Religions > Atheism > NeoCons Are Phony Soldiers (re: Why Are NeoCons Such Cowards?)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2004 09:10:39 PM |
| Object: |
NeoCons Are Phony Soldiers (re: Why Are NeoCons Such Cowards?) |
http://www.chickenhawkcards.com/
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -935 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "torresB" |
|
| Title: Replace the Oscars! |
13 Aug 2004 10:47:54 PM |
|
|
Replace the Oscars!
The Oscars are nothing more than a bunch of moron Hollywood liberals
getting together to jerk each other off for several hours.
Actually it would be great entertainment to see Michael Moore stand,
on the tracks, in front of a fast moving train while he insults our
military soldiers. Or Ed Asner could be thrown into a pond full of
hungry alligators as he tries to explain why being communist is a
great thing. We would laugh at watching Alec Baldwin getting his
testicles chopped off by Kim Bassinger using a fire axe. How about
Julia Roberts and Janeane Garofalo side by side being gang banged by a
group of german shepard dogs as they hurl insults about America?
Barbra Streisand could stand in the doorway of her beachfront house,
singing, as a NAVY battle ship launches a volley of 16-inch shells
into it. All of these idiots are liberals, so they are expendable
trash! They could put this on pay per view and have the highest
grossing hit in history!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Middleton" |
|
| Title: TALE OF A TAPE [07/28 11:11 AM]... Liberals Hate America!! |
13 Aug 2004 10:21:19 PM |
|
|
TALE OF A TAPE [07/28 11:11 AM]... Liberals Hate America!!
John Kerry at Kennedy Space Center. Remind you of another Mass.
liberal in a tank?
Wednesday morning, the GOP fired one of the biggest guns in its
counter-spin arsenal: a twelve-minute video of John Kerry's statements
on Iraq and how to handle Saddam Hussein, contrasting his pro-war
views of 1998 and 2003 with his antiwar views of 1991 and 2004.
While the charge that John Kerry is a flip-flopper is nothing new,
rarely has the case been made so comprehensively, in such detail,
relying almost entirely on the Democratic senator's own words.
There are quite a few Kerry quotes that have disappeared down the
memory hole that are worth recollecting. Like his statement on Dec.
11, 2001, on The O'Reilly Factor (does it seem shocking now that Kerry
once appeared on O'Reilly's show?): "I think we ought to put the heat
on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years, Bill. I
criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the
inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that
we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no
matter what the evidence is about September 11."
Got that? Tougher stance than Clinton. Evidence about 9/11 is
irrelevant.
Kerry on Larry King Live, several days later: "I think we clearly have
to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with
Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made
that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global
menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue,
for instance, Saddam Hussein."
Afghanistan's not enough. Continue the fight. Take Saddam Hussein.
Then this exchange with Chris Matthews on Feb. 5, 2002: Matthews
asked, "Do you think that the problem we have with Iraq is real and it
can be reduced to a diplomatic problem? Can we get this guy to accept
inspections of those weapons of mass destruction potentially and get
past a possible war with him?"
"Outside chance, Chris," Kerry responded. "Could it be done? The
answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and
playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process?
The answer is yes. We're precisely doing that. And I think that's what
Colin Powell did today."
There was no complaining then about a "rush to war." No warnings that
Saddam Hussein's WMD programs might not be as advanced as the
administration feared. No skepticism about the intelligence, no
blood-for-oil, no conspiracy theories about Chalabi and Halliburton
and neocons.
Finally, his speech to the Democratic Leadership Council's national
convention on July 29, 2002: "I agree completely with this
administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq."
What makes the video more than a collection of Kerry's rhetorical hits
is its documentation of how outside events were influencing the
Democratic senator's political positions. Specifically, as 2003 wore
on, Howard Dean rocketed to the top of the Democratic-primary polls
and garnered laudatory press coverage. And Kerry obviously, blatantly,
started borrowing Dean's anti-war rhetoric.
By August 2003, Kerry was declaring on Meet the Press, "The fact is,
in the resolution that we passed, we did not empower the president to
do regime change."
By October, the struggling Kerry was insisting that the war he had
said he "agreed completely with" was unnecessary. "But the president
and his advisors did not do almost anything correctly in the walk-up
to the war. They rushed to war. They were intent on going to war. They
did not give legitimacy to the inspections. We could have still been
doing inspections even today, George."
Remember, the previous February, Kerry had dismissed diplomatic
negotiations for more inspections as Saddam's "buying time and playing
a game."
Judging by the 100-percent certainty with which Kerry made both sets
of comments, he doesn't seem to even acknowledge that they contradict
each other. Both appear to accurately express his views at the moment
he speaks them.
The point is that there isn't truth or untruth to Kerry's views. There
is simply what is needed and what is not needed, and the True North of
Kerry's rhetorical and policy compass is whatever he needs politically
at that time.
George Clooney's character in Three Kings, a film about the first Gulf
War, explains to three soldiers under his command that "the most
important thing in life is necessity... As in people do what is most
necessary to them at any given moment."
What does Kerry stand for? Whatever is most necessary to him at that
particular moment.
One could say that's not unique to Kerry, and may be a common trait
among politicians. But what would this mean in a president?
Periodically, Sen. Edward Kennedy or some other Democrat will make the
stupendously illogical charge that George W. Bush made the call to go
to war in Iraq in order to boost his poll numbers. But the political
boost from a war, the rally-around-the-flag effect, is notoriously
short lived. Winston Churchill won World War II and got tossed out on
his tush by British voters almost the moment the war ended.
