<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Friday, January 02, 2004

I was reading the one comment I have on a previous post - i have no traffic to this blog (i must be boring) - and the commentor was so strident that I wanted to respond.

Here is the comment:

Your still caught in your gradeschool years. While some people, such as yourself, still vote for or against "people" at the national level, most (thank God) have grown past the popularity factor and base their decisions on issues.


First of all, I don't vote "against" people because of their personality. I assume that most politicians are not completely trustworthy - they are politicians, after all. I don't vote based on popularity - otherwise I would obviously be voting for Bush. I vote based upon the issues. In fact, I vote solely on the issues. I don't care if a poltician has a great personality as long as his or her ideas are sound, I will vote for him/her.

The real challange today is 1- figuring out what issues will be pertanent to voters on election day, and 2- figuring out how to make your own agenda what's imortant to the voter on election day....


I think it is important ot figure out what issues will be important to voters on election day, but I do not think that a candidate should mold his message to simply fit the currently predicted mold of the voter's mind. A politician that does not have the guts to take a stand - even when the stand is unpopular - is going to get railroaded in the current media and poltical atmosphere.

Figuring out how to make your agenda important to voters is part of campaiging. That involves debating the issues and presenting your argumrnts. It involves refuting the counter-arguments and presenting your case to the voters. It does not involve molding your own opinion to match polling data.

In that vane it is safe to say that Dean can not win.


The author makes the first coouple of points but then jumps to the conclusion from his first couple of contentions that Dean cannot win the election. Dean has obviously resonated with the plurarilty of the Democrats. Clark and Dean - who both thought Bush's war against Iraq was a bad idea under the circumstances - are doing better than all the other Democrats. I have no idea how that sort of a leap in logic is possible. Luckily, the author makes it clear that he/she is not making a leap based on logic. He/she is makeing a leap based on rhetoric.

Any candidate opposed to the war on terrorism can not win.


Here is the problem. From the very beginning of the "War on Terror", the war had no real goal, enemy, or plan. It was a nebulous thing - like the war on poverty or the war on drugs. You see terrorism is not a finite enemy that can be destroyed if you lob anough bombs at it. Terrorism is a tactic. It is a strategy used by weak force to antagonize a powerful force. Terrorism cannot be stopped by invading nations and killing people. In fact, invading nations and killing people are actually factors that create new generations of terrorists. The only way you can stop terrorism without creating a police state is by making the lives of the people that would become terrorists better. Now, before you say - "That is what we are doing in Iraq", I would like to remind you about Afghanistan.

We first got involved in Afghanistan when we were trying to get the Soviets involved in their own costly Vietnam. We paid the mujahadeen, gave them military intelligence, aid, and training in an effort to antagonize the Soviet Union. They fought a brutal war that cost thousands upon thousands of Russiand and Muslims their lives. We promised to help pick up the pieces after the war, but when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, we forgot about them. The coutry was ruined. There was no infrastructure, and the people were in poverty. By that time, the Reagan Administration was busy at home - who really cared about the plight of another poor country.

The local warlords rose up in the country fighting amongst themselves - funded by the exploding opium trade. The Taliban became the preiminent power in the country and they put in place their repressive set of fundamentalist laws. A wealthy Saudi mujahadeen leader thought it was wrong for America to fihght its proxy war in Afghanistan but then leave the Afghans to pick up the pieces. He became a popular Muslim figure because he build schools and did all the public relations crap we are doing in Iraq - in Afghanistan.

After the first Gulf War - where we turned on our old friend Saddam Hussein when he got out of pocket and threatened our cushy oil deals in Kuwait, our forces sat back and watched while Saddam Hussein slaughtered the Shia - after we encouraged them to rise up. With the U.N. we put in place the sanctions that destroyed Iraq's economy and lead to higher infant mortality rates than ever before in Iraq. Millions of people would starve, suffer, and die in Iraq before the Oil for Food program was put in place. In the process of staging the war, we also put into place a large contingent of American forces in Saudi Arabia.

This is what ultimately lead Osama bin Laden to declare a fatwa against the United States - which lead to 9-11. OBL demanded that the Unted States remove the garrisons from Saudi Arabia. He demanded that house of Saud step down in Saudi Arabia.

