They Will Eat Their Own
I'm all for political discussion and debates. We need to talk about issues that are important to us. It can be done civilly, I'm sure. Though I have been accused of maybe being over-zealous at times. I come down on the liberal side of the fence (for those who couldn't tell). Mostly that is because I'm trying to counter-balance the extreem right-wingedness of our times. Truth be told, I'm a capitalist, I'm a big fan of decentralized government, I believe in fiscal responsibility, I think the government should be as small as it can be and still reach it's goals, I think people should be able to own guns. I see things in shades of grey. Owning a gun for self-defense is one thing, cop-killing assault rifles are another thing, missiles are right out.
That said, I'm no fan of G.W. and I really enjoyed the Sorry World website. I got a number of quite angry responses from friends and relatives:
I don't need you to apologize to the world for me. I'm not going to let bully's like you push me into apologizing for my beliefs
If it makes you feel better to attack me again because of what I believe go ahead.
Anyone ever call you a radical? Just kidding.So I'm putting that out there
first. Some people think I'm a "political bully" or something. I disagree with that assessment and I think I've very sensitive to other people's beliefs... hey, that's what being liberal is all about! I'm sensitive, OK SO JUST BACK OFF!!
Yeah, so I picked on Bush being a divider. As Baz points out, you can't
really blame that on the President, voting in a two-party system kinda produces these schisms. My point is that Bush isn't really playing to the middle. He's HARD over to the right.
I will illustrate this with an example.
Even people on the right, like Joe Scarborough admit:
There's just something about George W. Bush that divides America into camps of reds and blues, lovers and haters, friends and enemies.But I think it really says something when he is dividing the Right Wing against itself! Pat Buchanan is no lefty! From Scarborough's blog:
The show started with a bang when our great friend and former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan suggested that American aggression in the Middle East led to the attacks on 9/11. Andrew Sullivan immediately took Buchanan on and the two spent the next thirty minutes engaged in a heated, yet thoughtful, debate. Buchanan argued that Bush 43 was a dangerous internationalist, while Sullivan stopped just short of suggesting he was a visionary liberator of men.The transcripts from that show make decent reading, here's an excerpt. Even if you don't take the time to read the full original transcripts or the excerpts below, you should at least skim down to my favorite quote "Listen, do not tie me down with facts and dates, Pat Buchanan." I love that. DO NOT TIE ME DOWN WITH FACTS AND DATES!
BUCHANAN '08!!
Peas,
James
######### T R A N S C R I P T G O O D N E S S ...............
BUCHANAN: Now, to Andrews point, the founding fathers always believed the great threat to human liberty and freedom was government, the power of government, giving power to the government right here in the United States of America. Now, comrade Bob Mugabe dreadful creature in Rhodesiaor in Zimbabwe, but hes not a threat to the freedom of the American people.
We have always looked on our government with skepticism. What Bush is saying in this speech again and again is that the American government is the great agent of mpowerment and freedom for American citizens.
SCARBOROUGH: But, Patrick...
BUCHANAN: It is an unbelievable philosophical contradiction.
..............
BUCHANAN: Well, listen, the reason the terrorists are over here is because we are over there.
SULLIVAN: No.
SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: It is silly to believe that the terrorists came over here because they can't stand the Bill of Rights.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: The Palestinians supported Nazis during World War II.
They have not been our friends. The Middle East has not been our friends.
BUCHANAN: No, I dont say they're our friends. Listen, when has America ever been attacked? Why do you think bin Laden attacked us? Because we are free?
(CROSSTALK)
SULLIVAN: No.
SCARBOROUGH: You sound like Susan Sontag. Its our fault. It is our fault.
BUCHANAN: No.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: By the way...
(CROSSTALK)
REED: You are. Theres no other way...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Patrick Buchanan's next column will be in The New Yorker. Get it on newsstands
.......................
SCARBOROUGH: Patrick, look at when this guy got into office, wasn't expected to be an internationalist, talked about a humble foreign policy.
BUCHANAN: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: But we had 9/11. You smirk as if you didn't believe it.
(LAUGHTER)
SCARBOROUGH: We had 9/11. Look at what he did with Afghanistan, went in there, the first democratically elected president, an inauguration, remarkable in a post-Taliban era, and I believe he is going to do the same thing in Iraq right now. What is wrong
with that?
BUCHANAN: Well, I think what we did in Afghanistan was correct in taking down the Taliban. We had to go after the people that attacked us.
