0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 06:52 pm
"Olde goat" is a fine appelation, and I cherish it. The cloven hooves, the independence of spirit, the sexual appetite. Some folks favor other creatures and I'm the last one to suggest that there's an Animal Farm allusion presently feeding over there by the trough which might have even the slightest applicability on this thread.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 06:59 pm
"
Quote:
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune
"
The original olde goat his-self Noam Chomsky. NOw you just have to know olde Noam wasn't thinking about republicans when he said that because he turned right around and said
Quote:
American society is now remarkably atomized. Political organizations have collapsed. In fact, it seems like even bowling leagues are collapsing. The left has a lot to answer for here. There's been a drift toward very fragmenting tendencies among left groups, toward this sort of identity politics
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 07:49 pm
blatham wrote:
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".


When you meet Chomsky and introduce yourself as a Canadian, be prepared for a lecture on how the Canadians have participated in the genocidal slaughter of native Americans (or as the prefer to be called, Indians).

There is a point beyond which the illumination of man's sins is not helpful and Chomsky spends most of his life beyond that point.

He focuses on the US, not surprisingly, because it :

a) Is the most powerful nation on the planet
b) It has failed to measure up to Chomsky's romantic notions of how a nation should behave.

If all Chomsky did was criticize certain imperfections in how his nation goes about its interactions in the world he might be palatable.

Characterizing Chomsky in this manner is like characterizing Ann Coulter as someone who merely points out the imperfections in Liberals.

Instead, for reasons which I can imagine only extend from an intense sense of self-righteousness, he chooses to consistently savage his nation in respect to virtually of of its endeavors.

As Bill put it, "Chomsky can't see the good for his love of the hate."

He is boring in his predictability, but I suppose that for those who like to see America taken down a peg or two by the writings of a clearly brilliant man, he fits the bill.

"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."

Unlike you Prof blatham who have undoubtedly confirmed his facts? ( Just can't resist these sweeping shots can you?)

Since you live in this country, I'm not sure how you have formulated this notion that Americans have developed some sort of seige mentality, and see danger lurking around every corner.

It is true of course that many of us, when discussing Fascist Islamic Terrorists feel it is more accurate to describe them as The Enemy or Scumbags, or Murderous Thugs, than Insurgents, Freedom Fighters or The Righteous Wronged. Considering that these people would be quite happy in slitting our throats and the throats of our families if we were unlucky enough to come into their clutches, I think this is quite rational. It is hardly evidence of horrific and terminal shitstorms running through our dreams.

How about the laughable paranoia that results in identifying the president of the US as the single greatest threat to world peace?

The odds of my being killed by a swarthy madman are, indeed slim, but the odds of some American being killed by those same swarthy madmen are not. I understand that enlightened progressives don't like to think in terms of nation states and xenophobic tribal groups, but some of us take attacks against any American as somewhat personal. I guess we're quaintly tribal in this way.

Presumably you are of a mind that believes that because a baker in Witchita is statistically quite safe from the violence of terrorists, that he or she has no cause to speak of America's enemies.

Whether or not the middle east should be plowed under as a response to America's enemies is a reasonable topic for debate, but your challenging the notion that Americans should even consider they have enemies is well off the mark.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:08 pm
I really enjoy the humor with which some of the bloggers sometimes write. This column from Rich Galen over at mullings.com is delightful...and made me laugh out loud Smile Here's a part of it for you to enjoy:

Quote:
On the economic front, the Financial Times led its webpage yesterday with these three stories:

"Lower Energy Prices Damp Down US Inflation"

"US Tax Figures Show Sharp Fall in Deficit"

"Bernanke [Chairman of the WH Council of Economic Advisors] Upbeat on Outlook for US Economy"
What? There's good economic news? And steady inflation? And a drop in the deficit?

Surely, if Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dudley Dursley Dean, knew about the US economy continuing to tick along at a 3.4% growth rate (which is ten times the 0.3 percent growth rate now projected in the Euro Zone (France, Italy & Germany) for the remainder of the year, he would be apologizing for his claims that the US is headed off in the wrong direction.

