← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Jack Cassidy
Thread ID: 16368 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2005-01-20
2005-01-20 18:11 | User Profile
In contrast to all previous US Presidents, including neo-con hawks like Reagan, Bush said he plans for the US to go around the world looking for monsters and slaying them. Couched in neo-con Zionist code words and phrases (e.g., Our [the U.S.] role is to spread democracy), Bush vowed to "free" oppressed peoples. His references to terrorists, allies, et al., was subliminal (quasi-cryptic) propaganda for why we (the US) should spend lots of blood and treasure in the interests of a pseudo-country in the Middle East.
All I could think during Bush's Inaugural speech was that beaner and redneck women better start producing more children to help fill the large ranks of this imperial army.
2005-01-20 18:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]In contrast to all previous US Presidents, including neo-con hawks like Reagan, Bush said he plans for the US to go around the world looking for monsters and slaying them. Couched in neo-con Zionist code words and phrases (e.g., Our [the U.S.] role is to spread democracy), Bush vowed to "free" oppressed peoples. His references to terrorists, allies, et al., was subliminal (quasi-cryptic) propaganda for why we (the US) should spend lots of blood and treasure in the interests of a pseudo-country in the Middle East.
All I could think during Bush's Inaugural speech was that beaner and redneck women better start producing more children to help fill the large ranks of this imperial army.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I just watched it, too.
He scarecely mentioned domestic policy. It was all triumph of freedom and end to evil.
I might just yet get to test my "worse is better" theory.
2005-01-20 18:56 | User Profile
[I]Let God Almighty be the judge of men such as Bush:[/I]
[B][U]2 Timothy 3:1-7[/U][/B]
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be [B]lovers of their own selves[/B], covetous, [B]boasters[/B], proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, [B]trucebreakers[/B], [B]false accusers[/B], incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, [B]highminded[/B], lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 [B]Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof[/B]: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
[B][U]2 Corinthians 11:13-14 [/U] [/B]
13 [B]For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, [SIZE=3]transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ[/SIZE].
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.[/B]
[B][U]Romans 1:21-23[/U][/B]
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 [B]Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools[/B],
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
2005-01-20 18:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Yeah, I just watched it, too.
He scarecely mentioned domestic policy. It was all triumph of freedom and end to evil.
I might just yet get to test my "worse is better" theory.[/QUOTE]LOL, even the hyperbole of OD commentary can't keep up with the madness of King George W. Instead of reading the cutesy, narcissistic "blogger" crap of self-congratulatory people like Ana Marie Cox, et al., the Washington insiders out to read OD.
Btw, I don't read blogs and never will. "Blogs", IMO, are the 'pet rock' of the internet age-- just less useful.
2005-01-20 19:20 | User Profile
Granted, some of the blogs are about as useless as a pet rock, others even more useless, yet others are the pamphleteers of our time. The blog is just a medium for getting out there.
In some bloggers you will hear words that could have come from the best of our forefathers (though probably never on mine, unfortunately). Others bloggers post thoughts for discussion, education, or application. Some are just useless blabbermouths looking for a place to spew.
I have found though that here is often benefit to reading the blogs of those with whom we do not agree. They can be truly revealing. Know the enemy so to speak.
2005-01-20 19:37 | User Profile
[size=1][QUOTE=xmetalhead]Let God Almighty be the judge of men such as Bush:[/size]
[u][size=1]2 Timothy 3:1-7[/size][/u]
[size=1]1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.[/size]
[size=1]2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,[/size]
[size=1]3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,[/size]
[size=1]4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;[/size]
[size=1]5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.[/size]
[size=1]6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,[/size]
[size=1]7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.[/size]
[u][size=1]2 Corinthians 11:13-14 [/size][/u]
[size=1]13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.[/size]
[size=1]14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.[/size]
[u][size=1]Romans 1:21-23[/size][/u]
[size=1]21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.[/size]
[size=1]22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,[/size]
[size=1]23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.[/QUOTE][/size]
[font=Arial][size=3]Perhaps this is more applicable (from the public domain KJV):[/size][/font]
[font=Courier New]1And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. 2And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. [/font][left][font=Courier New]3And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. 4And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. 5And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. 6And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. 7And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. 8And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. [/font][/left]
[left][font=Courier New]The case of the first seal is of particular interest. The favorite weapon of the Parthian soldier was the bow. Parthia defeated the vaunted army of the Roman empire. Parthia was in the area of what we now call Iran. Two rhetorical-socratic questions for you: 1) What was the color of the horse that was prominent in Bush's Inaugural ceremony? 2) What country is the Bush admininstration planning to attack according to a recent article by Seymour Hersh?[/font][/left]
[left][font=Courier New]For those left-wing types, you could do alot with verse 6-- paucity of bread but lots of oil. [/font][/left]
[left]font=Courier New[/font] [/left]
2005-01-20 20:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jozen1]Granted, some of the blogs are about as useless as a pet rock, others even more useless, yet others are the pamphleteers of our time. The blog is just a medium for getting out there.
