What happened to the political party that can boast they were on the side of ending slavery? Can boast that Abraham Lincoln is counted among their alumni. Well, it might be interesting for you to know that Lincoln quit the Republican Party in 1864 because a faction of the Republican Party known as the Radical Republicans had taken a stand against Lincoln’s “too easy” terms for reuniting the union.
These Radical Republicans were lead by Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and John C. Fremont, who ran against Lincoln in 1864 as the Republican candidate. After Lincoln’s assassination, the made their move and effectively gutted Reconstruction and led the baseless impeachment of Pres. Andrew Johnson. Then in 1868 the Radical Republicans consolidated their control of the Republican Party and congress under Pres. U. S. Grant. What followed were decades of corruption, a federal government unresponsive to the will of the people, a policy of using military action to force Native Americans into submission, and open distain for minorities through legislation like the Jim Crow laws Any of this sound familiar?
So when you think about it, there is nothing new about the Neo-cons. They’ve been around since the civil war. And just like then, today’s Republicans use fear to get what they want. They used fear to justify military action against Native Americans. And we now know that the biggest battles fought were in response to our government breaking treaties signed in good faith by the Native Chiefs. Then an explosion on the U.S. Navy vessel, The Maine became a battle cry for the Spanish American war. Despite absolutely no evidence, the Radical Republicans claimed it was an attack on the U.S. by Spain. Using false intelligence to justify the invasion, U.S. troops invaded a sovereign country, over threw the government, and established a puppet government that was so popular, it was over thrown 60 some years later by radical communists. Does THIS sound familiar?
It took the economic disaster called The Great Depression to motivate the American people to remove them from power. Between then and 1980 our country saw the biggest expansion of the middle class in history. Wages among working people rose to record levels raising the standard of living in the United States to the point of being seen as THE example to the rest of the world. Advances in social services to the elderly and indigent along with advances in civil rights reached levels unprecedented in human history.
But in 1980 the Republicans began to make their come back. And it started with Ronald Reagan. He is touted by Right wing historians as the “great communicator,” crediting his success on his “positive” message. Well, I was there and I remember a very different candidate for the presidency. Using what economists called a “mild” down turn in the economy in the late 1970’s as evidence, Reagan painted the federal government as a bloated, arrogant entity with a strangle hold on private enterprise. Over regulation was blamed for high un-employment levels and we were told that only through de-regulation and massive tax cuts could the economy be saved. I think weariness over the Iran hostage situation, combined with the less than inspirational personality of Jimmy Carter, along with a short memory span gave Reagan the election. By his second term, the economy had recovered and he took credit of course. But there was no way his tax cuts and de-regulation could have had that soon an effect. The reality was that the recovery was already well under way before Reagan even took office. The true effect of his tax cuts was the biggest deficit in history and a turn down in the economy that helped defeat Bush I in 1992.
Another example of Reagan’s fear mongering was his policy regarding the Soviet Union. He reversed the policy of friendship and cooperation with the USSR started by Pres. Nixon called détente. He then labeled the Soviet Union the “evil empire” to justify his failed budget draining “star wars” program. Again, Right wing historians credit Reagan for “bringing down” the Soviet Union. Nonsense, it was the people of that nation that decided to end that government. Premiere Gorbachev deserves far more credit than Reagan.
Scrambling to reverse the defeat of Bush I in 1992, another campaign of fear called the “contract with America” movement under Newt Gingrich allowed them to regain a majority in congress beginning an unprecedented rolling back of progress in social services, environmental regulations, and economic policies that has resulted in what has become known as “the war on the middle class.”
And now under Bush II, we are again invading sovereign countries to enforce our will, and witnessing a federal government unresponsive to the will of the people. And how did he gain power… fear. Just like Reagan, he used an ambiguous economic bump in the road along with propaganda based on fear to convince just enough of his base that Al Gore would raise taxes, force strangling environmental regulations on private industry, and inflict an incompetent government controlled health care system on the nation that would destroy it economically.
I’m not even going to go into the current fear mongering being spewed by the current crop of Republican’s regarding foreign policy. Their impending political demise is evidence enough. No, the Republican Party may have been the Grand Ole’ Party at one time, but for the past 140 plus years, it has been the party of fear, corruption, and incompetence.
