I sent:
Big brother has come from the Left!
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine": "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.
Her website -- http://stabenow.senate.gov/contact.htm
My email to her -- "You have recently been attributed the status of newest supporter of this draconian measure, The Fairness Doctrine. Consider, you and everyone who globs onto to this nonsensical doctrine, will be seen throughout history much the same way John Adams is now for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts, and all of your reputations will suffer in perpetuity as his has."
This person replied:
Seems to me that all they're trying to say is "Great, the Right can use the airwaves to say whatever they want (via Rush, Hannity, etc,) but we also have to make room for opposing opinions on those same airwaves... Is this not fair/reasonable/American? -"hence, accountability to the airwaves"? I'm just wanting to become more informed re this issue.
My reply:
"We have to make room?" It is the free market system that will determine the success of shows, and anything other commodity in a capitalist system. Rush, Hannity, etc. are successful b/c they have millions of listeners. If the liberals want to be heard then they 'have to' attract listeners. Telling people they 'have to' listen is another matter, & telling radio stations they 'have to' carry unpopular shows is another matter. That is totalitarianism.
Besides, this was all already attempted with Air America (Al Franken, Janine Garafolo (sp), Whoopi Goldberg, etc. and they failed. The government cannot (for now) and should not FORCE these shows on the air, or on TV, or anything else.
Ask yourself this...if talk radio were dominated by liberals, do you think any of these politicians would give a damn about it? Liberals dominated the newspapers, and TV news shows, and still do, for decades. I know, radio is another matter. The principle is the same. Fox News didn't whine to the government and FORCE itself on TV. No, they dominate the ratings...that is why they are on, and their giving a voice to conservatives (as well as plenty of liberals) is why they have been number one for years.
I thought we couldn't legislate morality. Now we're going to legislate fairness? Who gets to determine what is fair? Even if the government paid to have a leftist show on the air (hmmm...sounds like PBS), what happens when their ratings pale in comparison to the right? Are we going to tell people they 'have to' listen, and force them to through legislation? If you think I am being too melodramatic here, then I suggest you read some history about China, the former USSR, East Germany, and Cuba...just to name a few.
JM
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Monday, November 10, 2008
Mrs. T and I Two
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007
I used to write for my school paper the Pharmakon. After reading a recent edition I wrote to them (below). Then I got a nasty email back from a friend who has been in charge since I was there. Last is my repsonse to her.
As a former columnist for the Pharmakon, I was curious to see how the paper, that meant so much to me during my schooling days, was doing. A member on the alumni committee was kind enough send me a copy from last November 3rd. I was disappointed to say the least, but not surprised.
I graduated in 2003, so by now the only folks who remember my columns are most likely staff and faculty. I tried to entice debate on important topics, stimulate discussion, and I suppose stir up some controversy. The Pharmakon as I see it now, and of no surprise to me by the way, looks like some sort vapid claptrap one would find at Bezerkley College in Cookyfornia.
First, I say let the Lambda Krappa Alpha Beta groups on campus start their own newsletters. The entire second page is nothing more than a promo for these organizations. Nothing personal, but why would anyone want to read
their self aggrandizing articles unless they were members themselves?
Then, two pages later, I get a promo for stem cell research. Nothing of substance here; no debate on the issue; just a political ad.
Two more pages later, I read about "pink pride," and the homeless of St. Louis. I have nothing but respect for people who have genuine concerns in these areas, and who wish to help raise awareness, etc., but at this point I begin to feel like I am reading the agendas of a radical left wing sect. I mean, "...make housing a civil right..?" Where is that written in the constitution? Can we have a referendum on this, or will the liberals just get their buddies in the court system (i.e., judges and lawyers) to legislate this gem of an idea against our will?
All that was missing was an interview with Hillary Clinton about the grandiose benefits of socialized medicine, a movie review on Al Gore's movie about global warming, and a petition protesting zoos sponsored by PETA. Where is David Horowitz with his Academic Bill of Rights when you need him?!
Calling all conservatives, libertines, and independents- do not sit silent while your school paper is being hijacked. Write in, and fight to get YOUR thoughts and ideas published. I took a stand, and a lot of heat I might add, and would not have had it any other way. If I may borrow a speech from Braveheart...'Lying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all of the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to go back to StLCoP and tell them there that they make take our school paper, but they will never take our independent minds!'
sincerely,
Jean-Marc Bovee, Pharm.D.
Jean-Marc,
Shame on you! I thought age and experience might have brought you some
wisdom and (shall I dare) compassion!
You magnify your contribution to the Pharmakon considerably to call
yourself a former "editorialist" and to assume that faculty and staff
remember your columns at all, let alone with appreciation, but you might
have paused to think about the person who was on the receiving end of
your vituperative letter.
Lucia
My compassion was expressed for the integrity of the paper and its readers. There are high school newpapers more thought provoking than the present day Pharmakon. Everyone I show it to, left or right, agrees. Show me the 'intellectual' diversity. Where is it? I know you despise bluntness, but I proudly proclaim not to have mastered the fine art of bs practiced by so many prominent Democrat politicians. Bill Clinton could grope a woman, tell her that he felt her pain, and make her feel like she really contributed to her country.
I love the typical liberal practice of decrying an attack while simultaneously insulting the person who, God forbid, may have had a legitimate complaint. Sorry for the hurt feelings but life outside of ivory towers, gated communities, and the soft, pie-in-the-sky protective world of academia can be rough. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it stipulate the right not to be offended. A 'wise' person ought to realize that, and rationally & logically joust with those who would challenge them. No, today we just cry foul and proclaim, "No fair," like a schoolchild.
If what I wrote was personal to you, then I confess it and I say that it should be. Shame? Where's the sense of shame expressed in turning what ought to be an enterprise for provoking debate and stimulating discussion on issues at an institution of 'higher learning' into a talking points memo for the far left? I wonder if the paper was composed of articles discussing the right to own guns, stricter enforcement on border security, a petition for English as the national language, and a promotion for pro-life if it would be YOU who was writing the same letter I did.
Vituperation? I don't think there was a single sentence in your letter to me that did not contain an insult. Ooh, how the thinly veiled mask of 'compassion' quickly vanishes when those who brag about it are challenged, even civily. Incidentally, on my graduation day more than a few professors came to me and told me how much they would miss my articles. I did write for 5 years, and received $3000 in scholarship money for doing so. I assume most of these people still work there, and judging by what I saw, I do not feel it is a stretch to think that my writing still stands out to this day.
You're in a position of responsibility. This is not the New York Times. This is a college paper, and ought to be open-minded. Isn't that what liberal used to mean?
love,
JM
P.S. As far as the authors of those articles- they're college students. I'd say welcome to the real world, but that would be harsh. Just tell them this will thicken their skin, which will be of benefit to them. Funny, I don't recall any sympathy aimed at me when McCall (physics) and Joshua came after me in their truly harsh manner. Of course, I was a big boy and could more than hold my own. How did I get that way? Not by being coddled, I can assure you of that.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." T. Jefferson
I used to write for my school paper the Pharmakon. After reading a recent edition I wrote to them (below). Then I got a nasty email back from a friend who has been in charge since I was there. Last is my repsonse to her.
As a former columnist for the Pharmakon, I was curious to see how the paper, that meant so much to me during my schooling days, was doing. A member on the alumni committee was kind enough send me a copy from last November 3rd. I was disappointed to say the least, but not surprised.
I graduated in 2003, so by now the only folks who remember my columns are most likely staff and faculty. I tried to entice debate on important topics, stimulate discussion, and I suppose stir up some controversy. The Pharmakon as I see it now, and of no surprise to me by the way, looks like some sort vapid claptrap one would find at Bezerkley College in Cookyfornia.
First, I say let the Lambda Krappa Alpha Beta groups on campus start their own newsletters. The entire second page is nothing more than a promo for these organizations. Nothing personal, but why would anyone want to read
their self aggrandizing articles unless they were members themselves?
Then, two pages later, I get a promo for stem cell research. Nothing of substance here; no debate on the issue; just a political ad.
