I think, many of those who called the Bush administration - equal in the past or current - nazi-like, really don´t know what nazi means. Im a german guy, i saw the KZ´s, i was in Jad Vashem and i learn about the history. The point is, that not the bush admin search for a chance to kill so many people as possible, is not Bush who wants to wipe out Israel and America from earth face. In Germany most people only know what the press told them about the US-President. And this, in fact, is most the negativ view... Iraq, Kyoto, Guantanamo....... its time to tell, whats the good news of the leadership of G. W. Bush.
Posted by:
chris at January 24, 2006 06:52 AM
whaaa? vulgarity but no profanity? heaven, er(sorry)...non-existence forbid!
the tin-foil hat & 3D goggles musta been adjusted inproperly.
another "useful idiot".
Posted by: OhioOrrin at January 24, 2006 07:19 AM
So I have a feeling that by this Spring civil unrest and economic turmoil will exacerbate domestic problems
Anyone want to make an educated guess as to which side will use violence as a protest tactic first?
When I read this, my first reaction was that it was a continuation of what Renne P. wrote on another thread yesterday. What's so laughable is that the Left uses this type of language all the time. At DU and Kos they fit right in, but when they come to a site like B4B and deride conservatives for using "hate-filled" rhetoric, they just don't have any credibility.
Posted by: Retired Spook at January 24, 2006 08:15 AM
Concentration camps for hard-core anti-war activists will be supported by the stupidity silent majority with their brainless, moronic, imbecilic, blind and bigoted moral retardation.
Sad thing is, given the chance, it would be the leftist that built "reeducation" camps for those of us that dare think differently than they. They have done it in every Communist Country they have overtaken so far.
Posted by:
Lew Waters at January 24, 2006 09:48 AM
Oh come on people. Seriously. How easy it would be to find extremists on the right who spout equally disturbing nonsense? Was it a slow news day for ya Mark? Why don't you post stuff from the modern age rather than some tired freak spouting idiocies from 1991. Almost every president who has ever been in office has been subject to attacks from their opponents. Have a thicker skin I say. Or as they say, if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
Most liberals do not believe that Bush is a Nazi. I can give you my word on that. Not all liberals are like Michael Moore. They may find the White House's tactics appalling, but most liberals are more reasonable than you make us out to be. I see nothing on the DNC website that likens Bush to a fascist or a Nazi. Just because some idiots decide to post stupidities on the blogs doesn't make it representative of the group in general. Just like I can't possibly take some of the comments people make on this blog and extrapolate to all Republicans, conservatives. Blogs simply attract extremists (and that is by design, since the bloggers themselves like to be controversial, ahem Mr. Noonan).
Oh well, that's what keeps us coming back, I guess.
Posted by: ByePartisan at January 24, 2006 10:20 AM
Just because some idiots decide to post stupidities on the blogs doesn't make it representative of the group in general.
Since Moveon.org claims to "own the Democrat party" and Howard Dead, the head of the party agrees and tries to outdo Moveon's rhetoric and Bush bashing every chance they get, who do they represent, if not the Democrats?
Posted by:
Lew Waters at January 24, 2006 10:35 AM
Just because some idiots decide to post stupidities on the blogs doesn't make it representative of the group in general.
Since Moveon.org claims to "own the Democrat party" and Howard Dean, the head of the party agrees and tries to outdo Moveon's rhetoric and Bush bashing every chance they get, who do they represent, if not the Democrats?
Posted by:
Lew Waters at January 24, 2006 10:38 AM
I never had any anger for George Bush Sr, and would have voted for him in 1988 and 1992 if he had just stood by his "voodoo economics" statement of 1980 and not sold out to Reagan. Then he would been the GOP's "Winston Churchill" to Reagan's "Neville Chamberlain" - a man of principle even if meant he wouldn't have been Vice President and even if it divided the GOP in 1980. Then there would have been moral wing of the GOP that I personally could support, but as it is, with supply-siders in total control of the GOP, I can never support an idea which I consider to be the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.
Posted by: Robert K Meyer Jr at January 24, 2006 11:16 AM
Robert, sorry that is the precise opposite of reality and Daddy B's abandonment of supply side economics.... um, well, that's really just "economics" is one of the big reasons Clinton actually got my vote in '92.