*****************************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published twice weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 258
Doh!! and a drive by one vote to boot... suicide is the only answer...
It's real tempting to lower myself and tell you exactly what I think of YOU Lex, but I'm afraid my sense of civility prevents it. Oh well, ramble on Lex... ramble on.
Devin, you absolutely nailed these rat bastards, to a tee. The only thing that I could add is that the Great Depression was the end result of the same "trickle on" economics that these filthy pigs have been saddling us with again since 1981. FDR saved democracy in America from the grasp of the fascist corporatists when he took over (and he was eviscerated for his policies at the time by these pigs). He fought these rotten assholes tooth and nail during his entire stay in office, and thank GOD, he won.
The question now is, who is the next FDR? Can democracy be saved from these filthy pigs once again?
He's also "Don H."
What used to be the republican party wasn't necessarily "mean," but rather, confused and fearful. Today's republican party, however, is nothing short of sociopathic. They seem to have a truly deep contempt for all who differ from them. I suspect that it stems from their natural tendency to live in a constant state of fear. The fact that they've chosen to allow themselves to be bombarded with the vitriolic hatred of their propaganda merchants certainly doesn't help matters.
Nice contributions, as always, baby hughy. You never fail to show just how diseased today's republican party really is. Thanks again.
There is little resemblance between the Republicans of Lincoln's Era and the current day Republicans. The Lincoln Republicans had a social reform faction and a Whig faction. Lincoln having come from the Whig party originally. The reform wing of the Republican party was out to abolish slavery and polygamy and to institute other social reforms popular in the day -- the Whig portion of the party was isolationist and pro-infrastructure. In other words the Whigs wanted to protect local businesses so they were protectionist -- one of the reasons that they were not liked in the South which was dependent upon foreign trade. The Whig side of the party was also big into financing canals, railroads, etc that assisted business. There was a third wing that became attached to the Republicans known as the libertarian wing -- this is the "best government is the government that governs the least" crowd. The neo-Conservatives are not fiscal conservatives, they are not even really social conservatives although they pander to the weak minded in order to harvest their votes, they are primarily focused on world domination by force if need be and the protection of big business. The G.O.P. today consists of an unholy alliance of radical social conservatives and the highly affluent. Its a marriage which allows the highly affluent to buy votes without investing any money, its kind of like a special bell pull or something. They mouth outrage about abortion, gay marriage, etc. and they pull in votes and cause people to vote against their own economic self interest without requiring any budget line items being devoted to them. Meanwhile big business and the highly affluent line their pockets. It has allowed a maldistribution of wealth unheard of since the days of the Robber Barons and if it continues at the pace it is currently going will most likely result in the country in flames, they won't have to worry about the terrorists destroying America, Americans will do it all by themselves.
Excellent way to put it George.
I remember when there were liberals in the Republican Party. I know they didn't join the Democratic Party but I often wonder what they are thinking now.
Fear is a powerful motivator. Look how it motivates Lex - he gets so nervous he can't even spell correctly.
Our ineffectual and secretive White House (with a Vice President whose confused about his role) should be feared.
Namaste, Wayne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_Party_%28United_States%29
It's amazing how little the average voter exercises his gray matter to remember the challenges of even a few years ago.
been reading your posts in response to the article and sadly there are no facts.....just some good ole fashioned name calling.
The beautiful thing about history is that you can't change the FACTS.....Reagan was a disater........you may think of him as great but he really was teflon.
Post facts.........Who said if you can't stand the heat get outta the kitchen. By the way I'm very trim.
What's got into you? Not to long ago you wrote an article in which you lamented what you considered the possible demise of the GOP. In this one you sounded like you sounded like you had move further left of right, a lot farther.
".....the Republican Party may have been the Grand Ole' Party at one time, but for the past 140 plus years, it has been the party of fear, corruption, and incompetence." That is stretching it more than a bit.
While I admit Eisenhower was only a nominal Republican The biggest rise in the Post-Depression and WW II wages and the U.S. standard of living occurred under his administration during which many of the seeds for much of the social change that later swept the country were sown. Like his predecessor, Ike was not necessarily a great President, but he had his moments of insight and courage and they were both well suited to their time. Gerry Ford was another competent but not great President that was well suited to his time.
Even Nixon and Regan for all their faults had their moments in the area of foreign policy, but I agree that not enough credit was given to either Gorby or Chou En-lai, who you did not mention.
