is fear itself. And it is LOOMING! LOOMING, I TELL YOU! LOOMING AND IMMINENT! ALSO CLEAR AND PRESENT!
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 . . .
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.
heh:
I think Gerson should return to writing Bush’s speeches .
Two imbeciles are worth each other
That’s not a substantive criticism, Sasha. He’s exactly right in how he characterizes what the reverend said.
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…
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.
it is either isolationism or Bolshevism?
Only two choices?
C’mon, Mikey.
Reagan and Kissinger were not isolationists. They were pragmatics
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Is Sashal saying the Bush Administration’s foreign policy is to murder the Tsar and his family? What?
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.
McGehee, you are so right on the money ( you do not even realize that).
Just replace Tsar with Saddam.
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.
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…
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*
“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.
BJT, check post # 13, there you will find my explanation…
McGehee got caught into his own trap with Tsar comparison.
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
Now this right here is a sermon:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&feature=bz301
Tell it all, Brother Manning, tell it all!
Sashal’s one of those who thinks the Lew Rockwell crowd has it goin’ on.
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
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.”
No one’s declaring anyone pariah. But you have to realize — there are libertarians and there are libertarians.
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!!!
“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.
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..
#27.
cow-farts would be the mild term, my friend
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!
WARMONGERING RACIST CAPITALIST RUNNING DOGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
RomanovsRepublicans. On the order of “Bush Lied, People Died”. (It’s true because it rhymes. QED.)(
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
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 ….
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)
over 160 comments on the vodka post implies the enormous popularity of that drink, that’s for sure
Assertion is not explanation.
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.
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.
Um, right. Because Uday and Qusay were innocent teenage girls, right?
We’re Trotskyites again!?
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..
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.
…’cause if Sashal is saying we’re Trotskyites, it may be time to resurrect an old game.
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.