Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

What Became of Conservatives?

Politics-American Conservatives Neo-cons

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#1 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 07 January 2005 - 09:46 PM

Following is as cogent a description of the current state of conservatvies and conservatism as I've seen.  

Quote

What Became of Conservatives?
by Paul Craig Roberts


† † † ††

I remember when friends would excitedly telephone to report that Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy had just read one of my syndicated columns over the air. That was before I became a critic of the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration, and the neoconservative ideologues who have seized control of the US government.

America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the countryís population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven. Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.

The evening before Thanksgiving Rush Limbaugh was on C-Span TV explaining that these glorious developments would have been impossible if talk radio and the conservative movement had not combined to break the power of the liberal media.

In the Thanksgiving issue of National Review, editor Richard Lowry and former editor John OíSullivan celebrate Bushís reelection triumph over "a hostile press corps." "Try as they might," crowed OíSullivan, "they couldnít put Kerry over the top."

There was a time when I could rant about the "liberal media" with the best of them. But in recent years I have puzzled over the precise location of the "liberal media."

Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administrationís lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administrationís changing explanations for the invasion.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine.

Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the "liberal media"? The Village Voice is known for Nat Henthof and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I donít see the "liberal hate" in The Nationís feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span.

In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.

The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. "You are with us or against us."

This is the mindset of delusion, and delusion permits of no facts or analysis. Blind emotion rules. Americans are right and everyone else is wrong. End of the debate.

That, gentle reader, is the full extent of talk radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, of the entire concentrated corporate media where noncontroversy in the interest of advertising revenue rules.

Once upon a time there was a liberal media. It developed out of the Great Depression and the New Deal. Liberals believed that the private sector is the source of greed that must be restrained by government acting in the public interest. The liberalsí mistake was to identify morality with government. Liberals had great suspicion of private power and insufficient suspicion of the power and inclination of government to do good.

Liberals became Benthamites (after Jeremy Bentham). They believed that as the people controlled government through democracy, there was no reason to fear government power, which should be increased in order to accomplish more good.

The conservative movement that I grew up in did not share the liberalsí abiding faith in government. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a personís civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof.

Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions.

There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative.

American liberals called the Brownshirts "conservative," because the Brownshirts were obviously not liberal. They were ignorant, violent, delusional, and they worshipped a man of no known distinction. Brownshirtsí delusions were protected by an emotional force field. Adulation of power and force prevented Brownshirts from recognizing implications for their country of their reckless doctrines.

Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy. I went overnight from being an object of conservative adulation to one of derision when I wrote that the US invasion of Iraq was a "strategic blunder."

It is amazing that only a short time ago the Bush administration and its supporters believed that all the US had to do was to appear in Iraq and we would be greeted with flowers. Has there ever been a greater example of delusion? Isnít this on a par with the Childrenís Crusade against the Saracens in the Middle Ages?

Delusion is still the defining characteristic of the Bush administration. We have smashed Fallujah, a city of 300,000, only to discover that the 10,000 US Marines are bogged down in the ruins of the city. If the Marines leave, the "defeated" insurgents will return. Meanwhile the insurgents have moved on to destabilize Mosul, a city five times as large. Thus, the call for more US troops.

There are no more troops. Our former allies are not going to send troops. The only way the Bush administration can continue with its Iraq policy is to reinstate the draft.

When the draft is reinstated, conservatives will loudly proclaim their pride that their sons, fathers, husbands and brothers are going to die for "our freedom." Not a single one of them will be able to explain why destroying Iraqi cities and occupying the ruins are necessary for "our freedom." But this inability will not lessen the enthusiasm for the project. To protect their delusions from "reality-based" critics, they will demand that the critics be arrested for treason and silenced. Many encouraged by talk radio already speak this way.

Because of the triumph of delusional "new conservatives" and the demise of the liberal media, this war is different from the Vietnam war. As more Americans are killed and maimed in the pointless carnage, more Americans have a powerful emotional stake that the war not be lost and not be in vain. Trapped in violence and unable to admit mistake, a reckless administration will escalate.

The rapidly collapsing US dollar is hard evidence that the world sees the US as bankrupt. Flight from the dollar as the reserve currency will adversely impact American living standards, which are already falling as a result of job outsourcing and offshore production. The US cannot afford a costly and interminable war.

Falling living standards and inability to impose our will on the Middle East will result in great frustrations that will diminish our country.

November 26, 2004

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate

www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts81.html

Edited by waterpanther, 08 January 2005 - 04:15 PM.

Posted Image

#2 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 07 January 2005 - 10:52 PM

waterpanther, on Jan 7 2005, 06:46 PM, said:

It is amazing that only a short time ago the Bush administration and its supporters believed that all the US had to do was to appear in Iraq and we would be greeted with flowers. Has there ever been a greater example of delusion? Isnít this on a par with the Childrenís Crusade against the Saracens in the Middle Ages?