The point I am trying to making is lambasting all Republicans just like the far-right lambastes all Democrats serves no useful purpose. If anything it offends the moderates and centrists of the Republican party who like many of the moderate and centrists of the Democratic party are not making their voices heard. We need the moderates and centrists of the GOP (and the liberals if there are any left) to reclaim their party so our nation can once more have a healthy two party system whose members are willing to work together to unify our nation rather than push their own agendas to the point that they further divide us.
Reagan was not a disaster, and he wasn't a "disater" either. I think that you may have a point about the facts. You can't change them, I guess you can just choose to ingore them. I am sorry if that is what you are going to do. I can't stop you. But so you know: Which party fights for the open market, lower taxes, strong morality, and security for our allies and those less fortunate around the world? Wait before you answer, think about this. The democrats want to raise the taxes on the rich, which by the way means the middle and lower class because the rich can and will find ways around it. The democrats are in favor of retreating and failing in Iraq, which will plumit the country into a civil war, destoying the entire country's population and ruining the American popularity their. The democrats are the party which favors bigger government with universalized health care and sticter laws that take away are freedoms... but I guess the republicans are the oppressors. Right?
I believe we scramble to find words to demonstrate what we sense in an almost instinctive way as we observe the operatives of the Republicon party now in control of most policies in our nation. What we sense is that the republican party has become the standard choice for people that crave "authoritarian" rule. This is a constant theme in societies throughout history, and can pretty much be considered a reflection of basic human nature, I think.
When things get confusing, or frightening, people are prone to believe there are certain people who are imbued with special qualities which render them capable of taking care of us by nature. Examples of this impulsive desire to raise some individual to ultimate power in order to tap into their inherent "alpha alpha" characteristics, and have them lead society out of danger, are abundant. I suppose in our culture Cesar is the prototype most easily grasped, though Hitler runs a close second of late.
Critical to such turning over of ultimate authority psychologically is the sense of being overwhelmed by events and currents of historical proportions, which are not conducive to handling by consensus rule. For this impulse to take root it is necessary to conjure suspicion that the "common" people, and the "common" leaders, are unable to extricate themselves from the various mundane concerns which dominate their thinking and actions, making a "strongman" the only means of corralling societies dispersed efforts. in order to steer us out of troubled waters.
If one listens carefully to those who most staunchly support the current Administration, one can see this "hero worship" lying at the heart of virtually every argument for continuing to trust in one man's "vision" and "impulse" in order to overcome the numerous "threats" we face. Essentially, this is a rejection of democratic principles as being ineffectual, and overly cumbersome.
Today, fear is absolutely vital to maintaining that psychological acceptance of authoritarian rule, and will continue unrelentingly to be used wherever possible to prevent the "faithful" from wavering. Our authoritarian rulers very necks are on the line, and the resources of the entrenched wealthy are unquestioningly available to them because wealth itself is the ultimate form of authoritarian rule, and control of it the ultimate form of supposed divinity. Money has replaced all other forms of presumed entitlement to create and control. It is now seen as "the will of god" revealed to man by Fate.
Your comment posts sound like they came directly from the talking points manual distributed by the Republican party. Think for yourself man, lower taxes for the wealthy has never equated to better times for the working class. And you don't call a deficit in the trillions of dollars and the flattest period of wage increases since Hoover a disaster? Democrats favor bigger government? Are you dazed man, under Bill Clinton the size of the federal government was reduced to a level that hasn't been seen since John F. Kennedy. And if you call sending our precious young people to die in an illegal war based on bald faced lies MORAL, well I'm sorry my friend, but I just can't take you seriously.
I want to make it clear that when I refer to Republicans, I'm talking about the political leaders. It is they, afterall who are responsible for the duping of their base. What bothers me most is when I hear what I call lay Republicans regurgitating their leaders talking points. It is most distressing because I think these lay Republicans truly believe these talking points. Unfortunately, I'm afraid their leaders do not.
Of course, America is a great country. You aren't telling any of us anything new. Without honest and clear dissent it wouldn't be the wonderful country that it is. It is the First Amendment that makes it so, my friend.
" . . . we live in the most free, opportunistic, and well governed society this world has ever seen... and those on the left who find it so easy to criticize this country that has given them so much, why don't you go somewhere else?"