I will continue this later -- I have to go


Like it or not, the terrorist war was brought home to America on 911. We can argue about who started the war all we want. But we are in it and it is real. If we don't win it we will head the way of the Soviet Union.

Luckily the bast majority of voting America can see past the every day cartoons of life and understands this is the real deal. This is not a game, we are not impenitrable or omnipotant. This is jungle warfare on a modern






I just read this via uggabugga. The passage goes:


Liberals=Communist
by: pooplapants 01/01/04 10:05 pm
Msg: 626 of 852
7 recommendations

Communist's are Socialists.
Liberals in America can’t wait to implement the latest Socialist idea.
Communist's used the education system to indoctrinate the young.
Liberals in America use our once-objective institutions of higher learning to force-feed Socialist and Communist ideas to a largely unwilling audience.
Communist's used propaganda and the media to obtain and retain power.
89% of Journalists in America admit that they only for Liberals.
Communist's over-regulated businesses until they simply took them over.
Liberals in America have suffocated large and small businesses alike under a mountain of regulations and lawsuits.
Communist's utilized slave labor in most facets of their economy.
Liberals in America have established and maintained a dependent poverty class.
Communist's strove to set up a state religion, and jailed religious leaders who would not comply.
Liberals in America ridicule and expunge to the best of their ability all things religious, yet speak from the pulpit in churches where compliant ministers submit to their morally vacant ideas.
Communist's replaced the Bible with Marxism.
Liberals in America took Bibles out of the classroom long ago - about the same time that drug use, teen pregnancies, violent crime and sexually transmitted diseases started to skyrocket - and SAT scores plummeted.
Communist's killed 20 million people in concentration camps.
Liberals in America are responsible for 35 million deaths since Roe vs. Wade. At the same time, they have allowed 35 million immigrants to enter the United States.
Communist's tolerated homosexuals and other sexual deviants who swore allegiance Stalin.
Liberals in America tolerate every morally bankrupt sexual persuasion on the face of the earth-as long as they vote for Liberals. Communist's obeyed every order from The Kremlin, believing he could never be wrong.
Liberals in America do not believe in the concept of right and wrong - only what feels" good to each person.
Communist's would often beat up, expel, jail or execute party members who disagreed with the leadership.
Liberals have virtually taken over one political party in America by demoting, persecuting and alienating all but the most Liberal members.
Communist's erected a huge and cumbersome national health care system.
Liberals in America have repeatedly proposed national health care bureaucracies with organization charts that look like the schematic diagram for an Intel computer chip.
Liberals in America, particularly Liberal judges, and change the U.S. Constitution at will by “Finding penumbras”, and ignores those who insist that such changes require an amendment.
Communist's set national educational standards to ensure that everyone absorbed the requisite amount of propaganda.
Liberals in America fight home schooling with a vengeance and continue to push for national education standards.
Communist's thought that communism would last forever.
Liberals in America think that Socialism will rule the world forever, even though has failed each and every time it has been tried.


This is just idiotic in so many ways. I don't understand why people like the author of this screed believe every piece of Republican propaganda that comes down the pipe, but I would like to try to clarify some things for them. It would really help if people that believed this crap actually read a few objective history books, or read about Fascism, Stalinism, Marxism and Socialism in general. If they knew what these terms actually meant, they might grow to understand how completely wrong they are about liberals and their own party.

I want to comment on this post line for line - forgive me for being verbose.

"Liberals in America can’t wait to implement the latest Socialist idea."


The term socialist has been polluted and warped by the Republicans for so long that it really has little meaning anymore. It literally means:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy

Socialism does not mean progressive taxation. It does not mean environamental regulation. It does not mean welfare or increases of the minimum wage. No liberals want to take over industry and have government control of the means of production. At the most, liberals want to make sure that corporate interests are considered equally to the interests of the citizens whose lives are impacted by corporations. We want a balance between the interests of the majority of the people and the wealthy elite who control the agenda of most corporations.

"Communist's used the education system to indoctrinate the young."


So do fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Republicans, Catholics, etc. In fact, every group tries to push their own agenda into the forum of public education. Creationists try to get evolution marginalized in text books. Black people try to get racially derogatory terms stricken from literature. Republicans want schools to teach students that condoms will not help prevent pregnancy or transmission of HIV. Republicans also want schools to strike touchy concepts like stem cell research and global warming from science classes - thereby further decreasing the ability fo the electorate to discern objective reality.

