|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
G-Man, DTWB:
I'm just curious about something. The sites that you recently mentioned: did you bring them up just because they were slamming Bush, or did you bring them up because you thought they were liberal or Democrat? Because I don't see anything on MoveOn.org's website to hint that they're Democrat or liberal - just anti-Bush (which isn't the same thing). The site about the Iraqi resistance movement looks like the work of some really twisted people, but I don't see anything about them that shows any alliegence to an American political party (and if there was, I'd be in shock, because these psychos are so passionately anti-America, they wouldn't show their support for any American, even if he or she was against Bush). I only ask because you brought them up in this particular thread, and I didn't see a connection between these guys and liberals or Democrats.
Also, just a random thoughts to the anger at MoveOn.org over the ad comparing Bush to Hitler - it was sent in as part of a contest, and people who hold contests can't really be held responsible for the submissions of others. The person who submitted the ad is the one they should be mad at.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
There was an excellent Face the Nation discussion two Sundays ago that explored partisanship, the rise of Dean by exploiting that partisanship, and a discussion of the www.moveon.org commercial depicting Republicans as Nazis, and the fact that it's a bitter charicature that slanders Bush without a shred of evidence to support the idea that Bush's administration is in any way behaving like Nazis.
I think when people compare Bush to Hitler, they are thinking of the Hitler of 1935, rather than the Hitler of 1945.
Its the potential for where Bush is going that alarms people. Not what he has done.
The reaction to comparisons of Bush and Hitler or the charge that he is a Nazi - or even a fascist - is often as hyperbolic as the metaphor itself is described. Please: is there a single person posting to this board who believes that someone comparing Bush to Hitler means that they think Bush is responsible for the murder of six million Jews - or six million Muslims - or even six million inmates on Texas' death row? That interpretation would be just plain silly - and about as intellectually disciplined as the person who would color anyone s/he dislikes as a "Nazi". To assume that Hitler or Nazism can only be understood in the context of the Final Solution is not only ill-educated and/or lazy, it is dangerous.
Let's not forget that in his homeland (and many other places, the US of A included), Hitler was extremely popular throughout much of his career - and there was a helluva lot more to the National Socialist Party than genocide - which was, in fact, a fairly minor point of their agenda. The demonization of Hitler is an act of political hindsight. Those who see early warning signs of fascism in the Bush regime are attempting to exercise political foresight. I suspect that, if pushed to account for their charge, they would echo Hegel's sentiment that "we learn from history that we don't learn from history".
I have made connections between Bush's agenda and that of historical fascists here on these boards in the past. As this point is specifically about Hitler and the Nazis, I'll spare the board my thoughts on Mussolini's brand of "corporatism" (his term for fascism) and Franco's Spain. Those who would make comparisons between the President and der Feuhrer do so, I believe, because they fear that Bush is attempting to substantially alter our constitution, our government, and our laws. I believe many of those fears are justified. It may be a bit self-defeating to use Hitler as a specific reference, but it is not unjustified. Let's look at some of the more obvious parallels.
First, neither leader was elected by a majority of the people (both were appointed - one by Hindenberg, the other by the Supreme Court), casting doubt on their legitimacy from the outset and requiring major catastrophic events to bolster their national position. In each case, a major public atrocity was used to unite a majority, subdue remaining minority (however substantial), and stifle dissent. Following the Reichstag fire of 1933, a Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogated a number of German constitutional protections, including free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, the right of assembly and association, the right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, individual property rights, and states' right of self-government. A supplemental decree created the SA and SS Federal police agencies. Following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of 2001, the USA Patriot Act abrogated a number of American constitutional protections, including free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, the right of assembly and association, the right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and individual property rights. Subsequent Presidential decrees Presidential decrees have made it possible for military forces to be used to monitor and control the civilian population, in abrogation of posse comitatus.
Both advertised themselves early on as being "uniters, not dividers" (from Hitler's first address a Chancellor: "I pledge to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation" - sound familiar?). Both proved to be heinous liars in this regard.
Both worked toward isolating their countries from the rest of the world. One of Hitler's first actions after assuming power was to withdraw from the League of Nations. It took a little longer for Bush to declare the UN "irrelevant", but he was withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and international treaties within days of his inaugural; refusal to endorse the ICC was not long in following.
Both are/were fervent Christians who courted the conservative clergy from the start, with the church's first role being to fuel anti-liberalism. Hitler also managed to throw in a lot of Aryan mythology and fringe Christian legend (like the grail mythos and other stuff popularized by Wagnerian operas), - Bush is a Methodist convert from Episcopalianism (with a Catholic brother) who believes in The Rapture. Pat Robertson, leader of the religious right organization "The Christian Coalition" has assured us all of Bush's re-election based on visions from God himself. Bush beleives that God himself placed him in office.
Hitler made public dissent all but impossible at first, and later made it illegal. Whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech, he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall and made sure that the media did not provide the public with any coverage of public protests. It is now illegal to protest in the presence of George W Bush - demonstrators are not only forbidden within a hall where the President is speaking, they are not even allowed to assemble anywhere within sight of the route of his arriving or departing motorcade - nor anywhere that the press covering his appearances might catch a glimpse of them. This was the case before September 11, 2001, by the way - and has nothing to do with the "security" of the President.
Hitler was very fond of photo ops. He believed they were his best form of PR and pounced on them at every opportunity. The files abound with shots of Hitler with bright-faced Germany families and he especially liked being photographed with school children (though whether he was familiar with "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" or not is a fact which has been lost to history). He also actively promoted "family values" and high moral standards. Does any of this sound familiar?
As a result of the Homeland Security Act, Bush has almost complete dictatorial powers, as Hitler did (initially through the Enabling Act): the ability to make any decision he wishes without judicial or legislative restraint and carry on its meetings in secret, without scrutiny from the press or the people. Homeland security agents can now intrude in any part of a citizen's life. The Cyber Security Enhancement Act slipped into the Homeland Security bill at the last moment allows police to conduct Internet or telephone eavesdropping with no court order required, allows internet surveillance to gather telephone numbers, IP addresses, and URLs or e-mail information, where an "immediate threat to a national security interest" is suspected, permits ISPs to hand users' records over to law enforcement authorities, overturning current legislation that outlaws such behavior. Also, up to 850,000 jobs will be privatized, knocking out union and civil service oversight. Hitler eventually outlawed labor unions altogether. We'll see...
