Karl Rove's Speech condemning liberals
 

From CNN:

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/....ap/index.html



What do you all think? Personally, I find it disgusting that this purveyor of evil would dare say such disgusting things condemning Democrats and Liberals for 'coddling terrorists' and being in support of terrorism. Apparently, we all should repent for our evil ways, or else we shall burn in Hell.

Notice me shaking in my boots. Woot.

What's wrong with you? He's just illustrating the difference between liberals and conservatives. Don't expect any condemnation from the WH anytime soon.

Bush '04: Elevating the discourse.

It reeks of a bit of desperation as approval numbers fall almost daily for the administration for Rove to drag out that tired old bag of tricks. In the middle of all the things they should be concentrating on, did he really pull out frickin 9/12/2001? One trick pony, I guess.

At the very least, go get OBL before we have to listen to more of your bull about terror and your middle school posteuring about you being tougher than another grown man. The sabre rattling looses it's luster when another 30 men left families behind today in the name of our countries collective dick size.

I deplore this type of hubris and hyperbole whether it comes from Dean or Rove. Think about it for a moment. We are doing a better job here in an obscure politics forum in discussing our differences in politics than the political leadership of the dems and reps.

Like Gilda Radner would say in full character, "Never Mind." :rolleyes:

Elphaba, I understand - it looks like Kerry photo op and a bit of grandstanding because Krove had a few drinks and got stupid. But after listening to McClellan everywhere and Rove continuing to run his mouth about not owing anybody an apology, I say back the motherfucker up, so he crawls back into his office and doesn't come out until '08, or let retire early.

He was elected to nothing, so shut him up. He didn't earn the right to speak on behalf of this country. He is a hired hand bashing our elected officials and making the US look weak and divided. Nobody who cares about this country should tolerate it Pubs, Dems, Ind, whoever.

I was just reading more of his blather from today... He embarasses all of us.

Good for Rove and fuck moveon.org and their devisive vitriol, blantant lies, and disgusting corruption of reality.

They proposed exactly what Rove said. Dialogue, understading, and indictments. Mobilize the Compassion Industry they cried.

Typical.

Democrats don't even have the balls to own up to their own base, or their own points of view. Kill the messenger. We said that...we think that...but HOW DARE YOU tell people what we said or think. How dare you!!!! One of several reasons why they have become so irrelevant to the daily discourse.

It's funny how Rove is dismissed as desperate and a one trick pony. This a man who has has summarily embarrassed and marginalized those in the Democratic party for the shill hacks that they are. Loss after loss after loss...and to GWB too. Hilarious.

When Durbin, that bastian of hope and reason, is held accountable for his "desparation" then perhaps we can talk about Rove.

Frankly, and likely unbeknowst to those pathetic democrats, Rove has some master plan here, that ends up shaking some heat off of Bush and even further humilating the opposition.

It would fit his MO perfectly.

Like him or not he is a brilliant political strategist, who answers to no one. Especially not some whiny pathetic irrelevant democrats. Whah Whah Whah.

Stop whining about Rove (and everything else while your at it) and get on with life. Find someone who will expose the republicans for the shill hacks ~they~ are.

-bear

Yeah, sounds like we're interested in what's best for the country. So illustrative, I tip my hat.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush, as Rene Zellwigger's line went in the movie, "Jerry McGuire", had us...(ALL Americans. of all political persuasion) from hello !

Bush also had similar backing from most of the leaders and residents in the western world. Rove's remarks are just more in a long line of mistakes that effected and reflected, the long decline that we are witnessing......

Agreed, Host. I remember Le Monde's headline after 9/11... "We are all American's now." It is more than unfortunate that this administration has flushed good will of any kind down the toilet, whether here or abroad.

The liberal response to Rove's remarks, and the war on terror in general, shows that America now will never have a single front war. America will now always have to endure attacks from without and within. Much of America has seemingly lost the will to do what is necessary, and turns it's aggession against the very people trying to ensure the security of them and their children.

I have often debated with people about Hitler's greatest mistake in WWII (people seem to forget that there were many instances where he could have concievably won the war). Now I know his greatest mistake-not being born 50 years later. In the current climate, liberals would label Hilter a misunderstood leader bringing prosperity to his country, and FDR and Churchill would be denounced as evil warmongers bent on spreading Christian propaganda through a rapidly secularizing Germany.

This is the kind of dishonest pandering nonsense from the Dems that drives me nuts. You have Ted Kennedy calling Iraq a quagmire, asking Rumsfeld if he will resign, pretty please. You have Jimmy Carter calling the war immoral and illegal. The Democratically driven non-issues of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Dick Durbin with his Nazi references. Howard Dean and his vacuous hysterics. The Downing Street Memo Circus. All fine, fine examples of useful contributions to American unity. The Forces of Disunity complaining about a lack of unity! What a laugh! What a farce!

What this says to me is that the Dems STILL have no answers - zero. No interesting solutions to world events, no creative thinking. All they seem to offer is the same mindless, Pavlovian counter-criticism to whatever the Repubs say or do. Not one original thought out of the lot of them. Karl Rove is simply toying with the Democratic party by eliciting just the type of thoughtless, hypocritical responses such as those from Clinton and Shumer. It keeps the Dems from thinking, keeps them on the defensive, keeps them in an intellectual limbo, and ultimately, keeps them out of power. They are stuck in a self-defeating loop.

I love that the response after 9-11 was to go to war. With Iraq. The total disconnect between that country, and what happened on 9-11 didn''t matter then.

He's still pushing that non-connection as reality years later.




And it's still working.

Since this is virtually identical to the rhetoric of the right during the Vietnam war, can I assume that you think we should have kept fighting in that 'war'? Was it those pesky peace-niks that ruined it back then, too?

If you believe that, I'll at least have respect for you having consistent logic. Was it the protesters that lost us that war? I'm thinking history has already turned in a different verdict, but I'm curious about your take. Or if you think this situation is different.


edit: and your second paragraph seems like quite a stretch. But you're sure entitled to your opinion...

I think that partially, it was protesters who undercut our efforts in the Vietnam war. The press coverage of that war seemed quite negative from the onset, and helped contribute to the horrible morale that was often found in Vietnam. Had there been the same anti-war movements in WWII or the Korean war, I feel America's involvement in those would have been much less successful. The constant protests and negative press doesn't allow the country to fight a war how it should be-quick and dirty.

Hey, if the Jackboot fits, wear it. What have the Democrats come up with since 911? Well, they've come up with "We need to understand why they hate us, and change so they will not hate us", we've seen "If we just sell out our friends and let the terrorists massacre our allies, they'll kill us last, and that's kind-of a victory, isn't it?", and biggest and best, we've seen them run a Presidential candidate who claimed "I have experience in betraying my country in time of war, so I'll make the best appeasement President yet!".

Do liberals support "Palestinian Rights"? If so, they support terrorism. Hell, look at PETA and ALF/ELF. They're the left's favorite terror group.

If Liberals don't want to be seen as condoning terrorism, they ought to do something revolutionary for them, like, say, STOP SUPPORTING TERRORISTS. It's kind of funny how that works...

If you read General Giap's autobiography, you'll find that he draws EXACTLY that conclusion. He admits that the US had defeated both the insurgency and the North Vietnamese militarily, and the central facet of his strategy was to keep everybody bleeding until the Soviet controlled and financed anti-war movement in the US sapped the American will to fight. Of course, what did he know? It's not like he was the guy who developed the North Vietnamese military strategy!


/Oh wait...

You never know. Sooner or later, somebody will grow the balls required to enforce Article III § 3 of the US Constitution. Remember, it's still a capital offense.

As for Hitler, if he were in Germany today, he'd be considered a progressive, and the Liberals would claim him to be their best buddy, just like the far left loves Castro and Mugabe.

That's odd, I could have sworn we invaded Afghanistan first. I also could have sworn that Saddam, beyond a shadow of a doubt, supported and sheltered terrorists who had attacked US assets and interests (remember Leon Klinghoffer?). Were they the actual 911 hijackers? Nope, but they were still terrorists, Saddam still was training terrorists, and he was still funding suicide bombers. As such, he had to go.


If you have a termite nest in your house, you don't just kill the one termite that got lost and wandered to where you could see him. You kill ALL of the termites.

I challenge anyone here to furnish us all with a quote where ANY ONE LIBERAL said we should be providing these people who killed 3000 americans, with therapy rather than justice.

Rove is a divisive hack who all too frequently slanders the unity that was briefly forged through the wrong committed that day. He just completely dishonored 1/3 of america.

Yes, exactly. THAT IS what needs to be done. Blowing them to hell won't work. Sanctioning them will not succeed. Only once you know your enemy, understand what they want, why they want it, and how they will attain it, will you be able to effectively fight and win a battle.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, Hussein was a nominal threat to the US and the world. We took him out of power, we destroyed his government, we set up a new one. Why are we still there? At this point, I'd be all for releasing Sadaam, letting him try to go back and reconstruct. He has no power now. If the insurgents want to kill him, fine. If he truly is strong enough to form a new government, he knows that the entire world will be watching him so closely that he can't head to the bathroom without being seen.

Today, we are doing nothing but hurting ourselves. The Arab world hates us. The Asian world is not really fond of us, either. Has anyone ever attacked Sweeden? Seeing a mad rush to wage war on Canada? I don't think so. Understanding those that may oppose you and trying to diffuse hatred is the only way to avoid war and future death.

