0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 01:32 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
What she said. How long can people really pretend that A-holes like Saddam should be allowed to exist? Idea Were I oppressed by the likes of him; I'd probably want to hold the world's only superpower accountable, too, especially if I were raised from birth to do so. Hello.

And good on that fool for finally pulling her head out of her... Rolling Eyes


...sandbox? Laughing
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 03:11 pm
Great post by Thomas Sowell in his Random Thoughts column:

Quote:
Will even the bloody terrorist attacks in London put a stop to the media's hand-wringing because they don't think we have been nice enough to some of the cut-throats who are locked up in Guantanamo? The media have never shown any such interest in how prisoners are treated anywhere else on the island of Cuba, such as in Castro's prisons.

There have always been people without judgment but this is the first era in which being non-judgmental is considered good -- though how anything can be considered good if you are non-judgmental is another puzzle.

The next time someone demands a timetable for the war in Iraq, ask them to name just one war -- anywhere -- that had such a thing.

www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050714.shtml


Which leads me to share an email ... same topic Smile

Since everyone seems so sensitive on the issue, so here's what I propose as the new regulations for interrogating a terrorist:

* He will be asked to "please" give us information.

* If no information is given, he will then be asked to "pretty please" give us information.

* If there is still no response, he will finally be asked to "pretty please with sugar on top" give us information.

* Any further requesting would be badgering and could be construed as torture. If given court approval, though, the interrogator could offer to be the terrorist's "very best friend" in exchange for information.

There. That should make everyone happy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 03:22 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 04:04 am
Laughing Some work just isn't all that happy folks. I couldn't do it myself... but I thank Dog that there are those out there who can. I'm sure I wouldn't like them... but... eh... it's not always the most popular guy; WHO GETS THE JOB DONE. Idea Deep, deep, deep down; Bernie know that too...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 06:11 am
Indeed. Stalin was not a popular guy.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 07:27 am
I've noted that you guys cut and paste pretty much exclusively from a small and philosophically insular set of sources. It's not an intimidating inferential step to the assumption that this is what you read.

As an educator with some sense of responsibility towards assisting folks discriminate appropriately between education and indoctrination, my first intuition would be that I ought to (as an ethical educator) do what I can to encourage more breadth, depth and freshness in your informational input.

To this happy end, I'll toss in bits of analyses here and there which originate higher upstream, where the waters are more invigorating and filled with promise.

Quote:
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 07:54 am
This man can write...but those he writes about....no words.

ANGELS AMONG US

Click on the link. You'll not be sorry.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 08:48 am
This Dallas paper finally 'gets it'. 'Bout time.

---------
Call Them What They Are
Those who murder Iraqi civilians are terrorists

Two words not uncommon to editorial pages are "resolve" and "sacrifice," especially as they relate to war.

Today, this editorial board resolves to sacrifice another word - "insurgent" - on the altar of precise language. No longer will we refer to suicide bombers or anyone else in Iraq who targets and kills children and other innocent civilians as "insurgents."

The notion that these murderers in any way are nobly rising up against a sitting government in a principled fight for freedom has become, on its face, absurd. If they ever held a moral high ground, they sacrificed it weeks ago, when they turned their focus from U.S. troops to Iraqi men, women and now children going about their daily lives.

They drove that point home with chilling clarity Wednesday in a poor Shiite neighborhood. As children crowded around U.S. soldiers handing out candy and toys in a gesture of good will, a bomb-laden SUV rolled up and exploded.

These children were not collateral damage. They were targets.

The SUV driver was no insurgent. He was a terrorist.

People who set off bombs on London trains are not insurgents. We would never think of calling them anything other than what they are - terrorists.

Train bombers in Madrid? Terrorists.

Chechen rebels who take over a Russian school and execute children? Terrorists.

Teenagers who strap bombs to their chests and detonate them in an Israeli cafe? Terrorists.

IRA killers? Basque separatist killers? Hotel bombers in Bali? Terrorists all.