There are many more parallels along these lines which could be drawn, but I am not really intent on defending the comparison. I think it is more important to be aware of what has happened in the past and keep very close watch on what is happening right now, regardless of analogies. For those who are interested in pursuing the Nazi parallel, there's a web site here which has all kinds of Bush-Hitler links.
More important than drawing parallels between the two men, though, is for us to know what fascism is (apart from "a political system established to exterminate six million of something") - and to watch for every sign of its possible emergence in the administration of our country. Sadly, frighteningly, one does not have to watch too closely...
Bush may be "no Hitler" so far, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't want to be.
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Also, just a random thoughts to the anger at MoveOn.org over the ad comparing Bush to Hitler - it was sent in as part of a contest, and people who hold contests can't really be held responsible for the submissions of others. The person who submitted the ad is the one they should be mad at.
THANK YOU!
I was going to make that important point myself. Obviously that ad would be considered too shrill and controversial to actually be considered for actual TV airtime, much less to actually win. Still, it makes good fodder for conservative talk radio. Emotion will always trump reasoned discourse and reasoned and intellecually sound comparisons in that kind of forum (and many many other forums).
"Fascism is more appropriately termed corporatism, for it is the ultimate merger of state and corporate interests,"
Benito Mussolini
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-07 12:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Dear MoveOn member,
As the New Year begins, we'd rather be talking about positive things, and there are plenty of good things happening. But MoveOn.org has come under attack from the Republican National Committee (RNC), which has launched a campaign of malicious misinformation to divert attention from the creativity and power of the Bush in 30 Seconds contest. We need your help to make sure the media don't fall for it.
RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie launched the attack on "Fox News Sunday," and the RNC followed it with press releases and calls to reporters. The charges centered on two ads posted on the Bush in 30 Seconds website which compared President Bush's tactis with those of Adolf Hitler. Mr. Gillespie repeatedly referred to the ads as 'the MoveOn ad' or 'MoveOn's ad,' implying that we had sponsored or perhaps even commissioned the ad. And he also claimed that we might spend $7 million to run it on TV.
This is a lie. MoveOn.org hasn't sponsored such an ad, and we never would -- we regret the appearance of these ads on the Bush In 30 Seconds site. The two ads in question are from more than a thousand posted by members of the public, and they were voted on by MoveOn members through December 31st. Obviously the few hundred of you who viewed these ads agreed that they were not worthy of further broadcast or recognition, because they got low ratings. Yesterday we announced the 15 finalists -- all good, hard-hitting and fair appraisals of the Bush record, in the judgment of the members and others who rated them. The two offending ads can only be found one place now -- on the RNC website!
When we've explained this to journalists, most have understood that this is a game of gotcha politics, not news. But even our statement for the press below, which goes through the entire process in detail, hasn't stopped the right wing from working this angle as hard as they can.
That's why we're asking you to please watch for stories on this as they appear, and let us know. Call the news outlet yourself and give them hell for falling victim to such political baloney. I've attached our statement, which fully explains the situation, below. Then please let us know so we can contact the outlets directly.
You can help us track inaccurate reporting on this story at:
http://moveon.org/smear/?id=2234-3121065-ySbQCgwmjVQggpcw40dZkA
Second, we need you to get the press back on the right track. After you've corrected the negative accounts, write an upbeat letter to your local paper about the exciting and positive aspects of the contest and the finalists. These ads reflect the courage, hope, and deep patriotism of our membership. They're creative, passionate, and totally unlike most of the political ads that are out there. And perhaps most importantly, they were picked in a democratic way. Now that's a story.
The finalists are online at:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
By sharing that URL with your friends, family, and colleagues, you can help to make sure that the RNC isn't successful in stealing our finalists' glory.
Not only is the RNC campaign deceptive, it's also totally disingenuous. Yesterday, the New York Post ran a long opinion column focusing exclusively on how much Presidential Candidate Howard Dean resembles Hitler, even calling him "Herr Howie." Of course, the RNC hasn't issued a condemnation of that. When close RNC ally Grover Norquist repeatedly compared taxing the wealthy with the Holocaust in an interview on NPR, the RNC was muted. And in 2002, the RNC and its allies were silent when supporters of President Bush actually aired TV ads morphing the face of Senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee as a result of wounds sustained in Vietnam, into Osama bin Laden. Given such a transparently partisan track record, the RNC's moral outrage doesn't mean a whole lot.
Obviously, MoveOn.org and its 1.7 million members are now on the right-wing radar. They are going to do everything they can do to silence us, and we simply won't let it happen. Smear tactics and campaigns of misinformation have no place in American democracy.
Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
January 6th, 2003
P.S. Here's the statement we released to the press yesterday, which explains the whole situation.
Quote:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Jan. 5, 2004
ADS ATTACKED BY RNC CHAIRMAN
ARE NOT MOVEON.ORG VOTER FUND ADS
MoveOn.org Voter Fund Regrets Screening Process Allowed Ads to Slip Through
Statement by Wes Boyd, Founder of MoveOn.org Voter Fund:
The Republican National Committee and its chairman have falsely accused MoveOn.org of sponsoring ads on its website which compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading.
During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads that purported to tell the truth about the President and his policies. More than 1,500 submissions from ordinary Americans came in and were posted on a web site, bushin30seconds.org, for the public to review.
None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries.
We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system.
Contrast this with the behavior of the RNC and its allies when supporters of President Bush used TV ads morphing the face of Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) into that of Osama Bin Laden during the 2002 Senate race.
MoveOn.org and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund exist to bring the public into the political process and produce a more fact-based election process. We regret that the RNC doesn’t seem to embrace the same goals.
http://moveonvoterfund.org/smear/release.html
I guess there's nothing else to do but to wait until G-man comes over to accuse me of supporting Hitler by totally misenterpreting everything posted above.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-07 11:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
I don't see anything on MoveOn.org's website to hint that they're Democrat or liberal - just anti-Bush (which isn't the same thing).
