| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
30 May 2006 08:40:08 PM |
| Object: |
Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/05/war-by-any-other-name.html
A WAR BY ANY OTHER NAME
This rant is pure, unadulterated psychological denial, which uses
displacement as a tool to avoid dealing with reality.
Let me just address a few of the rather insane points the author brings
up.
1. "The Bush administration has exploited the fear and shock of a nation
in the wake of a surprising and dramatic act of violence to whip
national fear and paranoia into a constant boil." (Emphasis mine)
This is said (presumably without any sense of irony) by a person who has
at the top of his post a copy of the US Constitution with the hand
written note across its front saying " George, we can blow this off big
time. *****"
In so saying, don't you think the author of this hysterical nonsense is
whipping up his own fear and paranoia just a wee bit? Most psychiatrists
would refer to this technique as projection. Further evidence of this
psychological projection comes in the next accusation:
2. "The evidence suggests the whole point has been to seize power and
steal money."
This too, is said with presumably a straight face, as the links made are
to Bechtel and Halliburton, the great boogeymen companies of the
paranoid left (when they aren't bashing every other major American
capitalist company that suits their latest psychotic delusion. You know
, all the usual suspects behind the conspiracies: like big (read:Evil)
Oil and of course, the profiteering pharmaceutical companies that are
trying to kill everyone with their drugs).
The left has yet to notice that despite all their exhortations about the
evil of American capitalism and all the misery it brings; that the
economy of this country keeps on chugging along while most of the rest
of the world is cheerfully going down the economic toilet as they pursue
the leftist's economic agenda?
No, the whole point of the left's insane rantings about Bush and company
since the election of 2000 has been a desperate attempt to gain back
their own power. To this day, they cannot accept something that is
clearly written in the Constitution--that a president can actually be
elected without winning the popular vote. Horrors! It has even happened
in American history prior to 2000!
Talk about a war on the Constitution. That darn Constitution essentially
deprived them of their power, and they don't like it one bit. The
Supreme Court (not a part of the Executive Branch, I would like to point
out) was involved in this issue, too. And they don't like that either.
But when lower courts subvert the Constitution in a manner that conforms
to their leftist agenda, well, to hell with the Constitution. Apparently
the only danger of an unchecked Judicial Branch--or Executive Branch
(since it has been pointed out repeatedly that Clinton did most of the
same things that Bush is doing) is when you don't happen to agree with
their decisions or the focus of the policy.
And how about unchecked Legislative power? Apparently, the Executive
Branch is never above the law, but the Legislative Branch is right to
assume that they are. It isn't a disagreement...it is a "power grab".
Well, such "power grabs" have gone on back and forth between the three
branches for the entire history of our Republic.
The three branches have always had serious disagreements about the
extent of each other's powers. The difference now is that during a war--
a real war in which this country was attacked and is under threat of
being attacked again--the people can usually count on the the three
branches of the government to do what is necessary to protect them. Not
to act like complete morons and increase the risks by fighting and
arguing constantly.
No, the issue is not that the war is being prosecuted for power and
money--it is quite the opposite. Those who violently and aggressively
oppose the war desire to get their power back and are happy as clams to
get the money, no matter how much blood from our courageous military
personnel is lost because of their betrayal. Oh, don't you dare say they
aren't patriots! They are patriotic, it is just that their country is
being stolen from them by the evil Bushitler McChimpy Haliburton etc.
etc. etc.
Well, I have news for them. Their "country" doesn't exist except in
their fevered brains. I am most thankful for that fact. It is people
like the author who have deliberately set out to destroy the US
Constitution--a document written by mere mortals--for the sake of some
utopian dream country run by perfect people like them.
3. "Take your "terror" and shove it."
My response to this is for the left and all their "patriotic" ilk to
"take your utopia and shove it instead. I'm sick of patriotism that only
knows how to attack America; patriotism that is truly paranoid that a
duly elected president is about to establish a theocracy; create a
totalitarian society; eliminate the constitution and the rule of law;
and all the other paranoid ***** that emanates from the mouths of
this hysterical lot. This, my friends, is the New McCarthyism
promulgated in our generation by --not the political right, but the
left. The new John ***** Society, whose goal--conscious or
unconscious--is nothing less than the destruction of this country and
the establishment of a socialist utopia. Even an Islamic socialist
utopia is preferable for them.