Oooh, excellent analogy. And like those crusaders, we're getting our asses kicked (which is what happens when you go off half-cocked without a clue about the people you're invading or what it might take to sustain such an endeavor).
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#3 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:05 PM

Got to admit I have seen some of the behavior but I have seen the left do as much and just as often.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#4 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 12:02 AM

Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the countryís population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven.

Ah, so supporting the Bush Administration's war on terror makes one a dangerous religious nut who must be dismissed. What wonderful discourse from the enlightened and open-minded left! It's hard to understand why they defeated themselves at the polls all these years, with condescension like this.

Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.

Bin Laden and Craig Roberts, partners united in theme and purpose in stopping the Zionist threat. Anti-semitism has never been more popular on the left.  Goodness, we've got Christian bashing and Jew bashing in the same essay. We're going to need a new term for the religious left, "liberal" simply doesn't cut it. How about "Hate-O-Crats"? What else to describe this hatred of Christians and Jews? This is vicious.

The evening before Thanksgiving Rush Limbaugh was on C-Span TV explaining that these glorious developments would have been impossible if talk radio and the conservative movement had not combined to break the power of the liberal media.

How else to describe what happened to CBS News/60 Minutes? Twenty years ago, their forged Nationa Guard documents would have brought down a president. Instead, the nation pored over the PDF copies of the memos on the internet, and yawned. Dan Rather and his group defamed themselves, not the president they were hoping so desperately to defeat. We have broken the liberal news media, and the liberals can't stand it.

There was a time when I could rant about the "liberal media" with the best of them. But in recent years I have puzzled over the precise location of the "liberal media."

Try looking at the ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN coverage. Or the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or the LA Times. Gee, we're all so stifled by the overwhelming conservative viewpoint of these news sources! (cough)

Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administrationís lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administrationís changing explanations for the invasion.

What does this article say about conservatives again, Water Panther? A columnist would have to be pretty nuts to think the New York Times is part of the new conservative media, and this guy is nuts.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine.

The entire left exulted in delight and relief when the Abu Ghraib story broke. FINALLY, they could return to openly and publicly hating the U.S. military. This is something the left always did, they just felt the need to hide their feelings somewhat from 9/11. But that self-repression didn't last long, and they let loose their outrage over prisoners forced to be naked and wear hoods. Oh no!

In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.

The only hate is coming from you, Mr.Roberts. While your anti-Christian bigotry and anti-Jewish bigotry might be fashionable in your enlightened circles, it doesn't make you a better person than the rest of us.

The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. "You are with us or against us."

The rhetoric of the left is what they are judged by, and should be judged by. It was the left that declared Bush the illegitimate president, thirsting for Iraq's oil. Yet at the same time, they describe Saddam Hussein as the legitimate president of his country, illegally removed in an illegal, unilateral war. Mean old conservatives didn't make you say this rot, it came from you, liberals.

That, gentle reader, is the full extent of talk radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, of the entire concentrated corporate media where noncontroversy in the interest of advertising revenue rules.

What Roberts and his pals disagree with can be dismissed, without any thought or rational analysis! What a time saver over actually defending your liberal views. (Apparently that is impossible.)

Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state.

You mean when liberal activists seek out liberal judges to write law by judicial fiat, and bypassing the electorate? It is not democracy to bypass that democracy, you twit.

Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a personís civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof.

The fact that Mr. Roberts, and millions of other liberals, are free to say the above is proof of just how idiotic a contention that is. Were you and your friends rounded up? No? Then you obviously are dead wrong.

Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions.

Where were you when Bill Clinton did the same to Serbia? No UN General Assembly vote was taken, no UN Security Council vote was taken. Heck, Clinton didn't even ask permission from congress or the UN in any way to act pre-emptively and unilaterally! The UN and Nato came in later, after Clinton made the decision we were going regardless. But where was this columnist during that calamnity of unilateralism? Oh, it's okay if a Democrat does it, right? Gotcha.

They were ignorant, violent, delusional, and they worshipped a man of no known distinction.

I'll ignore the obvious tie-in that this goof is making with Nazis/conservatives, and go right to his point. If you think Bush is a man of "no known distinction", then how is it that Bush was smarter than every one of you liberals put together? He WHIPPED your ass, repeatedly. Not bad for a perceived dummy.

Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy. I went overnight from being an object of conservative adulation to one of derision when I wrote that the US invasion of Iraq was a "strategic blunder."

But Saddam Hussein made this same argument, and assumption. Because the United States was perceived as only undertaking "cakewalk" military actions, therefore Bush would not act. Saddam Hussein was dead wrong in this assumption, and he paid the price.  Only a pathetically weak and inept foreign policy would revolve around the notion that we only undertake cakewalks when convenient. That sort of thinking would have left the world in charge of Adolf Hitler and Tojo. We stood up to them not because it was easy, but because it was hard. (To paraphrase one of the last moderate Democrats, John F. Kennedy.)