In some bloggers you will hear words that could have come from the best of our forefathers (though probably never on mine, unfortunately). Others bloggers post thoughts for discussion, education, or application. Some are just useless blabbermouths looking for a place to spew.
I have found though that here is often benefit to reading the blogs of those with whom we do not agree. They can be truly revealing. Know the enemy so to speak.[/QUOTE] Yeah, well, I don't know who my enemy is. "Everyone is crazy except for you and me, and I'm not so sure about you." As for blogging, well, time is so limited as it is, why in God's name would you want to spend your time reading the inchoate ramblings of middle-tier minds? Some 70 or 80 years ago a renowned French Domincan scholar, A.D. Sertillanges, OP, wrote a book called The Intellectual Life. Sertillanges spilled the beans regarding how an average to superior mind develops the successful habits of an intellectual and scholar. One bit of advice he gave was to only spend time reading first-rate minds (I think this would include peer-reviewed academic stuff). Another bit of advice was to limit one's reading. It is often better to go outside and recreate and contemplate rather than read. Ravenous reading, says Sertillanges, leads to a form of intellectual laziness where we substitute someone else's thoughts for our own (you see this alot nowadays, where people think they are scholarly and/or intellectual because they can reproduce a quote from this or that historical figure or mind). He also talks about the importance of simplifying one's life to limit distraction, avoiding vexing social chit-chat, and the necessity of eating moderately and exercising regularly.
2005-01-21 01:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE]As for blogging, well, time is so limited as it is, why in God's name would you want to spend your time reading the inchoate ramblings of middle-tier minds? [/QUOTE]
Well then - why are you [I]here[/I]? How is a message-board significantly different to a blog? Forums feature pointless flame-wars and the musings of Ponce, two aspects of modern discourse you're at least spared in the average blog.
[QUOTE]Some 70 or 80 years ago a renowned French Domincan scholar, A.D. Sertillanges, OP, wrote a book called The Intellectual Life. Sertillanges spilled the beans regarding how an average to superior mind develops the successful habits of an intellectual and scholar. One bit of advice he gave was to only spend time reading first-rate minds (I think this would include peer-reviewed academic stuff). Another bit of advice was to limit one's reading. It is often better to go outside and recreate and contemplate rather than read. [/QUOTE]
You [I]do [/I] realize that you're saying, "Reading is overrated and even counterproductive. I know because [B]I read it in a book[/B]", right?
Not to mention:
[QUOTE]Ravenous reading, says Sertillanges, leads to a form of intellectual laziness where we substitute someone else's thoughts for our own.[/QUOTE]
which I find hilarious. [I]You're doing exactly what you're condemning![/I]
Anyway, falling literacy rates - among whites - are the norm now. This will doubtless lead to smarter whites any day now. Now where did I leave that boogie-board?
2005-01-21 04:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Well then - why are you here? How is a message-board significantly different to a blog? Forums feature pointless flame-wars and the musings of Ponce, two aspects of modern discourse you're at least spared in the average blog.[/QUOTE] Forums don't lend themselves to self-congratulatory, egocentric BS likes blogs. I'm not a big fan of internet forums, but at a place like OD you know everyone else is already pretty jaded so you rarely find the contrived cute and clever extemporaneous writings you find on blogs and some popular internet forums.
[QUOTE=il ragno] You do realize that you're saying, "Reading is overrated and even counterproductive. I know because I read it in a book", right?[/QUOTE] Ravenous reading, overreading, is a problem according to Sertillanges. And I think the gist here is to read few things well rather than many things cursorily.
[QUOTE=il ragno]which I find hilarious. You're doing exactly what you're condemning!
Anyway, falling literacy rates - among whites - are the norm now. This will doubtless lead to smarter whites any day now. Now where did I leave that boogie-board?[/QUOTE] I think the point is not to be a non-discriminating bookworm, losing yourself in what others say, but to read thoroughly, digest, and contemplate.
2005-01-21 04:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I'm not a big fan of internet forums, but at a place like OD you know everyone else is already pretty jaded so you rarely find the contrived cute and clever extemporaneous writings you find on blogs and some popular internet forums. [/QUOTE]
Both Andrew Sullivan and Joe Sobran have blogs. (Like it or not, Sobran.com is essentially a blog.) I don't find them [I]remotely [/I] analogous. Hence, how can I dismiss blogs en masse if I haven't read all - or even most- of them ? I think the problem with blogs is that - as they exponentially increase - the novelty, and ultimately the impact, any one blog can have becomes negligible.
