Uncalled for by RIPWash

Agreed. I'm not sure who is doing this. Probably some really dumb republicans.

"Health care protests carrying signs with swastikas" had me puzzled at first:

Warning, Rant:

1. Nazis, real nazis, are never going to be anti-national healthcare, because they are socialists, albeit pathetic ones.

2. Either someone is trying to say "this move towards socialism is nazi" which is very godwin of them (healthcare?)

3. Someone is trying to sabotage an argument by pretending to stand for it, and then waving swastikas. I've seen this tactic before with various detractors, not just swastikas.

4. If you're going to make Nazi comparisons, do something that only nazis did. There are such things to be found in the last three administrations, but the nazis aren't unique, find someone else who has done such things and make that comparison instead

5. Can we *please* de-canonize the Nazis? I mean, I personally had a lot of relatives killed in the holocaust and know a number of people who fought in WWII. But lets be frank here: The Nazis are not all that. They were a bad govt. But I'm not even convinced they were the worst govt. at the time. I'm not going to argue this one, because I'm really dissing an orthodoxy here, but it's well established that the allies killed more civilians in genocides than the axis. Just look into Stalin, Chiang Kei Shek, Tojo, Mao, Pol Pot, easy competitors, The worst govt. of all time by scale was probably Paraguay's Francisco Solano Lopez. By sheer total destruction, probably the crusade-era catholic church. In short: The Nazis were nothing special. They were a totalarian govt. that slaughter minorities and lead their nation into a disasterous defeat. That's all. They're evil, but they don't get the crown of evil.

6. Can we also let go of the swastika? Our use of it is like satanic symbolism, by which I mean the use of someone else's symbols to denote evil. The swastika is a sacred symbol of India, who now makes up most of the english speaking world. There are 1.2 billion of them, and they've used the symbol for 4-5,000 years. The Nazis never used it for Germany for 12 years, for a population of 50 million, but more importantly, there are 1.2 billion Indians alive today, and precious few Nazis. At some point, we're just going to offend someone.

7. Has any of these morons that use the swastika either pro- or anti- nazi ever even stopped to think why the Nazis chose the symbol in the first place? India was rebelling against Britain, and Germany saw this as a 500 million member potential ally, which might win them the war. Seriously, when you dig into this stuff, much of the Nazi symbolism was about flattering India, more than it was about flattering German nationalists whose votes they wanted *(Nazis were originally just socialists, they only became nationalists to win votes, the way the GOP became christian) But even the phrase "aryan nation." I study ancient cultures, and I feel pretty certain that Germany is NOT an aryan nation. Without going into it in detail, the much more obvious point is that it's an indian word, and refers to what we now call "Indo-Iranian" but as aryan is a cultural definition and not a race, I'm less sure how aryan Pakistan and Iran are. (Sure, the name Iran means aryan, but so does Erin, aka Ireland. Celts were an aryan culture. Modern day Ireland is more a germanic culture.)

I'm just making this point because it's as if 0.1% of the population has gotten the point. You can go back and read the German scholars, the nazis used. Even they never thought that aryan was a word applying to them, or that the swastika was a local symbol.

Sorry to rant, but I think we have to shrug off the Nazis, who are so over, and not tick off India, which is far more important today. People may be unaware of this, but we're already making a terrible impression on the phone. Indian call centers are getting calls from America that then ask them if they can talk to a *real* person. Things like that.

If I were to guess, I think it's new christians using the swastika this way the most, but I wonder how they might react if we were to start using the cross. (first clue: consider how the jews would react to a similar use of the star david.) And, my point being, all rightfully so. Yeah, sure, the Nazis were racist, but they're not the ones being racist now, they're busy being dead. We're the ones being racist, and stupid, and not just partisan, it's time to stop, because the people who will be bitten on all fronts, particularly in the ass, and rightfully so, is us.

