An anonymous commenter in the post below said that the best reaction to the Right's tea parties, marches, and crazy signs is to do exactly what the last administration did when people took to the streets in protest against Bush and his administration: IGNORE THEM.
Does anyone remember the Bush administration being influenced one iota by any crowd, or march, or sign, no matter how large, noisy, OR demeaning? (I believe 15 million marched worldwide against the Iraq invasion. Bush got his war on despite all protests, marches, and signs.)
Mr. Obama and his people should take a cue from how the GOP dealt with the "people's voice."
Bush did exactly what he wanted to do, and he invaded a country that did not attack us.
Mr. Obama's agenda is not lethal, as was Mr. Bush's.
Mr. Obama wants America to join the 21st century and other western democracies in making sure that people can attain their unalienable rights.
Americans cannot enjoy the benefits of Life, Liberty, nor pursue Happiness when illnesses financially ruin them, bankrupt them, and in some cases kill them from want of adequate health care that would intervene before a disease became deadly.
Reforming our health care system is one of the most patriotic acts we Americans can support.
We must have affordable health care for all Americans so that they can enjoy Life, Liberty, and pursue Happiness, secure in knowing that they will have the health care they need in order to do so.
On another important issue, please visit The Swash Zone where there is a most educational post up about how ruinous the last 8 years under George W. Bush were for our country. The information is based on facts and figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and not by some loud-mouth radio or cable teevee montebank.
74 comments:
"Bush did exactly what he wanted to do, and he invaded a country that did not attack us."
Actually, Iraq attacked us many times. Each of the firings and targettings against patrols in the no-fly zones were unprovoked aggression by Saddam's regime.
Where exactly were these "no fly" zones?
In Peoria or in Iraq?
I have to disagree on this. Ignoring a cause, no matter how outlandish, only gives it legitimacy (especially when the media covers the rallies instead of the logical rebuttal). In this day and age where the vocal minority seems to have the loudest voice the only way to de-legitimize something is to tackle it head on.
These "causes" are like parasites - if left untreated they will take over and recruit the dim-witted gullible voters who hang on the everything that gets spewed out of Fox Noise.
I learned and relearn this every election. Let no attack go unpunished. I know the anonymous guy means well and it may well be in bad taste to let these nuts know they're being heard. But they are being listened to. The fight has to be waged or the lazy and weak will just capitulate to the lies.
JohnC, I can also make the argument that dimwitted fools lead us by the nose when we let them, when we legitimize them by paying too much attention. When we fret and fuss over their stupidity, we aid and abet the viral spread of their messages.
I tried to deal with this problem several week ago with this post:
“Glenn Beck is the quintessential shlameil who spins malapropisms and misspelled words from an alcohol-addled brain. When we focus on the village idiot of Pottersville, we ignore Mr. Potter at our peril.”
I have reason to believe the heckle by Joe Wilson last week was planned in advance. My rational: When a president addresses a joint session of Congress, everyone knows it will dominate the headlines. When you want to hijack the president, what do you do? Do something outrageous that will grab headlines, divert attention away from the subject, and stir up more controversy. That is exactly what Wilson accomplished. Wilson became the headline, not healthcare or President Obama’s message.
It takes a lot self-discipline to avoid talking about the crazies and keep the focus on the main issue ... a self-discipline that, regrettably, many bloggers do not have.
John,
I think the Obama administration should ignore the protesters, just as the Bush administration ignored the anti-war protesters and went ahead and plunged this country into a trillion dollar war of choice.
We bloggers, on the other hand, can post the photos of these people who marched in the protest on the 12th so everyone can see their embarrassing lack of coherence and their appalling racism.
Seven months after Mr. Obama's inauguration, these wackos are calling for his impeachment, installing countdown counters on their blogs for the day when he's out of office, and marching around with "Obama lies; grandma dies" signs.
They've copied everything the left did to Bush.
They even lack the ability to mock this president with originality.
It is all so reminiscent of junior high school antics.
Copy-cat whiners. How pathetic is that?
Octo: I've observed the reactions and body language of many politicians during meetings as well as people on both sides of the negotiating table.
I agree that Wilson was putting on an act. Most of the time the actor doesn't blurt out something stupid while the Presdietn is speaking. But they fidget. Act angry. When the adversary says anything the jaw drops. Many times arms get thrown into the air. And the obligatory head shake.
This is designed to make anyone watching think the guy is really outraged and ready to explode. In reality it means the guy is an idiot with no clue what is going on around him and generally doesn't care as long as he thinks he's fooling people into thinking he is anything but the idiot he is.
A common thing the idiot politicians do is to vote "NO" on every issue. They hope we think it's because they care about limited government or want to be seen as responsible fiscal stewards.
I agree with you take Shaw. Well said Sister.
Shaw: Google should answer that for you.
And all wars are "wars of choice". Just like they are "wars of soldiers". Now away from Shaw re-writing history and back on topic:
Well.... Obama should ignore them. Really. Like the so-called "anti-war" protesters under Bush, these anti-Obama protesters are really a small number. Even at high estimates of 100,000+, that is still not a huge number of voters.
Democracy should not be based on relatively tiny groups that shout shrill insults the loudest.
I think it is somewhat different for other mass gatherings. Rare ones, true. But ones like Dr. King's March on Washington, which was truly huge, was not an insult-fest, and had an incredible great leader at the head of it.
Not a predictably partisan bash-best like the other two protests we are discussing.
Iraq 'attacked' the US in pretty much the same way as the North Vietnamese 'attacked' the Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin.
