5/23/2005
Who are the Rightwing Extremists?
If you listen to the left-wing pundits, politicians, and bloggers, you’ll note that they are passing the term “right-wing extremists” around like a poorly rolled joint at a Grateful Dead concert. But who in fact ARE the extremists? Could it be judges like Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown that Bush has up for nominations to the federal courts? Granted, these are currently the most talked about “extremists” as of now, but according to some leftists, all of us who take the Constitution for what it is, have a strong support for gun rights, are against amnesty for illegal aliens, and all in all uphold conservative values are to them “extreme”. Perhaps if maybe we wanted all the wealth distribution Karl Marx could dream of, and unlimited abortion on demands for 12 year olds, and total appeasement and suurender on the war against terrorism we’d be more in the “mainstream”. See, most libs don’t ever talk or discuss politics with anyone outside of their own thinking. Kind of reminds me of that Pauline Kael quote after being befuddled by Richard Nixon’s historic landslide victory in 1972; “I don’t know ANYBODY that voted for Nixon!”
To understand the idea of “right wing radicals” by the Democratic left, read this article by J.B. Williams at ChronWatch.com.
According to Senate minority leader Harry Reid and his friends, Democrats must block the constitutional appointment process in order to protect you from right-wing radical judges. They say they use the filibuster only in the most extreme situations, to block confirmation of extremely dangerous radicals to the bench for sake of all mankind.
Heroes they are really, at least in their own minds.
I can almost see their point, too. Who would want some extreme right-wing wacko deciding justice in America? I mean, what if judges actually just stuck to the written law and constitution and applied them to cases without any re-draft from their own personal agenda? Can you imagine what chaos it might cause if our judges left all the legislating to our legislature? Who would single handedly thwart the will of the masses if not a judge?
In order to understand what Mr. Reid and his friends mean by this assertion, we must first understand what they mean by “right-wing radical.”
Let’s begin with the simple stuff. If you believe Teddy Kennedy is a drunken coward who should have gone to prison for leaving his girl friend to die in the icy waters of Chappaquiddick as he ran and hid from authorities, you are right. But if you believe this voids his credibility as a national leader, you are a right-wing radical and you are sadly mistaken.
If you believe Bill Clinton should have done more to protect this nation by strengthening the military and our intelligence community rather than destroying them while he focused his attention on using the White House as a personal play-pen, you are right again. But if you believe America was weakened by Larry Flint Lite living in the White House, you are a right-wing radical.
If you believe John Kerry should have produced real evidence to support his claim of war hero status instead of simply attacking the honor of decorated veterans and POW’s who called him a traitor, you are once again right. But if you think America should reject a traitor for president, you are a right-wing radical.
If you believe the founders got it all wrong, that America is one big feeding trough for the world, that the U.N. is more trustworthy than the U.S., that our weaknesses are our strengths and that only Democrats can save you from yourself, you are NOT a right-wing extremist.
If your idea of national security is negotiating away your freedom to avoid a fight, you could never be a right-wing extremist - you just don’t have what it takes.
So Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown are extremists, huh? What about someone like the 1993 Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Here’s someone SO extreme, that it sounds like she’d be great paired up with the likes of Ward Churchill or Michael Moore! Thing is, the leftists know that if Bush’s nominees get through, they’ve truly lost. The judiciary is the only stronghold they have left in government now that the GOP has overtaken the White House, Congress, most governorships and state legistatures, and their hold on the media is fading away. So the only chance the Dems have left is to block these nominees from ever getting an up or down vote like it’s Constitutionally intended. I mean after all, they WOULD go on to be nominated, so the Dems are pissing themselves in apprehension of it. Let’s hope they have their diapers on for their sake come Tuesday when it comes time to vote on the judicial filberbuster and it gets voted out.
But if this is what passes for “extreme”, then you can paint me a gun-toting, flag waving, military supporting right-wing whacko. Go ahead. I’ll take it as a compliment.
Cross posted at TS Right Dominion
This post belongs to TS Right Dominion, compliments of ThaSIckness. If you have a problem with this post, take it to the complaint department.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:13 am
LOL! A poorly rolled joint at a greatful dead concert! Great post!
