Saturday, August 26, 2006

Does He Say These Things In Front Of His Mom!?

As the radical right loses support for their wild eyed ideas and singular solutions they get more and more radical and outrageous with their comments. Here is a comment from a blog with a bunch of piss your pants fear kids, excuse me, young people, that live on the far edge of radical right paranoia.

....I'm waiting for the Democrats to chime in with their brainless bumper-sticker slogans they think are arguments: What about civilian deaths? Bush is just as bad as Ahmadinejad! Iran never attacked us! What about the environmental impact? World opinion will turn against us!Well, when nukes go off in Los Angeles, Tel Aviv, and other places, do Democrats care about the environmental impact, the civilian deaths, or world opinion? (The Russians and Chinese will be quite happy seeing a rival go down like this.) No, they won't, because they'll believe *anything* that serves the goal of taking down Bush and America. I'm misinformed; many, including a professor at Berkeley, have told me Iran has the right to nukes (and by implication, the right to nuke us, but they refuse to *think* or examine evidence) because we supported the Shah. The West is sinful-- racist, sexist, hegemonist, homophobic, and probably deserves everything coming our way in these rotten, cynical minds.

First of all they don't have an nuke yet! According to Bushs' chosen, Mr. Negroponte they won't have for a minimum of 5 to 10 years.

Let's examine these comments.
1. Brainless bumper sticker slogans? Any doubt from anyone who has watched the political landscape over the past decade what party lives and dies on bumper sticker slogans? Let's see what he calls bumper sticker slogans...

A. What about civilian deaths-Obviously he thinks that this new type of threat can be met in old ways. To turn a slogan, pre 9/11 thinking. Fortunately we have a good number of people who realize that civilian deaths do much to increase the threat to us and makes more terrorists. This battle must be fought in new and different ways.

B. Bush is just as bad as Ahmadinejad! Iran never attacked us!
I don't think any rational person would say that. The tactic of preemptive war would however be quite like what we say we stand against(or at least use to). Being against attacking others absent an attack on us has always what stood America in good stead with the rest of the world and why they would look to us for guidance. It is no longer true because of people like this.

C. What about the environmental impact?
Obviously he cares not that we make a large part of the planet uninhabitable for at least 50 years. Let alone the radiation that enters the atmosphere and could eventually effect him and his family.

D. World opinion will turn against us!
Little late for that isn't it!? These people again don't understand that the world on our side, especially people of the Moslem faith is the best way to win this battle. Turning people against us..well why should one even have to explain this!

Well, when nukes go off in Los Angeles, Tel Aviv, and other places, do Democrats care about the environmental impact, the civilian deaths, or world opinion? (The Russians and Chinese will be quite happy seeing a rival go down like this.)

These kids writing this stuff aren't old enough to remember that we were under a nuclear threat for decades. No body told them about the cold war when nukes were pointed directly at American cities. The solution was mutually assured destruction. There is no doubt that would be the result this time so let's just say it. You nuke, we nuke.
The Chinese economy would torpedo without the U.S. Again another example of the lack of ability to see the big picture.

No, they won't, because they'll believe *anything* that serves the goal of taking down Bush and America.
I can promise you I and a number of other people have made it clear, many times in many ways, that we love our country and don't hate Bush as much as his policies. It has been pointed out dozens of times. It doesn't fit in his frame and his desire to hate so he ignores it.

I'm misinformed; many, including a professor at Berkeley, have told me Iran has the right to nukes (and by implication, the right to nuke us, but they refuse to *think* or examine evidence) because we supported the Shah.
Well, honestly with the talk this guy is spewing and our new pre emptive policy I can see why they would fear. We should be working toward fewer nukes and not more. The left is in agreement on this. ....They have the right to nukes because we supported the Shah? No one is saying this, he is making it up. It is a non sequitur.

The West is sinful-- racist, sexist, hegemonist, homophobic, and probably deserves everything coming our way in these rotten, cynical minds.
Many of the religious right say the western culture is sinful but he won't mention that. The rest is a number of problems that we are trying to deal with but is not about hating America. It is about bettering America. Everyone is subject to the laws of action reaction like it or not so as far as deserving it.. We would like to deserve good instead of evil....Now who has the rotten cynical mind?

