Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

The Only Thing We Have to Fear [Dan Collins]

is fear itself.  And it is LOOMING!  LOOMING, I TELL YOU!  LOOMING AND IMMINENT!  ALSO CLEAR AND PRESENT!

Gerson in the WaPo:

The problem with Obama’s argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of African Americans. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the “U.S. of KKK-A” and urges God to “damn” our country.

What would a patriot do?

O, dear Jeebus . . .

45 Replies to “The Only Thing We Have to Fear [Dan Collins]”

  1. Great Banana says:

    It seems to me that discoverying that a person who has advised a candidate and taught/mentored a candidate has a repulsive world view is much more troublesome than a regular supporter having that same vile view.

    In other words, I think the actual relationship between the candidate and the person with the vile beliefs is very relevant. In this case, it seems reasonable to question what O’Bama’s actual views and poltical philosophy is – considered that he has no record that we can look at to discover it and he has not been very forthcoming in explaining it. Thus, we are left with trying to discover it through such means as what influential people in his life believe. And, in the case of Wright, that is pretty damning.

  2. Carin says:

    heh:

    Obama’s speech implied that these toxic views are somehow parallel to the stereotyping of black men by Obama’s grandmother, which Obama said made him “cringe” — both are the foibles of family. But while Grandma may have had some issues to work through, Wright is accusing the American government of trying to kill every member of a race. There is a difference.

  3. sashal says:

    I think Gerson should return to writing Bush’s speeches .
    Two imbeciles are worth each other

  4. Dan Collins says:

    That’s not a substantive criticism, Sasha. He’s exactly right in how he characterizes what the reverend said.

  5. sashal says:

    I know, Dan.
    But I can’t help but once in a while to show how I despise anybody (Ggerson in this case) commited to Bolshevism in foreign policiies…

  6. Mikey NTH says:

    I’m not really sure what you mean by ‘bolshevism in foreign policies’, sashal; but I do know that isolationism is a long-discredited foreign policy. I believe it first died when USS Arizona exploded.

  7. sashal says:

    it is either isolationism or Bolshevism?
    Only two choices?
    C’mon, Mikey.
    Reagan and Kissinger were not isolationists. They were pragmatics

  8. Martin says:

    Exciteable Andi has an almost predictable reaction to Gerson’s piece. He says: “This from a man who flaunts his Christianity as a job credential.” In a separate post he characterizes any conservative who found fault with the Obama talk as “palpably fueled by fear and racism.”

    What a fucking idiot.

  9. Mikey NTH says:

    sashal, I really have no idea what you mean by ‘bolshevism in foreign policies’, and despite taking an interest in foreign policy and politics for many years, this is the first time I have ever heard or read that phrase. Perhaps I know what you mean under another name, but I need your description before I can understand what you are getting at.

  10. kelly says:

    Well, let me be the first to congratulate BarryO. He has managed to convince me blacks are the only minority in America. Latinos? Asians? Not authentic enough.

  11. Rob Crawford says:

    Mikey NTH — I’ve tried before. Sashal appears to use “bolshevism” as doctrinaire leftists use “fascism”. Roughly speaking it means “something I don’t like”.

  12. McGehee says:

    Is Sashal saying the Bush Administration’s foreign policy is to murder the Tsar and his family? What?

  13. sashal says:

    Mikey, how about voluntarism, disregard to the human nature, disregard to historical and cultural differences, objective and subjective. The experiment with human lives and their cultures and so on .
    That is Bolshevism in my view .
    Here in US some would like to call it Jacobinism or neoconservatism, or neotrotzkyism…
    Global democratic revolution and if necessary with military intervention-that was Bolshevik’s slogan, Utopian goals which caused so many deaths and destruction.

  14. sashal says:

    McGehee, you are so right on the money ( you do not even realize that).
    Just replace Tsar with Saddam.

  15. Moron Pundit says:

    This has to be the biggest full-on media orgasm I’ve ever seen. It’s like 1,000 anchor voices cried out at once and then were silent.