I happen to disagree with the Republicans on many issues. I don't even
agree with Bush on a lot of domestic policy. But there is one thing that
I know is true; and it is that we are in a war where our enemies are
brutal and methodical; and where they can count on support and
encouragement from the clueless political left who prefer to ignore
reality and focus on the "threat" that can't hurt them. I'm sure all
those brave and patriotic folks on the left believe they will soon be
incarcerated and tortured like poor Stephen Colbert was not too long
ago, when he spoke truth to power so bravely.
WHAT! You mean Colbert is still free? He has not been imprisoned for
saying all those true things? How can that be? The evil Bushitler was
sitting right there when Colbert made his courageous remarks? How can
that be when we all know we live in a Bush/Cheney police state????
When the author at Firedoglake is courageous enough to tell Mohammed and
those who practice terror for Allah's sake to go to hell; or to tell
Ahmadinejad, or the Taliban or Al-Quaeda; or Bin Laden or Zarqawi; or
Zawahiri or Hamas or all the other violent, fascist fanatics to go to
hell; when he will stand where it counts in the real world-- with the
men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan-- and deliver his "give
me liberty or give me death" speech; when he takes a stand against
Islamofascism and its thought control (disguised as political
correctness); and stand for human freedom and individuality--in other
words, when he stops knocking down the strawmen he has set up in his
mind and confronts the real evil in the world; then perhaps then I might
have something other than contempt for the big brave talk that covers up
his cowardly denial and displacement.
I've listened to such rants for the last 3 years and I'm heartily sick
of them and the people who stand for nothing, but have convinced
themselves how patriotic they are. They are only the most recent batch
of useful leftist idiots, who can't get over the fact that their
ideology lost the Cold War
BTW, wasn't that a badly named war, too? "Cold" is only a temperature,
after all....? In all honesty, I must admit that the only point of the
rant that I agree with is that "war on terror" is very very badly named.
Indeed, If it were up to me, I would definitely call it World War IV.
But this war--no matter what name you choose to call it; or how loudly
you deny that it even exists--is unfortunately very real.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"How do you get peace, love and understanding? First of all you have to
find all the bad people. Then you kill them." -- Ted Nugent
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 10:24:05 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in news:Xns97D3E63FDEE14fstone69@
66.150.105.47:
In all honesty, I must admit that the only point of the
rant that I agree with is that "war on terror" is very very badly named.
Indeed, If it were up to me, I would definitely call it World War IV.
But this war--no matter what name you choose to call it; or how loudly
you deny that it even exists--is unfortunately very real.
you were doing pretty good there up until you got to the WW-IV part and
that is where it all fell down. It is patently obvious you have not
experienced a world war because if you had, you would not makes such a
statement.
This undeclared "War on Terror" is ***** rhetoric surrounding a paper
tiger. Had Gw actually went to congress and got a declaration of war,
then you might have something. The current status of the WoT is dismal and
will go on for many years without a resolution. It will be another Vietnam
in that respect.
The other waspect is that once people wake up to the fact that most muslims
and christians want to kill for their beliefs, it will not be taken
seriously. Want an end to the violence? Destroy religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 11:25:32 AM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D569CE216C1mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D3E63FDEE14fstone69@ 66.150.105.47:
In all honesty, I must admit that the only point of the
rant that I agree with is that "war on terror" is very very badly
named. Indeed, If it were up to me, I would definitely call it World
War IV.
But this war--no matter what name you choose to call it; or how
loudly you deny that it even exists--is unfortunately very real.
you were doing pretty good there up until you got to the WW-IV part
and that is where it all fell down. It is patently obvious you have
not experienced a world war because if you had, you would not makes
such a statement.
This undeclared "War on Terror" is ***** rhetoric surrounding a
paper tiger. Had Gw actually went to congress and got a declaration
of war, then you might have something.
GWB did get an Authorization for the Use of Military Force In Iraq from
the Congress. Which is as much as any President has gotten since WWII.