And all that is right with our nation simply stems from fate right ? It does not come from the very ability to look and speak critically of what might be happening ? Everything would be just peachy keeno if everyone just marched along as instructed by . . . whom ?
How silly to attribute a free societies achievements to dogmatic adherence to the "bosses" inclinations. And how utterly easy to reveal as fanciful nonsense. Just what makes criticizing the policies of our servants equivalent to criticizing our representative democracy ? Isn't that our freakin duty as citizens ?
Your "idols" are not my country. Perhaps it is you who ought to be shopping for one where criticizing the government is considered treason.
Republicans: the party that oversaw the gutting of labor unions' rights to collective barganing. Republicans: the party that gave us Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the current crop of inept liars, whose shenanigans have yet to get an all-inclusive title. Oh, yeah; that's MY definition of morality! not.
I certainly agree that "demonising" is unproductive, and even counter productive. So how bout you stop demonizing those you see as being in disagreement with you on various issues ?
Bad people really do exist, and they really do bad things. And they really do seek to dominate and rule over others, and see government as a useful means of enhancing their power. It is just plain foolish to think there is some sort of special wall of righteousness keeping miscreants and megalomaniacs out of OUR government, when we can see plain as day that they somehow get into power in every other one throughout history.
I think some are in power here right this very moment, and are twisting our society into knots with fear mongering tactics intentionally designed to intimidate those who oppose them. As a good patriot, what ought I to do ?
Another very well written article Devin, I agree with your idea of the politics of fear, but I obviously disagree that Republicans own the fear tactic.
And Jeannie, by saying that the Republicans are the party of morality did not mean they are the "perfect" party. Just that they fight for morality. And all we have to go by are the voting records, which favor the republicans far more than the democrats. Teh democrats are the Human-rights party, definitely, but it is sad to see the degradation of our society. And it is sad to see them appeal to these groups if only for the vote.
Do you agree that the Iraqi children deserved an opportunity to be free? Or am I talking with an isolationist? And don't think for a second that the bombing of Iraqi children is coming from our soldiers, or by the hand of Bush, they are coming as a result of Muslim radical and insurgents.
"but the fact is, you shouldn't try to demonize him and tell others that he is an evil person"
But what if I have reviewed the matter in great depth, and come to the conclusion this fellow is indeed destroying my country for the sake of personal status ? What gives you the "right" to say I am "demonizing" him, based on some particular affection you feel ? Would a German in 1937 be similarly guilty of "demonizing" if they came to see their government was being taken over by extremist elements ? Many felt rather confident he was a fine fellow too.
The point I am making is that our personal feelings about our leaders is irrelevant, since we all know that deception is quite possible and has occurred many times. Therefor accusing people of "being political", or being inspired by "hatred for George Bush" is something one ought to approach very carefully. Else we may lose the ability to sound the bells of alarm which our Forefathers so wisely provided us. And it is that very attempt to silence those bells which brought our good President into my focused patriotic attention. He and his pals have dared call sounding those alarms tantamount to treason, and therefor they are endangering our republic.
Defend as you see fit, but I place no deep faith in men, nor their ability to eschew the opportunity for absolute power which now is within reach of our virtuous President, by his own decree.
Yes, go jump in the lake, by all means. After all, this is just a game show, and it can always be taken up again in the fall.
"Absolute power... what a joke"
No, that is no joking matter. You have obviously not bothered to keep track of what your "hero" has been up to.
Today, right now. if Mr. Bush signs a single piece of paper, and it is also signed by one other person (AG Gonzales) the country would instantly go into a state of national emergency, and each and every government employee at all levels would fall under the direct command of the President. All institutions both public and private would be subject to unlimited control, and all possessions of citizens (including their bodies) would be subject to commandeering without warrant or further review. For security purposes, of course, as determined by the President.
He has absolute power if he says so. That means he has absolute power.
The thing you need to understand is that my freedom is not in Iraq and never was. Oil may very well be in Iraq, but rest assured my freedom lies within the borders of the United States.
If Bush wants to protect my freedom, then he needs to bring home the 150,000 troops that he sent to Iraq and surround the United States borders. Now he can keep the measley 10,000 troops that he sent to Afghanistan over there looking for Osama Bin forgotten, the real 9/11 killer. I never understood that strategy. Send more troops into a country that did us no harm and a lot less troops to search for the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11. I'm not a military expert...but how is that working for your leader that great Patriot?