Liberals - by and large - want an edcuation system that is fair and teaches students to think - not just repeat what they hear on the Rush Limbaugh show without consideration.

"Liberals in America use our once-objective institutions of higher learning to force-feed Socialist and Communist ideas to a largely unwilling audience."


This is just dumb. The author does not know what socialist or communist ideas are, but he is convinced that the liberals are trying to get colleges to push these evil ideas. I think the author should go to a college and take a few classes before he assumes that college is being over-run by liberals preaching the benefits of collectivism.

"Communist's used propaganda and the media to obtain and retain power."


True. The state owned media was always willing to paint the state in the best possible light. This is similar to the establishemnt media in America that is very afraid of painting the administration ( or Ronald Reagan ) in anything but a complimentary light. Democrats, however, are fair game.

"89% of Journalists in America admit that they [are] only for Liberals"


Bolderdash. When you have got people like Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Bill, O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer, Margaret Carlson, Kit Seeyle, Nedra Pickler, Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, David Frum, Jonah Goldberg, Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthhammer, Andrew Sullivan, All of Fox News, All of the Washington Times, All of the New York Post, half of the New York Times, Most of the Wahington Post, The New Republic, the Weekly Standard, all of MSNBC, most of the anchors on CNN, all of the anchors on CNBC, most of the people in the broadcast network news, GOPUSA, The Free Republic, LGF, etc, etc, etc...

The media belongs to the GOP. The myth of the liberal media started off with Ronald Reagan's campaign and has been harped ever since then. The media was never liberal - Reagan was just a crook and did not like it when the media pointed out how crooked he was. Just look at the easy treatment Bush gets on virtually EVERYTHING!!! Look at the levels of hypocricy that get glossed over and forgotten by the media when they concern a Republican.

Bill CLinton lied about getting a blow job and was impeached and dragged through the mud for a couple of years. George Bush lied about the evidence for war, his tax cuts, his environmental policy, and a hundred other distortions and lies, but the media gave him the benefit of the doubt effortlessly. Do you really think the Plame affair would have been forgotten if Bill Clinton was in office? Do you really think the media would not be harping on Clinton every day if Clinton's brother was doing shady business deals with the Chinese?

Give me a break. You have been fed a steady diet of Republican propaganda. Only when your objective news is Republican propaganda can you come to the conclusion that the media is overwhelmingly liberal.

"Communist's over-regulated businesses until they simply took them over."


False. Communists took control of the means of production during the Bolshevik Revolution. Their goal was for the state to run all businesses.

Their goal was not to force companies to keep MTBE out of the drinking water of the people that live near the factories that produce MTBE pollution. Their goal was not to make companies uphold safety standards for their workers by inspecting machines to be sure they work right. These are the types of regulations that you are so opposed to. God forbid a company paying 20 cents a quarter to its shareholders should pay 19.95 cents in order to pay to have a safety switch installed on machines that removed workers limbs when they malfunction. Evil regulation keeps you from having to pay the disability payments for a worker with no hands due to improper Sheet Metal Stamp maintainence.

"Liberals in America have suffocated large and small businesses alike under a mountain of regulations and lawsuits. "


I see. When corporation X decides it wants to build a new plant (Y) and the guys in charge decide they can save 30 million dollars ( to be paid to them as bonuses ) by not installing a thick enough wastewater pit liner, the children that die from cancer as a result of the dioxin leached into the groundwater from plant Y should not be allowed to sue the director of plant X that caused their problem.

That way companies A, B, and C can all do the same thing with impunity.

Why do Republicans feel so strongly about busting drug users ( except Rush Limbaugh ), pimps (except Neil Bush), and petty criminals(except Bill Bennet) - yet they feel it is their patriotic duty to protect petty criminals when they own corporations?

Oh, and by the way, without liberals, there would not have been a middle class to consume all the products generated by this and other countries for the past 80 years. Liberal ideas like a 40 hour work week, minimum wage, free public education, and social security created the middle class. The Republican efforts to dismantle these programs is part of what is shrinking the middle class today.

"Communist's utilized slave labor in most facets of their economy."


What do you think we are doing in our prisons?