But message boards are not necessarily better. If they were moderated debate, judged on a point-scale by a single standard, with clearly marked winners and losers....possibly. But 99% of the time, the law of [I]everyone is entitled to their opinion [/I] rules, which translates into the person who feels overmatched will begin turning the debate into a flamewar. The sad fact is that everyone is [I]not [/I] entitled to an opinion, they are entitled to an informed opinion. The best blogs are as good or better than the best message boards.
2005-01-21 07:31 | User Profile
Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan is surprisingly critical, and the [URL=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325165/posts]Freepers are shocked[/URL]:
[QUOTE][URL=http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006184]Way Too Much God [/URL] Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
Friday, January 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
It was an interesting Inauguration Day. Washington had warmed up, the swift storm of the previous day had passed, the sky was overcast but the air wasn't painful in a wind-chill way, and the capital was full of men in cowboy hats and women in long furs. In fact, the night of the inaugural balls became known this year as The Night of the Long Furs.
Laura Bush's beauty has grown more obvious; she was chic in shades of white, and smiled warmly. The Bush daughters looked exactly as they are, beautiful and young. A well-behaved city was on its best behavior, everyone from cops to doormen to journalists eager to help visitors in any way.
For me there was some unexpected merriness. In my hotel the night before the inauguration, all the guests were evacuated at 1:45 in the morning. There were fire alarms and flashing lights on each floor, and a public address system instructed us to take the stairs, not the elevators. Hundreds of people wound up outside in the slush, eventually gathering inside the lobby, waiting to find out what next.
The staff--kindly, clucking--tried to figure out if the fire existed and, if so, where it was. Hundreds of inaugural revelers wound up observing each other. Over there on the couch was Warren Buffet in bright blue pajamas and a white hotel robe. James Baker was in trench coat and throat scarf. I remembered my keys and eyeglasses but walked out without my shoes. After a while the "all clear" came, and hundreds of us stood in line for elevators to return to our rooms. Later that morning, as I entered an elevator to go to an appointment, I said, "You all look happier than you did last night." A man said, "That was just a dream," and everyone laughed.
The inauguration itself was beautiful to see--pomp, panoply, parades, flags and cannonades. America does this well. And the most poignant moment was the manful William Rehnquist, unable to wear a tie and making his way down the long marble steps to swear in the president. The continuation of democracy is made possible by such personal gallantry. There were some surprises, one of which was the thrill of a male voice singing "God Bless America," instead of the hyper-coloratura divas who plague our American civic life. But whoever picked the music for the inaugural ceremony itself--modern megachurch hymns, music that sounds like what they'd use for the quiet middle section of a Pixar animated film--was . . . lame. The downbeat orchestral arrangement that followed the president's speech was no doubt an attempt to avoid charges that the ceremony had a triumphalist air. But I wound up thinking: This is America. We have a lot of good songs. And we watch inaugurals in part to hear them.
Never be defensive in your choice of music.
The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars. A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty.
No one will remember what the president said about domestic policy, which was the subject of the last third of the text. This may prove to have been a miscalculation.
It was a foreign-policy speech. To the extent our foreign policy is marked by a division that has been (crudely but serviceably) defined as a division between moralists and realists--the moralists taken with a romantic longing to carry democracy and justice to foreign fields, the realists motivated by what might be called cynicism and an acknowledgment of the limits of governmental power--President Bush sided strongly with the moralists, which was not a surprise. But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance.
The administration's approach to history is at odds with what has been described by a communications adviser to the president as the "reality-based community." A dumb phrase, but not a dumb thought: He meant that the administration sees history as dynamic and changeable, not static and impervious to redirection or improvement. That is the Bush administration way, and it happens to be realistic: History is dynamic and changeable. On the other hand, some things are constant, such as human imperfection, injustice, misery and bad government.
This world is not heaven.
The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."
It seemed a document produced by a White House on a mission. The United States, the speech said, has put the world on notice: Good governments that are just to their people are our friends, and those that are not are, essentially, not. We know the way: democracy. The president told every nondemocratic government in the world to shape up. "Success in our relations [with other governments] will require the decent treatment of their own people."
The speech did not deal with specifics--9/11, terrorism, particular alliances, Iraq. It was, instead, assertively abstract.
"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." "Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self government. . . . Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time." "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world."
Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth.
There were moments of eloquence: "America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies." "We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery." And, to the young people of our country, "You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs." They have, since 9/11, seen exactly that. And yet such promising moments were followed by this, the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."
This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.