Two more pages later, I read about "pink pride," and the homeless of St. Louis. I have nothing but respect for people who have genuine concerns in these areas, and who wish to help raise awareness, etc., but at this point I begin to feel like I am reading the agendas of a radical left wing sect. I mean, "...make housing a civil right..?" Where is that written in the constitution? Can we have a referendum on this, or will the liberals just get their buddies in the court system (i.e., judges and lawyers) to legislate this gem of an idea against our will?
All that was missing was an interview with Hillary Clinton about the grandiose benefits of socialized medicine, a movie review on Al Gore's movie about global warming, and a petition protesting zoos sponsored by PETA. Where is David Horowitz with his Academic Bill of Rights when you need him?!
Calling all conservatives, libertines, and independents- do not sit silent while your school paper is being hijacked. Write in, and fight to get YOUR thoughts and ideas published. I took a stand, and a lot of heat I might add, and would not have had it any other way. If I may borrow a speech from Braveheart...'Lying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all of the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to go back to StLCoP and tell them there that they make take our school paper, but they will never take our independent minds!'
sincerely,
Jean-Marc Bovee, Pharm.D.
Jean-Marc,
Shame on you! I thought age and experience might have brought you some
wisdom and (shall I dare) compassion!
You magnify your contribution to the Pharmakon considerably to call
yourself a former "editorialist" and to assume that faculty and staff
remember your columns at all, let alone with appreciation, but you might
have paused to think about the person who was on the receiving end of
your vituperative letter.
Lucia
My compassion was expressed for the integrity of the paper and its readers. There are high school newpapers more thought provoking than the present day Pharmakon. Everyone I show it to, left or right, agrees. Show me the 'intellectual' diversity. Where is it? I know you despise bluntness, but I proudly proclaim not to have mastered the fine art of bs practiced by so many prominent Democrat politicians. Bill Clinton could grope a woman, tell her that he felt her pain, and make her feel like she really contributed to her country.
I love the typical liberal practice of decrying an attack while simultaneously insulting the person who, God forbid, may have had a legitimate complaint. Sorry for the hurt feelings but life outside of ivory towers, gated communities, and the soft, pie-in-the-sky protective world of academia can be rough. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it stipulate the right not to be offended. A 'wise' person ought to realize that, and rationally & logically joust with those who would challenge them. No, today we just cry foul and proclaim, "No fair," like a schoolchild.
If what I wrote was personal to you, then I confess it and I say that it should be. Shame? Where's the sense of shame expressed in turning what ought to be an enterprise for provoking debate and stimulating discussion on issues at an institution of 'higher learning' into a talking points memo for the far left? I wonder if the paper was composed of articles discussing the right to own guns, stricter enforcement on border security, a petition for English as the national language, and a promotion for pro-life if it would be YOU who was writing the same letter I did.
Vituperation? I don't think there was a single sentence in your letter to me that did not contain an insult. Ooh, how the thinly veiled mask of 'compassion' quickly vanishes when those who brag about it are challenged, even civily. Incidentally, on my graduation day more than a few professors came to me and told me how much they would miss my articles. I did write for 5 years, and received $3000 in scholarship money for doing so. I assume most of these people still work there, and judging by what I saw, I do not feel it is a stretch to think that my writing still stands out to this day.
You're in a position of responsibility. This is not the New York Times. This is a college paper, and ought to be open-minded. Isn't that what liberal used to mean?
love,
JM
P.S. As far as the authors of those articles- they're college students. I'd say welcome to the real world, but that would be harsh. Just tell them this will thicken their skin, which will be of benefit to them. Funny, I don't recall any sympathy aimed at me when McCall (physics) and Joshua came after me in their truly harsh manner. Of course, I was a big boy and could more than hold my own. How did I get that way? Not by being coddled, I can assure you of that.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." T. Jefferson
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Anita and I
(Anita) McCain should have hired you for marketing his campaign. Not interested in Palin being VP and being Leader after McCain expires; plus many other reasons...
(JM) Well, I suppose congratulations are in order.
(Anita) Yes, thank you.
(JM) Okay, you've got 4 years to prove me wrong about the guy, and I'm willing to listen. I ask only one thing, if and when he screws things up, like Jimmy Carter did in the late 70's, then promise you'll cop to it and take responsibility for it, cool? I don't want to hear "it's Bush's fault" or "it's the Republicans fault." The Dems have even more control over Congress now. You guys are running the show. Let's see what happens to the markets, the unemployment rate, inflation, gas prices, etc. Mark all of these things down today, and we'll see where they are in four years. I'm predicting he's a one termer only. I'm afraid the American people will have buyers remorse and vote for Palin in 2012.
(Anita) You are hilarious. No individual is perfect or lead a perfect position as president. Look at the crap he's embarking upon from Bush. But then again most closed minded people willing to vote for McCain live in the imaginary world thinking everything can be resolved with a quick fix.
(JM) Already doing a CYA? Taking responsibility is asking too much? Can Obama do no wrong? If the unemployment rate skyrockets due to his raising of taxes on businesses, it'll be Bush's fault? If stocks plummet due to his economic policies, it'll be Bush's fault? If we get hit again like we did on 9/11 due to his stance on foreign affairs, it'll be Bush's fault? Will his supporters be big enough to fairly criticize any mistakes he makes over the next four years? If not, then who's living in a fantasy world? So, no matter what goes wrong, you're telling me it won't be Barack's fault, but Bush's fault, eh?
(Anita) :) Again, you are hilarious. I am not pointing the finger at anyone. I am acknowledging were our government stands. At the end of the day, all of what lies here is temporary. We as people have to answer to higher energy.
(JM) America was born in 1776. Every decision we make effects future generations of Americans. I'm glad you've noticed where our govt. stands, and I just ask that you notice four years from now and compare. That's all. I wish the guy luck. I hope he's not as bad as I fear. I love my country, and I want it to last forever.
(JM) Well, I suppose congratulations are in order.
(Anita) Yes, thank you.
(JM) Okay, you've got 4 years to prove me wrong about the guy, and I'm willing to listen. I ask only one thing, if and when he screws things up, like Jimmy Carter did in the late 70's, then promise you'll cop to it and take responsibility for it, cool? I don't want to hear "it's Bush's fault" or "it's the Republicans fault." The Dems have even more control over Congress now. You guys are running the show. Let's see what happens to the markets, the unemployment rate, inflation, gas prices, etc. Mark all of these things down today, and we'll see where they are in four years. I'm predicting he's a one termer only. I'm afraid the American people will have buyers remorse and vote for Palin in 2012.
(Anita) You are hilarious. No individual is perfect or lead a perfect position as president. Look at the crap he's embarking upon from Bush. But then again most closed minded people willing to vote for McCain live in the imaginary world thinking everything can be resolved with a quick fix.
(JM) Already doing a CYA? Taking responsibility is asking too much? Can Obama do no wrong? If the unemployment rate skyrockets due to his raising of taxes on businesses, it'll be Bush's fault? If stocks plummet due to his economic policies, it'll be Bush's fault? If we get hit again like we did on 9/11 due to his stance on foreign affairs, it'll be Bush's fault? Will his supporters be big enough to fairly criticize any mistakes he makes over the next four years? If not, then who's living in a fantasy world? So, no matter what goes wrong, you're telling me it won't be Barack's fault, but Bush's fault, eh?
(Anita) :) Again, you are hilarious. I am not pointing the finger at anyone. I am acknowledging were our government stands. At the end of the day, all of what lies here is temporary. We as people have to answer to higher energy.
(JM) America was born in 1776. Every decision we make effects future generations of Americans. I'm glad you've noticed where our govt. stands, and I just ask that you notice four years from now and compare. That's all. I wish the guy luck. I hope he's not as bad as I fear. I love my country, and I want it to last forever.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Sarah and I Two
I like how she implements a common liberal tactic of picking out some choice words that she feigns offense to ("Why I never!"), and thus attempts to discredit the entire crux of the argument. Nice try....Heck! The source is CNN!!!
(JM sent) "Obama-Proofing" the Ann Coulter Way
Do you know which special interest has given more money to the Obama and Clinton campaigns than any other?
If you guessed "trial lawyers" -- well, okay, that's too easy. But can you guess which special interest came in second?