ByePartisan, the point of the ancient posting is that it demonstrates the Liberals squeal in the same pitch regardless of the facts. This is an important insight for anyone exposing themselves to divergent opinions; just what is the history? All these dire predictions, is there any "there" there? Um, no. And yes, anyone who in this day and age calls themselves a Liberal is conciously identifying with the MoveOners at best. Obama famously raises funds explicitly for the Moovies. Is he not a mainstream Lib and Dem? Howard Dean sez there is no diff between Socialists and Dems and gosh darn it, he's really on to something there.
Posted by: megapotamus at January 24, 2006 11:58 AM
To answer the question at the top of this thread, "Just When Did the Left Go Crazy?", the precise answer is 1972, the year George McGovern turned the Democratic Party over to the college student, socialist, anti-American, anti-military contingent of U.S. society. I know this for a fact, because I was there when it happened. And the Democratic Party has paid the price for that folly ever since--particularly now, when we're facing very radical, very real, and very violent foreign threats. Meanwhile, the Democrats are still beholden to the same anti-military reality-deniers who took over the party in 1972, the only difference being that many of those young 1972 liberals are now middle-aged, wealthy and powerful, and as a result calling all the shots in the once-great Democratic Party. Yes indeed, for the Dems, the chickens of 1972 have really coming home to roost! The result, I predict, is that the party either won't survive or will split within another 2 election cycles. I don't see how they can possibly avoid it now.
Posted by: JPL at January 24, 2006 01:00 PM
That's all true. You think it's crazy, but it's not, you don't have an adult level of reading, so you don't understand and you get frustrated. You aren't understanding the words.
Posted by: SUSA at January 24, 2006 01:21 PM
Actually I seriously considered voting GOP in 92, the only time in the past 25 years, precisely because of the one time tax hike. It seemed a heroic move for him to make, to strengthen our future rather than placating the present generation; but the fear that "once a tax cutter, always a tax cutter" overcame my respect I had for him, and always will have for him, and I voted against him.
Posted by: Robert K Meyer Jr at January 24, 2006 01:46 PM
That's a logical fallacy on two fronts. One, guilt by association. Two, straw man-- just pick the most venomous retard you can find and say that he represents the views of all Democrats.
Honestly, do you think this is really advancing the debate at all?
Posted by:
glenstein at January 24, 2006 02:35 PM
You're right, no actual difference. Like father like son.
Posted by: 3moreyears at January 24, 2006 02:42 PM
Posted by: JPL
...the Democrats are still beholden to the same anti-military reality-deniers who took over the party in 1972...
This is just the usual private-sector media statements. I'm a liberal Democrat and I am, if anything, pro-military. Why? Even with my talent and willingness to work, the business community would never hire me because of my physical handicaps; but the military hired me and gave me a chance. Sounds pretty liberal, doesn't it? But it has a long tradition. After the Civil War almost no business would hire the newly freed blacks, but the military gave them a chance: the famous "Buffalo Soldiers" in the west.
I know that the GOP has been trashing the honorable military service of Democrats like Murtha, Kerry, Gore, and Max Cleland; but since you brought up George McGovern, he voluteered to fight in WWII. He was a B-24 bomber pilot in the European theater, flying 35 missions over enemy territory, and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross - another liberal who you can thank for your freedom.
Posted by: Robert K Meyer Jr at January 25, 2006 01:30 AM
Robert,
We don't denigrate their service, we just point out that their ACTIONS in politics have been anti-military in nature.
Service to our country goes a long towards giving a man a pass in my book...but it isn't endless.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at January 25, 2006 02:27 AM
Oh say can you see by the flag’s burning light
What so proudly our fathers had built so long ago
Whose freedom and honour, they won in that fight
As they fought the guns of tyranny, and let freedom grow.
Now cold is the young one’s respect to gifts of the old
Ones duty is ones pocket, and ones love second to gold
‘Tis the star spangled banner! How long my it wave?
For the land of God’s fear, and the home of its slave?
Memories, dimly perceived deep and buried
Has that Dream so easily left then to rot?
Were they all for not? Replaced by a false creed?
The words of liars taken and the truth forgot?
Under the Republican’s glare, planes smashed in the air
And two towers fell, as though they weren’t there
Oh say does the star spangled banner now wave
For the land of God’s fear, and the home of its slave?
And where are the bands that dauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and combats confusion
Were not the path to truth and justice anymore?
Their young lives were ended in the name of pollution.
No more is the hireling’s wage to be guaranteed
As the jobs takes now flight to china, for his boss’s greed
And the star spangled banner triumph does wave
For the land of God’s fear, and the home of its slave?