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:23 am
heh
The Founders and Framers were true Liberals, unlike the reactionary right troglodytes posing as progressives in the Loony Left Moonbat brigade and the Mass Media Podpeople’s Army, today. Interesting how /real/ Liberals (who believe in personal freedom, etc.) like George W. Bush and so many others in the Republican ranks are lambasted as wing extremists, when the reactionaries who want to hang onto the failed New Deal and Great Society policies, who engage in racist hate-mongering and believe in restricting freedom to choose one’s own destiny (or even to choose life itself!) call themselves progressive or liberal–or even *shudder* “moderate.”
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:41 am
David, the point of the picture was to make the point that if Thomas JEfferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin were alive and active in politics today, they would be considered “Right Wing Whackos”. Hence why I had it up. Just thought I’d explain the image, but you make a damn good point on your comment post. And Cao, thanks again, hun.
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Love the “like a poorly rolled joint at a Grateful Dead concert!”
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:13 pm
I think it’s hilarious how hypocritical the Right is. You guys complain about how you hate all these “liberal activist” judges. So what do you do? You go and replace them with YOUR activist judges. Hypocrites all. You can blast away at me now all you want, for it is inevitable. That’s the other thing you guys do is a lot of flock-attacks.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Whether you realize it or not, a judge who adheres to the constitution is not an “activist judge”. A judge who legislates through the courts like the leftist ones, took an oath to uphold the constitution, but they’re not doing it. They’re instituting new laws that the legislature did not have anything to do with. We want judges to serve as judges, not illegal legislators. We have a branch of government for that, in case you don’t know it. It’s called the “legislative branch”. The checks and balances of the 3 branches were put in place for a reason and we’d like to see that restored before it’s too late.
The fact is, activist leftist judges have overstepped their authority. The fact that you can’t see that proves how you don’t really understand the issues at stake.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:24 pm
I suppose it is generally unfortunate that the only voices we hear today tend more and more to be hyperbolic in tone. Hysteria from both sides seems to be the norm and frankly your blog seems to fit right into that category as well.
Perpetuating stereotypes of either side will only tear this country appart even further.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Then sod off, swampy. I just laugh at liberals, and this past election proved those are the sentiments of a majority of Americans. The fact that the whole country has moved so far left that communists like Jane Fonda, John Kerry and Tom Hayden feel like they have a mission in life again is pretty disturbing. I’m standing politically in the same spot I stood in 30 years ago. It might look “rightwing” to you, but that’s because the country has slid so far to the left that socialists are running the democratic party.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:46 pm
Cao, Vice Presidents are not elected in a Constitutional way if you look at things how you are. The Constitution says, “In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.” This also suggests that those who wrote the Constitution meant for the Senate to decide the Presidency in cases like 2000. It was not Constitutional for the Republican-leaning activist Supreme Court justices to do what they did but they did it anyway. Another point involves Justice Janice Brown of California. You folks on the right claim she, and Bush’s other blocked nominees, are merely following the Constitution. If that is so, why did she rule against the Latinos in Aguilar vs. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc? She ruled against them, saying that racist language is protected by the Constitution. The problem is, that wasn’t even the issue. The issue was: does racism at work make work life threatening or hostile? The answer to this is yes, as the other 8 California Supreme Court Justices agreed. She disagreed because the Constitution protects free speech. This is a case of using a technicality to protect big business, also known as being an activist judge. No offense, but you folks on the right need to stop setting double standards.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:00 pm
chuse? Is that a word?
You sound like a commentator from Al Jazeera or the Demoscummic Underpants. So now you’re going to bring up that old **** about how Bush stole the election in 2000?
puhleez.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Since Governor Pete Wilson appointed her to California’s highest court in 1996, Brown has been a consistent defender of Californians’ property rights, economic liberty, and freedom of speech.
Brown wrote a searing dissent in Aguilar v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, a case in which the California Court instituted an unprecedented prior restraint on speech (essentially, singling out certain words and banning their use in the workplace under any circumstances). In a “friend of the court” brief, the supposed guardians of freedom of expression at the ACLU gleefully championed the speech ban, arguing that the right to “equal treatment at work” permits “some limits on the unrestrained speech of bigots in the work place.” Brown, however, proved the true protector of liberty, warning that the decision “would create the exception that swallowed the First Amendment.”