Labor unions? Nope. The Green Lobby? Nope. AARP? Wrong, again. NEA? Nyet.
Give up? Okay, here's the answer: Wall Street.
That's right. According to CNNMoney.com, Wall Street securities and investment firms have given over $35 million to Democratic candidates this election cycle. And the amount they've given to the Clinton and Obama campaigns is nearly five times the amount they've given to McCain.
If you've been wondering why the financial industry has been in meltdown -- and taking your 401(k) or investment portfolio down with it -- now you know.
Let's face it: The former frat boys who populate Wall Street today understand economics about as well as the pinko professors whose courses they snored through.
That's why betting their entire industry on "subprime" loans to people with no jobs and no collateral made sense to them -- and why betting the entire U.S. economy on the likes of Hillary and Obama makes sense to them now.
These jokers don't even know what's in their own self-interest, much less yours. Trusting them with your money is like trusting Bill Clinton to babysit your underage niece.
But I know someone you can trust to manage your investments -- or rather, to help you do it yourself, without paying a nickel in commissions to some Wall Street frat boy.
His name is Dr. Mark Skousen -- that's "Dr." as in "Ph.D. in Economics and Monetary History," something you don't get by playing Beer Pong with your frat buddies. For the past 28 years, subscribers to his investment newsletter, Forecasts & Strategies, have profited enormously from his uncanny ability to predict major market trends before they happen -- often while the Wall Street establishment is pointing investors the other way. For instance:
In the early '80s, Dr. Skousen predicted that "Reaganomics will work" and said "a long decade of profits is coming."
He issued a "sell everything" recommendation just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987. Then he told investors to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.
He called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks." The Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly ten years.
He told subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again. That's exactly what it did.
Just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.
In 2007, he warned subscribers about the coming dollar crisis -- and showed them how to protect themselves.
Personally, Dr. Skousen had me at "Reaganomics will work." But it's nice to
see -- and nicer still for his legions of loyal Forecasts & Strategies subscribers -- that he's continued to call things right ever since.
What's his secret? Well, if I knew, I'd be an investment advisor myself. But I think it begins with grasping the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that today's Wall Street frat boys imbibed with their warmed-over beer on the morning of their Econ 101 finals.
The "bottom line," as they say? Don't let Democrats run the country. And don't let Wall Street frat boys manage your investments. Do it yourself, with the genuinely expert guidance of freedom-loving economist Mark Skousen in Forecasts & Strategies.
(Auntie) FRAT BOYS AND PINKO PROFESSORS? Is this kind of trashy stuff supposed to be taken seriously? Really, now....
(JM) No sarcasm allowed? Not sophisticated enough, eh? What about the facts it alludes to. You can legitimately get rankled at the strident language, but how about addressing the FACTS?
(Auntie) We'll talk after tomorrow night's debate, if she-devil is still standing.
(JM) "She-Devil?!" Nice...If only she had five abortions instead of five kids, she'd be a liberal icon! I'm sorry...That was low, and I'm better than that......NO I'M NOT! Just teasing!!!!!!!!!
Love Ya,
JM
(Auntie) "Can I call you Joe" was a blatant attempt to get Joe to call her Sarah so it would appear that he was demeaning her. It also set up the much rehearsed "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again..." sound bite. Don't think for a minute that any of this hasn't been thought out from every single strategic angle.
Gwen Ifill did not share her questions with anyone. I didn't say that. What I said is that she selected her questions based on information she received from the public in terms of the public's interest.
Gee, Tom Brokaw is the moderator tonight and he wrote the best seller, "The Greatest Generation". By your standards, he should be disqualified as a moderator because he clearly favors John McCain, right? -- having written an entire book about war heroes.
I will vote for Obama/Biden because
I favor abortion as a woman's right to choose
I favor tax increases to the wealthiest, of which I am one by their standards (and would be happy to pay if it helps us out of this
mess)
I favor healthcare reform, not a credit to purchase my own
I favor decency and respect in relationships, and I believe Obama is a more respectful person
I favor a timetable for getting out of "Vietnam II"
I think Joe Biden brings exceptional experience to the ticket and could step in as president should anything happen to Obama; I shudder to think about Palin in this role and believe that, given McCain's age and health, that's more of a possibility.
I believe that a thoughtful person who listens to all sides should run the country. I do not see evidence of this in McCain, who is well known for his temper.
I believe in stem cell research.
Since McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush's legislative proposals, I see little evidence that he is very different.
I believe the next two Supreme Court justices should be selected on the basis of democratic beliefs.
I believe Obama has a better chance of working with Republicans and Democrats alike in difficult times.
I believe an underrepresented minority in the highest office will show the American public and the world that it's not only whites who can achieve great things.
Have to run to a meeting. Too much more to say. I could go on and on.
auntie
(JM) Okay, here's my reply. I know your busy so take your time...
"Can I call you Joe" was a blatant attempt to get Joe to call her Sarah so it would appear that he was demeaning her.
(JM) I feel this is a bit paranoid.
It also set up the much rehearsed "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again..." sound bite.
(JM) I can buy this one.
Don't think for a minute that any of this hasn't been thought out from every single strategic angle.
(JM) Oh, like Biden's lame line after a tirade, "...now that is a bridge to no where."
Gwen Ifill did not share her questions with anyone. I didn't say that. What I said is that she selected her questions based on information she received from the public in terms of the public's interest.
(JM) Fair enough.
Gee, Tom Brokaw is the moderator tonight and he wrote the best seller, "The Greatest Generation". By your standards, he should be disqualified as a moderator because he clearly favors John McCain, right? -- having written an entire book about war heroes.
(JM) Auntie, auntie! I have to say this is pretty thin, and I think you'd agree. Now, if he had written a pro McCain book, then you'd be right.
I will vote for Obama/Biden because
I favor abortion as a woman's right to choose
(JM) Barack voted against a bill that would spare a child's life in the event of a botched abortion. That's infanticide any way you cut it.
I favor tax increases to the wealthiest, of which I am one by their standards (and would be happy to pay if it helps us out of this
mess)
(JM) I would agree, but small business owners, who create local jobs will be hurt by this policy and thus so will middle class people who would otherwise be employed.
I favor healthcare reform, not a credit to purchase my own
(JM) What's wrong with having a more personal, independent choice? Why in the world would you want to nationalize health care?
I favor decency and respect in relationships, and I believe Obama is a more respectful person.
(JM) We'll have to agree to disagree here.
I favor a timetable for getting out of "Vietnam II"
(JM) It was a Democrat president that got us into Vietnam. How many American lives were lost there vs. Iraq? Not even close. You know, we still have troops in Germany to this day!
I think Joe Biden brings exceptional experience to the ticket and could step in as president should anything happen to Obama; I shudder to think about Palin in this role and believe that, given McCain's age and health, that's more of a possibility.
(JM) Fine, but Biden is a doofus ("Stand up Chuck!"). I'd rather go for real change and have Sarah in there who is not a Washington insider shaking things up.
I believe that a thoughtful person who listens to all sides should run the country. I do not see evidence of this in McCain, who is well known for his temper.
(JM) Obama has voted the party line 96 or 98% of the time! McCain has worked across the isle with guys like Feingold, Lieberman, Kennedy...C'mon!
I believe in stem cell research.
(JM) I'll be honest. I haven't heard either candidate talk on this issue. Will look into it.
Since McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush's legislative proposals, I see little evidence that he is very different.
(JM) It's not 90%. He has disagreed with Bush on several issues. Again, it is Barack who has never stood up to the leadership of his party.
I believe the next two Supreme Court justices should be selected on the basis of democratic beliefs.
(JM) Like an 'evolving" Constitution that finds rights for things that do not exist in it as it was written by our forefathers?
I believe Obama has a better chance of working with Republicans and Democrats alike in difficult times.
(JM) There is nothing in his record to support your statement here.
I believe an underrepresented minority in the highest office will show the American public and the world that it's not only whites who can achieve great things.
(JM) Ah! Now I think we are getting to the crux of his appeal to liberals. It looks good, and makes them feel good about themselves. Let me say this, if I were black, I'd say, "Does our first one have to be this guy?" His voting record, in the short time he's been in Washington, is to the left of Ted Frickin' Kennedy for Pete's sake!