Oh, let the freemen; again make their old stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blessed with peace, and questions free spoken in this land
Praise be to those who asked, and preserved the real nation
And conquor we must, for our cause is just
Not just the motto “In God we trust”
And the Star-Spangled Banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Posted by: Otherside at January 25, 2006 09:10 AM
"I'm a liberal Democrat and I am, if anything, pro-military....I know that the GOP has been trashing the honorable military service of Democrats like Murtha, Kerry, Gore, and Max Cleland; but since you brought up George McGovern, he voluteered to fight in WWII."
Robert, I'm pleased that you're pro-military, but you should plainly understand that that puts you squarely in the minority within the Democratic Party, and distinguishes you from all those Democrat veterans whom you mentioned. Murtha, Gore, Cleland, and Kerry--especially Kerry--have slandered the military over and over again--and McGovern campaigned on a platform of selling out an important ally, which, when that policy did prevail a few years later, condemned Vietnam and Cambodia to Communist dictatorship and mass genocide. I would no sooner trust any of these men as Commander in Chief than I would Bozo the Clown. And by the way, their military service has absolutely nothing to do my judgment of them. For Kerry, all it does it make him look utterly pathetic when he tries obscuring his anti-militarism behind the uniform. What a contemptible loser.
Posted by: JPL at January 25, 2006 12:54 PM
JPL, come up with your source and don't confuse anti-militarism anti-military. I somehow doubt you would really want to live in a dictatorship, with tanks rolling down your street and secret agents listening in on your most private conversations, anymore then I would like to live in a society at the total mercy of it's neighbours.
Posted by: Otherside at January 25, 2006 01:01 PM
"come up with your source..."
Please specify what you want me to source and I'll source it for you.
"don't confuse anti-militarism with anti-military..."
I think you're the one who's confused. When I use the term "anti-militarism", I don't mean the "ism" that opposes military dictatorship. After all, I oppose military dictatorship. What I AM referring to is the "ism" that defames the military and believes appeasement of murderous idealogues achieves anything. It's THAT kind of "anti-militarism" that I oppose, that I think is idiotic and self-destructive, and that the Democrats have EMBRACED FOR 34 YEARS.
Posted by: JPL at January 25, 2006 10:43 PM
Okay JPL
Give me a reliable source on "Murtha, Gore, Cleland, and Kerry" defaming the US military. I know they are critical of the Bush regimes handling of the military, and probably earlier with LBJ's handling of Vietnam but I have yet to hear of them defaming the actual military.
And criticism is not defamation. Nor is objecting to the CIA's methods defamation. Those are stating opinions.
Posted by: Otherside at January 26, 2006 02:32 AM
The "Left" aren't crazy as much as they are manipulative. They must not see any benefit to themselves from a less-regulated, less wealth-redistributing, democratic, and nationally secure America. Therefore, they make a "rational" decision to implement a regime that would make themselves better off at the expense of others. Clearly, if you are successful in this country you are an unfair dictatorial pig and must repent by paying the less successful a bribe to not kill you.
Posted by: Jim at January 27, 2006 12:37 PM
I think, many of those who called the Bush administration - equal in the past or current - nazi-like, really don´t know what nazi means. Im a german guy, i saw the KZ´s, i was in Jad Vashem and i learn about the history. The point is, that not the bush admin search for a chance to kill so many people as possible, is not Bush who wants to wipe out Israel and America from earth face. In Germany most people only know what the press told them about the US-President. And this, in fact, is most the negativ view... Iraq, Kyoto, Guantanamo....... its time to tell, whats the good news of the leadership of G. W. Bush.
whaaa? vulgarity but no profanity? heaven, er(sorry)...non-existence forbid!
the tin-foil hat & 3D goggles musta been adjusted inproperly.
another "useful idiot".
So I have a feeling that by this Spring civil unrest and economic turmoil will exacerbate domestic problems
Anyone want to make an educated guess as to which side will use violence as a protest tactic first?
When I read this, my first reaction was that it was a continuation of what Renne P. wrote on another thread yesterday. What's so laughable is that the Left uses this type of language all the time. At DU and Kos they fit right in, but when they come to a site like B4B and deride conservatives for using "hate-filled" rhetoric, they just don't have any credibility.
Concentration camps for hard-core anti-war activists will be supported by the stupidity silent majority with their brainless, moronic, imbecilic, blind and bigoted moral retardation.
Sad thing is, given the chance, it would be the leftist that built "reeducation" camps for those of us that dare think differently than they. They have done it in every Communist Country they have overtaken so far.