The current status of the WoT
is dismal and will go on for many years without a resolution. It will
be another Vietnam in that respect.
The only lack of resolution is in the hearts of anti-war defeatists who
would give up just when the Iraqis are taking on much of the
responsibility for themselves. They would *make* another Vietnam of it,
regardless of present reality.
The other waspect is that once people wake up to the fact that most
muslims and christians want to kill for their beliefs, it will not be
taken seriously. Want an end to the violence? Destroy religion.
That sort of rhetoric doesn't really help your case much. MOST Muslims
and Christians do not want to kill for their beliefs. Lumping Christian
extremists in with Muslim terrorists doesn't do much for your case
either.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away
or happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 01:52:04 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97D57F039A040fstone69@81.174.50.80...
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D569CE216C1mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D3E63FDEE14fstone69@ 66.150.105.47:
In all honesty, I must admit that the only point of the
rant that I agree with is that "war on terror" is very very badly
named. Indeed, If it were up to me, I would definitely call it World
War IV.
But this war--no matter what name you choose to call it; or how
loudly you deny that it even exists--is unfortunately very real.
you were doing pretty good there up until you got to the WW-IV part
and that is where it all fell down. It is patently obvious you have
not experienced a world war because if you had, you would not makes
such a statement.
This undeclared "War on Terror" is ***** rhetoric surrounding a
paper tiger. Had Gw actually went to congress and got a declaration
of war, then you might have something.
GWB did get an Authorization for the Use of Military Force In Iraq from
the Congress. Which is as much as any President has gotten since WWII.
The current status of the WoT
is dismal and will go on for many years without a resolution. It will
be another Vietnam in that respect.
The only lack of resolution is in the hearts of anti-war defeatists who
would give up just when the Iraqis are taking on much of the
responsibility for themselves. They would *make* another Vietnam of it,
regardless of present reality.
The other waspect is that once people wake up to the fact that most
muslims and christians want to kill for their beliefs, it will not be
taken seriously. Want an end to the violence? Destroy religion.
That sort of rhetoric doesn't really help your case much. MOST Muslims
and Christians do not want to kill for their beliefs. Lumping Christian
extremists in with Muslim terrorists doesn't do much for your case
either.
Most middle eastern conflict is about water - not religion. Western
governments add conflict about oil. If religion were eliminated the excuse
would be politics or ethnicity, or some other 'difference.' Atheists are
just as consumed with hatred as religious people - Just reading these groups
is adequate proof of that fact.
Cue more atheist vitriol and ad hominem...
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 04:18:09 PM |
|
|
"Tabula Rasa" <tabula@rasa.com> wrote in news:e5ncqr$loq$1@nntp.aioe.org:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97D57F039A040fstone69@81.174.50.80...
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D569CE216C1mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D3E63FDEE14fstone69@ 66.150.105.47:
In all honesty, I must admit that the only point of the
rant that I agree with is that "war on terror" is very very badly
named. Indeed, If it were up to me, I would definitely call it World
War IV.
But this war--no matter what name you choose to call it; or how
loudly you deny that it even exists--is unfortunately very real.
you were doing pretty good there up until you got to the WW-IV part
and that is where it all fell down. It is patently obvious you have
not experienced a world war because if you had, you would not makes
such a statement.
This undeclared "War on Terror" is ***** rhetoric surrounding a
paper tiger. Had Gw actually went to congress and got a declaration
of war, then you might have something.
GWB did get an Authorization for the Use of Military Force In Iraq from
the Congress. Which is as much as any President has gotten since WWII.
The current status of the WoT
is dismal and will go on for many years without a resolution. It will
be another Vietnam in that respect.
The only lack of resolution is in the hearts of anti-war defeatists who
would give up just when the Iraqis are taking on much of the
responsibility for themselves. They would *make* another Vietnam of it,
regardless of present reality.
The other waspect is that once people wake up to the fact that most
muslims and christians want to kill for their beliefs, it will not be
taken seriously. Want an end to the violence? Destroy religion.
That sort of rhetoric doesn't really help your case much. MOST Muslims
and Christians do not want to kill for their beliefs. Lumping Christian
extremists in with Muslim terrorists doesn't do much for your case
either.