I mean, us, americans, not democrats or republicans, (oh, and to any brits present, exclude yourself if you feel your country is free of anti-india-pakistan-iran racism.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:36 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
For all intents and purposes, they're scared that the men and women on the Hill are NOT going to read this healthcare bill thoroughly, much like many of them did not read through the stimulus bill thoroughly, if at all. Many of these protesters come well prepared and even have read through the bill themselves to address their concerns. And yes, there are others just there to boo, heckle and whatnot.

At this point, I have to ask: WHICH healthcare bill? So far as I've heard, there simply isn't JUST ONE. That's part of the problem. Obama told the legislators to write a healthcare reform bill, so they wrote a whole slew of them. At some point, they'll all be boiled down into one omnibus healthcare reform bill, but that process hasn't even started yet.

As for these "well prepared" protesters who have read "the bill", I've stumped every single one I've run into. Once they start blathering on about "death panels" and "forced euthanasia" and "you wanna kill my granny", all I've ever had to do to shut them up and send them scurrying away is ask this question: "Can you please show me the exact wording, the exact passage, the exact section of 'the bill' that you're referring to?"

Boom. Gone. No answer, no response. Just more bluster and fury, then I get called a socialist before they storm off in a huff.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:53 AM

RIPWASH

I think it's HR 3200.

I was referring to ones I've seen and heard video of that site specific passages of the bill. These are the ones who, for the most part, keep their calm during these town hall meetings.

But honestly, I've been trying to read through it and it's awfully darn confusing in several sections.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:59 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

At this point, I have to ask: WHICH healthcare bill? So far as I've heard, there simply isn't JUST ONE. That's part of the problem. Obama told the legislators to write a healthcare reform bill, so they wrote a whole slew of them. At some point, they'll all be boiled down into one omnibus healthcare reform bill, but that process hasn't even started yet.

You raise 2 excellent points. Hell, I'm a Democrat, a Liberal, pro-Obama, pro-Reform, pro Health Care Reform, and even a socialist on some issues. But I'm starting to turn against this-- the compromises in a comprehensive package are gonna screw it up. We're gonna end up with the worst of all possible worlds: an individual mandate, no more employer based coverage, no public option, increased profits for Insurance Companies, reduced services, no right to sue for malpractice, higher out of pocket costs and increased premiums.

Isn't gonna be the fault of Obama or the Reformers-- gonna be the compromises to get more votes, and the poision pill tactics of established interests, mostly Insurance companies and tort reform specialists.

The strategic way to have done this would have been to have an overall plan, then implemented it one little step at a time, the most harmless and straight forward first, then adding something on, one feature after another, letting each piece pass or fail, succeed or not. But that stands no chance of succeeding.

Come ta think of it, the way they're going is starting to look like snowball in The Special Hell, success-wise...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:24 AM

Quote:
I think it's HR 3200.

I was referring to ones I've seen and heard video of that site specific passages of the bill. These are the ones who, for the most part, keep their calm during these town hall meetings.

But honestly, I've been trying to read through it and it's awfully darn confusing in several sections.

It was written by LEGISLATORS.

Why, if they write it so a NORMAL person could read it, then how can they put in legal loopholes and porkbarrels? Heaven forbid!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:43 AM

I'd also like to say, being that I'm anti-government with possibly contradictory socialist leanings, and also bearing in mind that while the Nazis are an excellent "do not repeat" history lesson, I do think trying to make modern day comparisons is completely ridiculous...

That when the Nazis became nationalist, they also started putting up anyone who identified with the separate German socialist and communist parties in concentration camps as political dissenters.

The way I try to look at things, is that all ideologies mean well, and a lot of them even make good points and have some good, wholesome non-dark sides. Even nationalism, at face value, is not necessarily a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with a large group of people having an appreciation for their land, their lifestyle/culture, and their group identity.

It's when the ideologies creep over into their dark side, when manipulation, corruption, and a drive to produce the ideological vision at even the expense of humanity leads to threats and an us versus them, we're right you're wrong, we're better, we're better FOR you mentality, that I don't hold to.

And big government and big corporation both tend to emulate the dark sides of ideology.

