One thing that has struck me about all the controversy surrounding Cindy Sheehan of late is the way the mainstream media and liberals tend to ignore certain aspects of her personality. Like the way she has spoken out not only against the war in Iraq - which is admittedly controversial - but also against the war in Afghanistan, which I think most Americans would agree was the prudent course of action immediately following 9/11. They've also ignored her propensity for implying that our government is the puppet of a Jewish conspiracy run from Tel Aviv and the many times she's put our President ahead of people like Abu Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden as the "greatest terrorist" in the world.
Of course, none of this is particularly surprising. The left, and most media types, have a manifest dislike of our current President and an emotional symbol like a mother grieving for a son lost in war is a useful tool in furthering their agenda against him. If the grieving mother in question has a few character wrinkles that need to be ironed to make her more palatable to the public it is but a small price to pay for the benefit they receive in Bush-bashing rhetoric.
But one thing I've found especially troubling in recent coverage of Sheehan and many of her far-left, anti-war brethren in general (as though the stupidity that goes into equating a democratically elected leader whose policies you disagree with to a terrorist weren't troubling enough) is the way their outright devotion to things like socialism and communism is routinely covered up. Nearly every major anti-war rally in recent times has been either outright sponsored by a socialist group (like the Communist Worker's Party, etc.) or is at least participated in by groups of the same ilk. People on the ground at these events can testify to the overwhelming amount of communist propaganda and symbolism on display, and we're all familiar with the fetish many of America's college students and professors have for Che Guevara. Even Sheehan herself was seen smooching the socialist protege of communist dicatator Fidel Castro.
In the face of all this, the question I have to ask is: Why doesn't any of this matter? When the media reports on rowdy protests in the street why don't they include the fact that the very rally they're covering is sponsored by people who support Communism? And not just some idealistic strain of Communism but often the very same ideals espoused by men like China's Chairman Mao, Cuba's Fidel Castro and even (in extreme cases) Joseph Stalin himself, the only man in the world's history who can lay claim to being a more brutal and cruel dictator than Hitler himself? In a world where socialist movements have resulted in the torture and murder of hundreds of millions of people (not to mention the enslavement of additional millions) why is the fact that many of the loudest critics of the country's current leaders are unabashed socialists not considered news? Why is the irony that goes with Communists standing on their first amendment rights to criticize our current political leaders never pointed out? After all - with history as our guide - if these people ever got their way those very freedom of speech rights would likely be snatched away from people like me who would want to dissent against their way of doing things.
What is perhaps even more troubling than these vocal, unrepentant socialists (who would never make much headway with mainstream Americans were there true agendas to be made public) are the undercover socialists (read: modern liberals and, to be perfectly honest, a number of so-called modern "conservatives") who are already in the mainstream of American politics. These socialists aren't promising revolution, but rather are luring Americans away from the ideals of independence and individualism this country was founded upon. More and more they are moving us toward reliance on big government power and bureaucracy.
These are the people who want the government to pay for our health care. Who think it is the government's responsibility to provide citizens with jobs and dictate to private enterprise what those jobs should pay. Who think that only the "rich" should be responsible for paying taxes. Who, in every policy they support, move to make our government bigger, more burdensome on taxpayers and more invasive into our private lives. These people, to my mind, even more dangerous than the revolutionary socialists in that, unlike the revolutionaries, they sound reasonable. And that lures a lot of people in.
We are all familiar with the cliche that states we are doomed to repeat the history we do not learn from. Looking back on the last couple of centuries of world history I see instances of war and revolution fought all over the globe to wrest power from governments - monarchist, imperial and otherwise - and place it with the people where it belongs. Yet in modern times, just a few hundred years removed from all that bloodshed in the name of liberty, it seems as though the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction. Rather than looking to empower individual citizens with as much liberty as possible it seems as though many of our leaders are looking to give more and more power back to the government through burdensome regulation, high taxes and pervasive entitlements.
As a nation we need to reject this move toward big government collectivism. We must embrace our individual rights and fight hard against growing government. Things like "free" national health care programs sound nice and may even look nice on paper, but every time we let the government into our lives we sell a little more of our freedom down the river. We sell enough of it down the river and we're going to find ourselves in a political situation that isn't much to our liking.
You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 83
aloha.
horsehockey.
And "martinchill," unless you are referring to a strain of liberal thought that is different from the norm, American liberals do want bigger government. This in the form of greater government involvement in healthcare, welfare, redistribution of wealth, and a general push of state and local affairs into federal jurisdiction. This is indeed "big government."
The problem with Bush for conservatives is that he does not represent classic conservative ideology. Although I agree with many of his policies, he is a republican, not a conservative (note that the latter is not an adjective, as many believe, to describe how strongly one tows the party line...i.e., conservative republican = strong or far-right republican, conservative democrat = weak democrat).
i believe it to be quite the opposite. conservatives have gone so far right that democrats have been dragged to the right just to keep up.
dom - the government grows more under republican administrations than democrat.
the problem with bush for mankind is that he's a spoiled brat and has a lot of wicked and powerful men around him. they've put the constitution in the fireplace and have set fire to the bill of rights for kindling - unless people like you and i demand a change of course, we're history.
ever hear of jack abramoff? it's been in the news.
politicians don't represent the voters, they represent the money that brung 'em to the table.
And no, the government doesn't grow more under republican admins. At least not conservative republicans. Bush is not a conservative. Yes the government is growing under his admin. But the Grand Society, the New Deal, the Third Way...give me a break.
