If people like Democrat Dick Durbin believe the vicious attacks they spew against America and America's military then I wouldn't blame them for hating this country and seeking its overthrow.
If America were truly led by Adolph Hitler as the Democrats repeatedly call George Bush and our soldiers who, at best, were "only following orders," like the Nazis Dick Durbin compared them to and the American people not only solidly returned Hitler to power but did so with even more support at every level of government I, too, would seek the end of that system.
What is more likely, however, is not that the Democrats like Durbin believe their attacks but rather that they so hate America in general that any lie that they spew that hastens its demise is thought an act of courage and honor.
Just as it was Dan Rather's personal hatred for the Bush family saw him willing to use forged documents and attempt to pawn off a mentally disturbed Democratic party partisan with multiple direct contacts with the highest level of the Kerry campaign as an "unimpeachable source," the Democrats' hatred for America is such that Newsweek will run with bogus stories, Michael Moore will make lie-filled propaganda movies and Dick Durbin will attempt to spin unpleasant weather conditions in an interrogation room for suspected terrorists into an act of torture so egregious that it can only be compared to those of the most horrific villains in human history.
Either way --- whether they believe their own insane claims or they're slandering America's leaders because they seek America's demise for other reasons -- there is no doubt that the Democrats -- particularly the leftists who so utterly control that party today -- hate America.
While one could argue that the anti-American attacks are meant only to pander to voters in the blue states and thus ensure the reelection and the continued cushy life of a Senator for the likes of Durbin this presupposes that there is -- or at least the Democrats believe there is -- a majority of voters in the blue states that falls into one of the two categories listed above. Here the argument becomes it's not the Democratic Party leadership that hates America -- they're only treasonous prostitutes willing to sell out the country for power, money and privilege -- but the rank and file Democrats who do.
It is hard for me to imagine, though, that if instead of engaging in the most vicious campaign of lies, slanders, demagoguery and treason the Democratic Party leaders had stood shoulder to shoulder with Republicans in defense of this nation and helped make the rightful case for removing Saddam Hussein, liberating twenty-five million human beings from rape, torture and genocide and spreading democracy throughout the Middle East these Democratic Party incumbents (with all the benefits that incumbency brings) wouldn't have won reelection in even the bluest of the blue states.
Hillary Clinton, the consummate calculating politician, came to this same conclusion and, although she needs the far-leftist Manhattanites' votes and support in order to win reelection to the Senate in 2006, she saw no political risk in taking more reasonable positions towards the war in preparation for her run for President -- where she'll have to win more then just the lefties -- in 2008.
In fact, with the Democrats in the House and Senate dwindling in number with every election if the Democratic Party leadership were really just spewing their anti-American lies for political expediency it seems the politically wise thing to do would be to drop the slanders and attacks on America and Americans and stand up for our nation in its war against Islamic, fascist terror as well as moderate their attacks on America's foundations like our Judeo-Christian values and America's fighting men and women.
So, since pure political expedience would see the Democrat moderate their positions not engage, as they have, in even greater degrees of demogoguery, I am again left with only one of two possibilities for the vicious slanders of America and Americans by Dick Durbin and Howard Dean and John Kerry and the rest of the Democratic Party. Either Democrats hate America because they believe the lies they are spewing or they are spewing the lies because they hate America. Either way, it is undeniable that Democrats hate America.
So why does the Democrat hate America?
The answer can be found in the fact that Democrats see life as a zero-sum game. To them, if someone wins that means it must come at the expense of someone else. Success is thus evil as it causes pain and suffering to others. Since America is successful -- in fact unprecedentedly so -- America, in their eyes, is unprecedentedly evil. Suddenly it makes sense why Democrats continually compare America to the most heinous regimes in history.
The Republican, in contrast, believes the very opposite. The Republican believes that "all ships rise with the tide." To the Republican success, then, is good and should be encouraged at all levels and to the greatest degree. To the Republican America's success -- and the benefits that brings to the rest of the world -- is great.
But that's not what makes America great to the Republican. Success is amoral. To the Republican it is not a person's or a nation's success or failure that defines their goodness but rather it is their behavior. To the Democrat behavior is of no significance. To the Democrat good is defined as anything that fails and evil is defined as whatever succeeds.
The Democrats' hatred of success is not just limited to economics. While America is evil because of our success and corporations are, de facto, evil because they're successful (and the most successful corporation, Wal-Mart, of course receives the most hatred from the left) the same hatred exists for those who are successful in their studies.
It is for this reason that the Democrat designs policy intended always to reward the failed and punish the successful. Thus when children fail to learn to read and write the Democrat seeks to reward them with a promotion to the next grade anyway. They call it a "social" promotion and it includes all of the benefits one receives for working hard, staying home from the party to study and doing one's assignments without having to make any of the effort.
At the same time that the Democrat works to reward failure they pursue policies such as the ones we're seeing on college campuses today where they seek to destroy the valedictorian honor for the best of the best and remove merit as the criteria for awarding the "merit scholarship." Rather than being a reward for hard work and accomplishment the Democrats seek to turn the merit scholarship into just another welfare program.