I've seen you around, Dreamtrove, noticed you were back. Haven't had a chance to say Hi yet. Hi!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:03 AM

Quote:

It was written by LEGISLATORS.

Why, if they write it so a NORMAL person could read it, then how can they put in legal loopholes and porkbarrels? Heaven forbid!

DINGDINGDING! Right you are, Byte. These things are written in strict "legalese", specifically so that most people CAN'T understand them, precisely because if we could, we wouldn't allow them. They're written specifically to hide pork and waste by people who do so for a living. Next to the, the rest of us are rank amateurs.

As for "death panels" and euthanasia, though, I still can't find it. I *HAVE* heard reference to parts of certain proposed bills that would allow you the OPTION (operative word - OPTION) of having a sit-down with your primary doctor every 5 years, to discuss what measures you do or don't want taken in the event of a catastrophic incident such as a coma or a persistent vegetative state. Now, when I say "discuss what measures you want taken", that includes "keep pumping me with every drug you can find to prolong my 'life', and don't you dare unplug me!"

Sounds a lot like euthanasia, doesn't it?

In fact, it's basically a living will. And you can do it, or not. I for one will be happy to have a DNR order on my file, because I can think of no worse hell than being trapped inside a body and mind that won't work and won't respond, seemingly forever. Nope, I'll take my chances with being thrust into that great black void, shuffling off this mortal coil, and diving headfirst into a long, long dirt-nap.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:16 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"That when the Nazis became nationalist, they also started putting up anyone who identified with the separate German socialist and communist parties in concentration camps as political dissenters."

I think they started with the gypsies and union leaders, though communists (as the only real threat) were just a few months behind in the schedule.

"The way I try to look at things, is that all ideologies mean well ..."

That's a big mistake. Many ideologies are intentionally meant to benefit the few people at the top. Those people DO know what they are doing when they throw the slop at the rest of us. They DO know that what they are intending by their words is to keep everyone else - you and me - going along with their scam.

It is up to the rest of us to be able to undertstand the effects of those ideologies and determine who is benefitted - and if it's NOT us - to reject those ideas.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I for one will be happy to have a DNR order on my file, because I can think of no worse hell than being trapped inside a body and mind that won't work and won't respond, seemingly forever."

My father had Parkinson's. His body totally failed him with ordinary medication and he was not willing to have deep-brain stimulation or other therapies.

His dying was a hell that I would have spared him if I could have.

After they took him off of the IV (to allow him to dehydrate to death) they would NOT give him enough morphine to put him under - b/c by god, too much morphine might have killed him, and THAT kind of death would have been illegal - unlike the death they had selected for him. He died unable to move at all, struggling to breath. It was a drowning that lasted nearly a week. And he was awake and conscious for nearly all of it.

My only consolation is that I bullied a doctor into finally giving him extra morphine near the end, which finally, mercifully, allowed him to sleep.

Our legal, medical, moral approach to death is irrational and intensely brutal.

I hope anyone who opposes self-selected death dies the way my father did.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:43 AM

Oh, no, I get that people use ideological ideas to further their own agendas, and that we have to be on the watch for that. That's what I consider the "dark side" of an ideology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I can't think of a light side to any of those ideologies.

To take this out of any realm of partisanship (I hope, apologies to any ancient Aztecs who may be offended):

The Aztec ideology: WHY on earth would ANYONE go along with an ideology that meant tens of thousands would be sacrificed in a year ?

Especially when one of those could very possibly be you ?

Well, it must be about the mumbo-jumbo of the sun coming back from under ground or some such. An obvious untrue fable if there ever was one, as simple logic would easily show.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:04 AM

That's not really an ideology, that's a religion.

By ideology, I mean liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism... Political ideologies. Maybe that's a better way for me to put it.

The problem with the ideologies as they are now, is that they are no longer their undistilled essence, but they've picked up unsavoury elements.

Meanwhile, the average member of the public who supports one ideology over another either supports the ideology still for the pure reason and doesn't want to recognize the bad parts, supports the ideology out of learned loyalties, supports whatever they are told will benefit them most, or supports due to misinformation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ideology is not necessarily restricted to politics. But given that the Aztec thought rationalized a hierarchy and ruling structure, it may be thought of as political as well as religious.

