Forums Index >> General >> Wing-nut alert!
"The case is one of several battles waged in recent years in the Bible Belt over what role evolution should play in science books. Last year, Georgia's education chief proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word "evolution" in favor of "changes over time." That plan was soon dropped amid protests by teachers...."
Judge: Evolution Stickers Must Go
Now, I assume these folks are republicans, though it doesnt' state that anywhere in the article...but then again...southern, bible beaters, moralizing -- strong atavistic tendencies....why are these types always republicans? How come democrats don't pull this 13th century crap?
Anywho...score one more for the constitution....ah, but the tides of human stupidity are rising! More and more of these (moooooo!) people born every day!
I sense that you enjoy the role of antagonist Stinky. I grew weary of its burden long ago. Its what brought me to what you call a "anarchist" position.
If the government were confined to its proper role, that of only protecting individual rights, all this would be a sidenote. We'd be watching people smacking their heads against the wall, or with a bible, and wondering why they waste their precious lives so.
Instead, we vote each others lives away, democratically through taxes, in an orgy of mutual destruction.
Some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.
DIE SPONGEBOB DIE.
Christian right marks start of `a good 4 years
Four good years for whom?
"Although a theme of the inauguration was the sacrifices made by members of the military, there was nary a mention of the war in Iraq at the Sheldon events, nor the price paid by U.S. Soldiers and their families."
Eat the poor...or better yet, send them off to die for...wmd...no....9/11....no....er? Freedom? Yeah! That'll stick!
How thoughtful...
In the January 12 "Falwell Confidential" he makes a plea for donations to support relief work in "India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia." The report states that "in this heavily Muslim part of the world, millions have never even heard of Jesus Christ.
According to Jerry Falwell, Liberty University's "Director of International Crusades" will head a team sent to the region to distribute relief supplies. "In addition we will be presenting the Gospel to tens of thousands of persons through distribution of Gospel tracts written in the native languages of the area...Our ultimate purpose for this first mission is to set the stage for many other mission trips to this Asian region by hundreds of Liberty students in the months to come."
Nothing like a little compassion! Food for the body and soul!
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/jan/article355.html
So THAT'S what Condoleezza meant by "wonderful opportunity"...
LOL stinky.... I didn't know that I had started a parallel topic with my "Spongebob is Gay" thread....
(me..... Sorry)
Heys stinks dont forget the teletubbies. They are also targets for the gaybashing right.
I think the bible thumbing has gotten out of control.
If church affixated people want to worry about something, they should worry about bush.
He is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Its like he has some-kind of sith mind control over the
Christain conservatives, he keeps their vision cloudy and confused, to complecti to figure
Out, so its easier just to go along with what ever he says. ( hey dont listen to liberals, the're the debo...)
Irony....
Wacky stuff. Enjoy.
Critique the book and let me know, Stinker. The title, you undercover Donkey, appears to be: It's "Don't Think Like an Elephant."
Well, here, I will post it.
Ain't this kewl/cute!?
GOP RHETORIC
Bush puts his own spin on 'freedom'
Left's mainstay word recast in economic terms, analyst says
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, January 21, 2005
While progressives were turning their backs during George W. Bush's inaugural address Thursday, the president laid claim to one of their metaphorical mainstays: the meaning of "freedom," a word he mentioned 26 times in his 21-minute speech.
In Bush's parlance, "freedom" has been recast largely as "economic freedom," a political shift that could damage liberals already searching for a cohesive message, analysts said.
"What he's done is take over the old progressive language of 'freedom' and redefined it without explicitly saying it -- only with code words -- in terms of a conservative worldview," said UC Berkeley linguistics Professor George Lakoff. "Those people who've got that worldview will understand the code words."
In Lakoff's decoding of Thursday's address, "freedom" meant "unfettered economic markets." Same goes for phrases such as "ownership society" and "the governing of the self." They're conservative shorthand for believing that the government should not be regulating business."Conservatives have been masterful at this, but they've been working on it for 35 years, while progressives have just been standing by," Lakoff said.
Outflanked liberals have tapped Lakoff for his skill at deconstructing how conservatives use language to te the political landscape. Democratic congressional leaders distributed copies of his most recent book, "Don't Think of an Elephant," to their membership.