MoveOn.Org admits to only supporting what they refer to as "moderate to progressive (i.e., liberal) principles."
They link at their site, approvingly, to numerous press clippings that refer to them as a "liberal" group.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
I don't see anything on MoveOn.org's website to hint that they're Democrat or liberal - just anti-Bush (which isn't the same thing).
MoveOn.Org admits to only supporting what they refer to as "moderate to progressive (i.e., liberal) principles."
They link at their site, approvingly, to numerous press clippings that refer to them as a "liberal" group.
Moderate means moderate. There's a difference between being a moderate and being a liberal. Based on my observations, most liberals see things in black and white, as do most conservatives (they just disagree on what's black and white). Not all liberals or conservatives are like this, obviously, but a significant amount. Moderates seem to see almost everything in shades of gray. "Progressive" is open to interpretation, but doesn't have to mean liberal. It can, but it might mean other things as well. Or it could be meant to be taken literally.
Also, these guys seem very proud of who they are, and I doubt that if they were genuine liberals that they would deny it. Liberals are proud of their affiliation, just like conservatives are. And there are moderates who can see the middle ground who are just as proud of that affiliation.
Liberals can be just as extreme as conservatives, and these people probably realize it just as well as I do. Extremists shouldn't be politicians, no matter what political party they come from. We need politicians who are able and willing to see issues from both sides and make choices that benefit everybody, not just their personal moral code. We also need politicians who are able to compromise.
I'm still reading through the links page you pointed me to, so I'll get back to you on that.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Let's review...
MoveOn admits to being "moderate to liberal," and proudly links to numerous articles where they are described as out and out liberal.
They support liberal/democrat candidates (Clinton, Grey Davis, etc.) and oppose conservative/republican candidates (Bush).
I think we can all safely conclude where they stand politically.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
I was flipping thru the newstand when I read this peice. Hence the title change on the top of this post.
Quote:
The House of Bush
Rep. strategist Kevin Phillips on the Bush family's hunger for power
By Eric Bates
Listening to Kevin Phillips talk about politics, it's easy to mistake him for a populist firebrand from the 1890s. He rails against the growing inequality of wealth in America. He bemoans the unprecedented influence that private corporations hold over public institutions. He attacks the "smug conservatism" of George W. Bush and accuses the president of attempting to establish a family dynasty better suited to royalist England than to democratic America.
But Phillips is no left-wing demagogue. He's not only a lifelong Republican, he's also the guy who literally wrote the book that became the blueprint for the party's dominance of presidential politics. Phillips served as the chief political strategist for Richard Nixon in 1968, and, in The Emerging Republican Majority, he formulated the "Southern Strategy" that helped hand the White House to the GOP for a generation.
In his new book American Dynasty, Phillips lays out his almost visceral distaste for what he calls "the politics of deceit in the House of Bush," accusing the administration of dishonesty and secrecy that would make Tricky Dick blush..........
I'm not going to post the article in it's entirety, just the 1st paragraph or so to let you decide if you want to read further. It's amusing that the left isn't the only side releasing best-selling books about Bush's lies.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-08 12:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
So, to recap: we've gone from denying MoveOn is liberal to admitting that it is while arguing that this is okay because there are also conservative groups out there.
None is which is relevant to the central question of this thread, which is whether liberals hate the president.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
None is which is relevant to the central question of this thread, which is whether liberals hate the president.
Well, obviously some do, I won't deny that. And there are some that don't. I don't know any percenatges, but I know for a fact that not all liberals hate the president. They might not agree with him and his policies, but that's not the same as actually hating George W. Bush as a person.
Call it a cop-out answer if you will, but anybody who knows me well should remember that I try to avoid blanket statements and stereotyping. So I'm not going to go around denouncing everybody from a certain group just because I don't like a select few. I've given up on trying to encourage others to think along these lines because it always gets ugly when I do, so I'll just "lead by example" (for lack of a better term).
So the answer is some liberals do hate the president, and some liberals don't.
And to be honest, it's their right to hate him if they want to. Just as we have the right to hate anybody we feel like hating. I understand it's tough when someone knocks someone you root for or look up to - I hate it when people diss my favorte actors or writers or whatever - but that's the nature of being a politician, or even a public figure in general. You make yourself a target, and if you do or say something that people don't agree with, they don't like you for it.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Apparently, some liberals don't just hate the President, they hate his supporters.... This "Guest Columnist" for the ironically named Seattle Post Intelligencer argues that Bush supporters (which may mean approximately fifty percent of the country at any given time) aren't just people with different political views, but are actually just plain stupid: It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.
You know these people; they're all around you (they're not you, else you would not be reading this article this far). They're the ones who keep the puerile shows on TV, who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards, who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things, who generally make life much more miserable for all of us than it ought to be. Sad to say, they comprise a substantial minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the populace. Amazing how many "compassionate" and "tolerant" liberals are perfectly willing to treat opposing viewpoints with scorn, condescension and venom.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
Don't let yourself get worked up by all this. There are millions of people in the US, all of which have different oppinions. Someone putting up a picture like that (the time satire), while offensive, isn't the end of the world. It's not like it's on Howard Dean's website! You could find millions of pictures like that.
[qoute]Amazing how many "compassionate" and "tolerant" liberals are perfectly willing to treat opposing viewpoints with scorn, condescension and venom.
Most Republicans/conservatives are the same way!
FREE SCOTT PETERSON!
"Basically, you've just responded with argumentative opinion to everything I've said. And you respond with speculations, speculating that I'M speculating. "- Wonder Boy
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Amazing how many "compassionate" and "tolerant" liberals are perfectly willing to treat opposing viewpoints with scorn, condescension and venom.
I dunno. Why is it you don't have any problem when the right wing ridicules and denounces "liberals"? A word I might add that you seem to treat as if it should be a cause for embarasssment and avoidance and ultimately rejection by the person "accused" of being one.
