Sen. Edward Kennedy says voting against the Iraq war
By on Jun 3rd, 2006 at 9:36 am
Sen. Edward Kennedy says voting against the Iraq war
was “the best vote I have cast in the United States Senate since I was elected in 1962.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
82 Responses to “Sen. Edward Kennedy says voting against the Iraq war”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
Archives
In an evil society, the righteous are seen as evil.
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:45 amTell it like it is, Ed!
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:47 amWhatever else may be said about the war in Iraq, it is the biggest military defeat in US history. Presumably, Rumsfeld, under orders from Rove, conducted the war is such a way as to avoid universal conscription. This crass political calculation robbed the US of whatever chance it may have had for victory.
Voting against the war was correct for administrative as well as moral reasons.
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:50 am“This crass political calculation robbed the US of whatever chance it may have had for victory.”
The US has no right for victory. It started a war based on one lie after another, invaded and killed thousands (so far), and now thanks to bush and crew is bogged down in a sand dune half way around the world where they shouldn’t be in the first place. Looking forward to the video showing the choppers evacuating Bagdad like the ones from 30 years ago in Nam.
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:00 amWhen will people ever learn that being uberpatriot (sheep) accomplishes nothing.
The war on Iraq and its occupation was never to help its people, but to seize its OIL fields!
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:08 amControl of Iraq’s crude has allowed the Oil Cartels to jack up gasoline prices and profits! Americans never should have allowed an Oil industry stooge, the Dubya Dunce Decider, to get into the presidency! War on Iran is next, which will trigger global WWIII, and our doom!
Yes, but George Bush prayed to God and God told him to invade Iraq, so what’s the big deal?
The mission has been accomplished, there has been victory, the Iraqis are free, their economy is booming, there are flowers everywhere, the Iraqi wives are baking cakes for every coalition soldier over there, it’s a lollalapooza of happiness.
Everybody is jumping for joy. Don’t worry, be happy.
Senator Kennedy doesn’t have a clue, listen to George Bush and the Bush Cabinet. They know what they’re doing.
It’s June, so Flag Day is coming. Then, it’ll be the Fourth of July. Be a good American for crying out loud.
Quit cher beefin’
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:09 amlollalapooza upsidasium
lollapalooza
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 amSen. Ted Kennedy was correct to not have voted for the Iraq war, but he should have convinced his fellow Senators to have not backed it > that failure of the Senate screwed us all and global world war looms now with an attack on Iran!
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 amGive Ted Kennedy credit for doing what was morally right.
The Pope told us the war was illegal and immoral. Nelson Mandella told us the war was illegal and immoral. More than a million marched in the streets of London demanding that we not start this pre-emptive war. More than a million marched in the streets of Rome demanding that we not start this war. It was obvious to me as an interested American citizen that the war would prove to be a disaster.
My question: why were so many Democratic Senators “conned” into voting for this war? Did their votes have something to do with AIPAC money?
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:19 amIn the new world order, patriotism to the corporate state is demanded from its citizens. Forget borders, hail GE!
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 amAs George Clooney put it, they were afraid of being called traitors, or un-American. It was basically groupthink.
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:36 amUnfortunately Bush has no plans to leave Iraq until the oil contracts are signed up which was spose to happen in early 2006 hence theres no goverment in Iraq for the first 5 months as the iraqis do not want this to happen ( Bushes plans are to sign up the oil contracts and hide in the superbases)
Next problem is in December the American UN mandate runs out and can only stay in Iraq inder Iraqi control - Big Problem unless you illegallu occupy Iraq ( Again)
Next Bush Cannot pull out and say to the American peoples - Well I’m Heckava Sorry about your 300 billion and the state of the economy and troop loses
Whatever happens you have lost the hearts and minds of The Iraqi people you will never ever get the oil contracts - Hopfully germany,France and Russia get them —–America you are living in hope of stealing - -
Bushes next plans are to use the troops to surround Iran and create santions though a totally surrounded country and use the troops in Iraq as means to this
Well done and congrats to Sen. Edward Kennedy for being so Honest just what the world doctor ordered
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 amMy Proof of the oil contracts to be drawn up early 2006
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:42 amGreat, but how’s his fishing been? \sarcasm
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 amThe next best action Senator Edward Kennedy can take is to join his nephew Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and raise his voice against wide-spread voter fraud in Florida, Ohio and across the nation. Although we cannot undo the dammage, for example the Iraq war, his voice would be helpful in preventing further voter fraud in the upcoming 2006 election. Americans must be able to trust the democratic process and be able to paticipate in it. That is the “way of life” were are defending, isn’t it?
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:53 am15: I would not like to vote on an electronic machine or should it represent what people voted for
Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted — enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 amThe problem is that Kennedy voted against the resolution because he is anti-war. Which is as stupid as being pro-war.
He is against any war. He voted against the Gulf War, too.
It’s all about liberal ideology for him.
He is not like Dean or Gore who are neither anti-war or pro-war but pragmatic. They supported the Gulf War but opposed this invasion simply because we had another unfinished war going on against the very people who, unlike Saddam, actually attacked us and they didn’t want to divert resources and attention from that war.
And look what is going on now in Afghanistan? It is falling apart.
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:05 amRemember Paul Wellstone, an honorable man and US Senator. May he rest in peace.
George Bush and the ‘Republicans’ can go to hell.
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:23 am17: The problem is that Kennedy voted against the resolution because he is anti-war. Which is as stupid as being pro-war.
He is against any war. He voted against the Gulf War, too.
It’s all about liberal ideology for him.
The UN has a clear charter about another country being invaded and will use the power of war though aliances to regain any country
And Kuwait was an invented country once again by the british . .about 1954 i think
Tibet was taken by the chinese as Tibet had no UN abasador and so was not protected by the UN. which Tibet no regret
The UN cannot get involved in internal desputes within a country - But if your america and Britain you ignore this UN charter and bomb Bosnia anyway - illegal
So Kennedy has the correct stance - dont worry about america its illegal for any country to invade under the UN - and if any country did invade america I would help to regain control though any means even insurgency and I live in scotland, Thats world understanding, in this day and age theres no need for wars really so mellow out have a big joint of manali cream or nepalise temple ball and chill out
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:26 am17: The problem is that Kennedy voted against the resolution because he is anti-war. Which is as stupid as being pro-war.
He is against any war. He voted against the Gulf War, too.
It’s all about liberal ideology for him.