The important thing to note is that the real enemy in this screed, as it is with almost all of their screeds is not the Iranians but the "liberal". They talk about hating America and spend all their time hating Americans. A sick mind is a terrible thing to give a mouth.

Addendum Here


Blogger Jim said...

Well I'm old enough to have ducked under my desk or march down into air raid shelters at school. Yes, we lived for decades under the threat of nuclear holocaust. I never once shit in my pants, but I prayed that we would always have leaders as wise as President Kennedy when he stared thermonuclear war in the face and defeated it WITH NEGOTIATION.

10:49 PM, August 26, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Jim, I am so sick of the infantile attitude and outright ignoring over and over again of all that is said that I plan to battle these people in a new way. You have just witnessed the first salvo. I have NOTHING to say to them that hasn't already be told to them directly. Unfortunately nutcases can't be ignored. They MUST be exposed. I think many don't understand how truly radical and dangerous their attitude is. That includes firstly they themselves.

11:30 AM, August 27, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

It's so puzzling to me that these people cannot imagine a reversal of political fortunes. If you ask them how they would feel if President Hillary Clinton was weilding the power Bush wants to weild, they simply say that would never happen.

They can't imagine that electronic voting machines could be compromised. They can't imagine that there is so much at stake (read money) that people at the highest levels wouldn't be willing to do it.

I often find myself wanting to give up on that site, but I find that I have learned so much on many subjects by questioning their bullshit and looking up the sources (which they never supply) for myself. I know so much about so many topics that I would never have known if not for Game's lame assertions.

I see hope in the coming elections, but I honestly fear the rigging of electronic votes. As long as races are at all close, the possibility of election fraud is real. I can't imagine that I will EVER be convinced that the 2004 exit polls were wrong. And little if anything has been done to allay my fears.

Oh well, at least we have a kindred spirit in Jay. Keep up the good fight.

2:39 PM, August 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just some random thoughts. I wonder how many of these neo-cons
were raised in social-darwinists
environments. They learned physically, mentally and most of all Emotionally that "winning" is everything and that if you do not play to win then you deserve to lose. Homes, families, environments that did not have love and respect.

As long as the demographics favor their group and they "win" its just a matter of them looking down and pushing down others. Now, where this Really gets troublesome
is when the demographics change and they no longer find it easy to "win". Obviously they don't want to be "losers" but it becomes
more difficult not to "lose". Things must become as they were, they need to "take back" things to where they will be "winners" again.
Of course, this means there must
be enemies who have taken things
away and that is why they are no longer "winning". They never see that it is their own social-darwinists beliefs that are the real "losers".

Add to this the actions (manipulations ?) of Global Corporatism, the increase of
"others" and their beliefs and
changing financial fortunes, and you have the recipe for some very
delirious (and dangerous) thinking
and actions.

Now, this isn't just particular to the U.S., but this is where we live and the U.S., or at least
what it represents, is powerful.
What it leads to is Mob Mentality
and Action. Everywhere becomes
a "Maple Street" and the monsters
are Everyone. Sadly, the 95 to 97% that are not the Elite are effected, regardless of your own beliefs. This neccesitates communicating the truth and reason beforehand, not survivalists thinking, escaping to exactly

While there certainly are real problems, unless reason guides
the populace does become a Mob.
Economic deterioration does not help. America's own reality of the Taliban, Hitler Youth or Mao's
Red Guard? When the "secular" state
is unable to provide in steps

Among other things, you might try goggleing "Jesus Camp". This stuff is at the least disconcerting.

Larry in Roswell

3:15 PM, August 27, 2006  
Blogger Jason H. Bowden said...


Arguments are won by suppling logic and evidence. The postmodern nonsense of "exposing" the heretic for being a racist, an imperialist, a sexist, an authoritarian and so forth will not suffice. In the old days, we called this argumentum ad hominem.

Now, with respect to dealing with dangerous people. Don't take my words. Take John F. Kennedy's words, who would be booted out of the party today like Joe Lieberman.

Here is part of what President Kennedy said on October 22nd, 1962.

"The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere."

Kennedy also said this about the Cold War:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Kennedy's words suggest he would support the noble and just mission in Iraq.