The conservative notion of "freedom" isn't the one held by the progressives who are trying to pick Lakoff's brain. "For progressives, yes, there is economic freedom," he said. "But freedom for them extends to other aspects of life."
When Bush is talking "freedom," Lakoff said, he isn't talking about "freedom to marry." Or "freedom of a woman to control her own body and reproduction." Or freedom to "unfurl a banner protesting the president."
Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, agreed that Bush's speech had transferred the concept of freedom "from the foreign policy world to the domestic policy world."
When Bush said, "By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, " Whalen said, he was espousing the conservative ideal of the self-made person who doesn't need a government handout.
"He's essentially using it to say the days of New Deal policies (of government assistance) are over," said Whalen, who worked on George H.W. Bush's unsuccessful 1992 presidential campaign.
Even when Bush used "freedom" in political terms Thursday ("The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world"), Lakoff interpreted it as the desire for individuals to benefit from free markets -- not just personal liberties -- across the globe.
"Yes, (he means) freedom to pursue democracy," Lakoff said. "But what constitutes democracy? He's saying, 'This is freedom to pursue money.' "
Claiming the language of the other party isn't new, and it's often done by successful politicians of all stripes, Whalen said.
Former President Bill Clinton used "personal responsibility" to talk about welfare reform, a longtime Republican ideal, Whalen said. And, he said, John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural speech borrowed hawkish phrases such as "pay any price, bear any burden" that would sound more familiar coming from a conservative.
Bush used the word "freedom" Thursday six more times than Martin Luther King did in his seminal "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963.
Recapturing the metaphorical war will be difficult for progressives in Bush's second term, Lakoff said. Their first battle is expected to be over the president's plans for partial privatization of Social Security, and winning won't be as simple as tweaking their sound bites.
Democrats must come up with a set of values to explain why they feel that, say, Americans shouldn't be able to invest their Social Security funds in the stock market, Lakoff said. And the rhetorical battle will probably come back to the concept of "freedom."
"When Republicans talk about Social Security, they talk about freedom," Lakoff said. " 'You can invest your money better than the government can.'
"The Democrats respond by giving all the facts and figures," he said. "None of them say, 'This is an issue about whether we're going to have a guaranteed annuity for everyone in our family, the American family, or whether you're on your own, buddy.'
"Rather, they argue the details," Lakoff said. "As soon as progressives argue the details, conservatives come back and argue their own details, and nobody knows the difference. And as soon as you get into the technical details, the liberals lose. Because the other guys are arguing values."
Last edited: Saturday, January 22, 2005 at 3:20:48 PM
Oooh! Good read JJ...
"Rather, they argue the details," Lakoff said. "As soon as progressives argue the details, conservatives come back and argue their own details, and nobody knows the difference. And as soon as you get into the technical details, the liberals lose. Because the other guys are arguing values."
Values! "you are on your own buddy" is a value? Surely not a christian value?
Wow! I think george is speeding us faster into a gated community future...
Values?
It wasn't values that decided the election, you peripatetic expatriate.
Who sold you the values-decided-the-election idea anyway? The squirrel done jumped out of that tree long time ago and there you are still barking up it.
Exit pollsters did it. Even us stupid Southerners see it.
You remember the exit pollsters? Those people that got you all excited that Kerry was going to win!
This is not political spin either. It's just boring ol' statistics. See this:
The article correctly points out that the voting totals in states, especially where the exit polls said morality was the deciding issue, actually didn't put any more votes into the Bush victory than was done in 2000 .
Keep groping.
Last edited: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 3:08:31 PM
"MARIETTA, GA—It is the traditionalist equivalent of graffiti, stickers that appear under cover of darkness, targeting anything that promotes the theory of evolution, from text books to museum exhibits. Opponents of the so-called "sticker wars" say that creationists have taken their adhesive campaign too far. Proponents say that they'll continue the cause until evolutionists embrace a controversial sticking point: the idea that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old. "
http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2004/12/sticker_shock_g.html
"Even us stupid Southerners see it."
What do you mean "chicanery, fraud, and voter disenfranchisement"? Is that all you have to say?!
In some other threads, you asked for talking points. Hey, I give you a valid statistic and you just haul out the conspiracy theory stuff again. You can do better than that.
Please don't start jamming the page full of links that are from some minor news source.
