Do Republicans Hate America?

[Troubadour]

This is actually a more subtle question than one might imagine. Is it possible for a wife beater to love his wife, in any way beyond pride of possession? Is it possible for a predator to love its prey, or a parasite to love its host? Can one love that which one deliberately destroys, in any way that isn't perverse and twisted? Though Republicans poison our environment for a quick buck, do they love our beautiful land? Though they loot and undermine our financial foundations, do they love our economy? Though they rewrite the past every second to suit the expediencies of the moment, slandering heroes and lionizing monsters, do they love our history? Though they try to cloak their activities in secrecy, do they love our openness? Though they spy on us all, do they love our privacy? Though they hold people without charge or evidence; though they have people tortured; though they run secret prisons where they "disappear" people; do they love our justice? Though they ally with militant religious fundamentalists, do they love our rationality and education? Though they endlessly seek excuses to spend our money and lives on war, do they love our peacefulness? Though they spit on the poor and throw children into the street, do they love our decency and compassion? Though they recognize no law, do they love our "nation of laws, not men"? Is there a single aspect of American society they do not hate with absolute, unyielding, and demonic malice?

[micfranklin]

No, they and most of Congress in general just helped fuck it up thats all and let the current administration do the same thing. They must not have read the Constitution when they were in college.

[Troubadour]

No, they and most of Congress in general just helped fuck it up thats all and let the current administration do the same thing. They must not have read the Constitution when they were in college.

There is a vast difference between being too weak to stop Republicans from pursuing their agenda, and being in league with that agenda.

[Alonzo]

This thread has made me realize how wrong liberals are and how, at my heart, I'm truly a Republican. Thanks troubador for helping me see the light!

I just ordered this picture for my bedroom wall:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/george-w-bush-picture.jpeg

I can't wait!

[Troubadour]

This thread has made me realize how wrong liberals are and how, at my heart, I'm truly a Republican. Thanks troubador for helping me see the light!

I just ordered this picture for my bedroom wall:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/george-w-bush-picture.jpeg

I can't wait!

Hehehe. Yeah, I love him too. He's like a little Satanic plush toy, mucking around in the blood of half a million victims - Kim Jong Il with a monkey smirk.

[Alonzo]

How many would Saddam have had executed and tortured if it weren't for him?

And I'm not sure what the problem is, he's one of the more moral presidents we've had in a while. He's not divorced, like Reagan, and doesn't cheat on his wife, like Clinton. And, unlike Clinton, when he did engage in immoral behavior, such as drinking, he found the strength to overcome that, admit his mistakes, and put it behind him.

This is a man that, year after year, has done what he thinks is best for America. He chooses that which he believes helps America before that which is politically expedient, unlike the Clintons and others before him.

[Elrathin]

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I don't think Republican hate America. I think they feel what they are trying to do is best for America. That is why I don't think Bush or this administration are tratiors. I believe that the think what they are doing is in the best interest of America.

That is the problem in America today IMO. So many people from opposite sides are so incistant that the other side are traitors or trying to destroy America on Purpose. They aren't. People are doing what they feel is best. If you disagree with that fine, that is good. But to call others traitors for it is ridiculous and silly.

[Trish]

Zo -

Excellent post. While I have never agreed with Bush on all his decisions, I have also never subscribed to the Bush is evil philosphy either. I do think he is doing, has done, what he believes to be in the best interests of the country and has done so at great personal cost. Right or wrong in his decisions, I think the man has incredible personal courage. While President Clinton was certainly more likable than President Bush, I can't see him holding up to the sheer force of virulent antipathy as Bush has done.

El -

Brilliant post. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

[BoogyMan]

Hitler used these same kinds of tactics to demonize the Jews in Europe after WWI all the way until he rose to power. The OP reads like one of his speeches.

[DamnYankee]

No, they and most of Congress in general just helped fuck it up thats all and let the current administration do the same thing. They must not have read the Constitution when they were in college.

Politicians in general. Can't really blame anyone in particular.

[ttriber]

This thread should be re-phrased How much do you hate Republicans?

[Troubadour]

How many would Saddam have had executed and tortured if it weren't for him?

Yes, exactly - if not for Bush, the levels of killing and torture would have been insufficient, and far less of the money spent implementing it would have gone to Republican contractors. Truly a nightmare beyond imagining.


And I'm not sure what the problem is, he's one of the more moral presidents we've had in a while.


It's a question of adjectives. Can it be said that a mine shaft is "tall"?


He's not divorced, like Reagan, and doesn't cheat on his wife, like Clinton.


But then, $90 million in taxpayer money isn't being spent investigating his sex life, so we don't actually know that.


And, unlike Clinton, when he did engage in immoral behavior, such as drinking, he found the strength to overcome that, admit his mistakes, and put it behind him.

No, not behind him - under him. He hides the bottles under the bed, giggling at his own devilish cleverness, and the whiskey faerie takes them away (actually the cleaning staff, but don't tell him).


This is a man that, year after year, has done what he thinks is best for America.


Well, what he believes is best for America - important distinction. Only latte-drinking, tay-rist sympathizing elitists think. And, of course, "America" means himself - not any of that bleeding-heart, hippie, kumbaya nonsense about the "Constitution." If the wig-wearing girlie men who wrote it had wanted him to read it, they wouldn't have used such big words.


He chooses that which he believes helps America before that which is politically expedient, unlike the Clintons and others before him.