I do not advocate nuking Iran, which needs to be dealt with in the same manner Iraq's Osirak facility was dealt with in 1981 -- preemptive airstrikes.

8:08 PM, August 27, 2006  
Blogger Jason H. Bowden said...


I was raised by two loving parents in a friendly, cooperative household open to new things. I had two siblings, and my parents made it a point that we shared everything -- the computer, the television, chores, the entire works.

A young voter, my first Presidential vote was for Nader in 2000, my second was for Kerry in 2004 (I actually believed his lies about staying the course.)

Kerry warns of 'cut and run' in Iraq

>>THE MASSACHUSETTS senator accused Bush and his aides of a "sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability," which he called "an invitation to failure.”

He contended that it would be "a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle" to accelerate the transfer of authority to Iraqis so as to allow "a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops."<<

We face a global movement for Islamic inspired fascism similar to what we saw in the 1930s. A lot of it is grassroots, a lot of it is promoted by dictators, which requires a strategy that involves but is not limited to inspecting containers at our ports. The are carrots we can use, and there are sticks we can use. Ahmadinejad is an end-of-times fanatic who wants nukes for theological reasons. We will have to use the stick here if we don't want to see a nuclear war. I would rather have Jacques Chirac be mad at us than see Tel Aviv incinerated.

I don't like the Republicans on a lot of issues-- I disagree with them on abortion, their anti-immigration hysteria, creationism, disrespect for the environment, capital punishment, Terri Schiavo, and am totally unhappy with the culture of pork in Washington.

HOWEVER-- the Democrats have moved to the far, far left on foreign policy, practically giving me a choice between Ned Flanders and Sheik Nasrallah.

The world will be a better place if I stick with Ned for now, even though I confess he is really annoying.

8:24 PM, August 27, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

I don't suppose anything in Iraq has changed since 2004 including the likelyhood of success of the Bush "policy". A majority of Americans, many Democrats and a number of Republic leaders who are not members of the Bush Cult have changed their minds in the last two years. It's what intelligent and wise people do when faced with new information, a changing situation, or a recognition that the current course is not working.

Democrats have not moved far, far left on foreign policy. The Bush "doctrine" bears no resemblance to classic conservative "right" thought. Moving away from the Bush policy is prudent and has no relationship to left or right.

9:09 PM, August 27, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

Seems to me that John F. Kennedy REFUSED to bow to the military and attack Cuba in 1962. He chose instead to negotiate THROUGH STRENGTH with the most serious threat this country has ever faced, and he succeeded in producing a win-win solution without one missile launch.

If only we had a leader of this stature and wisdom at the helm of American foreign policy today.

9:13 PM, August 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron. We have self-admitted
evidence that one person who grew
up in a loving home fell into
neo-con social darwinism. Of course, neo-con is more than just
foreign or social policy. It is
domestic economic policies as well.

Part of Islamofascism's actions
have been to tie up the resources
of the U.S. in civil war in the
Greater Middle East.

Our own fascists would like to
see the government "shrunk to the
size where it could be drowned
in a bathtub". Of course, they
also say "in a knifefight there
are no rules".

Intentional or not, there exists
a symbiotic relationship between
them to the detriment of the
financial well-being of our
government, nation and people.

Larry in Roswell

10:14 PM, August 27, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Larry, you are on the money in my eyes on the idea that they must have an enemy. I see it as a "superiority" issue. They must feel superior. At the end of the cold war with no clear enemy they turned to the "liberal" as an enemy and have blended the enemy thought in with the new terrorist threat. Hence the liberal and terrorist both being enemies they must be much of the same thing in their mind.

Jason, we pretty much agree on madmanjanai but to eliminate an entire population to get a one or a few is pure insanity and counter to the goals we hope to achieve. Can't you see how people could see your intentions as nuts!? Yes we need to stop the bad guys however the young in Iran, a large percentage of the population, are quite taken with western culture. I would say Iran is closer to a potential ally than Pakistan which is one bullet away (with a nuke) from just the terror you describe. Why doesn't the right attack the truest, greatest threats. Saudi is another one. We are giving them boatloads of money through their oil revenue and they use it for wahabi schools etc. A primary reason we need alternative energy. Oil money supports terrorists. A nuke is unthinkable in any circumstance except for the MAD theory.