***************************************************************

I have to go. But since we, as usual, seem to be having cross-communication, let me ask you this:

What do you see as the 'pure' ideology of socialism ? capitalism ?

(Also, I suspect you are an 'idealist' - you think that things exist in 'pure' form and that earthly manifestations are merely corruptions of pure ideals. I look at things as a process - where one thing inevitably leads to a result which leads to a further result.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:23 AM

Hmm? I had no idea there was any such thing as an idealist apart from someone who is optimistic.

I think ideas get put down on paper, later may get improved on more paper, then are implemented in the real world and generally fall completely apart.

But it doesn't mean I don't think some of the ideas were good, and that maybe some way might eventually be found to put the ideas to use in a way that is humane and works.

When I say the good idea of each ideology, I don't necessarily mean the definition or the founding principle of it, but rather ideas that I think really everyone could agree with.

The uncorrupted idea of socialism is that people living together in a society ought to care about each other, show compassion and empathy. Whether their neighbor gets enough food, whether they're in good health, whether someone is hurting someone else.

The uncorrupted idea of communism is that workers (and by extension people) should not be exploited, oppressed, or enslaved.

The uncorrupted idea of capitalism is a faith that, given a level playing field, everyone has the same capacity to succeed. (Not saying the playing field IS level, not at all, but I do think that everyone potentially can find a niche or purpose that they succeed at and can thrive in if given the opportunity and support they need to do so)

Similarly, like I was saying, liberalism and conservatism also have some good ideas to take away, though I think I should specify that I do mean fiscal conservatism/libertarianism. However, while I do not necessarily share the values, traditions, or religion of the average conservative, I recognize that those same values, tradition, and religion can be a good thing among communities where that is strong, and I'm willing to respect that if they would respect communities that differ from them.

Although, I do think straight out imperialism, fascism, and authoritarianism have no redeeming qualities, and are the end result of ideologies gone so wrong that they have been corrupted to the point of being unrecognizable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:25 AM

Since no one else dares say it, I will.

I've found that upon investigation, almost every single case of Swastika defacement has been a fraud, a ploy by the supposed "victim" to deflect criticism, play on sympathies, or boost support for their own agenda - it's *very* rare to have someone actually do that and mean it, the few cases that weren't frauds were usually just bratty kids who didn't know better trying to pick shit for little to no reason, and most of the real white supremecist or neonazi bastards are keenly aware of how they are perceived by the public, and do not use any of the symbolism in actual operations cause it brings down the thunder on them and opens them up to all manner of legal trouble - they'd no more use the symbolism publicly than a Klan member would participate in a lynching without his white hood.

So, in essence, I am calling bullshit on this one, care to take bets on whether I am correct or not, ehe ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:33 PM

Interesting take, Frem - I hadn't considered it, but what you say actually makes sense.

Another thing to ponder: Look at the "swastika" used. Shoddy workmanship. One thing neo-nazis are proudest of is their "heritage" and the symbols of their beliefs. If they're going to use a swastika, my bet is they'd damned well take care to make sure it looked like a well done swastika.

As for who did it, I'd say best bet is local yahoos, most likely kids just trying to stir the pot.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:53 PM

BM,

Hi

Re: Nazis, I don't want to get into it, they're not worth it, but IIRC, just a couple notes:

The german nationalism was done to get votes, the aryan-swastika thing was done to try to get India as an ally. The nazis had been socialist. There's some speculation that they became socialist much earlier because they saw how to exploit socialism for extreme executive power, before that, they were simply "fascist," as such, which was an accepted political ideology.

I forget the original party name, but they became the Socialist Workers Party, then the National Socialists. It's often incorrectly stated that they had their start as the Thule Society, and equally that they had their start as the Theosophical Society. They actually had no ties to either, but stole ideas from both to gain popularity.

They still lost the election, and had to seize power.

