 |
| |
|
|
sprucemoose3311
|
 |
san jose, ca
Jun 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2002/070302.htm
Liberalism And Terrorism: Different Stages Of Same Disease
July 3, 2002
THE NEW YORK TIMES editorial page was in a snit with the Supreme Court this week for its first ruling on the Bush administration's wartime security procedures. Despite the hysteria at the Times for the assault on "constitutional rights" by Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Supreme Court ruled for Ashcroft.
For now, at least, deportation hearings of suspected terrorists will not be open to the public. This, the Times said, was "troubling." Sadly, the Constitution does not require that national security be compromised.
Like everything liberals oppose but don't have a good argument for, all reasonable national security measures are called "unconstitutional." Whenever liberals are losing on substance, they pretend to be upset about process.
Treason!
Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War..., Coulter
.
Sponsors
Annoy a Liberal!
Peace Through Superior Firepower shirts
OtherSingles.com
Find a single conservative free!
Cool Clothes
Tons of hard to find boutique clothing
Insure.com
Instant insurance quotes, over 300 cos.
Columnists Wanted!!!
** become a columnist **
Start Advertising Now
Human Events
.
E-Mail List
Through their enervating dialogues and endless concerns with constitutional process, liberals have made themselves incapable of feeling hate for the enemy. Refusing to take sides in this war, they busy themselves wailing about every security precaution taken by the Bush administration.
Ashcroft has been incessantly attacked on the op-ed page of The New York Times by the same columnists who are now angrily demanding to know why the Bush administration didn't imprison all Arabs before Sept. 11. He has been compared to the Taliban. (And you're not a patriot in this war until a liberal has compared you to the Taliban.)
Bill Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights called Attorney General John Ashcroft the Constitution's "main enemy." (As Andrew Ferguson said, evidently Osama Bin Laden comes in a close second.)
Sen. Patrick Do-Nothing Leahy has complained about Ashcroft's "disappointing" failure to run all internal guideline changes past the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, Sen. Do-Nothing said, "we're presented with a fait accompli reflecting no congressional input whatsoever."
Ashcroft was probably worried Leahy would take as long with procedures for investigating terrorism as he is with Bush's judicial nominees. If Speedy Gonzalez Leahy were required to review Justice Department guidelines, America would be an Islamic regime before Leahy got around to it.
No matter what defeatist tack liberals take, real Americans are behind our troops 100 percent, behind John Ashcroft 100 percent, behind locking up suspected terrorists 100 percent, behind surveillance of Arabs 100 percent. Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.
The New York Times ran a Tom Tomorrow cartoon sneering about Americans who believe with "unwavering faith in an invisible omniscient deity who favors those born in the middle of the North American land mass." This is how liberals conceive of America: an undifferentiated land mass in the middle of North America. Like all cartoons specially featured in the Times, there was nothing remotely funny about the cartoon. Its point was simply to convey all the proper prejudices of elitist liberals against ordinary Americans.
While hooting with laughter at patriotic Americans, liberals prattle on and on about the right to dissent as the true mark of patriotism and claim their unrelenting kvetching is a needed corrective to jingoism. (It's not jingoism, and the only people who use that word are fifth columnists.)
After Sept. 11, liberals are appalled by patriotism with an edge of anger because that might lead America to defend itself. True patriotism, they believe, should consist of redoubled efforts at attacking George Bush.
Movie director Robert Altman (who won the Golden Globe for best director for "Gosford Park") said, "When I see an American flag flying, it's a joke. This present government in America I just find disgusting."
Columbia professor Eric Foner said: "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." I think I know the answer! Thousands of our fellow countrymen dying in a fiery inferno, I'm pretty sure, is "more frightening" than the rhetoric emanating from the White House.
Liberals are angrier at John Ashcroft for questioning angry Arab immigrants applying for crop duster permits than they are about the terrorists. These people simply do not have an implacable desire to kill those who cheered the slaughter of thousands of American citizens. If you can rise above that, if you can move on from that, you weren't angry in the first place.
During World War II, George Orwell said of England's pacifists: "Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi."
To paraphrase Orwell, in this war, those who cannot stay focused on fighting the enemy are objectively pro-terrorist
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sprucemoose3311
|
|
san jose, ca
Jun 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
http://www.starboardwatch.com/biglie.html
Liberals and the Big Lie
Liberals now form a large majority of the people in the media and the the entertainment industry. Liberals exert far-reaching influence on the schools and the universities. Most all labor unions are directed by liberals. The social-betterment instutions such as those dedicated to helping the poor are guided chiefly by liberals. Most of America's special-interest organizations such as the environmental movement, the civil- and animal-rights groups are liberal oriented and led. Liberals also exert a strong influence in many other of America's institutions of political, economic and social influence.
