← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · xmetalhead
Thread ID: 13679 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2004-05-13
2004-05-13 17:19 | User Profile
[I]I hate that motherf*cker Hannity with a passion. God, please, Forgive Me. This piece of dung, Hannity, is called out onto the floor, but being the pusillanimous female that he really is, he morphs into a name-calling teenage girl. Now, I read Ted Rall's weekly columns and he is definitely coming from the Liberal side, but I agree with alot of his points. You see, Shi'ites and Sunnis, Conservatives and Democrats, you've got a Uniter in George W. Bush.[/I]
COLMES: So you think the president -- well, I don't agree with him politically, and I do think we were misled, but you think he's overtly a murderer?
RALL: He's not -- He's not gutsy enough to do his own killing.
COLMES: So, he...
RALL: He lets other people do it.
COLMES: It's like hiring a hit man? Is that what you're comparing the war to, a president hiring a hit man?
RALL: I'm not the first to make this comparison.
COLMES: I've never heard that.
RALL: [COLOR=Red]The Bush administration is a bunch of gangsters, and they act just like it. [/COLOR]
[B]SEAN HANNITY[/B], CO-HOST: Ted.
[B]RALL:[/B] You can see with the Valerie Plame (search) scandal, you know, it's like someone gets outed, for being a CIA agent, that's a gangster kind of thing.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: Ted -- Ted, you're a left-wing radical nut. That's fine.
[B]RALL[/B]: I am a Democrat. You are a right-wing radical nut.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: You have every right to be a moron. You have every right to be thoughtless.
[B]RALL[/B]: Ditto.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: Here's the deal. You do this, and you call this man, who gave up millions of dollars in a contract because he was so affected by 9/11. And you do it without any thought for his family, which has already suffered, any thought for his community, which has already suffered.
And you do it to make a big fat name for yourself as the great controversial cartoonist. You know what you are? You're just mean. You're a mean, selfish human being. Isn't that what it comes down to?
[B]RALL[/B]: I don't claim to be a perfect guy, Sean.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: Well, you're not.
[B]RALL[/B]: [COLOR=Red]But you've been sitting here pimping a war for the last 2 1/2 years that has killed thousands of innocent people. [/COLOR]
[B]HANNITY[/B]: Sir, this country was attacked. We were defending ourselves.
[B]RALL[/B]: We were not attacked.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: I know you and all your little liberal friends would have done nothing.
[B]RALL[/B]: But that is not true.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: And we would only be attacked again. And innocent Americans, even young liberals like you, would have been killed as well.
[B]RALL[/B]: To do something is good. To do the wrong thing is stupid. We have done the wrong thing since 9/11. We have yet to go after the countries and the people who carried out the attacks.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: Ted.
[B]RALL[/B]: Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: I would like to have an intelligent conversation, but it's a one-way street with you, because you believe in the most bizarre conspiracy theories.
[B]RALL[/B]: Really.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: Without any evidence, proof or substantiation.
[B]RALL[/B]: There are tens of thousands of Americans who agree with me.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: You claim this was about going after oil resources.
[B]RALL[/B]: Duh.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: You cannot prove it. It's a lie.
[B]RALL[/B]: I can't prove it?
[B]HANNITY[/B]: More importantly, I want you to look into the camera. I want you to look into the camera, and I want you to address the mother of Pat Tillman when she hears that you think her son is an idiot and a sap who only wants to kill Arabs.
Why don't you explain to her why you were so mean and thoughtless? Explain it to her.
[B]RALL[/B]: That is -- That is a really cheap tactic, Sean.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: Explain it to the mother. Explain it to this kid's mother. Cheap tactic? Why don't you explain it while you're trying to further your liberal cartoonist career.
[B]RALL[/B]:[COLOR=Red] You know, why don't you speak to her and ask her how you've been promoting the kind of propaganda for the last 2 1/2 years that led to her son getting killed, for nothing? [/COLOR]
[B]HANNIT[/B]Y: Ted -- Ted, her son's a hero. I love him and admire him and I'm sorry about the pain.
[B]RALL[/B]: He died for nothing.
[B]HANNITY[/B]: You just opened up a wound and you poured in salt, because you want to advance your career.
[B]RALL[/B]: No. I drew a cartoon to make the point...
[B]HANNITY[/B]: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're a mean, despicable, thoughtless human being. And you're a heartless human being. And you're a lying human being.
[B]RALL[/B]: I guess you're God. You get to judge me.
[B]COLMES[/B]: We are just out of time. We thank you very much, Ted, for being here tonight.
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119487,00.html[/url]
2004-05-13 17:39 | User Profile
Kerry for President 2004
Bush is a clear and present danger to America and the entire world and must be removed from office. I'm just about at the point where this overrides any other concern.
2004-05-13 17:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]HANNITY: More importantly, I want you to look into the camera. I want you to look into the camera, and I want you to address the mother of Pat Tillman when she hears that you think her son is an idiot and a sap who only wants to kill Arabs.
Why don't you explain to her why you were so mean and thoughtless? Explain it to her.
RALL: That is -- That is a really cheap tactic, Sean.
HANNITY: Explain it to the mother. Explain it to this kid's mother. Cheap tactic? Why don't you explain it while you're trying to further your liberal cartoonist career. [/QUOTE]
Hey, it looks to me like Fox News have themselves a running motif here! Apparently dead people approve very strongly of the neo agenda – and remember: they vote.