I think I should hand *you* the shovel, sir.
i think you should read a bit of the democratic facade before you dismiss what it says based on dates. besides that, the portion i quoted illustrated that the democrats have followed the republicans and have gone farther to the right, not farther left as you claim. you ignored that and focused on campaign funding.
further, rob's post is a big pile of crap attempting to denigrate cindy sheehan - because she's a threat, i guess - and the post is EXACTLY what you just accused me of, appealing to a specific to prove a general. what did you say to rob when he did what i did? "bravo, mr port."
i think that's called hypocrisy, but then again i'm just shoveling bullshit, so what do i know.
so, grand society, new deal, third way... but what conservative administration has reduced the size of government, dom? i made a claim, you did not dispute it.
for a self-proclaimed 'man of the world', your support of bush is surprising. you say socialism, i say fascism - let's call the whole thing off.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Ms Sheehan's son died so that this awful mis-administration could take away our freedoms and line their pockets with our tax dollars.
And that burdensome regulation (as you called it) probably would have saved those minors in West Virginia. Capitalism without regulation will always lead to Fascism/Corporatism.
You're probably one of those people who think it's OK to drive an 8 miles per gallon hummer and have no problem with paying $4 per gallon for gas. If not - wake up - that's who you're speaking for.
her assertion that this war was orchestrated is correct. i happen to agree with her, and have been posting about PNAC starting this war for three years now, but i'm not speaking into microphones on a world stage. this is not going to convince middle america of anything other than believing she really is crazy.
case 1:
Abramoff is a politician
Abramoff does not represent the people
therefore politicians do not represent the people
This is the fallacy. Mr. Port wasn't trying to prove any point, as you were. The leads of good articles begin with a specific case and then follow from there--this is simply good journalism, it is intended to draw the reader in. Nearly every op-ed one comes across is like this. Implying that Sheehan is representative of a group because she behaves as the group does is not the same as saying that the group necessarily behaves a certain way because she behaves a certain way. So no, the two cases are indeed different.
As far as republican adminstrations that were for smaller and limited government, Reagan is a good example. His administration slowed the growth of the welfare state and government social programs, pushed deregulation, etc. Now, of course the common chorus often heard in response is "BUT WHAT ABOUT DEFENSE?!" To which I say, "thems the breaks" when you are in a wartime arms race. Eisenhower, although not necessarily shrinking government, didn't contribute much to its growth, either.
My original point, though, was not to defend republicans. It was to defend the conservative ideal, which is absolutely, unequivocally for limited government, laissez-faire free market capitalism, the retention of tradition and socio-culture mores, and the maintenance of the status quo. Radical liberalism is not, but rather the opposite. When comparing between the ideologies themselves, it seems clear, at least to me, that conservatism is the better road. In practice, however, modern republicans have for the most part strayed from this ideal. This is why I am not a republican.
And oh, I'm not a very big fan of Bush, either.
i still take issue with the apparent reality that conservative administrations manufacture wars for profit. in my lifetime, anyway.
and power, but mostly profit.
a lot of money brings with it a lot of power.
As-far-as Cindy Sheehan is concerned; the woman has flat out lost her mind. JMHO of course. She is not the only mother to have lost a son in the war. She ought to be ashamed of the way she's acting and for some of the things she's saying in public. The Democratic Party would be well advised to move as far away from her, her backers and their ilk as possible. If they do not, there's no way that "middle America" is ever going to hand them the gravy bowl.
Rob - I love this:
"What is perhaps even more troubling than these vocal, unrepentant socialists (who would never make much headway with mainstream Americans were there true agendas to be made public) are the undercover socialists (read: modern liberals and, to be perfectly honest, a number of so-called modern "conservatives") who are already in the mainstream of American politics. These socialists aren't promising revolution, but rather are luring Americans away from the ideals of independence and individualism this country was founded upon. More and more they are moving us toward reliance on big government power and bureaucracy."
I couldn't agree more. Well said.
In-closing.....I hate the far-right and what they try to do. I hate the far-left and what they try to do. The vast majority of us in the middel better reject BOTH sides of those issues and start listening to each other. When did it become more important to be a Republican or Democrat, than it is to be an American?
where national healthcare is concerned?
not domestic spying, patriot act, tax cuts that benefit elites at the expense of middle-class workers, billions in deficit on a war that had nothing to do with terrorists, etc, etc - no, national healthcare! that's the only big government rob sees.
you, too, david? "socialist" liberals who are only trying to find a way to medical help for poor people are the ones luring americans away from the ideals of independence and individualism??
THE REALITY OF THAT DECEPTION PISSES ME OFF. the conservatives are the ones with DOMESTIC SPYING issues, BULLSHIT WARS under their belts, ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR WEARING T-SHIRTS THEY DISAGREE WITH, ATTEMPTING TO ALTER THE CONSTITUTION TO LEGISLATE MARRIAGE - all republican bullshit - all big, intrusive government.
not SOCIALIST LIBERALS.
for crying out loud.
< /rant >
You are entirely way too smart to be drinking this much Kool-Aid:
"you, too, david? "socialist" liberals who are only trying to find a way to medical help for poor people are the ones luring americans away from the ideals of independence and individualism??"
We ALL want to help the poor amongst us. Don't we? You can't really believe that is the providence of the left? Right? But you tell on yourself when you decide that THAT duty should be left to the government. When did our government become Mommy and Daddy? Our government isn't here to provide services to our citizens, except in extreme cases. It is up to us and our local communities to provide for ourselves and to make our way through this life, not the federal government. I greatly admire your aspirations, just not your methods.
