Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
A Flag on a Hill
11-07-2008, 10:09 PM
For my fellow conservatives (on this particular board? Maybe all 2 of you, but still) the incredible Bill Whittle.
Quote: So consider this, my fellows in arms:
On Tuesday, the Left - armed with the most attractive, eloquent, young, hip and charismatic candidate I have seen with my adult eyes, a candidate shielded by
a media so overtly that it can never be such a shield again, who appeared after eight years of a historically unpopular President, in the midst of two
undefended wars and at the time of the worst financial crisis since the Depression and whose praises were sung by every movie, television and musical icon
without pause or challenge for 20 months… who ran against the oldest nominee in the country's history, against a campaign rent with internal disarray and
determined not to attack in the one area where attack could have succeeded and who was out-spent no less than seven-to-one in a cycle where not a single
debate question was unfavorable to his opponent - that historic victory, that perfect storm of opportunity…
Yielded a result of 53%
Folks, we are going to lick these people out of their boots.
There is much to do. That a man with such overt Marxist ideas and such a history of association with virulent anti-Americans can be elected President should
make it crystal clear to each of us just how far we have let fall the moral tone of this Republic. The great lesson from Ronald Reagan was simply that we can
and must gently educate as well as campaign, and explain our ideas with smiles on our faces and real joy in our hearts, for unlike the far-left radical who
gained the Presidency on Tuesday, we start with 150 million of the most free and intelligent and hard-working people in the history of the Earth at our
backs, with a philosophy that -- unlike theirs, which has resulted in 100 million dead in unmarked graves -- has liberated and enriched more people and
created more joy than any nation or combination of nations in our history.
How can we lose this greater fight, my friends? How can we lose, unless we give up?
Read the whole thing in the link above. Like everything else the man writes, it's pure gold.
Posts: 1,844
Threads: 138
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
I'm only going to tackle one aspect of this: the "overtly Marxist" stuff. A lot of people are saying that sort of thing.
My father (not me, I hasten to add) is a draft-dodging Canadian-exile hippie, and a self-proclaimed Socialist of the first order.
He loathes Obama and sees him as just another puppet of the right, indistinguishable from McCain. As, he tells me, do most actual socialists.
--Sam
"I must break you."
Posts: 2,635
Threads: 170
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
Posts: 1,138
Threads: 161
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote: "The great lesson from Ronald Reagan was simply that we can and must gently educate as well as campaign, and explain our ideas with smiles"
And make every attempt to bankrupt them, not matter what the cost to your own country; and throw your support behind regimes of dubious characters who happen
to support your world view.
Quote: " on our faces and real joy in our hearts, for unlike the far-left radical who gained the Presidency on Tuesday, we start with 150 million of the most
free and intelligent and hard-working people in the history of the Earth at our backs, with a philosophy that -- unlike theirs, which has resulted in 100
million dead in unmarked graves"
Last time I checked Obama is not a Marxist be any reasonable definition. Furthermore Marxism does not contain a proviso anywhere for killing a whole bunch of
motherfuckers and dumping them into unmarked graves. I suppose you could, if you were a duplicitous douche - like this writer - tie capitalism to the
decimation of workers in early factory conditions. Same result, a whole bunch of dead motherfuckers. Or Monarchy. Or
any religion - though most religions actually do have a kill a whole bunch of motherfuckers clause - provided of course that they are the right motherfuckers
to kill - those naughty in the sight of your imaginary friend.
I also like the implication that those who did not vote for Obama are not to be counted among the most free
and intelligent and hard-working, etc, with the added proviso of being murdering Marxists with the blood of 100 million dead in unmarked graves.
If this is the gold standard for conservative writing, then the gold standard is a small, star sticker and a
pat on the head from the kindergarten teacher. Small, petty, fearmongering.
Marxist views. My god, Logan, do you have any shame? Does it bother you that you lie so blatantly, all the time? Is there ever the slightest niggling voice in
your head that wonders why, if you're so gosh-darn right, you have to hang around with people who spout absurd bullshit rather than trying to make an
honest, positive case to the public?