In each instance the decision to go to war had been made by the powers that be. All that was needed was a pretext. In the case of Vietnam, an invented altercation. In Iraq, lies about WMDs and Saddam links to al Qaeda and 9/11 did the trick.
In the end two of the sorrier episodes in US foreign policy.
Why does the Right have to lie about the number of people who attended the protest? The Washington DC fire department put the number at approx. 60,000+, give or take a few thousand.
Limbaugh said on his broadcast today that it was in the millions. I've seen reports that certain blogs on the internet put up bogus photos of crowds on the Mall, and then had to take them down when they were exposed as fake, or having been from some other time.
Over the past few weeks, I have had Righties come here and post comments that have been plagiarized from other bloggers, and these commenters have had them posted as their OWN ideas on their OWN blogs! When I found it out, the blogger "Bits by Bob" shut down his blog so that no one could call the coward out on his dishonesty.
And just a day or so ago, some jerk who called him/herself ScottyBoy stole the REAL ScottyBoy's identity and posted under it. When I exposed this, the fraud disappeared without a word on his/her deceit.
The facts show that more than a few of these Righties are frauds and liars, and cowards when they are found out.
Limbaugh, OTOH, is just a liar.
The Washington DC fire department put the number of protester at 60,000. That's a good amount. Why do the Right Wingers have to lie about that?
The Republicans: The really white, the really dumb, and the really fat:
Here.
I've seen Arthur lie that there were no WMD many times. No one ever claimed that Saddam caused 9/11, but there were in fact definite positive links between Saddam and Al Queda.
There was no "pretext". All Saddam had to do was comply with the cease-fire requirements that were supposed to have been complied with a decade ago. Pretty easy to do. But even into early 2003, Blix noted in his reports that Saddam's compliance was improving, but not there yet. If it were a pre-decided "pretext", they would not have given Saddam such an easy way out. Nor would they have given him many years to comply.
Shaw: Millions? That's even bigger than Farrakhan's famous racial supremacist rally. Do you have a source for this one by Limbaugh?
SoCal: Your comment proves your racism, but probably nothing else. But I guess skin color and weight are more important than actual issues. Reminds me the troll that used to come here whose main point about Rush Limbaugh was how heavy he was.
Rush Limbaugh heard there was 2,000,000 to 3, 600,000 at the 9/12 Project protest on Saturday
kayinmaine, on September 14, 2009, at 4:54 pm
This morning on Glenn Beck’s show he started out with the number of people who attended his 9/12 Project march and he believed it to be at least 500,000. Then a caller said it had to be at least a million. Finally on the way home from work today, Howie Carr’s listeners (and Howie himself) were saying there was at least a million, possibly 1.8 million, and then a caller shared that Rush Limbaugh had read that there was close to 2-3.6 million who attended this march.
Oh please! All day the right wingers were saying that the ‘liberal MSM’ is trying to cover up the fact that this was the most successful march in the history of the world! What a joke. They will say anything to make themselves out to be more important than they are. Seems reasonable given the economic times, a little over a 1,000-2,000 people per average from each state in the country came to DC this past Saturday. No more than that.
Seeing how much Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh get paid I am going to change my beliefs and start being better at what they do than they are...
Can't believe that talking stupidly could pay so much...why can't you get paid that much for talking the news rather than spinning it?
Thats actually my second choice of easy jobs my first choice is of course is a job on one of those 'Death Panels' I have got a long list of folks that just gotta go...
Sarah Palin better be right about these 'Death Panels' or I am going to be one pissed puppy...
Yep, dmarks, "Actually, Iraq attacked us many times. Each of the firings and targettings against patrols in the no-fly zones were unprovoked aggression by Saddam's regime..."
...and I remember that that was exactly WHY GWB said we had to go to war in Iraq....not real sure where all this crap about WMD came from, or torturing his citizens, and democracy, blah, blah, blah...came from?
Oh, yeah, that was Colin Powell and probably explains why he was fired!
"If it were a pre-decided "pretext", they would not have given Saddam such an easy way out. Nor would they have given him many years to comply."
Didn't the president give saddam and his sons like 48 hours?
Lets see, this coalition of the willing, with UN backing, was approved because of evidence that......Saddam attacked us?
I'll bet Rush has some great fish stories also. The minnow that turned into Moby Dick after the third telling.
No one really knows how many turned out for the protest in Washington, as there's no reliable method for counting. But as for the claim that there were faked photos, that's simply false. You can see a time-lapse video of the march up Pennsylvania Ave. here.
There were certainly a lot of people. Politicians can either ignore or take notice, at their own political risk.
Careful dmarks.
It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which seems to let you off the hook) that the threat from 'WMDs' was exaggerated time and time again in the run up to the war.
I wrote 'lies about WMDs' which is a fair representation of the past administration's propagandizing in the building of it's case for a war we never needed to fight. Perhaps Condi shouldn't have mentioned the mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, merely one of an endless list of exaggerations and outright lies we heard all those years ago.
Overcaffeinated tonight dmarks? You dropped the racist tag on a poster and liar on me.
We must be doing something right.
dmarks,
Go to this blog: http://ourworldasweseeit.blogspot.com/
And on the post for 9/14/09 the following was posted:
"What do Barack Obama Abe Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and John Kennedy all have in common? Nothing!"
Then you have this comment:
"If he's not careful, Obugger may get one thing in common in with them, particularly if he doesn't deliver his radical liberals their blessed health care.
Hint: a safety is involved.
Dr. Dave | Homepage | 09.14.09 - 2:03 pm | #"
Is that a death threat?
Gordon wrote: "But as for the claim that there were faked photos, that's simply false."
According to PolitiFact, which is quite reliable, fake photos of the 9/12/09 protest were put up on many conservative blogs. The photo that was circulated was from the '90s, and not from Saturday's demonstration.