In her dissenting opinion in Gallant v. City of Clovis, Brown eloquently chastised her fellow members of the court for giving property rights the cold shoulder. She aptly pointed out, “The Constitution bespeaks no hierarchy of rights, no preferences with respect to its restraints on government action, no partiality among its protections of liberty.” All the more reason to cry foul, then, when the majority of the court “consigns economic rights to a secondary status that can only reflect opposition to the balance the framers carefully struck between public and private power.”
Janice Brown is perhaps best known, however, for her principled insistence on the government’s equal treatment of its citizens, regardless of race. In her majority opinion in Hi-Voltage Wireworks v. City of San Jose, Brown upheld California’s notorious Proposition 209—a ballot initiative that banned government racial preferences—and struck down a San Jose ordinance requiring government contractors to seek bids from companies owned by women and minorities. Brown concluded that “equality of individual opportunity”—not affirmative action—is what the Constitution requires.
And one has to conclude that Brown, a black sharecropper’s daughter who worked her way up from a childhood in the segregated south to a position on the highest court of the country’s largest state, knows whereof she speaks.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Cao, I am not digging up anything. Republicans always nitpick things Democrats do and love to remind us how Senator Byrd tried to end filibusters way back when, why can’t we mention things YOU guys did more recently?
I am not attacking freedom of speech. I am simply making the point that there is a double standard in saying that making a ruling based on what is right and wrong is activist and yet voting AGAINST what is right and wrong is not, even with a Constitutional loophole is not. Either way, you have an activist judge on your hands, at least if you apply the same standards to both that the Right CLAIMS to apply. In Aguilar vs. Avis Rent A Car Systems, the Constitution was not on trial but the fact that employers and other employees were using racism to create a hostile work environment WAS. If the Constitution had been on trial, Brown would have been right. As it was racism on trial however, she was wrong. Also, you really think I sound like I work for Al Jazeera? How so? Did I mention Allah? Did I call for a Jihad? Nope, I don’t see any of that anywhere. I DID speak against the activist judges though. OOPS! My bad. Cheers all!
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:37 pm
Racist KKK Senator Byrd? I don’t recall that. What the democrats are doing is trying to hang onto their last little bit of leverage-legislation from the bench. I don’t think they’re going to succeed, but we’ll see. The minority should never rule over the majority…and so far they’ve managed a few “wins” for their side, but I think the entire country is beginning to get into an uproar over it.
That **** from the 2000 election is 5 years old, and that story isn’t in fact what you paint it to be, either. Is that the best you can do, nitpicker?
After all, it’s your buddy Chomsky who’s into “linguistics”…I see the twisting of facts and even unbelievable twisting of ideas in threads like this one, there isn’t ever a respectful exchange of ideas, there’s name calling and worse. Those are the depths to which you people have sunk and it’s not a very strong selling point 
for your point of view to anyone who’s sane, 
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:38 pm
“I suppose it is generally unfortunate that the only voices we hear today tend more and more to be hyperbolic in tone. Hysteria from both sides seems to be the norm and frankly your blog seems to fit right into that category as well.” … so saying “judicial activism is bad” is hyperbole?
And Cao is correct - judges adhering to the Constitution are not ‘activist’; judges who legislate from the bench are ‘activist’ … should be simple to understand …
/TJ
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Your definition of an activist judge, in trying to pin it on Janice Brown is a very thin, yet well worded argument. In fact there is not mucht merit, in my opinion, to take the incident you describe, and hold it up against leftist activist judges. By definition, in my opinion, an activist judge is one that takes their job, interpretting the constitution, beyond the frames of its apparent meaning. In this case, Janice Brown, did what she believed the Constitution called for. Maybe she was right, maybe she was wrong.
What is clear to me, is when it comes to activist judges, it would be those who want to bring foreign law into the play of interpreting OUR Constitution, or stretch the meaning of the Constitutjion to say what they WANT it to say, instead of what it really says…such as you lefty’s favorite Seperation of Church and State Myth!