You are falling for this value stuff and the media loves you for it.
Even us stupid Southerners can see that. LOL. My motto of the month...
...even us stupid Southerners can see that...even Ray Charles could have seen through that...hehehehe
BTW, the world is 6,000 years old. XD
Funny...now you get on me for being cheeky? Chicanery et. Al: see tally's thread ( I know you already have ) for all the evidence of GOP dirty dealings.
Why don't you tell me why he won? And while you are at it, please do offer a defense of bu$h policy...you haven't yet.
Or...if that last statement was uttered without a trace of irony, don't bother...
Last edited: Sunday, January 23, 2005 at 3:15:15 PM
And don't say "terrorism"...
Once again...
“When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face
men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is
that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of
comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is
done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what
they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark
with the pack, or count himself lost. His one aim is to disarm
suspicion, to arouse confidence in his orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If
he is a man of convictions, of enthusiasm, or self-respect, it is
cruelly hard…
“The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small
electorates, a first rate man occasionally fights his way through,
carrying even a mob with him by the force of his personality. But when
the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second
or third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make
itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the
most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the
notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is
perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious
day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last,
and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
And you, JJ, are in the avante guard...somehow affiliating yourself with these tools.
Avante guard?
Avant guard ?
Avant guard:
1. The van or advanced body of an army.
2. A group active in the invention and application of new techniques in a given field, especially in the arts.
Eh?
That is an interesting post, your last. It explains Clinton, certainly.
Last edited: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 11:46:26 AM
"The Wingnut," "Thanks Reps," "Prostitutes," and "GB is dumber."
Flailing discerned.
The personal attacks were a whole lot better in the election of 1828, when the Republican and Democratic parties split out of the old Democratic-Republican Party.
It was Andrew Jackson vs JQ Adams.
Adam's people said: Jackson's mother (deceased) was a "Common Prostitute" who was brought to America by a soldier as his ho. Jackson's real daddy was some other man.
Jackson's people said: Adams is an "out-of-touch, elitist aristocrat, as well as an alcoholic and a 'Sabbath Breaker.'" And when the jerk did go to church, he went barefoot !
Last edited: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 12:21:42 PM
Was that Jesse Jackson?
Here's one for you....how many former presidential candidates host a reality show named "I Hate My Job"?
Last edited: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 12:52:14 PM
Clinton was a fulbright scholar, Jiggles...
This is a repost from another thread. Still, I get no answers:
JJ (Jiggles) has been waiting for the "other shoe to drop" ever since the PTT liberal-vs-conservative debates started.
The other shoe is this: What happened to all the old-school Liberals/Democrats that were outraged about totalitarian governments?
You guys are so busy liberating us from the threat of the American right that you will let anything go in the world.
The DNC totally missed the 2004 election because it could not understand totalitarian threats as the 1940s Dems did. This is what decided the election.
What I think is happening is best described in this article:
"An Argument for A New Liberalism" by Peter Beinart
The gist:
Michael Moore says there are no terrorists.
Moore in “Dude, Where's My Country” is quoted:
"There is no terrorist threat...Why has our government gone to such absurd lengths to convince us our lives are in danger?"
And the article notes: the totalitarian threat of radical Islam is a ‘phantom, a ruse employed by the only enemies that matter, those on the right. Saudi extremists may have brought down the Twin Towers, but the real menace is the Carlyle Group.’
MoveOn, the current Demos/Liberal prominent voice, is blind to all threats except those that it perceives from the political right.
‘It [MoveOn] urged its supporters to participate in protests co-sponsored by International Answer, a front for World Workers Party, which defended Saddam, Milosevic, and Kim Jong IL. When challenged Eli Pariser said: "I'm personally against defending Milosevic and calling North Korea a socialist heaven, but its just not relevant right now."’
A true Democrat/Liberal would say: Free society and totalitarianism today struggle for the minds and hearts of men... as did the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) in the 1940s
The ADA said it would oppose any
ideology "hostile to the principles of freedom and democracy on which the Republic has grown great."
Last edited: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 3:11:31 PM
I honestly didn't know that Stinky.....
I put my bong down when I was a freshman because I was worried about the effect it would have on my grades.
Man - I was such a dumbass.....I coulda been a Fulbright scholar (j/k).......