This next paragraph actually frightens me a bit:
"THE REALITY OF THAT DECEPTION PISSES ME OFF. the conservatives are the ones with DOMESTIC SPYING issues, BULLSHIT WARS under their belts, ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR WEARING T-SHIRTS THEY DISAGREE WITH, ATTEMPTING TO ALTER THE CONSTITUTION TO LEGISLATE MARRIAGE - all republican bullshit - all big, intrusive government."
What deception? I don't feel deceived at all. Not one bit. No offense or anything (really), but this is exactly why you and your fellow "far-lefties" are getting your butts handed to you to all the major elections for several years now. You guys just don't get it. You will NEVER get the attention of people like me, because you don't understand "me" at all. Well, maybe Joe Lieberman does, but few others. But the Democrats aren't smart enough to nominate Joe, as they are too fixed on presenting a made-for-showtime, Hillary Clinton. They will get beat AGAIN!
You guys don't understand that people like me LOVE The Patriot Act. Love it! We understand that we're living in a new world, post 911. We may not love the Domestic Spying issue, but understand why the President needs to move quicker at times, than to have to attempt to run get a "warrant". Everything I've heard and read on this issue from the actual people involved supports the President's view. People like me understand that this type of wire tapping only involves cases where one of the participants is considered to have ties to terrorism. I'll trust my President (whether Democrat or Republican) to make that call, because I know that if he/she gets out-of-hand with it, it will eventually come out and they'll pay the cost. Our government (thank goodness) is just tranparent enough to work that way. Hell - Even the fact that this program was revealed is proof of that! In America - The truth will always eventually emerge.
You people don't understand that people like me SUPPORT these wars you call "bullshit". We support the war in Afghanistan. If ever there was a justification for going to war, THAT was it. You people also don't understand that people like me also support the war in Iraq and are very happy that Saddam was removed. He was the second coming of Hilter and it needed to be done. He had a history of mass murder and using WMDs to attack his own people and had recently attacked a neighboring country (Kuwait). He had defied 16 useless U.N. resolutions over 10 flippin' years and had no plans to cooperate and only had plans to continue with what we now know is the manipulation of the U.N.'s Oil for Food program to continue to line his, his family, the French, the Russians and the Germans' pockets. It's all coming out just how corrupt that program really was and I suppose you supported more "talking" with this lunatic, right? Someone had to put their foot down and I'm proud that it was America that did it! I would have been proud had it been Bill Clinton at the helm.
You people don't understand that people like me are sitting and wondering why people like you were nowhere to be found when Clinton was deploying our troops more than any other previous U.S. President. We didn't hear a single flippin' complaint out of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Al Gore or any of the rest. In-fact, we only heard support for those military actions. Why? Because it was a member of "your" team that was leading the charge.
Perosnally, I'm pretty sick and tired of BOTH parties and their Kool-Aid", I'm (and many flyover people like me) are not nearly as stupid as these people would like to believe. Most of us are just too busy to be able to keep up with all the B.S. these groups want to throw out on us!
P.S. I support the "altering" of the constitution to protect marriage. I'm agnostic and don't pretend to have all the answers in this regard, but I understrand that there is a large portion of our population that believes in God and believes that marriage is a union between a man, woman and God. I respect their views and realize that THAT is where marriage came from - It's roots! Perhaps "mostly" conservative people wouldn't feel the need to "alter" the constitution if marriage was not under constant attack by those (a minority of our citizens) that wish to "shape" it to what THEY believe it should be. It's called "respect". Something I find is becoming very rare with far-left liberals these days.
Martin. I love your passion and your obvious intelligence on the issues of our day. It's impressive to see someone so dedicated to "changing" things. However, as long as you're willing to call our President a "liar", a "murderer", a "terrorist" and about every other name in the book, you will never get through to mainstream America. We don't want to hear that kind of Kool-Aid drinking and obviously biased rhetoric. C'mon Martin. You're too smart for that kind of crap.
"ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR WEARING T-SHIRTS THEY DISAGREE WITH"
Pleeeease! The only time morons get arrested for that is when they're attempting to do so at an inappropriate time and place. Let's see? How long did Sheehan sit out there in Texas wearing whatever she damn well wanted to and NOT get arrested for anything? Hmmmmmm? That's the kind of comment that makes people like me want to tune people like you out. That's not what you rerally want is it, Martin? I'm sure you don't want to narrow your audience to just those people that agree with you. Right? You do want to reach out to people like me, right? No?
As I said....I respectfully submit this as a way to add to the discourse and hope that we can all "listen" to each other as I believe we all have something positive to give.
P.S. Martin? One last thing. You might want to approach your friends and tell them that if they continue to get after Bush on the domestic spying program, the bullshit wars, arresting people for wearing t-shirts and altering the constitution to protect the institution of marriage, they will AGAIN lose ground to the very people they hate so much....the dreaded neo-cons! This is NOT rocket science here, Martin. ALL those issues favor BUSH and your "team" is playing into his hands every single time you bring those issues up. You better start listening to Hilliary on this, but you better hope the Democrats (whether you're one or not) nominate Joe Lieberman.
Take care, Martin. I think you have a lot to offer this country and I hope you "soften" your tone, so that you can actually get a chance to get some of it done. Good luck.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
[Benjamin Franklin]
I have another question for you. There seems to be recent evidence emerging that Saddam may have had the WMD afterall and arranged to have them moved through the use of 56 flights to Syria via converted "commercial" planes. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here.