Most middle eastern conflict is about water - not religion. Western
governments add conflict about oil. If religion were eliminated the
excuse would be politics or ethnicity, or some other 'difference.'
Atheists are just as consumed with hatred as religious people - Just
reading these groups is adequate proof of that fact.
Cue more atheist vitriol and ad hominem...
cites please!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 06:28:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 19:52:04 +0100, "Tabula Rasa" <tabula@rasa.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
Most middle eastern conflict is about water - not religion. Western
governments add conflict about oil. If religion were eliminated the excuse
would be politics or ethnicity, or some other 'difference.' Atheists are
just as consumed with hatred as religious people - Just reading these groups
is adequate proof of that fact.
Cue more atheist vitriol and ad hominem...
I just spilled boiling hot coffee in your lap.
Cue more screaming and jumping around...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 04:15:25 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in news:Xns97D57F039A040fstone69@
81.174.50.80:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D569CE216C1mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D3E63FDEE14fstone69@ 66.150.105.47:
In all honesty, I must admit that the only point of the
rant that I agree with is that "war on terror" is very very badly
named. Indeed, If it were up to me, I would definitely call it World
War IV.
But this war--no matter what name you choose to call it; or how
loudly you deny that it even exists--is unfortunately very real.
you were doing pretty good there up until you got to the WW-IV part
and that is where it all fell down. It is patently obvious you have
not experienced a world war because if you had, you would not makes
such a statement.
This undeclared "War on Terror" is ***** rhetoric surrounding a
paper tiger. Had Gw actually went to congress and got a declaration
of war, then you might have something.
GWB did get an Authorization for the Use of Military Force In Iraq from
the Congress. Which is as much as any President has gotten since WWII.
The authority to use force. What a freakin joke. Declare war. Tell those
countries to hand over the terrorists of get the ***** bombed out of them.
Do that to one country and the rest will hand over the terrorsts willingly.
Elapsed time? 2-3 years. Over and done with. Nope we have to have this
protracted ***** that will go on for 20 years. Then we give up because
we can't find all of the terrorists.
He should have asked for a formal declaration of war and got it. For that
I will never forgive him. Now we will have a war that will last for years
with no real end. War on Terror, Cancer, Poverty, Drugs and the rest are
destined to fail. I will never forget when he announced the undeclared war
on terror. My dismay and disappointment at the total lack of guts was
appalling.
The current status of the WoT
is dismal and will go on for many years without a resolution. It will
be another Vietnam in that respect.
The only lack of resolution is in the hearts of anti-war defeatists who
would give up just when the Iraqis are taking on much of the
responsibility for themselves. They would *make* another Vietnam of it,
regardless of present reality.
Perhaps you misunderstand. By resolution I mean end of the war with a
definite winner and a loser.
The other waspect is that once people wake up to the fact that most
muslims and christians want to kill for their beliefs, it will not be
taken seriously. Want an end to the violence? Destroy religion.
That sort of rhetoric doesn't really help your case much. MOST Muslims
and Christians do not want to kill for their beliefs. Lumping Christian
extremists in with Muslim terrorists doesn't do much for your case
either.
The vast majority of muslims believe that to die in a holy war is the best
way to die. They want to die killing others. That pretty much sums it up
for the muslims. The majority of those people shooting and killing from
the USA are christians so that sums up christians as well.
They both will kill and willingly kill.
Your assertion that if religion were removed there would be other excuses
for killing. I would like to see that hypothsis proven. Let's destroy all
relgions and see what happens. If the killing doesn't stop, then we can
put them back.
Pierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 06:40:07 PM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D5A560085A0mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D57F039A040fstone69@ 81.174.50.80:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D569CE216C1mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns97D3E63FDEE14fstone69@ 66.150.105.47:
In all honesty, I must admit that the only point of the
rant that I agree with is that "war on terror" is very very badly
named. Indeed, If it were up to me, I would definitely call it
World War IV.
But this war--no matter what name you choose to call it; or how
loudly you deny that it even exists--is unfortunately very real.
you were doing pretty good there up until you got to the WW-IV part
and that is where it all fell down. It is patently obvious you have
not experienced a world war because if you had, you would not makes
such a statement.