One wonders if they shouldn't ease up, calm down, breathe deep, get more securely grounded. The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays[/QUOTE]
2005-01-21 13:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan is surprisingly critical, and the [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325165/posts"]Freepers are shocked[/url]:[/QUOTE] Peggy, Peggy, Peggy... It only took you FOUR YEARS to figure out that this guy is nuts? Actually, though, I disagree with Ms Noonan. I don't think the problem with Bush's speech was 'way too much God' at all. I think it was 'God invoked way too many times for things that are not godly, but are actually Jacobin fantasies of international democratic revolution.' Apparently, Bush worships the God of Leftist Revolution and Jewish Exceptionalism, whose high holy day is now 365 days a year.
2005-01-21 15:55 | User Profile
I've always found Peggy Noonan to be a little vile; what Georgia Mosbacher would've become had she been an English major. But when [I]this [/I] fully-posable Emily Post action figure finds Bush's stated intentions "somewhere between dreamy and disturbing", that translates, in everyday English, into "war without end, amen" for the rest of us.
That is if you can perceive the presence of [I]any [/I] stated intentions in that lather of shaving cream and bath bubbles that Bush called a "State of the Union address". I've come to expect gobbledygook and empty blather from SotU's over the years, but the text of this [I]last [/I] one was like reading a Pet Rock Owner's Manual.
According to Bush our problems have all been solved already - our schools are turning out Da Vincis as fast as widgets on a conveyor belt, and hell, our taxes are so low it's like they're paying [I]me [/I] to live here! And yet there are "decisive days ahead" - aren't there always when you've solved all of your own problems with a wave of your magic wand, and must troll the seven seas looking for [I]other [/I] countries' burdens to "lighten"?
2005-01-21 16:19 | User Profile
I could only stand half a minute watching Bush's "speech" last night on the News Hour. What an abomination. Unhinged from reality. Arrogant. Pathetic. Unlistenable.
It's sad. Really, really, really sad. Sunken nation. Divided. Oblivious.
God help us.
2005-01-21 19:35 | User Profile
Peggy Noonan's piece reminds me of something I thought about during the Inaugural ceremony, that is, how statesmen like guys like James Baker, George H. Bush, et al., seem to me now. They now seem like adults who took great pains to make the most prudent comments and actions. I can't think of an equivalent statesmen in the Bush 43 administration-- save for Colin Powell before he went along as the shill at the UN for the Bush admin.'s WMD three card monte.
2005-01-21 21:48 | User Profile
I didn't watch the inaugural. Reading the excerpts from Bush's speech in Peggy Noonan's article was bad enough. Bush seems determined to beat out Lyndon Johnson as the worst president of my lifetime.
Walter, after reading about the plans to invade Iran, I hope worse is better, because things are certainly going to get worse.
2005-01-22 07:22 | User Profile
Hope springs eternal in the human breast, Stanley.
2005-01-22 10:48 | User Profile
Drudge
CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001 Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005
CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration, overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demo.
Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over 2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.
In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over 2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total coverage ratings yesterday.
PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01) CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01) MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)
This seems to mean the super-hoopla was just following the old entertaiment MAXIM: THE EMPTIER THE HALL, THE LOUDER BLOW THE HORN.
One wonders whether they are even remotely aware of how empty this particular hall is -- "Jewish America", I mean.
Those people are really something, you know? "Shock and awe, Shock and awe", like this was some kind of crazy TV show. It would have to lose audience except for its paid producers. Nobody could really believe in it; everybody is acting out what they think their role should be.
"The God Squad" has been replaced on CNN by "the Bod Squad" -- neat, or what? Fine fold-away workout devices sold by hot chicks pumping iron.
Hope I'm not spamming, WY. Getting ready for depression day the '24th.
The blue states are about to get white all over, looks like.
2005-01-22 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01) CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01) MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01) [/QUOTE]
Well, at least Gabrielle will be pleased.
My own take on the above numbers is the Confucian epigram "[I]if rape inevitable, then lay back and enjoy it[/I]." He's [B]in[/B], and barring complete and total catastrophe, he's going to do whatever Cheney and Hymie tell him to do - and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Bush's JOE MILLIONAIRE base is energized - vide the Fox News spike - but the [I]rest of us[/I], I'd wager, are too depressed at the idea of the almost-certain greatly expanded War on Terror coming down the pike to want to [I]compound [/I] our funk by watching these people high-five each other in black-tie and evening gowns. You can't even hope for the prospect of a reelection campaign to rein in the NeoAdministration's hubris and megalomania this time. [B]Iran ho![/B]
For Hymie, this is the Belle Epoque right here and right now. Knowing as they do (having cast the mold themselves) that the Dems are now suicidally handcuffed to gay marriage, free cheese for Jamaal, abortion-on-demand, the criminalization of Christmas and the anti-white Joys of Third World Diversity in general [I]before they even take the wheelblocks off[/I], the neofied GOP need offer nothing more than a token nod to tradcon concerns to perpetuate their stranglehold on the US. All they have to be is one-hundredth of a percent [I]less [/I] antiwhite than the Dems to hold the white vote hostage - Rupert's NewsCorp & FoxNews flying monkeys will take care of the rest of the heavy lifting.