Why was Hitler hated? Is it because he mobilized Germany's economy? Is it because he structured an amazingly well-trained military force? Is it because he rebuilt a nation from nothing to one of the strongest countries in the developed world? No, Hitler is looked at as evil and as a devil because HE KILLED PEOPLE IN MASS NUMBERS! Had he not allowed his mad drive for success to extend beyone Germany's boarders, and had aides that prevented him from committing mass genocide, the man might have been known as one of history's greatest leaders. Instead, he became hungry for recognition and control, invaded other nations, and killed a huge number of their inhabitants for a mis-placed ideological cause that eventually led to the destruction of everything that he built.

Sound familiar? The past leads to the future. Welcome to America.

How about just doing your JOBS without all the hyperbole and bluster!! This constant bickering and back biting is not healthy for this country. Is this tendentious and juvenile behaviour by members of both parties meant to turn voters off? I'm beginning to believe the master plan is just to completely and utterly alienate the American voter. I for one have had my fill.

Amazing well put. Granted, as much as i hate shrub and his slithering worms that work for him, shrub isnt gassing millions of people. But your statement is excellent.

moosenose !!!......nice to see you.....I've made this offer before. Stop posting your weakly documented "reasons" that it was just and necessary for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and I won't have to post a strongly documented rebuttal.

Abu Nidal?......Please !.....................the last time that I observed a conservative trot out that tired old bogey man was when Ollie North used him as an excuse to deflect accusations that he had illegally accepted the gift of a security fence around his private home,
I presented a well documented argument that details the complicity, support, and by the continuing relationship, (with no protest from the executive branch of the infamous gassing of the Kurds), the tacit approval of Saddam's regime by the Reagan and the Bush '41 administrations, until late 1990.
See:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=30

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=32

The argument that Saddam was supported by the U.S. for reasons having to do with a strategy of supporting Iraq to blunt the larger threat of Iran, rings hollow and empty when one counts the anti-tank missles delivered at the direction of U.S. to Iran during the same period, in direct contravention of the President's publicly stated prohibition of negotiating or supporting terrorist states, and Iran in particular, and in spite of vehement advice to desist by close advisors to President Reagan. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/...e/index_5.html A reader can also observe in the timeline at the above link that other military support was provided by the U.S. to Iran in it's war with Iraq at the same time that the policy of aiding Saddam was justified as a way to counter Iran!

Hard to fight for democracy in other countries and question our own. No place better to start I guess than Ammendmant 1. War sucks. watching 1 out of 3 men die in your company in the case of Vietnam created bad morale. Being in a fight that you don't know what "won" means creates bad morale. I get calls from guys over there asking me what I know. Elections in December? 50,000 , 100,000 Iraqi's trained? What's it going to take?
They deserve to know.

The answer is obvious - we're going nowhere. Bush and Cheney think this is the new Saudia Arabia meanwhile Iran and Iraq are dry-humping in the back room. We have just put the largest reserve of oil in the world in the hand of Shiite Muslims. The crazy ones. That leash won't be coming off until they take our money and weapons and use them to kick us out. For example: 1979 Iran, 1987 Iraq, 1990 Afghanistan...

It's not that the Democrats don't have an answer, the answer just hasn't changed. Come home. We are nothing more than bodygaurds for al-Jaafari and the Shiite cleric while they create openly an Constitution based on Islamic Fundamentalism.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...iraq_bush_wa_1
Let freedom ring... sigh.

I think to say that people shouldn't protest over a war.. any war.. is pretty pointless. People WILL protest over wars. They do not want to see their friends and family sent to fight, to die.. to kill.. they dont like getting shot at, and people in general dont like being drafted (vietnam). To expect someone not to protest in the face of being forced to kill and get killed is a little ridiculous. There will always be people like moveon.org who will show how people don't want to go to war, and offer alternatives. You shouldn't bash these people, but work with them, and move toward their approach, leaving the killing behind. It should be our main objective to move toward peace, not to further our little world police game, and continue with the death, and slaughter, oppression and hardship that are THE CAUSE OF TERRORISM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Especially in this situation, when we didn't even finish the first war.. and already launched a second one on a country that really wasn't a part of 9/11 at all.. what-so-ever.. people are gonna be a little pissed off. While Afghanistan may have been a "called for by all", "hey lets go kick their collective asses" type of deal, Iraq was, and still is nothing like that. Karl likes to lump Iraq in with the war on terror because that's what that whole region is like now. A giant clusterfuck of terrorism. It wasn't always like this. Granted it wasn't a picnic before, but you dont punch the hornet's nest then shove it in your crotch, expecting them to suck you off.

karl rove: what a guy.
what a perfect embodiment of conservative ideology--a kind of cynical fellow who is confused with a brilliant media strategist seemingly because the only thing his office sells with more vigor than the various idiocies of the bush administration is the illusion that karl rove is a brilliant media strategist (an administration can only go on so long and hey, a boy's got to live...)--a mediocre fellow not bothered by facts or history or coherent policy--the kind of guy who like military parades and great big flags and doesnt think that there is enough of either, really--the kind of guy whose politics benefit from war, need war, whose political position right now owes everything to a craven and at the least misleading marketing campaign centered on war. i am sure that pure rovethought was expressed in cheney's "vote kerry and you will die" stump speech.

rove is a guy in a position to move talking point by talking point through the main claims particular to the fantasyland that is conservative ideology--but the folk who support his politics, contrary to all reason, do not read his ridiculous speech and wonder to themselves "what the fuck am i doing?'--no, they rush to defend those talking points, they enjoy them... it does not matter what they are.

karl rove: the quintessential conservative. looking back to the good old days of red baiting and probably feeling more than a little sympathetic for those poor germans who felt after world war i that they too had been stabbed in the back by some fifth column...like them, "real americans"--cheap steak tough americans--folk like himself--- will one day not have to trifle with this pesky debate business, not be bothered with this democracy thing. instead, flags, loyalty, parades--if many many brown people far away have to die to generate more occasions for parades, more flag graphics on fox news, more reasons to produce unthinking partisan loyalty (read some of the posts above), then so be it--all that matters i guess is that america--the karl rove america--the one that has a profound and abiding problem with reality---the karl rove america marches forward.

facts be damned.

Umm, most people didn't know about the extent of the genocide being carried on in Germany during the war.

And yet another AMERIKKKA=NAZI GERMANY!!11!!! comparison, how original :rolleyes: .

you obviously have no clue about modern Germany.
and I consider your post pretty much offensive.

I find Rove pathetic and extremely divisive and I find anyone that suppoerts these comments beyond contempt and feel sorry for them because they are full of petty hatred, and an overflated ego that someday will come crashing to Earth.

He said nothing that Limbaugh doesn't say every day.... the difference Limbaugh is entertainment and says what he says to get ratings and to make money. Rove said what he said just to show hate and to provoke hatred and anger because he knows the GOP is in serious trouble and believes that like the past spewing hatred and accusing Dems of everything will win votes.

I also find some of what the righties in this thread say nothing more than trolling and trying to start flame wars.

i post the following edito from the ny times that outlines the ongoing development of the implications of the vast steaming brown mound that is rovethought--the attempt to bully npr/pbs into being another arm of the conservative media regime.

essentially, rove is a thug, the juluis streicher of bushworld--same strucutre of argument, different object. he would prefer to be portrayed as mastermind of a successful propaganda campaign in support of yet another radical nationalist movement sweeping in from the extreme right--but that changes nothing....


source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/op...26rich.html?hp

I'll grant you that not everyone lining up behind a particular effort (whether it's war, or a particular social security plan) makes things harder to accomplish. It's also the very backbone of the way our country works. I think that the challenges it brings are far outweighed by the benefits.

And, lord knows, I don't want to start a Vietnam thread jack, but...


The Vietnamese people fought an insurrection against the Chinese for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. I struggle to put my mind around that. 100 years... 1000 years....

The great US military leaders of the time, thought we could win that war?? I'm guessing discord at home had an impact on US. But approximately zero impact on the actual events on the ground. They would have worn us down with perfect unanimity at home. The American attention span just can't compete. Couldn't then, couldn't now.

We knew (know) nothing about that culture and what makes it tick. I find parallels with the war du jour.

Host, I just wanted to tip my hat to you before my demise.
You've always made valuable contributions in my book.

Strongly documented rebuttal? Heh. I'm sure you will "correct" me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't one of your links back up my assertation that Saddam was indeed sheltering Abu Nidal until he finally killed him? The fact that Saddam was sheltering Abu Nidal at all is indisputably casus belli, and it is far from Saddam's only transgression. Your link suggests one alleged reason why Nidal was killed, other published reports say he was killed because he began plotting against Saddam.

As for Saddam not being responsible for 911, well, maybe he shouldn't have been so quick to try to "cash in"... http://www.webmutants.com/strategypa...the_towers.jpg

Saddam was not a nice man. Your defense and support of his rule is duly noted. "Aid and comfort", "aid and comfort", my "friend"...

So playing two sides against each other to neutralize both is no longer a valid strategy?

I'll avoid quoting Tacitus for you...

Well, according to General Giap, the US HAD defeated the insurgency and the North Vietnamese militarily. That's why it became so vital for their "fifth column" to come through and win the war for them. You say we knew nothing of their culture. Well, the Romans knew very little about Carthage's culture, but still managed to defeat them.