[QUOTE]GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father! GLICK: The people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father. GLICK: ... didn't kill my father. O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there. GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people? O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are! GLICK: So what about George Bush? O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA. O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were... O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this. GLICK: Well, I hope she is. O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: In respect for your father... GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing? O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up. GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up. O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians... GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government... O'REILLY: Out of respect for him... GLICK: ... not the people of America. O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to... GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority. O'REILLY: Cut his mic.
[url]http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/transcripts/oreillyglick.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
Fox News. We report – your closest dead relative decides.
You know what’s the vilest thing at work here? When you read things like the Hannity and O’Reilly interviews; or Tammy Bruce’s psychotic screed in the TORTUREGATE thread; there is no getting around the fact that the most submoronic, most sadistic, most easily bought tools of the ZioCons are shabbas goys to a man. What Kristol will politely phrase with a scalpel - and John Podhoretz, more clumsily, with a butter knife - some dumb fu**in’ white man will volunteer to say with a meat cleaver and a megaphone– every time!
2004-05-13 17:58 | User Profile
Hannity and O'Reilly are both absolutely vile, but Hannity is the one I just absolutely cannot stomach. O'Reilly, for all his arrogance, small-mindedness, and self-righteousness, seems to have a semi-independent thought every once in a blue moon. Hannity, on the other hand, is nothing more than a neoconservative, kosher shill who has never seen a scandal or an atrocity he can't rationalize away. He has never had a creative thought or said an original thing in his entire, sycophantic life. Miserable bootlicking toady wuss piece of crap.
Sorry to go off, but I really don't like the guy.
2004-05-13 18:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Kerry for President 2004
Bush is a clear and present danger to America and the entire world and must be removed from office. I'm just about at the point where this overrides any other concern.[/QUOTE]
Texas Dissident, I'm just about with you there. If Kerry is half of what Clinton was, then at least, the very least, we'll have someone willing and able to schmooze the other nations in order to pacify them. It's not a perfect way by any means, but darn, it's better than Bush holding the fuse for WWIII nuclear war in his hands while he plays with matches. Peace (schmoozing) is always CHEAPER than war. We need the money.
2004-05-13 18:56 | User Profile
Tex, XMH, it ain't gonna be that easy. There will be Arab reprisals in the West for years to come now...this is what Hymie was [I]counting on [/I] while he lured Bush into this debacle. He knew that [I]once you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound[/I]: that beginning something of this nature requires total commitment - like it or not - because the people you're bombing aren't likely to let bygones be bygones in a year or two, simply because you switched Jew-puppets.
The Great Satan is ZOG, and -ready or not - a billion Muslims are now energized to take the battle to the Whore Of Israel. We've given them something worth uniting - and dying - for. Forget 'peace' - [I]relative domestic tranquility [/I] may only be attainable now by wiping out many millions of Arabs - this was the unspoken [U]but ever-present[/U] part of the risk we ran going in like we did, and with the rhetoric we did. (Gulf War 1 was clearly an action aimed at Iraq specifically - not the entirety of Islam.)
Vote for Kerry, by all means. But there isn't a politician out there on the playing field with a credible formula for closing Pandora's Box now that the Jews seduced our 'leaders' into opening it.
2004-05-13 19:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] Vote for Kerry, by all means. But there isn't a politician out there on the playing field with a credible formula for closing Pandora's Box now that the Jews seduced our 'leaders' into opening it.[/QUOTE] Dang, Ragno, that's a pessimistic viewpoint. What's even worse, however, is that I have to admit it is pretty much accurate. :frown:
2004-05-13 19:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Tex, XMH, it ain't gonna be that easy. There will be Arab reprisals in the West for years to come now...this is what Hymie was [I]counting on [/I] while he lured Bush into this debacle. He knew that [I]once you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound[/I]: that beginning something of this nature requires total commitment - like it or not - because the people you're bombing aren't likely to let bygones be bygones in a year or two, simply because you switched Jew-puppets.
The Great Satan is ZOG, and -ready or not - a billion Muslims are now energized to take the battle to the Whore Of Israel. We've given them something worth uniting - and dying - for. Forget 'peace' - [I]relative domestic tranquility [/I] may only be attainable now by wiping out many millions of Arabs - this was the unspoken [U]but ever-present[/U] part of the risk we ran going in like we did, and with the rhetoric we did. (Gulf War 1 was clearly an action aimed at Iraq specifically - not the entirety of Islam.)
Vote for Kerry, by all means. But there isn't a politician out there on the playing field with a credible formula for closing Pandora's Box now that the Jews seduced our 'leaders' into opening it.[/QUOTE]
IR, can't add much there, you summed up the problem nicely. Or sadly, I should say. The Freepers are calling for killing all Arabs as we speak, but then they go home and watch "American Idol". I dunno. The Day Of Horror is going to come like a thief in the night to those people who even whispered support for The Debacle Of Death In Iraq. If I wasn't so compassionate, I'd probably enjoy the look on their pathetic pale faces, but I, myself and my family, might not even be in one piece to enjoy that spectacle, thanks to the millions of Armchair Armageddon Warriors In Service To Zion who helped propel the coming Nuclear Holocaust. Thanks guys!!
2004-05-13 19:28 | User Profile
Well, there's [I]one [/I] way out that would bring real peace, restore sovreignty to nations, freedom and purpose to the West.....and might even help build amicable relations between former foes: [B]give them Israel[/B]. Cut that syphilitic whore loose, suck her dry of funds, and throw her to the people who've felt her whip the hardest these past few decades.