2005-01-22 20:47 | User Profile
I found one voice of sanity at [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325272/posts]Free Republic[/url].
Quote:
The speech was eerily reminiscent of JFK's notorious "fight any foe, bear any burden" inaugural address; the busybody Wilsonian sentiments voiced in that speech got us into Vietnam--and, indirectly--into our present situation. Some places simply CAN'T be democratized (the Arab World, Sub saharan Africa come to mind); their cultures won't allow it, for all they understand and respect is rule by a strong man, a chieftain. This explains a whole line of bloody autocrats in these parts of the world, from Shaka Zulu to Idi Amin to Robert Mugabe; from the Saudi Royal Family to Nasser and Hafez Assad to Saddam Hussein. Trying to teach democracy to an Arab or an African is like trying to teach a rooster to sing like a canary.
The comment was deleted and the poster banned, of course.
2005-01-22 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Well, at least Gabrielle will be pleased.
My own take on the above numbers is the Confucian epigram "[I]if rape inevitable, then lay back and enjoy it[/I]." He's [B]in[/B], and barring complete and total catastrophe, he's going to do whatever Cheney and Hymie tell him to do - and there's nothing anybody can do about it. [/QUOTE]
I don't understand how that is a take on the numbers, which are pitiably low.
"He's in" is what Kerry said about Iraq -- "We're in there". I didn't accept it then --obviously a cop-out to keep from doing his duty to oppose the war in principle, accepting preemption (there's your hymie), nor now. Nor do I accept it after they threw butt-banging into marriage to sting the dems. Who deserve it, and always will. I would call it the the anti-Chinese in me except I don't think Confucius said that.
None but the dead were energized. The '04 election resulted in a stillbirth, as I explained elsewhere. It was dead in the womb (campaigns) after they offed Dean.
If you accept this, you've gone with the jews. Shame. Go to Phora.
2005-01-22 21:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]I found one voice of sanity at [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325272/posts]Free Republic[/url].
Quote:
The speech was eerily reminiscent of JFK's notorious "fight any foe, bear any burden" inaugural address; the busybody Wilsonian sentiments voiced in that speech got us into Vietnam--and, indirectly--into our present situation. Some places simply CAN'T be democratized (the Arab World, Sub saharan Africa come to mind); their cultures won't allow it, for all they understand and respect is rule by a strong man, a chieftain. This explains a whole line of bloody autocrats in these parts of the world, from Shaka Zulu to Idi Amin to Robert Mugabe; from the Saudi Royal Family to Nasser and Hafez Assad to Saddam Hussein. Trying to teach democracy to an Arab or an African is like trying to teach a rooster to sing like a canary.
The comment was deleted and the poster banned, of course.[/QUOTE]
RimJob's hamfisted groupthink is an extension of pathological demand for loyalty by Bush Junior and the Neo-Cons. Dissent is Treason (and "anti-semitism"/terror/liberalism) to these cud-chompers.
Which'll require just a tiny gust to send the whole card-house tumbling. I actually posted on that FReaker thread as a "Right-thinker"--edging the consensus ever so slightly into toxic absurdity. I encourage you brothers & sisters to do the same...glorious PsyOps for the good. :D
2005-01-23 01:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I don't understand how that is a take on the numbers, which are pitiably low.[/QUOTE] No, the numbers are up slightly overall (do the math), and of course Fox is up nearly 60%.
[QUOTE]"He's in" is what Kerry said about Iraq -- "We're in there". I didn't accept it then --obviously a cop-out to keep from doing his duty to oppose the war in principle, accepting preemption (there's your hymie), nor now.[/QUOTE] That's [I]great [/I] that you don't accept it. I don't accept the legitimacy of my phone bill every month, but if I don't pay it my service gets shut off.
[QUOTE]Nor do I accept it after they threw butt-banging into marriage to sting the dems. Who deserve it, and always will. [/QUOTE] You act like somebody had to twist their [I]arms [/I] or something. Michael Kinsley in THE NEW REPUBLIC:
[I]"Gay marriage is on the verge of joining abortion rights on the very short list of litmus tests that any Democratic candidate for national office must support. Today’s near-universal and minimally respectable attitude — the rock-bottom, nonnegotiable price of admission to polite society and the political debate — is an acceptance of gay people and of open, unapologetic homosexuality as part of American life that would have shocked, if not offended, great liberals of a few decades ago such as Hubert Humphrey....this development is not just amazing, it is inspiring."[/I]
[QUOTE]If you accept this, you've gone with the jews. Shame. Go to Phora.[/QUOTE] Ah, yes: the "Phora" insult - I was waiting for that one. And the Jew thing too - "ouch".