Since good and evil is defined not by behaviors but by success and failure the Democrat supports every failed regime on the planet no matter how horrific its system and leader or the cause of its failure.
This is why the Democrats (and their ideological brethren in Europe) so hate Israel and so adore the Palestinians. The fact that Yasser Arafat was a corrupt, mass murdering, terrorist dictator who stole his people's money, sent fourteen year old brainwashed children out to blow the skulls off of the infidels in Israel and intentionally kept his people in poverty to be used as political pawns is of no significance to the Democrat. The Palestinians are to be championed for their failure and Israel, a democracy with freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, is to be hated for its success.
There is no doubt that Democrats hate America. There is no other possible explanation for their attempts to turn unpleasant weather conditions in an interrogation cell in Cuba or a couple of pairs of panties on the heads of those sworn to murder all infidels (e.g. Americans) into the equivalent of the regimes of Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler. There can be no other explanation for the Democratic Party leadership giving a standing ovation to what they know to be a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda film -- one that would be used to incite hatred for America and drum up recruits to massacre its citizens. There can be no other explanation for the most hateful demagogic attacks on America's Commander-in-Chief at a time of war especially when that war is against those who have not only sworn to bring death to America and Americans but have already succeeded in doing so by the thousands.
No, there is no doubt that Democrats hate America -- and will do so until they can make us fail.
13 comments:
So the Democrats believe that an ebbing tide strands everyone on the mud flats.
-N. O'Brain
Consider the following, something I had written up in an e-mail to a friend of mine:
[. . . .] which rather explains the white-hot ferocity with which the secular Left hates Republicans. Without the Left's knowing it, their atheism [call it by other names: malignant narcissism certainly suffices] is the cause of the horror which they experience, a horror which arouses in them the raging madness of Ahab's war against Moby Dick and of Satan's against God. So that, if anybody constitutes the West's (current-day) religious fanaticism, it is liberals and the secular LEFT. This also rather explains why the Left demonstrates such a ferocious will-to-believe (die Wille zur Glaube); i.e. their willingness to promulgate anything which vindicates -- flatters -- their outrage; and which, likewise, flatters their narcissistic, self-righteous brand of morality. (A morality of pity). Hence the near unbounded mendacity of a Michael Moore, Howard Dean, et. al.
"Meine Ehre heisst Treue." ("My Honor is called Faithfulness"). That was the official motto of Hitler's SS, inscribed onto every SS dagger. The subtext of the epigram illustrates my whole point: Its message is profoundly _a-political_. It implies that truth is a matter of will . . . . and . . . . "to that insight, we must stay faithful, even unto our deaths." By contrast, the S.A.'s motto (also inscribed onto its daggers) was "Alles fuer Deutschland." *That* was more political. It was political in the specific, technical sense in which I employ the term "political" because it expresses devotion to country and, therefore, to some kind of (more or less) firm, "objective" principle. Country is placed above Party and Fuehrer. (This, btw., adumbrates the very motive behind the infimous Night of the Long Knives!). As if to corroborate this whole argument, it's worth considering my leftist girlfriend and something she once yelled at me excoriatingly: "I will go to my *death* believing everything I said!!." She meant she will go to her death believing Michael Moore's vicious utterances; believing the spurious allegation that Bush "stole" the election in 2000. She will go to her death believing all of this, despite all evidence to the contrary one could supply in refutation, because her much beloved, recently deceased father was a brilliant academic socialist-pacifist. Pacifist!! In any event, it all so pathetically bespeaks how the Left has taken up assertiveness-training from Nazism/Fascism. Communism, after all, proves to be for whimps. (Too egalitarian!)
[Of course, I hope it goes w/o saying, none of this is to be construed as approbation of the SA as preferable to the SS. Both, in the end, were diabolically apolitical; i.e. nihilistic/malignant-narcissistic].
Your thesis of hate for America is
correct. But, your premise is incorrect or not primarily correct.
Democrats hate freedom. Success is
just one of many subsets of freedom. Take any Leftist position:
quotas,environement,tort,education,
etc. Take any Leftist organization:
ACLU,NAACP,NOW,etc. Boil them down
and they are anti-freedom. Bush is
hated because he freed 50 million
people from Stalinist dictators.
A lot of the Left's ideas can be
taken right out of the Marxist
manifesto. Not chic to say these
days- so McCarthy-esqe. But, there
it is.
Sayet:
"This is why the Democrats (and their ideological brethren in Europe) so hate Israel and so adore the Palestinians."