When Dan Rather produced a false document proving W was awol from the Nation Guard (Who really believes he served his full enlistment?) He was viciously attacked by the right. Remember this led to his demise.
Who is attacking the lies of O'Reilly? O'Reilly can't do a show without having to resort to lies, just like debating a Republican.
He is not the only professional liar out there. News Max said Pelosi requested a flying Lincoln bedroom so taxpayers could fly her and her entourage in style.
Hate is a great motivator, lies comes in second. The Republicans are ready to use both on a receptive audience.
This has to be one of the finest threads I've witnessed. Except for a couple of minor distractions, this has been a very stimulating conversation. Bravo to everyone.
I AM NOT criticizing my country or my government. I AM criticizing the current administration and those among the Republican leadership who demonstrate the same characteristics as those "Radical Republicans" from history. There have been periods when the moderate or what I'd call "Lincoln Republicans" held the majority of that party. Eisenhower, Ford, and yes even Nixon were in my opinion "Lincoln Republicans." But the current President is with out doubt a "Radical Republican." And I dare say this one is far more radical than any before.
"If Bush wants to protect my freedom, then he needs to bring home the 150,000 troops that he sent to Iraq and surround the United States borders."
Please be careful what you wish for. There are very clear laws forbidding such a thing, and for very good reasons. The use of "troops" within our borders is not something to be taken lightly, for the very reason that they are under the command of the Executive branch. It is perfectly possible to train and deploy border agents to enhance security in this realm. I have no desire to have military forces "occupying" my nation, any more than Iraq. It is a dangerous and rather "pro-Bush" thing you advocate.
Please, DO NOT post entire articles in the comments section. Simply copy the URL from the address window to your comment. ALSO, when an article has a diclaimer warning that it has not been substantiated as the article you pasted to this thread has, it is a matter of decorum to say so. So please, with all do respect, delte your posts and re-post using the criteria I've described.
I can kind of see where the author of the disclaimed article on Wikipedia was trying for. Neo-conservative is relatively new terminology. In a kind of simplistic way he was trying to tie any political figures he had judged as militaristic from history to the segment of the current Republican Party known as the Neo-cons. Being that Neo-conservatism is a relatively new term, any conclusions regarding how it might or might not be connected to historic political trends would be purely speculative. I think that in my article I do a pretty good job of showing that Bush and the other "Republican" big dogs that got us into the quagmire we're in now are just the latest version of those "Radical Republicans" that first emerged 145 years ago.
Good article, Devin...very thought-provoking.
You are right, i probably shouldn't have been on the web while I was at work... however, there really was nothing to do. But nonetheless, you are right. I never said that the republicans are perfect because they fight for morals, but rather they are better than the democrats becuase they support moral policies. Does that mean they are immune from the depravity which every human being faces? No, and I never said they were. So don't try to get self righteous... please?
Never lose hope, as you van see, the voices of reason far outnumber the voices of nagativety. For an example, Isaac started out by coming on pretty strong. But once we began answering with coherent and respectful arguments, he answered in kind. I don't think any minds are being changed, but I think all in all the discussion is going pretty well. And if we learn even just a tiny bit about one another, I think it's worth it.
Sorry it took so long for me to slam you. Here it goes. Are you saying that the Republicans have issues?
I wonder why the Dumb Democrats chose a Jackass. I think you're right. I think they may be on to something, Ride on, the jackass long enought and your liable to pooped on with jackass shit. Opps! A flag! See ya, Devin. :}
No, not 4,500 American lives. And not just no, but HELL NO!!!!!
As far as the freedom of the rest of the world. There are close to 8 billion people on this planet. We have an army of just 500, 000. Now just HOW do you propose we win freedom for the rest of the world through military action. Now that's unreasonable.
Do you dispute the ramifications of Mr. Bush declaring a state of national emergency ? If not, is it not clear that the door to absolute power now stands wide open, when it never was so before ? If Mr. Bush steps through that door, we may never return to being a republic, and the time for questioning the wisdom of allowing one man to create that potential will be long past, so clearly the time is now.