But the above erroneous origin theories are usually put forth by someone with an agenda (typically some form of fundy xtian)

Nazis were a manipulative evil bad govt. that was after power, and not much more. like all politicians, almost everything they said was a lie. People who supported them are probably not to be pilloried. Those people were duped. Anyone not duped by either Clinton or Bush can cast the first stone here...

Rue,

I think that they started with the commies. I don't know that they had any gypsies until they conquered czechoslovakia. They were already killing communists before the war.

The holocaust I think is largely misrepresented. I'm fairly certain it was *worse* than the official story, but too many special interests are clinging to the official story for a simple reason: There are corporations and govts. to share blame that are still extant. Blaming everything on a dead lunatic and his extinct fascist regime makes no one left to be responsible. I suspect a lot of people got away with it, got rich off of it, and the next generation does not want to pay it back.

The holocaust was a beast, not just institutionalized racism. It was much more like slavery: ready and willing to consume anything that could squash people and turn them into labor or money.

Once we can let go of our Satan complex on the issue, we can be objective, and when we can do that, maybe we can prevent the next one. As I said, my relatives were jews, and died in camps, but I recognize that there were many, many more. I suspect the Ukrainians came off the worst of anyone in Europe, and the Chinese came out the worst of anyone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:42 AM

Quote:
So, in essence, I am calling bullshit on this one, care to take bets on whether I am correct or not, ehe ?

Ding, ding, ding!

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-obama-as-hitler-poster-
was.html

Gets better too, Augustus knows who that guy in the striped shirt is, and plans to get pictures of him in the act if possible - that'd be interesting, hell, the image of a black man defacing property with a nazi symbol ?

I can see five DIFFERENT levels of irony in that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 14, 2009 4:52 AM

Oh my, this one's even funnier.
http://lonestartimes.com/2009/08/13/obama-camp-plants-fake-doc-che-fan
-at-jackson-lee-forum/
"A word of advice to budding political operatives: when you need two plants, try to pick people smarter than actual plants."

His PR people are really, REALLY bad at this whole propaganda gig.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 14, 2009 2:19 PM

I caught the black white supremacist, I didn't understand his game.

No one was claiming that white supremacists defaced the democrat, only that republicans did, trying to tie him to socialism.

Forgive me if I posted this, but re: the swastika, ain't this interesting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophical_Society

I find it curious that the swastika chosen was Tamil, but the reason seems to be a cult that thought Jiddu Krishnamurti was the second coming of Jesus brought aryan symbolism to Germany. The Nazis were socialist fascists puppeteers who lost an election, seized power, and were just being opportunists, trying to get nationalists, looney christians, and India.

Hmm, sounds vaguely familiar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:25 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't think the Nazis will ever be "shrugged off". The story is to well known and stands out in modern history as something so vile. Vile things are what hard-liners will ALWAYS pull out in order to de-humanize the other side, foster hate and fear, in order to manipulate the populace.

ALL the buzz words, nazis, communists, socialists, you name it, are things that most of the people using them have no actual concept of...from reading your posts, I think you're smart enough to know that. They are things hurled to get a visceral reaction, and what gets better reaction than "Hitler", "nazi", "KKK", "racist", etc.? As long as these things work, they'll be used, regardless of their actual meaning.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:32 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, I saw someone "stump" one of them very simply. The woman was raging against "socialism" with regard to healthcare. The guy asked "well, then, you want us to do away with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security". She was totally stumped and repeated herself a couple of times, and he repeated what he'd said...she ended up meekly saying something to the effect that "well, there are socialist things in there that I disagree with".

It's as dumb as the people hollering "I don't want yur socialized healthcare, and don't you dare touch my Medicare!"

People are being used, simple as that. One of the problems the Dems have is that of needing to grow a pair. The various manipulations and tricks the Repubs are so efficient at--I abhor them, but they WORK, and they're working right now. It makes smoke come out of my ears when they talk about using their right of "free speech" at these town halls, when what they're actually doing is prohibiting OTHERS from using their right of free speech and simply shutting any speech at all down.

