On Apr 2, 5:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
...
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.
Do you suppose that in the 1960's critics of the
Gulf of Tonkin fraud were criticized for comparing
it to the sinking of the Maine?
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.
I gather from your presumption, that she didn't say
that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the Neocons.
So that leaves us with an actual statement with
which I agree. The 9/11 attacks were staged to get
a nice juicy war going. IMHO they were staged for
that purpose by bin Laden. Considering the
extend you will go to fabricate ulterior motives
for the most banal of my remarks (e.g. I don't
know any prominent scientist...) I'm not inclined
to accept inferences you draw about what
she didn't say.
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.
I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...e=source&hl=en
Noah Chomsky. ...
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.)
Do you suppose he meant to imply that the US/West ONLY
acts thus, or merely that it has done so? It was once pointed
out to me that if you are standing next to a bomb when it explodes
it matters naught to you if the bomb was hidden in a trash can
or dropped from an airplane.
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.)
Maybe he has which is why he suggested that there were NO
rational examples thereof. You haven;t suggested what you
suppose he meant, do you suppose he meant that we should
keep our guard up because it would be easy for a Fascist
dictator to take control under the guise of a populist, progressive,
liberal, or 'social conservative'?
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.)
Neither of those inference are remotely justifiable. Considering a
person to be a criminal is not equivalent to considering him to
be as bad a criminal as the worst ever.
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.
You've demonstrated so far that he is guilty of no exaggerations
worse that those which typify your remarks.
I certainly can't be sure that my interpretations are correct
but I surely don't buy your spin as definitive.
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.)
AFACT, what you mean is they both agree on such matters
as taxation, zoning laws, building codes and so on.
...
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.
Like whom?
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.
Aside from the argument that everyone who makes
money by selling something (e.g. salvation) that
he cannot deliver is a fraud...
Have you ever seen him do his 'faith healing' by
mail act on the 700 club? It is the same act
Yuri Geller used to prove to people that they
could fix broken watches with their psychic
abilities, though I bet Robertson was first.
to nuke the State Department and assassinate Chavez)
I never heard him say the former and latter is - well -
appealing but unrealistic.
Both are sufficiently unrealistic that if he had inspired
someone to a more conventionally executed act of
violence against other he would not have any legally
actionable responsibility.
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.
I'd argue Billy Graham is more mainstream. Isn't
Falwell one of those who tried to paint the September
11 attacks as divine retribution for American tolerance
for homosexuality or some such?
His financial books open to all to see
and he is in no way ever been painted as a huckster.
Oh? How much is he worth and did he earn it or was it
donated to him? It is interesting that you 'know'
his finances are so 'open'.
He might not die as rich as Cardinal Cody but
AFAIK Cody came by his wealth through inheritance
and investment, drawing no more from the Church's
coffers than others of equal station in the hierarchy.
While me might well not agree with his political
views, they are hardly the radical formations of
someone like Chomsky.
I tend to think that abolishing the separation
of Church and State, is as radical and undesirable
as rampant socialism.
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.
You mean like, she doesn't appear on FOX TV
any more?
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.
Oh really? You think Chomsky _seriously_ believes
every American President since WWII was as bad
as Himmler but Ann Coulter is just jiving us.
You think Moore believes every word he says,
never exaggerates for effect and wouldn't
dream of irritating anyone?
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.
So says you.
Moore is not obscure. Rosie O'Donnell is not obscure.
That's the whole point.
And neither of them are as hateful as the likes of
Limbaugh and Coulter. Moore is a satirist and
O'Donnell is a clown. If you think Coulter is entertaining
then you should be laughing your ass off listening
to Moore.
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.
Like I said before, they sound like the Republicans
of my youth. Aside from the blowjobs, Bill Clinton
was more like Nixon or Ford than any other President
since Nixon.
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.
Christ on a crutch no!
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.
While on the subject of disasterous results that speak for
themselves don't forget the collapse of the Savings and Loans,
ubiquitous legal looting of corporate pension plans, support
of Saddam Hussein in his first major unprovoked war of
aggression, 241 dead Marines in Beiruit and the subsequent
abandonment of Lebanon to Hezbollah, the systematic
destruction of any sort of energy policy that could reduce
US dependence on OPEC, and the contamination of
the US blood bank with HIV.
Of course it is an article of Faith with you that Ronald
Reagan personally torn down the iron curtain, the failed
war in Afghanistan, the internal reform that grew from the
fertile ground planted by detente and the leadership of
men like Walesa and Gorbochev were only minor
contributing factors.
--
FF