Nahhh. That would be sane, and moral, and just, and serve the interests of not-Jews. Never happen.
2004-05-13 19:30 | User Profile
Xmetal,
HANNITY: I would like to have an intelligent conversation, but
it's a one-way street with you, because you believe in the most bizarre
conspiracy theories.
He's got room to be talking. The problem I see here that is is impossible to
have an intelligent conversation with the likes of Sean Hannity. I can have
an absolutely brilliant conversation with my cat compared to those that
Hannity has with his lightweight guests.
Ted Ralls is someone I despise. He is absolute low life for some of the
things that he has done. A person that I hate even more is the bootlick
Hannity and his seventh grade "debate" tactics. Whenever Sean runs up against
someone who starts winning points against him you can count on Sean to wave
the bloody shirt. John Gibson of The Big Story, (Lie) isn't any
better, but then again, that's what I expect out of FOX News. Hannity
represents what I call "the new patriotism," that is to say the old
militarism. If you don't march in lock step with these cowards you are a
"liberal and a democrat," or worse, a "supporter of terrorists."
The only people stupider and more ignorant than Sean are his listeners,
particularly the women. They are as brainless as the Clinton knee pad brigade
and I don't doubt they would do as Monica did if they had the chance.
The thing I hate the most about this worthless piece of garbage is the way he
is misrepresenting genuine conservativism with his judeo-plutocratic
imposter. By the time he and the rest of the Jew fawning plutocratic loving
bastards get through most people will probably embrace "liberalism."
Neo-cons are to conservatives as the Genoese bowman were to the French
knights at the battle of Crecy as the popular version goes. The Genoese were
sent forward to engage the English line with their crossbows. Instead, the
English engage them first with their long bows. The Genoese took off running
in the face of such a barrage. The French knights looked upon this with
contempt and rode in among them and slaughtered a number of them for what
they regarded as treason and cowardice. At least the bowmen have an excuse.
The neo-cons don't. I hope one day conservatives do as the French knights did
and trample their asses underfoot for their cowardice and treason.
It would be poetic justice if Hannity got caught in a public toilet stall
with another man. He arlready does this in a spiritual sense, he might as
well do it physically.
2004-05-13 19:34 | User Profile
Tex, every succeeding little whore they put in the White House will be at least as bad as his predecessor, more than likely worse, the further into the agenda we're taken. They're like the single blossom on a growing plant. It keeps getting higher up in the air but it's the plant, not the blossom, that's growing.
We're the stump grinder, sitting in the shade unplugged, watching the roots wrap around us.
2004-05-13 19:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius] The thing I hate the most about this worthless piece of garbage is the way he is misrepresenting genuine conservativism with his judeo-plutocratic imposter.[/QUOTE] Hear, hear! It pains me to hear someone accuse the Bush Administration or the neocons of being "right-wing." Good Lord, if only they actually were!
What neither Rall nor Hannity seem to understand is that they are actually engaged in an internecine dispute among leftists -- they all want to sweep away all real traditions and cultures and impose a new world order, but they have a minor disagreement over tactics.
2004-05-13 19:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Hear, hear! It pains me to hear someone accuse the Bush Administration or the neocons of being "right-wing." Good Lord, if only they actually were!
What neither Rall nor Hannity seem to understand is that they are actually engaged in an internecine dispute among leftists -- they all want to sweep away all real traditions and cultures and impose a new world order, but they have a minor disagreement over tactics.[/QUOTE]
Q, nice point about Rall & Hannity both being Leftists. However, you know just where Rall is coming from since he does have a sliver of honesty whereas Hannity is a vile, vulgar, rotting LIAR. Also, Hannity has 1000x more visibilty than a guy like Rall, therefore infecting more unsuspecting Sheeple with his poison.
I began reading Rall's weekly columns on his website only AFTER George Bush and his Zionist Network invaded Iraq illegally. You see, Shi'ites and Sunnis, real Conservatives and non-jewish Liberals, have 'an enemy of my enemy' thing going on. That is how terrible W has been for America.
Sheeeot, I'm beginning to agree alot with [I]Louis Farrakhan[/I], for jossiah's sake!!!!
2004-05-13 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Q, nice point about Rall & Hannity both being Leftists. However, you know just where Rall is coming from since he does have a sliver of honesty whereas Hannity is a vile, vulgar, rotting LIAR. Also, Hannity has 1000x more visibilty than a guy like Rall, therefore infecting more unsuspecting Sheeple with his poison.
I began reading Rall's weekly columns on his website only AFTER George Bush and his Zionist Network invaded Iraq illegally. You see, Shi'ites and Sunnis, real Conservatives and non-jewish Liberals, have 'an enemy of my enemy' thing going on. That is how terrible W has been for America.
Sheeeot, I'm beginning to agree alot with Louis Farrakhan, for jossiah's sake!!!![/QUOTE] Thank you, X. If you want to see my opinion of Hannity, refer back to my first post in this thread. Geez, what a worthless, despicable human being.
And yes, it is true that W and the neocons have created some truly strange bedfellows as their enemies -- most of Europe, pretty much all Muslims, true conservatives, Cleric Sadr (who was a dissident under Saddam, for Pete's sake), the Vatican, Louis Farrakhan -- they all hate this guy.