Exactly. Bill Clinton acted in his own best interests first, then the nation's second; Bush streamlines the whole process by treating the second step as redundant.


I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I don't think Republican hate America. I think they feel what they are trying to do is best for America.

And you believe that because...they say so? I know where you're coming from - it's hard to imagine malice on such a scale, and easy to just pretend they're misguided. But ask yourself - why is it so much easier to accept that movements in other countries that do exactly the same things are rooted in malice?


That is why I don't think Bush or this administration are tratiors. I believe that the think what they are doing is in the best interest of America.

Why do you believe the two are mutually exclusive? They simply redefine America as whatever they want, and betray and destroy everything that doesn't fit that image including the Constitution - that makes them traitors, and proves they hate our country. All they love is the power we've accumulated through the virtues they would destroy.


So many people from opposite sides are so incistant that the other side are traitors or trying to destroy America on Purpose.

Knee-jerk equivalence. Just because they project their malice on to everyone else in the world, and parrot every criticism back at the critic doesn't "balance the equation" and make it all a matter of opinion. This centrist "average of opinions" approach to reality is no less delusional than the right's psychotic solipsism. There are such things as facts, and they are TRUE no matter what the poll breakdown is.


But to call others traitors for it is ridiculous and silly.



I do think he is doing, has done, what he believes to be in the best interests of the country and has done so at great personal cost.

And you believe this because...?


Right or wrong in his decisions, I think the man has incredible personal courage.

You have a strange definition of "courage," Trish. Doing whatever you please when there are no consequences is not something I or most people regard as evidence of that.


While President Clinton was certainly more likable than President Bush, I can't see him holding up to the sheer force of virulent antipathy as Bush has done.


I don't know what country you've lived in the past two decades, but Congress spent $90 million in taxpayer money going after Bill Clinton, the Republican Party and its vast reservoir of wealthy contributors spent untold sums manipulating the media and planting false stories attacking his family and inventing scandal after scandal out of wholecloth, and he had to fight through most of his two terms with a Republican Congress that did everything in its power to stop his agenda. George W. Bush has the most servile, pliant, obsequious media in the history of the United States of America, and a population that generally doesn't care what he does. He spent most of his time in power with a Republican Congress full of Yes Men that didn't hold a single investigation into his actions or those of any high official, passed his agenda virtually without debate or oversight, gave him everything he asked for and then some, and which was followed by a slightly less obedient Congress whose "opposition" leaders have totally ruled out impeachment for any reason. Let me repeat that, in case you don't grasp the significance: The leaders of an opposition party in Congress have said, almost explicitly, that there is no circumstance under which George W. Bush - an Executive of the other party - could possibly be impeached. There is nothing he could do that would result in his removal from power. This is a man who has spent the last 8 years in a cocoon of total unaccountability, beyond the reach of law, beyond the reach of investigation, and who simply ignores criticism because he [b]does not care[/i], and you think he has "been through" something? He has been given the most pristine, inviolate existence of any human being in the history of this country, and you think he has "endured" something? News flash, Trish - he isn't reading this. He doesn't read criticism. He doesn't CARE. He does whatever he pleases, and there are NO CONSEQUENCES for him. NONE. So allow me to correct your false impressions: If he inherited the situation Bill Clinton navigated through on sheer political intelligence, he would have been impeached, removed from office, and sent to prison in his first term.


Hitler used these same kinds of tactics to demonize the Jews in Europe after WWI all the way until he rose to power. The OP reads like one of his speeches.

Your penchant for depraved Newspeak knows no bounds, invoking one murderous dictator to attack the critics of another.

[micfranklin]

How many would Saddam have had executed and tortured if it weren't for him?

As much as I hate Saddam at least there was order when he was around. If it weren't for Bush maybe we wouldn't have gotten sidetracked.

And I'm not sure what the problem is, he's one of the more moral presidents we've had in a while. He's not divorced, like Reagan, and doesn't cheat on his wife, like Clinton. And, unlike Clinton, when he did engage in immoral behavior, such as drinking, he found the strength to overcome that, admit his mistakes, and put it behind him.

Yeah because we should really judge presidents on those things and not their domestic and foreign policies.

This is a man that, year after year, has done what he thinks is best for America.

$10 trillion in debt, stuck in a war we didn't need to be in, secret prisons, torture, imprisoning people without telling them why, and no whereabouts of OBL. I don't buy that as doing what he thinks is best for America.

He chooses that which he believes helps America before that which is politically expedient, unlike the Clintons and others before him.

Does he know where OBL is then? He wants to help America so bad, he can start by admitting he's dismantled the very freedoms that seperare this nation from others.

[vladward8]

This is actually a more subtle question than one might imagine. Is it possible for a wife beater to love his wife, in any way beyond pride of possession? Is it possible for a predator to love its prey, or a parasite to love its host? Can one love that which one deliberately destroys, in any way that isn't perverse and twisted? Though Republicans poison our environment for a quick buck, do they love our beautiful land? Though they loot and undermine our financial foundations, do they love our economy? Though they rewrite the past every second to suit the expediencies of the moment, slandering heroes and lionizing monsters, do they love our history? Though they try to cloak their activities in secrecy, do they love our openness? Though they spy on us all, do they love our privacy? Though they hold people without charge or evidence; though they have people tortured; though they run secret prisons where they "disappear" people; do they love our justice? Though they ally with militant religious fundamentalists, do they love our rationality and education? Though they endlessly seek excuses to spend our money and lives on war, do they love our peacefulness? Though they spit on the poor and throw children into the street, do they love our decency and compassion? Though they recognize no law, do they love our "nation of laws, not men"? Is there a single aspect of American society they do not hate with absolute, unyielding, and demonic malice?