The UN has a clear charter about another country being invaded and will use the power of war though aliances to regain any country
And Kuwait was an invented country once again by the british . .about 1954 i think
Tibet was taken by the chinese as Tibet had no UN abasador and so was not protected by the UN. which Tibet now regret
The UN cannot get involved in internal desputes within a country - But if your america and Britain you ignore this UN charter and bomb Bosnia anyway - illegal
So Kennedy has the correct stance - dont worry about america its illegal for any country to invade under the UN - and if any country did invade america I would help to regain control though any means even insurgency and I live in scotland, Thats world understanding, in this day and age theres no need for wars really so mellow out have a big joint of manali cream or nepalise temple ball and chill out
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:26 am17: The problem is that Kennedy voted against the resolution because he is anti-war. Which is as stupid as being pro-war.
He is against any war. He voted against the Gulf War, too.
It’s all about liberal ideology for him.
The UN has a clear charter about another country being invaded and will use the power of war though aliances to regain any country
And Kuwait was an invented country once again by the british . .about 1954 i think
Tibet was taken by the chinese as Tibet had no UN abasador and so was not protected by the UN. which Tibet now regret
The UN cannot get involved in internal desputes within a country - But if your america and Britain you ignore this UN charter and bomb Bosnia anyway - illegal
So Kennedy has the correct stance - dont worry about america its illegal for any country to invade under the UN - and if any country did invade america I would help to regain control though any means even insurgency and I live in scotland, Thats world understanding, in this day and age theres no need for wars really so mellow out have a big joint of manali cream or nepalise temple ball and chill out
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:27 amooops
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 amSen. Ted Kennedy was unable to get Sen. John Kerry to not vote against the Iraq war and they both represent Mass. together! They each canceled the other’s vote on the war! The Senate is all about getting a majority to vote yes or no on something > a single Senator voting individually means nothing! Easy to vote NO when your vote is meaningless!
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 amNot true, gringo. Look at Kennedy’s voting record for 2001 where he voted in favor or using military force against those responsbile for the terrorist attacks or governments that harbor those responsible (Afghanistan). You can find his voting record at Project Vote Smart http://www.vote-smart.org/ voting_category.php?can_id=S0410103
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 amYou have to wonder what my other senator, Kerry, thinks about that.
“Before the war, America railed against the Iraqi leader for slaughtering innocent Iraqis. Now the Iraqi leader is railing against America for slaughtering innocent Iraqis.†— Maureen Dowd, “Teaching Remedial Decency.â€
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:31 amIn light of what’s actually being done in Iraq, we have to take responsibility as citizens to end this criminal nightmare!
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:35 ami found this, via crooksandliars and a liberal dose… a must see:
Robert Newman’s History of Oil
45 minutes, the queen’s english, VERY entertaining and interesting…
take the time… enjoy… pass it around…
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 amTracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, scoffed at the criticism, saying “Kennedy’s pessimism does nothing to keep America safe.”
Puny, weak, bedwetter. Waaaah!
June 3rd, 2006 at 12:58 pm#18 - Hey Ron, Jim Fetzer is the biggest embarrassment to Minnesota politics since we fell asleep and allowed a professional wrestler to become governor. Tell Pasadena they can have him back, because we don’t want him. Fetzer belongs in an insane asylum along with Ward Churchill. I remember the media coverage following the Wellstone crash, and the cause was irrefutably determined to be pilot error. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/uscongress/a/wellstonentsb.htm). Furthermore, there are several other “points†in his story that conflict with reality. Nevertheless, Fetzer will probably produce another fine left wing crokumentary supporting his “theoryâ€. It sickens me that Minnesota taxpayer dollars are paying this HACK’S salary.
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:35 pm“All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.” -Schoepenhouer
I do not know what happened to the airplane. I don’t know if it was pilot error. It is a suspicious accident because of the fact that it was a Senate seat up for election and Senator Paul Wellstone was against, at the time, the potential military action in Iraq.
That’s a red flag.
I don’t trust the ‘Republicans’ anymore.
June 3rd, 2006 at 2:38 pm30 - Ron, you are entitled to not trust the Republicans, but making devious and totally uncorroborated accusations of this magnitude is another matter. Just because it was a Senate seat up for election and Wellstone was against the potential military action in Iraq does not make it suspicious. In fact, Coleman was ahead of Wellstone in the polls at the time of the accident. Before you and this crackpot Fetzer can even suggest it was anything but an accident, don’t you need at least a tiny scrap of credible supporting evidence? There were numerous articles written in the all the local media about the inexperienced record of the pilot, that there was freezing rain at the time of the accident, and the tiny, remote airport they were flying into was not equipped with any sophisticated communication to aid in pilot navigation. But I suppose Cheney was somehow able to arrange for all of that too. Can’t you see that by supporting these kinds of wacky accusations made by psychos like Fetzer, you do nothing but drive rational voters AWAY from the left? If there is any red flags to be waived here, it is that any sane human being would be gullible enough to buy Fetzer’s self serving crap.
June 3rd, 2006 at 3:46 pmOn the BBC news last night on television
Venezuela Backs Plan to Sell Oil in Euros
CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela supports the idea of selling oil in euros instead of U.S. dollars, a proposal also supported by fellow OPEC member Iran, the country’s oil minister said.
“Iran has an initiative that we support. They are going to start to do oil transactions in euros,” Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said Thursday in an interview with state television.
Selling oil in euros would in theory boost world demand for the European currency at the expense of the dollar.
June 3rd, 2006 at 4:16 pmI Just Paid for this article £1
Robert Fisk: On the shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq
Could Haditha be just the tip of the mass grave? The corpses we have glimpsed, the grainy footage of the cadavers and the dead children; could these be just a few of many? Does the handiwork of America’s army of the slums go further?
Published: 03 June 2006
I remember clearly the first suspicions I had that murder most foul might be taking place in our name in Iraq. I was in the Baghdad mortuary, counting corpses, when one of the city’s senior medical officials - an old friend - told me of his fears. “Everyone brings bodies here,” he said. “But when the Americans bring bodies in, we are instructed that under no circumstances are we ever to do post-mortems. We were given to understand that this had already been done. Sometimes we’d get a piece of paper like this one with a body.” And here the man handed me an American military document showing the hand-drawn outline of a man’s body and the words “trauma wounds”.