Yes,
that must be why Steve Grossman, then head of AIPAC, became the head of the DNC in 1997,
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/970117/aipac.html
More details here:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/27govt2.htm
"Stunningly, as Grossman rose to head the DNC, in the same year Fran Katz, the AIPAC Deputy Political Affairs Director, became the Financial Director of the Democratic Party. This situation, notes Mitchell Kaidy, "contribut[ed] to the impression that the foreign lobby and the incumbent party have become one and the same." [KAIDY, M., 9-97, p. 42]"
and why Grossman went to Dean's team, and why the latter said :
http://www.forward.com/campaignconfidential/archives/001823.php
"Not only will Democrats defend Israel," Dean told the AIPAC crowd, "we also will continue to defend the rights of Jews to be Jewish in America." To make his point, Dean proceeded to tell the story of his wife's grandmother (who was Jewish) who immigrated to the United States to escape religious prosecution.
why John Kerry stated that he had a 100% pro-Israel record in the Senate and that he was committed to democratise the Middle East,
and why Bill Clinton recently paid tribute to Fox News' Roger Ailes for his pro-Israel views :
Jewish Group Honors Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes
http://forward.com/articles/3321
"But a host of luminaries from the left as well as the right turned out to applaud, including Miramax Films founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who bought a full-page ad in the dinner journal, and former president Bill Clinton, who prepared a video greeting that saluted "red-state Roger" for his concern for "security for the State of Israel and peace in the Middle East.""
and why the Arab lobbyists are complaining that the DP is too pro-jew
Jewish activists: Democratic Party is the home of U.S. Jewry
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=456447
"The Democratic Party's pro-Israel line is so strong that large Arab
lobbies have prompted complaints that it is too pro-Israel."
I could fill pages and pages with facts like these about the Democrats. The Dems are more pro-Israel than the Republicans will ever be
I guess that's why Howard Dean demanded that the Israelis and Palestinians be dealt with "even-handedly" as if dealing with terrorists and democracies are one and the same (and to Democrats they are.)
It's why the Democrats demand that our policies pass "global tests" even though most of these nations are virulent anti-semites kowtowing to the Arabs and their oil.
It's why the Democrats so adore the United Nations where anti-Israeli votes have taken up half of that body's time through the years and why, when Clinton desperately sought to invent a legacy for himself in the wake of scandal prone years he made the murderer of Jews, Yasser Arafat, the single most feted world "leader" of his entire administration.
It's why Jimmy Carter is an out and out Jew hater and secretly sent Andrew Young to conduct negotiations with the terrorists in the PLO.
It's why Noam Chomsky invents the most twisted of conspiracy theories to attack Israel on a near-daily basis, why the Democratic Party is the home of viscious Jew-haters like Louis Farahkhan and Jesse Jackson and a man who incited the murder of five Jews -- Al Sharpton -- was a serious candidate for the party's top position and never once challenged on his Jew-hating.
It's why it is Democratic Senators who attempt the blood libel of saying the war in Iraq was for the benefit of the Jews and even hint that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy. It's why it's the second most powerful Democrat who spits on the graves of a million Jews by saying the holocaust was no worse than a couple of hours in a room without air conditioning.
Shall I go on and on?
No, Evan, you can stop now. First off, you're coming off as a racial profiler when you suggest that the Palestinians are all terrorists. It's the terrorist GROUPS like the PLO and Hamas and Islamic Jihad that are the enemy, not all the Palestinian people. I've spoken to a few Arabs who operate businesses where I live and they don't support terrorism at all. Hell, I'm Jewish, and they know it, but we have no problem with each other.
You seem to be the only person outside of Harlem who considers Al Sharpton a serious contender for anything other than the village idiot. Even the Democrats didn't really think so. But it's typical of how lame the Dems are by even allowing that racist a chance. And speaking of "Jew haters," I didn't see you mention your fellow Republican, mail and tax fraud jail-bird and well known KKK member David Duke.
Since you consider Jimmy Carter such a "Jew hater" because of his dispatch of Andrew Young, what is your honest appraisal of Vice President George Bush's 1986 trip to Riyadh to persuade Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC to cut oil production so they could drain the oil glut? He practically begged them. Bush was dealing DIRECTLY with Arab leaders. And since the Palestinians are also Arabs and therefore terrorists, as you insinuate, that makes Bush a Jew hater by your very own logic. But I don't think Bush hates Jews. Why? Because it was painfully obvious to everyone then and still is now that the only reason Bush went there was to make sure his profits from his own oil business didn't drown in the glut. America had OPEC by the you-know-whats, and instead of turning the screws on them like they did to us, Bush goes there and grovels at their feet. THAT can be construed as hatred of America, Evan. It was a slap in the face of every person in this country. The connection of Bush and Saudi Arabia extends through the first Gulf War and the current Iraqi war. Those are the FACTS, like it or not. If you have any self-respect you would see it clearly, and that would not make you any less loyal a Republican than you are. Deny it and you're just making a damn fool of yourself the way Liberals like Dick Durbin do.