Wow! But " Forgive Them Father For They Know Not What They Do". Go ahead, laugh a moment but then consider. All those you so aptly describe are not doing it out of 'unyielding demonic malice' They are doing it out of terror. For them there is no 'future of the human race'. For them there is only their own future and inescapable demise. They "want it all and they want it now" because "religion is the opiate of masses" and when you're dead you're dead. Some of us beg to differ. Pity them. Their spirit is truly destined for extinction.

[Troubadour]

Wow! But " Forgive Them Father For They Know Not What They Do".

They know exactly what they do. People who believe they're right don't lie about their actions.


All those you so aptly describe are not doing it out of 'unyielding demonic malice' They are doing it out of terror.


This is a misunderstanding of the psychopathic personality. Psychotics feel less fear than normal people, and that lack of fear combined with their lack of empathy is what makes homicidal monsters. Setting aside all humor on the subject, George W. Bush is not actually a psychopath in this sense - he is mentally retarded, delusional, and narcissistic, but has proven himself a coward on many occasions. Dick Cheney is another story - he is almost assuredly a classic, textbook psychopath, and however much fun I get out of reminding people about his five deferments, I do not think he would be in the least bit bothered or frightened by combat. In fact, he would probably enjoy the opportunity to kill, but (in this case only) I take him at his word that he avoided the dangers his support for the Vietnam War would have inflicted on others simply because he had "other priorities."


Their spirit is truly destined for extinction.

Religious arguments later. Suffice it to say they're deformed people lacking in some very basic elements of human consciousness.

[Alonzo]

Yes, exactly - if not for Bush, the levels of killing and torture would have been insufficient, and far less of the money spent implementing it would have gone to Republican contractors. Truly a nightmare beyond imagining.

And how long would Saddam, and his sons, continued killing? Democratic means were never going to bring them down. You were likely looking at a civil war eventually, plus all the years of torture and killings before that.

It's a question of adjectives. Can it be said that a mine shaft is "tall"?

No, it's a question of people being concerned with respecting their wives, family etc.

But then, $90 million in taxpayer money isn't being spent investigating his sex life, so we don't actually know that.

Because nothing was known before the trial, right?

No, not behind him - under him. He hides the bottles under the bed, giggling at his own devilish cleverness, and the whiskey faerie takes them away (actually the cleaning staff, but don't tell him).

Must be right after his midnight orgy then.

Oh, and before you talk about Bush's midnight orgies in your next thread, I was joking.

Well, what he believes is best for America - important distinction. Only latte-drinking, tay-rist sympathizing elitists think. And, of course, "America" means himself - not any of that bleeding-heart, hippie, kumbaya nonsense about the "Constitution." If the wig-wearing girlie men who wrote it had wanted him to read it, they wouldn't have used such big words.

So, if it were what's best for himself, why has he repeatedly done things to make himself more and more unpopular? Why has he stuck with people that the public hate at the risk of his own presidency?

Exactly. Bill Clinton acted in his own best interests first, then the nation's second; Bush streamlines the whole process by treating the second step as redundant.


Because unpopular things such as Guantanamo have done so much to benefit him.

[BoogyMan]

Your penchant for depraved Newspeak knows no bounds, invoking one murderous dictator to attack the critics of another.

If you cannot stand the heat don't follow his pattern of misdirection in your commentary Troubadour. The OP for this thread is EXACTLY the kind of rhetoric that Hitler used against the Jews between WWI and WWII. Painting political opposition as evil, demonic, and somehow less than human is a well established pattern and your comments are right in line with that pattern.

[Pookie]

Well, back to the original question, the answer is "I don't know."
I mean, Bush is the one who said the Constitution was just a ***** piece of paper.
So, you tell me. If he's such a real patriot, why does he feel that way and even say it?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Troubadour]

If you cannot stand the heat don't follow his pattern of misdirection in your commentary Troubadour.

Ah - if you don't want a dishonest answer from a Republican, don't ask them a question. Thanks for the news bulletin.


The OP for this thread is EXACTLY the kind of rhetoric that Hitler used against the Jews between WWI and WWII.

There are more valid analogies between Hitler and Nazism and George W. Bush's Republican Party than could be exhausted in an entire book, and we both know that. But you can't defend the GOP, so your only option is Freudian projection. I've seen Republicans compare pacifists with terrorists, human rights advocates with Nazis, liberals with totalitarian dictators, and constitutionalism with treason; I've also seen them equate compassion with immorality (and where have we seen that opinion before, BoogyMan?).


Painting political opposition as evil, demonic, and somehow less than human is a well established pattern and your comments are right in line with that pattern.

So if a liberal German party in the Weimar Republic ran against the Nazis by portraying them as evil, you would see the Nazis as victims. Correct?

[micfranklin]

Good presidents don't spy on their own people and have almost nothing to show for it 9 times out of 10.

[lily]

I've seen Republicans compare pacifists with terrorists, human rights advocates with Nazis, liberals with totalitarian dictators, and constitutionalism with treason; I've also seen them equate compassion with immorality (and where have we seen that opinion before, BoogyMan?).