There are countless far right sites, articles AND RADIO SHOWS that do the same kinds of smear tactics that you are so worked up about right now with all your "proofs". Funny how you don't get worked up about the politics of destruction when it's being done by "your side". But hell, let anyone on "the left" attempt something similar and suddenly there's all this righteous indignation by you. Suddenly, everyone, especially the so called "comapssionate" and tolerant" liberals must adhere to higher standards. 
I just think you have an issue with free speech.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-08 2:02 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
whomod said:
I just think you have an issue with free speech.
Ah, the old "if criticize my views you are a censor" ploy. A popular ploy among-ahem-certain liberals, and quickly gaining ground on the top tactic, the old "you're a racist/sexist/homophobe" gambit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
whomod said:
I just think you have an issue with free speech.
Ah, the old "if criticize my views you are a censor" ploy. A popular ploy among-ahem-certain liberals, and quickly gaining ground on the top tactic, the old "you're a racist/sexist/homophobe" gambit.
OK, you don't have a problem against free speech. You just have a problem with anti-Bush speech. 
Hey, it was YOU who brought up all your indignation at people *GASP* daring to critisize Bush.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-08 12:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Au contraire, my venom-filled friend. I recognize that you have the First Amendment right to criticize the President. I am simply questioning whether you and your fellow liberals are criticizing him for legitimate, logical, policy reasons, or because you irrationally hate him as a person. I am not attacking your rights, simply questioning your motives.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38 |
Y'know, maybe it's because I'm a Republican, but it just seems to me that the absolute worst of Republican rhetoric doesn't even approach the level of venom and distortion spewed almost daily from the Democrat side.
Some examples I've consistently given include how Democrats and liberal reporters constantly project the illusion that Bush "ruined" the economy and started the recession that we're hopefully finally emerging from now.
When the truth is that the recession began under Cinton, AN ENTIRE YEAR before Bush took office. That "Bush caused it" is a blantant lie on the part of Democrats.
To say nothing of the fact that we were beginning to emerge from the recession when 9-11 occurred, an event which almost instantly obliterated one-sixth of the annual U.S. economy, plunging us back into recession.
And the deficit spending that Bush is vilified by Democrats for is almost entirely due to homeland security spending. Which would have occurred no matter who was President.
And the consistent bitter charicatures of Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Quayle and G.W. Bush (again as I've pointed out before) portraying them as idiots and incompetents, while simultaneously portraying their Democrat counterparts (Carter, Mondale, Ferraro, Dukakis, Clinton and Gore) as brilliant geniuses and visionaries.
So this isn't something new and exclusive to G.W. Bush. This is a consistent malicious portrayal of any Republican who dares to be elected.
And even when incredible things happened in the world under these past Republicans, like the collapse of Soviet-bloc Eastern Europe and collapse of the Soviet Union itself, these monumental events are portrayed as "dumb luck", despite it being clear that Reagan's plan to negotiate from a position of strength worked, and the Russians negotiated peace because they couldn't compete militarily, and were compelled to negotiate.
Democrats may not like the Republican attack on Dukakis during the 1988 presidential election, using Willie Horton as a poster-boy for Dukakis. But it is not distortion of the facts by Republicans, it is absolute fact that Dukakis enacted the policy that allowed convicted murderer Willie Horton out on a weekend furlough, which enabled Horton to murder another person.
And it was emblematic of Dukakis' misguided liberal sympathies on a wide range of issues, from crime and punishment, to foreign policy, to military spending.
G-man's point throughout this topic is that Democrat/liberal hatred of Bush is bitter and maliciously misrepresentative of the facts, and I see nothing here to dispute that.
The best counterpoint I've heard is the half-hearted "Well, Republicans do it to Democrats too..."
Well, as I've said repeatedly, Republican rhetoric is almost always backlash against deliberate misrepresentation by Democrats, and even then it rarely matches the venom of what Democrats have said. So from that perspective, Republicans DON'T "do it too".
Howard Dean's allegations that Bush knew in advance of 9-11 is the bitterest and most infuriating thing I've heard from Democrats in the recent past. Alleged without a shred of evidence, no less. If that's not unpatriotic and pointlessly divisive (exactly what Republicans have called Dean's remarks), then I don't know what else could possibly be considered unpatriotic.
And equally unpatriotic and malicious, the photomanipulations of Bush and his cabinet into Nazis wearing swastika armbands. And the TIME magazine cover above, distorted to show U.S. soldiers as nazis. Again, from baseless suggestion that there is a similarity between Bush and Nazis, without a shred of proof.
So yes, liberals hate the President, and no, they haven't got a shred of evidence to back it up. And because liberals hate Bush, they believe every half-baked allegation against Bush, no matter how preposterous.
I've yet to see any evidence that Iraq is about "blood for oil". It will be at least a decade before the U.S. sees a dime of profit from Iraq, if we ever see any profit at all from the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq. When you consider the cost of the war, the cost of reconstruction, and the forgiven debt Iraq owed the U.S., it will be a long time before we can even hope to break even, let alone a "blood for oil" brand of profit, as liberals have baselessly alleged.
I've yet to see that Halliburton was picked for any other reason than its extensive past experience in reconstruction of other nations. Despite what liberals bitterly allege.
I've yet to see that Saddam Hussein was anything but evil, or any evidence that Saddam had NOT been consistently pursuing WMD's, and the fact that they have not been found means absolutely nothing. The WMD's are no doubt buried in the desert somewhere, just like fighter jets that have already been found buried in the sand dunes of Iraq. Despite liberals' bitter allegations that there was no evidence, and that there was no provocation for the U.S. to invade.
There definitely was a WMD program, that even Hilary Clinton, John Kerry and many other key Democrats acknowledged, until March 2003, when it became ruthlessly convenient to exploit that WMD's were not immediately found, despite the overwhelming evidence that Saddam had a massive WMD program, according to U.N. findings, according to the intelligence of every nation that investigated Iraq, and also according to high-level Iraqi military defectors, beginning in 1995.
The U.N. records, sourced from Saddam Hussein's own military inventory records, clearly show that there are thousands of missing WMD's, documented but unaccounted for. The liberal-bashing of Bush's invasion of Iraq defies logic, and relies on misrepresentative technicalites to make it appear that Bush made war with Iraq for motives of selfishness and greed, rather than the true situation, that it was in the long term interests of the U.S., Iraq, the entire Middle East, and the entire world.