At this point I think the Bush bashing is a waste of time. He won. He's the president for the next 4 years. Unless they can come up with a real reason to get rid of him, he's the guy. Even if they did get rid of "W", I suppose we'd be satisfied to have Cheney finish out the term.
Stink's posse would be better off spending their time trying to convince us "Righties" why could should take up their issues with our savior..er...president and try to make the best with what they have. At it is, I'm turning them off more and more since it doesn't seem like they have anything left to say other than ranting and whining accompanied with insults and sarcasm.
When I saw this story on global warming, I thought the S-posse would be all over it. Instead, "wing-nuts" and such leads the discussion and its getting shrill...and old.
LOL Rabban.
Run, Rabban, run.
Hey, this is about ideologies, you know.
The "Stink Posse." I like that.
Last edited: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 1:14:18 PM
Real Reasons to get Rid of Bush List:
1. Iraq
2. Environmental Rape and Pillage Policy
3. Theocracy
4. 9/11 Report Suppression
5. Energy Report Cover Up
6. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth Abuse
7. Tax Breaks for the Rich while the Poor Get Poorer and Dead (see 1.)
8a. Bush Thinks He Is the Messiah
8b. Bush Is Not the Messiah
9. Premeditated War, Premeditated Planning
10. False Premises For All of the Above and Below.
11. "Global Warming? What Who?"
12. 21st Century Imperialism
13. The Press on the Payroll
...
Microcosmatic Posting:
http://mediamatters.org/static/video/capgang-200501240005.mov
^ When I said, "real reasons", I meant basically proving he had done something illegal and worthy of impeachment (which isn't a sure thing either). see Clinton Library.
Last edited: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 1:17:38 PM
Should all feel proud of this country, even with all its flaws?
Beware the Stink Posse. They be posting bills and passing out tracts and lists on street corners and forums... XD
Last edited: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 1:22:45 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/climate.change.ap/index.html
"LONDON, England (AP) -- Global warming is approaching the critical point of no return, after which widespread drought, crop failure and rising sea-levels would be irreversible, an international climate change task force warned Monda"
4 More years of neglect. Solution?
Drill in Alaska.
Wow! Lots of activity...hey, its not even 7:00 am, and I'm a tad hung-over....when I'm firing on all three cylinders again, I'll say sompin witty, or inflamatory...or link to some marginal report...k?
Totalitarian threats?
Wtf?
Ps. So michael moore is kinda a moron...at least he aint president. C'mon dude, he's not even a politician...
Chief: a lotta smarty-pants are stoners....its the coke-heads ya gotta watchout for
No, but he's a well-loved pundit who does "documentaries."
Your quoted article's formula should apply to all elected officials if true.
...them Stink Posse boys air a tuff bunch o hombres...even us stupid Southerners can see that...
Last edited: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 2:35:04 PM
@ Che Stink
LOL - you're right.
More on "stupid southerners"...(no offense fellers, just using JJ's terminology)
hillbilly's attempt to use the state to cudgel baby killers fails
Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling that said South Carolina's license plates, which bear the slogan "Choose Life," violate the First Amendment because abortion rights supporters weren't given a similar forum to express their beliefs.
Isn't it funny? These guys have been all "keep the goment off'n mah back!" for years, but as soon as the taste a little federal power, they're all...."NOW HEAR THIS..."
Freakin hypocrites...
JJ...reading...thinking...scratching...(I've only read part 1, so give me some more time)
Had history taken a different course, this new brand of liberalism might have expanded beyond a narrow foreign policy elite. The war in Afghanistan, while unlike Kosovo a war of self-defense, once again brought the Western democracies together against a deeply illiberal foe. Had that war, rather than the war in Iraq, become the defining event of the post-September 11 era, the "re-education" about U.S. Power, and about the new totalitarian threat from the Muslim world that had transformed Kerry's advisers, might have trickled down to the party's liberal base, transforming it as well.
Instead, Bush's war on terrorism became a partisan affair--defined in the liberal mind not by images of American soldiers walking Afghan girls to school, but by John Ashcroft's mass detentions and Cheney's false claims about Iraqi WMD. The left's post-September 11 enthusiasm for an aggressive campaign against Al Qaeda--epitomized by students at liberal campuses signing up for jobs with the CIA--was overwhelmed by horror at the bungled Iraq war.