Love you,
JM
(JM sent) "Obama-Proofing" the Ann Coulter Way
Do you know which special interest has given more money to the Obama and Clinton campaigns than any other?
If you guessed "trial lawyers" -- well, okay, that's too easy. But can you guess which special interest came in second?
Labor unions? Nope. The Green Lobby? Nope. AARP? Wrong, again. NEA? Nyet.
Give up? Okay, here's the answer: Wall Street.
That's right. According to CNNMoney.com, Wall Street securities and investment firms have given over $35 million to Democratic candidates this election cycle. And the amount they've given to the Clinton and Obama campaigns is nearly five times the amount they've given to McCain.
If you've been wondering why the financial industry has been in meltdown -- and taking your 401(k) or investment portfolio down with it -- now you know.
Let's face it: The former frat boys who populate Wall Street today understand economics about as well as the pinko professors whose courses they snored through.
That's why betting their entire industry on "subprime" loans to people with no jobs and no collateral made sense to them -- and why betting the entire U.S. economy on the likes of Hillary and Obama makes sense to them now.
These jokers don't even know what's in their own self-interest, much less yours. Trusting them with your money is like trusting Bill Clinton to babysit your underage niece.
But I know someone you can trust to manage your investments -- or rather, to help you do it yourself, without paying a nickel in commissions to some Wall Street frat boy.
His name is Dr. Mark Skousen -- that's "Dr." as in "Ph.D. in Economics and Monetary History," something you don't get by playing Beer Pong with your frat buddies. For the past 28 years, subscribers to his investment newsletter, Forecasts & Strategies, have profited enormously from his uncanny ability to predict major market trends before they happen -- often while the Wall Street establishment is pointing investors the other way. For instance:
In the early '80s, Dr. Skousen predicted that "Reaganomics will work" and said "a long decade of profits is coming."
He issued a "sell everything" recommendation just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987. Then he told investors to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.
He called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks." The Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly ten years.
He told subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again. That's exactly what it did.
Just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.
In 2007, he warned subscribers about the coming dollar crisis -- and showed them how to protect themselves.
Personally, Dr. Skousen had me at "Reaganomics will work." But it's nice to
see -- and nicer still for his legions of loyal Forecasts & Strategies subscribers -- that he's continued to call things right ever since.
What's his secret? Well, if I knew, I'd be an investment advisor myself. But I think it begins with grasping the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that today's Wall Street frat boys imbibed with their warmed-over beer on the morning of their Econ 101 finals.
The "bottom line," as they say? Don't let Democrats run the country. And don't let Wall Street frat boys manage your investments. Do it yourself, with the genuinely expert guidance of freedom-loving economist Mark Skousen in Forecasts & Strategies.
(Auntie) FRAT BOYS AND PINKO PROFESSORS? Is this kind of trashy stuff supposed to be taken seriously? Really, now....
(JM) No sarcasm allowed? Not sophisticated enough, eh? What about the facts it alludes to. You can legitimately get rankled at the strident language, but how about addressing the FACTS?
(Auntie) We'll talk after tomorrow night's debate, if she-devil is still standing.
(JM) "She-Devil?!" Nice...If only she had five abortions instead of five kids, she'd be a liberal icon! I'm sorry...That was low, and I'm better than that......NO I'M NOT! Just teasing!!!!!!!!!
Love Ya,
JM
(Auntie) "Can I call you Joe" was a blatant attempt to get Joe to call her Sarah so it would appear that he was demeaning her. It also set up the much rehearsed "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again..." sound bite. Don't think for a minute that any of this hasn't been thought out from every single strategic angle.
Gwen Ifill did not share her questions with anyone. I didn't say that. What I said is that she selected her questions based on information she received from the public in terms of the public's interest.
Gee, Tom Brokaw is the moderator tonight and he wrote the best seller, "The Greatest Generation". By your standards, he should be disqualified as a moderator because he clearly favors John McCain, right? -- having written an entire book about war heroes.
I will vote for Obama/Biden because
I favor abortion as a woman's right to choose
I favor tax increases to the wealthiest, of which I am one by their standards (and would be happy to pay if it helps us out of this
mess)
I favor healthcare reform, not a credit to purchase my own
I favor decency and respect in relationships, and I believe Obama is a more respectful person
I favor a timetable for getting out of "Vietnam II"
I think Joe Biden brings exceptional experience to the ticket and could step in as president should anything happen to Obama; I shudder to think about Palin in this role and believe that, given McCain's age and health, that's more of a possibility.
I believe that a thoughtful person who listens to all sides should run the country. I do not see evidence of this in McCain, who is well known for his temper.
I believe in stem cell research.
Since McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush's legislative proposals, I see little evidence that he is very different.
I believe the next two Supreme Court justices should be selected on the basis of democratic beliefs.
I believe Obama has a better chance of working with Republicans and Democrats alike in difficult times.
I believe an underrepresented minority in the highest office will show the American public and the world that it's not only whites who can achieve great things.
Have to run to a meeting. Too much more to say. I could go on and on.
auntie
(JM) Okay, here's my reply. I know your busy so take your time...
"Can I call you Joe" was a blatant attempt to get Joe to call her Sarah so it would appear that he was demeaning her.
(JM) I feel this is a bit paranoid.
It also set up the much rehearsed "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again..." sound bite.
(JM) I can buy this one.
Don't think for a minute that any of this hasn't been thought out from every single strategic angle.
(JM) Oh, like Biden's lame line after a tirade, "...now that is a bridge to no where."
Gwen Ifill did not share her questions with anyone. I didn't say that. What I said is that she selected her questions based on information she received from the public in terms of the public's interest.
(JM) Fair enough.
Gee, Tom Brokaw is the moderator tonight and he wrote the best seller, "The Greatest Generation". By your standards, he should be disqualified as a moderator because he clearly favors John McCain, right? -- having written an entire book about war heroes.
(JM) Auntie, auntie! I have to say this is pretty thin, and I think you'd agree. Now, if he had written a pro McCain book, then you'd be right.
I will vote for Obama/Biden because
I favor abortion as a woman's right to choose
(JM) Barack voted against a bill that would spare a child's life in the event of a botched abortion. That's infanticide any way you cut it.
I favor tax increases to the wealthiest, of which I am one by their standards (and would be happy to pay if it helps us out of this
mess)
(JM) I would agree, but small business owners, who create local jobs will be hurt by this policy and thus so will middle class people who would otherwise be employed.
I favor healthcare reform, not a credit to purchase my own
(JM) What's wrong with having a more personal, independent choice? Why in the world would you want to nationalize health care?
I favor decency and respect in relationships, and I believe Obama is a more respectful person.
(JM) We'll have to agree to disagree here.
I favor a timetable for getting out of "Vietnam II"
(JM) It was a Democrat president that got us into Vietnam. How many American lives were lost there vs. Iraq? Not even close. You know, we still have troops in Germany to this day!
I think Joe Biden brings exceptional experience to the ticket and could step in as president should anything happen to Obama; I shudder to think about Palin in this role and believe that, given McCain's age and health, that's more of a possibility.
(JM) Fine, but Biden is a doofus ("Stand up Chuck!"). I'd rather go for real change and have Sarah in there who is not a Washington insider shaking things up.
I believe that a thoughtful person who listens to all sides should run the country. I do not see evidence of this in McCain, who is well known for his temper.
(JM) Obama has voted the party line 96 or 98% of the time! McCain has worked across the isle with guys like Feingold, Lieberman, Kennedy...C'mon!
I believe in stem cell research.
(JM) I'll be honest. I haven't heard either candidate talk on this issue. Will look into it.
Since McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush's legislative proposals, I see little evidence that he is very different.
(JM) It's not 90%. He has disagreed with Bush on several issues. Again, it is Barack who has never stood up to the leadership of his party.
I believe the next two Supreme Court justices should be selected on the basis of democratic beliefs.
(JM) Like an 'evolving" Constitution that finds rights for things that do not exist in it as it was written by our forefathers?
I believe Obama has a better chance of working with Republicans and Democrats alike in difficult times.