But if you think Afghanistan is going to survive when they triple the number of acreage for poppy heroin in the last year, you start shutting down the heroin trade there, and that government wont survive. Joe, my point is this. Look, my argument is, did they attack us because of who we are, we are free and rich and prosperous and democratic? No, we have always been that.
We were attacked because of what we do. It is the United States policy in the Middle East and in that part of the world that has enraged and antagonized these evil people. They are coming over here because they want us...
SCARBOROUGH: Well, lets be specific.
BUCHANAN: ... out of that part of the world.
SCARBOROUGH: Be specific.
BUCHANAN: Osama bin Laden.
SCARBOROUGH: Osama bin Laden was upset because we had American troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991. What were we to do?
BUCHANAN: He has three reasons he gives in the fatwa for the war. I am not saying he is right.
SCARBOROUGH: It sounds like you are, Pat. Im a little concerned, buddy.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: You know, look, when the Japanese, if they attacked Pearl Harbor and someone got up and said we were attacked because we were free and good and we got a Bill of Rights, he would be laughed out of court, Joe.
Those people are over here. They hate us.
SCARBOROUGH: Germany didnt attack us.
BUCHANAN: Of course they didn't. Germany did not attack.
SCARBOROUGH: We declared war on Germany.
BUCHANAN: They declared war on us first, on December 11, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: Listen, do not tie me down with facts and dates, Pat Buchanan.
(LAUGHTER)
SCARBOROUGH: No, go ahead.
BUCHANAN: The whole thing I am getting at is, I disagree with Andrew here. I agree you have a terrible problem over there. But if your solution is to plunge into that world and Iraq, as we did in Iraq and other places, where we have lost 1,300 people,
10,000 dead, killed 20,000 people, created a terrorist haven where one did not exist, if you replicate that in Iran and Syria, you will solve nothing.
posted by James @ 2:07 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I think the problem is, from my view, Bush is a fiscal liberal talking as a fiscal conservative and a social conservative but not quite what I'd consider a Christian (I don't think a genuine Christian, one who's actually consistent in living out his/her faith without intentional compromise, could ever get elected to high office. Clinton was as much a divider as anyone if your just talking love/hate, but there were basically two clear cut sides there. Bush tends to be all over the board so you get kind of a shattered glass affect.
That's my quick thought.
Love the political forum by the way. Not many can speak on the subject without goin off on each other.
BAZ> Bush is... not quite what I'd consider a Christian (I don't think a genuine Christian, one who's actually consistent in living out his/her faith without intentional compromise, could ever get elected to high office).
Well, I had to check with google on this, as I pretty always need to nowadays. The Internet-at-large agrees with you on both these points:
Internet wisdom indicates: (and I QUOTE):
* George W. was initiated into Skull & Bones secret society when he was at Yale. ... It is a slick and counterfeit Christian experience.
* No one -- I repeat no one -- ever gets to run for high office unless the Illuminati supports him. George W. Bush's campaign gives every evidence of just such a high level of Illuminist support. If a truly Born Again believer wins the nomination of a major party, the Illuminati would have him assassinated.
Kel> I disagree with your stance on weapons
I don't own a gun, and it needs to be noted that hand guns are for shooting people. BUT, (1) many sane people really want them, (2) bad guys DO have them. I'm not a big gun supporter but I think outlawing them would be bad. There are more important issues.
As for the "right to bear arms", I think this is in the constitution because of the fear the Founding Fathers had of too much power in the government. The people should be able to defend themselves EVEN FROM THE GOVERNMENT. However, it's hard to say that legal handguns helps keep "the people" and "the government" on an even keel. The modern weapons available to "the government" makes hand guns look like toys. The balance that I think was being implying by "the right to bear arms" no longer applies.
Kel> Plus, I think he's off base in saying that we created a terrorist haven where one did not exist.
I think he means specifically Al Queda supporters and the religiously based Jihad now have a very strong foothold in Iraq. While this was true of Afghanistan, this was not true of Iraq before the US Invasion... and now it is a seething pool of Islamic insurrection. I don't disagree with Buchanan here.
Not the biggest Bush supporter, but though the terrorist may be gathering in Iraq, worldwide terror attacks are at an all-time low. The may be gathering there but it sure isn't serving as a "base".
Couple comments:
KK: The Heston group won't verbally assualt you, they'll use guns:)
I also figure since the princple of the bear arms deal is to defend ourselves against the government I now propose the right to own nuclear weapons and my own private army. WHOO HOOO!!
Post a Comment
<< Home