Well, if acknowledging objective reality has a kosher U stamped on it, then maybe that's because it was the great mass of believing Christians who pulled the levers that bounced Dean and bought you Bush. (Around here that sort of statement will get you even more angry denials of reality.)
Bush [B]is [/B] the President. We [B]are [/B] in Iraq. There [B]is no [/B] third-term plum dangling before him to otherwise restrain his regime-changing, nation-building impulses. And - for all the hair-splitting theological discussions taking place daily at OD - OD still represents the fringe of American Christianity, given the reality that the bloc-voting habits of NASCAR Christians is what's handed the nation, and the world, overr to the neoconservatives.
It would be one thing if the White House had gone GOP and the Congress had fallen into Democratic hands - then at least we could depend upon partisan gridlock to stall the tanks from rolling into Iran and Syria. But that's not even [I]close [/I] to how it is. If 20/20 vision is now a "Jewish" attribute then you guys are in even worse trouble than I thought.
2005-01-23 03:35 | User Profile
I don't listen to, nor have I read, Bush's speech. But, it sounds like Bush may have been trying to defend the US occupation in Iraq more than he is threatening to attack other countries. I guess I'm free to speculate as I'm sure Bush gave no details.
2005-01-24 02:24 | User Profile
Before you laugh at my use of an article from Pravda, ask youself if Pravda is any worse than CBS, FAUX NEWS, or any of the rest of the BSing shills that consitute what is the Jewsmedia in the US of A today?
[url]http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/14851_bush.html[/url]
We don't want your freedom - 01/21/2005 10:49
President Bush: Keep your freedom and democracy to yourself
The international community does not want George W. Bush's Freedom and Democracy neither does it want its Hearts and Minds won over by Shock and Awe tactics, thank you very much. If George Bush was elected President of the United States of America, why does he address himself to the rest of the world?
Let's face it, if there was an election in the international community, George W. Bush might get elected as a member of a freak show, or perhaps a kitchen hand, handing out plastic turkeys in tents but for the leadership of a country? Perhaps, in a handful of countries like Albania, for instance, which might think first about the bank account rather than any notion of political leadership but in the international community as a whole, the NO vote would be far in excess of 80%, as is patently evident in numerous opinion polls.
If President Bush is an example to go by, we do not want his freedom and democracy. We do not want a model of freedom and democracy which sees the President of a country slink into his office in an armoured car which resembles a tank, guarded by 13.000 bodyguards plus countless other security personnel, creeping along a route lined by thousands of protesters.
We do not want his freedom and democracy which saw him slip out the back door of Number 10 Downing Street on his visit to London, the first such escape route used by any international leader any time in history, and during whose visit for the first time ever a statue of the President of the United States of America was toppled, to the cheers of thousands of lookers-on. Jimmy carter got out of his car and walked to the White House. Why can't Bush? The answer is simple: people do not like his Freedom and Democracy.
We do not want his freedom and democracy which is so popular that even in London, the capital city of the country and government closest to Washington, his state visit was restricted to three streets and a hurried trip to Tony Blair's constituency in a heavily guarded motorcade.
We do not want his freedom and democracy, which saw the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, a country invaded upon a pretext which did not exist. We do not want a freedom and democracy based upon barefaced lies.
We do not want a freedom and democracy based on the US model, where the electoral system can be rigged so easily, in this, one of the few countries which still has the death penalty. We do not want a freedom and democracy based on Washington's flawed model, controlled by a clique of corporate elitists who gravitate around the White House, making a mockery of their people and a mockery of democracy and which practise a policy of freedom of the press which makes the Gestapo look like fairy godmothers.
The international community is made up of hundreds of sovereign nations with models of government which reflect in some cases thousands of years of history and culture, which is to be respected, not obliterated in a wave of blind arrogance fuelled by the greed of Washington's invisible masters.
The international community does not want, nor does it need, the model imposed by a country barely 200 years old, with serious human rights problems, whose history is associated with ethnic cleansing of its native population, whose history is based upon the illegal deportation of races, a country whose military forces even today practise torture and which has concentration camps in more than one continent where the terms of the Geneva Convention are broken.
George Bush can keep his freedom and democracy to himself and to his own country. Nobody asked for his opinion abroad and nobody is interested in his opinion abroad. Each and every movement of the US regime outside its territory will be seen as belligerence, interference, and arrogance and is bound to produce an exponential reaction of hatred in the four corners of the Earth.
