - - two is all that's strictly necessary to preserve the illusion of democratic choice; each one that is added after that adds more uncertainty and more problems of control for the War Party.
<<But one is the lonely number with a problem.>>
Be that as it may, ONE is really the number of effective political parties in America today, split of course into two Tweedledum and Tweedledee wings.
-
"Be that as it may, ONE is really the number of effective political parties in America today, split of course into two Tweedledum and Tweedledee wings."
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Ross Perot started a party from scratch and pulled in 15% of a national election.
That is only one in seven , but I say it is enough to matter.
It is difficult to climb Mt. Everest , it is difficult to start up a challenge to the system , but enough motivation and resorces are possible , not insurmountable.
-
Ross Perot started a party from scratch and pulled in 15% of a national election.
[<<In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote>> - -Wikipedia]
That is only one in seven , but I say it is enough to matter.
It is difficult to climb Mt. Everest , it is difficult to start up a challenge to the system , but enough motivation and resorces are possible , not insurmountable.
===============================================
never happen, plane. The system is RIGGED. Ross Perot self-destructed before the system had to do its work. The system has an escalating series of options up to and including political assassination, but the bottom line is that what you say is possible hasn't happened once in my lifetime or yours. Hasn't even come close.
-
Ross Perot started a party from scratch and pulled in 15% of a national election.
[<<In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote>> - -Wikipedia]
That is only one in seven , but I say it is enough to matter.
It is difficult to climb Mt. Everest , it is difficult to start up a challenge to the system , but enough motivation and resorces are possible , not insurmountable.
===============================================
never happen, plane. The system is RIGGED. Ross Perot self-destructed before the system had to do its work. The system has an escalating series of options up to and including political assassination, but the bottom line is that what you say is possible hasn't happened once in my lifetime or yours. Hasn't even come close.
Well you caught me being wrong, one in five not one in seven.
Yet it proves nothing to you?
Ross Perot was not handsome, not especially inspireing, but at that moment in history there were a lot of us desireing something that the Dems and Republicans were not offering.
That is the main thing it takes , that is what motivates the two partys to pander to our wants , it is the missing element in a one party system.
With just one party you lead the peoiple , not hte other way around.
-
<<Yet it proves nothing to you?>>
Of course not, the Republocrats still won didn't they? He wasn't even close. The system worked.
<<Ross Perot was not handsome, not especially inspireing, but at that moment in history there were a lot of us desireing something that the Dems and Republicans were not offering.>>
Ross Perot was a very logical man and an excellent communicator. His graphs made sense and his explanations were sharp and to the point. I was favourably impressed with him, except for his pandering to the military. My liberal cousins in Detroit, who are now flirting with Libertarianism, were actually going to vote for Perot after a lifetime on the left wing of the Democratic Party, until the poor guy self-destructed with that nonsense about how "they" were plotting to ruin his daughter's wedding. He was inspiring, the same way the Wright Brothers were inspiring, just plain-spoken no-nonsense Americans from outside the Beltway who can roll up their sleeves and get the job done without any help from the high and mighty.
<<That is the main thing it takes , that is what motivates the two partys to pander to our wants , it is the missing element in a one party system
<<With just one party you lead the peoiple , not hte other way around.>>
In reality, plane, that's all you have - - ONE party.
-
<<Yet it proves nothing to you?>>
Of course not, the Republocrats still won didn't they? He wasn't even close. The system worked.
<<Ross Perot was not handsome, not especially inspireing, but at that moment in history there were a lot of us desireing something that the Dems and Republicans were not offering.>>
Ross Perot was a very logical man and an excellent communicator. His graphs made sense and his explanations were sharp and to the point. I was favourably impressed with him, except for his pandering to the military. My liberal cousins in Detroit, who are now flirting with Libertarianism, were actually going to vote for Perot after a lifetime on the left wing of the Democratic Party, until the poor guy self-destructed with that nonsense about how "they" were plotting to ruin his daughter's wedding. He was inspiring, the same way the Wright Brothers were inspiring, just plain-spoken no-nonsense Americans from outside the Beltway who can roll up their sleeves and get the job done without any help from the high and mighty.