    I guess they fell asleep after.

  16. BJTexs says:

    Oh, I see sashal. They are practicing Bolshevism because as they removed a despicable murdering tyrant, held three free elections, and spent billions to rebuild the country and …

    [….]

    Hey! Wait a minute…

  17. BJTexs says:

    Oh, Oh, wait, I got it, sashal. It was because of the UN resolutions and Saddam’s consistant refusal to live up to them …

    Crap! That’s not it either! *mumbles to self*

  18. Mikey NTH says:

    “Global democratic revolution and if necessary with military intervention-that was Bolshevik’s slogan, Utopian goals which caused so many deaths and destruction.”

    Bolsheviks were in favor of global democratic revolution? Democratic? Um, I really think that their actions belie that definition. Global revolution and conquest for their ideology, yes. For democracy? No.

  19. sashal says:

    BJT, check post # 13, there you will find my explanation…
    McGehee got caught into his own trap with Tsar comparison.

  20. sashal says:

    Unfortunately Mikey, Marxism was the obligatory studies in my college years.
    Yes the democratic revolution was mentioned many times, and was the first step goal on the way to communism

  21. B Moe says:

    Now this right here is a sermon:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&feature=bz301

    Tell it all, Brother Manning, tell it all!

  22. Rob Crawford says:

    Sashal’s one of those who thinks the Lew Rockwell crowd has it goin’ on.

  23. sashal says:

    and not only them, Rob.
    I used their site as one of examples to describe neoconservatism (and other sites as well)which you wanted so much.
    I had no idea that libertarians are the pariah on this blog

  24. BJTexs says:

    I read that, sashal, and my response substntially reviews the criteria and practices associated with the Iraq invasion which are completely different from those you listed in that comment.

    To Review:

    Free Elections (three, count ’em, three with over 60% voting)
    UN Resolutions
    Saddam’s numerous violations of same
    Billions in rebuilding dollars.
    Despicable Murdering Tyrant
    Wide Acceptance from intelligence agencies around the world that Saddam had and would use WMD’s.

    The above don’t match up with your description of bolshevism even leaving out the whole “force democracy thing.”

  25. Rob Crawford says:

    I had no idea that libertarians are the pariah on this blog

    No one’s declaring anyone pariah. But you have to realize — there are libertarians and there are libertarians.

  26. BJTexs says:

    Sashal: If Rockwell is your gold standard for libertarians, then you will be disappointed in the support of “libertarians” on this blog, I suspect.

    BECAUSE IF THE RACISM!!!

  27. Mikey NTH says:

    “Unfortunately Mikey, Marxism was the obligatory studies in my college years.
    Yes the democratic revolution was mentioned many times, and was the first step goal on the way to communism”

    Ah. That explains something then that I didn’t know.
    Although I think it would be wise to say that your professors were likely full of cow-farts, and that the scientific inevitability of the communist revolution was neither scientific nor inevitable. A democratic revolution may be the end point after all.

  28. sashal says:

    BJTex, in regards to post #24.
    Mikey and me were discussing what I call Bolshevism. And I have explained that neoconservatives constitute that lost tribe of the intellectual heirs to Bolsheviks.
    As far as your reasons for war-
    UN resolutions, tyrant and so on, it was not enough reason in my view. Based on this we should be in constant military actions with the third of the world…
    Bottom line: Iraq was not military threat to US, Iraqi people did not do any harm to us, and did not participate in attack on USA.
    In other words they did not deserve the hell of war we unleashed on them.
    And this is not our business to engage in regime changes throughout the world using USA military..

  29. sashal says:

    #27.
    cow-farts would be the mild term, my friend

  30. BJTexs says:

    Well, sashal, we can agree to disagree agreeably on the good and bad of invading Iraq. However, I must say that I don’t think you’ve made the case for “neocons” being the “intellectual heirs to Bolsheviks.” Based upon the circumstances listed surrounding the decision to invade and the aftermath I just don’t see the comparison as compelling.