It is amazing that only a short time ago the Bush administration and its supporters believed that all the US had to do was to appear in Iraq and we would be greeted with flowers. Has there ever been a greater example of delusion?

Roberts cites National Review, but proves right here he doesn't read it. If he had, he would have seen month after month of dire predictions of the difficulties of rebuilding Iraq, right there in that magazine. By conservatives, no less! And if Roberts could have been bothered to read a single Bush speech leading up to the Afghan invasion or the Iraq invasion, he would find many warnings about the difficulties ahead. But of course this guy already knew that, he's just posturing for his fellow leftists who never critically examine their own sacred tenets and dogma.

There are no more troops. Our former allies are not going to send troops. The only way the Bush administration can continue with its Iraq policy is to reinstate the draft.

What a coincidence that Democrats in congress and journalists like this guy both call for the Draft! No, there's no liberal news media, thanks for setting us straight on that, Mr. Roberts.

When the draft is reinstated, conservatives will loudly proclaim their pride that their sons, fathers, husbands and brothers are going to die for "our freedom." Not a single one of them will be able to explain why destroying Iraqi cities and occupying the ruins are necessary for "our freedom."

Sure, liberals like Mr. Roberts support our troops.What an absolute lie, as the sly attack is made here that it is our soldiers destroying Iraqi lives, destroying Iraq cities. The disrespect and hatred the left has for the U.S. military has never gone away. It's just been cloaked better. That cloak is being dropped, as the left seizes on their "victories" like Abu Ghraib and goes for the kill.

Because of the triumph of delusional "new conservatives" and the demise of the liberal media, this war is different from the Vietnam war.

There is a difference between having a monopoly on the news, and suffering a demise. If the leftist media had not enforced their monopoly so thoroughly, there would not be such a hunger in this country for a Rush Limbaugh or a FoxNews. The only reason FoxNews has the highest viewership, years on end, is because of the tilt of the CNNs and the CBS'. They have only themselves to blame if their viewership has fallen.

As more Americans are killed and maimed in the pointless carnage, more Americans have a powerful emotional stake that the war not be lost and not be in vain. Trapped in violence and unable to admit mistake, a reckless administration will escalate.

This is as close as the left will get to admitting that they are actively rooting for the opposition, and hope they win and drive us out of Iraq, with the maximum American casualties. The terrorists are freedom fighters to this columnist, no matter how many innocent Iraqis they blow up. Give the left time, they will get more brazen in their ecstatic support for the terrorists who want to kill Americans, there or back here. Anyone who opposes the evil imperialistic American military can't be all bad, right?

The rapidly collapsing US dollar is hard evidence that the world sees the US as bankrupt. Flight from the dollar as the reserve currency will adversely impact American living standards, which are already falling as a result of job outsourcing and offshore production. The US cannot afford a costly and interminable war.

Translation: Mr. Roberts hopes for a collapse of the American economy, as the rightful and moral result of us daring to remove two squalid regimes from the face of the earth. Only in the twisted disturbed mind of a leftist like Mr. Roberts could democracy and freedom be an oppressive imposition.

Falling living standards and inability to impose our will on the Middle East will result in great frustrations that will diminish our country.

I'm wondering just where Mr. Roberts stands on Operation "Restore Democracy". Everyone remembers, we put a blood-soaked dictator back on his Haitian throne. With bribes, no less. And look what effect on Haiti that wonderful act of leftist compassion has had, Haiti is worse than it ever was.

I'll take Bush's vision of democracy any day over the failed promises of leftist hot air. Before labeling Iraqi democracy a failure, kindly look to your own work in Haiti.

former contributing editor for National Review,

It's a shame he didn't read any of the National Review articles in the months leading up to Iraq War II, I read dozens upon dozens of them. The risks were carefully measured, and the rewards, for us, the Israelis, the arab peoples of the Middle East, are well worth it. When liberals rant and rave about how terrible it is that Iraqi and Afghan women have more rights, that their children are being treated medically and educated, that tens of millions of people are no longer under the thumbs of despots, it really makes one wonder what it is that liberals are so compassionate about.

-Ogami

#5 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 01:07 AM

Such a big pile of lies I don't even know where to begin... maybe later...

#6 Lord Ravensburg

Lord Ravensburg

    All your lightsabers are belong to me

  • Islander
  • 533 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 05:44 AM

I would not encourage anyone to use a divisive article like this as a tool to shoehorn all conservatives.

#7 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 06:06 AM

conservative - tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions: marked by moderation or caution: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners


Yet another perfectly good and reasonable word hi-jacked....
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.