What kind of trauma? Indeed, what kind of trauma is now being experienced in Iraq? Who is doing the mass killing? Who is dumping so many bodies on garbage heaps? After Haditha, we are going to reshape our suspicions.
It’s no good saying “a few bad apples”. All occupation armies are corrupted. But do they all commit war crimes? The Algerians are still uncovering the mass graves left by the French paras who liquidated whole villages. We know of the rapist-killers of the Russian army in Chechnya. We have all heard of Bloody Sunday. The Israelis sat and watched while their proxy Lebanese militia butchered and eviscerated its way through 1,700 Palestinians. And of course the words “My Lai” are now uttered again. Yes, the Nazis were much worse. And the Japanese. And the Croatian Ustashi. But this is Us. This is Our army. These young soldiers are our representatives in Iraq. And they have innocent blood on their hands.
I suspect that part of the problem is that we never really cared about Iraqis - which is why we refused to count their dead, enumerating only our own losses. And once the Iraqis turned upon the army of occupation with their roadside bombs and suicide cars, they became Arab “gooks”, the cowardly, murderous, evil sub-humans whom the Americans once identified in Vietnam. Get a president to tell us that we are fighting evil and one day we will wake to find that a child has horns, a baby has cloven feet. Remind yourself that these people are Muslims and they can all become little Mohammed Attas. Killing a roomful of civilians is only a step further along the road from all those promiscuous air strikes which we are told kill ” terrorists” but which all too often turn out to be a wedding party.
In a way, we reporters are also to blame. Unable to venture outside Baghdad - or indeed around Baghdad itself - Iraq’s vastness has fallen under a thick, all-consuming shadow. We might occasionally notice sparks in the night - a Haditha or two in the desert - but we remain now meekly cataloguing the numbers of “terrorists” supposedly scored in remote corners of Mesopotamia. For fear of the insurgent’s knife, we can no longer investigate. And the Americans like it that way. Who knows what horrors have been committed far away in the sands?
I think it becomes a “habit”, this sort of thing. Already the horrors of Abu Ghraib are shrugged away. Oh, that! It was abuse - not torture. And then up pops a junior officer in the United States charged for killing an Iraqi army general by stuffing him upside-down in a sleeping bag and sitting on his chest. And again, it gets few headlines. Who cares if another Iraqi bites the dust? Aren’t they trying to kill our boys who are out there fighting terror? When a young American seeks political asylum in Canada, a colleague turns up to give evidence on his behalf. “Terrorists ” had put babies on the road of Fallujah to stop American vehicles - and then blown them up. So now, he said, the soldiers were ordered not to stop for babies.
For who can be held to account when we regard ourselves as the brightest, the most honourable of creatures, doing endless battle with the killers of 11 September or 7 July because we love our country and our people - but not other people - so much?
And so we dress ourselves up as Galahads, yes as Crusaders, and we tell those whose countries we invade that we are going to bring them democracy.
I can’t help wondering today how many of the innocents slaughtered in Haditha took the opportunity to vote in the Iraqi elections - before their ” liberators” murdered them.
June 3rd, 2006 at 5:22 pmMakes me thirsty
June 3rd, 2006 at 5:43 pmWhat Is the Mission?
by Charley Reese
President Bush teared up on Memorial Day and said we must complete the mission in Iraq to honor the 18,000 wounded and 2,400-plus dead.
Well, I have a question. What is the mission?
Is it to overthrow Saddam Hussein? He’s been overthrown and is awaiting execution by a kangaroo court we selected to do the hit.
Is it to allow the Iraqi people to hold elections? They’ve held three elections – one for an interim government, one for a Constitution, and one for a permanent government, which is now in place except for two Cabinet positions.
Oh, I forgot that when the president was selling this war, he said the mission was to disarm Saddam because he had all those awful weapons of mass destruction. Well, of course, they didn’t exist, and now the president doesn’t talk about them.
But if the purpose was to install an elected government, why are we still there? Why are we spending half a billion dollars to build the world’s largest embassy, one that dwarfs Saddam’s palaces and that ticks off the Iraqi people? Why, after three years and billions of our tax dollars, do the Iraqi people lack electricity, clean water and sewers? They had all those things under Saddam until we destroyed them with our bombs and missiles.
And if we want the Iraqi army to handle security, why are its soldiers still driving around in Toyotas? Where are their armored personnel carriers, their tanks, their light machine guns and light artillery? Surely there is a lot of that stuff left over. Why doesn’t the president stop spreading heifer dust? We take an 18-year-old kid, give him 18 weeks of training and ship him off to combat. Is this administration saying it takes five years to train an Iraqi lad?
I think the only real mission left is to wipe the egg off the president’s face. The invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional. There was no declaration of war, just a namby-pamby, you-can-use-force-if-you-want-to resolution passed by those spineless mountebanks who inhabit Congress. It was illegal under international law, since Iraq had not attacked us or even threatened to attack us. Iraq was cooperating with the arms inspectors and telling the truth about the lack of weapons. That’s why the U.N. Security Council refused to give the president the resolution he wanted as a cover for his war.
Most of all, though, it was flat stupid, as anybody who knows the Middle East could have told him. To use a favorite phrase of his father, when the prez ordered the invasion of Iraq, he stepped into deep doo-doo of the camel variety. I doubt if he knows how to get out of Iraq even if he wanted to, and I don’t think he does. I think he intends to stay there indefinitely.
And if that’s his intention, then he should tell the American people that their sons and daughters will continue to die or be maimed indefinitely. The Iraqis are a fierce people. No elf is going to sprinkle fairy dust on them and make them fall in love with us. Why should they? We destroyed their country and caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children just with the sanctions, not counting the thousands we’ve killed since then.
The Iraqis have many admirable traits, but I don’t think forgiveness is one of them. Does the president remember what the Iraqi father told an American officer when the officer asked what compensation he would accept for his son, whom one of our soldiers had killed? He said, “Ten dead Americans.”
And what has the president’s blundering accomplished? He’s converted an old enemy of Iran into a new ally of Iran. Did he hear the Iraqi prime minister when he said no attacks on Iran from Iraqi soil will be tolerated? Did the president hear him when he said Iran has a right to enrich uranium? The president has created gas lines in an oil-rich country. He’s restarted inflation and the Cold War.
Perhaps we’re the ones who should be tearing up. We have two more years of this guy, and he still believes that, except for a misspoke word now and then, he’s done everything right. At least he’s smart enough not to go hunting with Dick Cheney. That’s our small consolation.