You make some valid points about the Democrats. I know how incompetent they are, but come on! They're not exactly Nazi Germany. And there seems to be more merit to 9/11 being an inside job rather than a Jewish conspiracy. But that's all just talk. All in all, it's just not as one sided as you're advertising. As I've said, just as both sides deserve blame, both sides can fix it - if they want to. That's the equation. Instead of all this partisan BS, more effort must be made by ALL sides to hammer out what's wrong before the rest of the world loses all respect for America, if they haven't already.
J.
I don't know if you read my entry on the great victories of the Liberals over sanity, reason and common sense. I argue that one of the two great victories for them was convincing people that the minimum standard of truth is perfection.
You seem to think that there's some higher morality not in pursuing truth but rather neutrality. Your efforts seem designed to disabuse me of my beliefs that the Republican party of today is morally and by policy better than the Democrats.
This idea that "both sides do it" that appears to always be your bottom line fails to recognize degrees. And since nobody -- much less a collection of tens and tens of millions of people such as are America's political parties -- this allows you to see them as one and the same (less than perfect).
But degrees are all that exist in the real world. As the brilliant Victor Davis Hanson said "life is rarely the perfectly good versus the perfectly evil but it is very often the much, much better versus the much, much worse."
In order to try and convince me that the Republicans aren't much, much better and the Democrats much, much worse you have been forced to engage in a great many intellectual dishonesties.
For example you fall into one of the intellectual traps I wrote about in that same piece by claiming that Palestinians aren't terorists because not ALL Palestinians are terrorists. Nowhere did I claim all Palestinians are terrorists. But to deny the statement I did make is akin to my father having said during World War II "the Germans are vicious..." and your father taking him to task because he didn't say "you know, some Germans, and by that I mean the Nazis who run the government, can be kinda not nice now and again..."
Of course not all Palestinians are terrorists but the Palestinian LEADERSHIP is. And so are the millions of children and adults they braniwash with their unparalleled propgaganda (the equivilent of the Nazis).
Do you really believe that because you know a Palestinian in America who is nice that that disproves that the Palestinians in the Middle East engage in terror tactics? Ludicrous.
By the way, I have nothing against racial profiling. Do you really believe we should spend equal funds investigating ninety year old Swedes as we do twenty-four year old Moslems arriving from Damascus?
(By the way, it is you who engages in "racial profiling" with your argument that all blacks in Harlem voted for Sharpton.)
Further, do you really not see a difference in degree between a minor candidate from two decades ago who was reviled and rejected by the overwhelming leadership and body of the Republican Party in David Duke and Al Sharpton's being embraced and welcomed on the national stage and given credibility by the Democrats?
And, again, you are forced to make disaparate things appear the same in comparing the illegal actions of Jimmy Carter in sending Andrew Young to secretly negotiate with the PLO and the perfectly legal (but wrong) acts of George H.W. Bush in Saudi Arabia. Not only was one illegal and the other legal but one was designed to aid and abet mass murderers and the other to sure up oil prices to stabilize the global economy.
By the way, I have a great deal of disdain for George H.W. Bush and his policies -- especially in the Middle East -- which is why I voted for Bill Clinton.
But your nutty take on why Bush went and how he behaved when he went is pure folly and does go a long way towards exposing your feelings about the parties even as you try to pretend to be "even-handed." And, of course, the conclusion that you draw -- even with the worst spin you can invent -- that that makes Bush a Jew-hater because shoring up oil prices is the same as aiding and abetting the murderers of Jewish children is assinine.
the option you offer me...either I can agree with your invented motivations and your laughable description of Bush, Sr. presentation of his requests or I am the equivilent of a man who slanders one million American soldiers, spits on the graves of six million Jews and seeks to aid and abet the terrorist enemies shows again your inability to grasp degrees.
And, again, with your moronic and snide take on "there seems to be evidence that 9/11 was an inside job..." gives voice to your real feelings. there is, of course, no evidence whatsoever. We had a nine-eleven commission and they came to no such conclusion nor has anyone else except Michael Moore and the Islamists. That you would give even the slightest credence to this is an indication that fact, evidence and truth mean nothing to you.
Look, Evan, I'm not trying to make you disbelieve in anything. I have a dislike for extremist viewpoints across the board. I just refuse to allow a single ideology to narrow my sight. This country allows us the freedom to do so. And how do degrees justify the never-ending scandals that have permeated politics? I suppose I can just sigh and atribute it to human nature or something.
I'll make three points, the final of which will shock you.
1) You're right when you say that Carter's dispatch of Young was illegal (But since when has the law stopped a president from doing anything he wants?). I was so disgusted by that and Carter's lack of progress in the Iran hostage crisis that I voted for - John Anderson. It was my last attempt at a "protest vote" because I didn't trust Reagan or Bush, and I already saw Bush's blatant flip-flop on abortion. But my take on Bush's behavior in his trip to Saudi Arabia was not "nutty," or "asinine." It was 100% accurate because, unlike a diplomat, Bush had a business stake in the matter. Go back and read what I said more carefully. I didn't say Bush was a Jew hater. I said his dealings with Saudi Arabia and OPEC - which consists of "Axis of Evil" members Iraq, Iran and Syria - consists of a similar "let's be friends in spite of who you are" mindset, but for very different reasons. Carter sending Young may have been considered an act of peace, but it really should have been an impeachable offense. That and the Cuban Boat Flotilla was the death of any Liberal credibility forever. Bush's reasons were personal. The Global economy was hurt far more by OPEC's oil embargo then the oil glut. But we could have helped the rest of the world in other areas while drowning OPEC in their own excess because Reaganomics had America's economy going so well during the '80s, didn't it? Or did it? Going from the world's biggest creditor nation to the world's biggest debtor nation in 8 years was certainly alarming enough to me.