Arthur: You can argue about "exaggeration", but that gets into subjectivity and opinion.
"Perhaps Condi shouldn't have mentioned the mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, merely one of an endless list of exaggerations and outright lies we heard all those years ago."
Well, that is a prediction, not an exaggeration. One that won't come to pass now that Saddam and his "exterminate the Jews by any means necessary" regime is out of the picture. Nor is it an outright lie (as most of those were coming from the side that wanted to protect Saddam's regime).
As for the racist tag on that poster, he adopted it himself when he bashed someone for their skin color. Just as those who bash Obama for his skin color adopt that tag thsmself.
------
Gordon: I have to disagree with you on the "Politicians can either ignore or take notice, at their own political risk.". Even if it were 4 million, that's still a small part of the electorate. I say this of any tiny but loud group of protesters.
-------------
Tao: I did not go to the blog you linked to, but I read your summary, which I assume is a fair excerpt. That looks like a thinly veiled threat to me. And I don't even like them thinly veiled. And I don't like to even joke about them, or have "witty" musings about the possibility.
What, did you actually think that I would defend such a threat? Where did you ever get that idea? You probably have me confused with someone else.
Here is another post from the same website and I believe the information is something that needs to be shared:
Wrong. When you say Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama have "Nothing!" in common, you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
They all are presidents of the United States of America.
Unfortunately, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Kennedy were killed by assassination, and Mr. Reagan came close to dying from an assassin's bullet.
It is very obvious what you are trying to do with this incendiary post, even though you haven't the courage to come out and actually say it. You have done so by putting Mr. Obama's name together with past presidents who have been assassinated or nearly assassinated, asked what they have in common, then disengenuosly typed "Nothing!"
But you're wrong there. They are all US Presidents.
You may think you're clever in not exactly crossing the line into making an actual threat to Mr. Obama's life, but you certainly mean to associate that action by putting his name together with presidents who have been murdered or nearly murdered in office.
Just to be on the safe side, I'm sending your url address to the US Secret Service. If you truly are just an innocent joker here, you have nothing to worry about, and at the worst you've posted nothing but a grossly disgusting suggestion about assassinating President Obama.
Just for your information:
Obama assassination attempt arrest for internet threat
By Lynn Sweeton January 16, 2009 6:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
from Justice Department release....
WISCONSIN MAN ARRESTED FOR THREATENING
TO ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA
Jackson, Miss - Steven Joseph Christopher was arrested by agents of the United States Secret Service today for making threats against President-Elect Barack Obama, U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton announced. Christopher, who is from Wisconsin, was arrested in Brookhaven, Miss. Christopher made threats against President-Elect Barack Obama on an internet chat forum on Jan. 11, 15 and 16, 2009.
Who is the Secret Service authorized to protect?
By law, the Secret Service is authorized to protect:
The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect.
How can I report a threat towards a protectee?
Contact your nearest U.S. Secret Service field office which is listed in the "Emergency Numbers" section in the front of most phone books.
The Secret Service is interested in legitimate information relating to threats, plans or attempts by individuals, groups or organizations to harm Secret Service protectees. However, the agency does not desire or solicit information pertaining to individuals or groups expressing legitimate criticism of, or political opposition to, the policies and decisions of the government or government officials.
You haven't made any political statement in this post, nor written anything about Mr. Obama's policies.
An Interested Citizen | Homepage | 09.15.09 - 2:06 am | #
dmarks,
I apologize for using you, but I did so to make a serious point. The blog where that post came from is one that reads Shaw's blog quite regularly and has commented here from time to time: In other words someone in our own neighborhood.
Blogging is fun and because of that sometimes people do not take it as seriously as they should or believe as they say, "all is fair in love and war..."
Now we can sit and discuss who said what and what signs were bandied around during the Bush years vs. those currently and we can go on and on about what liberals said about Bush vs. what the reactionary right is saying today and we do discuss it but only in a general way.
Here we have, in our own neck of the woods, among our own group of blogs that we interact with a feeble threat to the President...
I doubt if during the Bush Administration you could have found, so close to 'home', an example of the same things.
You can claim that it is only a coincidence or that statistically because there are more conservative bloggers that of course we have a greater chance of coming across such nonsense now...
I also think we might want to contemplate the fact that the issue today is of greater urgency and that we are witnessing more extremism now than we have in the past...
I in no way meant to single you out or to accuse you of anything but to come across this personally on a blog that I frequent regularly and that is linked with numerous blogs that I comment on was a surprise to say the least.
I am sure that Debonair Dude will find this as appalling as you and I do and recognize that it is over the line.
In reading your side bar Ref; Glenn Beck, I'd like to say the following..
It is okay for Al Sharpton to call ANY white person or even a Asian person a RACIST and no one will complain anything. But, if a white person is to call ANY black person a racist, then hell will break loose. REVERSE RACISM is becoming a BIG problem in this country.
This popped up as an apparently well-loved response, and I decided to say something. The blog you posted sounds so prejudiced - oh the double standards! But you have to compare oranges to oranges. Al Sharpton is a crazy religious coot and a racist nut-job.. His main activity is getting his supporters riled up, holding demonstrations, and getting attention. He has been quoted as saying that he doesn't mind being called a racist because it brings attention to his cause.
On the other hand, Glenn Beck is on some big family network, or so I'm told. Sure, lots of Fox is already borderline rightwing slanted speech, but they have gotten good at walking that line. I think calling the president a racist was a halfhearted attempt at good old fashioned mudslinging, but came back to hit Beck the moment he uttered it. That's how it goes, one word that triggers some socially established red flag, and you're gone. But those are the stakes when you're on the TV. I wonder what a black Glenn Beck would've received if he had said the same things same about Bush.