....and this for me is the heart of the question. I don't think Republicans hate America, I do however think they hate anyone that doesn't think like them. Throw around words like traitor, terrorist lover, American Hater, Bush Basher and any other name, just to quiet opposing viewpoints. A sad state of the Union.

[apdst]

Good presidents don't spy on their own people and have almost nothing to show for it 9 times out of 10.

Is it me, or does anyone else remember how the Liberals get all mushy when talking about FDR? He used illegal wiretaps to crack The KKK. Does anyone think that he shouldn't have?

[micfranklin]

Is it me, or does anyone else remember how the Liberals get all mushy when talking about FDR? He used illegal wiretaps to crack The KKK. Does anyone think that he shouldn't have?

I'm not a fan of FDR or the KKK either and I especially can't stand him for wrongfully imprisoning Japanese-Americans, but this thread isn't about them its about Republicans.

Hold up, there are U.S. citizens who have been arrested without being told why now.

[lily]

And how long would Saddam, and his sons, continued killing? Democratic means were never going to bring them down. You were likely looking at a civil war eventually, plus all the years of torture and killings before that.
Er...um........what exactly do we have now? I really don't know if you're serious or playing Devils' Advocate here.





Because nothing was known before the trial, right?

I know my memory is bad......but I'm not sure why lying about a blowjob had to do with Whitewater? I guess $90 million was worth it, if they found something......so I don't want to hear any complaints when the same amount of money is spent ivestigating Bush.




So, if it were what's best for himself, why has he repeatedly done things to make himself more and more unpopular?

Money for friends, lobbyiest and contractors.......all washes out in the end.

Why has he stuck with people that the public hate at the risk of his own presidency?

That sir, is just pure bullheadedness..........and nothing else!

[apdst]

I especially can't stand him for wrongfully imprisoning Japanese-Americans

It worked. Oh yeah, don't forget about all the Germans and Italians that were locked up right along with the Japanese.

[micfranklin]

It worked. Oh yeah, don't forget about all the Germans and Italians that were locked up right along with the Japanese

How'd it work, enlighten me.

[apdst]

How'd it work, enlighten me.

How much espionage and sabotage took place on mainland America during WW2?

[micfranklin]

How much espionage and sabotage took place on mainland America during WW2?

What makes you think the Japanese, Italian and German Americans were going to get into sabotaging the country before the war? What did they do to us while they were in the country the whole time?

[PostmodernProphet]

I guess $90 million was worth it

I consider it a good investment.....Congress has been tied up in a stalemate, unwilling to do anything since what, 1996?.....Think how much they would have spent if they weren't busy hating each other....

[lily]

How much espionage and sabotage took place on mainland America during WW2?


How much espionage and sabotaging was going on before they locked them all up and took their houses and all their possessions?

[lily]

I consider it a good investment.....Congress has been tied up in a stalemate, unwilling to do anything since what, 1996?.....Think how much they would have spent if they weren't busy hating each other....

......well prophet.....taking in the cost of inflation, then I guess if the Democrats spend $100 mil, getting to the bottom of oh....gosh it's so hard to pick one.......er......um.........ok.......I'll go with missing emails, it'll be all worth it? I mean Whitewater had nothing to do with what they were doing while in office....so this sounds like a bargain to me.

[apdst]

What makes you think the Japanese, Italian and German Americans were going to get into sabotaging the country before the war?

There's no way that there could be some sabotuers planted among the Japanese, Italian and German communities? No way???

[micfranklin]

There's no way that there could be some sabotuers planted among the Japanese, Italian and German communities? No way???

No incidents I'm aware of. There might've been, they're might not have but just like how people are wrongfully locked up by the government today this is not indicative of a democratic society.

[DamnYankee]

Do Republicans Hate America?

No. I believe they do what they think is good for the country. More so than the liberal parties which blame America first.

[Buck Laser]

There's no way that there could be some sabotuers planted among the Japanese, Italian and German communities? No way???

A Bush-like insanity ruled in the US during WW1. My great-grandparents were Missourians of German extraction. Many of their parents and older ancestors had served on the Union side during the civil war. However, they were ostracized and vandalized during WW1 because they spoke German at home and in their mostly German neighborhood in St. Louis. One of my mother's uncles, a marine, was gassed in the trenches during the war.

The point is that there has pretty much always been suspicion on people who have any kind of connection to an enemy during war. It's frequently people like apdst who do the dirty work of going around and stirring up prejudice and hatred.

[apdst]

There might've been, they're might not have but just like how people are wrongfully locked up by the government today this is not indicative of a democratic society.

Well, we can't be too careful, can we?

Do some reading on Pearl Harbor and find out the Japanese got their intel prior to the attack.

[micfranklin]

Well, we can't be too careful, can we?

Do some reading on Pearl Harbor and find out the Japanese got their intel prior to the attack.

You mean how we stopped giving them oil because Japan invaded French Indochina?

And it's pretty fucking ignorant to imprison a group of people just because you think they might do something.

[Troubadour]

Do Republicans Hate America?

No. I believe they do what they think is good for the country.

Why do you believe that?


More so than the liberal parties which blame America first.

Republicans define themselves as "America," wrap their crimes in the flag, and then accuse real Americans of hating America. Typical fascism.

[apdst]

And it's pretty fucking ignorant to imprison a group of people just because you think they might do something.

What if you don't, and you're wrong?

[micfranklin]

What if you don't, and you're wrong?