2) The Palistinian leaders are the problem. That's what I said. Those "leaders" are the PLO and Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The death of Yasser Arafat was the best thing to happen, but all it means for now is that his delegated replacements have a harder job to do. You think I don't know the truth? I have no sympathy for the Palastinian cause. They had a chance for their own state in 1948 along with Israel, but the Palistinians demanded all the land and wanted the Jews left out in the cold. The United Nations rejected that idea and Israel was awarded statehood. Israel was attacked in the 6-day War of 1967 and again in 1973, fought back and took the land now known as the Occupied Territories fair and square. The Arabs had gambled twice and lost and many Arab leaders believe that terrorism has been justified ever since. But not all Arab people believe it, especially Arabs who live in Israel. Nowhere in the Koran does it suggest that a suicide attack on your enemies will deliver your soul to paradise. The undeniable fact is the Arab leaders were and always have been the aggressors and they believe in the total destruction of Israel. Is that enough proof of the truth for you?
3)The 9/11 commission was irrelevant. My take is not "moronic" or "snide." Your name-calling makes me wonder if deep down you think the same way I do because you're being pretty defensive about it. Believe me when I say I've always prayed and prayed that 9/11 was what it was advertised as. But the more I see the more I doubt. I've seen all the leftist conspiracy theorists' doctored photos and edited audio and video and made-up written accounts. They're nauseating. But there's one thing about 9/11 that does bother me. WTC Building 7 came straight down like a controlled implosion. And the property owner Larry Silverstein (no relation), said that he gave the order to "pull it" - demolition lingo for demolish the building. He said it himself on a interview on TV. That part was edited out, but I've seen the entire interview, and it wasn't dubbed or tampered with. Building 7 was not hit by a plane or any major rubble, and even if it was it would not have come down the way it did. It certainly makes me wonder, but like I said, it's all talk for now.
4)And now for the shocker, Mr. Sayet. Your father and my father did fight in the same war. And, in fact, they knew each other afterwards. I know they had the same feelings about Nazi Germany that we have about Arab terrorists. Their advantage was that they didn't have as much partisan bickering back then that has stalled progress for the common good today. The right yells at the left, the left yells at the right, and I'm feeling like a tennis ball looking for a way to slam into either side's face at 110 MPH to get the message across.
Mr. Silverstein...
The problem with your arguments is that you try too hard to be "even-handed." It's a trait that some consider makes them smarter than others. Democrats like to call it "nuanced."
Your cynicism -- another trait that some take to be a sign of superior intellect -- only gets in the way of your arguments.
"Since when has the law ever stopped a President from doing what he wanted?" Gee, whiz, I guess Richard Nixon wanted to resign early and in humiliation. I guess every president (with the exception of the Democrat FDR) wanted to leave office after only four or eight years. I guess Bill and Hillary wanted to testify to grand juries and be disbarred, etc.
This kind of smearing and slandering of America is a danger because it justifies to those who might not know better the breaking of the laws by those who really aren't compelled by them...Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, etc.
Calling the 9/11 commission "irrelevent" means that there is no one and nothing America could do to change your hatred of it. If this high-level, bi-partisan commission held in public is of no meaning whatsoever then who do you trust? Where do you get YOUR information? The conclusions were unanimous, they were accepted by both parties (with the Democrats insisting every word be put into action immediately without review or question), etc.
I do apologize for name-calling but there are times when the words apply. Obviously when saying "the Germans are bad..." during World War II no one meant EVERY German. But the idea that it was only the government does a disservice to reality. Those in Madrasses who are forced to rock back and forth all day and read only excerpts from the Koran might not be at fault for the hatred they have but to deny their hatred is suicide.
As for "extremist" points of view I don't believe I have any.
I am not a partisan for any other reason than the facts and my morality lead my to one side in this era. If you are the J. Silverstein I think you are now that you say our parents knew each other (I don't want to "out" you because you've chosen not to give your full first name but can I guess the second letter is an "O" and your mom's name begins with an "M"?) then you know that I was a New York (Manhasset Hills), Liberal Jew for my entire life. I voted for Clinton (twice) and even for Al Gore.
One of my intellectual heroes, Victor David Hanson has such a simple line but it's vital. He says "life is rarely the perfectly good versus the perfectly evil. But it is often the much, much better versus the much much worse." Attempts to be "even-handed" or to say "all people do it" or whatever eliminates the need to think at all. After all, since no one is perfect and perfection is the minimum standard to the nuanced then nothing is better or worse than anything else.