(JM) There is nothing in his record to support your statement here.
I believe an underrepresented minority in the highest office will show the American public and the world that it's not only whites who can achieve great things.
(JM) Ah! Now I think we are getting to the crux of his appeal to liberals. It looks good, and makes them feel good about themselves. Let me say this, if I were black, I'd say, "Does our first one have to be this guy?" His voting record, in the short time he's been in Washington, is to the left of Ted Frickin' Kennedy for Pete's sake!
Love you,
JM
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Amanda and I on WMDs
(Amanda) I've been reading your correspondence back and forth between you and your friend and I'm so sorry that you've been so woefully misinformed. You must watch Fox News or something?? If you need enlightenment, let me know...:)
I don't think anyone would dispute that Saddam was a bad man. That's not what is at issue. What the issue is, is that we were lead to believe that he was an imminent and immediate threat to the US, which has been proven completely false. No WMD, no chemical or biological weapons, no nuclear weapons, no ties to terrorism, just nothing. We were lied to plain and simple and they just keep lying and people just keep believing. When are the people going to get tired of this and say, "hey what gives?" I think that many people just can't face the reality of how corrupt the government of the United States is so they'd just rather bury their heads in the sand and blindly follow this idiot wherever he may lead us. As a side note, I think the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.
(JM) First, the "proof" that Saddam is or was not a threat to the U.S.....you have this in your possession? Please enthrall me with your sources. Everyone, including Clinton himself, admits that Saddam did have WMDs in his possession. The question not answered by 19 U.N. resolutions is...where did they go? Some evidence points to their being dumped in the Euphrates River, other says they were smuggled into Syria. If he did not have them, then why did he refuse to cooperate with the world. If he did have them, then was he not a constant threat? Did he not fund terrorist organizations opposed to the U.S.? You claim "no ties to terrorism"- shall we compare sources? See, here is the problem with those opposed to the Bush plan: they are too certain of their guess work. In other words, which side is it better to err on? Is it better to pretend Saddam was not a threat, be wrong, and thus end up fighting on our own soil? Or is it better to assume the worst, be prepared, and at least have the option of choosing where to fight? Liberals are too sure of their uncertainty. Their hatred for Bush blinds them to the REAL threat. Don't succumb to partisan ideology because it can be delusional.
If you wish to compare corruption of governments, then you are going to be hard pressed to find one less corrupt than the U.S. I know not where this self-loathing of home and country derives, but it does seem to be fashionable these days, and certainly passe'. Lastly, be careful with the name calling- it is the libs who are supposed to be compassionate, remember?
I'll take a handwritten memo over Newsweek any day. A lot of fluff about a "senior Bush administration official", "federal authorities", "officials in Washington".....how about a name? Sound like bunk to me; however, the White House source was impressive. Could it be that Bush is bidding his time until all of the evidence is in? I certainly wouldn't want to jump the gun on this issue.
I will respond to your other email as soon as I can, but you said so many preposterous and erroneous things, that I scarcely know where to begin!
(Amanda) Subject: RE: proof of ties http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html
One question for you. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.
(JM) I have decided to systematically address all points that you made in the chronology in which you made them- so here it goes…
You say he had WMDs “probably in the distant past”. When I hear that term I think of the Greeks and Romans, not the year 1998. My original question remains unaddressed- what became of them? Do you think Saddam dismantled them out of the goodness of his heart? If they were unaccounted for, then it is prudent to assume that he still has them. Like I said, libs are too sure of their guesswork, and, what is worse, they are too trusting of ruthless monarchs (and equally mistrustful of a Republican). I was not aware that we have “continuously” bombed Iraq for the past 10 years, but if we had, then Clinton is to blame, is he not?
The U.N. inspectors were nothing more than keystone cops, and despite their bungling Saddam still kicked them out- rather uncooperative in my book. You mention other countries, namely U.S. allies, who have also violated U.N. resolutions. I would think that it would be prudent, as with all things, to deal with the worst case first and, since they are allies anyway, worry about lesser cases later. Otherwise, Bush would then be criticized for spreading our forces too thin, right? I personally hold the U.N. in very low esteem, and consider it an irrelevant and ineffectual organization.
You “loathe” Bush, that is clear, and see his policies as “dangerous”. What I see as infinitely more dangerous is the liberal frame of mind that says we ought to inexhaustibly appease ruthless dictators, which invariably will do nothing more than encourage violence against us. What so many Americans do not realize is that we are perceived as weak for this very reason, and thus vulnerable. These leaders know that we cannot stomach even the minutest of causalities, and will pull out of conflict if public opinion turns out of favor with the war, despite how many billions of dollars have already been spent on the endeavor. If you want to point to something truly dangerous, then all you have to do is look at the ramifications that resulted from the Toricelli Principle. Now that was truly stupid and disastrous. Your call for police work against a crime versus military action against an act of war is so ridiculous that I hardly feel a response is merited (as if Saddam would have cooperated with police action- is that for real?).
I have to admit that I am a bit bewildered by your thesis that there is a “role of cooperation in the survival of the fittest.” Please explain further for I am truly intrigued. So you blame the 1998 bombing of Iraq on the “neo-conservatives”? Do you assign any blame to Clinton? The non-partisan claim you have made is waning in my mind.
You have devised a rather elaborate conspiracy theory that claims that Bush “exploited” 9-11 for his own purposes. Tell me, what should he have done? Better yet, if you were the President, what would your response to 9-11 have been? Also, again, I need elaboration on this “agenda of American supremacy” theory. You say Bush is leading us in a “dangerous direction”. I say that Clinton put us there, and Bush is doing the only thing that he can. Consider this: a bully picks on a kid who may even be bigger than he himself, but the kid never fights back. Now tell me, will this inaction dissuade the little bully, or will it encourage him, and others like him, to not only continue bullying, but augment it?! Whether the utopians like it or not, the periodic show of force works, and sends a message that must be sent. Libya has now begun voluntarily dismantling its WMD program, and Iran is now opening up to inspections. Does anyone honestly doubt that this was because of the present state of Saddam Hussein? C’mon, let’s use our heads and get in the game here!
You allude to something that makes me curious. Unless I am mistaken, you are implying that by trying to maintain it’s military supremacy, the U.S. is doing a bad thing. Is that correct, and, if so, then why? Who should have it then? I know, no one, right? Perhaps things were better during the Cold War when there were two super powers. No nation in the history of earth has ever been as righteous with their military as the United States has. Yes, our past is not unalloyed, but whose is? Shall we compare the use of military force throughout history, and see where the U.S.'s policy lies? Do I have to actually point out that we are far more ethical than all of the other major powers of history? Sure, we are presently occupying Iraq temporarily until we can get them on their feet, but we are not taking over anyone or anything in the traditional sense of military conquest.
What do you feel are “the actual principles and requirements of freedom and democracy”, and what do you feel Bush’s are? When Bush mentions the endurance of freedom, of course he implies our freedom in that claim as well, but what reason do you have to believe that this man is honestly not interested in freedom for others? Does loathing of him cause you to see him as a despot? It has always been my contention that emotion clouds judgment, and who would disagree?
You make an assertion that in a free society the masses determine what freedom and democracy are on an individual basis. Please explain further because this sounds suspiciously like anarchy to me. Besides, why wouldn’t people wish to follow America’s lead? Are we not the best national example of personal freedom and liberties for its citizens? Are we not still a beacon to the oppressed in every corner of the globe? If not, then why are people sacrificing their fortunes and lives just to make it to our shores? We are perceived a the “Great Satan” by a large number of Middle Easterners because, since the age of about two, they have been brainwashed with propaganda to believe that the horrid state of their lives is the result of the West, and not the despicable despots who keep all of the money of the nation for themselves while their people starve. Many of these citizens are illiterate, uneducated, and totally duped- of course they hate us.
Terrorists may never totally disappear, but they may be dissuaded after witnessing the demise of Saddam and his regime. They certainly will not desist if we continue to appease them. This is pure human nature, and common sense. We are already at risk in a dangerous world. Bush is letting it be known that we will not be pushed around. What policy would have been more effective than the one currently being used by the Bush administration? Perhaps if we said “pretty please” to the monarchical monsters, or if we let the U.N. handle things, perhaps we could send Jesse Jackson over there to negotiate peace, wait- I know!- we could beg our back-stabbing allies (who have selfish interests and personal investments with Iraq) to take care of it and look out for us. I too have sympathy for innocent victims, particularly those of 9-11.