Regardless of whether Mr. Bush elects to take advantage of the opportunity now available to him, it will remain available to every President who follows. That means we will be electing dictators from now on, who will decide themselves whether to exercise absolute power or not. It takes no great genius to realize that means we will be at the mercy of whoever manages to get into the office by whatever means.
The fact that Mr. Bush elects to leave our democracy in such jeopardy makes him a grave threat to the republic. It calls into serious question his commitment to the Constitutional basis for government, which renders every other step taken to circumvent that Constitution and it's guarantee of our rights suspect. I'm sorry if I can't take much comfort in your personal vouching for the man, but you see, it's not really about that man. It's about rule of the people, inviolate and unquestionable, not something to be "granted" when the leaders feel generous.
I care about the freedom of the United States, but I am not interested in risking the lives of young Americans to settle civil wars in the middle east that have been going on since time began. Of course I think all lives are precious. It weighs heavy on my heart to know that so many Iraqi men, women and children have died due to violence that was started due to our invasion. Not to mention the ones that have now been displaced as a result of the war. It matters very little whether it is 125,000 per your news source or 655,000 per mine. If it's 10, it's 10 too many.
You know as well as any of the rest of us here that it has been shown that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. There is absolutely no evidence showing his link to that crime. That is not to say he wasn't an evil man. But there is evidence showing Osama Bin Forgotten was involved and yet he continues to elude authorities. Have you asked yourself why?
Republicans sure like to mention all the Congressional Democrats who voted to go into Iraq whenever you mention this war. They simply ignore the fact that this war began with flawed intelligence, both from the United States and Britain. It seems to be ok for the Republicans to have voted for invasion based on the flawed intelligence, but not the Democrats. But who was responsible for the intelligence?
I am not saying its ok for repiblicans to have voted based on wrong intelligence and democrats not... I am merely pointing out that the republicans at least are willing to finish the job. The democrats seem to have forgotten their responsibility to the people they helped put in this unfortunate situation. It called taking responsibility for your own decisions. Something democrats don't like very much.
Morals are usually taught by your parents, your church or someone significant in your life. Try as you might you cannot legislate morality.
I can tell you this, I'm not trusting you or anyone else and certainly not any politcal party with mine or my children's morals. It's just another reason why I'm thankful the good Lord gave us all the ability to think freely.
"The ability of him to consolidate power in the time of national emergency is meant to protect us in case of terrorist attack."
Right, that is what it is "meant for". So what ? Did you think Mr. Hitler announced his true intentions when he declared such a state in Germany ? Is THAT the sort of protection you entrust the republic to, the inability of someone to make a false declaration ! ??
And Pl J.... there is only one morality... you just made a reference to the "good Lord"... have you ever heard of the Bible? Or maybe that is just a history book to you and you are referring to some God of your imagination.... The Bible outlines a strict morality... don't bring up things like dancing as if those are moral decisions... If we can't legislate morality, then why is murder, rape, or robbery illegal? It's not just that, but there has to be a real morality, or else there is nothing to compare our own decision to, and therefore it is whatever goes... I hope you can see that.
a) Anti-abortion?
b) Against capital punishment?
c) Anti-war?
d) Against torturing prisoners?
e) Against holding prisoners indefinitely without charges?
So what do you mean by "strong morals"?
Abortion: I beleive as a Christian that life begins at conception because that is what the Bible tells me.
Capital Punishment: I beleive that the punishment of death should be imposed on only those who destroy the image of God (another human) becuase again that is what the Bible tells me.
Anti-war: No easy answer to this... but wrong for the wrong reasons, right for the right reasons.
Against torturing prisoners: although I beleive you are trying to trap me... i am going to say no. becuase compassion is what the bible teaches. I also however, beleive that tough love is approprate as demonstrated in the Bible by God.
Against holding prisoners: unfortunate, but I think this is more of a sad situation than a moral decision. But i would have to say I beleive that is a violation of their freedom as human beings... however, we both know there is more to it than that. Don't we?
If you have me tied up because I kept trying to kill you, do you think you would say "well, i can't think of anything else to do with him, so I gues I'll let him go..." Then what happens.. i turn around and kill you when your back is turned! Or you catch me and the process begins all over again... I suppose that is a difficult decision, one I definitely wouldn't want to make.