The ability to judge degrees, to weigh things or, to put it in conservative terms, to give them "values" is the essence of rational thought.
For example, when weighing two wrongs (Carter/Young and Bush/Saudi Arabia) they just don't come out even. One was acting as a private businessman the other with the full power of the United States. One was negotiating where it was illegal and the other was negotiating in a perfectly legal fashion. etc.
I similarly weigh information such as you provided about building 7 and 9/11 in general. In the end it is clear that your information is either wrong, misinterpreted or fabricated.
The only other option is to believe that every single member of the US government is not only an outright liar, but one who is lying to help their enemies. Do you really believe that CNN wouldn't have run with the story if there was ANY evidence of what you claim? Do you really believe Richard Ben Viniste is in on a conspiracy to protect George Bush? Do you really believe Howard Dean who already tried to spread lies about 9/11 wouldn't have jumped on your tale?
The problem with being "nuanced" and "balanced" is that it requires intellectual dishonesty. Consider the leftist newspapers that won't call terrorists terrorists and won't call Saddam Hussein "the former dictator" and have so lied about the West Bank and Gaza Strip that now even Jews call it "the occupied territories..."
I don't believe the Republicans are perfect. Far from it. As I've noted I've voted Democrat my entire life. But not at this time when the Democrats are vicious, anti-American liars and the Republicans are defending this country, on the right side in the Arab-Israeli war, seeing democracy spread to Lebanon, with lower taxes, higher government revenue, more aid to Africa, higher standards for our schools, etc.
This is the much, much better versus the much much worse and to deny all of the progress, all of the victories, all of the liberated human beings in the Middle East and elsewhere in order to be "balanced" or to avoid "extreme poisitions" is to cause the undermining of all these great things.
Evan
PS Again, if you wish to contact me personally please feel free at ESayet@socal.rr.com. If you're the J. Silverstein I think you are then I remember you and your family well. If your folks are still around please send them my regards.
Evan, saying that I hate America because I think the 9/11 commission was irrelevant and I disagree with the Administration borders on 1950s-style McCarthyism paranoia. Criticizing Nixon is not slandering America. He broke the law, and tried to hide through constant coverups. He was pardoned by Gerald Ford while everyone who participated in Watergate under Nixon served time. I'm calling it as it happened.
For the last time, I don't hate America, okay? I just hate the bastards running it, regardless of their political affiliation. The evolution of the politician's motives is not what the founding fathers of this country had in mind in 1776. The lawmakers have become lawbreakers. I'm the first to admit I'm a card-carrying cynic when it comes to the people running the government. So be it. But I've never deliberately tried to come off as intellectually superior to anybody. I disagree with some of your views, but I'm not better than you, and vice-versa. Please don't mistake me for some phony Liberal anti-government 60's-style radical. That's not me. A lifetime of political lies, broken promises, stealing, lobbying for special interest groups, scandals, coverups, tax increases, inflation, incompetence and none of it helping me personally while they vote themselves salary increases for a "job well done" has jaded me, and I have no interest in supporting any politician. Maybe they're not ALL criminals, but most of them are. They don't lie to protect their enemies, they lie to protect themselves and their rich constituants. The Democrats always try to make themselves look good by saying that about the Republicans, but they all do the same thing. There's no getting around it. Remember, politicians are LAWYERS, and there's no reason to think lawyers suddenly become benevolent once they enter the political ring. If I'm being too cynical, too bad. I love America, but not the idiots in charge.
My "information" on 9/11 and Building 7 is not wrong, misinterpreted or fabricated. I got no "information" from anybody. It was just a conversation between myself and two people I know who are professional architects. The converations we had over the videos of the collapse were not politically motivated, but was simple curiosity, and it didn't take too long to arrive at a pretty obvious conclusion. And Larry Silverstein said what he said. It's not a lie, and it's not erroneous. It's on vidoetape. And even without knowing what he said, the collapse of that building was unusual under the circumstances. Talk to any architect or demolitions expert (without injecting politics into it at any time) and they'd say the same thing. My observation was just that. An observation. Yes, I'll admit suspicion, and I'm equally suspicious of the motivation behind the war. Suspicion is not hatred of America. But CNN, Howard Dean and the rest of the left couldn't run with any story if they tried. If I had to say anything about it it's that the perfect crime is the one nobody would ever, ever believe anybody could commit, and that's another reason why if the story did exist (I said "IF"), nobody could run with it without a "Deep Throat" mouthpiece. I'm suspicious, but I'm not pointing fingers or defending anybody. I'll leave that to the conspiracy theorists and their detractors. God forbid if 9/11 turned out to be anything other than a terrorist attack. It's way beyond me to even think about.