Words have meanings. Whether too timid, sensitive or "open-minded," we've resisted drawing a direct line between homicidal bombers everywhere else in the world and the ones who blow up Iraqi civilians or behead aid workers.

No more. To call them "insurgents" insults every legitimate insurgency in modern history. They are terrorists.

Source
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 08:59 am
That's a valid differentiation of terminology. Of course, being a differentiation it immediately implies another qualitatively unique class of subject.

For example, Iraqis who are opposed to a foreign force occupying their land and who act against foreign soldiers would properly be termed insurgents, and not terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 04:07 pm
Blatham writes
Quote:
I've noted that you guys cut and paste pretty much exclusively from a small and philosophically insular set of sources. It's not an intimidating inferential step to the assumption that this is what you read.


Concerning most of the conservatives who regularly post on A2K, I feel safe in saying you would be inferentially wrong....wrong....WRONG about judging what they (only) read by what is posted on A2K. There are so few truly rational conservative sources featured nationally, it is natural that we return again and again to those we trust to have done careful research and put it together in an understandable form.

There is so much liberal conjecture out there on radio news reports, on the evening news, on the front pages of most American newspapers, it is absolutely impossible to avoid reading and listening to the stuff you no doubt read and listen to. You seem to only read the stuff we can't avoid. If that is all we read and listened to, we would probably be more like you. If you read some of the other stuff we read with an open mind, I think the rational common sense of it might possibly persuade you to be more like us.

Apologies to fellow conservatives for presuming to speak for you by inference. If I misjudged this, you can take your shots at me too. Smile
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 01:58 am
blatham wrote:
That's a valid differentiation of terminology. Of course, being a differentiation it immediately implies another qualitatively unique class of subject.

For example, Iraqis who are opposed to a foreign force occupying their land and who act against foreign soldiers would properly be termed insurgents, and not terrorists.
Or in this case; fools.

The Dallas paper turned a fine corner.

Pity Chomsky can't see the good for his love of the hate. While bashing the good/evil simplicity of Bush's PR team, I wonder if he's ever stopped doubting the good long enough to recognize the pure evil still being discovered in the sins of Saddam's past. Noam is a self serving hypocrit who would have been extinguished long ago were Bush half the fiend he makes him out to be. Further upstream? Confused ... I think not.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 07:18 am
The following is far too partisan and inflammatory to post anywhere but on this thread. But it was too good not to post Smile

Sunday, July 17, 2005
July 16, 2005
The Rove-Is-A-Traitor Meme
By Thomas Lifson

Desperate people say stupid things. Democrats are increasingly desperate, and in increasing numbers have moved from uttering the merely ridiculous to shouting self-destructive rhetoric from their media rooftops.

Karl Rove occupies a unique role in the demonology of fundamentalist Democrats. You know who these FundieDems are. They practice politics as their religion, seeing Republicans not as opponents but as the embodiment of evil, endowed with supernatural abilities to deceive ordinary people in Kansas and elsewhere into voting against their obvious self-interests.

To the FundieDems, President Bush must be stupid. If he were admitted to be a Yale and Harvard-educated student of strategy, a visionary seeking to transform domestic and world politics, they would have to take seriously the arguments he makes and respond on a sober level. The last thing they want is to get bogged down in a discussion of what to do about saving the world from Islamofascism, securing Social Security's future, or keeping the economy growing at the healthy clip it enjoys courtesy of the tax cuts they vociferously opposed.

It is far simpler to write him off as stupid and beneath contempt. No need to answer idiots.

Making him the pawn of Satan's Embodiment on Earth, Karl Rove, is even better. It gives them a logical ground on which to regard themselves as virtuous, and supplies all the motivation one could ever need for raising money, and going through the motions of contemporary activism: the endless round of parties, demonstrations, and posting of hate speech in the comment threads of Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.

The news that Karl Rove was somehow involved in revealing the identity of CIA desk jockey and Vanity Fair glam-shot model Valerie Plame really got their juices going. At last Satan's Spawn has made a fatal misstep.

