Today's popular content
- The Health Care Industry vs. Health Reform (183)
- Resources for Investigating ALEC/NRA Gun Bills (115)
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food" (95)
- About ALEC Exposed (67)
- Wisconsin’s System Increasingly Rigged Against the Unemployed (63)
- Dear WWII Vets, Forget About the Monument, They Are Gunning for Your Social Security (53)
- Live Reporting from the Wisconsin Protests (51)
- Harold Camping's Global Apocalypse PR Campaign (50)
- This Is Going to Hurt: What Your Doctor Doesn't Say Can Cost You (47)
- PBS Killed Wisconsin Uprising Documentary "Citizen Koch" To Appease Koch Brothers (46)
Readers' Comments
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: pbarnrob
-
Submitted by: EarlBowden
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: AndrewG
Reuters reports that one of Britain's "leading government advisory group[s]" [http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35495/story.htm is strongly disagreeing] "with all those people advising the government that nuclear is necessary":
News
AP usage of 'breach' was wrong
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.04.2006
WASHINGTON — An Associated Press story Thursday on this page incorrectly reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaching.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/118569.php
dh
The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.
...on YOUR comment, albeit 40 years ago:
"6. Send The Marines
What with President Johnson practicing escalatio on the Vietnamese, and then the Dominican Crisis on top of that, it has been a nervous year, and people have begun to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. Fortunately, in times of crisis like this, America always has its number one instrument of diplomacy to fall back on. Here's a song about it:
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,*
They have their place, I guess,
But first - send the Marines!
We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott;
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war;
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Ooh, we hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!"
"Let's get something straight: These people to whom you refer are being most immediately subjegated by their own governments, not us. We are merely their largest customer."
Weeeell... the problem is that "their 'own' governments" are, by and large, puppets of OUR "own" government. Saddam was a strange bedfellow for quite some time - having been removed from the US' list of terrist supporters under Reagan and receiving ample support from us in many ways and forms. The Sauds are not popular... outside DC. Mubarak is hardly a democratic leader awash in popular support - but he IS supported by us. Pakistan? Morocco? Name the nation and the unpopular and oppressive leaders are, more likely than not, puppets tools or allies of the US State Dept.... because they are "good for bizness".
"These people are just now waking up and while it is very convenient for their governments to point at us as the bad guy in order to draw the heat away from themselves, ultimately these people realize that we have actually been paying the bills expected of us, and it has been their leaders who have absconded with their birthright."
No, they've been wide awake for decades. They saw how decolonialization took place.... the "liberal" and "democratic" alternatives were brushed aside so that some "anticommie hardnose" dictator could keep things good for bizness. They saw how, time and time again, "liberal", "social" and "Western" alternatives were quashed, often with the help of the US and UK secret services... leaving only the anti-Commie fundamentalists as the only "acceptable" opposition.
I find it ironic that you should preface your post with: "Why would one project his own perceptions of American "hubris" onto a population he does not know or understand?". You need to graduate from the Time-Life history books and get a clue.
That's quite an essay you wrote there, dh, and I, myself,
will need far more time to digest it than I have now,
pushing midnight. Couple of quick points, this country
may have been founded based on getting government out
of the way, but progress has required governmental action.
Child labor laws, for example. I took a great
course in college on the history of law that examined
how the law, illustrated mostly through Supreme Court
cases, changed over time. For example in the earliest
days of the nation, individual property rights were
overidden by the need for development. Development
served the greater good of a young nation. Eventually,
individual rights started taking precedence, although
the Supreme Court ruling regarding eminent domain may
signal a shift back to the old mindset.
My favorite unit during that course was about Eugenic
Sterilization. There was a time when it was legal for
the government to forcibly sterilize people if they were deemed "defective."
It even went to the Supreme Court,and Justice Oliver
Wendall Holmes, writing in the case of Buck v Bell
wrote an opinion uphold the laws that stated "Three
enerations of idiots is enough." (It has amused me
when recent Supreme Court nominees have spoken of
their respect for Stare Decisis. I want to ask
them, "So you would have upheld Plessy v Furgeson in
the Brown v Board of Ed. case? That would qualify
as Stare Decisis.)
Now, a point about mankind. Man is generally governed
by the idea of self-preservation. If, in the addled
psyche of some that equates to "screw your neighbor,"
that's what he's going to do. Some recognize that such
action is not what's required, in fact it can be
counterproductive, ie, screw your neighbor, and he's
going to screw you back even more, and so it escalates.