You say that the communist controlled and financed anti-war movement in the US had very little effect "on the ground". That is not supported by the facts. The South was eventually overrun not by insurgents, but by formed, regular units of the North Vietnamese Army. US air and artillery assets alone would have been enough to defeat such a force, using the ARVN merely to protect those assets. Why didn't they? Because they had been pulled out of the country as a result of the anti-war movement.


You say that dissent is how our country works. That's not QUITE the whole truth historically. Historically, there has been debate going back and forth until a majority comes together and decides on a course of action. At that point, often the minority has historically put aside their differences with the majority to form a united front. For example, long-time isolationists put aside their isolationist rhetoric to work towards allied victory, regardless of the fact that they really didn't want to be in the war. This did not always happen. On at least one occasion, a US Senator actively supported "the enemy" on the floor of the Senate, prompting the President at the time to say ""Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." He carried through on it, too.

The lunatic-fringe far left has only recently (in a historical sense) moved from hiding their treason (and getting "the gas" when caught, after due process of law) to trumpeting their treason as being a series of patriotic acts. Will our nation survive? I don't know.

Yes, and there will always be child molesters, rapists, et cetera, too. That does not mean we should support them any more than we should support moveon.org in their sedition.

I'm sorry, but pushing a policy of appeasement and capitulation to an enemy that routinely calls for the extermination of all Americans has never been attractive to a great many Americans. It's funny how that works.

It would probably help then if we had our government simply nuke the entirety of our land mass. We'd hate to have to inconvenience the terrorists by making them actually achieve their goals. It would be far better for us to do it for them, right?

Dick Durbin, number 2 Senatorial Democrat recently made the following comments in regards to Guantanamo Bay: What Rove said doesn't even register on the meter compared to what Durbin said, to my way of thinking. Comparing Guantanamo to the Treblinka Death Camps of the Holocaust is light-years more offensive than what Rove said about the Liberals. This lunatic makes Rove look like a boy scout.

I'm sorry, I'm talking about AMERICAN "progressives", not German "progressives". Hitler did indeed push forward a wide variety of "progressive" ideals, such as social security, universal health care, gun control, et cetera. That's where the "Socialist" in "National Socialist German Worker's Party" comes from, after all. Of course, he only pushed it for people of "acceptable racial purity"...

If Dick Durbin wants torture, he should look at the Iraqi "insurgents" for advice on that: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/in...rssnyt&emc=rss
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Dick.

With this you also support war, and murder. I mean, what exactly are you saying here? You'd rather get rid of people who prefer peace and stick with those who prefer war? I don't get it.



They think its better to look into why they routinely call for the extermination of all Americans and working out the problem instead of removing the brains of these individuals by way of bullets. You know.. peacemaking.. that kinda stuff Jesus always talked about.


Right.

War and murder are two different things. I do not, and have never, supported dealing with people who have sworn to kill all Americans by trying to change myself and other Americans so that we are no longer offensive to them. I will NOT allow my wife to be forced to wear the Burqua. If people wish to harm me and mine (and by this, I include all decent Americans) then I will respond appropriately, even if that means putting a 62 grain slug through their skulls.

I am not a Christian, but have read some of the things said about "that Hippy Bastard from Nazareth". He got what he deserved, and received Due Process of Law. People who support him are supporting a convicted felon. Of course, given the Roman Catholic's outlook on practicing symbolic cannibalism every Sunday, that's no big surprise. Anyway, back to your statements. If somebody is trying to kill you, the appropriate response is to kill them first, NOT to ask them questions about what YOU can do to change so that they will not want to kill you any more. As for peacemaking...."We will create a desert, and call it peace". You can feel free to try your strategy the next time you are about to get ass-raped by some pervert, if you like. I'll continue to carry a gun instead. Which of us will be safer? I'd bet on me.

All quotations are from posts by moosenose

Emphasis added

Why hasn't this person been called out for trolling?

Were this kind of racist, bigoted nonesense posted by one of the so-called "leftist" or "liberal" board members then I'm pretty sure a public slap-down or temporary ban would ensue.

We have here a tirade that includes insulting comments on Arabs, those who do not agree with the war, Catholics, Muslims, Germans. We have provocative statements based upon untruths. We have baiting.

We even have that Internet legendary joke of using Nazism to further one's point of view.

I don't normally say this, but not only am I annoyed at this stream of invective, but more disgusted that not a single mod has made a comment about it.

What's this place coming to?


Mr Mephisto

I seriously don't understand how what Rove, Limbaugh, et. al. do can be found so offensive by the left, but when their talking heads spit the same venom it's something to be glorified. You don't think Dean speaks to promote hatred of the right? Or when the minority senate leader calls the president stupid that's from his love and desire to bring people together, right :rolleyes: .

Both sides do the same thing. If you cannot understand that, you are not facing reality. And if you don't condemn it in your own side, you are a hypocrite.

I don't see things the same way, obviously. I feel that any opposition to a military action should take place at the polls. But to undercut it with propaganda only gives whoever we are fighting another weapon, and makes an added front. Otherwise, what ends up happening is you end up with a situation where protests only help extend, and not end a war.


This is where I disagree. We would have worn them down because they would have lost all capability of fighting a war. Had we been allowed to go into N. Vietnam, it would have been a much different fight. And as was pointed out above, the military leaders of N. Vietnam were counting on the resistance at home sapping the American will. It was figured into their battleplan.

And I do agree about our ignorance of their culture also hurt the war. We saw nothing but communists, and failed to see how China wasn't a big threat due to historic conflicts between Vietnam and China (and you can see this even today, as Vietnam is becoming willing to possibly link defense efforts with the US because of fear of Chinese buildup). But I don't think thats as big a problem in Iraq, simply because we have more experience in that area.

I definately understand your view, and in some ways think it's noble, but I don't think its conductive at all to warfare. War should be fought as efficiently as possible, so that it can be finished as soon as possible. Afterwards is the time for examining how it was conducted, and determining what (if any) punishments should be given to those running the war, or taking part in the war. I just don't see how proper persbective can be gained otherwise.

The reason he's not "been called out" is probably because there is nothing wrong with what he posted. Out of the groups you named, the only one he could be considered openly offensive to is Catholics and those who don't agree with the war. And his claims about Catholics could be defended as true (and many a lefty would probably agree with them). As for those who do not agree with the war, they say things just as inflammatory about anyone who doesn't share their viewpoint. Honestly, it just seemed you highlighted anything that cast the lefties in a less then perfect light, and assumed that is enough for action to be taken.

Much like how Rove is condemned for speeking what he feels is true where liberals are given a pass for slander, libel, and treasonous speech.

rove may be a thug but he is not a fool--he knows that the writing is on the wall for the type of politics he has been an important part of shaping...so he is doing the only thing he seems capable of doing, which is to retreat back into the variant of racist discourse that has been the stock in trade of conservative politics for years now.

so it is not surprising to find folk who actually believe this nonsense tracking its basic logic. moosenose is in a sense only a particularly inept performer--he is not responsible for the ridiculous, limited way of seeing the world he talks through--the problem is that contemporary conservative discourse make positions like his appear almost legitimate.

i tend to see in moosenose and others who argue more or less the same line near-perfect expressions of everything degenerate about conservative politics in general. for what its worth, i rarely get offended by the posts he offers, no matter how foul--i simply marvel that the framework within which he operates enables positions like his to appear coherent.

the problem is right ideology, not moosenose or any number of others like him.

vis-a-vis rove, the parallel to julius streicher was exact: same type of logic, different object. the central appeal of contemporary conservative politics is its usage of the logic of racism. you can see it in most of the moves that define the terrain: that the extreme right represents the "real america" that is persecuted by "outside" forces...the way those who oppose the extreme right are characterized is always ridiculous--as groups whose only function is to not be what the right likes to pretend it is: manly, erect, not bothered terribly by complexity, very military in a kind of village people sorta way, with an almost unseemly affection for Following Orders, waving the flag, cheesy graphics, the militarization of values, the notion of national destiny etc.....

this "logic" was key to the development of limbaugh's appeal... his talk show operated as an ideological laboratory for the right through the whole of the clinton period.

for a position like this, 911 must have seemed like a gift from heaven, the sort of thing the right had been praying for without having the manly virtue to do it directly.

so you have this "war on terror"-----a direct reflection of the internal logic of conservative ideology of the past 15 years or so: the fantasy Other which is never coherently analyzed in itself, but which operates as a signifier mostly because it is repeated endlessly, everywhere or nearly, across the whole of the conservative media apparatus--the only coherent function of the figure Terrorist--and its protoype in the tiny intellectual world of the right--"liberals"----is to show the loyalists of the right what they can pretend to be by showing them what they are not.

what makes this like racism is both the construction of the Adversary and the way in which the logic of the discourse itself is non-falsifiable---politics according to the right media apparatus is a matter of quasi-religious faith, something outlined in transcendent terms--of the type that reagan's speechwriters exploited endlessly, these rhetorical flights into high patriotic cheese.

all the while the same message--"we"--the "real americans"--are being stabbed in the back by x (the Enemy of the Day here)...."they" want to destory "us"

from an outside viewpoint, that the primary motive that would encourage belief in this kind of horseshit is increasing cultural and economic insecurity driven by the mutation of capitalist organization away from a nation-state framework--with all the problems of social reproduction/control that this entails--is so obvious as to almost not require a positive statement. but since in right world, it is axiomatic that capitalism is an unqualified good, then rationalizing this sense of collapse has to be done on other terms---wholesale avoidance is one way to do it--so "we" who are the "real americans" are being assaulted by a whole series of otherwise unrelated forces, the condensed expression of which is the enemy of the moment.

from which it follows: if the right's political power is falling apart, best to reinforce the group-hate of the Enemy---the forces of Satan if you are appealing to the evanglicals, Terror if you are appealing to the 1/3 of the country that still supports the iraq debacle--"liberals" if you are trying to go back to what worked before, the prototype.

fortunately for all of us, most folk in the empirical world who lean right here seem to have a variable relation to this ideological framework, moving in and out of its logic depending upon the issue.

but there are many folk who are simply faithful to the "logic" of the rove-style right

so the kind of racist nonsense you see in moosenose's posts--and from other ideologically driven conservatives--simply reflects the centrality of the logic of racism in conservative politics.

this is no surprise. it explains much about such appeal as this frame of reference has had.