And tell me this if you please, what did Glenn Beck say that wasn’t true? He did expose ACORN for what they really are didn’t he? He did expose Van Jones, didn’t he? Is there any doubt about that?
And by the way, TV boycotts are a two-way street.
ARightAmerican stated:
"It is okay for Al Sharpton to call ANY white person or even a Asian person a RACIST and no one will complain anything. But, if a white person is to call ANY black person a racist, then hell will break loose. REVERSE RACISM is becoming a BIG problem in this country."
I disagree. Reverse racism is not "becoming a BIG problem in this country."
You would have to show me statistics on anti-white racism throughout this country before I could accept that--something on the scale that was practiced in this country against blacks and other minorities.
All one has to do is look, for example, at the racial make up of the US Senate and tell me how many African-American senators are in that very special club. Look at who are the chairmen of the boards of directors of our top corporations, and what is the predominant color of the people who run our financial institutions.
Overwhelmingly white. There is no anti-white racism going on.
Al Sharpton does not, AFAIK, have radio AND teevee shows that reach millions and millions of people 5 days a week, week in and week out, as does Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity. And Al Sharpton is NOT the leader of any movement on the left, as is Glenn Beck. I challenge you to find as many leftwing blogs extolling the virtues of Sharpton as there are out there supporting Glenn Beck or Limbaugh. They don't exist.
When a few extremists like Sharpton call out white people on racism, it doesn't come anywhere near what was practiced and is still practiced in regions of this country against minorities.
Beck was a jackass when he said President Obama had a deep-seated hatred for white people. A lot of people on the right accepted that idiotic statement without critically thinking it through.
If Mr. Obama has, as the buffoon Beck says, a deep-seated hatred for whites, he would have hated his mother, his grandparents who raised him, and he would even have to hate his two daughters who have white blood in them from both Mr. and Mrs. Obama.
That's why I think Beck is an uninformed, rabble-rousing idiot, and he doesn't deserve any respect.
Shaw Kenawe said: "If Mr. Obama has, as the buffoon Beck"
Oh I thought you were referring to Mr. Sharpton when you mentioned a BUFFOON!!
And you seemed to Not answer my question when I asked:
"what did Glenn Beck say that wasn’t true? He did expose ACORN for what they really are didn’t he? He did expose Van Jones, didn’t he?"
Hum..
I see you're back here again, Bob, and have changed your name and blog, but the url is still the same "bitsbybob."
I prefer not to have a conversation with you. You were the one who plagiarized someone else's work, posted it as yours own on your blog, and stuck my name in it, when the original name in the post was Jon Stewart's. Then you came here to my blog and posted it here.
When I found out your deceit and called you out on it, like a coward, you closed down your blog to anyone wanting to read it.
You've apparently renamed your blog and are back in business--but the url on your "new" blog shows this:
http://bitsbybob.blogspot.com/
Nice try. I don't want to talk to someone as sneaky and dishonest as you have demonstrated yourself to be.
New at Amazon...
'Redbaiting for Dummies: Conservative Version 2.0'
Some useful tips and highlights:
"MLK is a-okay. Now that he is dead and safely in the ground these past 40 years we too honor his memory. At the same time we honor the language we once used describing him by libeling current African-American political leaders & organizations. ACORN, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Van Jones. etc. fall under the heading of 'reverse racists', 'race pimps', and (particularly for Van Jones), 'mass murderers'."
"The sole legitimate role of government in the United States is to build the mightiest military the world has ever known and unleash it on tiny third world countries in Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Bear in mind, and always, always emphasize that any criticism of the use of American military might exists solely to 'protect'
tyrants and their regimes."
"It is ALWAYS relevant to ANY political dispute between 'progressives' (Maoists, Stalinists, Socialists, Norwegians, Democrats, public library supporters, etc.) and REAL AMERICANS to insert the 'fact' that Al Gore invented the internet and that THEY did it to GWB, only worser."
Some jacket blurbs:
Ann Coulter: "Couldn't put it down!"
Rush Limbaugh: "Required reading for all REAL AMERICANS."
Glenn Beck: "When I finished I had tears in my eyes."
Joe the Plumber: "It wuz grate!"
Hey Bob, nice to see you back! You might try a few more changes if you really want to remain anonymous.
Racebaiting for Dummies Progressive Version 2.0
Useful tips and highlights:
Remember, if you're a Progressive, the worst thing anyone can call you is raaaaacist. So it doesn't matter if say, in the case of Van Jones, that he joined as an adult an organization which espouses the most murderous philosophy in human history. It doesn't matter that he has no qualifications other than hustling government grants. Because he's a Progressive, and especially because he's black, he can't be raaaaacist. So he can say anything he wants and it's okay. What's more, because he's black, any criticism of him is automatically raaaaacist!
The legitmate role of the armed forces in the United States is to provide a fig leaf to hide our true intentions. Bomb an aspirin factory; launch a cruise missile attack on a bunch of mud huts. That shows you're tough, and you can get away with eviscerating military funding to support your collectivist goals. Meanwhile, insult our allies, prostrate yourself before third-world fascist dictators, and in general behave as if the existence of the US is a blight upon the world. It is, of course, because of all the right-wing raaaaacists."
Remember, you can't just use raaaaacism as your sole avenue of attack, as good as it is. Don't forget to invoke greeeeed, stupidity and corporate eeeeevil. As soon as the right-wing enemy responds to one attack, come at them with a different one.