<<That is the main thing it takes , that is what motivates the two partys to pander to our wants , it is the missing element in a one party system
<<With just one party you lead the peoiple , not hte other way around.>>
In reality, plane, that's all you have - - ONE party.
Is that why you don't really care whether Senator Barak Obama wins?
-
<<Is that why you don't really care whether Senator Barak Obama wins?>>
I am hoping with my heart that he will change the course of the nation but my head tells me that he can't or won't. Still and all with McSame or Hillary I KNEW there was not even the possibility of change.
-
<<Is that why you don't really care whether Senator Barak Obama wins?>>
I am hoping with my heart that he will change the course of the nation but my head tells me that he can't or won't. Still and all with McSame or Hillary I KNEW there was not even the possibility of change.
What do you know about him that makes you care at all?
-
Technically, your statement may be true but Halliburton exerts its corporate will daily using the US government's proxy.
I haven't heard of Halliburton breaking down the doors of citizens in any US city on a drug raid based on an anonymous tip and shooting the (innocent) people inside.
Perhaps you can enlighten me?
-
<<What do you know about him that makes you care at all?>>
Mainly that he was against the war from the start whereas Hillary and Kerry supported it.
And when he talked about change, I believed it for a while. Realized he had to be careful about specifying what KIND of change to avoid offending the Israel Lobby and the War Party, but I figured he was transmitting code and I was receiving it. And I still hope that's the case.
Also I like that he was tight with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He's the guy I'd really want to vote for. He's got balls and he tells it like it is. And Obama obviously went along with it. Unfortunately, Obama had to throw the good Reverend under the bus in order to have a hope in hell of winning the election, just like he had to kow-tow to AIPAC and the Miami Cubans, but I think his supporters all understand that . We all want to see the guy get in. NOBODY can be worse than Bush or McSame.
-
<<What do you know about him that makes you care at all?>>
...Also I like that he was tight with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He's the guy I'd really want to vote for.
Oh good gravy, now that says alot. Railing about supposed widespread white racism while embracing a black racist
-
<<Oh good gravy, now that says alot. Railing about supposed widespread white racism while embracing a black racist >>
What says a lot is your characterization of Wright as a black racist.
-
Anyone that supports racial segregation is a racist. Anyone that supports a *insert color here* value system is a racist. Anyone that claims AIDS is the invention of White man to take out the Black man is a moron
-
<<What do you know about him that makes you care at all?>>
"..., but I figured he was transmitting code and I was receiving it. And I still hope that's the case."
Who really does this?
Seems like a serious weasel whould have to be involved on both ends.
-
<<Who really does this? [campaigns in code?]
<<Seems like a serious weasel whould have to be involved on both ends.>>
Now, now. As if you don't know what "safe streets" and "welfare reform" and "family values" and "law and order" and "keeping America strong" and "energy security" and "enhanced interrogation" really mean. Your whole fucking national political life is conducted in code. And especially being from the South, you oughtta know about code. Who exactly are you trying to kid here?
-
<<Who really does this? [campaigns in code?]
<<Seems like a serious weasel whould have to be involved on both ends.>>
Now, now. As if you don't know what "safe streets" and "welfare reform" and "family values" and "law and order" and "keeping America strong" and "energy security" and "enhanced interrogation" really mean. Your whole fucking national political life is conducted in code. And especially being from the South, you oughtta know about code. Who exactly are you trying to kid here?
What good is this "code"?
-
What good is this "code"?
It serves as a communication devise between racists, who can then deny that they are actually racists, just folks who really are against voter fraud, welfare abuse (even when there is no evidence that there has been any). We can continue to be racists and practice racism without the guilt.
-
<<Anyone that supports racial segregation is a racist. >>
That's an over-simplistic analysis, but it's one that I myself had once fallen into, so I can see it's an easy mistake to make.
<<Anyone that supports a *insert color here* value system is a racist.>>
I believe Wright's value system is colour-blind. Anyone can get angry - - and a black man with more cause than almost anyone else in America - - but anything that Wright said in anger doesn't indicate to me that his value system isn't really colour-blind. Some of us "get" black anger and some of us never will.