#8 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 10:47 AM

Thank you, Ogami, for beautifully illustrating Roberts's points.

:)

Edited by Spectacles, 08 January 2005 - 10:48 AM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#9 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 12:07 PM

Chakotay, on Jan 8 2005, 03:06 AM, said:

conservative - tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions: marked by moderation or caution: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners


Yet another perfectly good and reasonable word hi-jacked....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just like liberal and feminist.  It's easy to drive a good word into a bad connotation.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#10 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 12:53 PM

This article is nothing more than dog-whistling; those of the authors beliefs will be nodding their heads in sympathy, but to everyone else reading it just seems too full of generalisations, blunt assumptions and unsupported facts to really convince anyone. Besides, with the sentences changed to reflect the more appropriate values, this article is in tone and conclusions pretty much identical to others that people on the Right have written against the Left over the past year. Look at its conclusions: that the Right has been hi-jacked by extremists, that the Right is now full of hate, and that the Right cannot possibly compromise anymore or stand any criticism or derivation. Sound familiar? Replace Right with Left, and that's what the other side thinks as well. In both cases its far too simplistic.
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse

#11 D'Monix

D'Monix
  • Islander
  • 4,060 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 01:27 PM

What Ilphi said.

This article isnt worth the memory it's taking up on my computer.

#12 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 01:46 PM

Not to derail the thread (stupid article, but that's already been pointed out), but I have to ask Ilphi: Is that a picture of James Callis as Gaius Baltar in the new Battlestar Galactica?

#13 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 02:45 PM

Y'know, I wasn't sure about the validity of the article at first, but when Ogami reacted to it the way Pat Robertson would if someone said Mel Gibson's Passion was "the funniest slapstick comedy ever," I knew Mr. Roberts was onto something.  Viva le KoolAid!

Quote

Ah, so supporting the Bush Administration's war on terror makes one a dangerous religious nut who must be dismissed.

How you read "Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven" as a statement that everybody who supports the war in Iraq (NOT the war on terror - they're not the same thing) is a religious nut  is one of the mysteries of faith, I think.  It's a fact that many Christians do think it's part of the end times.  I sit next to one of 'em every day at work, and see all the friends who visit her as part of a "Left Behind" book study group.   So, he's made a valid statement there, and (you could learn from this) didn't even make too broad a sweep with it - he said "many," not "most."   "Most" would be very inaccurate, while "many" is true.  But he did not state that all or even most believers-in-the-war are dismissable religious nuts.  I know for a fact that they aren't, because, unless your party loyalty finally required you to become baptized, you're an athiest-or-agnostic.  Or at least that's what you were saying that time you pathetically tried kissing up to me 'cuz I was dog-stomping you in argument after argument and you thought that trying to find some common ground with me might save you from further humiliation.  How futile that was, eh?   I don't want you on my side of anything, fella... you're much more helpful being a huge, huge liability to the other side.  Every time you open your mouth, somebody else leaves the Republican party.  I know you were the straw that nudged me out of it. :)  

Anyway,  this article is apparently a "Buddhist rock."   You know, where you put down a rock in front of somebody and ask them, "How many rocks are there?" and they say "one" and then you say, "No, there are three.  There is the rock you see, the rock I see, and the actual rock itself."   So, no matter what anybody writes in an article, no matter how gentle or true the criticism of your lil' political hobby-horse, all you're going to read is a whole bunch of eff-you-and-yo'-mama-too-ness.  It's pretty hopeless, and you fully prove all the points this guy's making.  As I often do, I refer everyone to the excellent book, The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.

Quote

What wonderful discourse from the enlightened and open-minded left! It's hard to understand why they defeated themselves at the polls all these years, with condescension like this.

******* ...he said, condescively, and oblivious to the irony.  

Quote

Bin Laden and Craig Roberts, partners united in theme and purpose in stopping the Zionist threat. Anti-semitism has never been more popular on the left.

******** Aw, you're just mad 'cuz your party's the one that fought tooth-and-nail against civil rights back in the '60's, so you're trying to live that down with imagined claims of anti-Semitism.  Why don't you blow that noise toward some of my Jewish Democrat friends?   I bet I could get one of 'em in here with just a tiny bit of goading, but I don't think you'd like her very much.  You need to learn the difference between criticism of a country and criticism of the racial group that make it up.  It'll add greatly to your level of sophistication, and you might get to eat at the big-people's table sometime.


Quote

Goodness, we've got Christian bashing and Jew bashing in the same essay. We're going to need a new term for the religious left, "liberal" simply doesn't cut it. How about "Hate-O-Crats"? What else to describe this hatred of Christians and Jews?