Certainly, if New York Senator Severus Schumer had been made aware of the drop in the budget deficit of $94 Billion had been attributed to, according to the Houston Chronicle, a "14 percent spike in tax receipts," he would be a champion of not allowing the cuts to expire next year.

Quoting Kevin Hassett, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, the Chronicle's Jessica Holzer wrote, "tax relief has sparked a 'productivity-driven growth cycle' caused by a surge in business investment."

Obviously, if Massachusetts Senator Gilderoy Lockhart Kennedy had been briefed by his staff on the Financial Times report that the core inflation rate is "hovering at around 0.2 percent;" that "retail sales in June rose 1.7 per cent - a larger-than-expected jump," and that "there have so far been no convincing signs that consumer spending is slowing in the US," he would be orating, this very day, in the US Senate congratulating the Administration for pursuing sound economic policies.

In addition, new figures show the unemployment rate in the US, according to Reuters, dropped to about five percent, "to its lowest since September '01." That number is less than half the unemployment rate in France which, according to Bloomberg, stood at "10.2 percent in May," under the careful guidance of French President Dobby-the-House-Elf Chirac.

http://www.mullings.com/07-15-05.htm
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:38 am
Finn writes
Quote:
Presumably you are of a mind that believes that because a baker in Witchita is statistically quite safe from the violence of terrorists, that he or she has no cause to speak of America's enemies.


Who would have thought that Finn is a baker in Wichita? Smile

Seriously, your quite well done diatribe is spot on from my view, other than those swarthy terrorists generally don't slit throats. Their preferred method of murder is bombing or beheading and, if innocent women and children can be included in the carnage, they celebrate.

I get frustrated and tired of the politically correct, presumed kind hearted, presumed peace loving types who seem to think it is their sworn duty to cast as much negativism (is that a word?) and condemnation upon all who think differently than they think.

The double standard employed is stunning.

"He or she is a chickenhawk--never served in any war" they say with the presumption that therefore "he or she" does not have the credentials to support the troops or war effort. That baker in Wichita has no personal threat from terrorists and therefore should have no bad thoughts about those who behead and bomb and otherwise murder. But presumably experience is not required to be anti-war effort, anti-military, or sympathetic to the poor, maligned terrorists simply defending themselves from perceived threats from the imperialistic west, more particularly the United States.

Mr. Blatham does try to frame his opinions within what he considers to be reasoned arguments. There might even be hope for him if he would just expand his reading past Chomsky and Salon. Smile
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 08:57 am
I once encountered Noam Chomsky - more or less in passing, but in person, none the less; I even was introduced to him. The occasion was a tony soiree (don't ask - I didn't wanna be there, had to, it was business). Anyhow, Noam was appreciatively munching genuine beluga caviar and sipping a vodka martini - obviously a Marxist.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:40 am
Hey, timber, that's not fair. I like vodka and caviar too! LOL
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:49 am
Dear god(s), Grant me courage and eloquence to boldly speak the truth when I know it; honesty to keep my mouth shut when I don't, the wisdom to know the difference, and the determination and integrity to discover the facts.
--David Veksler
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:57 am
CHOMSKY:
Quote:
I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way.

Yeppers, Chomsky is a Marxist!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:07 am
Timber
Remember when George H. W. Bush was running for president and kept running around the South West proclaiming how much he loved pork rinds and chitlins. A real man of the common people. I bet he hasn't eaten one since the election.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:12 am
(only for the photo-ops...)
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:20 am
Quote:
Saturday, July 16, 2005 1:15 p.m. EDT

Ted Kennedy to Probe Gitmo Lingerie Torture

A day after the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were being tortured with women's underwear, Committee member Ted Kennedy announced he would make his first-ever visit to the facility.

Investigators told Kennedy and his Armed Services colleagues on Wednesday that Gitmo interrogators forced a detainee to wear a bra, put women's g-string panties on his head, ordered him to dance with a male interrogator and forced him to stand naked in front of women, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"I am deeply concerned about the failure - indeed, outright refusal - of our military and civilian leaders to hold higher-ups accountable," Kennedy told reporters after hearing about the lingerie torture.

Thursday night, the Massachusetts Democrat announced that he planned to personally inspect the facility, telling the Boston Globe that the purpose of his trip would be "to meet with officials, ask questions of their practices, and see firsthand their operations."