The very notion that George Bush can make a speech to begin his second and last term as president of the USA, referring to the international community, gives rise to the notion that he has a self-opinionated and inflated sense of his own importance.
Who asked for his opinion outside the USA and basically, who gives a two penny damn about what he believes in? It is his problem and that of the people he claims elected him. As for the rest, take a look at Iraq to see how very successful his foreign policy can be. Two years on, his forces are on the defensive, have lost control of the situation and there are now more Resistance Fighters than US troops.
Washington's Freedom and Democracy, anyone? No thanks. Let George Bush sort his own problems out and leave the rest of the world alone. Nobody called him and nobody wants him and judging by his inauguration "party", neither do a substantial proportion of American citizens.
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey Pravda.Ru Back é1999-2003 "PRAVDA.Ru". When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, reference to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coinside with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
2005-01-24 15:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]Before you laugh at my use of an article from Pravda, ask youself if Pravda is any worse than CBS, FAUX NEWS, or any of the rest of the BSing shills that consitute what is the Jewsmedia in the US of A today?
[url]http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/14851_bush.html[/url]
We don't want your freedom - 01/21/2005 10:49
President Bush: Keep your freedom and democracy to yourself
The international community does not want George W. Bush's Freedom and Democracy neither does it want its Hearts and Minds won over by Shock and Awe tactics, thank you very much. If George Bush was elected President of the United States of America, why does he address himself to the rest of the world?
Let's face it, if there was an election in the international community, George W. Bush might get elected as a member of a freak show, or perhaps a kitchen hand, handing out plastic turkeys in tents but for the leadership of a country? Perhaps, in a handful of countries like Albania, for instance, which might think first about the bank account rather than any notion of political leadership but in the international community as a whole, the NO vote would be far in excess of 80%, as is patently evident in numerous opinion polls.
If President Bush is an example to go by, we do not want his freedom and democracy. We do not want a model of freedom and democracy which sees the President of a country slink into his office in an armoured car which resembles a tank, guarded by 13.000 bodyguards plus countless other security personnel, creeping along a route lined by thousands of protesters.
We do not want his freedom and democracy which saw him slip out the back door of Number 10 Downing Street on his visit to London, the first such escape route used by any international leader any time in history, and during whose visit for the first time ever a statue of the President of the United States of America was toppled, to the cheers of thousands of lookers-on. Jimmy carter got out of his car and walked to the White House. Why can't Bush? The answer is simple: people do not like his Freedom and Democracy.
We do not want his freedom and democracy which is so popular that even in London, the capital city of the country and government closest to Washington, his state visit was restricted to three streets and a hurried trip to Tony Blair's constituency in a heavily guarded motorcade.
We do not want his freedom and democracy, which saw the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, a country invaded upon a pretext which did not exist. We do not want a freedom and democracy based upon barefaced lies.
We do not want a freedom and democracy based on the US model, where the electoral system can be rigged so easily, in this, one of the few countries which still has the death penalty. We do not want a freedom and democracy based on Washington's flawed model, controlled by a clique of corporate elitists who gravitate around the White House, making a mockery of their people and a mockery of democracy and which practise a policy of freedom of the press which makes the Gestapo look like fairy godmothers.
The international community is made up of hundreds of sovereign nations with models of government which reflect in some cases thousands of years of history and culture, which is to be respected, not obliterated in a wave of blind arrogance fuelled by the greed of Washington's invisible masters.
The international community does not want, nor does it need, the model imposed by a country barely 200 years old, with serious human rights problems, whose history is associated with ethnic cleansing of its native population, whose history is based upon the illegal deportation of races, a country whose military forces even today practise torture and which has concentration camps in more than one continent where the terms of the Geneva Convention are broken.
George Bush can keep his freedom and democracy to himself and to his own country. Nobody asked for his opinion abroad and nobody is interested in his opinion abroad. Each and every movement of the US regime outside its territory will be seen as belligerence, interference, and arrogance and is bound to produce an exponential reaction of hatred in the four corners of the Earth.
The very notion that George Bush can make a speech to begin his second and last term as president of the USA, referring to the international community, gives rise to the notion that he has a self-opinionated and inflated sense of his own importance.
Who asked for his opinion outside the USA and basically, who gives a two penny damn about what he believes in? It is his problem and that of the people he claims elected him. As for the rest, take a look at Iraq to see how very successful his foreign policy can be. Two years on, his forces are on the defensive, have lost control of the situation and there are now more Resistance Fighters than US troops.
Washington's Freedom and Democracy, anyone? No thanks. Let George Bush sort his own problems out and leave the rest of the world alone. Nobody called him and nobody wants him and judging by his inauguration "party", neither do a substantial proportion of American citizens.