Still no reason to round up everybody.

[apdst]

Still no reason to round up everybody.

The survival of the country is a damn good reason.

[Troubadour]

What if you don't, and you're wrong?

Would that logic justify rounding up people like you too, or just everyone else?

[micfranklin]

The survival of the country is a damn good reason.

And how effective has all that rounding up been? Japanese-Americans didn't do anything to us before Pearl Harbor.

[apdst]

Would that logic justify rounding up people like you too, or just everyone else?

If I were considered a threat to a country's survival, I would expect to be rounded up. It's not like any of them were hurt, or killed. They got fucked over, yeah, but no one was hurt.

Japanese-Americans didn't do anything to us before Pearl Harbor.

They didn't do anything AFTER Pearl Harbor, either.

[micfranklin]

They didn't do anything AFTER Pearl Harbor, either.

So what was the point of imprisoning them then if nothing happened either way? You simply went against America, wasted people's money locking people up for no reason and now America is looking pretty hypocritical. Well done.

If I were considered a threat to a country's survival, I would expect to be rounded up. It's not like any of them were hurt, or killed. They got fucked over, yeah, but no one was hurt.

I bet none of them wanted to hear that shit.

[Troubadour]

The survival of the country is a damn good reason.

Anyone can claim the survival of the country depends on anything, so it's not a "damn good reason" for anything - it's just something people say when proposing the indefensible.

[Buck Laser]

What if you don't, and you're wrong?
Apdst, in all honesty, if I were a law enforcement official somewhere where racial tensions were running so high there was danger of violence, and if you were in the neighborhood, I'd have you arrested. After all, it's better to be safe than sorry, isn't it? You did say "America can't have a black president," didn't you?

It's always easier to go after the obviously suspicious people than to really look for suspicious people.

[Troubadour]

If I were considered a threat to a country's survival, I would expect to be rounded up.

I'm not asking what you would "expect," but what you would accept. If the United States government decided that you and those like you in appearance, region, religion, or politics threatened the survival of the United States, are you telling me you would respect the motives of those responsible for carting you and your family off to a prison camp? You've already practically declared me a dangerous radical for suggesting that the leaders of your party be tried for crimes they admit, so you'll have to pardon me if I'm a little skeptical that you yourself would brush off being dragged to an internment camp and defend the patriotism of those who did it.


It's not like any of them were hurt, or killed. They got fucked over, yeah, but no one was hurt.

They didn't know that would be the outcome, did they? As they boarded the buses for the camps with armed guards giving them hard stares, they didn't know what would happen. They didn't know how far the US governments paranoia and distrust extended, or what would happen to them if things didn't go well in the war. They were justifiably terrified for their lives and the lives of their families - not the looming fear Americans in general felt about the danger their nation was in, but immediate terror in the knowledge that, with their most basic rights declared irrelevant, virtually nothing stood between their families and a mass grave. Nothing but the will of a government that had already betrayed them. What they endured was an inexcusable crime born of paranoia.


They didn't do anything AFTER Pearl Harbor, either.

Nor is there, or was there, evidence that would have been different in any case. In fact, the paranoia was so extreme, one general infamously claimed that the very lack of sabotage was a sinister indication of deep conspiracies afoot.

[BoogyMan]

Ah - if you don't want a dishonest answer from a Republican, don't ask them a question. Thanks for the news bulletin.

Point goes to me.

There are more valid analogies between Hitler and Nazism and George W. Bush's Republican Party than could be exhausted in an entire book, and we both know that. But you can't defend the GOP, so your only option is Freudian projection. I've seen Republicans compare pacifists with terrorists, human rights advocates with Nazis, liberals with totalitarian dictators, and constitutionalism with treason; I've also seen them equate compassion with immorality (and where have we seen that opinion before, BoogyMan?).

The OP DIRECTLY equates to the type of rhetoric used by Hitler to demonize his intended victims, it is so close as to make "analogy" a less than effective word.

You are going to have to work harder than this Troubadour.


So if a liberal German party in the Weimar Republic ran against the Nazis by portraying them as evil, you would see the Nazis as victims. Correct?

What ifs are a nice tool to try and divert attention from the obvious arent they?

[Elrathin]

What ifs are a nice tool to try and divert attention from the obvious arent they?

Isn't that why Japanese were rounded up during WWII? Because of What ifs? And we have conservatives on this board that were supportive of that, what do you say to them on that?

[BoogyMan]

Isn't that why Japanese were rounded up during WWII? Because of What ifs? And we have conservatives on this board that were supportive of that, what do you say to them on that?

Interesting red herring El, and it is completely without merit in the discussion at hand.

[Trish]

This thread has disintegarted into pure nonsense.

Troubadour - There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are Republican. They are Republican because they believe the Republican Party offers the best strategies for America's benefit. They are Republican for the same reasons that other Americans are Democrats and still others belong to different parties - because they believe it's in the best interest of America. For you to cast such an aspersion on so many Americans is simply beyond belief.

[micfranklin]

It's too bad those "best interests" have bankrupted and made us the laughing stock of the world.

[Troubadour]

Point goes to me.

LMAO! Whatever happens, just declare it your point. Apparently we're on Special Olympics rules.


The OP DIRECTLY equates to the type of rhetoric used by Hitler to demonize his intended victims, it is so close as to make "analogy" a less than effective word.