Obviously, the evidence is not all in yet, but if this turns out to be true, what will you say about Bush then? Just curious. If it turns out that Bush was actually right in believing all the intelligence he received from not only the CIA, but almost every other major intelligence agency in the world.....What then? What if Bush was right? What if Great Britain was right? What if Russia was right? What if Israel was right? What if even France was right? All those country's intelligence agencies said that Saddam had the WMD and Bush acted on that collective information.
Even the 911 commission that the "left" fought so hard to have established, found that there was NO evidence that President Bush had lied about anything. Even in the face of that report people like Howard Dean and the rest of the looney-left has called Bush a liar. Now, what if it turns out that Bush and Blair and all those intelligence agencies were actually right?
What then? Will those that have gone out onto the public stage (even internationally) and accused him of being a liar, a murderer, a terrorist and the rest, apologize? Will they have that kind of class? I doubt it.
That's my question to you, Martin. What if it turns out that Bush and Blair were right about the WMDs? What would "you" do?
With all due respect. If it weren't for the Patriot Act the Brooklyn Bridge would now be but a fond memory.
Now, name ONE instance where the Patriot Act, in all this time, has intruded on anyone's liberty. Just name one. Name one time that a private citizen has had their library records looked at unlawfully. Just one. It hasn't happened.
The Patriot Act was and IS needed. And people like you that support far-left organizations like the ACLU are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. Don't you see that? Are you so blinded by your ideology that you don't see that most Americans don't want to read about the ACLU standing up for people like the North American Man/Boy Love Association? NAMBLA. Now, there's a worthy cause for the ACLU to stand up for!!! Let me lead the cheer..."GOOOOOOO RAPISTS!!!! Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here.
I have read most of your articles and even agree with a lot of what you have to say. However, you have to be blind to not see how out of touch the ACLU has become. Indeed the far-left! Perhaps you are too close to the situation. You have to be blind to not see that most Americans support the Patriot Act. These are issues that every time the far-left brings them up, they play right into the hands of the Republicans and indeed, George W. Bush.
With all due respect, Bert. I think that after 911, Ben's words might have been a bit different. Good grief! Apples and oranges, Amigo!
Anyway - I've had me fill with politics for the day. You gentlemen continue the discourse. A knife is always made sharper by friction. Thanks for the friction!
The religious right? Me? LOL - Hardly. I'm agnostic. C'mon, Bert. They are out of touch with "middle" America. Period. Were the principles in which our country was founded include the rights of NAMBLA to free speech? Well?
Don't let your pride get in your way of free thinking my friend.
Let's stick to issues and not make gratuitous comments about each other, okay?
You guys remind me of Chicken Little running around and screaming the sky is falling. Pleeease. When you can come back on this blog and show me ONE case where the government has misused the Patriot Act, I'll reconsider my stance. Until then - You are doing nothing but playing into the hands of the people you so desperately hate every time you bring it up. How can you be that blind? Sorry. I mean that in all honesty.
Nobody answered my question:
"What if it turns out that Bush and Blair were right about the WMDs? What would "you" do?"
I just want to see what I'm dealing with here.
Bert - I was sticking to the issues. No?
You phrase that question as though Bush actually thought there were WMDs.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
First - Quoting an LA Times Poll does you little justice, Amigo.
Secondly - I believe those numbers are probably pretty close to being right and for the LA Times that is unusual. With that being said....How do you think those numbers would be if the WMD are found to have been moved just prior to the war? Be careful here as there is mounting evidence that this just may be the case.
Also - Your numbers don't surprize me a bit anyway. This country is polarized right now between left and right. I would imagine that those numbers could be further broken down into an almost straight party line vote.
Just a thought.
Guys - Let's not even discuss the ACLU or you're going to lose me. That outfit is the most dangerous, far left-wing organization in the country. Period. Sorry Bert, but any "unbiased" person not tied to them is aware of this.
NAMBLA is just one example of just how out of touch they really are today. They might have once have had their place, but they have completely lost their mission and their way. IMHO of course.
Bert -
As-far-as them winning most of their cases. Well - I'd contribute most of that to the fact that until just recently the make-up of our most important courts in this country have been leaning strongly to the left. That has changed a bit now, hasn't it? Let's see how they do from this point on. Shall we?
Jesus Christ, David--you're talking about a damaging divide in our nation, and you speak of it in a tone that one would normally reserve for boasting about a big free-agent signing for their favorite football team. You think this is a healthy discourse?
Who's a Bush supporter? Me? Not! I didn't even vote for him the first time around and only did the second time because we didn't need to go through any "change of power" situations in the middle of this Iraq war. That was my opinion. Plus, the Democrats weren't smart enough to put forth Joe Lieberman.
I vote my mind - Not some party line. You can forget about your dreams of Hillary Clinton too. Not going to happen.
Dictatorship? Please! You're talking to someone that is not Republican or Democratic and you continue to blow it with people like me. Too much heated rhetoric and you will continue to lose in the booths. You would think the far left would have learned something. I guess not.
Keep calling Bush a liar, a murderer, a terrorist. Keep throwing Cindy Sheehan out there as point woman. Go ahead. It's your grave. None of you ever called Clinton any of those things when he and Al Gore were voicing the same opinions about Saddam as did Bush and Cheney. It must pain you that Hilliary supported the war in the manner in which she did. Do you know why she did? She actually wants to get elected to the Presidency. Imagine that? Even Hilliary knows what is prudent and necessary. It still won't get her elected, but it gets her close!