Liberals distort that France, Germany and Russia had motives and political ties to Iraq (violating U.N. sanctions, which is what caused 12 years of sanctions not to bring about Saddam's collapse, as would have occurred if these three nations had not broken sanctions). Liberals distort that, if not for France and Germany, a security council vote would have supported invasion of Iraq.
And liberals distort that EVEN WITHOUT a U.N. vote, about 50 nations supported the invasion of Iraq. Probably a lot more nations would have joined that "coalition of the willing" if not for France and Germany's obstructionism.
And liberals distort that even though there was not a new U.N. vote to support invasion of Iraq in early 2003, there were ten U.N. resolutions over the previous 12 years, noting the danger Iraq posed, and calling for Iraq to disarm, or face "serious consequences" (implying U.N. authorized military action to enforce disarmament). The most recent U.N. resolution prior to invasion was in September 2002, just six months prior to the March 2003 invasion. But we are to assume, based on liberal distortion of the facts, that the threat Iraq posed for 12 years, that inspired 10 resolutions calling for Iraq's disarmament, just suddenly evaporated and that Iraq suddenly ceased to be a threat just prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Liberals talk about legality of the Iraq invasion, but what about the illegality of Saddam's extermination of an estimated 1 million of Iraq's surviving 25 million people, whose mass graves are being unearthed all over Iraq?
Liberals bemoan the lack of solid evidence of a Saddam/Al Qaida connection, but that link can now be proven, (the New York Post article that first reported that has been posted repeatedly on these boards, and bitter Bush-hating liberals continue to ignore it).
But even if a Saddam/Al Qaida link weren't proveable, the globally publicized fact that Saddam gave 15,000 dollar checks to the families of every suicide bomber in Palestine, in very public ceremonies, in this and other ways demonstrating that Saddam was a major supporter of Palestinian terrorism, and that pushing Saddam out is a major blow against Palestinian terror, is another fact that anti-Bush liberals choose to ignore and gloss over, amid their Bush-bashing.
On so many issues, liberals make a legalistic case for "illegality" while ignoring the evil of what we are fighting, and the necessity of fighting it.
We should have invaded Iraq in 1995, when high-level Iraqi military officers first revealed Saddam was definitely violating the 1991 U.N. peace provisions, and was pursuing a large and secret WMD program.
We should have invaded in 1998, when Hussein threw out U.N. weapons inspectors.
We should have invaded North Korea (as Sen. John McCain has said) in 1994, instead of promising North Korea close to a billion dollars a year in cheap feul for 10 years, with no verification required from them, that allowed North Korea to take Clinton's nuclear blackmail payments, while simultaneously violating the agreement and continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
While Bush is vilified by liberals for not dealing with North Korea now, liberals distortedly ignore that it was Clinton who made the agreement with no nuclear verification required that made the present North Korean nukes possible, and that Clinton had 8 years to take care of the problem that Bush inherited.
On and on, all the situations where liberals bemoan legalistic technicalities, while ignoring and outright lying about the greater truth of these events.
Because they hate Bush.
And God forbid they should acknowledge Clinton's responsibility for North Korea's nukes, Clinton's responsibility for Saddam's ability to stay in power and commit genocide and build WMD's (which Bush Sr. also shares blame for), Clinton's responsibility for the economic recession that G.W. Bush inherited, and the many lost opportunities by Clinton to militarily deal with the building threat of Al Qaida.
Liberal hatred for Bush makes them blindly hate Bush, and blindly oppose what is best for our nation, and the world.
Liberals would rather hate Bush, and blame Bush for everything, utilizing distortion and wild conspiracies, than acknowledge there are real and proven threats to our country, and work to resolve them.
Hating Bush has become a one-stop scapegoat for liberals, whether Bush is to blame or not. And it seems to me that liberals are eager to believe the worst about Bush, no matter how unproven and wild the accusation.
And I wish I could modify that evaluation to say "some liberals" or "most liberals". But it really seems to me that Bush-hating is the practice of ALL liberals. Whether in conversation with liberals I meet person, or with liberals on these boards, or liberal pundits in the media, I don't see liberals ever say at any point: "Well geez, this particular accusation against Bush is unfair..."
There is no balance among liberals, Bush-hating seems universal among liberals. So in this particular case, based on observation, I'd have to say "ALL liberals". 
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Hell of a good post Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Columnist Robert Samuelson makes some points that are similar to Dave's: If "hate" were used loosely (as in, say, "kids hate spinach"), the word choice would be harmless. But people who claim to hate really mean it, and that is serious.
It signifies that you have gone beyond discussion, compromise or even (to some extent) coexistence. The differences are too basic to be bridged. Genuine political hatred usually is reserved for true tyrants, whose unspeakable acts of brutality justify nothing less.
More than the language is being butchered. Once disagreement turns into self-proclaimed hate, it becomes blinding. You can see only one all-encompassing truth, which is your villain's deceit or stupidity. That was true of Clinton haters, and it increasingly is true of Bush haters.
A small army of pundits and talking heads now has devoted itself to one story: the sins of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their supporters. They ruined the economy with massive tax cuts and budget deficits; the Iraq war was an excuse for corporate profiteering; and their arrogance alienated foreign allies. All ambiguity vanishes.
In the end, Bush hating says more about the haters than the hated
His fiercest detractors don't loathe him merely because they think he is mediocre, hypocritical and simplistic. What they truly resent is that his popularity suggests that the country might be more like him than it is like them.
On one level, their embrace of hatred aims to make others share their outrage. But on another level, it is a self-indulgent declaration of moral superiority – something that makes them feel better about themselves.
Either way, it represents another dreary chapter in the continuing coarsening of public discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
More than the language is being butchered. Once disagreement turns into self-proclaimed hate, it becomes blinding. You can see only one all-encompassing truth, which is your villain's deceit or stupidity. That was true of Clinton haters, and it increasingly is true of Bush haters.
[/LIST]
Probably the fairest thing posted all week!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
if you guys are gunna agree on something im leaving!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Originally posted by PJP :
Hell of a good post Dave.