June 3rd, 2006 at 6:08 pmcharley reese is one of a few conservatives i can stand to read - but then he is of the old school, not one of these neoCONs… a REAL conservative… i actually miss those kind…
June 3rd, 2006 at 6:34 pmI know Charley Reese from when I lived in Florida > he worked for the Orlando Sentinel at the time, and I called him up one day to write a piece on the problems in Haiti! He was very cordial to me and listened to my information and wrote a fine commentary on Haiti for me!
I have an appreciation for his views and he believes that Dubya Dunce Decider is stupid!
June 3rd, 2006 at 7:26 pmAnother fine newspaper columnist is Molly Ivins > very sweet person to chat with on the phone > she did a few pieces on Haiti years ago that were helpful to restore Pres. Aristide to power in the mid 1990s!
June 3rd, 2006 at 7:31 pmTeddy kennedy is a cowardly, drunken, murderer. He should be in prison instead of the senate.
June 3rd, 2006 at 7:46 pmLooking forward to the video showing the choppers evacuating Bagdad like the ones from 30 years ago in Nam.
Ah, so typical of the left - always rooting for defeat.
June 3rd, 2006 at 7:53 pmThe left is just as deranged as the bible thumpers on the right. Both groups are chock full of mental midgets.
June 3rd, 2006 at 7:58 pmRicky so much bile and hate for people you disagree with,,,why do you think so little of your self you must come here and spew it on to others?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:02 pmCliffy, so sorry to break up your leftist hatefest.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:10 pm#39 - [George W. Bush] is a cowardly, [incompetent], drunken, [cocaine addled], murderer. He should be in prison instead of the [White House].
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:51 pmIt’s not surprising that the left and the islamo-fascists are
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:59 pmallies
Ricky you seem to be the one with all the hate…why is it the reich wungnut christofascists who hate so much…when Jesus said Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, 5:45 so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors55 do the same, don’t they? 5:47 And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they? 5:48 So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Wonder if Ricky loves his enemies as Jesus tells him so?
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:30 pmPost 45 lol > you used the key word “islamo-fascists” on here, which is a word that only the troll I-Right-I uses regularly on TP threads > hello I-R-I and a new screen name huh?
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:33 pm#47 - IRI usually uses “islamo-fascist” in conjunction with the word “headchoppers,” so this might be his cousin. ;)
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:41 pmPost 48 lol maybe Rick is I-R-I’s secret male lover?
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:52 pmBut Jay wouldn’t that make IRI another two faced delusional reichwinnut?..Oh I see they all are…my bad
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:06 pm#49 - I was thinking Rick would be perfect for Mighty Teabagger.
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:10 pmToby, #34 and #35, thanks for those articles.
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:15 pmIt’s obvious they struck a nerve with the chickenhawk Rick. It’s hard for Rick to see the truth before him, he was raised as an idiot and feels comfortable as an idiot.
I doubt he’ll be able to get it up tonight now.
Good job, you saved a child from the unthinkable at least for tonight.
Teddy kennedy is a cowardly, drunken, murderer.
Comment by Rick —
To Rick,
Any comments on the fatal car crash caused by Laura Welch Bush?
From nndb.com
“First Lady under George W. Bush
On the night of November 6, 1963, 17-year-old Laura Welch ran a stop sign in the family Chevy at the intersection of State Highway 349 and Farm Road 868 near Midland, Texas. She plowed into a Corvair sedan, killing its driver — classmate (and purported boyfriend) Michael Dutton Douglas. “
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:27 pmRicky like all these corrupt repugs?
Why do right-wing talk show loudmouths trash Senator Kennedy?
by
Gerald Plessner
March 24, 2006 - Have you ever wondered why talk show hosts trash Democratic Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy so viciously?
You cannot listen to a talk show loud mouth for more than half-an-hour without hearing about Chappaquiddick, an island in Massachusetts where the young Ted Kennedy was involved in an automobile accident that killed a young woman. That was in 1969, thirty-seven years ago.
Maybe the pro-Bush radio and television talk show hacks are using Teddy Kennedy because they want to keep their listeners angry and keep them from remembering:
* Republican George W. Bush’s alcoholism;
* Republican Dick Cheney’s five-deferment draft evasion during the Vietnam era;
* Republican Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s indictment for lying under oath;
* Republican Rush Limbaugh’s drug addiction and illegal mass drug purchases;
* Republican David Safavian, the White House procurement official arrested for illegal activities in the procurement of government contracts;
* Republican Karl Rove’s possible indictment for leaking the name of a CIA agent, thereby breaking her cover and placing her in danger for her life;
* Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his close friendship since being a college Young Republican with the following three money-hungry Republican politicians;
* Tom DeLay, who has been indicted in Texas for money laundering and took frequent trips to Scotland for golf and large political gifts from Abramoff;
* Republican Ralph Reed, candidate for lieutenant governor of Georgia and former fair-haired boy of the Christian Coalition, who took million dollar fees for supporting Indian gambling interests while condemning gambling as immoral and un-Christian;
* Grover Norquist, who is the White House’s manager of money collection among “K” Street lobbyists, and who is committed to destroying our government;
* And all those times Jack Abramoff visited the president in the Oval Office when they were photographed together.
And then there are:
* Republican Richard Nixon’s Watergate crimes;
* Republican Newt Gingrich’s committing adultery on two — count ‘em — two consecutive wives;
* Republican Oliver North’s perjury before Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal in the Republican Ronald Reagan administration;
* Republican morals guru William Bennett’s gambling addiction;
* Republican former Congressman Henry Hyde, who prosecuted Bill Clinton for sex offenses and then dismissed his own “youthful indiscretion”, when he cheated on his wife with a female employee when he was 40 years old;
* Republican Casper Weinberger’s conviction for perjury which was pardoned by his friend and president Ronald Reagan;
* Republican preacher and television conglomerate owner Pat Robertson, who acquired his multi-million dollar wealth by acquiring and converting a tax-exempt non-profit organization to his and his son’s benefit;
* Republican senator Jesse Helms’ racism and race baiting to win elections;
* Current Republican House Member Don Sherwood of Pennsylvania and his recently disclosed adulterous relationship with a woman half his age;
* Convicted liar Elliott Abrams who works on the National Security Council in the White House;
* Republican television talking head John Fund who had an incest-like sexual relationship with the daughter of his former lover;
* Former Republican Congressman Robert Livingston of Louisiana who resigned as speaker-designate of the House of Representatives when it was learned that he was an adulterer;
* Neil Bush, the president’s brother who was almost indicted in the savings and loan scandal but for the fact that his father was vice president;
* Former senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who impregnated a black domestic employee when a young man and went on to be one of America’s nastiest racists before his conversion to Republicanism;
* Current CIA director John Negroponte, who was managed and supported CIA-trained Contra guerillas in Honduras in the 1980s, sharing responsibility for extensive human rights abuses and murders of Sandinista supporters and a number of Catholic Nuns.