This is why, I believe, that Communism (in the sense
that Marx & Engels laid it out) can naver exist. It runs
counter to human nature.
That being said, there are those of us who don't
necessarily want what others have. We're reasonably
happy with our lot, though perhaps a little less so
in the last six years with what has happened to the
economy. I'm not going to lie, cheat and steal my way
to infamy and fortune, and I think that's true of many
people in this society.
I think I'm starting to rant a little, so I'll stop
now. Perhaps I will pick it up again when I've gotten
some sleep.
If it goes past one or two cycles it could become a fait accompli democratic strategy to lean toward "rule" just to stay in the game. If that were ever to become the case, they would surely begin to like the feeling, afterall, it is the nature of the beast.
dh
The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.
Look, let's agree on one thing: This country was founded for the purpose of business to function without the oppression of governments. The founders recognized that for those businesses to blossom, the rights of individuals to pursue development of those businesses must be preserved. It is called Capitalism.
This country specifically was NOT founded with the inverse logic in mind (i.e., people first), though that is the story we are often told and to which we subscribe when we desire to comfort ourselves.
You mentioned a corporation being a person. Legally, it is a person. Actually, it is higher than a person. It cannot be thrown in jail, it cannot be shot or killed, it is nameless and faceless, it influences government and creates laws through that influence and it has no head nor tail, it has a beginning but it meets it own end only through its own stupidity and mismanagement. It is the only truly self-determined "person" in this country.
Corporations are started by people but most often become "public" which means "unaccountable" unless the public operating within and without the company hold it to standards. Only a public that is empowered and uses that power will hold those corporations to a rule of law.
We are talking about money here folks. There is far too often too little consideration given to morality when it comes to money. Money makes wealth and wealth makes class. Class rules because money rules. All of the conflicts over racism, sexism, etc. have nothing to do with race or jender (or the ism of the day), they are about class, plain and simple. Somebody has something and they want to keep it, and conversely, somebody else wants something and they are going to try to get it.
These conflict based "isms" are a distraction to keep peoples' minds off of wealth and way for those without real power to express themselves. We create this minutiae to keep ourselves busy. It is our way of distracting ourselves from the real issues of life. And, we should not kids ourselves, it is not some ruling class who divides us, it is we who divide ourselves. Example: Everybody wants some of that class, in whatever small way they may attain it, and they want to be recognized for it when they achieve it. The way to do this is to look down on others once they get there.
Everyone should look in the mirror at the end of every day and honestly ask themselves who did they use or hurt or manipulate today to gain their desired results. Not just those with whom we interact on a personal basis but how did our decisions and actions affect those we will never meet? Did I hurt my son's feelings and will this impact his raising of his son? Did I hurt my spouse in a selfish moment and how will that affect what our children see in him or her? Did I go to far in a suggestion at work, was my ambition too great and will my co-workers or the users of my company's product suffer because of it?
That's too a tough mirror for most people and that is why they rationalize their actions. They want what they want; it really is that simple. It is naked and it is raw and it is a crying shame. But we, the United States are only a minority the people in the world who rationalize in this way (by far) and we certainly are not the only people in the world who need to take stock.
We act the same way in the international community, as does every other country in the world. They are all looking to "get theirs," just as we are. We have a bigger stick and we don't always use it in a very pretty way. However don't kid yourselves, history has shown, in EVERY circumstance, that might may not make right but it makes kings and powerful governments.
Until everyone on this planet is willing to look into that mirror and ask themselves those tough question and develop a conscience, until we are all then willing to look into that mirror collectively and make some changes, we will have what we currently have, in varying degrees. Now how likely do you think it is that people are going to give up their lust for personal wealth and prestige so we might all join hands and sing "Kumbyah?"
I believe it is called the human condition folks and it is not likely to change to the degree we may want it to change, because we (each of us) is unwilling to give up what we must give up to make that change.
Think of it this way: Everyone knows that if we lived as true brothers and sisters in love and services to one another, no one in the world would suffer poverty. We all know that is a true and workable statement; there is no question that the natural resources and physical effort resources are available. It is the very concept that would allow everyone to live a happy and healthy life; we would relax and be happy and live wonderful lives, all across the world.
Now think about what will happen as soon as one group decides to do this; who wants to go first? Anybody want to take bets on which other group would rob, plunder and kill them for their resources and power first?