Lastly, you claim to be an independent thinker and are very proud of this “novel” type of thinking. I too pride myself for this attribute, and presume many others do as well (so much for novelty). What I don’t understand is why one cannot be a liberal or conservative, or whatever, and still be an independent thinker? It is the ideologues who are the true dopes. What is so wrong with labels anyway? I see them as a practical way of categorizing things. Sure, they do not represent a complete picture, but this is implicit and silly to have to point out. Incidentally, “independent thinker” is also a label, is it not?
Well, I would just like to thank you again for engaging me. It seems so few of us have the ability to make cogent arguments in favor of our stances. So many, it seems, believe things wholeheartedly, and positively cannot articulate why. This is what happens when the heart does the brain's job. How we feel about something is a foolish way to derive an opinion. Opinions ought to be logical, rational, and, above all, educated. I hold little esteem for uneducated opinions, and regard them as immaterial. Wouldn't you agree?
(Amanda) Seriously, how do you defend this?? Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed" after the 1991 Gulf War. The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq "can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at all.
Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were linked. In response, the Administration is beginning to blame the intelligence community for the WMD fiasco, and planning an internal "review of prewar intelligence."
Administration ally Kay concurred, arguing "I think the intelligence community owes the president [an apoogy] rather than the president owing the American people." Despite Mr. Kay's assertions, experts who knew the record of U.N. inspections knew that finding no WMD "was always a strong possibility...but Bush administration officials never acknowledged it." Earlier reporting found that senior Administration officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence," and the White House set up a separate intelligence apparatus, the "Office of Special Plans," to "cherry-pick intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest." For example, the president's well-known declaration in last year's State of the Union, asserting that Iraq "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," remained despite CIA demands to remove such allegations from his speech.
(JM) Before I address the article, I would like to point out that during the early goings, many of the present Democratic Presidential candidates (i.e., Clark, Dean, Kerry, etc.) supported the war because they too admitted that Saddam had W.M.D.s. The point is, if they were mistaken due to a lack of poor info, or whatever, then why can't Bush have been mistaken also? Why is he the mastermind behind a major conspiracy? Everyone, including the leaders of several other nations, believed that Saddam had W.M.D.s. Was it because Bush mislead them? No, more likely it was because, at one point, Saddam's regime did (and probably still does) have them, and Saddam himself would not cooperate with the inspectors. Besides, recently some stockpiles were found. Perhaps not the smoking gun we were looking for, but evidence none-the-less. Now, as for this article...
Consider the source first of all- The New York Times! Could there be a more liberally biased paper in the world?! Show me anywhere in this article where the author makes the point that I just did- many Democrats as well were making the same claim about W.M.D.s and thus supported the war initially, although they are now backtracking as well. However, this is not mentioned- curious. I reiterate an earlier point: would it have been better to give this ruthless monarch the benefit of the doubt (even though he never did deny having W.M.D.s), or would it be more prudent to assume the worst and, after umptine resolutions and being given the middle finger, go in to remove him? How any clear thinking person can argue with the decision to attack Iraq based on this line of reasoning is befuddling. Please show where my rationale is misguided.
(Amanda) It really doesn't matter what the previous administrations or others thought, they didn't act on it. Bush did. So Bush takes the fall. I think he (not him personally, he's too stupid) and his cronies cherry picked the intel. The point is, we DID NOT need to rush to this war. Obviously weapons inspections were working (as evidenced by the lack of WMD). Of course he didn't say he didn't have any, that was his only leverage. As for the New York Times, I don't understand all this hollaring about liberal media, I think none of them are liberal, especially when I see the articles on the 10th page instead of the front like they should be.
(JM) First, I was referring to the present Democratic nominees for President of the United States. I never made any mention of previous administrations. Do you read with your heart (i.e., emotionally) or your brain (i.e., rationally, logically, intellectually)?
Second, where does this belief in Bush's lack of intelligence come from? I realize that S.N.L, and the liberal media that you resist acknowledging poke fun at him all of the time, but what has he done that is so stupid? Do you remember when Clinton mistook the Declaration of Independence for the Gettysburg Address! How about the time that Gore could not distinguish a statue of Washington from Jefferson! Now that is profoundly stupid, especially for a sitting President, or VP. For the leader of our nation to have no sense of history of that nation is amazingly ignorant. Show me the equivalent buffoonery in Bush.
Third, what do you define as rushing? From what I remember it took a long time before the war got under way. Shall we compare our timetables?
Fourth, and this is amazingly illogical in my opinion, how does the lack of evidence PROVE that the inspections were working? If you smell smoke in your kids room, but cannot find the cigarette, then will you walk away if the child says that "it must not exist since you cannot find it!" You must elaborate on the labrynthian pattern of your thinking here because the logic alludes me. Also, what leverage of Saddam's are we speaking of? I would think his best play would be to just admit that he did not have any W.M.D.s, and thus allow the inspectors to come and go as they please without restrictions, such as a mandatory heads-up on where they would soon be inspecting- I always found that fascinating as well.
Fifth, and most important, if you would allow me, and if you are as independently/open minded as you profess, then I would like to give you a source or two that may convince you that a liberal media bias not only exists but runs rampant in America today. Are you willing?
Bushisms?! Really now, you must quit reading these wacko websites and go for primary literature. This site is obviously a haven for Bush-haters.
I reiterate:
"It goes without saying -- or should -- that the Bush administration was not alone in worrying about Saddam's WMDs. Former Vice President Al Gore, for example, noted during a speech in September 2002: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Gore was and is highly critical of Bush's foreign policy, but he didn't doubt for a moment that Saddam was equipped with deadly chemical and biological agents. Nor did Bill Clinton, the United Nations, or even Jacques Chirac.
Even Saddam's own military officers believed there were stockpiles of illegal weapons. In its Page 1 story on Kay's findings, The New York Times noted that while "no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons . . . all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had chemical weapons. `They all said they didn't have it, but they thought other units had it,' Dr. Kay said." For those of us who never believed that the case for toppling Saddam depended primarily on his possession of unconventional weapons, the fact that he no longer possessed them changes very little. The war was right and proper because Saddam was a homicidal dictator who ruled with staggering brutality, because he provided support to international terrorists, and because Ba'athist Iraq was a threat to its neighbors."
(Amanda) If countries are able to be attacked because others BELIEVE they're going to invade other countries, then where will that put the U.S.? We have the largest stockpile of weapons in the world as well as the most mobile armed forces. And, based on our international diplomatic techniques at this point, I believe we pose one hell of a risk to others.
The FACT is, the president and his cronies told us we were going to war for a certain reason, that Iraq posed an imminent and immediate threat to the US. Our intelligence may or may not be lacking. We all know now (according to O'Neill) that bush wanted to go into Iraq since he had taken the oval office. Doesn't it stand to reason that bush and company may have skewed the intelligence to given them, to present a favorable outcome? The parents of the dead solders being brought back from Iraq were told their sons/daughters were needed to protect America's interest from WMD. Now no such weapons exist. Don't you think those people are owned an explanation? an apology? You can't give the lame argument that Saddam was a bad man, we all know that, there are several "bad" men in the world, we aren't out attacking them.
You harp on the resolutions, well what about the 88 other countries that are in violation of UN resolutions. Why don't we go bomb Israel, they are in violation of quite a few.
If I know a guy is a millionaire and I don't see him for a while and again see him and he's driving a nice car, I assume he's still a millionaire. Doesn't mean he is. We can't go to wars on assumptions and circumstantial evidence. Get your head out of bush's ass and see what's truly going on. We should at least be SCREAMING for an INDEPENDENT inquiry, but I imagine that would embarrass bush and company quite a bit.