Cover blurbs:
"Brilliant! Say, that publishing company isn't owned by Joooos, is it?" --J Wright
"It's the ****ing best book I've ****ing read this ****ing year!" --A Marcotte
"Tears the lid off the conspiracy to keep the black man down." --M Abu-Jaamal
"If only I had read this before I met Bill!" --H Rodham
"Shaw, I couldn't find the posts where you condemn Randi Rhodes and Craig Kilborne for making threats about shooting President Bush. Could you forward me the links?"--Gordon
I wasn't blogging then. I don't even know who Craig Kilborne is. Never heard of him. And you can scour my blog and never find one mention of Randy Rhodes. She's an extremist, IMHO, and you will not find anything about her on my blog.
I am not for presidential assassination as a means of changing the direction of this country.
It appears to me and quite a few others that most of the grievances over Mr. Obama are due to the fact that he won in November. A lot of conservatives believe that only THEY have the right to elect the president of the United States.
They started in on delegitimizing Mr. Clinton as soon as he got into office, and the same thing, only more vicious, is happening today.
Nothing of this magnitude happened in the first 7 months of Bush's term.
There was no national talk show host bleating that he hoped Mr. Bush's presidency would fail. There were no US Congressmen or women casting doubt on whether or not Mr. Bush was a legitimate American citizen and eligible to be president. No one attacked Laura Bush's patriotism (she had been a gasp! Democrat). And certainly even at the height of Mr. Bush's unpopularity, no member of Congress ever behaved in such a loutish manner as did the odious Joe Wilson (R.SC).
It was only after we witnessed Bush's incompetency in office that calls for his impeachment and other nasty things were heard.
IMHO, there is more than a little racism going on in these unprecedented attacks on Mr. Obama.
And reaching back into history--it is very much like the sort of seething, menacing hatred by the south that Mr. Lincoln suffered as soon as he was elected.
There are reasons to be alarmed.
PS. One of the Right's favorite thing to do is to label everyone a commie. I would love to see you face Nelson Mandela and tell him that his ANC was part of the most murderous organization in the history of the world--also, since Dr. King associated with people who were known to have communist sympathies, that would include him too, since conservative believe in guilt by association.
By your logic, Nelson Mandela and Dr. King are dirty Commies because of their associations with organizations that helped them reverse the practice of white imposed apartheid by democracy-loving nations.
The Founding Fathers actually threw off the shackles of despotism by committing treason against England.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Just ask George Washington.
The fact that you both don't get the differences is quite astonishing.
Van Jones is no more a Communist than you are.
Thank Joe Wilson for speaking out!
As for ACORN, God Bless Glenn Beck for standing up for us and exposing that racist crooked organization and their leader..
Shaw, I can only say that you're not on your best game today.
Van Jones joined, and was a member of, an explicitly Marxist group for a decade. That's not in dispute. He named his community organization for a communist. Nor is there any dispute that he is a Truther.
Now I would concede that Jones probably doesn't sing The Internationale to his kids at bedtime. He's a poseur; he changes labels like some folks change clothes. By any means, you know.
Clinton came into office with baggage trailing him for miles. He compounded it by lying to prosecutors and playing hide the cigar with an intern. The best thing about it was how it revealed the feminist left to be partisan whiners, when they supported Clinton despite it all.
And to claim that no one tried to delegitimize Bush is fatuous. Did you miss all those "Selected, not elected" bumper stickers? Did you not read about the speeches given overseas by Democratic politicians (including our current SecState) suggesting that the 2000 outcome was rigged?
The attacks weren't particularly successful; Bush ignored them. But to claim that Obama is going through something unique in American history is to demonstrate an need to do some reading.
Are there some folks who don't like Obama because he's black? Sure. Not all that many, frankly, from what I can see over here. You forget that Colin Powell could have had the Republican nomination for the asking in 1996, and the vice-presidential spot in 2000, just for the asking. J.C. Watts has been importuned to run for national office many times.
It's not because he's black. It's because of his politics.
Anonymous said...
Thank Joe Wilson for speaking out!
As for ACORN, God Bless Glenn Beck for standing up for us and exposing that racist crooked organization and their leader..
Joe Wilson was reprimanded for his stupid outburst and is a disgrace to the country.
And Glenn Beck is still an a**hole.
Regarding Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr:
Mandela's ANC was a Marxist organization. While Mandela himself stayed clear of the taint, his wife and other followers practiced the typical tactics of Communist groups; murdering those whose politics might take followers from them. Necklacing, anyone?
MLK did indeed associate with some communists. But go back and read some serious history. King deliberately kept them at arm's length, because he recognized that their goals and his were not the same. He knew they couldn't be trusted, and were using him for their own purposes.
Why is there this need on the left to defend and romanticize Marxism? Why do lefties tremble and faint at the prospect of meeting a thug like Castro? Why do fascists like Chavez cause progressive hearts to go pitty-pat? It it because (the thugs) they hate America and everything for which it stands?
Does wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt get you laid at a Drinking Liberally gathering?
The revolution was fifty years ago, and they're still imprisoning and torturing dissidents and gays. When do you stop making excuses for mass murderers?
And I'll worry about Joe Wilson just as soon as the House leadership reprimands Pete Stark for calling GWB a liar on the floor (twice) in 2007.
Actually, in my day, my Che T shirt got me laid at meetings of the Young Republicans on campus...
Apparently the guys were so intent on changing the world and didn't have time...
I love to help out where I can...
It really annoyed them when I staged a coup and took over the presidency of their political science club...should have clarified that the meeting to vote was open to the public not the voting its self...
Oh, Gorden,
"The revolution was fifty years ago, and they're still imprisoning and torturing dissidents and gays. When do you stop making excuses for mass murderers?"