Quote:
Originally posted by G-man:
Yep. Thanks Dave.
Thanks for the positive feedback, guys.
I thought I'd post some Bush we can ALL look on favorably:
--------------------
Quote:
( from the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic, page 24: )
Mister JLA said:
.
That doesn't change the fact that blahblahblah neocons this, neocons that, conspiracy...Haliberton...Cheney, where was Bush on 9/11...? he duped the American public...lies, lies, lies, the average American doesn't question things like I do, since I care more and am smarter...here in California...blahblahblah.
Signed,
whomod.
"The Whomod Technique"
http://www.robkamphausen.com/Number=258330
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Fine...I'll find eleven other girls and make a 'Babes for Bush' calendar...
Just some more of my two cents:
We get a lot of our information from the far right and the far left, be it moveon.org or newsmax.com (which is only useful for the late-night jokes anyways). These people see it as 'their way or the highway'. To them, a liberal must be a pro-choice, atheist, communist. A conservative must be a Bible-thumpering, anti-envorimental, facists.
Now really, do any of us fit into to either of those catergories? No. I don't. Most Americans do not follow their 'traditional' party line. What would your political impression of me be if you asked what I thought about homosexual unions and drug legalization? On the other side of the coin, what would happen if you asked me about abortion or taxes? The thing is, I might disagree with those wacky far-right people, but I feel like I represent the GOP, not them. I think I understand what the GOP stands for. But does my version of a conservative get media coverage? Nope. And the same thing happens on the liberal side. I'm sure the liberals not hogging the spotlight have souls.
That all being said, those same loudmouths on each extreme side hate each other. They always will. Now I may disagree with Bush (like this new thing cooking up about the immigration), but I like him. I find him likable. Clinton? He's tolerable. I'll admit he did a few good things, I'm sure he's great at parties, but I wouldn't go near the man. Like I've said before, maybe if I were a man, this wouldn't be an issue. I don't feel malicious towards any of the democratic candidates.
Hate becomes a problem when it forces you to discredit everything a person does. I think both sides have done it, however, I take no part in it.
"You're either lying or stupid."
"I'm stupid! I'm stupid!"
Megatron and Starscream
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Great post Wonder Boy (your nice long one on this page that is). Course I just hopped in here and read this page, but I think it pretty much sums up the rest of the thread. But Wonder Boy's post reminded me of something, a clear example of that, that happened last year. I don't know how many of you, if any, knew about this/saw it, but March 31at of last year (only reason I know the date is because I saved the chat and posted it to my journal the next day) LD and I were instant messaging and despite my repeated reminders that I didn't want to argue the war (in his jounral, my journal and on AIM) yet again he ignored that and dragged me into an argument I had no desire for. Now the thing about this is whenever we chatted, we'd start at midnight CST (my time), which is 10pm his time, so by that time I'm not thinking, tired, and ready to climb into bed soon. So needlsess to say I'm no where near awake enough to talk/argue politics.
Anyway, follow the link to my journal. If you're really adventurous (need more proof of Liberal crap) then you should check out the posts around that time on his journal. Oh and check out the one before that one on mine, from the same day, don't just read my posts, but read the comments that was left by all as well.
Last edited by Batwoman; 2004-01-10 6:10 AM.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
I would never accuse all conservatives or liberals of sharing the same ideals, as I think that's insulting and unfair. Nobody deserves to be generalized simply because of a meaningless classification. I, personally, will never accept a branding of "liberal" or "conservative"(and certainly not Republican or Democrat), because, frankly, I hate both words. They're nothing more than a facist tool used to confuse us and divide our country(one supposedly founded on the basis of unity, hence it's name), blindly pitting one group against the other. It's a shield, an excuse, a copout.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
I don't hate the President. I do hate many of the things President Bush has done. I do like to argue against those things that I don't agree with, it would be wrong not to. It's a free country still so if you want to dismiss different opinions as hate filled rhetoric that's your prerogative but also your loss.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
The way i see it, I think partisanship goes beyond mere policies and actions. For example:
Ex US-Treasury Chief: Saw No Evidence of Iraq WMDs
Now that's a pretty damning article by any account. BUUUT predictably, the moderate/liberals or the left/liberals" will see this article as vindication of everything they're critiquing the President on. The Pro-Bush camp however will totally ignore the article and call it sour grapes or anything to deflect attention to what it says. Just as any pro-Bush article would be equally ignored and deflected by the "left".
I think partisanahip has more to do with people's idea of what the "image" of their side and the "other side" is. To people, the stereotypes of what "liberals' and conservatives" stand for trumps any policy descisions they may make. I get that impression usually after people ridicule California/San Francisco when deriding liberals. As if whatever San Francisco represents in their eyes is indicative of the perceived threat to their way of life which includes sexual freedom, reproductive choice, gay equality, dissent, and questioning authority.
I'm guessing judging from a recent anti-Dean ad that had an elderly couple railing against peircings, latte drinking and a host of other threats to them, that conservatives see democrats as somehow threatening their old fashioned, religious,pro-family, pro-law enforcement/military way of life with what can only be described as cosmopolitian "big city" values. Which since they usually pick SF as opposed to L.A., I'm guessing is also a way to spotlight the gay debate. The Paris Hilton TV show I think crystallizes and caricatures this clash of ideas.
Liberals on the other hand also have their ideas of conservatism. Which usually boils down to repression, conformity, the deep south and all it it's own stereotypes, stay at home wives, innate racism and sexism, a desire for their own ideological and religious views to override everything including the Constitution, kowtowing to big business and the authoritarian ask-no-questions status quo. Basically a return to the 50's. And the GOP as the party of angry white men no longer assured entitlement is also a powerful impression.
So basically regardless of whatever triumphs or losses EITHER side may acheive, this ideological divide is what drives people above and beyond anything factual and above and beyond anything that may actually represent actual liberals or conservatives.
We truly are defined by the worst of us. A "conservative" is no more Strom Thrurmond than a "liberal" is Ed Begely Jr.