"Liberals in America have established and maintained a dependent poverty class"


This is just ridiculous. People are poor because of liberals? Come on. People are poor becasue they have no access to good jobs, higher education, preventative healthcare, opportunities for success, or ambition. Not everybody can be an entrepreneur - our education system never even comes close to trying to teach business skills. At most, public education teaches people to be complacent workers and consumers.

Liberals are not responsible for the current situation. Liberals would like a more in-depth education system that did more then teach the three Rs. However, those types of "entitlements" are not allowed under the current Rpeublican Dogma. The Republican alternative to finding a solution is simply to blame liberals for the problem and tell everybody that the state should be giving money to provate organizations. I guess you bought the spin.

"Communist's strove to set up a state religion, and jailed religious leaders who would not comply."


Communists did not have a state religion. Atheism is not a religion. Communists did persecute religious people, though.

There is a wide gulf of difference between persecution of religion and keeping religion out of government. Liberals would like to keep religion out of government - as our founding fathers wanted - but liberals will defend any person's right to hold their religious beliefs( even if their beliefs are considered archaic or stupid by the liberal ).

"Liberals in America ridicule and expunge to the best of their ability all things religious, yet speak from the pulpit in churches where compliant ministers submit to their morally vacant ideas."


Yes, liberals hate religion so much that most of them are religious - just to spite God. I know it is hard for you to read history through all the Republican conditioning, but try to read a little bit about what the founding fathers wanted this country to be. They did not want the country to be a theocracy. They did not want religion injected into government functions. They did not want religion to merge with government.

When one religion merges with government, it is to the exclusion of other religions. The merged religion is the de-facto state religion, and that can lead to religious intolerance, persecution, and inquisitions. To avoid such things, the founding fathers build what Thomas Jefferson called a "wall of separation between church and state". Liberals simply think we should honor the intent of the people that started this country.

"Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. "In God We Trust" was added as the federal motto in the 1800s. Neither statement or idea was promoted by the fouding fathers.

"Communist's replaced the Bible with Marxism"


You act like Judeo-Christian religions are the only religions suppressed by Communists. Does Chechnya ring a bell? What was I thinking, of course not.

"Liberals in America took Bibles out of the classroom long ago - about the same time that drug use, teen pregnancies, violent crime and sexually transmitted diseases started to skyrocket - and SAT scores plummeted."


This is just so wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to begin. First, Bible study has not been a part of public schools for the past 70 years. Second, most of the drugs that make up the "skyrocketing" drug use numbers were not illegal and information was not charted on them until the late 70s or early 80s. Third, charting teenaged pregnancy is a recent trend as well. Teenagers that got pregnant used to simply get married, get an abortion, or give up the child. The circumstance was a family secret - it was not the kind of thing you tell people about. Fourth... ow dammit. This is just too stupid to keep up with. How does somebody become so indoctrinated into Republican thought that they never - ever read a history book?

"Liberals in America are responsible for 35 million deaths since Roe vs. Wade"


I don't think the author knows that before Roe vs. Wade, people got abortions all the time. The abortions may have been performed in less than sanitary conditions and the mothers may have died or been left infertile, but it was fairly common. The author does not suggest how he/she would pay for the additional 1.3 million mouths to feed every year in this country if all the people that had abortions decided to give their child up for adoption.

"Communist's tolerated homosexuals and other sexual deviants who swore allegiance Stalin"


False. Homosexuals and other "undesirables" were persecuted by the Communists as well as the Nazis. It is nice to see that the Republicans keep such good company on the issue with these groups.

"Liberals in America tolerate every morally bankrupt sexual persuasion on the face of the earth-as long as they vote for Liberals."


I guess the fact that they are all Americans - paying taxes, defending our country, etc - means nothing. Homeosexuality is part of the human condition. Most people are not completely straight or gay - there are all sorts of shades of grey across the spectrum. Gay people are in every branch of society, everywhere. To persecute them for who they decide to spend their lives with is the same as persecuting a Christian for what God he decides to worship.

How would you feel if you were told that you could not marry the person you loved because the state did not like your god? Your skin color? Your weight? Face it, discrimination is discrimination. Just admit that you are comforatble with double standards - heck, the Republican platform was built on double standards.