President Bush didn't decide to got to war to boost his poll numbers.
In spite of the near-certainty that it would erode his high poll
numbers after toppling the Taliban, Bush made the decision to go
ahead.
What would John Kerry do in a similar situation? How dire would a
threat have to be for him to risk his popularity on an unpopular war?
Or would he put his faith in diplomacy with dictators and agreements
with rogue states - "buying time and playing a game," as he once
described it?
Before the voters can consider that question, Kerry's long and
meandering views on Iraq have to be brought front and center before
the millions of Americans who are not paying close attention to this
race. Unfortunately, this video format doesn't lend itself well to the
traditional methods.
It's way too long to condense into a 30- or 60-second ad. If it were
shown during the GOP convention, it would be putting the spotlight on
the challenger instead of the president, and much of the media would
explode with fury at the "negative campaigning." Some political shows
might spotlight it, but few would be willing to let it run for the
entire eleven minutes. Maybe C-SPAN will show it. Perhaps it could
serve as the entertainment for the Bush "House Parties."
Maybe talk radio could run the audio of the tape uninterrupted.
A GOP source says the idea of buying airtime on the networks, like H.
Ross Perot did in 1992, has been tossed around. One way or another,
this 11-minute tape will be coming to a place near you in the
not-too-distant future.
---------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Lovejoy" |
|
| Title: Re: TALE OF A TAPE [07/28 11:11 AM]... Liberals Hate America!! |
14 Aug 2004 12:47:21 AM |
|
|
Dave Middleton <dmiddleton@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote in
news:281rh0l68ftlovguchrioft9ckrac5milg@4ax.com:
TALE OF A TAPE [07/28 11:11 AM]... Liberals Hate America!!
John Kerry at Kennedy Space Center. Remind you of another Mass.
liberal in a tank?
It reminds me more of George Bush I at Kennedy Space Center.
See:
http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN0730BUNNY.htm
But I supposed that's different.
Oh yeah, it is.
There weren't a bunch of opponents who were afraid to talk about their
candidate's record, and had to make up ***** to have any chance of winning.
--
Faux News: We distort, you decide.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello" |
|
| Title: Re: TALE OF A TAPE [07/28 11:11 AM]... Liberals Hate America!! |
14 Aug 2004 12:09:34 AM |
|
|
If that's 'one of the GOP's biggest guns' then it's all over for
Cheney/DUHbya for sure.
"Dave Middleton" <dmiddleton@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote in message
news:281rh0l68ftlovguchrioft9ckrac5milg@4ax.com...
TALE OF A TAPE [07/28 11:11 AM]... Liberals Hate America!!
John Kerry at Kennedy Space Center. Remind you of another Mass.
liberal in a tank?
Wednesday morning, the GOP fired one of the biggest guns in its
counter-spin arsenal: a twelve-minute video of John Kerry's statements
on Iraq and how to handle Saddam Hussein, contrasting his pro-war
views of 1998 and 2003 with his antiwar views of 1991 and 2004.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Srgnt Brillo" |
|
| Title: The Ayatollah of Anti Americanism. Liberals Are Morons! |
13 Aug 2004 11:38:52 PM |
|
|
The Ayatollah of Anti Americanism. Liberals Are Morons!
The Anti-Chomsky Reader
ed. by Peter Collier and David Horowitz
(Encounter Books)
Of all the pseudo-religions corrupting our thinking--Freudianism,
Marxism, Darwinism, to name a few--anti-Americanism is the most
bizarre and dangerous. The facts of American life and American history
simply do not support the widespread view that the United States, in
the lunatic words of playwright Harold Pinter, is a "fully-fledged,
award-winning, gold-plated monster" that "knows only one
language--bombs and death." Such hatred usually is spawned by a
diseased religious sensibility, an irrational passion for a narrative
that bestows meaning on the world and one's exalted place in it as a
champion of the revealed truth and righteousness. Yet the cult of
anti-Americanism is worse than any dysfunctional religion, for it
masquerades as reasoned analysis based on historical fact.
In the U.S. today, the two high priests of this weird cult are Michael
Moore and Noam Chomsky. Moore is the less dangerous, since he is so
obviously a revival-tent grifter, the Elmer Gantry of
anti-Americanism, his cinematic tongue-talking, snake-handling, and
arsenic-guzzling mere cover for an entrepreneurial cunning equal to
any of the rapacious capitalists he preaches against--as he revealed
when he threatened to sue anybody who criticized him or his latest
movie sermon Fahrenheit 9/11, sounding for all the world like a Disney
lawyer protecting the Mickey Mouse trademark.
Chomsky, on the other hand, is the Ayatollah Khomeini of the
hate-America cult, as David Horowitz has put it, although Chomsky too
has profited handsomely in his own church. Yet his hatred is not
opportunistic but heart-felt, visceral, a demonic passion of the sort
that in the past sparked pogroms, inquisitions, and witch-hunts, and
that today sends Arab children to blow up Israeli children. As
Horowitz says of this diseased Manichean sensibility, "Those who
oppose socialism, Marxism, Communism, Chomskyism embody evil; they are
the party of Satan, and their champion, America, is the Great Satan
himself. Chomskyism is, like its models, a religion of social hatred."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