Oh come on people. Seriously. How easy it would be to find extremists on the right who spout equally disturbing nonsense? Was it a slow news day for ya Mark? Why don't you post stuff from the modern age rather than some tired freak spouting idiocies from 1991. Almost every president who has ever been in office has been subject to attacks from their opponents. Have a thicker skin I say. Or as they say, if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
Most liberals do not believe that Bush is a Nazi. I can give you my word on that. Not all liberals are like Michael Moore. They may find the White House's tactics appalling, but most liberals are more reasonable than you make us out to be. I see nothing on the DNC website that likens Bush to a fascist or a Nazi. Just because some idiots decide to post stupidities on the blogs doesn't make it representative of the group in general. Just like I can't possibly take some of the comments people make on this blog and extrapolate to all Republicans, conservatives. Blogs simply attract extremists (and that is by design, since the bloggers themselves like to be controversial, ahem Mr. Noonan).
Oh well, that's what keeps us coming back, I guess.
Just because some idiots decide to post stupidities on the blogs doesn't make it representative of the group in general.
Since Moveon.org claims to "own the Democrat party" and Howard Dead, the head of the party agrees and tries to outdo Moveon's rhetoric and Bush bashing every chance they get, who do they represent, if not the Democrats?
Just because some idiots decide to post stupidities on the blogs doesn't make it representative of the group in general.
Since Moveon.org claims to "own the Democrat party" and Howard Dean, the head of the party agrees and tries to outdo Moveon's rhetoric and Bush bashing every chance they get, who do they represent, if not the Democrats?
I never had any anger for George Bush Sr, and would have voted for him in 1988 and 1992 if he had just stood by his "voodoo economics" statement of 1980 and not sold out to Reagan. Then he would been the GOP's "Winston Churchill" to Reagan's "Neville Chamberlain" - a man of principle even if meant he wouldn't have been Vice President and even if it divided the GOP in 1980. Then there would have been moral wing of the GOP that I personally could support, but as it is, with supply-siders in total control of the GOP, I can never support an idea which I consider to be the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.
Robert, sorry that is the precise opposite of reality and Daddy B's abandonment of supply side economics.... um, well, that's really just "economics" is one of the big reasons Clinton actually got my vote in '92.
ByePartisan, the point of the ancient posting is that it demonstrates the Liberals squeal in the same pitch regardless of the facts. This is an important insight for anyone exposing themselves to divergent opinions; just what is the history? All these dire predictions, is there any "there" there? Um, no. And yes, anyone who in this day and age calls themselves a Liberal is conciously identifying with the MoveOners at best. Obama famously raises funds explicitly for the Moovies. Is he not a mainstream Lib and Dem? Howard Dean sez there is no diff between Socialists and Dems and gosh darn it, he's really on to something there.
To answer the question at the top of this thread, "Just When Did the Left Go Crazy?", the precise answer is 1972, the year George McGovern turned the Democratic Party over to the college student, socialist, anti-American, anti-military contingent of U.S. society. I know this for a fact, because I was there when it happened. And the Democratic Party has paid the price for that folly ever since--particularly now, when we're facing very radical, very real, and very violent foreign threats. Meanwhile, the Democrats are still beholden to the same anti-military reality-deniers who took over the party in 1972, the only difference being that many of those young 1972 liberals are now middle-aged, wealthy and powerful, and as a result calling all the shots in the once-great Democratic Party. Yes indeed, for the Dems, the chickens of 1972 have really coming home to roost! The result, I predict, is that the party either won't survive or will split within another 2 election cycles. I don't see how they can possibly avoid it now.
That's all true. You think it's crazy, but it's not, you don't have an adult level of reading, so you don't understand and you get frustrated. You aren't understanding the words.
Actually I seriously considered voting GOP in 92, the only time in the past 25 years, precisely because of the one time tax hike. It seemed a heroic move for him to make, to strengthen our future rather than placating the present generation; but the fear that "once a tax cutter, always a tax cutter" overcame my respect I had for him, and always will have for him, and I voted against him.
That's a logical fallacy on two fronts. One, guilt by association. Two, straw man-- just pick the most venomous retard you can find and say that he represents the views of all Democrats.
Honestly, do you think this is really advancing the debate at all?
You're right, no actual difference. Like father like son.
Posted by: JPL
...the Democrats are still beholden to the same anti-military reality-deniers who took over the party in 1972...