And the broken record recycles. Let's imagine for the sake of argument <evil grin> that my post was a paraphrase of something Thomas Jefferson wrote. Out of pure curiosity, just how stupid and ignorant would you feel upon learning that fact, having not merely analogized but vehemently equated it with Nazi ravings? Look again at the post, BoogyMan. ROFLMAO. You people are too easy.


You are going to have to work harder than this Troubadour.


Harder than what? You haven't challenged me.


What ifs are a nice tool to try and divert attention from the obvious arent they?

Indeed they are. Such as "what if Saddam acquires nuclear weapons," or "what if a terrorist has a nuke in an American city." Your side knows all about hypothesis as diversion.

[Troubadour]

Troubadour - There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are Republican.

Trish, in a way you're right: There are tens of millions of registered Republicans, but only hundreds of thousands of them actually count for anything in the organization - its "Made Men," if you will: The financiers, political leaders, judicial saboteurs, political operatives, and connected bureaucrats.


They are Republican because they believe the Republican Party offers the best strategies for America's benefit.


I'm not denying the existence of sheeple, nor casting aspersions on the motives of idiots. We're talking about the Republican Party - the power structure and organization.


They are Republican for the same reasons that other Americans are Democrats and still others belong to different parties - because they believe it's in the best interest of America. For you to cast such an aspersion on so many Americans is simply beyond belief.

This is simply a misunderstanding on your part as to what I'm actually saying. The leaders and institutional operatives of the Republican party are organized criminals - everyone else in the Party is either a petty criminal, ignorant, insane, or idiotic.

[PostmodernProphet]

Trish, in a way you're right: There are tens of millions of registered Republicans, but only hundreds of thousands of them actually count for anything in the organization - its "Made Men," if you will: The financiers, political leaders, judicial saboteurs, political operatives, and connected bureaucrats.


ah, you mean like "super delegates"?.......

This thread has disintegarted into pure nonsense.

it's still on topic, then......

[preservanation]

The leaders and institutional operatives of the Republican party are organized criminals...I'm going to continue to quote statements like this until I convince some here who doubt that there is a strategy of criminalizing the left's political opposition, or I get tired of it, one or the other...

Wait!
I glossed over this...everyone else in the Party is either a petty criminal, ignorant, insane, or idiotic.

Criminal=jail
Ignorant=reeducation camp
Insane=asylum
Idiotic=positions should be dismissed out of hand.

It sounds like all bases are covered.
Who needs a ballot box when one has the power to do this?
Hooo Boy, this is going to be fun!

[Trish]

Trish, in a way you're right: There are tens of millions of registered Republicans, but only hundreds of thousands of them actually count for anything in the organization - its "Made Men," if you will: The financiers, political leaders, judicial saboteurs, political operatives, and connected bureaucrats.



I'm not denying the existence of sheeple, nor casting aspersions on the motives of idiots. We're talking about the Republican Party - the power structure and organization.



This is simply a misunderstanding on your part as to what I'm actually saying. The leaders and institutional operatives of the Republican party are organized criminals - everyone else in the Party is either a petty criminal, ignorant, insane, or idiotic.


I'm so happy that you have such a superior understanding, education, intellect, and mental capacity to be able to shine the light of enlightenment for tens of millions of people who by your assessment just don't know any better than to be Republicans. Apparently you hold the answers to all the ills of American society. With your greater understanding and superior abilities perhaps you should run for office. I don't think you'd find things quite as cut and dried as you wish and I'm even more certain that you'd have a hard time be elected by ANYONE were they ever to learn the extent of your contempt for tens of millions of Americans.

[Elrathin]

The leaders and institutional operatives of the Republican party are organized criminals - everyone else in the Party is either a petty criminal, ignorant, insane, or idiotic.

I have to ask this one. So how do you view the Dem Party then? As saviors to the nation?

[DamnYankee]

Republicans define themselves as "America," wrap their crimes in the flag, and then accuse real Americans of hating America. Typical fascism.

Where is the proof? Or are you vomiting the typical leftist mantra?

[potter]

How many would Saddam have had executed and tortured if it weren't for him?


How many have WE tortured and executed? And why was it OK for us to sell him the bio weapons he used, and OK for us to back him when he used them, but not Ok for him to use them 20 years after the fact?

Why aren't we hanging the New Jersey chemical company executives who sold him the bio chemical weapons, and why aren't we hanging Rumsfield for backing Saddams use of them?

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/44961/index.php

[DamnYankee]

Why weren't we hanging the leftist who let it happen?

[potter]

Go for it.....in fact lets hang everyone of being so apathetic about what our government does in our names.

[potter]

Why weren't we hanging the leftist who let it happen?


I'd really like to know what these "leftist" are that some of you folks keep batting around. Is this just a terms you use for anyone who has a different opinion?

I'd just call them assholes or something instead of some vague term like "leftist"...what the hell does that mean?

[DamnYankee]

I'd just call them assholes or something instead of some vague term like "leftist"...what the hell does that mean?

Opposite of right.

Calling them that might be a violation of the rules. But I noticed that the moderators let the leftists on the board call conservatives names, so I'm not sure how all that works.

[potter]

Opposite of right.

Calling them that might be a violation of the rules. But I noticed that the moderators let the leftists on the board call conservatives names, so I'm not sure how all that works.


But what is a definition of a leftist...other than "opposite of right"

Isn't there something other than left and right?

[DamnYankee]

But what is a definition of a leftist...other than "opposite of right"

Liberal.