    But while sometimes I’m hard on you and your using Rockwell as a source of Libertarian thought is distrubing, I still think you have a lot to add to our discussions and I would love to sit down with you and a bottle of ice cold Stoli and have you tell me about growing up in the USSR.

    Regards!

  31. JD says:

    WARMONGERING RACIST CAPITALIST RUNNING DOGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  32. Drumwaster says:

    However, I must say that I don’t think you’ve made the case for “neocons” being the “intellectual heirs to Bolsheviks.”

    Why, whatever do you mean? He’s alleged it without evidence at least three times, and that means that it is Established. Scientific. Fact. Beyond the ken of mere mortals like the Romanovs Republicans. On the order of “Bush Lied, People Died”. (It’s true because it rhymes. QED.)

    (

  33. Joe Doakes says:

    Before the speech, I was afraid Obama was just another politician from the “angry black man espousing far-left solutions to every problem as compensation for racial unrest” school of thought.

    I no longer fear it, I know it for certain.

    Joe Doakes
    Saint Paul, Minnesota

  34. sashal says:

    BJTex.
    I would not mind Stoli at all.
    But first you must be prepared, lol
    Oh, and as far as Lew Rockwell, I just visit his church once in a while, but I do not necessarily share all of his views ….

  35. BJTexs says:

    Sashal: I read the whole “how to drink a crapload of vodka” post, laughing all the way.

    If we ever do this there is no friggin’ way I’m eating raw eggs. Just find a good Russian restaurant with decent black bread and sausages and I’ll be fine, thank you! :-)

    BTW: Does it say anythiong significant about Russians that that post had over 160 comments? (lol)

  36. sashal says:

    over 160 comments on the vodka post implies the enormous popularity of that drink, that’s for sure

  37. Rob Crawford says:

    And I have explained that neoconservatives constitute that lost tribe of the intellectual heirs to Bolsheviks.

    Assertion is not explanation.

  38. sashal says:

    Rob, you do know who the first neoconservatives and their God father Irving Kristol were?
    They were lefties, who supported Trotzky’ ideas of global revolution.
    Now granted they moved under the GOP wing and worship another power. But their birth marks, their methods are still the same.
    The most obnoxious characteristic to me would be the complete disregard to the history and the objective developments of the world and other nations…
    Complete lack of Reagan/Kissinger pragmatism.
    Extreme aggressiveness in foreign affairs.

  39. Rob Crawford says:

    But sashal, nobody gives a rat’s ass. The neocons were not the sole motivators behind the removal of Saddam.

    Squealing “bolshevist” and claiming their “birth marks” (what ever that means) haven’t changed doesn’t alter that fact, and it doesn’t change the fact that your bile directed at them smacks more of ignorance and buying into propaganda than any rational assessment of their positions.

  40. McGehee says:

    McGehee got caught into his own trap with Tsar comparison.

    Um, right. Because Uday and Qusay were innocent teenage girls, right?

  41. McGehee says:

    They were lefties, who supported Trotzky’ ideas of global revolution.

    We’re Trotskyites again!?

  42. sashal says:

    But sashal, nobody gives a rat’s ass.

    That’s too bad, Rob. Not knowing the history will only drag people through the same mistakes again.
    The neocons were not the sole motivators behind the removal of Saddam
    I realize that, and I was talking about the whole Iraq war idea in other threads..

  43. Rusty says:

    The difference being that after we win we usually leave. And if we happen to run over something with one of our tanks, we pay for it. The bolshies, not so much.

  44. …’cause if Sashal is saying we’re Trotskyites, it may be time to resurrect an old game.

  45. Rob Crawford says:

    That’s too bad, Rob. Not knowing the history will only drag people through the same mistakes again.

    What mistakes? Freeing millions of people from a tyranny?

    Iraq wasn’t a mistake. Asserting it to be one is not proof it is. Tossing around “bolshevism” is not an argument. Declaring that Iraqis just aren’t cut out for this liberty stuff is not only not a proof, it’s insulting.

Comments are closed.