Wise up guys. It's not your team vs their team. We're all Americans and we better start listening to each other. There's TOO much on the line these days.
Now, I'm really done here. I wish you all the best in your search for the truth and in your efforts to improve the system.
I guess I'm suppose to take the word of some retired history professor? Is that right?
Stop drinking the Kool-aid, my friend.
"As-far-as them winning most of their cases. Well - I'd contribute most of that to the fact that until just recently the make-up of our most important courts in this country have been leaning strongly to the left. That has changed a bit now, hasn't it? Let's see how they do from this point on. Shall we?"
Paradoxically, from his very next post:
"Wise up guys. It's not your team vs their team."
Holy hypocrisy, Batman.
One last thing. Do you really believe our government has the resources to go around and just do massive "random" checks on peoples mail? Have you lost your mind?
If that professor's mail was checked, I would imagine that it had to fit some "criteria" in order to be flagged in that fashion. Stop trying to make it look like our government wants to run around and spy on the common man.
The sky is fallin'! The sky is fallin'! C'mon guys.
I'm outta here.....Do good and live well, my friends!
How's that hypocritical of "me"? I fail to see it!
I was simply explaining why the ACLU has been able to advance most of their agenda. I didn't say it was right or would be made right now that things have changed.
The fact is - I wish this damn country would get over it's divisions and start acting like adults again.
The fact is - IMHO....The ACLU will not nearly be as effective as they have been now that things have changed with Alito.
Afterall - It was Bert that was "boosting" about the ACLU winning most of it's cases and I was only giving him my opinion as to why that might have occured.
Stop being so sensitive, you're blue is showing.
By-the-way...How's Orange these days? I grew up out in The Valley (Canoga Park) and use to love going down to Knotts Berry Farm. I loved Disneyland too, but not nearly as much as KBF.
I used to love watching The Wagonmasters in the campfire circle. I miss CA!
Hey Stephen! You stole my line! I quoted the same thing about twenty...or was it two hundred...posts ago!
But let me ask you this: Are you admitting that the Patriot Act contains provisions that COULD violate our rights but the government is not using that capability?
As for my inability to provide you with hard evidence of violations, I would say that they will surely make that kind of evidence hard to come by. I certainly would not expect them to take out an ad in the New York Times listing the occasions when they have.
But if they have not...and do not intend to use these capabilities, then why did they demand them? Why do they need them?
And if they DO plan to use them, or have already used them and have kept it carefully classified, then I still think Ben F. was right. So your argument that no evidence of actual violations invalidates our concern seem specious to me.
"They"? "Them"? Anyone can blame the lack of evidence on a "they" or "them". Come on, Bert. Play fair. It's a classic technique used by BOTH sides to buttress their arguments and you're better than that, I hope. Let's keep to the facts. Until there is REAL evidence of anyone having their "rights" violating without "cause", you have no case to be bad-mouthing the Patriot Act. Period.
The Patriot Act has worked to save us from terror attacks and THAT is a fact.
It's good that you don't try to come on here and state "unvetted" claims. That shows your integrity. I'll toast you to that!
Ben F's words mean nothing in today's environment. What do you think ole Ben would say about the ACLU's support of NAMBLA's "rights"?
You did not answer my question.
But, of course, Clinton and Gore did not invade and occupy Iraq, they followed a policy of containment, which happened to be working.
BTW, I used Hillary Clinton as an example because the right wing hates her so very much - if we grant the president dictatorial powers, that is, the power to be above the law and the constitution, which some on this thread seems to think both good and necessary, would you guys still favor dictatorial powers for a president you do not like, for example, Hillary Clinton? If you grant such powers to Bush, you are setting rather a dangerous precedent, you know.
Oh, and about that Brooklyn Bridge plot - he was going to try to bring the bridge down with a blow torch, for gawd's sake! A primo nutcase, not a real terrorist threat.
"Oh, and about that Brooklyn Bridge plot - he was going to try to bring the bridge down with a blow torch, for gawd's sake! A primo nutcase, not a real terrorist threat."
C'mon Joyce. It's that kind of biased statement that is hurting this country. That Kool-Aid is going to kill you. Here's the whole story:
Al Qaeda Immigrant Admits Plotting To Destroy Brooklyn Brige
"Ashcroft said Faris, also known as Mohammed Rauf, tried to obtain "gas cutters" and other tools that could be used to damage train tracks to cause derailments. He studied ultralight aircraft for use in a possible attack and suggested driving a truck loaded with explosives onto an airport tarmac to blow up planes."
Now Joyce, rather than come on here and attempt to mislead people with statements about "primo nutcases" trying to use blow torches (I guess it was the gas cutters you were referring to) to take down the Brooklyn Bridge, why don't you present the WHOLE story so people can know the truth? It wasn't very nice of you to leave off the rest of the evidence about the planes and the truck full of explosives. Shame on you.
And I just know you're kidding with this remark:
"But, of course, Clinton and Gore did not invade and occupy Iraq, they followed a policy of containment, which happened to be working."
Working? You have got to be kidding? No? Yes? What do you consider working? The Oil for Food Program? Was that working? Sure it was. It was working to line the pockets of Saddam and his merry band of murderers and the French, the Germans and the Russians. He had established terrorist training camps within his country (just north of Baghdad) and was supporting (send cash to) homocide bombers to blow-up innocent men, women and children in Israel. He had had 10 years and 16 different "useless" U.N. resolutions demanding that he come clean about his weapons programs and stockpiles. He broke ALL 16 resolutions! Working? How's that? You have a different definition of "working" I guess.