Furthermore, everywhere you find liberals they claim unceasingly to be motivated only by altruism. Their most profound desire is to help others. They claim their only wish is to bring freedom, prosperity, happiness and equality to all. That's the reason they have become so influential in America today; at least that's their claim. But is that all there is to it? Maybe not. After about sixty years of effort by liberals to take over America both politically and culturally it seems reasonable to look at the job they've done.
Let's start with America's media empire where virtually everyone is a self-proclaimed liberal. Shouldn't we expect only the truth from people who proclaim to value it so highly? Perhaps, but a large majority of Americans say that our media empire lies to us. How can this be? Only two explanations seem reasonable. Either media people are not very good at their jobs or they really do lie to us. Which explanation seems the more likely?
Similarly, America's education establishment is dominated by self-acknowledged liberals presumably dedicated to altruism and social betterment. But then, why have our public schools failed so miserably? Are these liberals also not very good at what they do or could it be that their failure to educate is due to years of pushing liberal ideology on our young people at the expense of real education?
Also, consider the prevalence of public anger, childish behavior, wanton violence and class enmity in America today? Many, many social-betterment institutions, projects and movements have been created to rectify these social ills and virtually all the people who dominate these institutions are self-acknowledged liberals. But are their liberal-inspired solutions working? The answer would have to be unequivocally, "No." Again, are these do-gooders so inept at their jobs that they just let matters get progressively worse because of incompetence? Could a better explanation be that these people are very good at pushing liberal solutions that just don't work?
Also, consider our prisons. They are filled with grown-up bodies inhabited by infantile minds. Minds that can only whine about their victimhood: the excuse that liberal ideology has taught them to give for their crimes. May we conclude that the indoctrination these people received made matters worse rather than better?
America's Social Security System is, liberals say, the shining example of liberal social engineering at its best. But is it all that great? The majority of Americans now say, "If the government's going to take care of me, why should I plan for the future?" Since this system was installed in 1935, saving and planning for one's own old age has virtually vanished from American thought. The side-effects have been disasterous -- as are the side effects of virtually all liberal social engineering projects.
The liberal-designed contrivance called Social Security is a classic Ponzi Scheme. It has worked so far only because there were fewer takers than givers. Chain letter schemes work the same way but they work until the takers become so numerous that the givers refuse to give any more. That's what America is looking at very soon. In a few years each non-working person taking a dollar from the (non-existent) "trust fund" will be getting his buck from two people who are working; each handing over two bits out of his paycheck. The irony is that, if people were to invest the taxes they pay to support the elderly, they would, on retirement, get far more than they can ever hope to get from the system once they cease being givers and become takers.
These are only three examples. The list is extensive of liberal-inspired social engineering projects with adverse outcomes. All social engineering projects that liberals have saddled us with have produced detrimental side-effects that nullified most positive results.
If liberals have tried for so long only to make things better, why do things seem always to get worse? Why are most Americans unhappy with the results of all these years of liberal political, economic and social tinkering? Why is it that so many of us doubt the motives of the people who control the liberal government policies and programs with which these sixty-plus years have burdened us? Is it merely that we are ungrateful for what we've been offered? Should we pull up our socks, look around us and realize what a grand world we've been given by almost a century of liberal social engineering? Not likely.
Maybe it's time to say, "Enough, already!"
The reason for almost universal dissatisfaction in America today is simple: liberal social engineering simply doesn't work. The evidence is all around us. Even liberals realize it but keep on trying anyway because their real motive is not nor ever has been altruisim. The true motive behind liberal social engineering is the desire to control other people. In short: power.
Are liberals unique in wanting power? Of couse not! They are unique today, however, in the success they've had in hiding their real motive while gaining that power. They did this by the brazen use of an old, old trick: The Big Lie. If you tell lies big enough people will think, "No one would say such an outrageous thing if it weren't true."
This unwillingness to attribute brazen deceit to another person is based on a generosity that helps hold civil societies together. If most of us are truthful most of the time then most of us can rely on others most of the time. This confidence in others allows us a measure of certitude in our relations with others. Such confidence in others is one of the principle factors that stabilize societies. The expectation that your neighbor will not do you in is a powerful "glue" that holds cultures together. When it starts to disappear social chaos is not far behind.