And there you have it, in a nutshell.
I think our job is to negotiate what we have, to the best of our abilities and with as much integrity and morality as a given situation will allow, always deferring to decency, because for the moment, it is all we've got. Right up to the point where it becomes obvious that the other guy will or has hurt you. Then, squash him like a bug; you may want to review it later to see if you could have done a better job on the front end of the interaction.
dh
The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.
379. A crime in the name of a noble cause (1/27/06)
Bush stole breads from the grocery store. When the store owner accused him of stealing, he defends that he is to save the lives of hungry people. What he hasn't told you is that he could have done it legally: he could buy the bread instead of stealing.
Bush administration repeatedly argued that he did it under a noble cause: to save the lives of American people. He avoids to tell you that this noble cause can be done in recent system: he could have applied for a court warrant.
A theft is a theft. It won't be legalized under a noble cause. Bush blows trumpet these days to persuade people that he has the right to spy on them. How can a thief so confident for the crime he committed?
1. His master D.O.J. assured him he will be supported by Supreme Court. After Alito being sent to the Supreme Court, D.O.J. totally control it. Alito's nomination will shift the court to the right. For the real Democrats, they should fight for their idea with filibuster. D.O.J. apparently will have their agent jumping out to perpetrate, despite that will tear off their agents' fake mask. For Republicans, Alito is also a threat to their opinion. Alito favors a powerful administration. That's against GOP's opinion of a small government. Many Republicans also don't think the President is above the law. Now review message "373. Extortion by scandal". How correct I point out the Abramoff scandal is targeting at GOP politicians to force them escorting Alito to the seat of the Supreme Court judge.
2. Intelligence support. On time, there will be a "terrorist attack" to justify Bush's spying program. The CIA's Pakistan air raid, Bin Laden's and his vice's tape is a prelude of this plot.
3. Media support. Today, Mercury News reported: "53% approved of eavesdropping without warrants "to reduce the threat of terrorism.(New York Times/CBS News poll of 1,229 adults Friday through Wednesday)". I have said that media is controlled by the Inside group. They used to manipulate public's mind by faking poll to justify a rigged election or other plot.
Is US still a home of braves and the land of free as media always say? Or brave Americans become cowards who give up their freedom to the intimidation of terrorists (or more likely, the Bush administration in the fake mask of terrorist)?
361. Storm is now a killing tool of Feds (11/27/05)
Back to 9/24 framed case. In "#342. Homeowner Association again (9/12/05)" I talked about How Feds arranged a trip for my wife between 9/22 to 9/29 so they could frame me in a special "9/24 Neighborhood Cleanup day". Then what would happen to my wife while she was in South east Asia?
They prepared a trip accident.
My wife told me a lucky story when she returned. The travel group would tour Haloon Bay in Vietnam on 9/27. Some big boss in the group gave up the tour with the excuse they must attend a meeting or just plainly said they were afraid of the typhoon. Only a few tourists went with my wife. But the typhoon miraculously left the Haloon Bay a day before so they had a nice boat tour.
On 9/30/05, there was a picture in Mercury News which shows a woman walking through rubble caused by Typhoon Damrey. "The worst storm to hit Vietnam in a decade. Officials said Thursday they had recovered 38 bodies so far."
I think there would be a "boat accident caused by typhoon" on 9/27 if the 9/24 framed case went on successfully. The good luck for my wife was not a nice trip but a safe one.
It was an interesting piece, and provided some food
for thought, but as I said above, maybe too alarmist.
I had a disagreement with someone yesterday because
she was saying how she was going to oppose pretty much
all incumbents, and try to get some ultra-liberals
nominated. I told her that was a great way to keep the
GOP in charge of both houses of Congress. Change can
only come with baby steps.
I just thought that it was an interesting peice,
there is no way that a dictatorship of any kind
could prevail here. I mean if a few thousand
Iraqis can bogg down 10 U.S. divisions, what does
our government think that a few thousand Americans
could do. And we have a lot more cracks to slip
into here than the Iraqi insurgents do.
For example, the D.C. snipers went on the rampage
for weeks. And the government seemed powerless to
stop them. I just hope that the govenment takes a
step back, and realises the the effect of
thrusting civil war upon us.
I too am surprised that they could answer
honestly. But what gets me (If these poll numbers
are correct) is how misinformed our soldiers are.