By-the-way, those useless U.N. resolutions include the last one that was past with a unanimous vote warning Saddam to fully comply with UN Inspectors or face the consequences. It was he's final warning and he "chose" to pass. Personally, I would not have given him the 3rd warning before I went in and removed him. The U.S./U.N. gave him 16....That's 16!!!! He got what he asked for and I'm proud it was mainly the U.S./Britain that had the backbone to take him out. Bravo boys! Bravo.
Oh yes....I also supported Bill Clinton when he was in office, so don't write me off as some neo-con moron that totes anyone's party line. I vote BOTH ways and "I" am the voter the Democrats are going to have to appeal to if they have any hopes of putting anyone into the Presidency. I don't see it happening. The only person the Democrats have that could move to the middle enough to get elected is Joe Lieberman and he doesn't stand a chance against the big money that's behind Hilliary. Hilliaryitist has taken over the Democrats and it is also why they about to get beat to the White House again. JMHO of course. Nominate Joe and you have my vote.
Respectfully submitted.
Ahhhh sorry. What question was that? This one:
"Are you admitting that the Patriot Act contains provisions that COULD violate our rights but the government is not using that capability?"
To be honest I have not read the entire Act and don't plan to. The news sources from around the country have done more than enough research into those issues and I have yet to see anything come out for which I would seriously object. Besides, I have 3 young boys to raise. LOL!
Understand one thing about me, Bert. I generally trust our leaders whether they are Republican or Democrat. Why? Because I believe in our system. I believe that it's OK to give our President certain "wartime" powers that he can exercise at his discretion including the use of wire taps on international calls that can be directly linked to people with known terror connections. We are up against an enemy that wants you and I DEAD because we do not agree with their version of spirituality and religion. How sick is that? Just look at what these idiots are doing because of some damn cartoon!
Is there any doubt in your mind that if Bin Laden and his ilk could have, they would have set off a nuclear weapon on 911 rather than just planes? We had better wake up (Ben Franklin included) and realize that we ARE going to have to give up certain freedoms and liberties that we had grown accustom to or we are going to eventually face that horrible day. And THAT, my friend, is what should scare the hell out of you and not The Patriot Act or any of Bush's policies.
Are there parts of The Patriot Act that "could" be misused? Perhaps!? But I feel certain that if they were to be, it would come out and the anyone involved would pay the cost. Hell - They can't even keep the wire tapping program a secret and it was THE most secret post-war program they had. There's just too much 411 through the media outlets, Internet and bloggers for any "real" abuse to take place for very long. Too many people are involved and too many people are willing to talk with the media about things.
Honestly Bert - When you guys attack The Patriot Act and then moments later the guy that has admitted to trying to blow-up the Brooklyn Bridge files suit (ACLU there again?) to say that the information that was used to catch him has to be thrown out because it was illegally obtained through the P.A.....You lose people like me! Don't you see that?
Look - Nothing personal. I just don't get the far-left in this country and quite frankly don't want to my friend. I feel they have lost touch with people like me. They don't understand that the vast majority of people in this country are tired of hearing them bash George Bush or really, any American President. If they keep this tactic up they will not win the White House. Let's see what happens.
You also did not answer plenty of my arguments and did not answer my main question. Care to do so now that I have answered yours?
"If it turns out that the WMDs were moved to Syria just before the invasion, what will you say about Bush and his "lies" then?"
Like I said. I'm just curious to see what I'm really dealing with here.
Also, you never made a single comment about this post of mine:
"Bert -
By-the-way...How's Orange these days? I grew up out in The Valley (Canoga Park) and use to love going down to Knotts Berry Farm. I loved Disneyland too, but not nearly as much as KBF.
I used to love watching The Wagonmasters in the campfire circle. I miss CA!"
Are we so far apart that we can't even talk about "casual" matters in a friendly manner? I was trying to be neighborly and you just blew me off. What's up with that?
If frogs had wings...they wouldn't bump their ass every time they jumped.
Any time new information comes out, I re-evaluate.
If it tuens out Bush really IS abusing the Patriot Act, will you change your opinion of him and call for his impeachment?
Such hypothetical questions solve nothing and prove nothing.
Orange is fine...unfortunately all of Orange County is getting more crowded every day. It's just too nice a place to live. We live about six miles from Disneyland and about twice that from KBF. Actually, we're closer to The Pond where the Mighty Ducks play, and Anaheim Stadium where the Angels play. We hear the fireworks from Disneyland every night in the summer, and from Angel Stadium when the Angels win.
"We ALL want to help the poor amongst us. Don't we? You can't really believe that is the providence of the left? Right? But you tell on yourself when you decide that THAT duty should be left to the government. When did our government become Mommy and Daddy? Our government isn't here to provide services to our citizens, except in extreme cases."
My response to that:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We the people happen to be the government of the United States - remember "government of the people, by the people, for the people...."
Next:
"Even the 911 commission that the "left" fought so hard to have established, found that there was NO evidence that President Bush had lied about anything. "
It was not their mandate to look into that issue, so, they did not look for such evidence.
Then, regarding Faris, and the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, if the court papers are to be believed, Faris never actually succeeded in committing any acts of terrorism and his work for the terror group apparently ended in March 2003 with Mohammed's apprehension - Faris was identified from Mohammed's cell phone records.
In other words, the U.S. Government had a foreign source (Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) allegedly linking Faris to Al Qaeda. That source - being entirely foreign - was not subject to the FISA prohibition against warrantless wiretapping of U.S. persons, so, this case cannot be held up as an example of Bush's violations of FISA working to make us safer.