We are seeing this happen today. What is the main complaint people have about today's social scene? By a wide margin, "I can't trust anyone anymore," is the most frequent lament. And why has this feeling become so widespread? The answer is plain for those who will bother to look beyond the fog-screen of liberal propaganda. Liberal social engineering has destroyed our faith in our fellow-men.
We are not supposed to say it out loud (it isn't PC) but from the beginning, the leaders of the liberal movement have been willing to lie and cheat to achieve their goals. They have always put liberal ideology above truth. They knew, like all elites before them, that telling the truth would doom their efforts to install collectivism in America. This should not suprise us, ideologues greedy for power have always done this. Unfortunately, it works and, as an illustration, here's one of the neat scams liberals run under the guise of altruism. This deception is only a single example of the lie-supported tricks they use to advance their goal of bringing America under the dominion of a collectivist elite. There are others but, for now, let's see how this one works since it's liberalism's current favorite form of duplicity.
The Liberal Power Con
There is a pervasive belief in America that we are constantly being lied to. This belief is correct; we are constantly being lied to. We are bombarded by liberal lies that are the stock in trade of the biggest confidence game being run in America today: the liberal power con. To grab and hold power over society liberals need power. Power over beliefs, actions and, above all, wealth. As with all con men, criminal and political, liberals have seven steps they use to do in their marks. Here's how it works.
Step 1.
Liberals get our trust by convincing us that they are honorable, trustworthy, and all-round nice folks.
Step 2.
Liberals let us know that there's a valuable "something" that we don't have but deserve to have.
Step 3.
They tell us they want nothing more than to help us and, by the way, they have this clever idea. Their pitch is always based on one of two ideas.
(A) The first pitch involves a scheme to take this valuable something away from some undeserving rich guy who owns it so they can give it to us.
(B) The other pitch is to convince us that they can get this something and give it to us without any cost to anyone at all.
They often combine these two pitches, but either way, the idea is to prove how much they have our best interests at heart by promising to give us something that we haven't earned but really do deserve to have.
Step 4.
Liberals then tell us a lot about how, in all fairness, this something should really be ours. They tell us how we've been deprived of this something by society, rich people or bad luck. In any event, it's never our own fault that we don't have this something and without their help we can never get it on our own.
Step 5.
Liberals next enlist us as active participants in their swindle by getting us involved in things like recruiting others, lobbying representatives in Washington and symbolic marches. This kind of activity is especially important to the con because it puts us on record as accomplices. This keeps us quiet after the con is over because we can't complain or criticize since we helped set up and run the con ourselves. The last part of this set-up phase is to sooth us with noble-sounding double-talk of sharing and equity. This overcomes any guilt we may feel about the larceny they're involving us in. When the mark reaches this stage, professional con men say he is "in the chair."
Step 6.
Liberals then pull off the con by passing laws that take the valuable something away from the guy who used to own it or they borrow the money to buy the something for us. In neither instance do they have any intention of ever returning the property or paying back the loan.
Step 7.
Finally, they give us enough of the loot to keep us quiet and use the rest to buy more power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Very poor troll.
0/10.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
BAD TROLL!!! BAD!!!
No dismembered corpse bits for you! BAD!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Actually Tass, he is quite right in posting these articles. Leftism is a disease. |
A highly contagious one at that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Yeah, if it'd been my troll I'd have expanded more on the Liberalism - Terrorism chain.
Then people would have something to argue against. As it is it just turned into a misinformed Burkean style rant
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Yes of course we're all terrorists.
Is it just me or is postmodernism dying because of trolls like this? |
postmodernism needs to die tho! one of the great intellectual farces of our generation
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
And it's da Kommie-servatives dat keep on bringin' up socialism, communism, minimum wage hikes ruin small businesses, Bill Clinton, queers in the military are bad for morale, terrorists, flat-tax plans, crappy public schools, Bill Clinton, Sen. McCarthy was a hero, Ronald Reagan was a great president, everybody should wave a flag, real patriotic Americans blare Lee Greenwood & kiss that Tehranian boil on Ollie North's ass, Bill Clinton, California justices, God hates fags (especially those that want to marry or join the miliary), abortion, all single mothers on welfare are crack-harlots, Bill Clinton, and the idea that Jewish World Trade Center employees not reporting for work on 9/11 is no cause for alarm. |
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-07-2003 02:24
|
|