Jim, you and I know this can be done without destroying the planet. We both understand that we must teach the 1 or 2 billion moslems to trust us and work with us or we will never win this. How to convince the rightists that it is possible and new ways of attacking the problem are necessary?

3:33 AM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

By the way jason I think most would find your rant far more "argumentum ad hominem" Than my response to it detailing the reasons it didn't fit.

4:01 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger Jason H. Bowden said...

ron, anon--

You're talking with me, Jason Bowden. Read what I have to say and stop arguing with a cartoon character in your head that's saying things I have not.

Again, I do not advocate exterminating Iran's population. Airstrikes, complemented with special ops, will seriously set back their nuclear program. We'd need to destroy the power facility at Bushehr, the technology center at Isfahan, the enrichment facility at Natanz, the heavy water reactor at Arak, and several other sites. The longer we wait, the higher the cost we'll have to pay later in terms of human life and possibly the environment.

I do not contest that many people, including friendly Iranians, will be mad at us for doing this. But the cost of letting Ahmadinejad starting a nuclear war for theological reasons is too great. I don't want to see nuclear weapons used again, ever.

I fully support America's liberal tradition of individualism, free enterprise, and keeping the world free.

Now, before the fascist label is tossed around, consider how reactionary Democrats have become. Democrats have rejected the foreign policy of Truman and have embraced that of Lindbergh and the America First!ers, caring about Americans only instead of people abroad. Democrats now want the state to direct our lives in the interest of the community, what the national socialists called the Volk. And they completely distrust individualism and want a centralized state to engage in social engineering.

5:53 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger Jason H. Bowden said...

Jim, anon--

Kennedy had Cuba blockaded militarily and had the airforce prepped to attack Cuba and the USSR.

Peace through strength works-- part of the reason we haven't seen major attacks in the United States is that 130,000 Americans are in the Middle East. If even a small attack here is traced back to Syria or Iran, they get regime change, no questions asked. Now if they strike the king, they must kill him.

In the unlikely event Iran's leadership isn't insane, they will use their nukes as an umbrella to support terror attacks everywhere. So our best case scenario is a Taliban-like theocracy that can hit us with 911s over and over again where we can't hit back.

The far left isn't against moral superiority-- it just thinks radical Muslims have the right to attack us, given the United States of America did a lot of ugly things to make sure the left's beloved socialists didn't overrun South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia after setting up states to protect workers in China, Russia, and eastern Europe.

6:06 PM, August 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron. Whoever this guy is, he uses a Cartoon Character as His Icon. He is projecting. Sadly, the U.S. and others have a history of persecuting people in South America
to further the dominance of Global Corporatism. The Statist regimes he mentions were Not Democratic Socialism but were supported by Big Business. Most would have failed without it. Same with China now. Americans as a whole are woefully ignorant concerning the history of Socialism. Fascism is not a label being tossed around, it is a reality in the U.S. and elsewhere today.

Larry in Roswell
Democrat and member of the
Association of World Citizens

11:56 PM, August 28, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Jason, I apologize for misunderstanding. The radical right punditocracy has been lobbying lately for the use of nuclear weapons which strikes me with horror. The political right has spoken much of an Iraq style invasion which also seems wildly foolish to me. Your idea of specific targeted strikes in what I have advocated all along as the military component of the battle. I think the time is not yet. I can't be complete with explaining why here. I will do a post on it and I hope you will join the discussion. Let's just say for now that if we get to that point I think that would be the proper method. Targeting such as was done with Al Zarqawi. Minimize civilian deaths and keep our troops out of harms way.

11:51 AM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Larry, the fact that we arm people only to fight them later is the height of insanity. We helped create osama and his warriors in Afganistan. The Iran-contra affair concerned missles for Iran that we are now accusing of suppling missles to Hezbollah.
Pointing these things out often illicits calls of you hate america first from the radical right. No I care about America, my land, of being a leader and living up to the reputation that I as a taxpayer and citizen of a democracy expect of MY government. Some want us to blindly follow leaders. I call them sheeple. I can't do that. When they are no longer accountable to the American people, the Constitution and the American dream we have the government that most in America say they hate.

11:59 AM, August 29, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home