If you can't bring yourself to look at anything that goes against your thinking without putting this "hatred of America" tag on it, well, you are free as anybody in the USA to think the way you want. We are free to be stubborn. When you suggest I hate America, you are dead wrong, but I'm powerless to convince you. If I'm trying too hard to do anything, it's trying to get people to discard the blinders and open their eyes. But more and more, it gets me nowhere. Guess I'll go back to my roots: The three things I don't generally discuss: Money, religion, and politics.
So how 'bout them White Sox, eh?!
---------------------
P.S - You're right, I am who you think. (Give that man a lady in the balcony!) Thanx for not outing and thanks for the kind words. I'm going on vacation, but I'll email when I get back to say hi.
I don't know if I get the last word here or if you'll be able to respond before you take off.
It's not disagreement that makes me believe many -- especially on the left -- hate America. It's the style of disagreement.
As I wrote in one of my pieces (entitled I believe Democrats Hate America) If Dick Durbin believes that our troops are like Nazis and Ward Churchill believes that the guy who sold insurance from an office on the sixtieth floor of the WTC is like Eichman, etc. they SHOULD hate America.
As I wrote in a more recent piece, it's hard to argue that someone loves their children if they are always lying about them, attacking them, singing songs about how horrible they are as does Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy and Bruce Springsteen.
Calling Bush "Hitler" as do the Democrats is not "disagreement" it is hate. And being so utterly cynical that you can look at all of the great things this country has given us and come up only with a litany of half-truths and cynically arrived at conclusions I do think qualifies as hate.
If you hate every politician and, of course, the people who elect these politicians must be either corrupt themselves or stupid and you hate the media and you hate the corporations, etc. what could you possibly like about America? Our Fur trees?
No one is calling for unquestioning devotion but how about a little fairness. You list "inflation" as one of the reasons for your cynicism. So, does the fact that Bush has kept inflation low and Europe's inflation is very high mean that you love America more today and Europe less? Where do you like better? Where in history would you have been more free, more comfortable, more prosperous, etc?
At any rate...enjoy your vacation. Hopefully you're not going to France.
Evan
Noooo, I wouldn't go to France on a dare. I'd love to go there for the culture and the sights, but I wouldn't put a plugged nickel into their ungrateful coffers. I'm leaving on the 11th for a trip to the country. American-style country.
Maybe I was overdoing it on my cynicism a bit (an occupational hazzard among us cynics), but the fact is, in spite of how I feel about politicians and their methods, I do love this country. After all, my mother and her family came to America from Nazi-occupied Romania in 1940 with literally nothing but the clothes in their bags. This country gave them a chance. How could I possibly hate America knowing that? In spite of my cynicism, I haven't and never will lose sight of what America is and should be all about.
Bush has kept inflation low? For who? In the last two years I've seen major increases in food prices, gas and oil, all my insurance rates have shot through the roof (on their own - no health or driving problems), and frankly, I never saw a dime of any president's tax cuts because I don't meet the exorbitant salary requirements. The biggest problem I have with Bush is the deficit. The Democrats tax and spend. The Republicans cut and slash. Bush had created "cut and spend." He cut taxes while expanding the government by over 12% since he took office. Even Limbaugh knows that, but he glosses over it. If Bush was a Democrat Rush and all his "Dittoheads" (An insulting term, if you ask me) would be all over him like he deserves to be. The wars are only a small fraction of the budget, so that's not a reason. I don't want to hear that he's doing something about it NOW because he should never have been allowed to get us into this deep in the first place. But he was following many of his father's policies. His father along with Reagan helped turn America from the biggest creditor nation into the biggest debtor nation. Like him or not, Bill Clinton (with the help of the Republican Congress) passed a budget surplus on to Bush II, but it was gone before 9/11. It took Bush less than one term to get into this hole, but it could take generations to get us out because partisan politics will help strangle any plans before they're implemented. In the entire history of this country never has there been a situation like this before, and it's being kept in the backround. Last year when it started becoming a hot topic, suddenly out of nowhere came the same-sex marriage issue, and that pushed the deficit into the backround again. The timing made it a 200-proof political move. Mission accomplished. The deficit worries me more than anything. Don't forget, as governor, Bush's policies bankrupted the Texas treasury department. Then he left to run for president and left Texas holding the bag. That doesn't bode well for the rest of us. Why should I trust him any more than I did his father? Sooner or later the debts have to be paid, and who's going to pay for it? Like any debt-ridden business, the government would pass the expense on to the consumer - in this case, the taxpayer. Unless sensible heads prevail, it is inevitable. It's extremely unwise to shrug and avoid this problem and dream that everything is alright because you support the powers that be. Bush's ill-advised fiscal policies are a major-league disaster waiting to happen.
I'm off to the country. Till we meet again...
J --
First, I'm glad to hear you speak well of America. the problem isn't that some have disagreements, it's that that is all they ever voice.
Republicans have disagreements on policies with this president (and voice them often -- I don't know if you read the conservative and Republican sites like Townhall.com and RealClearPolitics.com).