Joseph always words things real nice, and half approaches to educate himself on any issue he argues…yet he seems to educate himself with leftist propaganda instead of actual historical evaluation from an unbiased resource. We all do this at times…be biased, God knows I do. One thing Joseph is correct on is that corruption is on both sides of the political forum. I however, would say he is guilty of the same thing he would probably say of me…
Joseph is drinking the kool-aid!:shock:
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:57 pm
I do not think that the term judicial activism is a hyperbole. (I do think the term is being thrown around a bit too much though).
The title of the post asked who the “right wing extremists” were and I was giving my interpretation of it. It just appears that we are throwing around empty phrases more and more these days and this blog (along with many outlets of information) is no different.
May 23rd, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Exactly, Jay. The most prime example I can think of with hauling international law into our courts is Sandra Day O’Connor. At any rate, his arguments are very thin, indeed. What Joseph is doing is touting the communist idea of speech codes (picking out some words that shouldn’t be used as racist or hatespeech)–the same type of thing that is being done across the College campuses today. It’s all about taking away the freedom of speech for those of us on this side of the political spectrum.
May 23rd, 2005 at 7:01 pm
OK Dem,
I’m going have to go all the way back to your post about how the vice president is being chosen unconstitutionally. The issue you are speaking of was ammended after the 1800 elections. The two pary system was semi-officially formed way back then with the federalists and republicans. Both parties had agreed to disband the second best vote getter becoming vice president. The biggest failure they made was to retain how they dealt with ties. The house votes on one and the senate votes on the other. The reason that is done the way it is has to do with the incapability of government to change policy.
May 23rd, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Give me an example of empty phrases that are thrown around here. I don’t see any that aren’t backed up by facts. There are loads of links and reference information in the posts that I put up. I’m not just talking out of my *** like so many of you lefties, lol!
You people make a lot of generalizations and don’t bother to back them up with facts. Now why is that? Because you CAN’T back them up with facts! You either have half the story, or you have a made up one like the Iraqi Information Minister!~
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:13 pm
For all the libs that are trolling here; I pose this question.
What EXACTLY (no nuances here, Kerry lovers!) is so EXTREME about Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens, and what exactly do YOU consider to be “Extreme” right wing? I’m not saying mainstream conservative thinking like being against abortion, for lower taxes and the like. GIve me a good, prime example and we’ll debate on that.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:19 pm
“Give me an example of empty phrases that are thrown around here. I don’t see any that aren’t backed up by facts. There are loads of links and reference information in the posts that I put up. I’m not just talking out of my *** like so many of you lefties, lol!
You people make a lot of generalizations and don’t bother to back them up with facts. Now why is that? Because you CAN’T back them up with facts!”
DEMOSHITTERS are still pissed because America caught John HANOI FONDA Skerry in so many lies, and they still can’t get over it.
Good thing that MORONIC; DUMBASS LIAR didn’t make it to Office … we most likely wouldn’t be sitting here enjoying our freedom, and the ability to type what we really want to say without being censored.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:54 am
An extremist is one whose opinion is completely opposite of your own. So the use of the word extremism is at best subjective. The Constitution of the United States says exactly what the Supreme Court says that it says. It is within their realm of government to apply their interpretation of the Constitution to matters they agree to hear in court. Their decisions form “case law,” and important aspect of common law as it was inherited from England. Supreme Court decisions, however, rely upon the good graces of the federal and state governments to enforce its decisions–since the high court does not have an “enforcement arm.”
What is judicial activism? It is when state and federal judges make decisions that are not based on either federal or state constitutionality. An example of this might be the concerns over homosexual marriages. Conservative politicians want to see the definition of marriage restricted to heterosexual relationships, but in 1998, Justice Scalia (a so-called conservative) argued at Georgetown University that morality has no place in formulating court opinion. In a democracy, the majority rules, “and the minority loses except to the degree that the majority has agreed to accord the minority rights.
Here we have an interesting case where political conservativism differs from judicial conservativism. Those who oppose “activist” judges are looking for “constructionists,” or those who will interpret the law based on the constitution without reading more into it than was intended by the original framers. You might be interested to know that scholars work closely with the Supreme Court in assisting them determining the “intent” of the framers, and the original works of the framers (in particular, James Madison’s notes) are frequently consulted.