The Bush PR machine in Iraq must be spinning out
of control. They probably have no idea how much
turmoil our country is in. You would think that
they at least get some truth through the grapevine
from soldiers new to the war. Makes one wonder
what is going on over there....
[While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”]
I guess the troops have been well-trained, if they
still believe that Saddam had a role in 9/11.
And hasn't it already been shown that al-Qaeda was not
really being protected in Iraq? I still cannot understand
why soldiers and their families are not angry.
Also, I'm surprised they were able to answer honestly.
I read the entire piece, and I believe that he has
some valid points. I do believe that he is perhaps
being a little alarmist. Even if the GOP manages to
hold onto majorities in both Houses of Congress, something
I don't believe likely, our form of government is
not doomed. Already, some members of the GOP are starting
to recognize how hazardous their nearly complete support
for the Bush Administration has become. They are starting
to think about their own self-preservation. Witness
the whole UAE-controlled port thing.
Do threats to our civil liberties exist? Definitely,
and I have no faith in the Roberts court to preserve them.
But, if major civil rights are abridged by the Court,
action will be taken to rectify that. States will step
in to guarantee some of them, like abortion. Constitutional Amendments will be proposed if necessary. People will
rise up. Am I being too optimistic? Perhaps. I am
curious to see what the midterms bring.
I agree with your evaluation of Mankind, Maynard, although
it may be a bit black & white, with no gray area.
dh,
you have valid arguments, but American History is filled
with examples of this country doing things for other
countries' "own good." How many actions have taken
place in Central & South America? Think Nicaragua,
Argentina, etc. Iraq is just the latest example.
The idea that the United States is going to "bring Democracy"
to any country is paternalistic, and smacks of a
superior attitude.
Hibris is a good word, and applicable to both the administration and its general public supporters.
Humankind is made up of those who recognize that others in their family/community/civilization are valuable and loveable fellow humans with whom they can share experience, responsibility, imagination, and all other ways by which groups outperform indiiduals.
And humankind is comprised of those who regard others as threats to their own self and as resources to be exploited. These people become arrogant and greedy; they lose all sense of virtue, ethics, and responsibility as these may apply to anyone or anythign beyond themselves. The publicly traded corporation is one of these, if it were to really have personhood.
Into which of these categories a developing child grows is a matter of several influences, one of which is the behaviorial climate provided by their family, community, and country. The U.S. government, since its inception, is most solidly in tha latter camp; perhaps never more so than this very day. All fear; no ethics, and no accountability. The U.S. government today is actively striving to manipulate its citizens into the same blind stupid fervor.
The idea that people of other nations have a feeling of inferiority to the US is ridiculous. The notion that Americans are lots better off than *everybody* else on the planet, in every way, is pure propaganda.
Hopefully, the voters will take their frustration with
this Administration out at the ballot box. I believe
that the Dems have a real shot at taking back the
Senate. The House is a long shot, but possible. As
a constituent of Senator Clinton's, I have written her,
urging her not to run for President. Two reasons:
1)I like her right where she is now, representing me in
the Senate.
2)If she runs, she validates everything her critics have
said about "she just wants to be President."
Also, I'm not convinced she'll win.
I think, at this point, Bill Richardson is the best
potential Presidential candidate.
Bass,
I do not think there is a "general" tendency of the United States to feel superior. I do however think there may be a "general" tendency of other countries to feel inferior, and to resent the feeling that accompanies their own perceived inferiority. I think that most of the citizens of the United States are regular, fairly humble people, going about their lives. They Drive to work in the morning and get stuck in traffic, they can't afford many of the things they'd like to own but they are usually okay with that, they struggle to raise their kids and try to make their children's lot in life better than their own.
Yes our country has done things of which we should not be proud. We continue to execute untoward plans and schemes, which often are an embarrassment to the very citizenry to whom you earlier referred -as referenced by you, me and others, here and in other venues. Slavery, racism, My Lai and Kent State are all sad events. Yet which country in this world of societies agreed upon by men and women, does not carry these stains of their own?
Certainly Iraq cannot claim to be more of an honorable citizen than the United States, in light of the frequency and extent of its past atrocities. Iraq is not a country with a history of peacemakers; to the contrary, Iraq's past is a bloody history with far more systemized inhumanity than that which you will find in the US, even with all of our shameful choices. So why should I be concerned with their opinion of my country? As citizens they have as much responsibility to watch their government as do we.