But to compare our forces to Nazis as the Democrats' Dick Durbin has done and refuses to retract, or to attack our military constantly as does Ted Kennedy, et al. is the equivilent of an enemy attack on the country you say you love.
I love my son. And if he were in a fight to the death with a vicious bully using the most horrific of tactics I surely wouldn't spend all my time attacking my son.
As for the facts about inflation and tax relief your way off base. EVERYONE who paid taxes received a tax refund. Period. Either you didn't pay taxes or you're not recalling the situation properly.
As for inflation, sorry, that's a government statistic that has been calculated in the same way for generations. Inflation is near zilch -- including with the hike in gas prices which, contrary to the way the leftist media portrays it, is FAR from the highest it has ever been. Adjusted for inflation gas prices have exceeded three dollars a gallon just after the Carter administration debacle.
As for Bush increasing the size of the government he surely has. And this is a bone of contention amongst his own party and his own base. Democrats should love it, though, as he has increased funding for education, a welfare program from seniors' medicines, etc.
But much of the increase in govt. has been for two things that I believe in whole-heartedly. After a decade of the Clinton administration slashing the military budget and the intelligence budgets and leaving us weak and unprepared (which I understand to a certain degree as the end of the Cold War -- another time the Democrats fought against victory over evil -- it seemed like "the end of history" as one wag put it.
So the increase for the military and intelligence post 9/11 was vital.
The second part is the cut in taxes which I -- and John Kennedy -- agree with. It was the Liberal *(though old school liberal, not the anti-American, multiculturalist liberals of today) who said "while it may seem paradoxical the truth is that the lower the tax rate the MORE revenue the government brings in."
This, of course, is exactly what happened when Kennedy cut taxes (and funded "the great society" as well as the war in Vietnam), when Reagan cut taxes (and began the longest sustained period of economic growth in world history) and now, again, when Bush has done it. State, local and national coffers are teeming with unexpected (at least by the left) revenues. The budget deficit is way down and business continues to boom.
The stock market -- which is the very indicator of the experts' beliefs about the future of American business -- is at or near an all-time high with the one exception of the tech bubble of the nineties.
As for Clinton passing on a "budget surplus" this is simply untrue. First, it was a PROJECTED budget surplus based on the tech bubble growth with that kind of unprecedented growth used to calculate change over the next ten years.
Secondly much of that came from taxes paid on bogus business practices that were allowed to be as corrupt as Clinton and his own people (remember, I voted for Clinton and I'm a lifelong Democrat -- I have no other reason to say these things than that they are true).
Does Bush get ANY credit for taking an economic disaster where America's biggest city was literally shut down for weeks on end, where the very hub of finanical transaction was attacked, where the best and the brightest in finance were murdered and where entire sectors of the economy -- transportation for example -- were on the verge of bankrupcy and within months -- thanks to his stimulus package which you now attack -- America was growing, jobs were increasing, investors who had taken trillions from the economy out of quite literally terror returned to the stock market and to small investments in America?
Does Bush get ANY credit for -- after eight years of America and Americans being murdered in the WTC in 1993, the Khobar towers, two embassies in Africa, nearly sinking one of America's great warships keeping America safe and without a successful attack on America or an American interest outside the Middle East since 9/11?
Does Bush get ANY credit for creating an environment where home ownership (sometimes called "the American dream") is at an all time high with fully 70 percent of all Americans now owning their own homes?
Does Bush get ANY credit for the spread of democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Syrians ending their three decade long brutal occupation of Lebanon, terrorism in our democratic allies of India and Israel down over ninety percent and more?
Does Bush get ANY credit for the increase in the test scores that came soon after "No Child Left Behind" and the standards it imposes was passed?
You see, J., the problem isn't that we have disagreements. It's that getting a Democrat to ever say ANYTHING good about America, to give credit where credit is due along with the (rather cynical and overstated) wrongs is intellectually dishonest and culturally disasterous and, at a time of war against viciousness unparalleled perhaps even by the Nazis (although their abilities aren't quite the same) aids and abets the destruction of what you tell me you love -- America.
Again, let's go back to the case of my child being set upon by a vicious bully using the most horrific of tactics and sworn to his murder (and having already murders others). Would you think me a loving father if all I did was constantly attack my son, arguing that he "deserves" what's befalling him? What if I lied about him the way Durbin and Dean and Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy lie about America?
There's a reason America is the greatest nation in human history. It's because we are good and we are right. Are we perfectly good and always right? Of course not. But if perfection is the minimum standard of truth then NOTHING is better or worse than anything else (which is the Modern Liberals' contention and method for proving it) as nothing is perfect.
As one of my heroes Victor Davis Hanson said "life is rarely the perfectly good versus the perfectly evil but it is very often the much much better versus the much much worse."
And America is much much MUCH better than anything that has ever come before it and unless the left begins to appreciate that America is at risk of being destroyed and the world at risk of losing its shining star.
Enjoy your vacation. I look forward to hearing about it when you get back.
Evan
Post a Comment