Yes, the guy who made tax-cutting a central plank of his election platform is a Marxist. Christ. You and your ridiculous ilk should go read some history and
figure out what the hell Marxism actually is. Moreover, you should gain some sense of fucking proportion. How DARE you support someone who directly compares
the Democratic Party and over half the voting American public to the likes of Stalin and Mao. If the "liberals" here merrily directly compared McCain
(who was hated by major elements within his own party) to Hitler, you would have some justification, even if it would in no way excuse you for being just as
bad, but of course nobody did. Nor did anybody directly compare Bush to Hitler (including Obama, who as noted in some post-mortem articles had a very good
comeback to Democrats who called him being overhysterical about the actions of the Bush White House), before you start whining about that. You have no excuse
for not denouncing this hateful pack of lies.
I ask again: Have you no goddamn shame?
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
I'm not sure, but it seems like the Marxist thing might originate from the radio show described here.
Which was, it should be noted, in 2001.
It doesn't look too unreasonable to call some of that socialist. I've no idea whether it's Marxist or not.
Still, seven years is enough time for someone's views to change. We'll have opportunity to find out what he thinks *now* soon enough.
Quote:How DARE you support someone who directly compares the Democratic Party and over half the voting American public to the likes of Stalin and Mao.
I wouldn't call that a direct comparison. At least, I don't see saying "this person has a philosophy that in the past, has been pursued in ways that lead to mass death" the same as saying "this person would consider mass death acceptable in pursuit of their philosophy".
Which isn't to say I see the point of the line in the first place. '.'
-Morgan.
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Thank you for your posts, everyone. Particularly you, Ayiekie. I knew what was coming, and you didn't disappoint me. Your predictability assures me that I
have you and those who think like you read correctly.
Posts: 1,407
Threads: 182
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
2
Remember when back in 2000 how the Republican's claimed Bush's vitory was a huge mandate.
And now they are claiming that Obama winning by an almost two to one margin in Electoral College Votes is some sort of skin of his teeth victory.
Wow, the capacity for self-delusion is frightening.
----------------
Epsilon
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
I do not recall the Republicans as a whole claiming that at the time. If President Bush and those in power tried to act like it, you might have an argument.
And I seem to recall it was biting them in the ass before 9-11 happened.
Electoral college vote this time out? No, not even close.
But the popular vote as a whole tells a truer picture statistically and demographically speaking. I am not going to claim this is an argument for doing away
with the electoral college. Sauce for the goose and all that. I merely mean that the country taken as a whole did not go all the way for Obama.
It mainly means that the Conservatives need to look at their message and strategy for specific parts of the country and culture.
Posts: 1,844
Threads: 138
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
As do the Liberals, of course.
We'll see where the country stands four years from now.
--Sam
"Roof pig! Most unexpected."
Epsi is presumably actually referring to 2004, where his slim victory gave GWB cause to declare he had a "mandate". Incidentally, to put this
"this isn't so bad!" rationalising into perspective, Reagan didn't even beat Carter by 10% of the popular vote (50% to 41%), so Barack's
52% to 46% is... pretty damn big, actually.
As for you, Logan, my main reason for being miffed was because for some reason I actually bought that you were sincere before. My bad. Calling Obama a Marxist
and socialist worked out so well for your side in that election; may you continue to spout it as long as you like. You clearly need a very long time out in the
political wilderness.
Well the 'tell a lie enough times and people believe it as truth' bit worked so well for
the democraps.... However, what do you call a plan that will give money to 40%
of workers that don't pay income tax and would get back Social security and medicare
when they retire??
Fidoohki, I will tell you the same thing I told Logan before... if you wish to be treated like an adult in a discussion, don't call names like a
six-year-old. "Democraps". Christ.
I don't think you are actually aware of the specifics of Obama's tax plan (which will undoubtedly be unrecognisable by the time it actually becomes law
anyway). Either that or you are disingenuously referring to something else that you don't want to give a (non-partisan, please) source to.
And if 40% of workers in the US didn't pay income tax, that would be because wages were so depressed and unemployment so rampant that 40% of workers in the
US are below the minimum tax bracket. Precisely what do you think that would say about the state of your economy?
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
... You know, I can only add one thing to all this. If Obama is a Marxist, then freakin' Teddy Roosevelt was Stalin, and Adolf Hitler all rolled into one
neat package.