Those pesky little dirty cuban commies...like they are the only ones in the world still resorting to such acts...
What about all those right wing dictators who could set records doing in a few years what Castro has taken 50?
What about our allies, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and on and on...
Look at it this way, if it wasn't for Castro and Cuba then you wouldn't have anything to use to deflect the criticism of all the right wing murders around the world...
You should be thankful...
The more things change...
Thank you Gordon.
Thank you indeed for showing us once again, up close and personal, that Red-baiting is alive and well.
That I've yet to meet an actual Progressive who hasn't repudiated and condemned the crimes of Stalinism, Maoism and the excesses of the Cuban revolution is a fact.
But no matter to some. Take the most egregious examples of behavior and tar an entire population with the brush. It's what 'Real American's have always, always done.
One thing that drives reactionaries absolutely nuts is when Progressives have the nerve to suggest that perhaps the fact the US doesn't always behave honorably and that somehow not being as bad as the Russians is good enough.
My father and father-in-law are both decorated and wounded veterans of WWII (father-in-law was a POW in a Japanese camp to boot) who from the 1950's forward have embraced liberal/progressive policies and have endured the sort guilt by association and smears we're seeing on this thread delivered up hot and steaming by our reactionary rightist friends.
For what it's worth one can even be a Marxist and not a Stalinist. Or a Maoist. Or even a totalitarian for that matter.
Go figure.
Gordon said: "And I'll worry about Joe Wilson just as soon as the House leadership reprimands Pete Stark for calling GWB a liar on the floor (twice) in 2007."
Yes, Gordon...calling Bush a liar on closed circuit TV is EXACTLY the same as Wilson rudely interrupting Obama's Presidential speech to Congress during a nationally televised event.
That's quite laughable...
JohnC,
Same rule. It doesn't distinguish between media.
Tao,
I'm happy for you. Everyone needs to get laid. Most of us don't have to bless child murderers to do so.
Arthurstone,
The difference is in the results. Right-wing regimes give way to democracy. Left-wing regimes didn't, until Ortega and his kleptonistas got voted out in Nicaragua. Since then, communist regimes have collapsed, but otherwise you have to pry them out of the palacio presidente.
President Bush worked toward reforming the regimes in the middle east. He didn't succeed, mostly, but at least he made the attempt, rather than assuming the people were too stupid to grasp the concept of freedom and democracy.
It works, you know. It's messy, inefficient and contentious, but it provides a better life for more people more quickly than any other method.
Yet the left can't seem to let go of the idea of the benevolent dictator. Why is that?
You should read Friedman's piece yourself Gordon.
Michael Barone certainly shares your reactionary agenda but still, you should make up your own mind. Friedman's argument is a bit nuanced but give it a try!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1&sq=tom%20friedman&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1253041348-eUN5HzA57EiKyyUn3FTDyg
Gordon: media in not irrelevant nor is the manner in which the message was delivered, i.e. referring to Bush's policy versus interrupting a speech on live tv.
Can you at least agree on the latter?
Arthurstone,
I did, days ago. I couldn't find the link to it today, but I did read the original piece when it was published. Nuanced? Not so much, IMHO.
JohnC,
Wilson's was certainly more theatrical. He did apologize for it, and that apology was accepted. Stark never has apologized.
The action by the House is pure theater; it won't cost Wilson one vote in his home district. Nor would a similar condemnation of Stark cost him.
It ain't much to worry about, in either case. I know I'm not worried about it.
So what to do with the Chinese Gordon?
The Waltons seem to have found a solution.
Oh, and when you get the chance, Arthurstone, please forward me a copy of my reactionary agenda. I had it in Google Calendar, but it's mysteriously disappeared! I'd hate to miss an appointment.
Those Google guys are all commies, you know. You can tell by the way they cooperate with the Chinese regime. I wouldn't put it past them to have a bot scouring the internet for reactionary agendas.
It's just not safe to be online anymore!
Oh, Gordon, don't humor us, you and your rightwing buddies have toasted LOTS of child murderers...
We bless them and you drink a toast to them...
Democracy in the Middle East? Not real sure but the last time I checked Saudi Arabia and Eqypt were in the Middle East and one does not even attempt to call its self a democracy and the other is only a democracy in name only.
Of course we won't even bring up the Iran Contra deal where the end justifies the means....
Lets be truthful, foreign policy has nothing to do with morals or principles and everything to do with economic advantage...
So one side beats the other over the head about its misdeeds and at the end of the day nothing changes and nothing is proven.
The left toasts Castro and the right loves Pinochet...
Lets not humor ourselves into believing that one side can gain the high ground: Good Lord Americans Foreign policy has been nothing more than a mud wrestling contest.
Suharto, Marcos, Pol Pot....and the list goes on and on....
Beats me, Arthurstone. They're too big to ignore. Trading with them can be looked at as slow economic suicide. It can also be thought of as a way to undermine the power of the regime, since economic liberalization is difficult without allowing political liberalization to bubble up.
They've really only been a player on the world scene for about 20 years. Other than doing all we can to develop our ties and alliances with India, the democratic counterweight, I'm not sure what to do.
I am a big fan of working with India. An imperfect democracy, to be sure, but still a democracy built on western values. We should do all we can to help them build a just society, help with infrastructure, and continue developing their human capital.
The thing is Gordon there is NO reason why we SHOULDN'T be friendly with China despite the political regime. Same with Cuba. Same with Venezuela, Nicaragua or any of the handful of leftist states still operating on the planet. They are no threat to us. At. All.