Not Scrappleface....
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:23 am
dyslexia wrote:
"
Quote:
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune
"
The original olde goat his-self Noam Chomsky. NOw you just have to know olde Noam wasn't thinking about republicans when he said that because he turned right around and said
Quote:
American society is now remarkably atomized. Political organizations have collapsed. In fact, it seems like even bowling leagues are collapsing. The left has a lot to answer for here. There's been a drift toward very fragmenting tendencies among left groups, toward this sort of identity politics


"Olde goat" works for Chomsky as well. Historical representations of Satan (see any compilation of illustrations) have the universe's badboy sporting two particular characteristics (physical characteristics, but which suggest inner character and behavior); his body is part animal (think bad bad animal sexuality) and equally obviously, his face is Jewish.

But he's got it right in your quote, dys.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:59 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
Saturday, July 16, 2005 1:15 p.m. EDT

Ted Kennedy to Probe Gitmo Lingerie Torture

A day after the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were being tortured with women's underwear, Committee member Ted Kennedy announced he would make his first-ever visit to the facility.

Investigators told Kennedy and his Armed Services colleagues on Wednesday that Gitmo interrogators forced a detainee to wear a bra, put women's g-string panties on his head, ordered him to dance with a male interrogator and forced him to stand naked in front of women, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"I am deeply concerned about the failure - indeed, outright refusal - of our military and civilian leaders to hold higher-ups accountable," Kennedy told reporters after hearing about the lingerie torture.

Thursday night, the Massachusetts Democrat announced that he planned to personally inspect the facility, telling the Boston Globe that the purpose of his trip would be "to meet with officials, ask questions of their practices, and see firsthand their operations."


Not Scrappleface....


And today's the 36th Anniversary of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 11:28 am
July 18, 2005
An Empty Apology
By BOB HERBERT

One of President Bush's surrogates went before the N.A.A.C.P. last week and apologized for the Republican Party's reprehensible, decades-long Southern strategy.

The surrogate, Ken Mehlman, is chairman of the Republican National Committee. Perhaps he meant well. But his words were worse than meaningless. They were insulting. The G.O.P.'s Southern strategy, racist at its core, still lives.

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," said Mr. Mehlman. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

He made his remarks during an appearance in Milwaukee at the annual convention of the N.A.A.C.P., which has a relationship with President Bush reminiscent of the Hatfields' relationship with the McCoys. In a chilling act of political intimidation, the Internal Revenue Service responded to criticism of Mr. Bush by the N.A.A.C.P.'s chairman by launching an investigation of the group's tax-exempt status.

The Southern strategy meant much, much more than some members of the G.O.P. simply giving up on African-American votes. Put into play by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon in the mid- to late 1960's, it fed like a starving beast on the resentment of whites who were scornful of blacks and furious about the demise of segregation and other civil rights advances. The idea was to snatch the white racist vote away from the Democratic Party, which had committed such unpardonable sins as enacting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and enforcing desegregation statutes.

The important thing to keep in mind was how deliberate and pernicious the strategy was. Last month a jury in Philadelphia, Miss., convicted an 80-year-old man, Edgar Ray Killen, of manslaughter in the slaying of three civil rights workers - Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney - in the summer of 1964. It was a crime that made much of the nation tremble, and revolted anyone with a true sense of justice.

So what did Ronald Reagan do in his first run for the presidency, 16 years after the murder, in the summer of 1980? He chose the site of the murders, Philadelphia, Miss., as the perfect place to send an important symbolic message. Mr. Reagan kicked off his general election campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, an annual gathering that was famous for its diatribes by segregationist politicians. His message: "I believe in states' rights."

Mr. Reagan's running mate was George H. W. Bush, who, in his own run for president in 1988, thought it was a good idea to exploit racial fears with the notorious Willie Horton ads about a black prisoner who raped a white woman. Mr. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said at the time that the Horton case was a "values issue, particularly in the South - and if we hammer at these over and over, we are going to win."

Mr. Bush's son, the current president, has been as devoted as an acolyte to the Southern strategy, despite anything Ken Mehlman might think. Like so many other Republican politicians and presidential wannabes, George W. Bush was happy to appear at Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C., at a time when the school was blatantly racially discriminatory.