So, when the Democratic presidential candidates began courting their party's activists in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2003, they found a liberal grassroots that viewed the war on terrorism in negative terms and judged the candidates less on their enthusiasm for defeating Al Qaeda than on their enthusiasm for defeating Bush. The three candidates who made winning the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their campaigns--Joseph Lieberman, Bob Graham, and Wesley Clark--each failed to capture the imagination of liberal activists eager for a positive agenda only in the domestic sphere. Three of the early front-runners--Kerry, John Edwards, and Dick Gephardt--each sank as Howard Dean pilloried them for supporting Ashcroft's Patriot Act and the Iraq war
You did read that, right?
If your guy hadn't bungled it up so badly by throwing a pet project in (ala the American Enterprise Institute) I believe we'd all -- liberals and conservatives -- be singing a much different tune with respect to totalitarian threats (most notedly, from al quaeda).
But your guy, for reasons quite obvious to left intellectuals, members of his own administration, and 3/4 of the rest of the world, saw an opportunity for a greater, riskier enterprise...
And he and his lied, fabricated, and manipulated all of us, lefties and righties...
And you see, the lefties have this thing called...self-critique...or maybe, integrity...we are always thinking about equality, justice, fairness....and see, while many of us were all about f*c#ing up the taliban, after bush brought iraq into it, and f'd the whole thing up...we did what we always do...we thought. We used our noggins -- something seemed deeply suspicious about the whole iraq thing...and in the end WE WERE RIGHT. And you guys were wrong...but, not worrying about integrity, not being given to self-critique...thoroughly possesed of large doses of self-righteousness, you revised the whole account...
Meanwhile, the whole taliban thing, in the eyes of the bush admin. Dissapeared, deflated, withered.
We said. "WTF?"
Looking at Iraq...halliburton, abu grahib, suicide attacks, no WMD, no al quaeda connections....we got throroughly pissed at Bush (who always seemed like a moron to us anyway) and we've been focussed on him and his dirty business since.
This all occured in the back-drop of anti-environmental, anti-labor, anti-education, anti-minority domestic policy...so the lefts fuse was already short. His tax cuts benefitted the rich, he grew the deficit, he used terrorism to undermine civil rights where ever it please mr. Ashcroft.
And now they want to use the fact that they have no money to justify further cuts to social programs....
So, why doesn't the left get in line?
Feeling silly yet?
You lament the left's loss...but what of the right's inability to stray from the herd? Where is the critique from the right on issues of civil liberties, state's rights, fiscal conservancy? Hmmm? Why the lock step, o brown shirted ones?
@ Stinky
My interest in the license plate issue revolves around this:
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites), based in Richmond, Va., disagreed and ruled the plates were unconstitutional. It rejected South Carolina's claim that Planned Parenthood lacked "standing," or an actual injury, since it never applied for a specialty plate under a separate law allowing nonprofit groups to seek plates bearing their insignia for members. The 4th Circuit also covers Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.
I mean....C'MON!!!! You're going to tell me that the plaintiffs counsel didn't know that when he filed the case? If it were ACTUALLY about government suppression of free speech then the state would have denied their application.
This case WAS about suppression of free speech....of the right to life group's. This case was all about getting their license plate off the street.....not the other way around.
I'm not even going to get into the media bias..........
Good read, Chef. Way to cook em up.
A little Madison Ave in the howling and flailing from the left, I do believe.
Hey, us stupid Southerners...wait.
South Carolina!
@ Stink
I compliment you on reading it, but you don't have to. I actually just wanted your take on the main idea of the article. Do you see anything outside the borders of this country being wrong? Or are you a Michael Moore Man?
In response to your post, the article says that if the liberal hawks had succeeded in promoting a new liberalism, then the war in Iraq would be an anti-totalitarian war. In something of the same way Kosovo was. This wouldn't have been too far off from the tuff-guy John Kerry when he sparred with Dean early on.
Instead, we get this:
"Flue epidemic": Dubya's fault.
"Higher gas prices": Dubya's fault.
"New terrorist threat": Dubya's fault.
"Instability in the world": Dubya's fault.
"I got onions on my cheeseburger": Dubya's fault.