The other thing is, and this is particularly germane to the conversation, you have no problem smearing Tom Friedman for a column in which he makes the unsurprising point that the Chinese system works well in some areas and ours does not. Which somehow inis conflated to suggest, in your own words, "Yet the left can't seem to let go of the idea of the benevolent dictator". While uber-capitalist, laissez faire to the core, union busting Walmart gets a shrug of the shoulders.
Your reactionary agenda is on display each time you begin red-baiting Gordon.
Which is virtually every post you make here.
Why is there this need on the left to defend and romanticize Marxism?--Gordon
That's not what's going on, Gordon. I'm applying the Right's litmus test.
If you associate with one; you are one.
Nelson Mandela was married to Winnie, and Dr. King "associated" with Communists.
The Right does not excuse Mr. Obama for his association with Ayers or Rev. Wright, and is ceaseless in its condemnation of him.
When you say:
"MLK did indeed associate with some communists. But go back and read some serious history. King deliberately kept them at arm's length, because he recognized that their goals and his were not the same. He knew they couldn't be trusted, and were using him for their own purposes."
You're giving Dr. King the benefit of the doubt, something you and the Right refuse to do for Mr. Obama.
As for your comparisons of what was done to Bush vs. Obama, I stand by the fact that the Right has a bigger, louder, and crazier noise machine than the left ever did. There is no leftwing version of Rush Limbaugh [and we are forever grateful], or Glenn Beck, demagogues who reach millions and millions of people day after day, pounding lies, exaggerations, and misinformation into the easily led brains of the weak minds who listen to them.
We do agree on this point, Gordon. I, too, suggest that Mr. Obama, like Mr. Bush, ignore the people who marched last Saturday.
They made their point: They're mad as hell and they hate the Commie, Marxist, Fascist, Socialist Kenyan. Well good for them.
But Mr. Obama is still the president, and he will have his health care reform.
Everthing else is unimportant.
"I am a big fan of working with India. An imperfect democracy, to be sure, but still a democracy built on western values. We should do all we can to help them build a just society, help with infrastructure, and continue developing their human capital."
But a social caste system that ensures inequality.
But, better them as an ally than Pakistan...but India was smart and maintained its non aligned status...
Not sure what good "non-aligned" did for India.
Shaw: Actually, in regards to "I would love to see you face Nelson Mandela and tell him that his ANC was part of the most murderous organization in the history of the world", the ANC did actually have a close association with the organization you mentioned, the USSR.
The USSR was the final European colonial power to ravage Africa. They engineered the famine and associaed "terror" in Ethiopia.
Mandela, however, distanced himself from Marxism.
Nothing wrong with pointing out that someone is a Stalinist like this if they actually make this claim for themself, as Van Jones did.
--------------
Tao: Apology accepted. I see the death-threats matter as very serious, and it is clear that you do too.
On the other subject, you said "Good Lord Americans Foreign policy has been nothing more than a mud wrestling contest.Suharto, Marcos, Pol Pot....and the list goes on and on...."
Well, Pol Pot was actually a left-winger. A creation of the left. Supported by the American Left too. Leading "intellectual" Noam Chomsky is one of those who spoke in favor of the "killing fields".
Marcos? Reagan pulled the rug out from under him. Suharto? You probably have a good point on that one.
Arthur said: "union busting Walmart gets a shrug of the shoulders."
Protecting worker's rights to choose to have nothing to do with unions is not "union busting". Good for Walmart that they are pretty good at preventing outside organizations like the SEIU from coming in and robbing and assaulting their workers.
Any Walmart worker is free to give, or not give, as much money to the SEIU as they want. Thanks to the Walmart company protecting this right.
I was wondering when the other half of the dynamic duo would turn up.
Red-baiting continued:
'Protecting worker's rights to choose to have nothing to do with unions is not "union busting". Good for Walmart that they are pretty good at preventing outside organizations like the SEIU from coming in and robbing and assaulting their workers.'
Red-baiting not continued. I never connect American labor unions to communists. Perhaps you do??? That is an odd view, Arthurstone.
It's clear that you quoted the wrong paragraph from me as an example of your "Red baiting". Not that you will find an example of any false tagging with the "communist" label in my comment, anyway.
But anyway, thanks for quoting my comment in its entirety. The validity of the content stands.
I should get paid for this.
The thing is dmarks I have introduced 'red-baiting' to the thread as a fair representation of the sort of remarks reactionaries historically have made regarding progressives with whom they have political disputes.
The civil rights movement long has been a target of red-baiting. As have citizens who would prefer normal relationships with leftist regimes (except for a few, such as the Walton clan).
As has the labor movement since it's very inception.
It's disingenuous that you find it 'odd' labor union are 'connected to communists'. That remark alone says volumes about your understanding of the history of the American labor movement.
It's much worse than I thought.
If you are being paid for anything, it is for responding to comments without even bothering to read them. Hope you are getting rich on that: you are doing a good job :)
Arthur: I found it odd that you connected the union movement to communists. I know well that some have made this association in the past. I've never made it. I was just surprised that you would turn out to be one who would so quickly connect unions with communism.
If you will re-read the comment I made, you will see that it is clear that you were the one who made the connection between unions and communism.
I did not. My objections to forced unionization have nothing to do with communism. You red-baited your own mind.
Tao wrote, "But a social caste system that ensures inequality."
I refer you to the first part of the line you quoted above that:
"We should do all we can to help them build a just society...."
Ouch.
My head hurts.
Arthurstone,
If you think you're wounding me by calling me a reactionary, you ain't.
The term was coined by Stalin as a pejorative toward those who opposed his policies. I'll wear that term cheerfully.
You may as well call me a capitalist running dog.