<<Anyone that claims AIDS is the invention of White man to take out the Black man is a moron>>
In the light of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, which is pure fact, I would like to know a lot more than I currently do about (a) the exact statements that Wright supposedly made about "AIDS" and (b) the origins and early governmental reactions to AIDS at all levels of government. It's not inconceivable to me that a disease which apparently targeted either blacks or gays would be the subject of a certain amount of governmental "benign neglect."
-
<<Anyone that supports racial segregation is a racist. >>
That's an over-simplistic analysis, but it's one that I myself had once fallen into, so I can see it's an easy mistake to make.
Ahh, so now you're on record as SUPPORTING racial segregation?? Segregation for the sake of health, such as some viral outbreak is one thing (referred to as quarantineing). Segregation for the sake of separating races, based on WHATEVER reason, is........let me be clear.......RACIST
<<Anyone that supports a *insert color here* value system is a racist.>>
I believe Wright's value system is colour-blind. Anyone can get angry - - and a black man with more cause than almost anyone else in America - - but anything that Wright said in anger sn't indicate to me that his value system isn't really colour-blind
You "believe"?? Scary. Well Tee, there's no helping you on this one. Your efforts to broadbrush the southern states and the vast majority of republicans as racist with nothing more than your so-called "observation" and perseverative use of the term "southern strategy", coupled with the grotesque rationalization effort of justifying what's clearly a racist mentaility by Rev Wright, is beyond repair.
Some of us "get" black anger and some of us never will.
See?, perfect example. Anger is ANGER. It has no quailiers to it.
<<Anyone that claims AIDS is the invention of White man to take out the Black man is a moron>>
In the light of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, which is pure fact, I would like to know a lot more than I currently do about (a) the exact statements that Wright supposedly made about "AIDS" and (b) the origins and early governmental reactions to AIDS at all levels of government. It's not inconceivable to me that a disease which apparently targeted either blacks or gays would be the subject of a certain amount of governmental "benign neglect."
It is inconceivable....that's the point. Throwing out a completely meritless allegation, then bringing up Tuskegee as the so called supporting evidence can be found in the dictionary.....under idiocy
-
<<Ahh, so now you're on record as SUPPORTING racial segregation?? >>
I'm a pragmatist. Toronto just opened an all-black high-school to deal with the 40% black drop-out rate (vs. 17% for whites) and while I was opposed to the idea of segregation in general, I'm willing to give it a try on the theory that (1) I don't know everything and (2) I'm willing to give new ideas (or rehabilitated old ideas) a try. If it works, fine, if not, junk it. I'm not prepared to sacrifice the futures of kids on an altar of undeviating ideology.
<<Well Tee, there's no helping you on this one. Your efforts to broadbrush the southern states and the vast majority of republicans as racist with nothing more than your so-called "observation" and perseverative use of the term "southern strategy", coupled with the grotesque rationalization effort of justifying what's clearly a racist mentaility by Rev Wright, is beyond repair.>>
I stand by everything I said about the South and the Southern Strategy. I went into a lot of detail in my posts on that topic, and I'm not prepared to spend any time now revisiting them. My defence of my opinions went far beyond the "perseverative use of the term "southern strategy," but if that's how you wish to misrepresent my arguments, please be my guest. I've also said more than enough in this thread about my take on the Reg. Wright, and if you still don't get it by now, I'm sorry, but that is clearly YOUR problem.
<<See?, perfect example. Anger is ANGER. It has no quailiers to it. >>
Yeah, you must be right, sirs. I guess angry black males are angry at the exact same things as angry white males. May I dare to suggest that you deign to visit the real world, occasionally? Say, once in a lifetime?
<<Quote from: Michael Tee . . .
<<In the light of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, which is pure fact, I would like to know a lot more than I currently do about (a) the exact statements that Wright supposedly made about "AIDS" and (b) the origins and early governmental reactions to AIDS at all levels of government. It's not inconceivable to me that a disease which apparently targeted either blacks or gays would be the subject of a certain amount of governmental "benign neglect." [END OF MT QUOTE]
<<It is inconceivable....that's the point. Throwing out a completely meritless allegation, then bringing up <<Tuskegee as the so called supporting evidence can be found in the dictionary.....under idiocy>>
Glad you were able to make your mind up so quickly, sirs. I stand by what I wrote - - I'd like to know more at this point. Maybe because I don't think America is as wonderful and virtuous as you do.