“These are four guys [judges in Nebraska] who went to law school, and they don’t have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to marriage. These four judges said what is to me the most amazingly ignorant thing. They said, ‘Government creates marriage.’ That is just the wrong model. Marriage is a social institution. It is much older than the government of the United States. To get some idea of how ignorant that is, what would you think of a judge — a supposedly educated person — who said that government created motherhood? You know, we have laws about parenting, but fundamentally this is something older and deeper than government.” –Maggie Gallagher
May 24th, 2005 at 4:01 am
And I have to refer to the Nose on Your face for famous Robert Byrd KKK Fascist quotes, lol…one of my favorites is this:
There’s a complete brain trust for ya, lol…!
May 24th, 2005 at 6:09 am
Just for confirmation on terms here:
Activist Judge: One who uses his own opinion or other’s opinions to pass judgement on people, rather than written, Constitutional Law.
Non-Activist Judge: One who first goes to the United States Constitution to interpret laws, then to the original intent of the Constitution, then to other writings to attempt to discern the original intent of the Constitution.
Activist Judge Supporter: Anyone who believes the United States Constitution is a “living” document, subject to change at the whim of the black-robed rulers.
May 24th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Thank you “Yat The SSgt” for saving me the effort of reading any more of this blog (which I have come across in the past).
It is so easy for you to label me as a liberal and then go about spending your entire time “gathering facts” and links to support your own notion that you are somehow a martyr or victim of hyperbole, misinformation or propoganda. In labeling me and reiterating the same old, same old, you are ABSOLUTELY NO BETTER than anyone who calls YOU an extremist.
It is always easier to point the finger elsewhere isn’t it? How many people from both the DEMOs and REPUBs have called members of the other side Hitler? Is this something we want to trivialize? To invoke images of a man who slaughtered and gassed human beings by labeling our couterparts as such simply because their values or politics differ? Seems really foolish and shortsighted. Yet BOTH SIDES DO IT and somehow it justifies it. Somehow we are duped into thinking that they are the only voices of our democracy.
In dichotomizing it and solidifying it with such terms we our lose grip upon our need to maintain moderation. Sure it is wrong to bomb abortion clinics, or to set fire to a H2 parking lot. Those people can indeed be called extremists. Be it the “God hates ****” people or the “UN permission slip pussies”, the level of discourse has stumbled to a level which is absolutely pathetic and bad for democracy because we look to point the finger first and ask questions later.
So go ahead and find all the facts and figures you want to demonize whomever you need to demonize in order to justify whatever you need to justify, but just try to think for a moment if the ends justify the means.
May 24th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Demonize? I’m not calling anyone “the great Satan” it’s the Baathist and Bin Laden that do that…alongside rags like Le Monde who sympathize with them.
If you want to *****, go to the complaint department
May 24th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
I keep coming back because you posed a question that I think deserves to be answered in a way that does not throw labels around. What would you have me do (besides go to your complaints dept - whatever that is)? While I may agree with you that throwing around such terminology is foolish, I also would like to add that you do the same and add fuel to a fire you protest exists.
Whatever indeed. I don’t feel like I am complaining. Why would you accuse me of that? I am trying to just discuss the post that you made available for me and others to read. What’s the problem? I guess spending time and effort being snarky passses for political discourse these days. So what if I spend my time and effort saying “hey, hold on, this is a bit of a shrill and frankly unhealthy attitude to maintain”? How is complaining? How does that make me a Liberal? What the heck does Bin Laden have to do with any of this? Sounds like you are invoking extremes in order to justify your views (again).
So you’re “not sure why the left does it to conservatives.” Because calling someone Hitler is a pathetic and EXTREME way to garner attention, that’s why. Does your statement imply that it is okay for the right to do that to the left? If so, then you too can direct your own words right back at yourself. All of them.
(from google) Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Hell, you can be a fascist without being HITLER! You can be a communist without being Stalin. You can be a capitalist without being Ken Lay. To take the extremes of ANY PARTY and base your reasoning upon it is ITSELF an extrme. Frankly that depiction of fascism has trace elements of both DEMs and REPs in my (not so humble) opinion. Although “belligerent nationalism” sounds a little like a certain blog I know…
May 24th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
You want to answer a question in way that does not throw labels around. Well, since the entire post was focused on the misuse of labels by some, I think you’re in the wrong place. The point of the post IS that the left is misuing labels.