I am concerned that we invaded their country, a sovereign nation. I am concerned about all of the deaths we have caused, I am especially concerned about the death of our troops and of the thousands of innocent people placed in harm’s way, I am concerned about the damage we have done to their infrastructure and I worry about the effort and cost required to help them rebuild their country. However, I also think the Iraqi people do share some responsibility in that they should have eradicated the Hussein virus themselves. Hussein was an agitator of the international community and he was speaking with their voice. They had a responsibility to remove him.
I am presently most concerned about the hurrying of the development of their constitution, it now having disenfranchised millions of its citizens and representing what is the cornerstone of yet another unworkable "democracy/theocracy." Though to be honest, I also know much of the pressure to hurry its presentation and passage came from Democratic criticism of the administration; I think Democrats made a serious error in forcing this issue based on time, rather than content.
I don't think we should have invaded Iraq.
I do think we should have invaded Afghanistan. Regardless of whether the international diplomacy involved with the Afghani's regarding the Caspian Sea pipeline, prior to our invasion, made our invasion appear suspect, I still think it was the correct choice, all things considered. We were right in not trusting their government during these negotiations. And, speaking of Hubris, did you get a look at those Taliban Government officials and their methods of torture, killing, oppression, and beliefs? Wow! I don't think Afghanistan lost much in the way of rational leadership in that situation.
I cannot answer why your patriotism is questioned. Perhaps it is a result of the personalities and beliefs of those with whom you converse. Based on what I have read in this thread, it may be that your patriotism is questioned because of the way you frame the question. No one can possibly explain away the events you mentioned, since they are not explainable to a rational mind, so your question may feel -to your companions- like it is a trap that is begging only one answer. However, on the flip side of the coin, the evocation of those events alone, fails to recognize the fine and wonderful gifts of compassion this country has poured out to the world. And to be completely honest, is not disingenuous to hold up our failures as a reflection of who we are without also holding up our successes, along with those failures, for consideration?
Sometimes when people are concerned about the direction of our policies, and when we have a feeling that things are going wrong, we feel the need to serve as the conscience of our country. It is an honorable and very patriotic thing to do when one is sincere, and I am sure you are sincere. However, we sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater due to the strong feelings we have. As you may have seen with me recently, in another post, I skipped out on the etiquette of debate in favor of angry expression. I didn’t rein myself in so someone else had to do it for me. Could be that you are meeting with this issue, on occasion, as well.
I too dislike flag burning. I dislike it immensely. However, I served six years in the Navy supporting the right to freedom of speech; like you, neither am I a jingoist, so, to me, burning a flag is a valid -albeit abhorrent- statement, not an assailable or prosecutable violation of law.
I think I see it a bit differently than you. When I see a flag burning I look carefully at the statement being made by the flag burner and I ask myself: "Is this just some fool looking for attention or has this person lost so much faith in our system of democracy that he is burning this flag to communicate his opinion that our country's true foundations of law, justice and freedom are on fire?"
I guess I am ranting too.
Best of luck,
dh
The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.
No apology is necessary. You haven't caused me any angst or discomfort. I have no problem with you criticizing the arguments put forward by Global Crier or anyone else. However, I believe it would be better for you to focus on criticizing his arguments on their own basis rather than declaring conclusions about his alleged motives for putting forward his arguments.
dh-
Don't you think there is a general tendency of the
United States to feel superior? Not just the government,
but the citizenry as well? Isn't that feeling sometimes
misplaced? Hasn't this country done things not to be
proud of? Slavery, racism, My Lai, Kent State...
Some perpetrated by the government with the support of
the citizenry.
When I ask such questions, I have had my
patriotism questioned, but I would compare my patriotism
to anyone's. Of course, I'm talking about TRUE patriotism,
not the pale, jingoistic version that seems so prevalenmt
now. Faithfulness to the Constitution. A remarkable
document that was framed in such a way as to evolve
over time, regardless of what some politicians and
judges seem to think.
Example of true patriotism: flag burning.
I don't like flag burning. I think it's disrespectful
and vile. That being said, I don't believe it should
be banned. It is a form of protest. My perspective
is flag burning shows me the content of the character
of the flag burner. Whatever their cause, they've lost
me. I cannot support them. I would also do my best
to stop them. Better to protect the rights of a person
attempting to prevent a flag burning than to prohibit
the action itself.