Hey, I am not completely entranced by Dubya. If you put me in a room full of Diehard Reps and someone shouted: "Three cheers for Donald R!" then I might be ducking out the back door.
But there is no better alternative. John Kerry always reminded me of Bill Gates with less money. Not a whole lot less...well, maybe, yea, a whole lot less.
Last edited: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 12:06:21 PM
"Flue epidemic": Dubya's fault. yes
"Higher gas prices": Dubya's fault. yes
"New terrorist threat": Dubya's fault. yes
"Instability in the world": Dubya's fault. yes
"I got onions on my cheeseburger": Dubya's fault. If he worked there, yes.
LOL, both of you...
Good take on kerry JJ, I agree. For the record, hell yeah, there's plenty to be worried about outside our borders...and you know, I think michael moore is kinda....limp. Far too partisan, narrow minded, though I do appreciate his perspective from time to time.
But yes JJ, we got troubles a brewing outside our borders.
Chief: my feeling is, if you wanna make a statement, buy a bumper sticker...why should the state personalize partisan messages? Liscense plates are state property. Its bad enuf they go printing nasty landscapes on em, as though they were forms of art, but I don't wanna have to read someones politics off em too. That goes for either side. Its not a question of free speech. Its a question of the state not producing propaganda....
I actually agree with your view on this.......
You know me and the media - the bast%#ds really know how to push my buttons......
Oh hell - I'm all over that.
Word.
Speaking of bumper stickers, I stumbled a nice one day:
Get the USA out of
California
@ Stinker:
"The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. "
Yes, probably...
But the biggest pill for the US to swallow will be that our reactionary international policies are alarming the sane countries...there are signs they are uniting...to deal with us.
My worry is that this US unilateralism and failing domestic policy is going to lead to our eventual international irrelevance...
I found this article cited in one of my favorite blogs, it was taken from the London Financial Times (you need a subscription to access the whole article...
A decade ago, American triumphalists mocked those who argued that the world was becoming multipolar, rather than unipolar. Where was the evidence of balancing against the US, they asked. Today the evidence of foreign co-operation to reduce American primacy is everywhere -- from the increasing importance of regional trade blocs that exclude the US to international space projects and military exercises in which the US is conspicuous by its absence.
It is true that the US remains the only country capable of projecting military power throughout the world. But unipolarity in the military sphere, narrowly defined, is not preventing the rapid development of multipolarity in the geopolitical and economic arenas -- far from it. And the other great powers are content to let the US waste blood and treasure on its doomed attempt to recreate the post-first world war British imperium in the Middle East.
That the rest of the world is building institutions and alliances that shut out the US should come as no surprise. The view that American leaders can be trusted to use a monopoly of military and economic power for the good of humanity has never been widely shared outside of the US. The trend toward multipolarity has probably been accelerated by the truculent unilateralism of the Bush administration, whose motto seems to be that of the Hollywood mogul: "Include me out."
Anyway, I've been reading this sentiment expressed in op/ed pieces from our local japanese rags Japan Times and the Asahi Shimbun, and on-line from the Guardian UK...
So maybe GW really is a uniter, jest not the kind we were hoping for? You remember the polls that showed that 80% of the world wanted him defeated in the election...
Last edited: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 4:25:05 PM
God commands you to stop being such a dumba$$:
Our text for today is found in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel. When Samuel got old he appointed his sons as judges over Israel. As so often occurs with nepotism this didn't work out: the offspring taking dishonest gain and bribes and perverting justice. So the elders of Israel paid a call on old man Samuel and suggested that he appoint a real king like other nations had. This didn't sit too well with Samuel so he took the matter to the Lord and the latter said in effect, "If you feel bad, think how I feel. Look, I brought these bums out of Egypt and what do I get for thanks? They go and serve other gods. Now they want to ditch you too.
"So Sam, here's what's going to come down. We're going to give them a real king and see how they like it." Continuing in the more literal translation, the Lord said: "However^ you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them."
Here were the ground rules the Lord laid down through Samuel: "This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
"He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves, and give them to his servants.
"And he will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and our donkeys and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.
"Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer your in that day."