Yeah roachboy, I'm so sure that the lefties don't have any racists on their side, despite the rantings of the oh-so-fucking tolerant:
Robert “Grand Kleagle” Byrd
Hillary “Ghandi would have been pumpin’ gas” Clinton
Cruz “Por La Raza, Todo” BustaMEChA
Je$$e “Hymietown” Jack$on
Al “Tawana Brawley” $harpton
Cynthia “Blame it all on the JOOOOOS” McKinney
Michael "I'm everything I could possibly hate" Moore

Need I go on?

The topic is about Rove.... I have on numerous threads talked of how I have a dislike for Dean's statements and find them the same as Limbaugh's. But again the topic was about Rove.

Both sides can be very divisive. If you can't debate philosophy and stick to issues but instead make personal attacks, attack the party and resort to name calling and pettiness, then you truly have no belief in your side of the issue.

When you have a congressional hearing and you flatly refuse to let the minority have a debate or express their voice.... no matter the excuse it's a sign you are weak in your position. If you are strong and truly believe in what you say you let the other side talk and make fools of themselves. What road is the GOP congress taking?

Sadly, this is evident on both sides, moreso on the GOP solely because they have talk radio and more exposure.

bodyhammer:

if you can't even manage to get the terms straight from the post above, what is the point of responding?

the ***structure*** of the central conservative arguments--the arguments on top of which all others are assembled---the ones that define who the "we" is--these arguments are transposed racism.

the claim is that this transposition is a fundamental to the appeal of this ideology.

i explained how i understood the logic to work.

short of drawing pictures, i dont know how to make this clearer.

it would be nice--just once--to see someone from the right actually address a critique of how the arguments that underpin their position actually work rather than what usually happens--which is what you do--attempt to dodge the entire problem by a kind of facile term substitution, which amounts to little more than an elementary school playground trick---which you obviously know---i know you are but what am i?

given this, i must say that it is really really difficult sometimes to not look at conservative forms of argument, look at how folk who are committed to them "bear witness" in the evangelical christian sense (you bear witness in your actions to what christ means to you---what the beliefs are is what others see in you, what you perform--you are yourself, in your actions, in your arguments, what christianity is) but if i looked at conservatism that way, i would have to conclude that it is a form of socially sanctioned idiocy--most of the arguments from the right on this thread--not all, but most--are simply idiotic. as are those examples of rovethought that prompted the thread in the first place.



a fine form of politics you represent.

roachboy,

All this talk here of conservative racism is confusing.

Who are you referring to as being the victims of this racism you mention?

jesus christ....
i am going to put aside for the moment my suspicion that you are simply being obtuse and explain this once more.

if you read the post from earlier, the argument is that the central organizing feature of conservative politics DOUBLES that of racism.

it is about creating this category of the Other--that which is outside--it does not matter which one, really: "secular humanist"--"liberal"--"terrorist"--because the point of the move is not an accurate characterization of what is outside but a generation and reinforcement of a sense of who "we" are: conservative folk, the real americans--through the defining of an outside.

from there follows the definition of a mode of conflict---They want to ruin what matters to Us, the Real America, stabbed in the back by the fifth column blah blah blah you know the routine from here, powerclown--and so because the desire to destory is imputed to the Outside, anything and everything is justified in response.

ideologically speaking, it seems that conservatives---like evangelicals----see something that confirms their beleifs in the suspicion that they are being persecuted.
they imagine that they are nice folk who react in defense--and in 3-d life this is often the case.
that the threat they react against does not exist outside their heads, or outside the claims articulated for them by their pundits of choice, is irrelevant.

the point:
the type of argument itself, this whole mode of defining who we are by who we are not and everything that follows from it:
that this is the classical form of racist argument.

it is really quite simple.

so when rove was trooped out this past week and issued his obviously fatuous pronouncements about Macho Conservative vs. Touchy Feely Liberals, what mattered about is was not the accuracy of the characterization--which was in fact so stupid as to not be worth commentary--but rather the move itself, which was--as always--to reinforce this sense of Us vs. a Them who wants to Destroy us (how of course is beside the point) and who in turn We are justified in seeking to Destroy.

i do not see what the complexity of this argument resides in: the terms of it are pretty clear.

just to spare myself the tedium of having to address the reverse of what i just wrote:
I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT "CONSERVATIVE RACISM."
SO FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THERE IS NO SUCH ARGUMENT TO BE MADE.


if you don't like the argument, then take it on in a debate: i'd be fine with countering almost anything you could say about it. just don't pretend you dont understand the central claim.

We have commited to cleaning up this board. We would very much like the help of all who frequent politics in doing so. We have no intention of playing favorites in any way and will use a very simple formula to accomplish corrective actions in here from this point on, these steps are as follows:

If you make a statement that seems to staff as inflamatory, we will Remind you of what civility is.....in Yellow

We ask that others indulge in self control and refrain from rising to the bait, as it can take time to notice these things

If you outright insult, or degrade the person of another member, we will stop you from doing so again for a period of time, and tell EVERYONE exactly why and for how long.....in orange

If anyone goes beyond this....in any way, they will never have the opportunity to do so again.....Period

You see red....things have become very bad

We only hope these extreme measures can be temporary, and allow some of the immaturity to leech out of this board. If not.....our ranks are going to thin quite a bit. If these rules seem harsh or "Fascist" to you.....

Deal With It

Lunitics abound in the political sphere, it would seem:

"[The Democrats'] position on the filibuster is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's Mine.'" Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"[The estate tax is] the morality of the holocaust...The Nazis were for gun control. The Nazis were for high marginal tax rates. Do you want to talk about who's closer politically to national socialism...the Right or the Left?"
Grover Norquist, GOP Activist

"[The Kyoto Treaty] would deal a powerful blow on the whole humanity similar to the one humanity experienced when Nazism and Communism flourished." Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so Liberal America is now doing to Evangelical Christians. It's no different. It's the same thing. It's happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the Liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." Pat Robertson of the 700 Club

"Now forgive me but [the Democrats' tax plan] is right out of Nazi Germany. I don't understand why all of a sudden we are passing laws that sound as if they are right out of Nazi Germany." Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX)

"I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: Feminazi's." Rush Limbaugh


Am I the only one that sees the repetition of the "Nazi" theme a political strategy?

And I see this side as well. But my practical side bumps up against it. This isn't the way it works. Certainly we had uniformity behind WWII, and perhaps WWI. But I suspect that the civil war had pretty significant dissenters, in the North. Not sure what vague memories of school generate that thought, but something sure does.

More relevantly though: nothing is going to change the dissent now. Whether it's because we are too polarized, or because of basic political or philosophical differences, I don't see it ending.

Because it's the way it is (until something dramatic happens to end the polarization)(hell freezing over??), I don't find arguments that we need to get together and support <whatever> particularly useful. I just don't think it will happen. Telling others to "get with the program" actually seems to make things worse, IMO. (not that you are saying that, exactly)

I've certainly seen this opinion. And it's sure impossible to definitively argue against. It has a tremendous amount of logic on it's side.

But boy, the Vietnamese can sure hold a grudge. You mention their current reactions to the Chinese. That's just the tip of iceberg. Vietnam was ruled with an iron fist for hundreds of years by the Chinese (as previously mentioned). And they never stopped fighting. Well, until they kicked the Chinese out, that is.

One example: we bombed the BEJEEZUS out of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and we closed it for 2 whole days during the war. We had planes, bombs, crazy munitions, money, etc. They had crappy shovels, bodies and will power. And it was no contest.

I hear what you say, about a gloves off, no-holds-barred type of war. It could sure have been 'over' pretty quickly. Sort of like Gulf War II...

We could have declared Mission Accomplished and everything. I just don't believe it would have been over. Sort of like...

rac·ism, n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Pardon my ignorance, but do you really think it is accurate to call this type of political rhetoric racism? You can make the assertion that the conservatives are being 'divisive' here, but do you really think it is accurate to say it is 'racism'? Exactly which race of people is being called out by Rove here? Are Liberals a 'race'?

Its all quite abstract.

Hehe Durbin is saddly from my farked up state, and I laughed out loud when he gave his tearful appology once he finally got the clue just how stupid his statement was.

Dumbass.