This undeclared "War on Terror" is ***** rhetoric surrounding a
paper tiger. Had Gw actually went to congress and got a
declaration of war, then you might have something.
GWB did get an Authorization for the Use of Military Force In Iraq
from the Congress. Which is as much as any President has gotten since
WWII.
The authority to use force. What a freakin joke. Declare war. Tell
those countries to hand over the terrorists of get the ***** bombed out
of them. Do that to one country and the rest will hand over the
terrorsts willingly. Elapsed time? 2-3 years. Over and done with.
Nope we have to have this protracted ***** that will go on for 20
years. Then we give up because we can't find all of the terrorists.
Hmm...
He should have asked for a formal declaration of war and got it. For
that I will never forgive him. Now we will have a war that will last
for years with no real end. War on Terror, Cancer, Poverty, Drugs and
the rest are destined to fail. I will never forget when he announced
the undeclared war on terror. My dismay and disappointment at the
total lack of guts was appalling.
Would the Congress have gone along? It was hard enough to get the
Democrats on board for the AUMF. I doubt very seriously that they would
have had the stomach to give a Republican President an all-out
declaration of war. Look at the kvetching that started as soon as Bush
actually used the power that they gave him.
The current status of the WoT
is dismal and will go on for many years without a resolution. It
will be another Vietnam in that respect.
The only lack of resolution is in the hearts of anti-war defeatists
who would give up just when the Iraqis are taking on much of the
responsibility for themselves. They would *make* another Vietnam of
it, regardless of present reality.
Perhaps you misunderstand. By resolution I mean end of the war with a
definite winner and a loser.
Unfortunately, asymmetrical wars do not end so cleanly. They end when
one side or the other loses the will to fight. And in recent times it
seems to be the big "liberal" democracies that lack the will to stand up
for their own values.
The other waspect is that once people wake up to the fact that most
muslims and christians want to kill for their beliefs, it will not
be taken seriously. Want an end to the violence? Destroy religion.
That sort of rhetoric doesn't really help your case much. MOST
Muslims and Christians do not want to kill for their beliefs. Lumping
Christian extremists in with Muslim terrorists doesn't do much for
your case either.
The vast majority of muslims believe that to die in a holy war is the
best way to die. They want to die killing others. That pretty much
sums it up for the muslims. The majority of those people shooting and
killing from the USA are christians so that sums up christians as
well.
They both will kill and willingly kill.
Well now hold on just a minute here. Neither the Jihadis nor the
American GIs are a majority of either Muslims or Christians. Most of
both groups aren't terribly pious anyway, they just want to live their
lives.
Your assertion that if religion were removed there would be other
excuses for killing. I would like to see that hypothsis proven.
Let's destroy all relgions and see what happens. If the killing
doesn't stop, then we can put them back.
That wasn't my assertion but it would be an interesting experiment. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away
or happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 08:06:24 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
The only lack of resolution is in the hearts of anti-war defeatists who
would give up just when the Iraqis are taking on much of the
responsibility for themselves.
You do realize your fantasy-based talking points ("just when the Iraqis
are taking on much of the responsibilities for themselves"), and vapid
insults ("anti-war defeatists") will change nobody's mind, don't you?
It's just more neocon crap, we've heard it a million times before from
the least trustworthy of our warmongering leaders, starting at the top.
They would *make* another Vietnam of it, regardless of present reality.
No, history will make another Vietnam of it. If we're lucky, that's all
it will be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 08:37:37 PM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hg9lpq.1bf5aasb1ymscN%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
The only lack of resolution is in the hearts of anti-war defeatists
who would give up just when the Iraqis are taking on much of the
responsibility for themselves.
You do realize your fantasy-based talking points ("just when the
Iraqis are taking on much of the responsibilities for themselves"),
and vapid insults ("anti-war defeatists") will change nobody's mind,
don't you?
Yes, I realize that you will deny reality regardless of any evidence
that I might present.
It's just more neocon crap, we've heard it a million times before from
the least trustworthy of our warmongering leaders, starting at the
top.