I'm no fan of dictatorial regimes of any philosophy, but as I pointed out earlier, those of the non-communist variety do give way to democracy. Pinochet was not an admirable ruler, but he yielded to free elections, and left Chile prosperous and peaceful.
Gordon: It's been years since I've heard of any conservative who was a fan of Pinochet.
The term reactionary as applied to political 'ultraconservatives' has been in general use since the mid 19th century.
Really. Well, if you say so.
But if you think I'm ultraconservative...
I suppose it all depends on your vantage point. From mine, there's a lot of room to my right.
Gordon: There are some who confuse strength of views with extremism of views.
I'd say anyone who would describe Van Jones as a supporter of mass murder easy qualifies as an ultraconservative.
It's always a tender moment in the blogosphere watching you two lending one another a helping typing finger.
I'd say anyone who joins and leads a Marxist organization is worthy of deep suspicion. After all, he would not even be able to get the basic "Secret" security clearance granted routinely to members of the military.
Worse, he did it after the fall of the USSR, when the full catalog of horror was available for all to see. 100 million people lost their lives to that ideology.
At best Jones is an asshole and a poseur. At worst, he aligns himself with the vicious by-any-means way of thinking that destroyed so many lives.
You're getting pretty snarky again, Arthurstone. I try not to get personal, but you make it very tempting. Your snide little insults don't cover up the big question: Why do you feel the need to defend the indefensible? Why do you "decry the excesses" of Marxism and its derivatives, instead of seeing the obvious: the excesses are merely the routine result of such soul-destroying totalitarian worship of the state.
It's not the excesses. It's the very nature of the system that's evil.
Pinochet was not an admirable ruler, but he yielded to free elections, and left Chile prosperous and peaceful.--Gordon
Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (25 November 1915 – 10 December 2006) was a fascist Chilean army general and later head of state as a military dictator. He was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean army from 1973 to 1998, president of the Government Junta of Chile from 1973 to 1981 and President of the Republic from 1974 until the return of democratic rule in 1990.
On 11 September 1973, with active support from the CIA, Pinochet led a coup d'état which put an end to Allende's government and, along with the Navy, Air Force and Carabineros (the national police force), established a military dictatorship. In December 1974, the junta appointed Pinochet as President by a joint decree, to which Air Force General Gustavo Leigh disagreed. From the beginning, the government implemented harsh measures. According to the 1993 Rettig Report, over 3,200 people were killed, while (according to the 2004 Valech Report) at least 80,000 were incarcerated without trials and 30,000 subjected to torture. Another 200,000 people went into exile, particularly to Argentina and Peru, and applied as political refugees; however, some key individuals were followed in their exile by the DINA secret police, in the framework of Operation Condor which linked South American governments together against political opponents.
But hey! He made the trains run on time!
Now. Now. Gordon.
You already have made these discussions 'personal' with your wild conflation of anyone to your immediate left on the political spectrum with the worst crimes of Mao Zadong and Uncle Joe Stalin. You do it endlessly with 'snarky' little lies (or in Gordonspeak, 'the big question') such as 'defending the indefensible' like any good little reactionary would.
Save it for your buddies who don't know any better Gordon . Your good friend Daphne has a wonderful thread going where 'Real Americans' are wetting themselves fantasizing about nuking Mecca.
Speaking of a 'big question'...
Arthur: Van Jones is the one who proudly associated himself with the worst mass murdering political movement in history. He did this with his own words.
He is every bit as bad as David Duke when David Duke was a proud Nazi. If you can't see this, you need to crack open some history books.
Gordon: We also can't forget STORM, Van Jones' group to promote tyranny and genocide in the Third World.
Shaw: Good point. While it is true that if you look deep into the Allende regime, you will find it rife with brutality and lack of any respect for dissent or democracy, that still does not excuse Pinochet for any of his atrocities.
The Chamber of Deputies resolution shines some light on the details of Allende's fascist rule: "The resolution declared that the Allende Government sought . . . to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the State . . . [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system, claiming it had made violations of the Constitution . . . a permanent system of conduct. Essentially, most of the accusations were about the Socialist Government disregarding the separation of powers, and arrogating legislative and judicial prerogatives to the executive branch of government."
Pinochet was number 2 in a successful of fascist dictators. It should not follow that if you detest one of them, it means you like the other.
I was one of those who did not mind at all when the ol' general faced charges.
Thanks for the tip dmarks. Oddly enough I have cracked open 'some history books'.
I don't know if they actually qualify as 'history books' (many, many do) but these have been hugely influential to my thinking and remain on the shelf to this day.
None Dare Call it Treason by Gary Allen
The Blue Book of the John Birch Society by Robert W. Welch Jr.
I read these first in the early 1970's. Paranoid anti-communism and red-baiting have gone mainstream and these books sound completely up to date. Welch would be a radio talk show star if he weren't so very dead.
"Mr. Obama's agenda is not lethal, as was Mr. Bush's."
BHO's agenda is lethal to our Republic, our Constitution, our States' rights, our financial system, our capitalist markets, our international relations (just ask Poland, Georgia, & Ukraine), our elderly (I know, you all don't believe in 'death panels' - whatever), our infants - born alivee protection act???
Shall I go on?? Nah, probably not.
Oh, & Octo: "Wilson became the headline, not healthcare or President Obama’s message." Getting the headline is NOT Obama's healthcare problem...his healthcare agenda IS THE PROBLEM. Last time I checked, ours was a nation wherein the PEOPLE put pressure on the Gov't to write laws & implement polices, NOT the other way around...unless of course you're warming up for a fascist state.
Heaven help us.
Bye, Shaw!
Post a Comment