At least he apologized. I truly hoped the Dem's wouldn't be caught up in the Nazi jingoism/political strategy of the Rep's. I believe all Nazi bs slinging needs an apology and must stop now from both parties.

How pathetical we must look to outside observers.

But the problem is that we are left at a stalemate-protesters won't quit protesting, and supporters won't quit supporting. I see one as being more in the wrong not necessarily from an ideological standpoint, but from a practical standpoint. People's lives are being put in danger by some of the anti-war rhetoric. And its also having no disernable impact on stopping the war.

I think the comparisons to the pre-Vietnam wars are apt. Even though there were people against many of these wars, once the war started the protests stopped (except in fringe cases). The contry presented a unified front. And the election seemed to make clear to many supporters that more people were at least passively in favor of the Iraqi actions. So to many of them, the anti-war camp seems to be whiny and anti-american because they haven't shown the unity found in other wars (or at least quiet disapproval).



There's a big difference in that Vietnam had a recently deposed government that had some native support before the communists came into power. It would have been seen more like restoring things to the previous status quo after a military revolution. But in Iraq we are attempting to establish a new government, so there is more of a vacuum effect. But it's hard to look back and know for sure what would have happened if things had been done differently.

Its funny because for some members of the left it was true.

I don't see what the issue is either.

Its pretty weak compared to Dean's diatribes lately.

I disagree.
The facts prove you wrong. At least one other person posted that they found some of his rantings insulting.

I have nothing against someone posting their opinions. But claiming that all liberals support terrorism, that all of those who oppose the war are offering succor to "the enemy", that the construction of anti-American murals justify invasion, that members of moveon.org are traitors and other such outlandish claims are just wrong.

Mollify your rhetoric, and you increase the chances that any valid point you may be making will be noticed or accepted.


Mr Mephisto

[QUOTE=Ustwo]Its funny because for some members of the left it was true.
[QUOTE]

Name me 1 NATIONALLY prominent Dem. Just 1.

If you can with proof and source link and not 1 senetence from a speech that you choose to warp, while the rest of the speech condemns, I'll never post on politics again..... But if you can't I expect the same from you or at least an appology.

Just 1 UsTwo...... Just 1 that blatantly showed more compassion for the terrorists. IF you can't that statement is inflammatory, a troll and showing a true public hatred.

Hey Zeus Freaking Crisp, if our politicians keep dividing us anymore we may as well just throw the towel in and go to civil war or have states just cede from the union. It's bullshit that our politicians are so warped and wrapped up in destroying each other and that people on here pass that down..... Grow up name calling and this hatred is grade school bully material.

As we name call and blame the other side; both sides are taking rights away, both sides are self serving and selling us out to lobbyists and people just listen to these name calling games and bullying and play along with that.... missing and allowing entirely what is going on, how pathetic are we?

How educated about naziism and how are we bettering ourselves; that we allow Naziism to be thrown about by anyone in government?

So....let me get this straight.....the people who advocate keeping large numbers of our inadequately equipped troops in a country that the U.S. military invaded pre-emptively, without legal or logisitical justification, on the orders of a civilian U.S. government that has evinced the opposite of integrity, honesty, or competence, in this campaign, and in most of it's other endeavors....are.....the patriots? And.....the people who protest pre-emptive war, illegal invasion, sending our troops to fight and die when our national security is not at stake, all while putting them in harm's way when it was clearly not a "last resort", these people are undermining our troops by urging their swift return home, while working to expose the deceipt and corruption of the current U.S. administration.......these folks are the traitors ???

Hmmmm, thanks Host looks like Haliburton is doing what we pay them for.

Of course this administration and party in charge keep voting to cut veterans benefits, keep closing VA hospitals and keep reneging on their promises..... but call the opposition the war haters.

And yes, Vets rights and our government honoring their commitments and promises, and making sure our military is adequately supplied is a huge issue with me. The fact the Rove makes inflammatory statements that say Dems. are non patriotic and want to help the terrorists while his party keeps cutting the benefits, the promises they make, under supplying our troops and allowing Haliburton to keep making Billions and more contracts is wrong.

But what is more pathetic are the people who defend these attrocities:

What's with all the sudden compassion for the Military? The concern for alleged equipment shortages/malfunctions is notable, but what is the meaning of it in the face of fighting a supposed illegal war??? On one hand you want the troops properly equipped to do their job, on the other you say the war is illegal and they shouldn't be there in the first place. What am I missing? :confused:

You are missing nothing. I have read the posts here and the message is clear. Some are capable of both supporting the troops as needed, and questioning the War in general.

Rather than pretend to not understand, in an attempt to inflame others. perhaps hit the back button or type something of value.

unless you wish your fellow members to believe you actually have failed to understand what is written here....extensively

You must admit tecoyah-san, it sure is an...unorthodox...way to express support for the troops.

I wonder if a soldier in Iraq reading this would consider it 'support'. Morale-wise.

/back OT

Much better....thank you

Perhaps worded in this way, we can get honest and considered response to a question

If i were a soldier, i'd wonder about the unorthodoxy of an administration that starts wars with an undersized, undersupplied military force, cuts veteran benefits, and then still expects people to believe that said administration 'supports" the military for any cause other than the accumulation of political capital. How would your morale be if the administration who sent you somewhere couldn't be bothered to ever acknowledge that you're undersized and undersupplied?

To be clear though, i think troop support pissing contests are silly. If all those who were pro-war actually supported the military, they'd all have joined up by now and if all those who cared that our troops were undersupplied actually cared, they would send support in the form of money or supplies. I myself am unsure how to support troops who are halfway accross the world when i don't have money, and don't believe in joining the military for philosphical reasons. I think it will be more important what we do when the troops come home. War is traumatic and most of our soldiers will be in need of some form of counseling. I'm not sure where cutting veteran's benefits comes into that equation, though.

I absolutely, and without equivocation think this war was a bad idea. I think we were sold a bill of goods, and been mislead to get us there. I have zero respect for the administration, their intent and their execution of this war.

I absolutely support the troops. I support spending money to get them equipment to do their jobs. I support spending money on Veteran benefits when they get home. I support raising taxes to pay for those two ideas. Or making cuts in other (military, if possible[how many new weapon systems would need to be scraped to pay for all that? a quarter of one?) areas to pay for them. I believe supporting the troops starts by listening to the Pentagon and sending the troops THEY recommend, not what politicians think we should do.

We are there, and need to do a credible job there. And we need to have a plan to get out of there. With timetables.


If I were a soldier in Iraq (like my cousin, my friend, and my (work) acquantance) I would find my morale to be BETTER with the above sentiment then with the blind "i support the administration" stance. I can point to 3 soldiers who find no "morale busting" with the support the troops/dislike the war stance.

Others are entitled to whatever opinion they hold, of course.

Now it's my turn for the "not understanding": I've always been confused (since the time 2 years ago argueing with Sixate on these boards) at the problem people see in holding those two positions [love the soldiers/hate the war]. I've been called unpatriotic many times, both on boards and in person, when I've expressed my opinion.

I honestly don't understand. They are two different things. How can I NOT have 2 separate opinions of them?

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. We aren't trying to win the battle, we're fighting to win a war.

I admit I haven't been to the middle east, so this isn't first hand knowledge. But I've talked to several freedom loving arab-americans and they all say the same thing.

The anti-US propaganda fed to the middle-eastern populace comes from the dictators of these countries. From the streets of Cairo to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, name the place, They have centrally controlled media who has been the mouthpiece of the dictators for years. The people in these countries have been indoctrinated from the youngest age that america is evil and the US is the devil . They have been taught this from an early age because the dictators know what threatens their hold on power, and that is American ideals of justice and liberty for all. If the people in these countries were fed the honest truth since their birth we would have seen democratic revolutions take place decades ago. These people hate us because of who we are, not because of anything we do.

The terrorists and dictators alike will, of course, use every bit of information they can to further their agenda. Anything bad that comes from the press or out of the war they will spin to their advantage. But they hated us long before this war and being nice to them isn't going to change a thing.

The only thing this culture responds to is strength and force. America needs to be seen as strong in its commitment and will. It needs to be seen as a country that doesn't bend to the will of others. If we are seen as doing whatever it takes to get people to like us, pulling out of the middle east or even just closing guantanamo because of all the negative press, we will be seen as a country of ass-kissers. The middle east will gain no respect for us out of such actions, but will interpret those actions as a sign of weakness.

We need to be forceful. We need to stay the course in iraq. By turning iraq into a succesful and powerful democracy in the middle east with a free market and a free press iraq will be a beacon to the rest of the middle east. An actual example to counter the decades of anti-US propaganda and illustrate what the united states stands for. We need to give the people in the middle east a reason not to turn to terrorism and extremism and that is by spreading the freedoms we enjoy (and take for granted) to all, especially those who hate us.

And at some point, with some people, the only way to do that is with unbridled, blunt force.

And he explained that German people weren't who he was talking about.


How are these claims either outlandish or wrong? There's more truth in these claims than in the tons of posts/threads supposedly stating that the Bush admin. are war criminals. It seems you only disagree because it reflects negatively on views you hold, and not because there's any inherent invalidity in what moosenose said.

If only the left could follow that advice.