(JM) Can you kindly provide for me one example in our nation's history where we went to war as the aggressor? Also, what more could Bush have done diplomatically? He gave Saddam every chance to cooperate. Do we blame Saddam for being an ass? No! We blame Bush, of course. Again, I do not understand this "blame America first" crowd- just a bunch of spoiled brat idiots who, if they lived any where else in the world for about a year, would be on their hands and knees begging to come back to the U.S. I personally would tell them to "piss off!" The U.S., while not the Garden of Eden as so many utopians would like it to be, is still a beacon of light in a world of darkness. Read What's So Great About America? by Dinesh D'Souza and I guarantee it will alter your frame of mind.
Let me ask you this, if it was ever proven that Saddam had his hands on W.M.D.s, would you worry that he would use them? I mean, would you even be concerned...at all? Or are you so confident in the greatness of his benevolence over someone like...oh, let's say...Bush?
Your refusal to capitalize Bush's name only shows me how deep your bias goes and how absurd your claim of neutrality and independence is. Just like your utter refusal to read a column by Bill O'Reilly.
Concerning the other countries in violations of resolutions, how many do you feel are as dangerous as Iraq was? Should we honestly be concerned about Israel? Are they a threat to us? And, as for the countries that may actually pose a threat, how many are worse than Iraq was? How many of those dictators tried to kill the President of the U.S. A loyal American, despite his or her politics, would be affronted by such an attempt. Of course, an America hater would see that as no justifiable means to target Iraq. I agree that this alone would not suffice for a cause for war, but it certainly is a valid factor when assessing the threat that they pose.
I agree that there ought to be an independent inquiry, and the Bush administration's resistance does make me suspicious. You have to read, or listen to, What's So Great About America? by Dinesh D'Souza.
I don't think anyone would dispute that Saddam was a bad man. That's not what is at issue. What the issue is, is that we were lead to believe that he was an imminent and immediate threat to the US, which has been proven completely false. No WMD, no chemical or biological weapons, no nuclear weapons, no ties to terrorism, just nothing. We were lied to plain and simple and they just keep lying and people just keep believing. When are the people going to get tired of this and say, "hey what gives?" I think that many people just can't face the reality of how corrupt the government of the United States is so they'd just rather bury their heads in the sand and blindly follow this idiot wherever he may lead us. As a side note, I think the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.
(JM) First, the "proof" that Saddam is or was not a threat to the U.S.....you have this in your possession? Please enthrall me with your sources. Everyone, including Clinton himself, admits that Saddam did have WMDs in his possession. The question not answered by 19 U.N. resolutions is...where did they go? Some evidence points to their being dumped in the Euphrates River, other says they were smuggled into Syria. If he did not have them, then why did he refuse to cooperate with the world. If he did have them, then was he not a constant threat? Did he not fund terrorist organizations opposed to the U.S.? You claim "no ties to terrorism"- shall we compare sources? See, here is the problem with those opposed to the Bush plan: they are too certain of their guess work. In other words, which side is it better to err on? Is it better to pretend Saddam was not a threat, be wrong, and thus end up fighting on our own soil? Or is it better to assume the worst, be prepared, and at least have the option of choosing where to fight? Liberals are too sure of their uncertainty. Their hatred for Bush blinds them to the REAL threat. Don't succumb to partisan ideology because it can be delusional.
If you wish to compare corruption of governments, then you are going to be hard pressed to find one less corrupt than the U.S. I know not where this self-loathing of home and country derives, but it does seem to be fashionable these days, and certainly passe'. Lastly, be careful with the name calling- it is the libs who are supposed to be compassionate, remember?
I'll take a handwritten memo over Newsweek any day. A lot of fluff about a "senior Bush administration official", "federal authorities", "officials in Washington".....how about a name? Sound like bunk to me; however, the White House source was impressive. Could it be that Bush is bidding his time until all of the evidence is in? I certainly wouldn't want to jump the gun on this issue.
I will respond to your other email as soon as I can, but you said so many preposterous and erroneous things, that I scarcely know where to begin!
(Amanda) Subject: RE: proof of ties http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html
One question for you. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.
(JM) I have decided to systematically address all points that you made in the chronology in which you made them- so here it goes…
You say he had WMDs “probably in the distant past”. When I hear that term I think of the Greeks and Romans, not the year 1998. My original question remains unaddressed- what became of them? Do you think Saddam dismantled them out of the goodness of his heart? If they were unaccounted for, then it is prudent to assume that he still has them. Like I said, libs are too sure of their guesswork, and, what is worse, they are too trusting of ruthless monarchs (and equally mistrustful of a Republican). I was not aware that we have “continuously” bombed Iraq for the past 10 years, but if we had, then Clinton is to blame, is he not?
The U.N. inspectors were nothing more than keystone cops, and despite their bungling Saddam still kicked them out- rather uncooperative in my book. You mention other countries, namely U.S. allies, who have also violated U.N. resolutions. I would think that it would be prudent, as with all things, to deal with the worst case first and, since they are allies anyway, worry about lesser cases later. Otherwise, Bush would then be criticized for spreading our forces too thin, right? I personally hold the U.N. in very low esteem, and consider it an irrelevant and ineffectual organization.
You “loathe” Bush, that is clear, and see his policies as “dangerous”. What I see as infinitely more dangerous is the liberal frame of mind that says we ought to inexhaustibly appease ruthless dictators, which invariably will do nothing more than encourage violence against us. What so many Americans do not realize is that we are perceived as weak for this very reason, and thus vulnerable. These leaders know that we cannot stomach even the minutest of causalities, and will pull out of conflict if public opinion turns out of favor with the war, despite how many billions of dollars have already been spent on the endeavor. If you want to point to something truly dangerous, then all you have to do is look at the ramifications that resulted from the Toricelli Principle. Now that was truly stupid and disastrous. Your call for police work against a crime versus military action against an act of war is so ridiculous that I hardly feel a response is merited (as if Saddam would have cooperated with police action- is that for real?).
I have to admit that I am a bit bewildered by your thesis that there is a “role of cooperation in the survival of the fittest.” Please explain further for I am truly intrigued. So you blame the 1998 bombing of Iraq on the “neo-conservatives”? Do you assign any blame to Clinton? The non-partisan claim you have made is waning in my mind.
You have devised a rather elaborate conspiracy theory that claims that Bush “exploited” 9-11 for his own purposes. Tell me, what should he have done? Better yet, if you were the President, what would your response to 9-11 have been? Also, again, I need elaboration on this “agenda of American supremacy” theory. You say Bush is leading us in a “dangerous direction”. I say that Clinton put us there, and Bush is doing the only thing that he can. Consider this: a bully picks on a kid who may even be bigger than he himself, but the kid never fights back. Now tell me, will this inaction dissuade the little bully, or will it encourage him, and others like him, to not only continue bullying, but augment it?! Whether the utopians like it or not, the periodic show of force works, and sends a message that must be sent. Libya has now begun voluntarily dismantling its WMD program, and Iran is now opening up to inspections. Does anyone honestly doubt that this was because of the present state of Saddam Hussein? C’mon, let’s use our heads and get in the game here!
You allude to something that makes me curious. Unless I am mistaken, you are implying that by trying to maintain it’s military supremacy, the U.S. is doing a bad thing. Is that correct, and, if so, then why? Who should have it then? I know, no one, right? Perhaps things were better during the Cold War when there were two super powers. No nation in the history of earth has ever been as righteous with their military as the United States has. Yes, our past is not unalloyed, but whose is? Shall we compare the use of military force throughout history, and see where the U.S.'s policy lies? Do I have to actually point out that we are far more ethical than all of the other major powers of history? Sure, we are presently occupying Iraq temporarily until we can get them on their feet, but we are not taking over anyone or anything in the traditional sense of military conquest.
What do you feel are “the actual principles and requirements of freedom and democracy”, and what do you feel Bush’s are? When Bush mentions the endurance of freedom, of course he implies our freedom in that claim as well, but what reason do you have to believe that this man is honestly not interested in freedom for others? Does loathing of him cause you to see him as a despot? It has always been my contention that emotion clouds judgment, and who would disagree?