I think that clothing made to look lie the American
flag are disrespectful, too. I think people who think
they are patriotic by flying the flag from their car
antenna, a flag that gets destroyed by the elements
and wind, are not truly patriotic. I think people
who fly the flag 24/7, regardless of weather, don't
treat the flag with due respect. It should come in
at sunset, and in rain.
I've just realized that I really got off on a rant
here. My apologies.
In some ways, we may be superior. In some ways,we are not.
Sheldon, et al.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of the words and intent of the entity in question and I think, that by spending some time and reading his Global-Crier website carefully, you'll see what I mean. I know from experience that this kind of "diplomacy of the one-sided" represents a significant threat to the peace efforts of sincere, hard working negotiators and principals.
I do respect you, your efforts, your many creations, and your rules; I think you know that. More than that though, and to your point, you are right about the rules of engagement and I should not have taken the bait.
I apologize to you and CMD for any angst or discomfort I may have caused you.
dh
The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.
Dark Horse: Please refrain from insults and [[name calling]]. In your postings just today, I've noticed examples including the following: "author of that garbage," "pompous jackass" "little Hitler," "tin tongue," "little loser whiner boy," "fascist," "global pariah." None of this language serves the purpose of advancing rational discussion about anything. Moreover, I see nothing in Global Crier's statements to justify your characterization of him as a "fascist" or as someone who "would kill us both, with his own hands."
Once again, I was addressing the words of the little crier in our midst, not anyone else. I said:
"The guy to whom I was speaking is an Anti-American purveyor of hatered. I have a strong belief in checking our actions and evaluating our positions but I have no time for hatred, double speak and disinformation. The author of that garbage is no friend of yours or mine and he would kill us both, with his own hands, if he had the chance; don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. He is a pompous jackass with a small mind and a tiny microphone, who is attempting to push his amplitude beyond his abilities by employing his inadequate, rudimentary "skill." Don't be fooled by the tin tongue of a 'little Hitler.'"
In case you haven't noticed, there is a fascist among us, his name is little loser whiner boy, the global pariah.
Again I say: "Global Whiner: You are a Coward!"
For the record (from Miriam-Webster):
fascism
One entry found for fascism.
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
dh
The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.
Bass,
Jupiter specifically talked about "American Pretense." And, because in your reply you agreed and put forth the word "hubris," without confining it to the current administration (actually there is nothing in the post about the administration, at all), I naturally assumed you were talking about Americans in general, not the present administration.
Sometimes one's intent doesn't make it to the writen product. This also happens to me on occasion.
dh
The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.
"The Israelis will demilitarize their society and live within the conditions of the Middle East Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty."
And, as soon as they disarm, you and your ilk will be there with tanks to destroy them.
You are the example of what Freedom of Speech is NOT supposed to protect: Incitement of destruction through deceptive means.
YOU are screaming "pseudo calm" in a moviehouse that is raging in fire, a fire you and your ilk have set ablaze. You are appealing to a group of patrons who do not quite understand the full nature of the fire but who simply want to extinguish the fire because they know fire is bad. They have good hearts; you have a twisted mind. Without regard for the nature of the fire or what it truly takes to extinguish that fire, they hope to help extinguish it. You are attempting to placate them with lies about the fire and how and when the fire started (choosing the moments that support your argument), how the the fire should be managed and ultimately extinguished. In so doing, you are placing all of them in danger; but it is critical to your strategy that you keep them from realizing the danger in which you have placed them. You do this so that they will support you in your efforts as you allow the moviehouse to burn, as you throw the wrong solutions and chemicals on the flames, making it burn faster and with more devastation.
It is a simple matter of lies and conquest. You want to take the property once all of the owners are dead. And, it is particularly important to you that the owners be dead, as you are a blood thirsty type of tyrant and you do not want any of them to be around to make any claims for the moviehouse at a later time. This is your true ideal and intent, which belies your faux words of peace.
The people here are too smart for you little crier boy, go shed your cowardly tears of hate elsewhere else.
You and the other "People of The Lie," men and women of hate, should never find a home until you are ready to act as a decent member of societies. And, you won't find a home here for your words of hate, murder and destruction.
You are a Coward, a Charlatain, a Liar and a Menace. I would offer you to a fist fight to personally kick your a-s and insult you in the public square, if it weren't for the fact that I might get some of your filth on me.
Go away little crier boy. You have no home here. Perhaps you will do us all a favor and reduce yourself to a pool of bubbles and tears, then evaporate, succumbing to your own self-loathing.
dh
The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.