I'm not calling you or fitherton or anyone here unpatriotic or "on the side of the terrorists". What needs to be considered though, in my opinion, is the general anti-war sentiment as expressed in the mainstream media for example. I see no benefit whatsoever for Ted Kennedy and the like to constantly be referring to this thing as a quagmire, where the intent seems to be that of proving Bush wrong by any means necessary, nevermind the fallout. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for dissent, for counterbalance, but where should the line be drawn? Would it be right for dissent to cause failure in Iraq? Rumsfeld said something the other day in his Senate hearing which I agree with: He mentioned that the media was complicit in "pushing" an anti-war agenda, as opposed to "honest and objective" reporting because the only hope - the only hope - the insurgency has at this point is for America and the World to grow apathetic.

I agree with you totally, and I understand that, since birth, many of the citizens of the middle east have been taught nothing but hatred for the United States.

What I'm proposing is a change in the actions that we take that make them hate us and who we are. That is, stop meddling in their business, stop forcing our ideals on them, and allow those nations to be sovereign to themselves. By going to war in Iraq, we are directly imposing said ideals of justice and liberty for all onto a people who do not want/agree with these ideals. Thus, we are hated for our "oppression".

As an economist, I realize that, in most cases, free markets and democracy are the best course of action for an underdeveloped nation. However, this is not always the case. Some dictatorships are not necessarily bad and can work to the nation's advantage (China, for example, is now growing because their leaders have finally understood how to use this to their advantage).

What bothers me more than anything is the ridiculous missionary-esque belief that many in Washington have that we need to spread "freedom" and "democracy" to all parts of the world. By doing this, we are, in a way, really just oppressing those same people (though in a different manner). They don't want our intervention. If a country wants to retain its dictatorial ruler - and not stand up and fight their own democratic revolution, started by themselves (the Colonial Americans did not recieve help until the war was fairly established and their side had a possibility for success, remember?) - then we should allow them to remain slaves and worry about strengthening and resolving problems at home.

Oddly enough, I was raised Roman Catholic, and am German. :lol:

I don't see how you can oppress someone by giving them freedom. Especially where there are large numbers of dissidents who lack the power to overthrow the regime in charge. For instance, there were slaves in the south that did not want freedom, and went back to their masters even after the war. They didn't understand the basic concept. Now were these people being oppressed?

Also, you give China as an example of a dictatorship working toward the advantage of the country. That is true, China's power is growing, but the effects aren't really felt by the general populace. All they are doing is making peasants who previously were ag-oriented into manufacturing slaves.

And also, there is no correlation between the American revolution and any possible revolution that may have developed in Iraq. America was separated from it's "overlord" by an ocean, and was also a vast area that was largely unexplored. Iraq's dictator was in-house, so his control would be more absolute. A more apt comparison would be Scotland's repeated attempts at freedom from England.

But they don't hate us because of anything we do. They hate us because of what they've been told by their leaders for generations. The way to "get them to like us" isn't by bowing down to the demands of extremists. Its by fighting them and *gulp* implementing democracy in that region.

"Justice and liberty for all" as well as economic and social freedom are not Western Ideals, but Human ideals. Do you not believe that every person wants to be free? You don't opress people by liberating them from a totalitarian regime. We are not oppressing anyone in the middle east, except for saddam. By giving iraqis the tools they need to free themselves from oppression they will have a better understanding of who we really are and what we stand for, and that will spread throughout the middle east.

Now if we cut and run, leave their region and country in ruins with a shakey government, well, then they will have another idea of who we really are and what we stand for.

Being an economist myself, I think in terms of costs and benefits, and I see the benefits of our actions in Iraq far outweighing the costs - in the long run.

Having been military and knowing many still in (some in the war zone), my friends and area vets know that I bend over backwards to help them. They know I do not believe in this war. They also know I am very outspoken about the troops being underfunded, underequipped and lied to about benefits. And they know I can be both and that they can be both.

This administration keeps underfunding and underequipping, the soldier and lying to vets. To say you support the war, the administration and turn a blind eye to those problems while you question others patriotism makes no sense to the soldier and the vet. How can you say you support the troops when you allow them to not have the equipment and the materials they need to fully succeed. Many will tell you that this is Vietnam all over again and that they see a draft coming.

People speak of "morale" so I ask what is more morale busting:

Someone like myself saying the troops are fighting in a war that we were lied to about and are doing so underequipped, undersupplied, staying longer than they should, (while Halliburton continues to make billions) and coming home to find they were lied to about their benefits from this administration.

Or someone who blindly follows this administration denies, ignores and stays quiet over the facts and simply says, you're unpatriotic and not supporting the troops if you don't believe in the war.

Out of the rather limited options you provided, I'd say the first, definitely. Where do you get the idea that the soldiers are "underequipped, undersupplied, staying longer than they should"??? You make it sound like the Russians getting run out of Afghanistan in moldy tennis shoes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Does every single soldier among the 150,000 or so over there now have every nut & bolt they WANT? No. Do they have what they NEED to do the job. Yes, they do. They're doing it right now. The Iraqis are busy preparing a constitution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Latest war in sharp contrast to past efforts

By Terry Boyd and Ward Sanderson, Stars and Stripes


Soldiers in their battle rattle in Iraq probably don’t want to hear this, but generations of American soldiers have lived harder and fought longer with less training, equipment and support.

World War II troops headed to Europe and the Pacific not knowing when they would return home. Some servicemembers in Vietnam didn’t communicate with home for months. Even Desert Storm warriors somehow survived without the Internet or much else in the way of leisure.

One soldier in Iraq brought a combat veteran’s perspective to how today’s troops compare with their predecessors.

First Sgt. William Oxendine, 53, a National Guardsman with the Arizona-based 855th Military Police Co., served in Vietnam, Haiti and in both wars with Iraq.

In a survey of living conditions in Iraq, Oxendine noted that today’s soldier has it made compared with yesterday’s veterans. In his opinion, most complaints about morale aren’t justified. “We have more things and opportunities than anyone else in the world. Soldiers of today are just as well-trained as in the past, but they’re definitely softer when it comes to living conditions.”

They expect improvements to happen quickly, “and now we’re in a situation where these things [Internet, phones and television] are not available,” Oxendine wrote. “A lot of young people can’t comprehend why they’re not here.”

Oxendine made one phone call in 18 months while serving in Vietnam in 1970 and 1971, he wrote.

Others in Iraq think that in today’s high-tech military, historical comparisons don’t hold up.

One master sergeant with 21 years in the Army wrote that in the new millennium, troops do and should expect better camps.

“This campaign is certainly my worst ever,” the military policeman wrote from Iraq. “We deserve better living conditions, with air conditioning, showers and laundry facilities. This is the year 2003, not the 1950s or 1960s. Technology is with us. Yet our living conditions still are below standard.”

A first lieutenant in Iraq wrote, “Soldiers or people comparing this conflict to WWII, Korea or Vietnam are not making valid comparisons of size, scale, scope, mission, enemy, mood, weapons and so on.”

Others believe that America’s military missions have changed since the wars of past, while troops’ expectations have risen. This and the advent of a demanding, all-volunteer force can test morale.

Sixty years ago “it was a different world, and mostly because of the clarity of the war,” said historian Thomas Allen, National Geographic writer and author of “World War II: America at War, 1941-1945.”

“And I think if you look at World War II, then Korea, then Vietnam, then Iraq I and then Iraq II, I think after World War II you lose the war aim, and the clarity of war,” Allen said. “There’s a fog around it somehow.”

A National Guardsman surveyed by Stars and Stripes in Fallujah agreed. “In past wars, from what I’ve read or seen, it seemed as though everyone had a ‘known’ mission,” wrote Spc. Shawn Smoot of the 890th Engineer Battalion. “We’re in the dark.”

In the Stars and Stripes survey and in interviews, many soldiers in Iraq referenced yesterday’s wars; some defensively, some with awe.

One soldier at Baghdad International Airport pined for the days of traditional combat. “I think soldiers in the past wars were in real wars, not this peacekeeping deal,” said Sgt. Jose Gutierrez, 26. “They are the heroes and I give it to them for being real soldiers — unlike us, complaining about no Internet or phones or air conditioning.”

Though soldiers in Iraq endure temperatures as high as 140 degrees, fighting conditions were just as terrible during the campaigns of World War II.

“They had a helluva time,” said Herman Chanowitz, 88, a WWII veteran now living in Naples, Italy. “Living conditions here in Italy during the wintertime, going from one particular hill they captured to another hill. Fighting and fighting and fighting under horrible conditions. I don’t know how they could take it all. Nothing to look forward to but getting to the next hill and capture it.”

You obviously missed all my links above and instead chose to use a government run source. Stars and Stripes also was used to glorify Vietnam, which of course the GOP has found a new love for.

Like I said before before you question look at the research I've already provided above with links and from multiple sources from multiple positions.

As for Stars and Stripes comparing this war and WW2 they fail to mention in the article that the Russians, the British, the French resistance, and half of Europe helped us, while here we are basically on our own.

There was also a huge difference in that if we lost WW2 there may not be a home to go back to.

Comparing this to WW2 and using it as an excuse for underfunding, undersupplying and keeping troops there longer than they should be is BS. WW2 our troops were given the best possible weaponry and support, we do not give our troops that today.

WW2 vets came home and the government gave them the benefits they were promised ...........we do not honor that for today's troops or veterans.

So keep reading biased one sided propaganda that instead of talking about the truth it just flag waves. And I will continue to do research and speak out and in the end after all this is said and done we'll both have clear consciences because we did what we each chose to believe in, right?