I guess W kept one campaign promise -- he really is a uniter, not a divider. :wink:
2004-05-14 04:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Kerry for President 2004
Bush is a clear and present danger to America and the entire world and must be removed from office. I'm just about at the point where this overrides any other concern.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that Kerry supports the war, and only claims that he would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Bush. No, the only real anti-war vote is third party. Nader has announced his opposition, and I'm sure that the Constitution and Libertarian candidates will also be opposed to the Great Patriotic War Against Islamo-Fascism. Of course, none of these candidates will win, but at least a vote for them will be a vote against the neocons' war.
However, if public sentiment against the war rises (along with support for Nader), expect John Kerry to become a born again peacemaker.
2004-05-14 06:23 | User Profile
Quasi-debates between idiots like Hannity and idiots like Rall are only intended to support the left vs. right idiocy.
2004-05-14 06:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Well, there's [I]one [/I] way out that would bring real peace, restore sovreignty to nations, freedom and purpose to the West.....and might even help build amicable relations between former foes: [B]give them Israel[/B]. Cut that syphilitic whore loose, suck her dry of funds, and throw her to the people who've felt her whip the hardest these past few decades.
Nahhh. That would be sane, and moral, and just, and serve the interests of not-Jews. Never happen.[/QUOTE] Not that easy, with the kikes rubbing their nuclear button and shrieking "never again, you are going down with us"; and they want YOU to know they have it.
So, nothing short of a preventive nuclear strike to erase the shitstain of humanity and its revenge weapons will do it. And you know the probability of that happenning.
2004-05-14 06:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Nothing short of a preventive nuclear strike to erase the shitstain of humanity and its revenge weapons will do it. [/QUOTE]
Okay.
2004-05-14 07:22 | User Profile
M.R.,
Yes, but we can still dream, for at this point for me it is a lovely dream. It won't be the U.S. that does it, but another country might take this on if they get scared and mad enough.
2004-05-15 03:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Kerry for President 2004
Bush is a clear and present danger to America and the entire world and must be removed from office. I'm just about at the point where this overrides any other concern.[/QUOTE]
That'd probably be my position, if I lived in a swing state. As it stands, as much as I loathe Kerry, I hope he wins just so Bush can be humiliated.
2004-05-15 03:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Texas Dissident, I'm just about with you there. If Kerry is half of what Clinton was, then at least, the very least, we'll have someone willing and able to schmooze the other nations in order to pacify them. It's not a perfect way by any means, but darn, it's better than Bush holding the fuse for WWIII nuclear war in his hands while he plays with matches. Peace (schmoozing) is always CHEAPER than war. We need the money.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with you 2 one bit.
A) Immigration - legal or otherwise - is BY FAR our biggest crisis. Getting bombed by an Arab is far less likely to happen to me than getting mugged by a Mexican.
B) John Kerry won't make you any safer. He's udner the same influences/control that BUsh is. You guys know better.
Jay
2004-05-15 03:40 | User Profile
post deleted
2004-05-21 04:13 | User Profile
Every time I see Hannity's smirking, arched-eyebrow face, I yearn to reach through the screen and smash it into oblivion. The same goes for Shill O'Really, that aggressive bastard Gibson, Cavuto.....
2004-05-21 06:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Hey, it looks to me like Fox News have themselves a running motif here! Apparently dead people approve very strongly of the neo agenda ââ¬â .[/QUOTE]
Stop it man, you're killing me!
:punk:
2004-05-21 06:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Kerry for President 2004
Bush is a clear and present danger to America and the entire world and must be removed from office. I'm just about at the point where this overrides any other concern.[/QUOTE]
Hey, Tex, hold on there.
Shrub did more than I could have even imagined in my wildest dreams to hasten Yggdrasil's total economic collapse.
Remember, Ygg's strategy (and I'm totally on board with this) is to (1) organize a network of loosely allied white social organizations that will form the plinth of our new Republic and a bulwork back upon which (2) the current Imperial structures will collapse.
We need to chasten (1) and hasten (2), so to speak.
And nothing could ensure that better than four more years of the Shrubster.
Worse is better!
(not that I can stomache actually voting for the bastard, though).
Walter
2004-05-21 15:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE]We need to chasten (1) and hasten (2), so to speak.
And nothing could ensure that better than four more years of the Shrubster.[/QUOTE]
Whoa yourself. If you believe that - whatever his considerable demerits - a Kerry presidency would significantly step down the war and result in fewer American kids and Iraqi patriots being murdered in a proxy war to benefit a nefarious noncombatant, then you have to vote for Kerry. I don't care what obscure vulgate you consult to back you up here - you have no right to knowingly help sentence innocents to death. Moral physician, heal thyself.
If, on the other hand, you honestly think Kerry would only continue and/or escalate, you may as well stay home altogether.
2004-05-21 15:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Whoa yourself. If you believe that - whatever his considerable demerits - a Kerry presidency would significantly step down the war and result in fewer American kids and Iraqi patriots being murdered in a proxy war to benefit a nefarious noncombatant, then you have to vote for Kerry. I don't care what obscure vulgate you consult to back you up here - you have no right to knowingly help sentence innocents to death. Moral physician, heal thyself.
If, on the other hand, you honestly think Kerry would only continue and/or escalate, you may as well stay home altogether.[/QUOTE]
I take it that you don't buy into the "worse is better" doctrine?
Morality? Yeah, right.
Hey, man, this is war. The moral is whatever most ill-serves the Empire and brings it down most efficiently. Within certain wide boundaries, of course.
But if Shrub will get us deeper into this thing and ruin us financially while creating all sorts of righteous hatred for the Empire, then I say "go Shrub!"