But seriously here, I am not saying I am God... all i am saying is that as a Christian I beleive there is one morality that God created. Does that mean that I have all the answers right off the top of my head to all the worlds moral questions? No, but I beleive I can try to do the best I can... always comparing myself to that perfection the was Jesus Christ. Now, I sorry, Im going to bed... its been fun.... Goodnight everyone!
"Germany in the 1930's was completely different than our present situation."
Oh! So, we just don't have to worry about somebody usurping power anymore, since each and every moment will not be the same as the last ? Wow, in that case forget all those silly Constitutional protections, evil has been exhausted, and we can simply assume no one will ever seek to control our nation improperly again.
Whew, what a relief . . . I was really kinda worried there for a while.
Would you mind awful much declaring a few other things "completely different" than when something went bizzaro in the past ? You know, like stock market crashes, and maybe planes crashing into buildings . . . well, just any old thing you figure would be best left behind forever, you decide . . . you're such an expert on this fantasy stuff.
Democrats would have us all believe that if we don't vote for them:
the curent administration is going to turn us into 1940's nazi germany before the next election
there will never been scientific breakthroughs in medicine because of the evil gop that wants to ban stem cell reseaerch.........
global warming is going to doom us all in the next 20 years and the earth will be no more.....
It's like I always say......liberalism and hypocrisy go togather like peanut butter and jelly.
Cuba was not a "sovereign country", it was a colony. Do you understand what a "colony" is?
Just to give you another perspective "colonies" and "foreign intervention", the United States was similarly "invaded" by France during our revolution. Throughout the later years of the war of independence there were several regiments (2,000 to 3,000 soldiers each) of French regulars stationed in America. The battle of Yorktown was primarily fought and won by the French.
When you get it wrong, you really get it wrong.
Détente ended during the Carter Administration not the Reagan Administration.
Though it is fashionable on the hard left to blame the United States for everything while holding the Soviets blameless, in this case, even that knee-jerk reaction is beyond credibility.
In the wake of the U.S. retreat from Vietnam, the Soviet's embarked on an aggressive imperial expansion. In 1975, the Soviet sponsored a Cuban "invasion" (your term in these cases, not mine) of Angola, eventually stationing 30,000 troops in that country.
In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, prompting then president Jimmy Carter to end bi-lateral discussion with Soviets -- effectively ending Détente.
Please keep in mind Devin, that some people have a sense and knowledge of history. While the temptation to "say anything" against the United States and against "Republicanism" may be rewarded by the ignorant, there are others who are not so easily duped.
Why if trends continue along this downward path, we might wind up with the sad civil protections of countries like Canada, Britian -- or GOD HELP US -- France.
His comments are a virtual encyclopedia of disproven rightwing talking points, which he fires out tirelessly, without ever offering a single shred of documentation to support his ridiculously absurd claims.
Of course, the rest of us know that any effort on his part to do so would be futile, since pretty much everything that he says has been fully discounted as misinformation.
Initially, when I saw how deluded and misguided he was, my impulse was to respond to his absurdities with facts and links, but I quickly realized that someone so thoroughly awash in utter nonsense is not only extremely unlikely to read and accept factual information, but would undoubtedly be overwhelmed to a state of shock at how much he's been led astray.
Iraq did not cause 9/11, yet a significant portion of the public still believes this. I'm certain that Isaac is among those. That anyone believes this at this point is proof of the staggering effectiveness of the white house's propaganda campaign. At the time of the 2004 election, an unbelievable 70% of the public believed the lie, and at one point, nearly 90% of our soldiers in Iraq believed it. Hitler recognized the power of propaganda as well.
There were no WMD in Iraq, and the illegal invasion had nothing to do with terrorism or any supposed threat. Iraq's military and economy had been demolished by 12 years of bombing and UN sanctions. They posed a threat to NO ONE.
Iraq had NO ties to terrorist organizations. Saddam had zero tolerance for these religious extremists, because they threatened HIS power. He even offered to assist us in the "war on terror" (which is, was, and always will be 100% bogus), because he too, saw it as a threat.
The ONLY place in Iraq that had ANY terrorist presence was the northern part, which was under the control of the US and Great Britain, not Saddam. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were of Saudi descent. The remainder were Egyptian. Saudi royals CONTINUE to funnel money to known terrorist groups, including bin Laden.
The official body count from 9/11 is 2,973, not 2,000, as Isaac claims.