And according to the feds at the time of guilty plea, Faris had already figured out months earlier that the plot was unworkable.
Also, for what it's worth, Faris is mentally ill. He heard voices and suffered from hallucinations, and needed to be given meds once in prison.
So the plot was not disrupted by the illegal wiretap program. It collapsed under the weight of its own idiocy
Moreover, anyone may pray anywhere, even children in school - what is not allowed is coerced prayer, that is, public school authorities, including teachers, may not lead the children in prayer, thus forcing their own religious preferences on the children. This does not prevent children from praying on their own, whenever they want to. Honestly, would you really want the government telling your kids how to pray?
it's out of control.
david l - thanks for your respectful words and dignified debate. i have to say that you are a republican, in the same sense that joe lieberman and zell miller are also republicans.
there's too much to try and reply to now, suffice to say that we are in complete disagreement about the reality of terrorism in the world, and the perception of terrorism in the world as posed by this admininstration - to the tune of well over $200 billion in money given to american companies working in iraq that donated heavily to the bush campaign.
if you feel safer and don't mind that corporate profits are through the roof while schools, roads and most everything else here at home - oh, and the soldiers, for god's sake - are going to hell, then i hope it was worth it.
i, among others on this page, certainly do not.
as for your hypothesis of wmds being moved to syria, well, if our intelligence was so damn hot, and we pay all this tax money every year to deploy and maintain satellite surveillance of the region - then shame on us for missing it.
but that's a red herring - next you'll ask the "what if torturing someone could save your relative's life" question.
you found my paragragh on deception to be scary, but what of your near-orgasmic love of the patriot act? it only indicates to me that you are insecure and must be told that the powers that be have everything under control.
i've just decided against a reference to germany and 1933, but it fits. you haven't read the patriot act - and guess what? neither had lawmakers when it was passed. that's not exactly what i'd call a ringing endorsement. and, as i've asked before without response - where did a 10,000 page document such as this one come from so quickly, anyway?
"If it tuens out Bush really IS abusing the Patriot Act, will you change your opinion of him and call for his impeachment?"
Yes!
If "Frogs had wings". Be nice now. There is "some" evidence that just might be what has happened to the missing WMD that no one can find. It's not like I just pulled that out of my arss, Bert. I just wanted to know what I was dealing with and your comments have told me. :)
Sorry to hear about Orange. I moved away from the San Fernando Valley for that same reason. It just got too damn crowed.
"We the people happen to be the government of the United States - remember "government of the people, by the people, for the people...."
You're way out on context here. "We the people of the United Sates" was referring to the common citizens and NOT the government. C'mon. You can do better than that. If our founding fathers wanted the "government" to act as a welfare state they would have establish the programs necessary for that to happen and this country would have been a socialist state and NOT a democracy. Your argument has NO merit! Holy cow.
"It was not their mandate to look into that issue, so, they did not look for such evidence."
One word..."Bullcrap!" No offense, but stop drinking the Kool-Aid. They certainly DID and even commented on the fact that there was NO evidence that Bush had lied. If they did not look into that, why would they make such a statement. Again. Put down your Kool-Aid and get right with the truth.
About Ferris? Just admit it. You came on here and attempting to mislead people with regard to him ONLY planning to take the bridge down with a "Blow Torch" and that is just NOT the truth. You have got to get above all the partyline rhetoric, it's killing your credibility. Only use a blow torch my arss. YOU knew there was more to it than that and yet you tried to make him look like he was just some "looney" rather than someone than actually had terrorist ties. You lied and you got busted. Plain and simple. Try that stuff on the uninformed, not me.
"Also, for what it's worth, Faris is mentally ill. He heard voices and suffered from hallucinations, and needed to be given meds once in prison."
It's amazing how that happens once they get caught. Isn't it. Geeez!
Joyce - I'm sorry, but you have completely lost me with all your obviously "biased" attempts to dicredit everything about George Bush. I'm not his biggest fan either, but it's obvious to me that you are a partisan. Save your "speak" for your fellow far-left loonies, the "middle of the roaders" like me are not listening. Sorry.
First - I always love a good debate as long as proper "respect" is shown. If you're going to come on a blog like this and attempt to "mislead" people with biased rhetoric, then I'm going to show you the exact kind of disrespect you just showed us. I'm more referring to Joyce than you, but you are in much the same boat with your obvious far-left leanings. You know what? That's OK. If nothing else, I can respect your dedication.
But PLEASE do not try to call me a Republican. I'm nothing of the sort. You and your ilk can never catagorize me in that fashion. I am an enigma to you and that is why you can't see me, hear me or relate to me. That is also why the liberals are getting their arsses handed to them in American politics for the last several years.
Call me a Republican if it makes it easier for you to live with yourself, but in-doing-so, you are telling yourself a lie. Keep drinking that socialist/liberal Kool-Aid my friend and people like me will keep putting more and more George Bushs and the like, into The White House. Not because we love George Bush, but because people like you just don't get it!
I've said I peace here and allowed others to do the same. I don't think we are doing anything but just playing tennis, at love, and no one really has a chance at point. I'm done.
Take Care and good luck in your endeavors.
Peace out as they say
Kowboy (Dave L)
I thought about this after I went to bed last night.
The hypothetical question I should have asked you is this:
If evidence is found that the Bush administration deliberately misled the Congress and the American people in order to justify his invasion of Iraq, will you actively seek his impeachment? That is the exact opposite of the hypothetical question you posed to me, which, as Martin said, is a Red Herring. There is no evidence that it happened (weapons to Syria) and with our satellite surveillance, we would have picked that up if it did happen.