"Communist's obeyed every order from The Kremlin, believing he could never be wrong. "


So when Republicans ignore the growing deficit because Bush said it was no big deal, ignore global warming because Bush said it does not exist, embrace war with Iraq because Bush said we should fight, and support tax cuts for the rich because Bush said it would help the poor, they are being independent thinkers? Please.

"Liberals in America do not believe in the concept of right and wrong - only what feels" good to each person"


This is just stupid. I think the author defines what is right and wrong by what he hears on the radio when Rush is on. The author knows it is wrong for people to buy illegal drugs, unless they are prominent Republicans. The author knows it is wrong to lie to the nation to start a war, unless the liar's name rhymes with Beorge Gush. The author knows it is wrong to gamble - unless the gambler is Bill Bennet. The author knows it is wrong to support evil dictators that oppress their people - unless the evil dictatorship (Uzbekistan) is giving us open access to their air space so we can bomb Afghanistan.

Maybe the author is right, Republican morallity simply "feels" wrong to me.

"Communist's would often beat up, expel, jail or execute party members who disagreed with the leadership"


Shinseki, Clark, Zinni, Wilson.. any of those names ring a bell? These are all people that were demonized by the Republicans because they dared to defy the Republican establishment and question Whistle Ass's quest for war. Remember the Dixie Chicks? How many antiwar protestors have been jailed? How many have been deported? How many have been beaten?

You are describing an extreme version of your own party. Liberals are not communists. Liberals do not insist that all liberals have the same script or the same agenda. In fact, we prefer politicians that can actually think independently - what a coup. Liberals did not advocate the invasive measures of the USA PATRIOT Act - though plenty of Washington D.C. democrats voted for it. Liberals do not force protests into "free speech zones". Liberals are not out burning Lee Greenwood Cds.

Try looking up projection in a psychology book.

"Liberals have virtually taken over one political party in America by demoting, persecuting and alienating all but the most Liberal members."


What the fuck are you talking about? Kucinich - the only really liberal candidate for president - was not widely supported by the Democratic party. By and large, Democrats have been supporting centrist politicians for the last 15 years - which is part of the current problem. We have allowed the Republican media to frame the issues and the centrist democrats have simply parroted the Republicans. This has shifted the entire spectrum to the right - which makes the author's point of view seem objective to other Republicans.

Howard Dean is a centrist. Clark is a centrist. Neither are liberal on anything but scientific and social issues. The people that have been excoriated by the party are the people that refused to stand up for Democrats - like Joe Lieberman and John Kerry. These people are being marginalized because they refused to admit that the Republicans have engineered - through judicial appointments, gerrymandering, and a complicit media - permanent Republican party rule. They are still playing softball with people that are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to further their agenda.

Their agenda is not the agenda of the working class. Their agenda is to secure to wealth within the bounds of the rich while they use the rest of the country as cheap labor. They don't mind the destruction of the American middle class because that means more cheap labor for them. They do not care about social security or medicare because they will never use it. They would prefer to cripple the government with debt than to help pay for the healthcare needs of the middle class and the poor. The Republican party serves the rich elite - nobody else.

They pander to religion because religious people are conditioned from an early age to believe things on faith. Religious people are raised with a false dichotomy. You are either on the side of good, or on the side of evil. They do not want the rank and file Republicans to look too closely at how their policies will impact them negatively. This is where people like Rush limabugh and Sean Hannity come in. They frame the issues using buzzwords and simple terms that make the rank and file think that they are well informed. The rank and file do not question the Republicans because they have faith that Republicans are good while Liberals are evil (note the false dichotomy). For instance, Rush Limbaugh might frame the President's proposal to change the laws regarding overtime pay as a way for employers to cut costs and hire more people. This defies logic, but then again, most drug addicts are not too interested in logic, are they?

"Liberals in America have repeatedly proposed national health care bureaucracies with organization charts that look like the schematic diagram for an Intel computer chip."


And obviously since Intel computer chips do not work, a national healthcare system cannot work. What? I am using an Intel computer chip to write this message? How can something that is not dirt simple work? How can a plan that cannot be expressed in a single line buzz phrase work? I think this Intel Chip must be working because of God. That is it! It is a God powered chip - we really cannot know how it works but it is simpler than that evil Liberal healthcare plan.


I am tired of screwing with this. This fucker is obviously in his own little world. Hopefully some day he can join us all in the real world.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?