Your own vapid insults ("neocon crap" "warmongering leaders") won't do
you any good either. I'll keep confronting you with the truth
regardless.
They would *make* another Vietnam of it, regardless of present
reality.
No, history will make another Vietnam of it. If we're lucky, that's
all it will be.
The near future will make a free democracy of it. If we're lucky, Iran
will follow soon after. If we're not so lucky, Iran will take a while
longer.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away
or happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 10:07:22 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I'll keep confronting you with the truth regardless.
Ah yes, "the truth". From what I've seen, you believe yourself the
exclusive purveyor of that. Sadly, few others agree.
They would *make* another Vietnam of it, regardless of present
reality.
No, history will make another Vietnam of it. If we're lucky, that's
all it will be.
The near future will make a free democracy of it. If we're lucky, Iran
will follow soon after.
Sure thing, Sparky, and after that Beethoven's Ode to Joy will blare out
of your *****...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 07:07:58 AM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hg9p6s.1jicksthzd320N%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I'll keep confronting you with the truth regardless.
Ah yes, "the truth". From what I've seen, you believe yourself the
exclusive purveyor of that. Sadly, few others agree.
Your liberal echo chamber is not the whole of reality. It isn't even
*part* of reality.
They would *make* another Vietnam of it, regardless of present
reality.
No, history will make another Vietnam of it. If we're lucky, that's
all it will be.
The near future will make a free democracy of it. If we're lucky,
Iran will follow soon after.
Sure thing, Sparky, and after that Beethoven's Ode to Joy will blare
out of your *****...
I prefer the speakers on my monitor, thanks. :-)
And thanks also for the unmarked snip.
You know, if you weren't such a liberal denial-monkey you'd ask me why I
believe that.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away
or happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 08:39:01 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
You know, if you weren't such a liberal denial-monkey you'd ask me why I
believe that.
Don't ask, don't care... It wouldn't be any different than asking Duke
why he worships little baby Jesus. You may not have bought into
religious fairy tales, but you certainly have drunk the neocon's
KoolAid.
Look, I follow the events in the Middle East like many others do, and in
my opinion, it appears highly unlikely that the outcome the Bush
administration wants will actually happen--and if by some chance it
does, it will be despite American imperialism, not because of it.
In the end, I believe history will judge this war to be far more
disastrous to the United States, and the world in general, than Vietnam
ever was. So when you blithely claim that "freedom is on the march", I
consider that the same as Duke talking about what he's going to order
for his first meal in heaven.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 09:48:42 AM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hgait8.17tb79a1nczzncN%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
You know, if you weren't such a liberal denial-monkey you'd ask me
why I believe that.
Don't ask, don't care... It wouldn't be any different than asking Duke
why he worships little baby Jesus. You may not have bought into
religious fairy tales, but you certainly have drunk the neocon's
KoolAid.
Look, I follow the events in the Middle East like many others do, and
in my opinion, it appears highly unlikely that the outcome the Bush
administration wants will actually happen--and if by some chance it
does, it will be despite American imperialism, not because of it.
I cannot imagine that you're following events in the Middle East from
any sort of rational viewpoint. "American imperialism?" You must be
joking. That kind of Chomskite blather went out of fashion decades ago.
In the end, I believe history will judge this war to be far more
disastrous to the United States, and the world in general, than
Vietnam ever was. So when you blithely claim that "freedom is on the
march", I consider that the same as Duke talking about what he's going
to order for his first meal in heaven.
Since I didn't use those words, I can only assume that you're pulling
them from some font of leftist propaganda talking points.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away
or happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 10:55:03 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"American imperialism?" You must be joking. That kind of Chomskite blather
went out of fashion decades ago.
Imperialism (n): a policy of extending control or authority over foreign
entities by influencing the politics and/or economies of other countries
through diplomacy or military force
Unfortunately, since Bush took office the word has come back into
fashion...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 11:49:37 AM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hgaquz.b70kfpiablypN%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"American imperialism?" You must be joking. That kind of Chomskite
blather went out of fashion decades ago.