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey Pravda.Ru Back é1999-2003 "PRAVDA.Ru". When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, reference to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coinside with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.[/QUOTE]
Excellent post, Blond Knight. There's way more objectivity and truth in the foreign press than there'll ever be in the USA. Sad.
2005-01-24 18:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]Before you laugh at my use of an article from Pravda, ask youself if Pravda is any worse than CBS, FAUX NEWS, or any of the rest of the BSing shills that consitute what is the Jewsmedia in the US of A today?[/QUOTE] And since this is from Pravda, there is a good chance that this article is closer to Putin's real feelings on the matter than his diplomatic public utterances.
2005-01-26 04:23 | User Profile
Incredible undercover work by ace investigator Peleg.
[url]http://peleg.blogspot.com/2005/01/bushs-inaugural-address-first-draft.html[/url]
Friday, January 21, 2005 Bush's Inaugural Address -- the First Draft Big scoop!! I picked up a copy of the first draft of Bush's Inaugural from an inside source at the White House. Looks like they really altered it, but I actually prefer this version myself.
"On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of the few phrases and sentences left of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country with Mexico. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed on your TV channel of choice, owned by one of six major corporations that own those channels.
At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by building enough hydrogen bombs to destroy all of life on Earth. After the shipwreck of communism and the hurricane of tyranny came the pirates of hate, who tried to steal our treasure of freedom. But we would never stand for such injustice. In 1991 we defeated those pirates. Then came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.
...
We are led, by Cheney's wit and my courage, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the spread of usury and fractional reserve banking in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of our federal government throughout the entire world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, in 1865, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth, who says so in His or Her Holy Book, whichever one you prefer. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of big government, because no one is fit to be a master, except for the federal government, and no one deserves to be a slave, except you. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our proposition Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers, Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Lincoln. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. Yes, you heard me correctly. Tyranny, by our will, will end soon.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will drop hundreds of megatons of nuclear weapons if provoked by North Korea. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen by government, and defended by elected officials, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of Washington DC's airspace. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, as it so often has, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling, although they must be willing to be unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice through government aid, attain their own freedom by becoming government employees, and make their own way through the welfare system.
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents, except for suspected terrorists, prefer their chains, or that women and people of different sexual orientations welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of the pirates of hate and oppression.
Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, especially after the war in Bosnia, is an odd time for doubt. The doubters will be silenced. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our weapons arsenal. Eventually, after they see our large guns, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept any other permanent tyranny because we hold the monopoly on it. Tyranny, which is liberty, will come to those who love it.
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you do not stand for your liberty, we will invade your country and liberate you.
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as General Patton did: "We are going to go through you like crap through a goose!"
The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must perfect propaganda techniques. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.
Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:
From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America's airports from knive-wielding old ladies, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are impossible to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, a tradition which extends for almost a few decades now, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.
Approximately three million Americans, all federal goverment employees, have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy ... the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments ... the dangerous and necessary work of staving off the pirates of hate.
All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers in commercials for the Army and Marines. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs in the video games that you play. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - be all that you can be. Or else.
In America's ideal of freedom, created only recently by my administration, citizens find the dignity and security of economic dependence on Social Security checks, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights.
In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on government's character - on our enforcement of integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Big government relies, in the end, on thoroughly governing a massive territory. That edifice of character is built in local welfare offices, supported by large bureaucracies with conflicting standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, the book of Mormon, the pages of the Bhagavad-Gita, the wisdom of Zen koans, the analects of Confucius, and the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that, unless altered by Presidential edict, are the same yesterday, today, and forever.
In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by government service, and government mercy, and a heart for the disenfranchised. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men, women, and transgendered persons who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom, the purse of liberty, the handbag of democracy, the suitcase of prosperity, the fannypack of justice, and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.
We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of big government. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is engine of human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He, She, It, or however you choose to frame it, wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places of torture, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a more perfect union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on their belief that a destiny was meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history, as Karl Marx noted, also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.
When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. And this is the something. America, in this young century, proclaims the message of large democractic governments throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.
May God bless you, and may He, She, and It watch over the United States of America.
posted by Peleg at 10:14 PM
Comments (2) | Trackback (0)
2005-01-26 12:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...[/QUOTE]
Amazing! This writer predicted the "Fox News All Stars"!
There isn't any doubt in my mind that Bush is a megalomaniac. The only thing that can keep this fool from carrying out his implied threat to have America (and Israel, always lurking in the background) declaring war against the rest of the world is a lack of money. I can't see other nations loaning it to him. Nonetheless, he still has enough resource to make the mother of all messes on top of the ones he has created already.
Here's a good blog: Prof. Juan Cole's [url=www.juancole.com]Informed Comment.[/url] Good source of information on the Middle East.