Some of the greatest leaders of our country were great because they had veiws that could be considered socialist. They were not there for any single majority
or minority. They were there for the country at large. Usually this meant shaking things up a bit. You know, little things like the American Revolution, the
Abolishment of Slavery, Women's Sufferage, the New Deal, the Anti-Trust Laws, the Interstate Highway Project, the Civil Rights Act... Need I go on?
If Obama is indeed one of these socialist minded individuals who is indeed there for the country, then good on him! I hope he brings about some radical and
marvelous change that makes this country that much of a better place to be! Because since I've been born, there has not been a single President that has
accomplished such a feat. Not Reagan (though he certainly tried), not Bush Sr., not Clinton (he gave it a good shot too), nor even Bush-The-Second. Non of
these men have accomplished a remarkable change except to make other countries look at us with cock-eyed expresions, wondering what the hell those stupid
Americans were up to this time. Yes, that includes Reagan because of his Star Wars project.
Now, you want Marxism? Why don't you talk to the people that tried to rally protests against Bush's re-election. You'll get some very fascinating
input that sounds suspiciously like the detainment of political prisoners. Sure, it was only for a night or two, but it was long enough for Bush to do his
stumping and move on, without having everyone else distracted by his detractors. Oh, and can you believe that sometimes they weren't even read their
Miranda Rights? True story, happened right were I was living in Pennsylvania.
I wouldn't go that far. All those presidents achieved quite a few remarkable things, though not necessarily ones I'm happy about.
(And god, I wish Obama was a socialist as opposed to a business-friendly centrist. It would be hilarious.)
the 40% is those that file income taxes and get money back every year.
It's caleld a 'earned income tax credit I think. not too sure on that though.
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
Apparently that's close enough for some people. Pretty much why I likened him unto Roosevelt back there. Roosevelt has been qouted saying (more or less)
that while he was against corparations that were out of control, he was certainly not against big business as a whole. He merely wanted to put a bridle on the
horse, as it were, and I'm hoping that Obama draws those reigns in a bit since the Bush Administration has clearly let them go.
Agreed there. but Clinton signed in the deregulation not bush.
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
Like I said, Clinton tried, but he didn't quite succeed. Bush Jr's administration exacerbated that matter. One interestingt thing that runs exactly to
this argument comes to mind.
During Clinton's administration, only the US had the means to manufacture neodymium magnets - a critical component for Tomahawk cruise missiles. China
expresses an interest in this business, and Clinton allows them to purchase the this business, along with several others, but with a few caveats. For one, this
business had to remain on American Soil so we would still have a ready source of the critical parts for our weapons plants. China aggrees and goes on to make
money from magnets for missiles.
Later, during the Bush Administration, Ford Motor Company expresses an interest in building cheap cars using cheap labor in China. China won't allow for
it, unless we happen to let go of certain industries. Guess what the Bush administration gave up so Ford could make more money? China now controls all
manufacture of neodymium magnets. Should they so choose, they can deny us sale of the critical part needed for our cruise missiles. Good thing they're
making so much money off of us, right?
Wanna see more stuff like that? Check out Free
Lunch by David Cay Johnston. I've already looked at the negative reviews (which are vastly outweighed by the postivie ones) and they seem to be pitiful
arguments about information being outdated and easy enough to uncover. One reveiwer even went as far as to say that he was mislead by the title and was hoping
that the book would show him how to get rich off of taxpayer's dollars (ass). Trouble is that while some of the info may be old, these acts are still
being perpetrated and not very many people are wise to what's going on.
Deregulation goes back to Reagan. I know the Right is still harping on "everything's Clinton's fault", but every president since then shares
responsibility, and the simple fact is, it happened on Bush and the Republicans' watch. But hell, if the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism leads the
Democrats to stop supporting it so goddamn much, good for them.
Who said it was Clinton's fault? He signed the papers. Republicians made the bill and got it passed.
Dems refused to support investigations taht might have brought light to this early enough to stop it.
Republicains refused to bring it onto the floor for a vote and the SEC that was supposed to monitor it
failed to do so.
Therei s more than enough blame to go around here.
|