Imperialism (n): a policy of extending control or authority over
foreign entities by influencing the politics and/or economies of other
countries through diplomacy or military force
Unfortunately, since Bush took office the word has come back into
fashion...
That's a mighty vague definition. I guess we're victims of Mexican
imperialism and Iranian imperialism and about a hundred other countries
worth of Imperialism here in the US of A, huh?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away or
happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 09:13:51 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Imperialism (n): a policy of extending control or authority over
foreign entities by influencing the politics and/or economies of other
countries through diplomacy or military force
Unfortunately, since Bush took office the word has come back into
fashion...
That's a mighty vague definition. I guess we're victims of Mexican
imperialism and Iranian imperialism and about a hundred other countries
worth of Imperialism here in the US of A, huh?
Well, I figured you didn't really know the meaning of the word, so I was
just helping out. Feel free to consult your own dictionaries if that
will help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 09:46:43 PM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hgbivl.72ox5b11zakjiN%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Imperialism (n): a policy of extending control or authority over
foreign entities by influencing the politics and/or economies of
other countries through diplomacy or military force
Unfortunately, since Bush took office the word has come back into
fashion...
That's a mighty vague definition. I guess we're victims of Mexican
imperialism and Iranian imperialism and about a hundred other
countries worth of Imperialism here in the US of A, huh?
Well, I figured you didn't really know the meaning of the word, so I
was just helping out. Feel free to consult your own dictionaries if
that will help.
Good old Wikipedia. I see that you were as selective about their cite as
you are about mine.
Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign
entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either
through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of
exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The
term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining
colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the
country calls itself an empire.
Ah, that's much better. Since we aren't setting up colonies in Iraq,
that pretty much takes care of that aspect of Imperialism. And since you
drew the line at Iranian and Mexican diplomatic or economic influence on
America, that pretty much takes care of *those* aspects with respect to
American influence on Iraq. So, no, we're not imperialists.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away
or happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 10:44:47 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Since we aren't setting up colonies in Iraq, that pretty much takes care
of that aspect of Imperialism.
No, we just bombed and invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon, Iran.
Nothing imperialistic about that...
And since you drew the line at Iranian and Mexican diplomatic or economic
influence on America, that pretty much takes care of *those* aspects with
respect to American influence on Iraq.
What the ***** are you babbling about now? Iranian imperialism towards
America? Are you talking about taxi drivers and 7-11 clerks?
What an idiot you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
03 Jun 2006 06:11:10 AM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hgbnrm.y13ybs16mmiicN%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Since we aren't setting up colonies in Iraq, that pretty much takes
care of that aspect of Imperialism.
No, we just bombed and invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon, Iran.
Nothing imperialistic about that...
Nope, nothing imperialistic at all, since we're not staying.
And since you drew the line at Iranian and Mexican diplomatic or
economic influence on America, that pretty much takes care of *those*
aspects with respect to American influence on Iraq.
What the ***** are you babbling about now? Iranian imperialism towards
America? Are you talking about taxi drivers and 7-11 clerks?
You gave the definition, Scott, that included economic influence. Are
you telling me that Iran isn't trying to exert economic influence on
America?
What an idiot you are.
Mirror. You. See?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away
or happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
03 Jun 2006 08:05:24 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
No, we just bombed and invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon, Iran.
Nothing imperialistic about that...
Nope, nothing imperialistic at all, since we're not staying.
No, of course we're not. As soon as the oil's gone, we're gone.
You gave the definition, Scott, that included economic influence. Are
you telling me that Iran isn't trying to exert economic influence on
America?
As this and your previous comment show, you understand neither the long
term situation in the Middle East nor meaning of the word imperialism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
03 Jun 2006 07:38:09 AM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hgcdta.1b4l5v01w5he6kN%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
No, we just bombed and invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon, Iran.
Nothing imperialistic about that...
Nope, nothing imperialistic at all, since we're not staying.
No, of course we're not. As soon as the oil's gone, we're gone.
As this comment shows, you understand neither the situation in the
Middle East nor the motivation for the United States presense in Iraq or
Afghanistan.
You gave the definition, Scott, that included economic influence. Are
you telling me that Iran isn't trying to exert economic influence on
America?