* Connecticut Republican governor John G. Rowland, who pled guilty to taking bribes and went to prison for his crimes;
* George Roche, III, president and founder of the most conservative college in America, Conservative hero and incestuous adulterer whose daughter-in-law committed suicide when their many-years relationship was discovered.
Given Teddy Kennedy’s record of public service over the last 40 years, is there any reason to believe that any individual mentioned above is a person of greater achievement or integrity?
Add to the list a guilty Gov Taft of Ohio and an indited Gov Fletcher of Kentucky,
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:43 pmHitler the Greenie
And Hitler also of course foreshadowed the Red/Green alliance of today. The Nazis were in fact probably the first major political party in the Western world to have a thoroughgoing “Green” agenda. I take the following brief summary from Andrew Bolt:
Hitler’s preaching about German strength and destiny was water in the desert to the millions of Germans who’d been stripped of pride, security and hope by their humiliating defeat in World War I, and the terrible unemployment that followed.
The world was also mad then with the idea that a dictatorial government should run the economy itself and make it “efficient”, rather than let people make their own decisions.
The Nazis — National Socialists — promised some of that, and their sibling rivals in the Communist Party more.
The theory of eugenics — breeding only healthy people — was also in fashion, along with a cult of health.
The Nazis, with their youth camps and praise of strong bodies and a strong people, endorsed all that, and soon were killing the retarded, the gay and the different.
Tribalism was popular, too. People weren’t individuals, but members of a class, as the communists argued, or of a race, as the Nazis said. Free from freedom — what a relief for the scared!
You’d think we’d have learned. But too much of such thinking is back and changing us so fast that we can’t say how our society will look by the time we die.
A KIND of eugenics is with us again, along with an obsession for perfect bodies.
Children in the womb are being killed just weeks before birth for the sin of being a dwarf, for instance, and famed animal rights philosopher Peter Singer wants parents free to kill deformed children in their first month of life. Meanwhile support for euthanasia for the sick, tired or incompetent grows.
As for tribalism, that’s also back — and as official policy. We now pay people to bury their individuality in tribes, giving them multicultural grants or even an Aboriginal “parliament”.
But most dangerous is that we strip our children of pride, security and even hope. They are taught that God is dead, our institutions corrupt, our people racist, our land ruined, our past evil and our future doomed by global warming.
Many have also watched one of their parents leave the family home, which to some must seem a betrayal.
They are then fed a culture which romanticises violence and worships sex — telling them there is nothing more to life than the cravings of their bodies.
No one can live like this and be fulfilled. People need to feel part of something bigger and better than ourselves — a family, or a church, or a tradition or a country. Or, as a devil may whisper, the greens.
The greens. Here’s a quote which may sound very familiar — at least in part. “We recognise that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. “Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger . .
“This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”
That was Ernst Lehmann, a leading biologist under the Nazi regime, in 1934, and he wasn’t alone. Hitler, for one, was an avid vegetarian and green, addicted to homoepathic cures. His regime sponsored the creation of organic farming, and SS leader Heinrich Himmler even grew herbs on his own organic farm with which to treat his beloved troops.
HITLER also banned medical experiments on animals, but not, as we know to our grief, on Jewish children. And he created many national parks, particularly for Germany’s “sacred” forests.
This isn’t a coincidence. The Nazis drew heavily on a romantic, anti-science, nature worshipping, communal and anti-capitalist movement that tied German identity to German forests. In fact, Professor Raymond Dominick notes in his book, The Environmental Movement in Germany, two-thirds of the members of Germany’s main nature clubs had joined the Nazi Party by 1939, compared with just 10 per cent of all men.
The Nazis also absorbed the German Youth Movement, the Wandervogel, which talked of our mystical relationship with the earth. Peter Staudenmaier, co-author of Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, says it was for the Wandervogel that the philosopher Ludwig Klages wrote his influential essay Man and Earth in 1913.
In it, Klages warned of the growing extinction of species, the destruction of forests, the genocide of aboriginal peoples, the disruption of the ecosystem and the killing of whales. People were losing their relationship with nature, he warned.
Heard all that recently? I’m not surprised. This essay by this notorious anti-Semite was republished in 1980 to mark the birth of the German Greens — the party that inspired the creation of our own Greens party.
Its message is much as Hitler’s own in Mein Kampf: “When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall.”
Why does this matter now? Because we must learn that people who want animals to be treated like humans really want humans to be treated like animals.
We must realise a movement that stresses “natural order” and the low place of man in a fragile world, is more likely to think man is too insignificant to stand in the way of Mother Earth, or the Fatherland, or some other man-hating god.
We see it already. A Greenpeace co-founder, Paul Watson, called humans the “AIDS of the earth”, and one of the three key founders of the German Greens, Herbert Gruhl, said the environmental crisis was so acute the state needed perhaps “dictatorial powers”.
And our growing church of nature worshippers insist that science make way for their fundamentalist religion, bringing us closer to a society in which muscle, not minds, must rule.
It’s as a former head of Greenpeace International, Patrick Moore, says: “In the name of speaking for the trees and other species, we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism.”
This threat is still small. But if we don’t resist it today, who knows where it will sweep us tomorrow?
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:25 pmThis is the same Hitler that Presscott Bush and Georgesother grandfather..Grandpa walker both got in trouble for aiding and abeeting in 1942…..by having a bank they were involved with seized for colaberating with the enemy..the Nazi party…of Germany 1942 the year after pearl harbor after Germany declared WAR on the US?
June 4th, 2006 at 12:20 amRick,
Congratulations. I don’t recall having ever seen anyone accomplish such contortions with history, religion, science and politics. Is your body equally nimble? If so, go and pleasure yourself. Long and hard.