And in both of Mr. Bush's presidential campaigns, his supporters, especially his brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, have gone out of their way to prevent or discourage blacks from voting. In a particularly vile episode last year, Florida state troopers conducted a criminal investigation that zeroed in on black voter turnout efforts in Orlando. A number of people were indicted, including the mayor, Buddy Dyer, a Democrat who was then suspended from office.

In April, with the election safely out of the way, the indictments were dropped and Mr. Dyer was reinstated as mayor.

At its heart, the Southern strategy remains the same, a cynical and remarkably successful divide-and-conquer strategy that nurtures the bigotry of whites and is utterly contemptuous of blacks.

My guess is that Mr. Mehlman's apology was less about starting a stampede of blacks into the G.O.P. than about softening the party's image in the eyes of moderate white voters. If the apology was serious, it would mean the Southern strategy was kaput. And we know that's not true.

E-mail: [email protected]

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:01 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
Saturday, July 16, 2005 1:15 p.m. EDT

Ted Kennedy to Probe Gitmo Lingerie Torture

A day after the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were being tortured with women's underwear, Committee member Ted Kennedy announced he would make his first-ever visit to the facility.

Investigators told Kennedy and his Armed Services colleagues on Wednesday that Gitmo interrogators forced a detainee to wear a bra, put women's g-string panties on his head, ordered him to dance with a male interrogator and forced him to stand naked in front of women, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"I am deeply concerned about the failure - indeed, outright refusal - of our military and civilian leaders to hold higher-ups accountable," Kennedy told reporters after hearing about the lingerie torture.

Thursday night, the Massachusetts Democrat announced that he planned to personally inspect the facility, telling the Boston Globe that the purpose of his trip would be "to meet with officials, ask questions of their practices, and see firsthand their operations."


Not Scrappleface....


And today's the 36th Anniversary of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne


Well, that explains why a a brain-damaged booze hound would want the distraction.

I wonder if he plans to drive there.

One can hope.

(Tico - I thought for sure it was scrappleface LOL)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:10 pm
I thought Mehlman's words to the NAACP were wonderful.

I was very proud.

You don't hear straight talk like that often in politics.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:07 pm
finn said
Quote:
When you meet Chomsky and introduce yourself as a Canadian, be prepared for a lecture on how the Canadians have participated in the genocidal slaughter of native Americans (or as the prefer to be called, Indians).

Well, I guess that would be native Canadians. And he'd be right.

Quote:
He focuses on the US, not surprisingly, because it :

a) Is the most powerful nation on the planet
b) It has failed to measure up to Chomsky's romantic notions of how a nation should behave.

Of course, state sanctioned torture is just the way of things. Dreamy-eyed to even mention it. Or the recent machine-gunning of 200 or so men, women and children protestors by a regime supported by the Bush administration and whose soldiers, likely some of those involved in the 'kill-the-children' massacree, were trained by US forces. Nothing here to see folks. the c) you have missing above relates to the moral responsibility citizens have for the comportment of their own nation in its affairs in the world. Bloody romantic, all that though.

Quote:
Instead, for reasons which I can imagine only extend from an intense sense of self-righteousness, he chooses to consistently savage his nation in respect to virtually of of its endeavors. As Bill put it, "Chomsky can't see the good for his love of the hate."

"Criticism = hate (and some species of traitorousness). Great formulation. They have it in North Korea too.

But more interesting is why it would trouble you? Is it violation of something sacred? Is America hurt by criticism? Is America, we ought to ask, hurt more by criticism or by insisting criticism is hurtful and leaving it at that?

Quote:
"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."

Unlike you Prof blatham who have undoubtedly confirmed his facts? ( Just can't resist these sweeping shots can you?)

I have found not one single person speaking from the right on this board who evidences any actual familiarity with Chomsky's writing. Not one. What I do find is uneducated and completely cliched categorization of him.

Quote:
Since you live in this country, I'm not sure how you have formulated this notion that Americans have developed some sort of seige mentality, and see danger lurking around every corner.