But in their eagerness to denounce the man they blame for their tragic fate at the polls, they carried projection one step too far: they called him a "traitor." This is a serious blunder.

Elected Democrat officials so far have kept a hair's breadth between themselves and the T-word, calling only for such code measures as suspending his security clearance. But the FundieDems are bellowing the word. Google lists over 97,000 entries for a search of Karl Rove+traitor.

Outside of the fever swamps of the left, a group which may encompass 15% of the electorate at best, nobody thinks Karl Rove bears allegiance to a foreign power or principality. He may be a Texan, but at least 85% of Americans recognize that Texas is part of America. It is simply not plausible to use the word "traitor" about him. Swing voters absolutely hate such rhetoric.

Dems are very, very sensitive, quite understandably, to the notion that they are not pro-American. In fact, they constantly deny a lack of patriotism, even when nobody is questioning them on it. Psychology teaches us that when people fear their own imperfections, they project them upon others, attributing their own dark impulses to those who alarm them most. Rove's electoral successes make him the scariest boogieman the Left has seen in decades.

To many, in their eagerness to reassure us (and them) that they are indeed patriots, they raise the same sort of question that occurs to the mind of an observer of someone always proclaiming that he is "not a racist." Why the need to constantly deny it, when nobody else is raising the issue?

The American public may be inattentive from time-to-time, but they are not stupid. Everyone has the experience of people who project their weaknesses on others.

Most rank-and-file Democrats, like most Americans, are indeed patriotic folks. But there is a group among them which would rather see America face reversals, military, diplomatic, and economic, than see George W. Bush and the GOP get credit for successes. When they eagerly predict disaster, desperately search for and loudly proclaim the slightest evidence of failure, and then deny the existence of success when it stares the public straight in the face, one naturally wonders about what they are rooting for.

When they tells us the whole world is against us, despite the evidence of a genuine coalition working together, and urge us to follow the likes of Jacques Chirac, who self-evidently wish us ill, then they raise uncomfortable questions about themselves.

The Democrat death-spiral continues. The FundieDem cult has taken the initiative, and become the public face of the Party, and Party officials, anxious to keep the donations from them rolling in, dare not confront them. By their failure to upbraid their supporters' excesses, they condemn themselves to minority status.

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_16_05_TL.html
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:52 am
Ouch!

LOL!!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 12:48 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
blatham wrote:
That's a valid differentiation of terminology. Of course, being a differentiation it immediately implies another qualitatively unique class of subject.

For example, Iraqis who are opposed to a foreign force occupying their land and who act against foreign soldiers would properly be termed insurgents, and not terrorists.
Or in this case; fools.

The Dallas paper turned a fine corner.

Pity Chomsky can't see the good for his love of the hate. While bashing the good/evil simplicity of Bush's PR team, I wonder if he's ever stopped doubting the good long enough to recognize the pure evil still being discovered in the sins of Saddam's past. Noam is a self serving hypocrit who would have been extinguished long ago were Bush half the fiend he makes him out to be. Further upstream? Confused ... I think not.


Amen
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 05:11 pm
First that Dallas newspaper and now a Canadian General SmileSmileSmile
-------
'Murderous scumbag' shot par for course from new defence chief; no reprimand

STEPHEN THORNE
Fri Jul 15, 5:04 PM ET

OTTAWA (CP) - If Canadians were shocked that the head of their military called his enemy "detestable murderers and scumbags," they better get used to it. Gen. Rick Hillier has never minced words, nor is he likely to start any time soon.

His blunt assessment of terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere this week has the wholehearted backing of the prime minister.

"General Hillier is not only a top soldier, he is a soldier who has served in Afghanistan," Paul Martin said Friday in Nova Scotia.

"The point he is simply making is we are at war with terrorism and we're not going to let them win."

Defence Minister Bill Graham's office refused Friday to soften or explain the comments of its top soldier.

No "clarification" will be forthcoming, said spokesman Steven Jurgutis.