Isn't there something other than left and right?

Up and down? In and out?

[potter]

Liberal.



Up and down? In and out?


OK...progress....so what is your definition of a liberal...

and what about "in the middle" I think there are more people in the middle than on the left or right..maybe even combined...what do you think of them? Or are they lefties too?

[DamnYankee]

OK...progress....so what is your definition of a liberal...

Liberal = big taxes, wealth redistribution, big gov't, loose construction, special rights, blame America first, free speech only for other liberals, private property control, gun grabber. To name of few. Liberals are not bad people, I just don't agree with their politics. A lot of them strike me as hypocritical.

and what about "in the middle" I think there are more people in the middle than on the left or right..maybe even combined...what do you think of them? Or are they lefties too?

To me the people in the middle are people who cannot/will not or are afraid to take a stand. I don't have a problem with them per se.

[Elrathin]

Bush is clearly not a liberal, yet under this REPUBLICAN administration government has grown it's largest. Talk about hypocritical.

[apdst]

Liberal = forced welfare dependence, punitive actions against successful businesses, punitive practices against large wage earners, slavery.

[Elrathin]

Using the above logic, conservative = sending jobs overseas and putting Americans out of work, increasing government spending, increasing government, corporate welfare, taking away rights, and forcing religious beliefs on others.

[4Reaganomics]

I'm still waiting for these credible economists who don't support free trade.

The whole it is bad policy on behalf of the republicans to support NAFTA gets really old to me. The strong majority of economists, a good amount interventionists, still believe that free trade is mutually beneficial and always a good thing.

The Democratic party manipulating tool makers in central Wisconsin by telling them that the Republican party doesn't care about American jobs is wrong.

If we are protectionist there will be a Hoover type Depression, and then there will be no jobs.

[apdst]

sending jobs overseas and putting Americans out of work, increasing government spending, increasing government, corporate welfare, taking away rights, and forcing religious beliefs on others.

That never happened when the Dems were running the show?

Leyts talk about why the job are leaving. Could it that companies aren't willing to pay a mn forty dollars an hour to sweep the floor? Can't say I blame them. Who is it that supports the unions that have priced themselves out of a job?

Let's talk about Libearls forcing their beliefs on others, as well. Hmm??

[TheStripey1]

How many would Saddam have had executed and tortured if it weren't for him?

And I'm not sure what the problem is, he's one of the more moral presidents we've had in a while. He's not divorced, like Reagan, and doesn't cheat on his wife, like Clinton. And, unlike Clinton, when he did engage in immoral behavior, such as drinking, he found the strength to overcome that, admit his mistakes, and put it behind him.

This is a man that, year after year, has done what he thinks is best for America. He chooses that which he believes helps America before that which is politically expedient, unlike the Clintons and others before him.

IF you care so much for the Iraqis, why don't you enlist and volunteer to be deployed there so you can do bush's work and help bring them democracy?

[TheStripey1]

This is actually a more subtle question than one might imagine. Is it possible for a wife beater to love his wife, in any way beyond pride of possession? Is it possible for a predator to love its prey, or a parasite to love its host? Can one love that which one deliberately destroys, in any way that isn't perverse and twisted? Though Republicans poison our environment for a quick buck, do they love our beautiful land? Though they loot and undermine our financial foundations, do they love our economy? Though they rewrite the past every second to suit the expediencies of the moment, slandering heroes and lionizing monsters, do they love our history? Though they try to cloak their activities in secrecy, do they love our openness? Though they spy on us all, do they love our privacy? Though they hold people without charge or evidence; though they have people tortured; though they run secret prisons where they "disappear" people; do they love our justice? Though they ally with militant religious fundamentalists, do they love our rationality and education? Though they endlessly seek excuses to spend our money and lives on war, do they love our peacefulness? Though they spit on the poor and throw children into the street, do they love our decency and compassion? Though they recognize no law, do they love our "nation of laws, not men"? Is there a single aspect of American society they do not hate with absolute, unyielding, and demonic malice?

I was going to try and read through the thread before replying... but alas... I obviously failed...

to sort of answer your question...

Do not judge all republicans by the actions of those that have been in power these last 7+ years... the neocons and christian consevatives have destroyed the once Grand Old Party...

[Phyxius]

Opposite of right.

Calling them that might be a violation of the rules. But I noticed that the moderators let the leftists on the board call conservatives names, so I'm not sure how all that works.

You mean like Reich-wingers, Repuglicans, George Orwell's Party and the like? I think it's a case of if the shoe fits...:madlaugh:

[preservanation]

Yeah, like that...
Hoooo Boy!

[Alonzo]

IF you care so much for the Iraqis, why don't you enlist and volunteer to be deployed there so you can do bush's work and help bring them democracy?

So, in your mind, you must choose between opposing the war or enlisting? You probably should be sending checks to all the causes you support, like a right to choose, candidates etc. otherwise you should renounce your belief in them.

[Troubadour]

ah, you mean like "super delegates"?.......

No. A Democratic super-delegate has a weighted primary vote - a made member of the Republican Party has a license to steal.

I'm going to continue to quote statements like this until I convince some here who doubt that there is a strategy of criminalizing the left's political opposition, or I get tired of it, one or the other...

We're well aware of your intention to repeat yourself in lieu of real arguments.


I glossed over this
Criminal=jail


Now you're accusing me of plotting to put criminals in jail? Pres, your post is a disgrace to propaganda.