In that case, the Bushies would have broadcast that all over the world. The fact that they have not should tell you that it didn't happen.
However, the probability that somebody will supply the "smoking gun" that proves that Bush and his cronies lied, distorted and suppressed information is much more likely. Actually, several former members of the intelligence community...who were fired for trying to correct such distortions...have already made statements to that effect.
Be careful what you hypothesize about...it might come back to bite you.
Steve, tell me where you find the word "God" in our Constitution.
David, our Constitution is a blueprint for our government, and our government derives its power from the governed, from us; it represents us, and acts on our behalf for the common welfare. Of course, the prescient men who wrote the Constitution did not anticipate the size or the complexity of this nation, they did not anticipate modern technology, nor did they anticipate the liberation of slaves, or the equality of women, so, of course, they did not address all the issues we deal with now. However, they deliberately left much of the Constitution vague and open to interpretation for just that reason.
More later; I just got home from work, and I'm tired.
i keep hearing that. i just wish it could proved. it's debatable.
i'd love to know what i've said that you consider to be rhetoric, since i fight against use of it at every turn. are you saying that my comment that companies like halliburton and bechtel donated heavily to getting bush and cheney into office, and are now profiting highly as a result - is rhetoric?
fair enough.
call joe lieberman a democrat if you want - it makes me laugh every time.
i didn't call you a republican. i called you a republican in the same sense that lieberman and zell miller are republicans.
there's a distinct difference.
so, you'll continue putting stupid motherfuckers like george bush into office - and continue driving up our debts and driving down our respect - just to teach us liberals a lesson, hey?
conservative intellect in action, folks.
run along, now.
The problem isn't actually Israel or the Jewish people. It's the Uber christian right wing wanting Israel for their crazy 'rapture'. These bums would actually hate Israel and every Jew if not for their ridiculous 'comic book' view of christianity.
I too beleive that the war was orchestrated by the old military/industrial complex (Eisenhower warned us about) war mongers. It's just easy to blame Jews or Moslems -it's subtle and insidious.
Also note that, before he was caught, Faris had abandoned his plans as unworkable.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-plasma-cutter.htm
Working? You have got to be kidding? No? Yes? What do you consider working? The Oil for Food Program? Was that working? Sure it was. It was working to line the pockets of Saddam and his merry band of murderers and the French, the Germans and the Russians.
This has been said in several arguments so far in this thread (btw: First! :^D) and a glaring omission indeed is: that not only did France, Russia, and Germany make it big with the Food for Oil program but *many* American companies did too - some Big Businesses profited by the truckload, all well documented. Your failure to add this to your argument is trickery by any stretch, since it would therefore negate at least part of your argument if you included the whole truth in the matter.
Was fun reading this commentary thread, however, and is certainly more fact-filled and robust than the initial article which is full of unsubstantiated garbage, finger pointing, etc. I love this one: "Rather than looking to empower individual citizens with as much liberty as possible it seems as though many of our leaders...." are looking to wiretap our phone lines, read our emails, browse through our medical records and dump our dresser drawers onto the floor at any moment, without warrants? And yes, governments should dictate a fair working wage, a *minimum* standard that a company should pay, especially in such a rich country; the days of sweatshops are pretty much over in America thank goodness.
The government should be allowed to help the disadvantaged to learn job skills and help them, if needed, to find gainful employment; I've worked for the last 16 years in adult psychiatry and have seen the worst of the worst, from medicare/medicaid fraud to abuse of patients and families, and I've watched those unfortunate souls who are outsiders from the mainstream *struggle* with their existance, for whatever reasons not understanding how to make it in this culture and society. Someone needs to help them, besides the RNs, MDs, social workers and others such as myself who are there when crisis has brought them, literally and figuratively, to their knees. Who would you suggest help? The families? Yes, but what about the ones that are abandoned by their families? Maybe there's a better answer but for now government is needed to step in, someone has to pay and I'm glad to contribute taxes in order to try to keep people from dying in the streets. My taxes also go to support a war that I believe, personally, was unnecessary and almost certainly trumped up.
PATRIOT ACT CANNOT DO.....HOW DO WE KNOW WHO WILL BE ELECTED NEXT AND ABUSE IT, UNLESS IT IS A TEMPORARY THING AND NEEDS TO BE RENEWED NEXT YEAR AFTER WE GET TO VOTE ON IT.
HAVE FUN EVERYONE.
1) Remember that Hitler was elected under a democracy. Democracy is simple majority -- just like a lynch mob. There should be no comfort in a democracy.
2) Sheehan is a puppet that will be used only when she is needed and tossed to the curb when she no longer serves the purpose of getting someone farther a long in their career.
We should always and everywhere beware the heavy hand of government and the creeping of socialism . Nice controversy. Good read.
Not telling the truth is not a problem, since, though what they say is not true, it could be true, and in the liberal mind, that is enough.
The left oft says "Bush lied" in a way to disclose their premise that he is some sort of parental figure and their self-perception of being perrineal teenagers. Teenagers quite unprepared to accept adult roles in society and take care of themselves. Socialism offers the complete answer to those not wanting to take on adult responsibilities, let the custodial government do it.
Sheehan is mentally ill. Liberals, who claim greater sympathy for the down troddren, have no problem with cutting out her beating heart and throwing her body down the other side of the pyramid like the enlightened Aztecs did.