Diversity of Everything but Thought

Lola has it.

Horowitz channels liberals. It's preferable to actually quoting them speaking for themselves. Nearly 50% of Horowitz's end notes (a curiosity indeed) are either Horowitz quoting himself or some further comment by him. He quotes Marx. He quotes Euripides. He quotes newspapers and townhall. Quotes from liberals talking about liberalism or democrats talking about democratic strategy....I just spent five minutes going through these end notes and I found zero. I mean zero.

We can bring here (we have brought here) the words, spoken and written, by key figures on the contemporary right in america...luntz, Rove, Norquist, Kristol, Perle, Horowitz, Cheney, Woo, Robertson, Bush, Gonzales, Coulter...it doesn't matter who spoke and it doesn't matter what they said, it will not be validly criticizeable. Cannot be.

Of course, even if you caught George Bush with his hand in the cookie jar, you would swear on twenty Bibles he is innocent.

I referred you to the excerpts not to either part of the cover.

I guess you don't like what you read from the several pages of excerpts.

Well at least I intend to read him while you seem to be content to draw your own firm conclusions without having done so.

Blatham asked Ican for textual references from Horowitz, and Ican cannot tell the difference between Horowitz' book and someone else reviewing Horowitz' book.

But that doesn't stop Ican from using these "excerpts" to give us all kind of judgments about liberals.

Why would you assume that anyone took him seriously before this?

Ah, lola, the problem with the left is America is two-fold.


There aren't enough people on the left and there never were. During the 1960s, some people who would normally be apolitical, were sympathetic to the left. Why? Because racism had to be ended. Because the War with Vietnam was unjust.

After Vietnam ended, the sympathisers with the left returned to school and work and began raising families. In other words, they returned to being apolitical. The left grew a little soft.

then you must have witnessed his metamorphosis from a rabid leftist to a much more reasoned and principled conservative

dyslexia wrote:

Do christian conservatives have wet dreams and if yes, why?

We all know there is no bigger hypocrite than a Christian conservative.

Do they have wet dreams? They don't need to. They satisfy themselves by swapping wives and seducing school girls.

And, Blatham,...you might have read the book you cite an excerpt from with your conclusions that may or may not be right--you say you have not read it. And you might have commented on the piece written by Horowitz along with background information that I posted on this thread. Since you did none of that, I wonder if you have not unintentionally stated an untruth?...However, my comments re your familiarity with his writing stand.

Ican, you ever read Anthony Burgess, especially his Clockwork Orange? quite an amazing book really and a very dark look at the fruits of liberal machinations into the manipulations of basic human nature. Well anyway Burgess created his own language for the characters in the book and included a dictionary at the end of the book which is really quite fascinating and is somewhat of a hybrid of russian/british slanguage. I think you would enjoy the book.

Chapter 3.1. FROM THE OLD TERRORISM TO THE NEW: THE FIRST WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBING

At 18 minutes after noon on February 26, 1993, a huge bomb went off beneath the two towers of the World Trade Center. This was not a suicide attack. The terrorists parked a truck bomb with a timing device on Level B-2 of the underground garage, then departed. The ensuing explosion opened a hole seven stories up. Six people died. More than a thousand were injured. An FBI agent at the scene described the relatively low number of fatalities as a miracle.1

...

An unfortunate consequence of this superb investigative and prosecutorial effort was that it created an impression that the law enforcement system was well-equipped to cope with terrorism. Neither President Clinton, his principal advisers, the Congress, nor the news media felt prompted, until later, to press the question of whether the procedures that put the Blind Sheikh and Ramzi Yousef behind bars would really protect Americans against the new virus of which these individuals were just the first symptoms.8

Chapter 4.2. CRISIS: AUGUST 1998

...

55
In addition, the Clinton administration was facing the possibility of major combat operations against Iraq. Since 1996, the UN inspections regime had been increasingly obstructed by Saddam Hussein. The United States was threatening to attack unless unfettered inspections could resume. The Clinton administration eventually launched a large-scale set of air strikes against Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, in December 1998. These military commitments became the context in which the Clinton administration had to consider opening another front of military engagement against a new terrorist threat based in Afghanistan.

...

From May 1999 until September 2001, policymakers did not again actively consider a missile strike against Bin Ladin.179 The principals did give some further consideration in 1999 to more general strikes, reviving Clarke's "Delenda" notion of hitting camps and infrastructure to disrupt al Qaeda's organization. In the first months of 1999, the Joint Staff had developed broader target lists to undertake a "focused campaign" against the infrastructure of Bin Ladin's network and to hit Taliban government sites as well. General Shelton told us that the Taliban targets were "easier" to hit and more substantial.180

Part of the context for considering broader strikes in the summer of 1999 was renewed worry about Bin Ladin's ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In May and June, the U.S. government received a flurry of ominous reports, including more information about chemical weapons training or development at the Derunta camp and possible attempts to amass nuclear material at Herat.181

Atkins writes

Quote:

Of course, even if you caught George Bush with his hand in the cookie jar, you would swear on twenty Bibles he is innocent.

Well if we assume that your less-than-scientific, personally directed judgmental opinion is correct, is it safe to then assume that no matter what the evidence presented of his innocence might be, you will judge George Bush to be guilty?

But take taxes. John Kerry campaigned on a platform of rolling back President Bush's tax cuts on one hand, imposing additional taxes on the richest Americans on the other

Nope, what he proposed was actually to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the richest Americans - end. He would not roll back Bush's tax cuts for the middle classes or impose additional taxes. Which should place him well to the right of Democratic presidential candidates from the sixties through eighties.

You seem to draw a disctinction between rolling back tax cuts and raising taxes. I didn't draw the same disctinction as I view them as one and the same.