******** If you want a new word for "liberal," you can just use the word that it's replaced here down South.  Yep - "liberal" is the new "n*gger-lover."   Anyway, let me try to explain to you the difference between not being pro-Israeli-expansion and being anti-Semitic.   Israel is a country.  Jews are people.  It is not anti-Semitic to disagree with expansion of the country of Israel any more than it is anti-Arab to be against Saddam's "annexation" of Kuwait.  It's not "anti-Aryan" to protest Hitler's attempt to take over France and Poland.  It's not "anti-Russian" to protest their invasion of Afghanistan.  It would be reverse-racism to turn a blind eye to Israeli policies just because they happen to be Jewish, however.    

The fact is, most of the world's problems right now are stemming from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict... and we're in so much trouble because we picked sides in it, based mostly on our country's religious beliefs.  (I know you'll read that as "Christian-bashing" and I don't really care - an unpleasant fact is still a fact).   Other than supposed Bible-prophecy, we really don't have any reason to pick sides in that sandbox quarrel.  We're big buddies of the Israelis but it's not all that mutual from their side (remember the U.S.S. Liberty, and the fact that they're in violation of about as many U.N. sanctions as Saddam was).  And the Palestinians are guilty of a whole lot of lousy stuff, too... there's really very little sensical reason for us to pick any side in that situation. If we'd stop taking sides so much, they'd be more inclined to find a solution to that conflict, and everybody would benefit from it - not only us and the rest of the world, but Israel and Palestine as well.  Our interference has exacerbated a situation of jerks vs. jerks over there.  (By the way, this critique of American policy is not "anti-American," either - I love this country, and that's why I try not to blindly accept things we do that can hurt us.  Supporting bad policy from your own country is not "patriotic," since doing so is counterproductive to your country's world standing.)  

Quote

This is vicious.

********* Nah.  "Vicious" is what I'd show you if I wasn't bound by the laws of the forum.  ;)   What criticism of Bush and/or the new breed of conservatives would you accept as reasonable and non-vicious?  Is there any level that you can accept as critique and not guns-blazing attack?  Is there any grey in your world at all?  Do they have pie there?  Pie is mighty good, y'know.  If you don't have pie, you should introduce it to your people.  It could be a whole Quest For Fire thing.


Quote

How else to describe what happened to CBS News/60 Minutes? Twenty years ago, their forged Nationa Guard documents would have brought down a president. Instead, the nation pored over the PDF copies of the memos on the internet, and yawned. Dan Rather and his group defamed themselves, not the president they were hoping so desperately to defeat.

********* The worst thing about that is, the stuff the forged documents were trying to prove are, in fact, true, and just because the documents were questionable, a lot of people dismissed what was in them, too.  I could whip up some forged documents that say that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald, and you could prove that my documents were forged... but the statement they made is still valid.  Frankly, I think everybody was hung up on Bush's service record, anyway.  I don't much care if he was AWOL or not.  It doesn't matter much what he did 30-odd years ago.  If he were a good president, I'd support him anyway.  But, he's quite possibly the worst president ever.  I thought nobody in my lifetime would ever top Jimmy Carter for bad presidential performance, but now he's "Jimmy WHO?"   And somewhere in Hell, Richard Nixon is going, "Daaaaaay-yum!"   But his National Guard service record doesn't have much, if anything, to do with that.  It's an indicator of his poor personal character, but Clinton's a man of very poor personal character, yet he was an okay president.

Quote

We have broken the liberal news media, and the liberals can't stand it.

********** Good!  Now that you've admitted it's broken, we can look forward to no more of your insufferable whining about the "liberal media."   The liberal media is dead!  You'll have to find a new bug-a-boo to blame your failures on.   I suggest the liberal architects, who carefully configure the nails in all public buildings to act as a giant radio that broadcasts "Air America" at a subliminal volume... and the damned liberal dentists who are conspiring with them, by planting receivers in your (heh heh) "fillings."



Quote

Try looking at the ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN coverage. Or the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or the LA Times. Gee, we're all so stifled by the overwhelming conservative viewpoint of these news sources! (cough)

******** I know you're tryin' to earn a merit badge in sarcasm here, but it's not working.  How can you explain the fact that those supposedly-liberal media outlets helped skewer Bill Clinton for getting Lewinski'ed (Monica happens to be Jewish, by the way - I should start levying claims of anti-Semitism toward the right, but I know from example that I'd look like a demented bufoon for doing such a thing), but Bush gets a big free pass for sending us into war based on false pretenses?   If anybody's ever been a candidate for impeachment, it's that smirky lil' fella.   But there's nothing to be gained from it, 'cuz then we'd have President Cheney, which is really what we've already got, anyway, so, why bother?



Quote

The entire left exulted in delight and relief when the Abu Ghraib story broke. FINALLY, they could return to openly and publicly hating the U.S. military.

