DIYbanter - View Single Post

Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 1, 5:06 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left? Why are they silent about the Left attacks on
wealth, Capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility?
Perhaps for the same reasons that the Popular leaders of the
Reps do not openly distance themselves from the skinheads,
the 'militias', and the Ku Klux Klan?
Maybe they BOTH realize that no reasonable person imagines
the association in the first place.
You are evidently unaware the degree to which Chomsky is a patron saint
among the loud Left. He is regularly cited as one of the "leading
intellectuals" in various Democrat corners. I assume you don't waste
your time watching "The View", but there has been ample coverage of
Rosie O'Donnell's conspiratorial blathering that is deeply rooted in the
looney Left.

I don't recall ever hearing any political opinions
attributed to Rosie O'Donnell, that last thing I
remember hearing about her before movie when
made her current feud with Donald Trump had
something to do with her bodyguard applying
for a concealed carry permit and before that it
was a movie she made with Dan Ackroid.

Just this past week she equated the Iranian taking
of the UK soldiers as being akin to the Gulf Of
Tonkin affair. She (and other) media Lefties have
also made lots of noise about how the 9/11 murders
were staged (by the Neocons presumably) to get a nice juicy
war going. Note that she is not some barely heard
fringe voice. She is a "personality" on one of the
more popular daytime TV drool fests targeted
particularly at women.

If it weren't for you and Mark or Juanita I would
never have heard of Noah Chomsky. Thanks to
you I did notice a brief sound bite form him during
a Frontline presentation but disremember what
he said beyond the statement being totally bland.

Here's a bit of his wit and wisdom that you may find
less bland:

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really
easy way: stop participating in it.

(The implication, of course, is that the US/West acts equivalently
to terrorists.)

I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to
exist, then it would choose the American system.

(It's a shame people like Noam have never known a real Fascist system
because then they would have the manners to keep quiet.)

If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American
president would have been hanged.

(Yes. American presidents are no better than the butchers of the 3rd Reich
and/or Nuremberg was a sham.)

There are many other equally un-bland comments from Chomsky. They
demonstrate an above-average intellect that is occasionally insightful
but full of self-loathing. He maintains an institutionalized hatred of the very
things that made the West the most durable bastion for the preservation
of liberty.

The notion that the Democrats even HAVE some
sort of unifying ideology is ludicrous. They lack
the necessary social skills.

The latter is certainly true for all groups of people
who choose to create associations with one another, but
the former is not so. The Ds (and the Rs) do have some
basic formations on which they essentially agree. In
the case of the Ds the basic premise appears to be that
their definition of "social justice" is so good/proper/inarguable
that it justifies *forcing* other citizens to participate
against their will. This is nothing short of mob rule.
(For the record the Rs have a similar "we know what's good
for you" ethos, they merely define "good" differently.)

Some years ago Michael Moore made quite a carreer for
himself attacking capital formation, the wealth, big eeeevil
corporations, and the like ... until he discovered that *he* was
immensely wealthy thereby. All of these people have publicly supported
Democrat candidates and were welcomed by those candidates at one point
or another. These are but a few of a myriad of examples wherein very
loud voices in the ecosystem of the Democrats are peddling radical Left
insanity while the "mainstream" Dems sit quietly.

Indeed I don't recall seeing any of them but Michael
More

There are plenty of others. Many come from the so-called
"entertainment" business, many are academics, but they all
share a thinly-veiled contempt for the cornerstones of
free peoples: personal liberty - economic and political,
personal accountability, and limited government.

By contrast, the Republicans at least run away publicly from their
lunatic fringe. When David Duke was identified as a Klacker, the Rs
distanced themselves immediately. When Trent Lott made even the mildest
of comments that could have been construed as racist (and then only
using the most tortured of analysis) he was promptly sent to stand in
the corner by the Rs.

And yet I still cannot recall even one Republican
criticizing a current member of the Klan, can you?

But the Klan is never cited by pretty much anyone on
the Right - at least not in the last 30 or 40 years
that I can recall. Chomsky *is* cited by the leading Left
lights.