Me, I live in L.A., a place I'm sure totally alien to someone from the midwest. I like it that way. Just like I'm sure New Yorkers like their own idiosyncracies. What I resent is people who think EVERYTHING should be like their own slice of America and their own worldview and everything not like it is somehow evil in biblical proportions. You live in the midwest because you like small town values? Good. Stay there. Just don't tell me how to live my life. Thank you very much. It's all just chaos VS order to use a comic book reference. Too much of either can't be good.
Now back to the article linked. That is the 2nd article I've recently posted that shows not the frothing at the mouth "liberals" out to "get" GWB out of some partisan hatred but REPUBLICANS, criticizing Bush. This one from his very cabinet. A guy who sat in the National Security Council saying THE-EXACT-SAME-THINGS the so called spiteful hate filled Democrats have been saying. Only he has about 19,000 documents backing up his statements. Here is the earlier conservative anti-Bush article again since some of you may have missed it.
Quote:
The House of Bush
Rep. strategist Kevin Phillips on the Bush family's hunger for power
By Eric Bates
Listening to Kevin Phillips talk about politics, it's easy to mistake him for a populist firebrand from the 1890s. He rails against the growing inequality of wealth in America. He bemoans the unprecedented influence that private corporations hold over public institutions. He attacks the "smug conservatism" of George W. Bush and accuses the president of attempting to establish a family dynasty better suited to royalist England than to democratic America.
But Phillips is no left-wing demagogue. He's not only a lifelong Republican, he's also the guy who literally wrote the book that became the blueprint for the party's dominance of presidential politics. Phillips served as the chief political strategist for Richard Nixon in 1968, and, in The Emerging Republican Majority, he formulated the "Southern Strategy" that helped hand the White House to the GOP for a generation.
In his new book American Dynasty, Phillips lays out his almost visceral distaste for what he calls "the politics of deceit in the House of Bush," accusing the administration of dishonesty and secrecy that would make Tricky Dick blush..........
Now what I would expect say if I had posted ..i dunno, ANYTHING from CNN or ABC News or The whatever Times is for some to just wave it away as the biased utterances of the "liberal media". That is indicative of the kind of dismissal I expect from some on the the right. Just dismiss any alleged corruption and secrecy and deceit as nothing more than the ramblings of people who "don't like Bush" or "partisan politics" or "hate speech" or anything that may actually encourage someone to pay attention. In another thread, i even posted CBS News' expose that the Texas education miracle was all smoke and mirrors. No response. No care.
When even staunch Republicans start saying the same things I've been saying about Bush, can we stop pretending it's not about blind devotion to whatever you think Bush represents to you and damn any thing that talks disparingly about him, true or otherwise. The perceived idea of what he represents to you sociologically as an (R) is more important than the reality of whatever he may or may not do.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s01-coop.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaytheytriedtowarnus.html
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0205/msg00138.html
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-12 10:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I don't hate the President. I do hate many of the things President Bush has done. I do like to argue against those things that I don't agree with, it would be wrong not to. It's a free country still so if you want to dismiss different opinions as hate filled rhetoric that's your prerogative but also your loss.
Amen.
Last edited by Wednesday; 2004-01-17 9:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
From MoveOn.org
Quote:
Senate Republicans Hack Democratic Computer Files
Dear whomod,
Sometimes we come across a news story so shocking that it serves to remind us that Bush's Republicans will cross any line in their pursuit of full control over the government.
You have already heard how President Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process and appointed Charles Pickering -- who authored the GOP anti-abortion plank and argued for lenience for a convicted cross-burner -- to a lifetime seat on the federal bench just hours after laying a wreath at the grave of Martin Luther King, Jr.
But they're not done.
This week, the Boston Globe reported that Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee repeatedly accessed computer files belonging to Democratic members over the course of the year, stealing strategic memos and leaking them to conservative media outlets.
Republicans immediately jumped on the defensive, blaming the computer glitch that allowed them to access the files. That's like a burglar blaming an unlocked door when he robs your house! You couldn't make up a better story to demonstrate the excesses and lengths that they'll go to in pursuit of their agenda. Their tactics illustrate their willful abuse of democratic rules as they attempt to pack our courts with right-wing extremists.
They will do anything to increase their power through President Bush's right-wing extremist judicial nominees -- even illegal and unethical computer hacking.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive?mode=PF
Watergate anyone??
OOOOOHH But no, "liberals" unreasonably "hate" the Republicans.
It's pretty apparent to any fool that the exreme right wing of the Republican Party is at war with any opposition to their vision of 1 party rule. And it shows what i've been saying about some people thinking the ends justify the means. No matter how much it slaps in the face, democracy itself. I now know I can't wait for electronic voting machines!
The new Right, same as the old.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-25 9:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
President Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process and appointed Charles Pickering
President Bush made a recess appointment of Judge Pickering. This is allowed by the Constitution. It is, therefore, incrediably disingenuous of MoveOn (which might as well call itself "HateBush.Org") to suggest that an impropriety occurred.
Furthermore, had Senate Democrats discharged their duty to actually vote on Pickering, instead of letting his nomination languish in a procedural limbo, the issue would not have even come up.
Quote:
Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee repeatedly accessed computer files belonging to Democratic members over the course of the year, stealing strategic memos and leaking them to conservative media outlets
We now come to the moment where we examine that persistent liberal double standard. A Democrat who had done this would be a "heroic whistle blower."
Furthermore, from what I've read, these memos were "stolen" when Democrat staffers stored them on publicly accessible networks, even though they should have known, and were informed, that these networks were viewable by the Republicans.
It would be pretty difficult, I would expect, to prosecute someone for "hacking" simply for gaining access to documents by clicking on a publicly accessible folder on one's own computer. If that's "hacking," I guess we're all "hacking" Rob's board right now.
So why the strum and drang?
In fact, this whole hue and crew over the accessed memos is simply an attempt by Democrats to draw attention from what the memos said.
The real scandal is not about who got what memos how, but their content. They demonstrated clearly that Judiciary Democrats were the pawns of special interest groups. FOr example, the memo held that Sixth Circuit judges needed to be delayed to aid the case for racial quotas at the University of Michigan.