********** To quote Zig-Zag Zell Miller, "I wish we still lived in the day where a person could challenge a fella to a duel," because, son, if anyone ever made a statement like this to me in person, they'd have trouble keeping rain out of their neck thenceforth.  I have military vets in my family.  I help send care packages to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.   I have nothing but the highest respect for our military, and I DO NOT deserve these kind of broad, sweeping, complete-a-hole generations you make, and I'm not going to take them.  If the mods want to call me on the carpet for getting too personal here, then I'll save them the trouble and admit that I'm doing it, and they should take whatever action with me they feel is appropriate - I'm guilty, guilty, guilty.   But asking somebody to put up with such statements from the likes of you without getting personal in exchange is a little too much to ask, and I must respectfully refuse to do so.  You - not most conservatives, but you in particular - have a need to defame, deface, and vilify your opposition to a degree that doesn't belong anywhere outside the pages of Mein Kampf, and if you can't do better than this, then you don't deserve to be allowed in civil company.   I see that some of your fellow conservatives here have called you on it, and it speaks well of them to do so, and I respect them for it.   Because they've proven themselves reasonable by taking exception to your approach, I'm more apt to give their viewpoints a listen.   But you are NOT helping your cause any with these accusations.   The idea that any American would be "delighted" by Abu Ghraib is sickening, and I know that you hate-hate-HATE the "left" to a pathological degree, but claims that they hate the U.S. military and always have are disgusting.   Whether a war is "right" or "wrong," our troops don't get to pick their fights - they go where they are ordered, and they put their lives on the line, and often lose them, for the sake of their country.   Even if they come home without a scratch, their lives are never what they were before, because you can't unsee things like war once you've seen them.   The question of anyone going to war is not if they're going to lose their life for their country, but it's how much of it they'll lose.   Some lose lives, some lose limbs, some lose inner peace, some lose friends, but, to some degree or other, they all lose something more than those of us who haven't had to go through that will ever lose.   If you think that I, or anyone else who voted for Kerry over Bush, are ungrateful for that, then the politiest thing I can say to you is, you couldn't be more wrong.   If you can't take on your opposition without making cartoon monsters out of them, then trade your guns for a straight-jacket, because you don't belong in discussions.  



Quote

The only hate is coming from you, Mr.Roberts.

******** Newsflash: he ain't here.  And there's plenty of hate coming out of YOU.   Take a step back and read what you write.  I'm unleashing some hate, too, but at least I admit it.  You never have, and, frankly, I don't think you're honest with yourself to ever do so.  But you hate liberals.   You have a false, unrealistic idea of them... but you definitely hate them.


Quote

While your anti-Christian bigotry and anti-Jewish bigotry might be fashionable in your enlightened circles, it doesn't make you a better person than the rest of us.

********** You aren't even Christian, and once tried to join me in an anti-Christian rant before I told you I didn't want or need YOUR help, so spare us the bogus outrage.  You cry about "anti-Christian bigotry" when it's convenient to you.  Otherwise you're all "Hey, throw me the ball!"


Quote

The rhetoric of the left is what they are judged by, and should be judged by.

********* You say this, but you never understand why you're not welcome in some places.  You get the reaction you get because of you, not because all lefties "hate the right."   Personal responsibility, man - look into it.  And if you're going to judge the left by their rhetoric, then do so sanely, without these broad, ridiculous generalizations and astoundingly venomous accusations.   I'm much more of a moderate, but you call me a "leftist" - so be it.  But I know damned well I don't hold most (any?) of the views you attribute to "the left," and neither do many other "leftists" I know.  If you're going to use sticky labels for everything, then you need to come up with some more accurate ones.


Quote

It was the left that declared Bush the illegitimate president, thirsting for Iraq's oil. Yet at the same time, they describe Saddam Hussein as the legitimate president of his country, illegally removed in an illegal, unilateral war. Mean old conservatives didn't make you say this rot, it came from you, liberals.

******** That's a vast oversimplification of matters.  But what else is new?


Quote

What Roberts and his pals disagree with can be dismissed, without any thought or rational analysis! What a time saver over actually defending your liberal views. (Apparently that is impossible.)

*********** ...says the guy who earlier lodged such complaints as "Ah, so supporting the Bush Administration's war on terror makes one a dangerous religious nut who must be dismissed. What wonderful discourse from the enlightened and open-minded left! It's hard to understand why they defeated themselves at the polls all these years, with condescension like this."   I've already infringed on the no-personal-attacks rules enough, so I'll just let the claim of "hypocrite!" hang unspoken in the air.


Quote

You mean when liberal activists seek out liberal judges to write law by judicial fiat, and bypassing the electorate? It is not democracy to bypass that democracy, you twit.