June 4th, 2006 at 1:02 amLeftist denials of Hitler’s Leftism: Kangas
Modern day Leftists of course hate it when you point out to them that Hitler was one of them. They deny it furiously — even though in Hitler’s own day both the orthodox Leftists who represented the German labor unions (the SPD) and the Communists (KPD) voted WITH the Nazis in the Reichstag (German Parliament) on various important occasions.
As part of that denial, an essay by Steve Kangas is much reproduced on the internet. Entering the search phrase “Hitler was a Leftist” will bring up multiple copies of it. Kangas however reveals where he is coming from in his very first sentence: “Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production”. It does? Only to Marxists. So Kangas is saying only that Hitler was less Leftist than the Communists — and that would not be hard. Surely a “democratic” Leftist should see that as faintly to Hitler’s credit, in fact.
At any event, Leonard Peikoff makes clear the triviality of the difference:
Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation’s economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property — so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.
Which sounds just like the Leftists of today.
Some other points made by Kangas are highly misleading. He says for instance that Hitler favoured “competition over co-operation”. Hitler in fact rejected Marxist notions of class struggle and had as his great slogan: “Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer” (One State, one people, one leader). He ultimately wanted Germans to be a single, unified, co-operating whole under him, with all notions of social class or other divisions forgotten. Other claims made by Kangas are simply laughable: He says that Hitler cannot have been a Leftist because he favoured: “politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy”. Phew! So Stalin was not political, not a militarist and not a dictator? Enough said.
In summary, then, Kangas starts out by defining socialism in such a way that only Communists can be socialists and he then defines socialism in a way that would exclude Stalin from being one! So is ANYBODY a socialist according to Kangas? Only Mr Brain-dead Kangas himself, I guess. And Kangas fancies himself as an authority on Leftism! Perhaps he is. He has certainly got the self-contradictory part down pat.
June 4th, 2006 at 1:44 amRick the communists were hitlers scape goats before he got elected..and the battle for germany in the late 20’s and early 30’s was between the Nazi’s right wing fascists and the communists left wing fascists…Both sides agreed upon central control..the communists claimed it was from the workers…the right the owners ..which Hitler sided with…People like Henry Ford…Thomas Edison..Presscott Bush…George Herbert Walker,(the last two chimpy’s grandpas)..among others…
the Nazi past of the Bush family, via its 27-year business relationship with Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen from 1924 until 1951. Both Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George W. Bush, and George Herbert Walker, his maternal great-grandfather, were part of the partnership, under the banner of the private bank Brown Brothers Harriman.
Beginning in August 1942, those Nazi-front business assets were seized by the U.S. government under The Trading with the Enemy Act. The seizures continued until 1951, when Thyssen, the financial architect of The Third Reich, died in Argentina. It was the liquidation of those Nazi assets after Thyssen’s death that were the foundation of the Bush family fortune.
Along with the recently published documents long suppressed by the US government confirms the connections between Prescott Bush, Averell Harriman’s bank and the Thyssen/Flich armaments empire and the profits generated from the slave labour used at Auschwitz concentration camp. Moreover, the millions made by Prescott Bush out of the Nazi connection were placed into a blind trust by former president George Bush for his son, the current president in 1980. Bush Senior’s share came to around $1.5 million.
The father of Fritz Thyssen, August Thyssen started up Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart in Rotterdam at the end of WWI. After the war ended Fritz’s younger brother Baron Thyssen Bornemisza de Kaszon moved to Rotterdam and took over the running of the bank.
Railroad baron EH Harriman gave his son Averell Harriman an investment firm WA Harriman and Company, based in New York City. In 1922 Averell Harriman went to Berlin and set up a branch of the company there.
By 1923 the Germany economy was buggered and there had been a succession of Communist uprisings that was scaring the big capitalists shitless. Thyssen was introduced to Hitler by General Ludendorff and a meeting took place in Munich where Hitler told them that the Nazi party was broke and needed money to fight the ‘Communist/Jewish conspiracy’. Thyssen gave Hitler 100,000 gold marks (around $25,000) and a number of other big capitalists also donated money.
In 1924, the Thyssens through Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart opened the Union Banking Corporation. In the same year Hendrick J Kouwenhoven, the MD of the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart travelled to New York and together with Averell Harriman, they opened the New York branch of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC).
Walker and Harriman’s firm sold around $50,000,000 of German bonds through the 1920s, profiting from the recovering German economy. Meanwhile Frtiz Thyssen formed the United Steel Works, the biggest industrial conglomerate in Germany. Thyssen also brought Freidich Flich (iron and steel) and another Hitler backer onboard.
In the same year (1926) George Herbert Walker bought his son-in-law Prescott Bush into the company, making him vice president of Harriman and Co. Walker hired Bush to supervise the new Thyssen/Flich United Steel works. One company in their empire was called the Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and another the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company both located in Poland near the future Auschwitz concentration camp.
Meanwhile Hitler’s Nazi Party was broke once more, so in 1928 he approached Fritz Thyssen again and hit him up for a huge sum of money (estimates run between 250,000 and 1,000,000 German marks) to buy Barlow Palace in Munich and turn it into the Nazi Party Headquarters.
Then came the Depression and Harriman & Co merged with a London company, Brown/Shipley and Harriman & Co became Brown Brothers, Harriman. The firm moved to 59 Wall Street but the Union Banking Corporation remained at 39 Broadway. Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush formed a new company, Harriman 15 Corporation. One of the companies Harriman 15 Corp owned 1/3rd of the stock in was Consolidated Silesian Steel Company. The other 2/3rds was owned by Freidrich Flich.
In 1932 Fritz Thyssen joined the Nazi Party and by 1934 with Hitler firmly in power, he contracted the Thyseen/Flich empire to rebuild the German military machine. Thyssen and Flick were making money hand over fist and so was UBC in New York. Prescott Bush was made managing director of UBC and handled the day-to-day operations of the Thyssen/Flich empire. Then in 1934 the Polish government threatened to takeover the Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company for non-payment of taxes and other corrupt practices. Bush hired John Foster Dulles to paper over the ripoff. But in 1939 Hitler invaded Poland and of course the takeover never occurred.
One of the reasons Auschwitz was built in Upper Silesia was because it was located near the vast coal deposits and one of the companies that employed the slave labour from Aushwitz was the Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation. Then Thyssen and Flich sold Consolidated to UBC and under the total control of Harriman and Bush it became the Silesian American Corporation.