It's easy to rile up a mob with lies and truth twisting. It's easy to see who's behind these poor pawns, some with real fear and questions, when you look at the groups backing them and inciting them. It has little to do with honest debate--or any debate at all, actually.

I wish Americans weren't so ignorant, and were willing to take the time to research FACTS for themselves and not just believe what they're told. But somehow I don't think that's ever going to change. One of my favorite sayings is "we're a strange little species, we are!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:34 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

For me, I wonder if it's even WORTH reading until they get their act together and decide on an actual bill. Who knows how much, if any, of it will end up in the final product?

I heard a pundit yesterday say that one of the two in the Senate is the "actual" bill which will end up being the one they vote on, that it's known and accepted, all the rest is window dressing. So what are we poor reg'lar folk to know?

I hate politicians...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 3:14 PM

Quote:

I wish Americans weren't so ignorant, and were willing to take the time to research FACTS for themselves and not just believe what they're told. But somehow I don't think that's ever going to change.

I've said it before, and I'll have to say it again (and again and again, it seems): There is one thing I'd like to tell each major party in this country, because they both get it wrong every time:

To the Republican Party: We're not quite as dumb as you think we are.

To the Democratic Party: We're not quite as SMART as you think we are.

Time and again, the Republicans try to prey on fear and loathing, and because it works so often, they assume it will ALWAYS work. And that gets you outcomes like the 2008 election. So while you might think we're all idiots, sometimes we'll surprise ya.

And all too often, Democrats want to laugh off the most ludicrous accusations the Republicans make, seeming to say, "Oh, ha-ha-ha, the American people are smarter than that, and they know better than to believe this." This is how you end up with a guy like John Kerry, who actually WENT TO VIETNAM, losing the "patriotism" race to a draft-dodging drunk like Bush. So while Democrats might hope that, like the children of Lake Wobegone, we're all "above average", it never hurts to call a lie a lie or a liar a liar.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 5:59 PM

You know what though? I'm not so sure John Kerry lost because people were dumb enough to believe the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I think he lost because becoming a senator crushed all of the fire he had in him when he came back and spoke for his fellow soldiers.

As I look back, I think a Kerry administration would have been indecipherable H53N473 jargon speak. Coulda done anything he wanted because none of us would've known what the HELL he was talking about.

Plus I've come to believe that no matter who's elected president, the SAME DAMN things will happen anyway. If Kerry was in the White House, would we have gone to Iraq? Oh hell yes, and you know why? Because select members of Congress woulda been SCREAMING their damn heads off about the same talking points Bush used.

Nothing changes in an election. Nothing. That's why the whole damn system is a sham, and why we need to build something else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 6:24 PM

Quote:
If Kerry was in the White House, would we have gone to Iraq?

Actually, not so much. See, we were already IN Iraq when that election happened, so we wouldn't have been so much going to Iraq, as still being there.

Now, had GORE been President in 2001 (9/11) or 2003 (Iraq invasion), I rather highly doubt that we'd have invaded Iraq. Just sayin'.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:58 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"Nothing changes in an election. Nothing. That's why the whole damn system is a sham, and why we need to build something else."

Word!

Unfortunately, ain't gonna happen. I disagree about all administrations, tho'; I'd like to believe Kerry wouldn't have had a Cheney <> and ended up wiretapping, waterboarding, and all that crap. I'd like to believe it anyway. Iraq? Yeah...BUT, did we really go to Iraq because of 9/11? Afghanistan, yes, but from what I've read and researched, Iraq was a target of Dumbya's long before 9/11...?

Nonetheless, I agree about politicians and politics...sadly...sigh...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:00 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"To the Republican Party: We're not quite as dumb as you think we are.

To the Democratic Party: We're not quite as SMART as you think we are."

Oh YES, I need to remember that one!

Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of Americans ARE as dumb (or at least as ignorant and unwilling to become less so) as the Repubs think, or else why would Dumbya have won a second term?!