Again, your monies spent on defence is greater than the rest of the world combined. Change since before sept 11 is relatively minor. Would it be rational to posit that America faces threats greater than the threats to everyone else all added together? Hardly. So take that picture and add to it the rather vicious tendency to ascribe 'anti-americanism' to criticisms, and the tendency to monitor your own citizens for evidences of designs to bring down the state, and you are looking at a pretty classic picture of paranoia. There's no small amount of good and careful writing on this by Americans and others.

Quote:
It is true of course that many of us, when discussing Fascist Islamic Terrorists feel it is more accurate to describe them as The Enemy or Scumbags, or Murderous Thugs, than Insurgents, Freedom Fighters or The Righteous Wronged. Considering that these people would be quite happy in slitting our throats and the throats of our families if we were unlucky enough to come into their clutches, I think this is quite rational. It is hardly evidence of horrific and terminal shitstorms running through our dreams.

Yes it is. Some evidence for precisely this is that you don't even try to be careful in your claim above. Everyone is an instance of the demonic fantatical Islamist out to slit the throats of american mothers and children. But the majority of folks you are having trouble with in Iraq (by dependable reports, which leaves out the military reports) are not of this category. The threat is expanded far beyond what is real.

How about the laughable paranoia that results in identifying the president of the US as the single greatest threat to world peace?

Quote:
The odds of my being killed by a swarthy madman are, indeed slim, but the odds of some American being killed by those same swarthy madmen are not. I understand that enlightened progressives don't like to think in terms of nation states and xenophobic tribal groups, but some of us take attacks against any American as somewhat personal. I guess we're quaintly tribal in this way.

Presumably you are of a mind that believes that because a baker in Witchita is statistically quite safe from the violence of terrorists, that he or she has no cause to speak of America's enemies.

Whether or not the middle east should be plowed under as a response to America's enemies is a reasonable topic for debate, but your challenging the notion that Americans should even consider they have enemies is well off the mark.

Who doesn't have enemies? Who wouldn't be pissed if some of their citizens were murdered? What makes the US notable in all of this is how realitively free of real enemies and territorial or human threat you are, and always have been in contrast with your national notions about threats.

That leads to a questioning of how that has come about. And feel absolutely free to discount the logical consequences of what Eisenhower warned you about on leaving office. The US has become, in terms of economy and in terms of national idenity, Willy Loman selling war.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:30 pm
In Hegemony or Survival Chomsky writes:
Quote:
The need to establish ties to terror was quietly dropped. More significant, Bush and colleagues declared the right to resort to force even if a country does not have WMD or even programs to develop them. It is sufficient that it have the "intent and ability" to do so. Just about every country has the ability, and intent is in the eye of the beholder.


Chomsky named his sources for this conclusion as none other than Colin Powell and Condi Rice.

It is this kind of rhetoric, artfully done, carefully constructed, presented under the illusion of intellectualism, to which conservatives object. Not only is it dishonest and misrepresents what people actually say. but it has a subtle brainwashing effect on those determined to believe it. Before long they seem to longer be able to distinguish fact from elaboration.

Of course the Left makes the same accusations of the Right. I think the difference is that the Right can usually back up their convictions with documentation that can be put into context without changing the meaning, and that actually does reflect the intention of the speaker, writer, etc. Those that cannot are just spouting talking points and spin with no complete understanding of what they are saying and are no better than those on the Left who do that.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:06 pm
Quote:
How about the laughable paranoia that results in identifying the president of the US as the single greatest threat to world peace?
Laughing The ironies in this one makes it worth repeating. Laughing

Chomsky remains a self-serving opportunist who takes himself and his dribble too seriously. What limited writings I have read from him (like the piece you posted), leave me quite certain I have little interest in more. As it is I'll never read 1% of what I wish I could find the time for; so you will likely not find me wasting a lot of time on Chomsky or the vast majority of the "laughable paranoia" that accumulates at Salon. That could change if the fools who dwell there started offering reasonably thought out alternatives instead of shouting at the rain. It won't.

The clock's ticking folks and at this rate; if the rambling ABB's don't pull there collective head out soon, the republicans won't lose another Presidential race until they split in two to fill the void. Idea

Hillary? Laughing
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 0.03 seconds on 04/20/2025 at 01:34:57