Not only did Prescott Bush’s company employ slave labour, it also made the steel that killed Allied soldiers during WWII. Following the war, Prescott liquidated all the assets of UBC and related companies and used some of the ill-gotten gains to finance his bid for senate and some of it to finance Bush Senior’s first company, Overby Development Company. The blind trust setup by Bush Senior was managed by his old buddy, William Farish Junior who on March 25th, 1942 pleaded “no contest” to conspiring with Nazi Germany while president of Standard Oil of New Jersey. Standard Oil opened a gasoline plant in Auschwitz in 1940.
http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0143.html
Seems that Bush has more in common with the Nazi’s than the leftists, since the fortune he grew up under was made from them….
June 4th, 2006 at 2:29 amThe Psychology of Leftism
The major psychological reason why Leftists so zealously criticize the existing order and advocate change is in order to feed a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting — and ultimately for power, the greatest ego boost of all. They need public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man. They fancy for themselves the heroic role of David versus Goliath. They need to show that they are in the small club of the virtuous and the wise so that they can nobly instruct and order about their less wise and less virtuous fellow-citizens. Their need is a pressing need for attention, for self-advertisement and self-promotion — generally in the absence of any real claims in that direction. They are usually intrinsically unimportant people who need to feel important and who are aggrieved at their lack of recognition and power. One is tempted to hypothesize that, when they were children, their mothers didn’t look when they said, “Mummy, look at me”.
June 4th, 2006 at 3:04 amThe key motive for self-replicating propaganda amongst the Western intelligentsia is status-seeking — what in this context is labelled moral vanity…. The benefits of being seen to be a member of what is called Club Virtue are clear enough — a feeling of higher moral status buttressed by the mutual self-congratulation of peers, and the avoidance of the costs of non-conformity. Greater leeway for error is also possible. Club members tend to forgive or ignore mistakes if made in the name of a cause that protects the status of Club members (or if exposure of such lapses would undermine said status)…. Moreover, because opinions and beliefs are substantially selected on the basis of their ability to confer and confirm status, such status markers have a natural tendency to part from reality…. One of the effects of the collapse of socialism as a serious locus of belief has been the snowballing reversion to the historically much more normal pattern of intellectuals despising the general populace. The terminology has been updated — rednecks, xenophobes, racists, etc. instead of the mob, the rabble or whatever — but the return to an age-old pattern is very clear.
Another sign of how the status games operate is the way so many of debates about totemic issues juxtapose concern with practicality against parading of intent. Dissenters typically raise concerns about how things are working in practice, while the response typically draws attention to intentions. For intentions are what mark moral superiority; concern for practical effects can only undermine such status-markers. Hence members of Club Virtue talk about intent, dissenters about practicality…. The genius of such status-games is that they appropriate the public good of open debate for the private good of status-seeking. What was once common — and so owned by no-one — becomes fenced off, and legitimacy in public debate becomes the shared property of Club members…. A public debate that is pervasively corrupted by this culture of status-through-paraded-virtue is a major problem for any democracy.
June 4th, 2006 at 3:06 amCome on Ricky you can do better debunking the fact that GWB’s monety was handed down fron daddy and granddaddy who got part of his from the Nazi’s
June 4th, 2006 at 3:14 amThe American “Progressives” were the first Fascists of the 20th century
Were Hitler’s economic policies in the 1930s, however, significantly different from those of Roosevelt, his counterpart in the United States? On the contrary, there was a striking similarity between FDR’s New Deal and the methods that Hitler used to get Germany out of the Depression. Both FDR and Hitler instituted massive government spending campaigns, including public-works programs, to bring full employment to their countries. In the United States, for example, there was the Hoover Dam. In Germany, there was the national autobahn system.
The Nazis also imposed an extensive system of governmental control over German businesses. Was Roosevelt’s approach any different? Consider FDR’s pride and joy, his National Recovery Act, which was characterized by the infamous Blue Eagle. With the NRA, the U.S. government required entire industries to combine into government-protected cartels, and directed them to fix wages and prices in their respective industries. If a businessman refused to go along, he faced prosecution and punishment, not to mention protest demonstrations from Blue Eagle supporters. (The Supreme Court ultimately declared the NRA unconstitutional.)
Let’s also not forget the important paternalistic elements of Hitler’s national socialism: Social Security, national health care, public schooling, and unemployment compensation. Sound familiar?
Hitler himself showed keen insight into this matter. In his biography Adolf Hitler, John Toland writes, “Hitler had genuine admiration for the decisive manner in which the President had taken over the reins of government. ‘I have sympathy for Mr. Roosevelt,’ he told a correspondent for the New York Times two months later, ‘because he marches straight toward his objectives over Congress, lobbies and bureaucracy.’ Hitler went on to note that he was the sole leader in Europe who expressed ‘understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt
A remaining issue is the nationalistic and imperialistic nature of Mussolini’s Fascism and Hitler’s Nazism. Was that prefigured in the American Progressives too? Yes. Unlike the American Leftists of today, the Progressives were in fact thoroughly patriotic, and Croly — arguably the leading light of Progressivism — was certainly explicitly nationalist. And one of Croly’s disciples was both vastly influential and a remarkably exact model for Mussolini’s imperialistic nationalism. The disciple concerned? Yet another American President: Theodore Roosevelt. To know anything of American history of the early 20th century is to know of TR’s strident American nationalism and militarism and his key role in the conquest of the Spanish empire in Cuba and the Philippines on quite shallow pretexts. TR did of course start out as a Republican but he later broke with the Republicans and formed — wait for it: The Progressive party (better known by its nickname: The Bull Moose Party). From very early-on, however, he was reform-minded and anti-big-business. And even whilst a Republican President he was notable for his worker-welfare and environmentalist initiatives — setting up national parks in particular. And in good Progressive fashion he stretched his Presidential authority to the limit in some of those initiatives. At the risk of stating the obvious, it must be noted that it is only in very recent times that the two major American political parties have become clearly delineated as Leftist and Rightist (how can we ever forget the conservative Southern Democrats?) and so the Progressives were an influence that could and did operate within both major parties of that time. And before his break with the Republicans it was the progressive wing of the Republican party that TR was identified with. But certainly in war-glorifying, militaristic, nationalistic, action-worshipping and big-government ideas TR very strongly anticipated Mussolini. And TR, of course, “entirely” agreed that as a race negroes are “altogether inferior to the whites.” There is a good article on Progressivism generally which shows how profoundly Leftist TR was here.