To say that the “other side” misuses labels is irrelavent — the left is STILL misusing labels.
Since we are talking about labels here, if you were to compare the political philosphy of Hilter to the Democrats and the Republicans, it would be closer to the current Democrat leadership ideals than the Republicans. Sorry if you don’t like that.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
misc debris…May I ask you what ever gave you pause to think that the right is fascist?
Do you think that?
Please say you do…..this is my personal favorite subject and I love shredding ANYONE that thinks the right is fascist.
Please say you think the right is fascist so I can explain to you what fascism IS……PRETTY PLEASE?
May 24th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
“the entire post was focused on the misuse of labels by some”
Yes, and I just wanted to expand it to include the possibility that it is becoming a systemic problem by ALL (not just by some). It is just as lame and stupid when DEMs or REPUBs do it. Name calling… it is funny we still need to discuss this among adults.
Lets get one thing straight bub (or Ogre), I do not WANT to compare “the political philosphy of Hilter to the Democrats and the Republicans”. I think it is a terrible ploy by both parties and is “a pathetic and EXTREME way to garner attention”.
If you think that Democrats are more like Hitler, then you should back that up or suffer the consequences of using the name of a merderous tyrant to justify the nomination of a federal judge, or to protest some bill.
Either way it is a shallow way to get a point across - name calling.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
I have one comparison between Hitler and the Dems, Hitler suoorted ethnic cleansing as do the Dems, because had Al gore been elected the ethnic cleansing in Iraq would still be going on…but hey Europe would still like us right?
And yes I am being extreme, but I like to call it fighting fire with fire.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Misc Debris — if you’re not going to read anymore of this Blog due to my statements/answers, why in the hell do you bother stopping by and commenting at all?
I noticed very quickly, your “extreme leftist attitude” towards this country, and the powers that keep it running, by stating the following on your Blog:
“For someone to think that NOBODY in positions of power wish to pursue the war in Iraq for economic gain is beyond naive and simply dangerous.”
Actually, you and all of your little left-handed Morons are the one’s who are far beyond naive and extremely dangerous from a lack of knowledge … most likely, from never having served this beloved country, and a complete ignorance of how the Gov’t. and military work hand-in-hand.
So, listen up Computer Geek-Boy … we did NOT go to war for the damn oil; we can get oil from many more places that have the same type of crude that Iraq has — we went to war because THEY ATTACKED US ON OUR SOIL … so, get your PC board wired to your whining *** and learn the truth!
For all of the pencil-necked leftists who believe your stymie-white ********, ask yourself this:
Should we fight them on their turf — or, sit here and wring out whining little hands in fear, seeing them invade America and we fight them here?
I seriously doubt if you would know the first thing to do in a situation like that … you’d probably be the first cry-baby to scream out … “Where’s our military that’s supposed to protect my scared little ***?”
I can hardly wait to see your leftist; ignorant tirade and answer … yet, maybe you won’t if you hold up to your word and not read anymore of this Blog!
May 24th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Kender - Please read all my posts. I did not wish to put forth any indication that I think either side is fascist. If I did then I appologize or think you misread. I wanted to say that it is wrong and foolish to label people so easily and dispose of their voice simply by calling them Hitler (or “right wing extremist”, or “feminazis” or anything else that cheapens political discourse to the level of snarkiness - if that is even a word).
I am sorry to dissapoint you (wink) but I do not wish to get involved in a “who is more fascist” debate. As I have tried to indicate, such debate is really not very constructive - I am sorry it is your favorite topic.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Misc Debris opines:
If so, then if the Left doth persist, then is not the Left, um, shallow?
Another take on LABELS: our MSM and even our dictionaries have so slanted our information that labels have become, in some instances, badges of honor:
and in other instances, more derogatory:
Indeed “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions” is my favorite definition of Liberal since it is so NOT what modern Liberalism is about today. Perhaps that is why Dems are now shying away from the term LIBERAL in droves: they simply can’t handle the dishonesty anymore of not playing the part.