******** Careful... "twit" is awful close to getting personal.  And am I to suppose you take exception to conservatives appointing conservative judges by the same token?   Or is that somehow apples-and-oranges in your view?   Democrats passed all except about a percentage of 1% of Bush's appointees, but all we hear about is the two or three they stopped.   Not passing Pickering is a good thing, by the way - and I say that as a Mississippian.

Quote

The fact that Mr. Roberts, and millions of other liberals, are free to say the above is proof of just how idiotic a contention that is. Were you and your friends rounded up? No? Then you obviously are dead wrong.

********* I get  the creepy feeling that if you were running things, they would be rounded up.   And your take on his statement has very little to do with the statement itself.

I'm gonna start skipping things, since you're gonna rabbit away from anything I write, anyway (for a guy who's "whupped me in every debate," I notice you're very reluctant to take me on in front of your new friends here.  If you wiped the floor with me before, as you say, I'd think you'd be eager for a repeat of our Wacky World discussions, no?), and I left "overlong" way back there somewhere already.


Quote

Sure, liberals like Mr. Roberts support our troops.What an absolute lie, as the sly attack is made here that it is our soldiers destroying Iraqi lives, destroying Iraq cities. The disrespect and hatred the left has for the U.S. military has never gone away. It's just been cloaked better. That cloak is being dropped, as the left seizes on their "victories" like Abu Ghraib and goes for the kill.

******** Again, I hope that at some point you'll make such statements around me in person sometime.   And I also repeat: you could not be more wrong.    And if you want to be taken seriously as a critic of the left's "hate speech," then you better do a better job of "cloaking" your own pathology.   I do think that Roberts is being overly-generalizing in this article.  He's got YOU pegged, but, luckily for this country, you're an anomaly, and I hope that people on both sides realize that, or we'll have an even harder time working together again.  You may be having fun, but you're certainly doing your side of the aisle no favors by justifying claims like Roberts is making.  I usually take exception to "brownshirt" claims about Republicans, because in 99% of the cases, that's absolute crap.   You, however, beat those odds.  You're not a racist at all that I can see, and you're not a homophobe, but if once that's divorced from it, the shirt fits.   Liberals are your personal brand of untermenschen, and your fervor against them is unequaled even by people who claim to be fascists.   But that is you, not conservatives, or even neo-conservatives, in general.   You, and Anne "The Man" Coulter, whose "only problem" with the Oklahoma City Bombing - which killed a whole lot of kids in daycare - was that it wasn't targeting a liberal newspaper building instead.  Those are the people I have a real beef with - not the "place-derogatory-adjective-here right" in general.   You need to understand this if you ever want to understand the reaction you get.  But, you'd probably prefer to live under the illusion that Democrats hate all righties in general, and you're part of a group.  You ain't part of a group.  You may get a sense of belonging, but you shouldn't, because you don't.


Quote

This is as close as the left will get to admitting that they are actively rooting for the opposition, and hope they win and drive us out of Iraq, with the maximum American casualties. The terrorists are freedom fighters to this columnist, no matter how many innocent Iraqis they blow up. Give the left time, they will get more brazen in their ecstatic support for the terrorists who want to kill Americans, there or back here. Anyone who opposes the evil imperialistic American military can't be all bad, right?

********* Someone remind me again why statements such as these are tolerated.   If you REALLY believe that half of the American population is rooting for the terrorists, just because they don't agree with your ideology-as-a-whole, then... dude, I don't know what to say to you.  Seek help.  

Quote

Translation: Mr. Roberts hopes for a collapse of the American economy, as the rightful and moral result of us daring to remove two squalid regimes from the face of the earth. Only in the twisted disturbed mind of a leftist like Mr. Roberts could democracy and freedom be an oppressive imposition.

********* How does acknowledging a problem become rooting for that problem?   If you don't acknowledge a problem, how are you supposed to deal with that problem?   You are proving Roberts right in his claims of "This is the mindset of delusion, and delusion permits of no facts or analysis. Blind emotion rules. Americans are right and everyone else is wrong. End of the debate. " and "Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy."  Those statements seem over-the-top until you get ahold of 'em.  If you want to disprove what this guy is saying, then you're going about it the wrong way.  It's an interesting article to discuss, and it's certainly open to criticism in many of its assertions, but you'd be much better served by reading replies like Ilphi made in this thread - it was an intelligent and fairly-stated refutation of the article, and I agree with him.  And I also agree with what Lord Ravensburg said, that such articles shouldn't be used to shoehorn all conservatives... but it's certainly not to YOUR credit that I do.   Anyway, Ogami, thank-you, thank-you, thank-you for not picking my side of the argument to support.  The left already has enough of a liability in Nemesys...