So 20th century Fascism was in fact an American invention, or more precisely an invention of the American Left. Like many American ideas to this day, however, it proved immensely popular in Europe and it was only in Europe that it was put fully into practice. As it does today, American conservatism kept the American Left in some check in the first half of the 20th century so it was only in Europe that their ideas could come into full bloom.
June 4th, 2006 at 3:24 amFunny Rick but the trotskyites of the 30’s who were way to the left of FDR morphed into the Neo-cons of today like Dick Cheney…Donny Rumsfeld…the idiots who have us in the first quagmire of the 21st century, and Fascism was an invention of mussilini in the 20’s long beofre you twisted history to defend the liers and crooks we now have in DC
June 4th, 2006 at 3:38 am(how can we ever forget the conservative Southern Democrats?)
Comment by Rick — June 4, 2006 @ 3:24 am
One of the mainstreams of the repugs in DC now, they were the ones switching parties since 1948 with Strom…the pedophliia …..hide the daughter because it might look bad as a leader….
June 4th, 2006 at 3:41 amFunny you decry Teddy Roosevelt for his beliefs of the early 20th century…but have not commented that was the plan Nixon ran on and the basic stragety for every Repug victory ever since…..the famous southern…racist stragety…
June 4th, 2006 at 3:44 amWas Roosevelt’s approach any different?
Yes he didn’t have the SA terrorising the populace…he didn’t burn the capital building to become a dictator….he didn’t intentionally rearm the country with the specific intent of pre-emptivly attacking other countries..(like GWB did march 2003)..
June 4th, 2006 at 3:58 amRicky boy you post paragraphs of spittle how about a link to your made up associations?
June 4th, 2006 at 4:00 amBTW ricky your rants against leftism remind me of another ranter…
The Psychology of Modern Leftism
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
this is from the Unabomber Manifesto good company you keep there ricky
June 4th, 2006 at 4:12 amComment by Rick — June 4, 2006 @ 3:24 am
http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0200c.asp
Come on Ricky give credit for this slop where it is due…stop trying to convince us you are really this stupid
June 4th, 2006 at 4:34 amWhats the matta ricky when you claimed teddy was the problem and I posted the list of corrupt repugs since teddy’s accident..you plagerise a KOOK who wants everything he disagrees with to be the same if we distort our minds as much as George did on all the coke he snorted..or dead eye does with his drunk hunting trips…
Ricky is your life that bad that you have to repost somebody elses delusions…can ya even have some of your own?
June 4th, 2006 at 4:55 amThe left is just as deranged as the bible thumpers on the right. Both groups are chock full of mental midgets.
Comment by Rick — June 3, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
This coming from a deranged mental midget as he has proved here tonight…..
Hitler was a leftist?….Please get some help if not for you for the rest of us….
June 4th, 2006 at 5:02 amWhat’s the matta ricky fresh out of 14 paragraph rants by John J Jay?
June 4th, 2006 at 5:11 amClif, I would advise caution in accusing Ricky of being a deranged mental midget. Crediting John Buchanan, your source for the Bush-Hitler connection, places you along side the likes of the Jim Fetzer crowd and their very convincing argument that 9-11 was conspired by the Republicans.
Buchanan says “since my discovery of the actual documents, many of which were only declassified and approved for public release on September 14 (four days before I got to the archives) virtually every major news organization in the U.S. has refused to investigate the Bush-Nazi story or even examine the documents. The list includes The New York Times, ABC News, Washington Post, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Miami Herald, CNN, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today.â€
Clif, just what is the motivation of the Bush hating MSM to refuse to “investigate the Bush-Nazi story or even examine the documents� Buchanan’s report proves just one thing, that humans are capable of boundless imagination when they so desperately want to discredit their adversaries. Eventually, Dan Rathergate paid a hefty price when he became so incensed to smear Bush that he eventually succumbed to the temptation of using made-up trash like Buchanan’s. If you are naive enough to think the MSM wouldn’t jump all over Buchanan’s hallucinations if there were ANY validity to it, I’m afraid you are in worse shape than Ricky.
June 4th, 2006 at 10:51 amThe psychology of the left
It’s interesting to note that many leftists hate the word liberal, and prefer “progressive”. That’s understandable though considering that there’s nothing liberal about leftism. But “Progressive” can mean anything; it can be progressing to a N.Korean or Cuban style state. For once, the left is being honest about themselves.
June 4th, 2006 at 12:55 pmRick,
June 4th, 2006 at 9:15 pmI’m not going to answer to all your psycho-babble about the left needing ego-boasting, etc. In any case, you’ve already lost the argument if you’re going to tell liberals/progressives that we like North Korea, Cuba, etc. Absolutely nobody here has sung the praises of North Korea; I, in fact, brought it up a few times on other threads as one of the world’s most brutal–and possibly the worst–dictatorships.
“Looking forward to the video showing the choppers evacuating Bagdad like the ones from 30 years ago in Nam.
Ah, so typical of the left - always rooting for defeat.
Comment by Rick — June 3, 2006 @ 7:53 pm ”
If you didn’t go to a place you don’t belong to kill people you have no right to kill, you wouldn’t have to tolerate my intolerable comments. If you feel you have the right to follow bush into his war based on lies and kill thousands of innocent Iraqis then I would like to think you are pinned down by some Iraqi gunmen while you are responding to these posts…..but not for long.
June 5th, 2006 at 9:35 amBut “Progressive†can mean anything; it can be progressing to a N.Korean or Cuban style state. For once, the left is being honest about themselves.
You mean where the government spies on its citizens without court oversight, and anyone who criticizes the President is branded a traitor?
God forbid!
June 5th, 2006 at 11:02 amFor intentions are what mark moral superiority;
Comment by Rick #61
Sick Rick,
Please clarify for us Bushiva’s and l’il Dick’s “intentions” in Iraq…
…the REAL ones…
…and you really should see a professional about all that angst…
June 6th, 2006 at 10:13 am1951 chevy
Although various pistonless rotary engine designs have attempted to compete with the conventional piston and crankshaft design, only
March 31st, 2008 at 11:24 pm1951 chevy
Some vehicle manufacturers are producing cars with devices that also measure the proximity to obstacles and other vehicles in front
March 31st, 2008 at 11:24 pm1951 chevy
[17] Increasing costs of oil-based fuels and tightening environmental law and restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions are propelling work
March 31st, 2008 at 11:24 pm