Their tactics work on the masses, and masses are infamously dumb. After all, it took eight YEARS of Bush insanity before they revolted...and look what's happening now with their machinations...!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:44 PM

Mike

I disagree: Gore would have invaded Iraq.

1. Clinton ran two campaigns against Iraq, killing more civilians that Bush did (competence or intent, doesn't matter)

2. Al Gore was Vice president at the time.

3. Gore's VP was Joe Lieberman, the senate's biggest hawk on Iraq.

Re: moving on from Nazis, most of the world has. The US is <5% of the world's population, even if we get to through in GB and Israel, it's not going to make much of a difference. Most of Europe seems ready to forget it and move on. Africa doesn't seem to care at all. South America is completely ambivalent. 2/3 of the world's population that lives in Asia says "What? You're still on about that? Get over it man."

So, really, it's just us. Oh, and a nickel to anyone who can tell me why that is...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So, really, it's just us. Oh, and a nickel to anyone who can tell me why that is...

Gimme my nickle, then.

-Frem

Image courtesy of Micah Ian Wright and the Propaganda Remix Project, send em some dosh.
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:18 PM

Lol.
Artfully done. A simple MSM would have done :)
Shiny nickel headed your way.

Actually, I've noticed that it has gotten the point where we're offending 1.2 billion people with our continuation of the Nazi's incorrect use of aryans. Actually, there are some 1.5 billion of them now, and a hint: none of them are of european extraction. Just another reason to move on.

A friend of mine who holds a high post in international education and will be visiting shortly said "modern history is taught in terms of WWII to the exclusion of all else, it's actually criminal." and wwii is his specialty, but his point being that even a casual student of history can tell you all of the figures and major events of WWII, but not name you a single emperor of china, or any significant events in all of chinese history. He's british, I might add "or find China on a map" but I think with all the media attacks on chinese toys they can probably do that. Still...

(getting a little better with the internet generation, until tptb get ahold of the internet)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 7:12 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem, that's fantastic, and says it all! I gotta save that one, it's a kick!

And yes, I agree with the WWII thing. Prolly take a few generations before it dies down, so many were affected by it in one way or another...even grown-up children of holocaust victims. Time wounds all heels, tho', as we know...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 7:16 AM

I need to frame that poster in my room.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 7:20 AM

Generations? I'd upscale that to 400 years to a millenium. 400 years seems to be the de minimus cut off point of descendants not caring anymore, assuming there's no further aggravations and no one's written a holy book about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 8:38 AM

lost me on that last one BM, ref. to?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 9:02 AM

No real reference, just a generalization made from what I recall from the scattering of history classes I took. I'm most familiar with British history, so I'll use a couple examples from there.

In 1066, the Normans invaded Britain and killed the heir apparent Harold Godwinson at the battle of Hastings. But by the time of the hundred years war from 1337 to 1453, after centuries of lording it over the English-Speaking Anglo-Saxons and French becoming the official language of the English High Court, the Normans viewed themselves as Englishmen.

Or when Bonny Prince Charlie made his claim for the English throne and rallied the Scottish Jacobites around him, the disastrous final battle took place in 1746. Most of the symbols we identify today as associated with Scottish culture were outlawed, to be reinstated only after Scottish brigades sustained significant losses in WWI in service to the king. They talk about it today like it was their Gettysburg.

Considering the way some people still talk about how they lost the civil war, I really don't think just a few generations is sufficient to get over a major conflict, let alone a genocide. In reading the Bible, you can tell Isrealites were still pissed about major conflicts and invasions from neighbors that happened centuries before.

There was also a bit of a joke in there, where I am attempting to be silly about setting a strict cut-off period.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 9:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sigh...unfortunately you're probably right. Strange little species, aren't we?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
If Kerry was in the White House, would we have gone to Iraq?

Actually, not so much. See, we were already IN Iraq when that election happened, so we wouldn't have been so much going to Iraq, as still being there.

Now, had GORE been President in 2001 (9/11) or 2003 (Iraq invasion), I rather highly doubt that we'd have invaded Iraq. Just sayin'.

