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!
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.
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.
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.
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.)
********* 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
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...