The only true body counts of Iraqi civilians have been published in the Lancet medical journal. They were the result of scientifically produced and documented surveys, in 2004 and again in 2006. The latter report confirmed the accuracy of the initial report. The number of dead that this survey claimed was 655,000. This number has been fully accepted by the British government. Each month, an additional 3,000 Iraqi civilians is slaughtered, and another 20,000 or so is maimed.
For the next 4.5 billion years, radioactive remnants of our depleted uranium ammunition will produce horrific birth defects, murderous cancers, and an entire string of debilitating diseases and ailments. We have littered the Iraqi soil with the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshimas.
There has long been more than ample evidence that this administration intentionally misled (read: LIED) in order to build a case for war with Iraq. They continue to do so (now, with good reason, since war crimes are punishable by death).
Before the illegal invasion, Saddam opened his entire country to the UNSCOM inspection teams. He even opened all of his palaces. He fully complied with all demands placed on him by the US, including turning over every bit of documentation that he had concerning his past WMD programs. He willingly allowed the only weapon found to be in violation of UN resolutions, missiles that had a range 7 miles longer than the 100 miles that were permissible, to be destroyed.
None of this mattered. All the while the UN inspectors were doing their job, and were finding nothing, the criminal Bush white house was attempting to goad Iraq into war. According to the Downing St. memos, Bush even went so far as to concoct a plan to paint a U2 spy plane with UN signia and intentionally fly it directly over anti-aircraft sites, in an attempt to draw Iraqi fire, so that the UN would provide the necessary resolution for a military response.
The UN charter does NOT allow for ANY charter member to threaten or engage in military action in a unilateral manner against ANY nation. Period. Bush was REQUIRE by law, to get UN approval for attacking. He failed to do so.
He even brought Colin Powell out to make up ridiculous lies in front of the UN, the US engaged in spy tactics at the UN, and did everything possible to get the UN to offer support. All attempts to bring legality to the invasion failed miserably.
When the US congress drafted the "Congressional resolution on Iraq" in October of 2002, it was entirely filled with the evidence of the massive propaganda and misinformation campaign that the administration had waged. Littered throughout the document were assertive claims of Iraq's alleged active WMD programs, his supposed ties to al Qaeda and terrorism in general, an indirect assertion of his involvement with 9/11, and a completely fraudulent assertion that Saddam and Iraq posed a grave threat to the US.
In short, "fear mongering" of epic scale produced a resolution from congress that supposedly authorized military action. The problem is, it was predicated on the previous (and arguably questionably constitutional) federal law known as the "War powers act of 1973." In this law, congress wrote that it could, in essence, relinquish their power to declare war (this, I believe, would never stand a legal challenge of constitutionality) to the executive branch.
In order for this law to be acted upon, however, the president was REQUIRED to provide PROOF to congress that either the US had been directly attacked by the nation he intended to attack, or that the US was in immediate danger of attack if pre-emptive action were not taken. Of course, neither condition was met, or even came close to being met.
The result is that the Bush administration, feeling emboldened by their brilliant propaganda campaign, and by a terrified nation in a post-9/11 environment, chose to completely ignore the UN and congress, and in the process, violated international, US, and constitutional law, in launching an entirely illegal, unnecessary war against Iraq.
In the time since, we have also learned that Bush has violated numerous other laws, introducing illegal acts of rendition and torture, widescale use of WMD against civilian populations, illegal spying on US citizens, violation of the presidential records act, and several other violations. Added to these crimes is an obsession with secrecy and lying.
One of the casualties of such an abusive, criminal white house, is that people like Isaac lay in virtual waste, as they're forced to attempt to defend these criminal acts with no facts at hand. Their only tool to do battle with is the same misinformation and lies that led us to where we are today. Reality simply has no place anymore. Facts are "biased." Lies are truth. Inside is out. Up is down. Right is wrong. Virtue is callous disregard. Incompetence is applauded. Oppression is liberation. Death is life.
Truth has no meaning to these people. All that matters is that they desperately cling to their failed, fraudulent ideology, casting aside facts and reality, and embracing instead, the exploded fragments of their mythical delusions.
When historians write this chapter of history, they will undoubtedly pay homage to the grand success of propaganda, once again, in distorting and violating human minds to the degree that truth has no place. How very tragic.