May 24th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Now see, all of the above is an example of how true democracy works; people disagree on almost everything, and yet they find ways of moving society forward. Americans work hard to ensure the success of democracy — perhaps the most difficult form of government ever devised by men. Compromise is difficult to accept by both sides of an issue because it at best presents a “second best” solution. Still, we keep trying, and we are largely successful. I’m not convinced that all progress is positive, however, but that’s just my personal view and no doubt reflects my age and experience. I think that progress only comes to us through our conflicting ideas, and were it not for our ability to find common ground, then we would be in a constant state of civil war. Slinging mud is one way of making a point, but so is calm, intellectual discourse. Mud slinging is fun, of course, but thoughtful responses are more productive.
To appreciate the American System, one only has to look at Europe. Europeans who enjoy hard work and accomplishing important things migrated to America; lazy Europeans remained behind, and this goes a long way to explain why socialism is so popular in Europe. They can just sit back and let other people run things while they kick in an extraordinary amount of money for taxes so that they can get “free stuff” for all the rest of their days.
Most republicans are American traditionalists in the sense that they believe that hard work and achievement are the catalysts of success. Democrats are closer to the socialist mentality. They believe that everything should be free (and nothing is ever free), globalism is the answer, and multi-culturalism is the path to enlightenment. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that socialism (the goal of which is communism) isn’t working worth a damn. In making their argument for “One America,” (John Edwards), Democrats want higher taxes, more government control over our lives, limitations to free speech, restrictions on religious beliefs, and a no-consequences society where crime pays and no one is ever punished. Democrats choose to follow the path of educational mediocrity and the worse form of economic discrimination I’ve ever seen within these borders. But of course, discrimination is not a new concept for democrats because it was they, after all, who gave us Jim Crow laws, segregation of schools and universities, and a hell of a fight to keep black people from voting in the United States.
Now, of course, democrats are crying in both houses of congress because they don’t have any power. And the reason for this is that the people of the United States determined, through the electoral process that democrats deserve no power. All of their ideas are bad ones. So then, if Democrats want to play, they need to move closer to the center of the political spectrum.
Not labels, just facts.
May 24th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
By anymore I meant the rest of it. I happen to enjoy this topic so I will continue to check in. Go ahead and call me names (and keep decrying the fact that you are such a martyr), it just proves you are a hypocrite (and an angry one at that). I will not respond with a tirade. Why should I? It would (again) cheapen the level of discourse so that we can just sit around pissing on each other in the name of political discussion.
You read my blog, thanks. You now label me extreme (along with a lot of other nonsense), wow - nice. I went onto say that To assume that the main players only wish to dominate a country and kill innocent civilians for economic gain is similarly dangerous. So what’s the issue here? I opened and welcomed debate. I aknowledged that both sides were short sighted. I asked if there are any other reasons we can ascribe for this war. To say that there is not one guy sitting in his office angling to get that no bid contract at the taxpayer’s expense is naive. On the other hand it is just as foolish and naive to justify the war on Bush’s faith, or Halliburton, or any of the other things that liberals decry (sometimes without reason or justification).
So NOBODY has any economic interests in this? NOBODY?!? Oh come on. I am not saying the war is not justified, but I don’t think it is justifiable using a singular criteria. In identifying those interests we may also be able to identify why the war was fought in the way that it was. How our rushing resulted in poor planning, no exit strategy and a situation that costs ******* lives.
I pointed out that there are a number of reasons for the war to exist and we should not focus on only one and create an environment so that we can all state what those reasons may be. Don’t pull my own words from another blog here. If you wish to comment on them, go there and do it. Of better yet, go to your complaints department - whatever that is.
Unfortunately some kiddies can’t seem to play nicely in the sandbox.
May 24th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Hey Mustang. I disagree with you in many, many ways, but I appreciate the tone in which you presented it and your recognition of the spirit of debate and discussion.
I think you may have been a bit liberal yourself with the peppering of your language with regards to economic and educational policies, but hey, a little jab here and there is nothing compared to mud slinging as you put it.
I just want to comment on your phrase that “globalism is the answer.” I don’t believe (or did not know) that this was a democratic issue. To me, it is a bi-partisan issue and the reason why I am truly not pleased with either side and think that such mud-slinging forces us to lose sight of larger issues.