<snip>

It's time for Canada to take a stand, he said, just as it did 66 years ago when it joined the Second World War against the Nazis, whom he described as "those despicable, murderous bastards."

The Polaris Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Ottawa, said Friday the defence minister needs to "clarify" Hillier's "very alarming" comments.

"His use of epithets such as 'scumbags' and 'killers' is reminiscent of language used by (U.S.) President (George W.) Bush and U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," said project director Steven Staples.

Taken alongside recent defence policy changes and an increase in the defence budget, Staples said they "show an unmistakable trend toward the Americanization of the Canadian Forces.

Source
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 05:19 pm
"Let's don't call them terrorists..." Waaa! It might hurt their widdle feelings.

This will probably be enough to win the WH again in 2008.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 05:20 pm
Clarification of Gen Hiller's comments:

The enemy are a bunch of Nazi like killer thugs who deserve to be ground into the dirt!

Is that alarming?

Considering that American forces are, bar none, the best in the world, the Canuks will only be too lucky if there is an unmistakable trend toward the Americanization of the Canadian Forces

We should thank our friends north of the border for providing us with such a striking example of the bankruptcy of the Left.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 05:24 pm
Quote:
The Polaris Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Ottawa, said Friday the defence minister needs to "clarify" Hillier's "very alarming" comments.


Wouldn't you just love to know the General's reply to this "left-leaning" think tank group?

Wanna bet it was something along the lines of the advice Cheney gave Leahy on the Senate floor? LOL!!!

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 06:00 pm
Goodness gracious me. High dudgeon all about. A gun-totin', Bush-lovin' Republican friend of mine has offered to introduce me to Noam (the friend has an office near him at MIT) and if that meeting happens, I'll ensure you folks are the first to get full details. I'll pass on your warm wishes, as well.

The thing about Chomsky that is sometimes a tad unpopular, as you all know, is that he criticizes certain imperfections in how his nation goes about its interactions in the world. We all know there are some imperfections. How could there not be?

So, narrowing the beef down a bit, is that he criticizes at all, or is it what he criticizes, or is it that you figure he ought to write one valentine as balance for each critical piece? I'm thinking the problem isn't that he gets his facts wrong - he's a careful guy and my guess (perhaps wrong, I admit) is that checking his facts isn't something anyone of you has done.

It's all rather odd to me how and why some of you folks in America became convinced that your nation is under some dire and imminent threat of near satanic magnitude. Montrous dangers loom outside your borders and quiet treacherous dangers sneak within. Horrific and terminal shitstorms seem to run through your dreams, waking and asleep. You guys now spend more on defensive than all of the rest of the world combined. That is perhaps...just maybe...a bit warped?

Today, like many days, I hop on the #6 Lexington line and like most other folks, I have an eye out for the unattended suitcase. I'm not sure where you folks all live, but if it is pretty much anywhere other than Manhattan, your chances of suffering anything at all from some swarthy madman with a bomb are effectively zero (greater if you live near an abortion clinic, of course). The reality is that you are some thousands of times more likely to be maimed by a drunk republican coming home from a bingo game than from some "enemy of America".
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 06:25 pm
Bern you olde goat, the fine folks here that you imply find Noam a tad unpopular do so only after carefully perusing Noams' political commentary. You seem to infer that they only respond the way they do after reading some extracted comment from some kind of right-wing agenda that would gleefully paint Mr Chomsky as a fruit-cake of the most liberal kind. We are all aware that the professor is a down-to-earth middle america apple pie eating republican at heart who just has a bad day at the office, on occassion. Why just the other day I was chatting up a republican who lives across the street and he was telling me he had just read some Chomsky, in fact, he told me he had read an entire paragraph actually written in the first person by Noam himself. He went on to explain that he had never heard of Noam but was reading an article about how america had lost all sense of moral purpose when we failed to empeach Earl Warren, so you know the guy is hep to both US history as well as US political culture.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/20/2025 at 05:35:50