I know my conscience is clear and that almost every vet and soldier I know appreciates what I have to say and doesn't see it as "morale busting" but rather fighting to get what they were promised and what they need.

Why BS? Just saying BS is a pretty subjective basis for an argument. If by your own admission the troops were given the best possible weaponry and support during WW2, what has changed since? Who in the world is more prepared militarily than the US? France?

Those myriad of links you referred me to reference Veteran's benefits, not the status and readiness of the US forces in Iraq. Veteran's benefits are a different matter for a different thread.

If one is to believe what the mainstream media (and the like) says about the supposed readiness of the troops, one could easily come to the conclusion that the troops aren't ready for a game of checkers let alone a war. But the facts prove otherwise, and progress continues.



POSTURE STATEMENT OF GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS, USAF CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

Joint Chief of Staff General Richard Myers Report to Congress

(Excerpts)

"I am privileged to report to Congress on the state of the United States Armed Forces.

As they were a year ago, our Nation’s Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen are currently operating within our borders and around the globe with dedication, courage and professionalism, alongside our Coalition partners, to accomplish a variety of very demanding missions. Global terrorism remains a serious threat, and the stakes in the GLOBAL War on Terrorism remain high.

Over the past year, I have told you that with the patience, will, and commitment of our Nation we would win the War on Terrorism. The support we have received from the Congress has been superb. From Congressional visits to deployed personnel, to support for transformational warfighting programs, to funding for security and stability operations, to improved pay and benefits for our troops, your support for our servicemen and women has enabled us to make significant progress in the War on Terrorism."

---

"Despite the operational demands on our forces, we remain ready to support the President’s National Security Strategy to assure our allies, while we dissuade, deter and defeat any adversary. The draft National Military Strategy (NMS), developed in consultation with the Service Chiefs and Combatant Commanders describes the ways we will conduct military operations to protect the United States against external attack and aggression, and how we will prevent conflict and surprise attack and prevail against adversaries. The strategy requires that we possess the forces to defend the US homeland and deter forward in four critical regions. If required, we will swiftly defeat the efforts of two adversaries in an overlapping timeframe, while having the ability to “win decisively” in one theater. In addition, because we live in a world marked by uncertainty, our forces must also be prepared to conduct a limited number of lesser contingencies while maintaining sufficient force generation capabilities as a hedge against future challenges."



Troop Rotations Won't Affect Readiness, Defense Leaders Say

Troop rotations in Iraq during the next several months will create a temporary transition time in Iraq—but will in no way affect U.S. readiness in Iraq or anywhere else in the world, Defense leaders told Pentagon reporters today.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld acknowledged that moving a large percentage of the 123,000 combat-experienced troops from Iraq will create a temporary sense of turbulence, which he said "is always undesirable."

"You lose situational awareness, you lose relationships, you lose the experience," he said. "The people going over are ready, but the people there are experienced and really know their stuff."

On the plus side, Rumsfeld said, units deploying to Iraq will be better configured to meet current tasks than the departing troops.

In an effort to minimize disruptions during the transition, Rumsfeld said defense leaders must "manage the transition very carefully.

"There is going to have to be overlap," he said. ""We are going to have to be sensitive to the fact that the knowledge that is built up there and the relationships have to be transferred … in a way that is appropriate."

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the rotations will introduce huge logistical challenges as well. "In the next four months, we are going to pull off a logistics feat that will rival any in history, I think, as we move a major part of the Army," he said. "Well over the majority of the Army combat units and a lot of the reserve component will move."

Rumsfeld acknowledged that redeploying troops will "clearly have to be reconstituted" when they return to their home bases. "Any element that was over there in combat is going to have to come back and … get their equipment fixed … (and) engage in the kind of training that their unit is designed to deal with," he said.

"When you're using the force as hard as we're using the force right now," Myers agreed, "you have to have time to regenerate the force when it comes home."

Myers said defense plans account for the time required for these forces to reconstitute themselves and that the U.S. military will remain fully ready — even in the event that it is called to respond to an additional war or contingency before all troops return home from Iraq.

Both Rumsfeld and Myers were quick to dismiss a reporter's questions about the ability of the units returning from Iraq to fit into those plans as they reconstitute.

"The forces that are coming back have just experienced something that you cannot experience in peacetime," Rumsfeld said.

"They have just fought a war. And they have developed skills and knowledge about deployments and about combat and about logistics and about redeployment. It's the kind of thing you'd spend billions of dollars conducting an exercise to give them that kind of experience."

i continue to find it baffling that anyone could possibly use karl rove's statements as the basis for a coherent assessment of the situation in iraq.

but to balance out the trend in the above discussion, this column from today's manchester guardian.

note in particular the orwell quote at the end, which i think more than a bit a propos for those who continue to imagine it reasonable to support this farce ....


source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...515375,00.html

It matters not to whom he was referring, but that sweeping generalization that "the Liberals would claim [Hitler] to be their best buddy".

That's just baiting and complete hogwash. Oh... and completely offensive.

If murals, however tasteless, are basis for invasion, why hasn't the US invaded Cuba or Iran? Because it's not, so making that link is just baiting. Again.

If you want to justify the invasion, an invasion I supported by the way, then use facts or at least well thought out arguments. Not propaganda.

Also, all liberals do not "SUPPORT TERRORISTS", so again that claim is false, provocative, insulting and, once more, just baiting...

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? I don't think Bush is a war criminal and find those kinds of statements equally insulting. In other words, I can rise above the childish name calling.

I refer you to the statement above.


Mr Mephisto

What I truly have no comprehension of is why the GOP has all the power and yet they still feel the need to badmouth the opposition. To try to destroy them..... I really don't understand that.

i offered a schematic explanation earlier in the thread for this, pan, but it was greeted with feigned incomprehension and i reacted by growing bored with the thread.

rove's speech is not about an accurate representation of anything to do with iraq--it is about trying to redraw the line that seperates conservativeland from other spaces, conservatives from other folks, in an effort to find some way to slow the massive leaks in the pollratings of bushworld with reference to iraq.
it was a warm-up act for the charade you will see tonight from fort bragg, during which cowboy goerge will try to same thing.

nothing whatsoever to do with an accurate portrayal of the situation in iraq--but you see this thread as a demonstration that core conservatives operate best in the context of wholly distorted understandings of the war, that their arguments require wholesale distortion to even make sense.

It's not just about Iraq though, it started before Iraq, it started with Clinton and has gotten truly worse. You have what used to be good politicians selling themselves out on issues they don't believe in and when they try to be true to themselves they get bashed by their own party.

Hell, because Dewine was part of the "ceasefire agreement" on filibusters the GOP went after his kid to make sure he wouldn't get elected into office down in Cincy. There's talk of the GOP trying to find a "more conservative candidate" to run against Dewine himself. And the party is doing the same thing to Voinivich. These are 2 senators that are loyal to the party but chose to be true to themselves, not just rubber stamps for the President and the GOP repays them by working against them?

(I'm sure there are examples of Dems. doing the same thing, but I haven't seen it.)

I guess I don't understand the hatred that drives these people to believe and find nothing wrong with what the Limbaughs and Roves say. In fact they defend it.

And yet, when a Dem like Dean or Durbin say something, there is a howl and they have to appologize. And the truth of the matter is, a vast majority of Dems I know don't condone the hate speeches.

Whereas, the Roves and Limbaughs never appologize nor admit they were wrong or twisted facts. Neo-con supporters (NOT ALL GOP) seem to thrive on it and spew hatred and in forums like this resort to name calling treating those who disagree as beneath them or stating things then when asked to prove their sources ignore the requests or say "do your own work".

Are we not a nation that wants to better ourselves and yet our leaders on both sides (although as stated above one side is far far better at it than the other) are trying very hard to divide us..... one has to ask why?

Both sides want this nation to be the best, to have prosperity and freedom for all right?

I truly don't understand why people who supposedly love freedom and civil liberties go to such extremes to destroy each other, and work to take rights away from those who disagree with them or worse yet, stand there and degrade, denigrate and verbally assault them.

We are 1 nation people and we better start getting along and working for the same common good or we will eventually destroy that which we love and Left or Right will have noone to blame but themselves.

roachboy, your concpet of concervative transposed racism was a very intresting read. Thanks for posting that.

this is something i tried to address earlier, pan:
i think the basic mode of conservative argument is about self-definition first--you are either with "us" or against "us" a priori. this is NOTa typical mode of argument in a democratic context...this reduces politics to identification and identification to a matter of faith.

a short digression on the public mode of deploying neocon ideology: i think the neocons are people more like wolfowitz, what has been labelled the mayberry machiavellian trend within the administration--the wider right ideology is not identical with that--it is a complicated collage of rightwing tropes, some of which come from evangelical christian ideology, some from old-school american first types spaces, some from a kind of populist know-nothingism pioneered as a seperate ideological position by pat buchanan. end digression.

anyway, the arguments particular to rovethought work this way--he tried to rehearse the line that seperates "us" from "them" with a series of arbitrary assertions about what conservatives are not. the claims about iraq follow from this, and are shaped not by their analytic power (there isnt any) but by the identification with a far-right "us" first and foremost. this type of argument has been a constant feature of conservative ideology in its present form since the clinton period, you are right--it is a central feature of limbaugh "thought" which seems to have devolved alongside the wider ideology.

conservative ideology is not about a coherent description of the world. it is about defining a group as "us" and on that basis adding features that inflect this identification one way then another.

the other main feature is projection: take the example of "liberal media biais"--this is obviously false analytically--but it functions in conservativeland to make the fabrication of a completely ideological alternative media structure seem like a defensive response, when the fact is that it is the right that is seeking to change the rules of the game of journalism and conflate information with politics in a wholesale manner. presented as a positive argument, there is no way this would have flown--presented as a reaction, it does (it appears to redress a prior imbalance, when the fact is the opposite)--this only functions logically--politically--on the basis of the core conservative ideological move--identification as one of "us"

i think the responses from conservatives on this thread are perfect exemplifications of this process--they asserted themselves with considerable bile in an entirely fantastic manner on the basis of elements of rovethought, which operated to affirm their status as conservatives--on that basis, the various features of the delerium that accompanies continued support for bushwar got reasserted one after the other.

this is how rovethought works. this is how conservative ideology works.

and it is par for the course that when you say as much, conservatives pretend they do not understand.

it must be difficult if you work in the manner outlined above and hold your core political beliefs as a matter of faith routed through identification with a category to process dissonance. in fact, it appears close to impossible.--again, just read through the conservative responses on this thread alone for evidence.