I submit this as further evidence that the Lord is not a conservative but probably a libertarian - if not an anarchist. It is one of the tragedies of modern political debate that the Bible has been surrendered to the right, even when it is clear, as in this case, that the Almighty approves of neither authoritarian regimes, military build-ups nor the concentration of land-holdings. Consider as well the little noted fact that the Bible is far clearer on the evils of usury than of abortion and that it not only is far less prudish about human sexuality than some in office, it even suggests an alternative approach to pornography, urging that if one's eye offends thee, one eye and not the vision should be removed. Further, as some deep ecologists have noted, the Bible suggests that the earth is the Lord's and not the property of multinational corporations.
The ultimate irony of the conservatives it that they pretend to be a bastion of Christian politics when, in fact, they are comprised in no small part of despoilers, usurers, war-mongers, hypocrites, idolaters and groupies of false prophets - all of whom are frowned upon by the book it pretends to follow. And its opponents, who are more faithful to the words the conservatives only quote, are often such good Christians that they never say a mumblin' word about it all.
"The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. "
^ is actually a quote from something by Leo Strauss that you used in the Evolution-Kittens thread on 12/11.
It proves you are a Michael Moore Man. :)
As far as the quoted article above, the last paragraph is typical ranting. Some of the conclusions of the second to last paragraph are kinda interesting though.
I just finished re-reading the Evolution-Kittens thread, BTW. Very interesting stuff. The height of the holidays was not a good time for it, for sure.
Did you know from just page 3 that there were 78 pages to the thread even when put in 10 pt font on MSWord... My laser printer was shooting out pages like a gatling gun.
...not to say too much at this point, but a GW critique would have to go hand-in-hand with the kind of reason/logic/dogma/ideology debate that the Evolution-Kittens debate had to it. If the long, strong hand of Life/Work would stop reaching out and dragging me away.
Last edited: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 7:44:11 PM
How does it prove that I'm michael moore, exactly? Careful...those are fighting words.
I actually agree with some of the leo strauss stuff, at least the content [though straussians deny it, strauss' debt to nietzshe is unquestionable...and I like much of that syphilitic old crank's rantings]. Its the methodology that I find frightening. It doesn't bode well for a democracy, but...that's life.
Any jackass would have to agree with at least some of the sentiment behind this statement: "The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism." and I am just such a jackass...look up to where you first introduced it...the first thing the following post does is agree with it...
So, I'm not big and fat, I bathe regularly, I'm not a democrat...how am I michael moore again?
Last edited: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 8:50:51 PM
My challenge was can you think outside the current liberal box?
The left "liberates" us from ecological trashers, multi-national corporations, GWB, and the narrow-minded ethics of the "right" (brother...).
Now will the liberals get outrage against totalitarian governments as did the ol' time Dems, as per that article that I quote.
The anti-modernists are the enemy according to the Leo Strauss quote.
So when is the Taliban or Al Qaida going to make the outrage list? Did you happen to see the latest Frontline? "Al Qaida's New Front" The online streaming version is available. Wherewith the Caliphate?
Moore views totalitarianism as "a phantom, a ruse employed by the only enemies that matter, those on the right. Saudi extremists may have brought down the Twin Towers, but the real menace is the Carlyle Group."
Tally can't see beyond Dubya, can you?
Heh, heh
Last edited: Thursday, January 27, 2005 at 7:06:53 AM
: :
Hey! Wanna know what your fellow bushies are up to? I'll try and keep you updated. You republicans and conservative "independents" are curious critters...some of you seem quite normal...sure, you have some strange peculiarities: resentment of the lower classes (the non-ownership classes) fear of government, a belief in manifest destiny, blind support of a war-mongering moron, selfish consumerist tendencies, gun love, xenophobia, fixations with homosexual acts...nothing too outside of what has become the norm for the US. But then again, some of you are quite whacked! And just so you can keep up with your racier bush buddies...i'll post their antics here. Hell, I got nothing better to do THAN TO CONSTANTLY REMIND YOU who your bed-fellows are! From Fundamentalists, to NASCAR enthusiasts, all the way over to wall street brokers and CEOs...ever stop to wonder what all you people have in common? No? Didn't think so...
Ah, but who cares? Some of you folks are just plum crazy! Read on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/politics/20sponge.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - On the heels of electoral victories barring same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.
Doncha just love it? Hell yeah! Less lynch that homer! So...what do you soccer moms have in common with these crazy bastards?