This is just the usual private-sector media statements. I'm a liberal Democrat and I am, if anything, pro-military. Why? Even with my talent and willingness to work, the business community would never hire me because of my physical handicaps; but the military hired me and gave me a chance. Sounds pretty liberal, doesn't it? But it has a long tradition. After the Civil War almost no business would hire the newly freed blacks, but the military gave them a chance: the famous "Buffalo Soldiers" in the west.
I know that the GOP has been trashing the honorable military service of Democrats like Murtha, Kerry, Gore, and Max Cleland; but since you brought up George McGovern, he voluteered to fight in WWII. He was a B-24 bomber pilot in the European theater, flying 35 missions over enemy territory, and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross - another liberal who you can thank for your freedom.
Robert,
We don't denigrate their service, we just point out that their ACTIONS in politics have been anti-military in nature.
Service to our country goes a long towards giving a man a pass in my book...but it isn't endless.
Oh say can you see by the flag’s burning light
What so proudly our fathers had built so long ago
Whose freedom and honour, they won in that fight
As they fought the guns of tyranny, and let freedom grow.
Now cold is the young one’s respect to gifts of the old
Ones duty is ones pocket, and ones love second to gold
‘Tis the star spangled banner! How long my it wave?
For the land of God’s fear, and the home of its slave?
Memories, dimly perceived deep and buried
Has that Dream so easily left then to rot?
Were they all for not? Replaced by a false creed?
The words of liars taken and the truth forgot?
Under the Republican’s glare, planes smashed in the air
And two towers fell, as though they weren’t there
Oh say does the star spangled banner now wave
For the land of God’s fear, and the home of its slave?
And where are the bands that dauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and combats confusion
Were not the path to truth and justice anymore?
Their young lives were ended in the name of pollution.
No more is the hireling’s wage to be guaranteed
As the jobs takes now flight to china, for his boss’s greed
And the star spangled banner triumph does wave
For the land of God’s fear, and the home of its slave?
Oh, let the freemen; again make their old stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blessed with peace, and questions free spoken in this land
Praise be to those who asked, and preserved the real nation
And conquor we must, for our cause is just
Not just the motto “In God we trust”
And the Star-Spangled Banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
"I'm a liberal Democrat and I am, if anything, pro-military....I know that the GOP has been trashing the honorable military service of Democrats like Murtha, Kerry, Gore, and Max Cleland; but since you brought up George McGovern, he voluteered to fight in WWII."
Robert, I'm pleased that you're pro-military, but you should plainly understand that that puts you squarely in the minority within the Democratic Party, and distinguishes you from all those Democrat veterans whom you mentioned. Murtha, Gore, Cleland, and Kerry--especially Kerry--have slandered the military over and over again--and McGovern campaigned on a platform of selling out an important ally, which, when that policy did prevail a few years later, condemned Vietnam and Cambodia to Communist dictatorship and mass genocide. I would no sooner trust any of these men as Commander in Chief than I would Bozo the Clown. And by the way, their military service has absolutely nothing to do my judgment of them. For Kerry, all it does it make him look utterly pathetic when he tries obscuring his anti-militarism behind the uniform. What a contemptible loser.
JPL, come up with your source and don't confuse anti-militarism anti-military. I somehow doubt you would really want to live in a dictatorship, with tanks rolling down your street and secret agents listening in on your most private conversations, anymore then I would like to live in a society at the total mercy of it's neighbours.
"come up with your source..."
Please specify what you want me to source and I'll source it for you.
"don't confuse anti-militarism with anti-military..."
I think you're the one who's confused. When I use the term "anti-militarism", I don't mean the "ism" that opposes military dictatorship. After all, I oppose military dictatorship. What I AM referring to is the "ism" that defames the military and believes appeasement of murderous idealogues achieves anything. It's THAT kind of "anti-militarism" that I oppose, that I think is idiotic and self-destructive, and that the Democrats have EMBRACED FOR 34 YEARS.
Okay JPL
Give me a reliable source on "Murtha, Gore, Cleland, and Kerry" defaming the US military. I know they are critical of the Bush regimes handling of the military, and probably earlier with LBJ's handling of Vietnam but I have yet to hear of them defaming the actual military.
And criticism is not defamation. Nor is objecting to the CIA's methods defamation. Those are stating opinions.
The "Left" aren't crazy as much as they are manipulative. They must not see any benefit to themselves from a less-regulated, less wealth-redistributing, democratic, and nationally secure America. Therefore, they make a "rational" decision to implement a regime that would make themselves better off at the expense of others. Clearly, if you are successful in this country you are an unfair dictatorial pig and must repent by paying the less successful a bribe to not kill you.