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#14 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 02:47 PM

Yes it is, I think I even remember where the screenshot came from. and what Ilphi said.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#15 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 05:39 PM

Ogami--


Lawsy!  You really should consider a gig as a stand-up comic.  Or perhaps, as someone else suggested, a semester in a remedial-reading class.  I log onto this thread and what do I find?  Why, yourself, tossing the dishes and the pictures off the wall and your granny's china figurines and a couple old mud boots about like a demented poltergeist and yelling "librullibrullibrullibrul!" at--

at--

at--

Why, I can hardly think it!  At a fellow conservative!

I may have to go lie down for a while.  

You know, you don't argue.  You just fling the same old insults at anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of what he's actually said, regardless of which part of the political spectrum she actually occupies.  Mr. Roberts is--let me say it again--a conservative.  Neither the National Review nor the Wall Street Journal engages in affirmative action hiring of liberals, especially not for editorial writers.  Lew Rockwell's site is right-leaning libertarian.  Along with Mr. Roberts, he runs such (librullibrullibrul!) columnists as David Hackworth, who is one of the few commentators to write with consistent honesty and real knowledge about the Iraq war; Pat Buchanan, with whom I occasionally find myself in agreement (and then I really do have to go lie down because that scares me); and Don Feder, a truly vile fascist.  (You'd love him if you don't already.)  

As Specs said, all you've done is prove the man right.  

And the next time you yowl about the liberal press--why, I'll remind you that you your very own self declared it had been crushed right out of existence.   Thank you.  

Zwolf666--

Quote

but when Ogami reacted to it the way Pat Robertson would if someone said Mel Gibson's Passion was "the funniest slapstick comedy ever," I knew Mr. Roberts was onto something. Viva le KoolAid!

Actually, that's how ol' Pat would've reacted if someone had said Gibsons' Passion was the most disturbing homoerotic snuff film ever and St. Mel had on a bad, bad case of projection . . ..

Edited by waterpanther, 08 January 2005 - 05:42 PM.

Posted Image

#16 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 06:01 PM

Lord Ravensburg, on Jan 8 2005, 10:44 AM, said:

I would not encourage anyone to use a divisive article like this as a tool to shoehorn all conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



But Milord it's so much easier and what liberals do best. After all  All Republicans support banning Abortion as a choice. They favor The Death Penalty. The want to make America a White Christian only nation. Or at least that is what they want to see.

After all it's easier to do that than find common ground with people.

I support choice for women over the age of 17. Becasue there are laws on the books that place a child's well being as being with the parents responsibility. Unless the parent is proven to be uncaring or wreakless with the child's safety.

But I support the Death Penalty as I want the state to put to death someone who is too dangerous to ever consider getting loose.

As to God I will leave it with him to decide what to do with people.

I favor the war as I have suspected for a long while that Saddam was providing bases and moneis to terrorists. I suspect that Syria and Suadia Arabia likewise are doing the same. But Saddam is the weakest of the dictators so taking him out has been nessicary and should have been done when he started to play his little game with the inspectors.

But it's ok to lump us in the same group. It makes have to work toghere and that explains the Red States even more.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#17 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 06:48 PM

Quote

HubcapDave asked:
Is that a picture of James Callis as Gaius Baltar in the new Battlestar Galactica?

It surely is! Very enjoyable series, and although he's not my favorite character needed something to fill that space up with after Ex Isle picture day.

And 'ta to tennyson and D'Monix, you flatter me with your deference.
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse

#18 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 07:04 PM

Spectacles wrote:

Thank you, Ogami, for beautifully illustrating Roberts's points.

It's an insulting and vicious article, attacking Christians and Jews equally, and attacking anyone who dares support the President in this war on terror.

That's all the left has, insults and hate. You make debate easy.

-Ogami

#19 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 07:33 PM

Quote

That's all the left has, insults and hate. You make debate easy.

Excuse me while I laugh for the rest of my life.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I have no words.  :D HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Was that easy enough debate for you, Ogami?  

------

G -

Quote

But Milord it's so much easier and what liberals do best. After all All Republicans support banning Abortion as a choice. They favor The Death Penalty. The want to make America a White Christian only nation. Or at least that is what they want to see.

Oh please.  Do you truly think that the majority of non-Republican supporting people think this of all conservatives?  The fact of the matter is, the first two things you cite are actually stated Republican policies, more or less.  The "white Christian" crack is just ridiciulous and you know it.  C'mon G.

Quote

But it's ok to lump us in the same group. It makes have to work toghere and that explains the Red States even more.

Yet you conservatives do the same to the liberals.  It's hypocritical for both sides to protest.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#20 D'Monix

D'Monix
  • Islander
  • 4,060 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 07:38 PM

It would seem to me that this article was written as inflamatory in the first place, and the reason for it's posting on the forums is not so much aimed at fostering debate or discussion as it is aimed at baiting certain parties to respond, thus igniting YET another round of mudslinging in the OT forum.

And the bait was swallowed: hook, line, and sinker.

No good can come of this...



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics-American, Conservatives, Neo-cons

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users