I've written here previously that this was Lenin's winning strategy. Everybody else on the entire European Left thought that WWI was a bad thing that must be avoided at all costs, but Vladimir Ilyich understood that the War was a GOOD THING for him and his Jewish Bolsheviks because only the war could inflict the sort of damage on the imperial infrastructure that could bring on a general collapse and allow power to fall into his hands like an overripe apple. He did whatever he could to fan the flames (including having his guys enlist for the front so they could recruit soldiers there - whoa, talk about dedication), and then he switched sides when he judged the time to be right. And he was right.
We know he was right because he won.
Had Lenin thought like you, he never would have taken power. He would have been a loser instead of a winner. And Ragman, buddy, you know I love your guts but that's the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
We need to emulate the successful if we want to be winners. At least to the extent necessary to achieve our basic goals. And I'm a big fan of success, with an instinctive aversion to failure.
So, I say let's get beyond our adolescent love for moral purity and set our gaze firmly on success.
You can never be too cynical, Ragman. Not in this old world, anyway.
Walter
2004-05-21 17:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I've written here previously that this was Lenin's winning strategy. Everybody else on the entire European Left thought that WWI was a bad thing that must be avoided at all costs, but Vladimir Ilyich understood that the War was a GOOD THING for him and his Jewish Bolsheviks because only the war could inflict the sort of damage on the imperial infrastructure that could bring on a general collapse and allow power to fall into his hands like an overripe apple. He did whatever he could to fan the flames (including having his guys enlist for the front so they could recruit soldiers there - whoa, talk about dedication), and then he switched sides when he judged the time to be right. And he was right.[/QUote] Retired German General de Bernardi wrote [I][B]Germany and the Next War[/B][/I] in 1911, and the book was translated into English the following year, if I remember correctly. He mentioned a great ploy of the German army was to insert left-wing agitators into Russia to foment domestic unrest. Lenin did succeed, but it was the Germans who made it possible.
I suspect those who advocate much of the blood-letting that I read on this forum would be absent when the time came to take the field. Our numbers must increase, but it will be necessary to have a greater public presence.
2004-05-21 17:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Morality? Yeah, right.
Hey, man, this is war. [/QUOTE]
Morality is only important in contexts and situations when pretending it isn't important at all is the most convenient and pragmatic course to an objective. It's only in such situations where one discovers if one's morality is a tangible thing or a series of poses you've affected for years to flatter yourself. Were it not so every soldier in history who ever served would be a war criminal and opportunist, and every general a vainglorious butcher.
This isn't about Bush's morality, it's about yours. If you sincerely believe that Kerry in the White House - grudgingly or not - would take steps to scale down hostilities and spare the lives of our 19 and 20-year-olds, and the Arabs dying as well, you can't cynically press a lever for Bush hoping for more death and then ask to be taken seriously when you wax lyrical about the Precious Blood He shed for us and sprinkle Papal pixie dust in our faces.
2004-05-21 18:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]This is isn't about Bush's morality, it's about yours. If you sincerely believe that Kerry in the White House - grudgingly or not - would take steps to scale down hostilities and spare the lives of our 19 and 20-year-olds, and the Arabs dying as well, you can't cynically press a lever for Bush hoping for more death and then ask to be taken seriously when you wax lyrical about the Precious Blood He shed for us and sprinkle Papal pixie dust in our faces.[/QUOTE]
Hey, man, ya gotta kill 'em to save their souls/our "union"/a vibrant global trade environment. We've got Mercantile Abe to look to as an example; after all, it only took the South twelve or so decades to recover from his application of "Christian" love/justice, and as noted elsewhere we have Atlanta as a result.
[quote=Walter Yannis]So, I say let's get beyond our adolescent love for moral purity and set our gaze firmly on success.
I'm not sure whether to describe at length how very Tony Robbins that sounds or to ask how I missed the canonization of Ayn Rand.
You pick it. Although it would be interesting to hear a treatise on how neurolinguistic programming, Paul's letter to the Phillippians, and the will to power all stack up in one neat "Works trump Faith" package...
2004-05-22 00:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] ... Remember, Ygg's strategy (and I'm totally on board with this) is to (1) organize a network of loosely allied white social organizations that will form the plinth of our new Republic and a bulwork back upon which (2) the current Imperial structures will collapse.
We need to chasten (1) and hasten (2), so to speak.
And nothing could ensure that better than four more years of the Shrubster.
Worse is better! ... [/QUOTE]
Perhaps, and I half-way agree, but, for the sake of analysis, let me point out it is not quite as clear-cut: Unlike (probably) Kerry, Shrub is going to take another bunch of your civil liberties and/or citizen rights away, and another, and another, as many as he can, actually, which will seriously hamper (1) above. :cowboy: :tank: :shocking: :bag:
2004-05-22 05:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE]This isn't about Bush's morality, it's about yours. If you sincerely believe that Kerry in the White House - grudgingly or not - would take steps to scale down hostilities and spare the lives of our 19 and 20-year-olds, and the Arabs dying as well, you can't cynically press a lever for Bush hoping for more death and then ask to be taken seriously when you wax lyrical about the Precious Blood He shed for us and sprinkle Papal pixie dust in our faces.[/QUOTE]
Man, you sound like Good Deed Daley, the busy little Boy Scout. You wouldn't last a nanosecond in the corporate jungle, dude. And you're from the asphalt jungle, are you not? How you got this far is beyond me, but you are to be commended for not giving yourself over totally to cynicism, as I have long ago.