;) Gotcha Roachboy, maybe some others will start to see...... one can hope.

Yet another reason why this board is so broke....

Were I to venture a guess, I would say Hardknock is unhappy with the TFP.
Truthfully...this board is a nonprofit....but you can call it broke if you wish. Or perhaps you mean Broken.....In some ways it is broken, usually by negativity projected by members.

This we know how to fix though.....

First of all, it seems to me that no one over there wants "freedom" as you've described it in the first place. It's funny how none of the people in Iraq are standing up to fight for their freedom. Being forceful is just digging ourselves into a deper hole. Since none of the Iraqis are trying to take their country back from the insurgents, we can begin to assume that one, they either want us to do all the dirty work, or they just aren't interested in our version of freedom. Without a clear cut exit strategy, without a plan to turn over control of Iraq to it's people, we will just maintain the status quo of Iraq being a haven for terrorists. Which is worse off than when Saddam was in power.

America will be better off indeed.

The politics board is just a reflection of what's going on in politics.
When you hear crap like this from Karl Rove, one of President Bush's top advisors, it's tough to expect anything better from the members of this board.
I know some will say that politics has always been like this, but I personally can't remember a time when there has been this much division. I'm sure alot of it has to do with 9/11 and I'm not sure it's going to get any better.

The reason this board is "broke" is because no one uses this http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/images/...ons/report.gif and http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/images/...ons/report.gif in two of the styles)button. If you see something is wrong, report it. Otherwise, don't complain because you're not doing anything to help solve the problem.

You're absolutely right. This division in America will be our downfall as far as I'm concerned. Our inability to work together will continue to divide us, nothing will get done, and we will remain vulnerable. This board clearly reflects this as it is a very good example of where America is right now.

So.....maybe we can begin to work towards some level of understaning in here......isnt that the point of this place, I for one, certainly hope so.

Otherwise I am wasting my time even trying.

And Bush has come up with "We need to claim we're tough on terrorists, while invading someone who didn't attack us and as a result not having the resources to get the guy who did."

We DO need to understand that if we continue to act like the world's cop, people will be pissed and they might just try and hurt us. That doesn't excuse the actions of the terrorists, but it does explain them.

Lemme put it another way. If you starve your rottweiler and then give him a steak and then reach down and try to yank the steak away, he'll probably bite you. Now, a dog should NEVER bite his master, but the master bears some responsibility in that he orchestrated the events leading up to getting bitten.

.



It is interesting on my way to Mansfield today I heard a little bit of Limbaugh and he was talking how there are several articles coming out that point to the partisanship and how people have never stuck closer to their beliefs and are becoming more polarized. I didn't hear it all and he didn't say much about it, but it was the most interesting thing he had to say in a very long time.

Of course according to him the Conservatives have never moved and Liberals are so mad that they lost power that they are the ones polarizing.

He did say Rove was right and started to quote Rove but stopped REAL FAST. :lol: :lol: :lol:

As I have stated in this thread and others, it goes from leadership down and neither side trusts nor is willing to compromise. Why?

Because those on the right who do try to compromise find themselves attacked by the Right and possibly out of a job (IE Voinivich and Dewine). McCain is the only one that gets away with it because he has such a following. They tried, I remember Limbaugh used to skewer the man and talk about how he might be nuts from being a POW. But it didn't succeed.

Those on the Left when they try get burnt. How many times do we have to hear how Kennedy wrote the Education bill only for it to be purposefully underfunded?

The Right seems to be ok with attacking the Left calling us Nazis, commies, whackjobs and so on. YET, when someone from the Left tries to the Right cries and feigns innocence.

The Right couldn't stop attacking Clinton over any move he made, yet when the Left so much as questions a Bush move, they are attacked, their patriotism questioned and the Right does everything to smear and change the subject or warp it.

Newsweek was forced to appologize because of the story they ran about Gitmo and the Right demanded that it was wrong and lies...... and yet within 2 weeks other reports came out from other sources (not all biased to the Left) and the Pentagon never denied the flushing of Korans and abuse in Gitmo.

The Right now uses Gitmo as a joke and says the world is against us.

Now I do have a serious question for the right........... after 9/11 every country in the world offered to help and do what they could but between then and now they seem to distrust us and are against us...... my question is.... what changed??????

The Right is so power hungry instead of working to change laws they go after the one branch that so far has been neutral and they cannot control as of yet, the Judicial. They are claiming how far off the Justices THEY put in are.

There is no doubt in my mind the Right works to divide so that they can keep power. When your party's prominent figures do not debate, do not argue facts, incite hatreds and even say they refuse to listen to anything the Left has to say, you cannot tell me they are working to truly better the country and bring us all together as Americans.

This all trickles down, especially when you have people like Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and even the politicians egging their followers on to literally hate anyone with differing viewpoints. Who do the Dems have that can be heard everyday nationally doing the same thing????? NOONE.... Dean may get blurbs every so often, but the Right get to pound EVERYDAY with no competition.

You go to a party and you act like a king and demand everyone do as you tell them and you'll find yourself isolated and probably kicked out real fast..... that is what the Right is doing not only to the Left but to the rest of the international community...... and yes, it will be what destroys us..... because we are no longer looking at each other as brothers and fellow American citizens equal under government, law and God, but we see each other now as left or right and if you are on the wrong side you are hated and bullied.

Is that truly what America is about? Not understanding each other, not showing each other respect and trying to work together but out to destroy those who in our minds are now our enemies because they have differing viewpoints and ideas.

If that is what America has come to....... then perhaps I need to move to a BETTER MORE TOLERANT NATION.

The vast majority of the public does not have the knowledge nor the desire to make educated judgements on political issues. The curent Republican idiology in no way reflects the real world. The real wold of politics is understood by few and accepted by less. The only responce one would get from the majority of the population if one presents them with the full spectrum of a political issues is confusion, frusturation and finally boredom.

It is also important to note that any group, including liberals, practice idiologies of their own and liberal idiologies are often no closer to reality then the concervative counterpart.

The bizare and often amusing situation occurs when someone attempts to comprehend the political scape though a party catered idiology. What one gets is something akin to a person attempting to explain away the modern world though religious dogma - absurdity.

There's a huge difference between what you say and what is happening today though.

There is no middle ground, no debate, no trying to discuss and find compromise for the good off all...... which is healthy and forward moving for all.

But today, it is just divisiveness, hatred, pandering to extremists and trying to destroy each other........ which does nothing but create more apathy and from the people in the middle a feeling of hopelessness that they truly aren't being heard and eventually the end to all forward movement and civility.

So what you're saying is that we're screwed either way, right? If we play "World Cop" by smacking bad people down, people will hate us, but if we don't play "World Cop" to smack down bad people, people will hate us.

Saddam committed many acts which qualified as casus belli. We literally could take our pick. These include documented cases of Saddam sheltering terrorists who had killed US citizens, cases of Saddam subsidizxing suicide bomber attacks on a US ally, Saddam shooting at US planes flying in the "no fly zone", and many more.

You say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Does that mean we should have invaded Pakistan? That is, after all, where most people think Bin Laden is hiding out, right?

From my perspective, we've made one big foreign policy mistake over the past 60 years. We've tried to be friends with everybody, instead of making them try to be friends with us.

That's because we have been down that road many, many, MANY times before. The Gun Control Act of 1968, an excellent example of this, was supposed to be the "Be-all, End-all" gun control law. We compromised, with the promise from the anti gunners that they would stop demanding things from us. As soon as it passed, what happened? They started demanding more from us. For a very long time, the Liberals have been expecting the Conservatives to bend over and take it with a smile. Now that the Conservatives are using the same tactics back towards the liberals, the liberals have their panties in a bunch. The Liberals foist off the likes of Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry on us, claiming that they are mainstream when they are in reality extremists of the very worst sort, and then can't understand why "Middle America" tells them to fuck off. Liberals scream "Free Speech!" and claim constitutional protection for what the rest of the country sees as criminal acts. What Liberals call acts of "Civil Disobedience", the rest of us call "felonies". And what the older generation of "liberals" call "mentoring the next generation", the rest of us simply call "conspiracy to violate the law".