They also demonstrated that Democrats were attacking people because of their race: According to the memos, Miguel Estrada was a target because "he is Latino." Can you imagine anyone seriously complaining about how the memos were obtained if it was Republican memo discussing a minority candidate in this manner?
The failure, of MoveOn and their acolytes, to recognize or acknowledge this is hardly evidence that liberals don't hate the President, but may be evidence that they do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,506 Likes: 64
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,506 Likes: 64 |
There. I've listed the only people there who aern't fucktards.
And here's the fucktards.
1)Mr.JLA
2)Dave TWB
3)Pariah
4)The G-Man
Everyone else there falls in between the 2 poles.
Rob tries to keep it cool so I respect that. Still, I don't think he's all that removed from the latter list though.
You're welcome.
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg) [/center] [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg) [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38 |
A political cartoon by Pat Oliphant:
And an appropriate response, from the letters/Opinion section of today's Fort Lauderdale News Sun-Sentinel:
Quote:
Who's the idiot?
.
Rex Jeffery McMullan
Pompano Beach
Posted March 14 2004
.
.
In liberating both Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has lost less than 600 troops. He has taken less than a year.
.
By comparison, the USA (JFK, LBJ, Nixon) lost Vietnam, lost 58,000 troops, and took 10 years to accomplish this feat. In addition, the USA (Truman) lost half of Korea, also lost 50,000 troops, and we still have 38,000 troops there after 50-plus years.
.
According to The New York Times and The Washington Post, President Bush's tax cuts (Conservatives know these to be the GOP House's tax cuts) have spurred a stable Dow (currently 10,500), been a catalyst for upwardly mobile retail sales and housing starts in the USA.
Neither The Times or The Post are known as bastions of conservatism.
.
So I see where the author of the March 1 cartoon has (in essence) called President Bush an "idiot."
Since one epithet deserves another, based on the foregoing, the cartoonist is the "idiot."
.
Furthermore, what does this say of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board?
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016 |
ZOD finds the "comedy" from the left full of hate and lacking of wit. Anymore it's direct and obsurd, such as the one above. ZOD is sure Jefferson considered the possiblity of same sex marriage when writing the Constitution and was for it. Please...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
I have a very strong dislike for liberals and their hateful ways.
Last edited by PJP; 2004-03-15 2:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Then don't fuck the. Duh! Think PJP! Think!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
A political cartoon by Pat Oliphant:
And an appropriate response, from the letters/Opinion section of today's Fort Lauderdale News Sun-Sentinel:
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
I just want to ask, what does a cartoon about the folly of amending the Constitution to prevent a group of people equal rights have to do with the war in Iraq??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
And an appropriate response, from the letters/Opinion section of today's Fort Lauderdale News Sun-Sentinel:
Quote:
Who's the idiot?
.
Rex Jeffery McMullan
Pompano Beach
Posted March 14 2004
.
.
In liberating both Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has lost less than 600 troops. He has taken less than a year.
.
By comparison, the USA (JFK, LBJ, Nixon) lost Vietnam, lost 58,000 troops, and took 10 years to accomplish this feat. In addition, the USA (Truman) lost half of Korea, also lost 50,000 troops, and we still have 38,000 troops there after 50-plus years.
.
According to The New York Times and The Washington Post, President Bush's tax cuts (Conservatives know these to be the GOP House's tax cuts) have spurred a stable Dow (currently 10,500), been a catalyst for upwardly mobile retail sales and housing starts in the USA.
Neither The Times or The Post are known as bastions of conservatism.
.
So I see where the author of the March 1 cartoon has (in essence) called President Bush an "idiot."
Since one epithet deserves another, based on the foregoing, the cartoonist is the "idiot."
.
Furthermore, what does this say of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board?
What do you think you're doing bringing logic and facts into this?!? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Kill President Bush dot Com: It's amazing how bold some people become when they log on to the Internet.
It's even more amazing how many of these same individuals seem to forget that messages posted on web sites or bulletin boards may stick around for years to come, and have the potential to cause great trouble for them both now and in the future.
They are also apparently unaware that there are limits to free speech.
Take Kevin Lindquist from Longwood, Florida, for instance. One of his postings at (http://linux.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.linux/2003-09/0591.html) reads:
"Get your KillPresidentBush.com e-mail address! Now you can impress all your friends with your very own Your_User_Name_Here@KillPresidentBush.com e-mail address. Only $20.00 a year! We will start operating in November so send in your money fast kids! Checks and Money Orders at this time only. Include user name you would like and send to: KillPresidentBush.com, c/o Kevin Lindquist, P.O. Box 915321, Longwood, FL 32791-5321."
Shockingly, the domain name www.killpresidentbush.com (Which I initially thought was a spoof) is actually registered to Lindquist. While the site is not yet in operation (presumably he wants to begin operating in October as he says above) Lindquist was evidently unable to wait to spread his venom.
Sprinkled across a number of mostly technical bulletin boards, Lindquist has posted a variety of threatening and highly illegal messages about his desires to kill President George W. Bush.
For example. One recent Lindquist posting at a Linux bulletin board reads (http://linux.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.linux/2003-10/0041.html),
"Would it be easier to kill President Bush through poison by attending one of his fund raising dinners? He should be having quite a few of those campaigning for re-election."
Another Lindquist posting is headlined, "Execute President Bush by Firing Squad!" The only comment in the body of the e- mail is (http://linux.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.linux/2003-09/0619.html), "Do it for your country." It also contains Lindquist's apparently standard postscript to his messages, "The mob made me do it!"
Then not content with waging cyber kill against the president, Lindquist moves on to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. He writes (http://linux.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.linux/2003-09/0496.html),"Let's kill John Ashcroft. John and Janet Ashcroft's home address is: 0022 3rd St Ne, Washington, DC 20002-7312. Kill them both!"
The number Lindquist provided to register the domain name is (310) 780-2337. Two calls to the number was answered by voice mail. Lindquist did not call me back by the time this article went to print. In addition, an e-mail was not immediately responded to.
However, I suggest that you make a call to the FBI letting them know about Lindquist. While he sounds extremely bold in his on line communications, let's see how courageous he is when he is standing face to face with federal agents!
|
|
|
|
|