But leaving that aside, let's accept that there's always a context to moral judgements, my friends. We're always making moral choices like that. We struggle with our consciences - that's what being a man and putting away childish things in moral reasoning is about.
The Bible tells us that there's a time for war just as there's a time for peace.
St. Peter carried a sword (he also carried the purse) and he was quite prepared to use it.
The Bible also tells us that we are to be as innocent as lambs but as cunning as vipers (doesn't it? Being a Catholic I haven't read that in years!)
So, c'mon guys. We need to win, because if we lose then, well, we're losers, and we just can't let that happen.
My best judgement is that collapse is our best hope for killing ZOG before ZOG kills us. So, the MORAL thing then is to hasten its approach.
What's so terrible about that?
And while I'm at it, what's so un-Christian about wanting to win, as my right honorable friend Weisbrot seems to imply?
Christianity is all about winning, and being on the winning side. Isn't that clear? Remember, in the end our King comes back and stomps our enemies but good, sending them to an eternity of relentless torment. Then we all get to assume our own personal thrones of glory, from which we will rule as sons and daughters of the King. I humbly submit that's enough to make Tony Robbins and/or Ayn Rand blush.
You confuse, it seems to me, goals and tactics. We're soldiers in the Army of Christ, and our goal is to utterly rout the enemy and assume our rightful places as rulers of this world and the next. The TACTIC is to use the Love of God against the forces of darkness - a sort of spiritual ju jitsu discipline - but in service of the STRATEGIC objective of absolute victory both Here and in the Hereafter. Sure, we love our enemies and all that, but that's TACTICS aimed at crushing them underfoot most efficiently.
[QUOTE]Romans 12 20On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[1] [/QUOTE]
Note well that the goal is not to feed and comfort our enemy, but rather to really heap burning coals on his head.
Everything in the spiritual plane is somehow reflected backward here on Earth. I don't understand it, but it is the truth. The saying "the last shall be first and the first shall be last" sums it up pithily. Or consider the prayer of St. Francis, who yearned to "be a channel of God's peace" and to prefer "to love than to be loved" precisely because "it is in giving that we receive." St. Francis loved because it was the best way to win. Simple.
You crush your enemy most effectively by love. Share your crust of bread with him in this world, and somehow you hand him a stone in the next. Share your last sip of water with him here on Earth, and in some mysterious way you give him hemlock to drink in the next.
This is war, spiritual war. We are out to hurt the enemy bad - REAL BAD - it's just that we do that using their weight of evil against them.
I sometimes think that I'm the only one who gets this. AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO GETS THIS?
Sorry for shouting.
BTW, I posted an [URL=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13786]article [/URL] by Mark Shea over in the Christianity column that does a fair job discussing this, I suggest reviewing it.
Anyway, as Vince Lombardi put it, "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." And we Christians are all about defeating Satan and sending his allies with him to hell where they'll writhe in hopeless agony for all eternity.
Just win, baby. And if that means four more years of Shrub and chaos, then the moral choice is to do everything we can to bring it on. Compared to an eternity in the Lake of Fire, it's small potatoes indeed.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2004-05-22 06:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Perhaps, and I half-way agree, but, for the sake of analysis, let me point out it is not quite as clear-cut: Unlike (probably) Kerry, Shrub is going to take another bunch of your civil liberties and/or citizen rights away, and another, and another, as many as he can, actually, which will seriously hamper (1) above. :cowboy: :tank: :shocking: :bag:[/QUOTE]
Right.
But the goal is to heat the water fast enough so the froggie in the pot will jump.
Four more years of this comtemptible loser Shrub might just do the trick.
Of course, it's a judgment call. Maybe Kerry will be worse. Or maybe (more likely) it won't make much difference at all.
I think we all need to keep in mind that Kerry & Shrub have the same controllers. Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum, at least in the broad sweep of things.
My best guess is that nobody could screw things up as thoroughly and as quickly as Shrub has thus far. The man's idiocy is in fact an odd sort of genius. He could inflict an awful lot of damage on ZOG for us, I think.
Maybe we should capitalize on that possibility.
That's really all I'm saying.
Walter
2004-05-22 19:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Right.
But the goal is to heat the water fast enough so the froggie in the pot will jump.
Four more years of this comtemptible loser Shrub might just do the trick. [/QUOTE]
I must admit I am somehow even more pessimisting than you are.
I believe the frog will not even jump if Shrub takes away all your liberties, declares war on the entire world save Israel and Honduras, and crowns himself Emperor for life. As long as he keeps the economy at least one inch over water, that is. And he has a way of doing so, namely: even more deficit spending.
Shrub may be stupid, but he does keep his eye on the ball. In the short run, his insane strategy may very well work, and you may end up with an Emperor for life.
Slightly less bad, in this case, may turn out to be slightly better. I am not at all sure, but it is a possibility to consider.