As this and your previous comment show, you understand neither the
long term situation in the Middle East nor meaning of the word
imperialism.
You are in no position to be criticizing anybody about their
understanding of the mideast.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
[FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 09:58:23 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Since I didn't use those words, I can only assume that you're pulling
them from some font of leftist propaganda talking points.
"Freedom is on the march"
-- George Bush, 2004 Republican National Convention
"Freedom is on the march"
-- George Bush, March 5, 2005 weekly radio address
"Freedom is on the march"
-- George Bush, 2006 State of the Union Address
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 10:38:27 AM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hgaokj.12gpyick9xv3xN%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Since I didn't use those words, I can only assume that you're pulling
them from some font of leftist propaganda talking points.
"Freedom is on the march"
And when *YOU*, Scott Richter, repeat them in irony, that makes them
leftist propaganda talking points.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away or
happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 11:00:59 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
And when *YOU*, Scott Richter, repeat them in irony, that makes them
leftist propaganda talking points.
But when George Bush repeats them (for years on end), they're not
propoganda talking points?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 11:47:08 AM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hgarmb.1ntfdft1gtbuz5N%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
And when *YOU*, Scott Richter, repeat them in irony, that makes them
leftist propaganda talking points.
But when George Bush repeats them (for years on end), they're not
propoganda talking points?
If the truth is propaganda talking points, then yes, that's what they are.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away or
happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 09:13:52 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
But when George Bush repeats them (for years on end), they're not
propoganda talking points?
If the truth is propaganda talking points, then yes, that's what they are.
Then I guess according to your definition, they're not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
02 Jun 2006 09:38:07 PM |
|
|
(Scott Richter) wrote in
news:1hgbixo.16ojijjy14nggN%:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
But when George Bush repeats them (for years on end), they're not
propoganda talking points?
If the truth is propaganda talking points, then yes, that's what they
are.
Then I guess according to your definition, they're not.
Then you guess wrong. But that's not unusual for a BDS sufferer.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away or
happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
04 Jun 2006 06:45:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:00:59 -0700, (Scott Richter)
wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
And when *YOU*, Scott Richter, repeat them in irony, that makes them
leftist propaganda talking points.
But when George Bush repeats them (for years on end), they're not
propoganda talking points?
Well, you don't hear them shouting "flip flop" when Bush changes his... 'er...
mind.
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 12:35:56 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
snip
The only lack of resolution is in the hearts of anti-war defeatists
You mean like 72% of the troops in Iraq?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12103.htm
Or 57% of the Iraqi people?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
Or the 48% of the American people whom you just called defeatists?
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Oct/20051025News016.asp
who would give up just when the Iraqis are taking on much of
the responsibility for themselves.
How many times are you going to claim we have turned the corner without
going in circles
They would *make* another Vietnam of it, regardless of present
reality.
The reality is we are fueling the cycle of deaths in Iraq. The
sooner we pull out, the fewer people are going to die.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Take Your Paranoia And Shove It |
01 Jun 2006 12:49:07 PM |
|
|
"lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in
news:1149183356.026932.249350@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
snip
The only lack of resolution is in the hearts of anti-war defeatists
You mean like 72% of the troops in Iraq?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12103.htm
That's a silly poll. Of course they want to come home. We want to bring
them home. Duh. When the job is done.
Or 57% of the Iraqi people?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
That's from 2004, silly. There have been a few little things like
elections since then. Duh.
Or the 48% of the American people whom you just called defeatists?
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Oct/20051025News016.asp
Oh, that's a *brilliant* question. "Rapid pullout" versus "stay a few
years". Duh. Class exercise in How To Slant A Poll.
Oh, you're a classic, you are.
who would give up just when the Iraqis are taking on much of
the responsibility for themselves.
How many times are you going to claim we have turned the corner
without going in circles
How many leftoid cliches can you recite?
They would *make* another Vietnam of it, regardless of present
reality.
The reality is we are fueling the cycle of deaths in Iraq. The
sooner we pull out, the fewer people are going to die.
Ooh, there's another cliche. Cycle of violence.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
”...politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away
or happen after you are gone."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