I've only seen *one* Republican run away from
Pat Robertson (you know, the one-time Presidential
Candidate and professional con artist, who wanted

In what way is he a "con artist" pray tell us? I'm
no fan of Robertson's, but he appears to be fairly
vanilla as TV religious personalities go.

to nuke the State Department and assassinate Chavez)

I never heard him say the former and latter is - well -
appealing but unrealistic.

and some other Republicans tried to recall him in
retaliation. Similarly absent is any condemnation
of Jerry Falwell, or Ann Coulter. I'm sure I could

Falwell is probably the most mainstream of all the
religious right. His financial books open to all to see
and he is in no way ever been painted as a huckster.
While me might well not agree with his political
views, they are hardly the radical formations of
someone like Chomsky.

Coulter *was* sanctioned by the Right. IIRC, she
lost a job writing for National Review and has
largely been persona non grata in anything resembling
a mainstream Right outlet. But she's interesting
and illustrative for a much more important reason.
She uses rhetorical excess and brio to make a point.
When interviewed, she comes across as being outrageous
for effect and comedic value, not so much that she
believes every word of what she says to the letter.
A good part of her shtick seems to be irritating
her rhetorical foes. Chomsky, by contrast, *does*
take himself seriously. Big difference.

find a few more naddering nabobs if I spent
as much time looking for obscure nuts as you
seem to do.

But Chomsky is *not* obscure. That's the point.
He is a tenured professor at MIT that has fawning
followers all over the ideologically Left spectrum.
Moore is not obscure. Rosie O'Donnell is not obscure.
That's the whole point. The people foaming on the Left
are increasingly becoming *mainstream* which is why I
said a few posts ago that the Dems are headed in a direction
that has them being entirely hijacked by the radical Left.
If you close your eyes and listen to them, today's Left
"mainstream" politicians sound like radical Left loons
in many cases. The descent into the intellectual sewer is
almost complete.

And again, I haven't seen or hear any condemnation
of the skinheads, neonazis , the KKK, abortion clinic
bombers or other such.

I'm not suggesting the R's are inherently better in any way, merely that
the hijacking of the Ds by the radical Left is well underway and is
taking place almost silently.

Since the Reagan years the Democrats
have moved so far to the right that Richard
Nixon would fit right in today.

You remember him, right? He created
the EPA, negotiated arms control with
the Soviet Union, and promoted affirmative
action.

Nixon was a Republican, he was not really of the Right. In much the same
way, Kennedy today would be closer to what the Rs have become than the
Ds. But neither statement really means all that much, does it. The major
parties campaign to the their extreme constituents in the primaries and
then move to the so-called "middle" in the actual elections. Neither
much cares about preserving liberty and demanding individual
responsibility. The Rs want to be everyone's daddy and the Ds want to be
everyone's mommy. Not much of a choice. There have been exceptions,
of course. Carter was a pretty much down the line Leftie and his
disasterous results speak for themselves. Reagan was very much
Right ideologically and was arguably the most effective president of
the last half of the 20th century. But those two apart, we mostly
see executives that muddle about in the middle doing little good and
plenty of harm - aided and abetted by legislatures seeking to curry
favor with their greedy constituents feeding at the trough.

The US is not a great nation because of its people, government,
geography, or luck. It is a great nation because of its *ideas*.
Both the Ds and the Rs are busy abandoning those ideas in the vain
hope they can maintain power by "giving the people what they want".
Well, the people have morphed into this band of thugs who want something
for nothing, want to be personally accountable for very little, and
believe that if it is not perfect it must be bad. The net result is
a nation that headed into its twilight. Parallel and more rapid
examples of this exist throughout Western Europe and the larger
Anglosphere. China and India will likely be the next geopolitical
superpowers, not because *their* ideas were better, merely because
there will be no meaningful counterpoint from peoples who reaped the
benefits of liberty and they attacked the very principles that
upheld it in the first place.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/