Thanks guys.
May 24th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
By “globalism,” I meant to infer that Democrats more than Republicans believe the only real solutions to contemporary problems are through unilateral action. And if this was working, I’d have no argument; but it isn’t working and, as an American, I find it difficult to imagine why John Kerry (for one) thinks that the US should never act in its own defense without “unilateral” support. Notice that I didn’t mention the UN scandal because, sadly, there are crooks no matter where you look. So, for example, after a skillion UN resolutions didn’t work with respect to Iraq, someone had to stand up and say “enough is enough.” We shouldn’t jump into a war because war is horrible; but there are times when it becomes necessary. More importantly, did US action give terrorists (and those who harbor them) pause to think? Yes, it did.
It is too early to evaluate this from a historical persepctive, but I do not trust those with “globalist” ideas; they are idealistic and what we need is a does of reality. At least, that’s my point of view.
May 24th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Or did I mean to say “bilateral” support? LOL Bottom line, we should not need the UN’s permission to defend ourselves, our ideals, our friends.
May 24th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Ah. I see. Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant economic globalism.
I agree with a lot of what you said actually. Yet, if this is indeed a war to win over the “hearts and minds” of a foreign land, multinational support may have been important. Yet, actions have been taken and indeed history may reveal the folly or heroism of our actions (probably both).
May 24th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Not to mention that Saddam was offering UBL asylum after the embassy bombings. I personally think that was enough for Bill Clinton to remove Saddam from power, but up to that point I guess we never realized the magnitudes that terrorism could reach.
Main thing is that the war in Iraq is one and the same as the war on terror. Sen. Kennedy tells us that we are in more danger now, but it has been nearly 4 years since there has been an attack on the homeland, so obviously something is working, because all of the would be terrorists are being filtered out of the whole mideast region and sent into the terrorist butcher shop in Iraq. One by one like pigs to the slaughter…and how is this a bad thing?
May 24th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
More importantly … I need to object to the use of “Computer Geek-Boy” as an attack …
/TJ
May 24th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
“More importantly … I need to object to the use of “Computer Geek-Boy” as an attack.”
LOL - some people can’t handle the truth…I thought the Lefty wasn’t going to read this Blog anymore.:roll:
Oh, wait — isn’t that another Lib lie?:mrgreen:
May 26th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Hey Mustang,I have observed that many conservatives love to Talk about Robert Bird being a member of KKK.As a Black southerner from Alabma,let me point out soemthing you may have missed or overlooked.Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan who were’t from the South,were no fans of Black people.In fact,Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights act of 1965,and My father has told me he remembers when Ronald Reagan said that this bill was a huge mistake.Also the intial reason the GOP begin getting some leverage here in the South was because of what was happening during the civil rights movement.That is why Strom Thurmond left the party.Recently though it has been a litany of other issues that have hurt the party.But that is what started the intial exodus.Also,the South didn’t have a monoply on racism.The Northerners actually were worse.But they never got the recognition they deserved.I’ve been in places like Chicago,Detroit,and other cities blacks live on one side and the whites live on the other.That is a fact to this day.In the South if a White person didn’t like you he didn’t hide it from you ;but up North they’d grin in your face and stab you behind your back.You had defacto Segregation in the North.Also many blacks after the civil war were starting to identify themselves as Republicans but you know what happend after Reconstruction,the GOP abandoned us.Also you may not have known this either but between 1914 and 1928 The Klan had a huge membership all over the country not just in the south.If they weren’t in the Klan they were Klan sympathizers.The Northeast and the Midwest were bastions of this,you couldn’t even get elected unless you were a member of the Klan.To also show how much influence these people wielded they had a big parade in the 1920’s marching down Pennsylvania Avenue.There was hardly any criticm in our media about it,only from the black press at the time were critical of this.Then you had those as I mentioned before that joined because of politics like Justice Hugo Black.But what I’m pointing out is that neither party has been”white as snow” on this issue both of have had their regretful screwups.So Bob Bird as embarassing as he is now, was not the only former member of a White supremecists group or have actually had the sympathies with such groups.