Lastly, the moral arguments of IR and Weisbrot are not [I]entirely[/I] without merit. I am not sure that intentionally making matters worse is declared legit anywhere in the Catechism. Add to that the possibility that "ShrubII" may abandon the Constitution for good in one fast sweep and/or incidentally blow up the planet, the "Kerry-as-less-dangerous-monster" arguments gain at least some credibility. :sad:
2004-05-23 03:55 | User Profile
The Finlandization of America
by Edgar J. Steele
May 23, 2005
"By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America...I know there are buses outside waiting to take you to Capitol Hill. I'm told -- Howard told me there's over 500 meetings scheduled with members of the Senate and the House. That is good news. I'm sure you're going to pass this message on to them: A free, prosperous and secure Israel is in this nation's national interest." --- President George W. Bush, Address to the AIPAC Policy Conference, May 18, 2004
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." --- President George W. Bush, speaking at a Gridiron Club dinner, Washington, D.C., March 2001
Finally, Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings has come clean. He dared to say what everybody else in Washington already knew: America dances to Israel's tune, as dispensed through its Washington lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here," said Mr. Hollings from the floor of the Senate just two days ago. Of course, now it's safe for him to do so, since he is retiring in a few months.
From the reaction to Mr. Hollings' statement, you would think he had proposed that American Jews be rounded up, tattooed and sent off to death camps. Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Columbiaââ¬â¢s Beth Shalom synagogue, who claimed to be "horrified" by Hollings' remark, hysterically ranted, "It makes him anti-Israel. It's anti-Semitic...it's dangerous." Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, issued what has become the ADL's standard denunciation of any national figure who implies, even, that America carries Israel's water: "To hear such crudeness, such ugliness, such classical anti-Semitism. It's sad."
The ingratitude apparent in Mr. Hollings' recent statements particularly must rankle AIPAC's membership, since they thought they had bought and paid for him, to the tune of $73,275. Of course, that's peanuts compared to what has been paid for some of AIPAC's favorites, such as the Senators from Pennsylvania (Arlen Spector - $366,123), Iowa (Thomas Harkin - $423,895) and Michigan (Carl Levin - $564,858).
What? You say the Senator from your state won't return your calls? Well, how much did you bribe...er, give in "campaign contributions" to him or her recently? What? Well, no wonder he or she refuses to listen to you. No wonder Israel calls the shots. Is it really any wonder? And AIPAC is just one of Israel's seemingly countless lobby groups.
There are lots of other Jewish organizations that also bribe...er, contribute to Congressmen, such as the World Jewish Congress and The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, just to name a couple. And there are a great many wealthy individual Jews who give serious, and I do mean serious, bribes...er, contributions, such as Seagram's heir Edgar Bronfman, whose work on behalf of Israel was recognized with the American Presidential Medal of Freedom (look, you have to admit that this is so off the wall that I couldn't just make up stuff like this). Is it really any surprise for you to learn that well over half of all bribes...er, campaign contributions now come from Jews?
Getting back to Mr. Hollings for a moment, the 82-year-old gentleman from South Carolina is retiring from public office after 38 years in the Senate. That's longer than most Americans have been alive, you know. Oddly enough, 38 years also is almost exactly as long as it took for the coup to take place. What coup? You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Why, the one now reaching its climax in America. You know, the coup that began with JFK's assassination. The coup that put the Zionist International Banker cabal atop America for good.
I appreciate that Hollings has come clean at last, but what I really want to know is - where have you been for the past 38 years, Fritz? And where were all your colleagues while America was sold down the river? You know, the ones busy shuffling their feet and averting their eyes during your recent floor speech? Yes, the very ones with whom you took that oath in which you swore allegiance to America and against all enemies, both domestic and foreign.
Bush recently signed off on Israel's current campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people whose land Israel steals, inch by mile, on a daily basis. Why? Because he, and every President stretching back nearly one hundred years to Woodrow Wilson, the very first American President to sell America out to Zionist interests, has bowed low before Zionism.
"Israel's governments have mobilized the collective power of US Jewry - which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree - against them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents, great and small, football players and movie stars - folded one after another." Israeli journalist and peace activist, Uri Avnery, Ha'aretz, March 6, 1991.
John F. Kennedy reneged on his deal and look what it got him.
Incidentally, let me tell you once again about the absolute last word on the JFK assassination, Final Judgment, by Michael C. Piper - it's available once again, in a new, expanded edition at [url]http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf[/url]. Do yourself a favor and order a copy. Get this latest, updated version and give your old one away, if you already own a copy (yes, I know you paid upwards of $200 for it on the Internet while the book was out of print because essentially it was banned, but think of it as bread upon the water).
During his speech to AIPAC the other day, George the Second referred to a picture we all now have seen, of four black-clad men standing behind Nicholas Berg and accused of having executed him, saying, "The faces of the terrorists were cloaked, but we have seen their kind before." Yes, indeed, Mr. President. We certainly have. We see them every day, in our own ranks. How ironic that you should bring up this specific incident, which already has been debunked so thoroughly by so many.
Just as with 9-11, which now conclusively has been shown to have been a "false flag" operation, not to mention the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Berg decapitation quite simply wasn't done by the people being blamed by George. There really isn't room here today to list, let alone develop, the mounting anomalies that call the Berg affair into question and there is not yet a unified site that discusses them all, but go here and here for some of the more complete preliminary discussions.
George the Second also told his masters, as represented by those assembled at the AIPAC Conference: "(A)ll terrorists burn with the same hatred. They hate all who reject their grim vision of tyranny. They hate people who love freedom. They kill without mercy. They kill without shame. And they count their victories in the death of the innocent." Yes, Mr. President. Once again, you have said something with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Problem is, we are the terrorists, because it is America that burns with hatred these days. America that hates those who reject its grim vision of democracy. America that hates so many who know the real meaning of freedom. America that kills women without mercy. America that kills children without shame. You and the Jewish organ grinders for whom you are but a dancing monkey count your victories in the deaths of innocent Palestinians and Iraqis. You have shamed us and you have condemned us all to Hell, right along with you and your Jewish masters.