Mike

Whoops. The years kind of just run together for me. But still, the point stands, there's no way of knowing whether if anyone was elected president besides the man who was elected president, if anything else would change. And I really honestly at this point am not sure it would. The parties are so entrenched at this point, and they have so many followers (not constituents) willing to do and believe whatever they're told that any meaningful effort at change is deadlocked or shouted down by the other side. Policy is promoted and dictated based on who yells loudest.

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Unfortunately, ain't gonna happen. I disagree about all administrations, tho'; I'd like to believe Kerry wouldn't have had a Cheney <> and ended up wiretapping, waterboarding, and all that crap. I'd like to believe it anyway. Iraq? Yeah...BUT, did we really go to Iraq because of 9/11? Afghanistan, yes, but from what I've read and researched, Iraq was a target of Dumbya's long before 9/11...?

Nonetheless, I agree about politicians and politics...sadly...sigh...

Why wouldn't Kerry have? Obama went along with it. Someone somewhere from the DAMNED MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX would have siddled up to Kerry, big damn smile on their face, and said, "y'know, unless you do this, you're gonna look soft on national security."

And they'd make sure he did, too. Thugs.

And politicians are clueless, about all they can do is play to the crowd while someone else pulls the string.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 10:08 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"The parties are so entrenched at this point, and they have so many followers (not constituents) willing to do and believe whatever they're told that any meaningful effort at change is deadlocked or shouted down by the other side. Policy is promoted and dictated based on who yells loudest" -- REALLY well put!

Why wouldn't Kerry have done all Bush did? Because he's not Bush, and doesn't have a Cheney. Obama is CARRYING ON something we can't know if he would have begun (and I don't think he would have). Maybe Kerry would have also carried on with this stuff too; we can't know...I think the best indication will be if Obama does away with it in the end (nothing happens fast).

But beyond that, I think Bush/Cheney were something pretty unique and were pretty damned good at knowing how to manipulate the system, people, politicians, the masses, the Constitution, pretty much everything. I also don't think the Dems have the balls, to be honest.

My belief is that it took a Bush/Cheney combination in power, between Bush's various psychological reasons for wanting to go into Iraq no matter WHERE the threat actually came from, and Cheney's meglomaniacal paranoid personality wanting to kill or control everything which made it happen, when coupled with real acumen when it came to manipulating the system.

That's just how I see it. As someone reminds me: Your mileage may vary.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 10:27 AM

Bush didn't mastermind anything, it was Commander and Chief Cheney. It was all him. Bush doesn't even know how to FEED HIMSELF without nearly sparking a national emergency. Bush went along with it all because of family vendettas and being a total sheep.

One word: Halliburton. Halliburton, and all those other corporate industry contacts the who prop up the military. Halliburton, who Cheney has such close ties to.

It was a huge clusterfuck because they got someone in the administration who was practically running the show, but you can't tell me they wouldn't sneak someone into a Kerry administration, that they haven't snuck people in to the Obama administration, because they HAVE. Because both the Democrats AND the Republicans bow to them. And that's why Obama's administration is playing tap-dance to the military's wishes and orders, why he hasn't reversed the policies of the Bush administration.

Someone else is pulling the strings. The parties don't control this country. The White House and Congress and Supreme Court are a facade. All hail corporate interests and guns and the all-mighty dollar.

EDIT: And yes, this is why I said you'd probably start to think I'm a kook. I'm aware that sounds like a crazy rant. Just... consider it, okay? I know how it sounds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 1:53 PM

Not at all.

I said it about a year before the selection, err, election - and if you know anything about how the electors are chosen and applied, you'd be appalled at just how little OUR opinion and/or vote matters anyways.

As for parties, as I also said - they don't wanna CUT the leash, they just wanna change which hand is holding it, not that this matters to US any, and it oughta.

As for the image/poster - it's from Micah Ian Wrights Propaganda Remix Project, and there's a whole BUNCH more where that came from, my favorite of which is probably offensive to quite a few people.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 3:59 PM