Ignorant=reeducation camp


No, I think we'd rather just get it right the first time.


Insane=asylum


Actually, I was thinking we could make a game show out of them: "Who's Smarter Than a Republican?" Challenge: Contestants are assigned a set of loony ideas generated randomly by a team of schizophrenics (e.g., the color orange causes homosexuality, and should be banned from schools), and are then each paired up with a Republican who thinks the show is actually a political debate. What follows is a race against the clock and each other to convince the Republican of the assigned nonsense.


Idiotic=positions should be dismissed out of hand.


Yup.


It sounds like all bases are covered.


All the bases you're aware of, but I appreciate the sentiment.


Who needs a ballot box when one has the power to do this?


Do what?

I'm so happy that you have such a superior understanding, education, intellect, and mental capacity

Yeah, I'm kind of happy about it myself. :)


to be able to shine the light of enlightenment for tens of millions of [...] Republicans.


I never claimed to be a miracle-worker.


Apparently you hold the answers to all the ills of American society.


Just the ones caused by stupidity.


With your greater understanding and superior abilities perhaps you should run for office.

Is there something about elective office you associate with intelligence?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/bush_stupid.jpg
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/ted_stevens.jpg
http://inhofe.senate.gov/images/heritage2.jpg
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050908/050908_tomdelay_vmed.widec.jpg


I don't think you'd find things quite as cut and dried as you wish


As I wish? You mistake a conclusion for a desire.


and I'm even more certain that you'd have a hard time be elected by ANYONE were they ever to learn the extent of your contempt for tens of millions of Americans.

That depends which Party I was running with - hating tens of millions of Americans has never been a barrier to Republican office. But then, intelligence and decency are.

[DamnYankee]

You mean like Reich-wingers, Repuglicans, George Orwell's Party and the like? I think it's a case of if the shoe fits...:madlaugh:

I don't care about being called those names. They're more cliche than anything.

Bush is clearly not a liberal, yet under this REPUBLICAN administration government has grown it's largest. Talk about hypocritical.

I'm glad you brought that up. George Walker Bush has grown the gov't like a liberal. But that in and of itself, doesn't make one liberal. Much like if a liberal was anti abortion. That doesn't make a liberal, conservative. IMO

[DamnYankee]

Using the above logic, conservative = sending jobs overseas and putting Americans out of work, increasing government spending, increasing government, corporate welfare, taking away rights, and forcing religious beliefs on others.

Well, if you consider those conservative, you better not vote liberal or you will be in more misery than you already are.

[TheStripey1]

So, in your mind, you must choose between opposing the war or enlisting? You probably should be sending checks to all the causes you support, like a right to choose, candidates etc. otherwise you should renounce your belief in them.


no, I think for those that support bush's war and/or care so damn much for the Iraqis' welfare should actually put their ass on the line and do something to help bring it about instead of pounding away on the keyboards day in and day out... but alas, that's ALL the majority of war mongering bush supporters do... type...

[DamnYankee]

... but alas, that's ALL the majority of war mongering bush supporters do... type...

A lot of those "supporters" are over there putting their lives on the line right now. So the best thing we could do is support the supporters.

I don't particularly care that we are there. But I challenge you to put some goodies in a box. And then mail it to "Any Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, Marine or CoastGuardsmen" Operation Iraqi Freedom, Persian Gulf. And then cut loose with some money for postage.

[Troubadour]

Do not judge all republicans by the actions of those that have been in power these last 7+ years... the neocons and christian consevatives have destroyed the once Grand Old Party...

I respect the distinctions among Republicans insofar as they exist, but to claim they hold relevance to national fortunes runs contrary to the evidence. No matter what distinction a Republican self-applies, such as "Goldwater Republican," the overwhelming fact is that they voted for the current set of leaders because they judged dangerous, violent criminal maniacs to be a better alternative than two centrist Democrats who might (or might not) have modestly raised their taxes. That bespeaks either a profound, utterly inexplicable lack of rational judgment, or an equally profound, utterly inexcusable deficiency of character.

Either way one chooses to look at it, the maniacs in control of the Republican Party illustrate in blindingly clear terms the true priorities of those who choose it: People who would rather have war and a tax cut, then have neither; who would rather have totalitarian surveillance and a tax cut, than have neither; who would rather have torture and a tax cut, than have neither; who would rather have recession and a tax cut, than have neither; who would rather have perpetual national disgrace and a tax cut, than have neither. In more succinct terms, people who rationalize selling their country and their children's future for a government check, even while hatefully pretending that poor people who don't vote at all are somehow being "bought" by a welfare system that barely exists outside of their own ravings.

Evil doesn't have to mean someone wants to hurt people - all it means is they value the worst in themselves more than they value the best in others, and end up hurting people simply because they don't care. One scholar of the Holocaust famously defined evil as a failure of empathy, as banal in its fact as it is horrific in its consequences (hence the term, "banality of evil"). When we trace the sequence of events that led us to this abyss (the bottom of which we haven't yet discovered), it's hard to find anything to respect in the character of the Republican: At a time when their taxes were already at historic lows, a fascist became the Republican messiah simply by promising to lower them further. That's it. Everything else he said was a sick joke - promising "humble" foreign policy, "compassionate conservatism," etc etc - but on the matter of the payoff, he was deadly serious by necessity. It is virtually impossible to win the Republican vote without promising some kind of direct cash payment.