George the Second also told the AIPAC audience that "(W)e have a duty to expose and confront anti-Semitism, wherever it is found." He followed that up with "The demonization of Israel...can be a flimsy cover for anti-Semitism." With those two statements, George the Second made crystal clear where his loyalties lie with regard to the mushrooming portion of America's population that objects to our Middle Eastern campaign of conquest: With Israel and against America, that's where.
Could it be any more clearly stated, folks? Of course, George is the same fellow who gave new life to the phrase, "yer either with us or agin us." At least, now we know what he meant by "us," and it most assuredly isn't us, fellow Americans.
In contrast to what George the Second thinks, I rather liked what Fritz Hollings had to say in response to his Jewish critics from the Senate floor two days ago: "I want them to apologize to me. Talking about 'anti-Semitic.' They're not getting by with it."
Finland avoided military invasion and conquest by Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union back in the 1940s by adopting a Soviet-style government, paying fealty to the USSR and otherwise acting just as it would, had it been conquered by force. Today, the US has gone along with International Zionism in precisely the same fashion: installing Jewish and Christian Zionists in all governmental power points, bowing to the wishes of Israel's lobbyists, removing Christianity from America's culture by edict of an increasingly-Jewish judiciary, fighting Israel's fights and even purging those who disagree with foreign Jews pushing Zionism by imprisoning its own citizen political dissidents on phony charges. Of course, Finland had the example of 20-80 million Russian Christians executed right next door early last century, simply for being anti-Semitic, a lesson that America seems to have forgotten. The term "Finlandization" has come to refer to quislings like Finland and, now, America.
I will be speaking at the Duke International European American Unity and Leadership Conference in New Orleans this next weekend, May 28-30. Call 985-626-7714 or go here to reserve on line. From David Duke's web site promoting the conference: "The leaders who will be present at the conference recognize that the enormous media and financial power of Zionism is not just a Palestinian problem, but the greatest single threat to the European and other peoples of the world. The Unity and Leadership conference is about setting an effective agenda for the restoration of our rights, freedoms and heritage." You who follow this list regularly know that I will be pulling no punches in pursuit of this very agenda during my speech. And, yes, it is that David Duke: the ex-Congressman.
For those who have indicated an interest in going, but been reluctant to sign up because my name does not appear on the list of scheduled speakers, rest easy. It's right there - I'm one of the "other prominent speakers." Be assured that I will be speaking, even if I have to do it on the sidewalk in front of the hotel. And I make it a point of honor at these affairs to attend all proceedings and to be available to members of this list at all times throughout.
Already, Mark Potok of the very Jewish Southern Poverty Law Center, one of Zionism's many American apologist-cum-attack dogs, is calling this a world-class gathering of anti-Semites. To him, I say: Unlike Mr. Hollings, no apology to me is necessary. Just remember, though, that's Mr. Anti-Semite to you!
New America. An idea whose time has come.
-ed
"I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth." - Morpheus
Copyright é2004, Edgar J. Steele
Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate
among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet
sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications.
Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.
On-Line link to this article in HTML format: [url]http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/finland.htm[/url]
Subscribe: Send email with "subscribe" in subject line to [email]subscribe@conspiracypenpal.com[/email]
Unsubscribe: Send email with "unsubscribe" in subject line to [email]unsubscribe@conspiracypenpal.com[/email]
[url]www.ConspiracyPenPal.com[/url]
2004-05-23 06:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Lastly, the moral arguments of IR and Weisbrot are not entirely without merit. I am not sure that intentionally making matters worse is declared legit anywhere in the Catechism. [/QUOTE]
C'mon, it's gotta be in there somewhere.
Walter
2004-05-24 19:46 | User Profile
Americans have a very nasty habit of misusing words. This is most true when the word, though very cute, gives a dishonest and painfully distorted version of the truth. "Finlandization" is one such word.
From my book:[QUOTE]Years later the use of the word "Finlandization" was used by American pundits and foreign policy makers to denote a country which chose acquiescence, if not surrender, to the Soviets. When the Finns were in deep trouble in early 1940, the United States under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt stonewalled their loan request and in effect hastened their defeat. [1] After the Germans attacked in 1941, Finns formed an alliance with them to redress the surrender terms of 1940. For this I.F. Stone the leftist ideologue of over fifty years berated them and spoke of the heroic fight the Soviets were waging, and the sainted Isidor Feinstein Stone (to call Izzy by all his names) noted the transport of a German Alpine Division from occupied Norway through Sweden with Swedish permission.[2] Stone, of course, was never one to acknowledge that the great reason the German invasion was welcomed by people in eastern Europe was that these people were only too aware of the criminality and wholesale slaughter by the Soviet regime for more than twenty years. Another hurdle the Finns had to surmount was the reporting of their war by Winston M. Burdett, who during their battle against the Red Army functioned as a spy for the Soviet Union. This admission by Burdett came much later in 1955 when he was the United Nations correspondent for CBS.[3] He was not dismissed by CBS after his confession. [1] Robert Divine, [I][B]Roosevelt and World War II[/B][/I], p78 (Penguin, 1983) [2] I.F. Stone, [I][B]Nation[/B][/I], p475, Nov 15, 1941 [3] [I][B]NYT[/B][/I], p1, June 30, 1955 [/QUOTE] The Finns fought gallantly and with no help from the United States against a country that butchered more Christians than Hitler killed Jews.