You make an assertion that in a free society the masses determine what freedom and democracy are on an individual basis. Please explain further because this sounds suspiciously like anarchy to me. Besides, why wouldn’t people wish to follow America’s lead? Are we not the best national example of personal freedom and liberties for its citizens? Are we not still a beacon to the oppressed in every corner of the globe? If not, then why are people sacrificing their fortunes and lives just to make it to our shores? We are perceived a the “Great Satan” by a large number of Middle Easterners because, since the age of about two, they have been brainwashed with propaganda to believe that the horrid state of their lives is the result of the West, and not the despicable despots who keep all of the money of the nation for themselves while their people starve. Many of these citizens are illiterate, uneducated, and totally duped- of course they hate us.
Terrorists may never totally disappear, but they may be dissuaded after witnessing the demise of Saddam and his regime. They certainly will not desist if we continue to appease them. This is pure human nature, and common sense. We are already at risk in a dangerous world. Bush is letting it be known that we will not be pushed around. What policy would have been more effective than the one currently being used by the Bush administration? Perhaps if we said “pretty please” to the monarchical monsters, or if we let the U.N. handle things, perhaps we could send Jesse Jackson over there to negotiate peace, wait- I know!- we could beg our back-stabbing allies (who have selfish interests and personal investments with Iraq) to take care of it and look out for us. I too have sympathy for innocent victims, particularly those of 9-11.
Lastly, you claim to be an independent thinker and are very proud of this “novel” type of thinking. I too pride myself for this attribute, and presume many others do as well (so much for novelty). What I don’t understand is why one cannot be a liberal or conservative, or whatever, and still be an independent thinker? It is the ideologues who are the true dopes. What is so wrong with labels anyway? I see them as a practical way of categorizing things. Sure, they do not represent a complete picture, but this is implicit and silly to have to point out. Incidentally, “independent thinker” is also a label, is it not?
Well, I would just like to thank you again for engaging me. It seems so few of us have the ability to make cogent arguments in favor of our stances. So many, it seems, believe things wholeheartedly, and positively cannot articulate why. This is what happens when the heart does the brain's job. How we feel about something is a foolish way to derive an opinion. Opinions ought to be logical, rational, and, above all, educated. I hold little esteem for uneducated opinions, and regard them as immaterial. Wouldn't you agree?
(Amanda) Seriously, how do you defend this?? Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed" after the 1991 Gulf War. The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq "can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at all.
Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were linked. In response, the Administration is beginning to blame the intelligence community for the WMD fiasco, and planning an internal "review of prewar intelligence."
Administration ally Kay concurred, arguing "I think the intelligence community owes the president [an apoogy] rather than the president owing the American people." Despite Mr. Kay's assertions, experts who knew the record of U.N. inspections knew that finding no WMD "was always a strong possibility...but Bush administration officials never acknowledged it." Earlier reporting found that senior Administration officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence," and the White House set up a separate intelligence apparatus, the "Office of Special Plans," to "cherry-pick intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest." For example, the president's well-known declaration in last year's State of the Union, asserting that Iraq "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," remained despite CIA demands to remove such allegations from his speech.
(JM) Before I address the article, I would like to point out that during the early goings, many of the present Democratic Presidential candidates (i.e., Clark, Dean, Kerry, etc.) supported the war because they too admitted that Saddam had W.M.D.s. The point is, if they were mistaken due to a lack of poor info, or whatever, then why can't Bush have been mistaken also? Why is he the mastermind behind a major conspiracy? Everyone, including the leaders of several other nations, believed that Saddam had W.M.D.s. Was it because Bush mislead them? No, more likely it was because, at one point, Saddam's regime did (and probably still does) have them, and Saddam himself would not cooperate with the inspectors. Besides, recently some stockpiles were found. Perhaps not the smoking gun we were looking for, but evidence none-the-less. Now, as for this article...
Consider the source first of all- The New York Times! Could there be a more liberally biased paper in the world?! Show me anywhere in this article where the author makes the point that I just did- many Democrats as well were making the same claim about W.M.D.s and thus supported the war initially, although they are now backtracking as well. However, this is not mentioned- curious. I reiterate an earlier point: would it have been better to give this ruthless monarch the benefit of the doubt (even though he never did deny having W.M.D.s), or would it be more prudent to assume the worst and, after umptine resolutions and being given the middle finger, go in to remove him? How any clear thinking person can argue with the decision to attack Iraq based on this line of reasoning is befuddling. Please show where my rationale is misguided.
(Amanda) It really doesn't matter what the previous administrations or others thought, they didn't act on it. Bush did. So Bush takes the fall. I think he (not him personally, he's too stupid) and his cronies cherry picked the intel. The point is, we DID NOT need to rush to this war. Obviously weapons inspections were working (as evidenced by the lack of WMD). Of course he didn't say he didn't have any, that was his only leverage. As for the New York Times, I don't understand all this hollaring about liberal media, I think none of them are liberal, especially when I see the articles on the 10th page instead of the front like they should be.
(JM) First, I was referring to the present Democratic nominees for President of the United States. I never made any mention of previous administrations. Do you read with your heart (i.e., emotionally) or your brain (i.e., rationally, logically, intellectually)?
Second, where does this belief in Bush's lack of intelligence come from? I realize that S.N.L, and the liberal media that you resist acknowledging poke fun at him all of the time, but what has he done that is so stupid? Do you remember when Clinton mistook the Declaration of Independence for the Gettysburg Address! How about the time that Gore could not distinguish a statue of Washington from Jefferson! Now that is profoundly stupid, especially for a sitting President, or VP. For the leader of our nation to have no sense of history of that nation is amazingly ignorant. Show me the equivalent buffoonery in Bush.
Third, what do you define as rushing? From what I remember it took a long time before the war got under way. Shall we compare our timetables?
Fourth, and this is amazingly illogical in my opinion, how does the lack of evidence PROVE that the inspections were working? If you smell smoke in your kids room, but cannot find the cigarette, then will you walk away if the child says that "it must not exist since you cannot find it!" You must elaborate on the labrynthian pattern of your thinking here because the logic alludes me. Also, what leverage of Saddam's are we speaking of? I would think his best play would be to just admit that he did not have any W.M.D.s, and thus allow the inspectors to come and go as they please without restrictions, such as a mandatory heads-up on where they would soon be inspecting- I always found that fascinating as well.
Fifth, and most important, if you would allow me, and if you are as independently/open minded as you profess, then I would like to give you a source or two that may convince you that a liberal media bias not only exists but runs rampant in America today. Are you willing?
Bushisms?! Really now, you must quit reading these wacko websites and go for primary literature. This site is obviously a haven for Bush-haters.
I reiterate:
"It goes without saying -- or should -- that the Bush administration was not alone in worrying about Saddam's WMDs. Former Vice President Al Gore, for example, noted during a speech in September 2002: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Gore was and is highly critical of Bush's foreign policy, but he didn't doubt for a moment that Saddam was equipped with deadly chemical and biological agents. Nor did Bill Clinton, the United Nations, or even Jacques Chirac.
Even Saddam's own military officers believed there were stockpiles of illegal weapons. In its Page 1 story on Kay's findings, The New York Times noted that while "no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons . . . all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had chemical weapons. `They all said they didn't have it, but they thought other units had it,' Dr. Kay said." For those of us who never believed that the case for toppling Saddam depended primarily on his possession of unconventional weapons, the fact that he no longer possessed them changes very little. The war was right and proper because Saddam was a homicidal dictator who ruled with staggering brutality, because he provided support to international terrorists, and because Ba'athist Iraq was a threat to its neighbors."
(Amanda) If countries are able to be attacked because others BELIEVE they're going to invade other countries, then where will that put the U.S.? We have the largest stockpile of weapons in the world as well as the most mobile armed forces. And, based on our international diplomatic techniques at this point, I believe we pose one hell of a risk to others.
The FACT is, the president and his cronies told us we were going to war for a certain reason, that Iraq posed an imminent and immediate threat to the US. Our intelligence may or may not be lacking. We all know now (according to O'Neill) that bush wanted to go into Iraq since he had taken the oval office. Doesn't it stand to reason that bush and company may have skewed the intelligence to given them, to present a favorable outcome? The parents of the dead solders being brought back from Iraq were told their sons/daughters were needed to protect America's interest from WMD. Now no such weapons exist. Don't you think those people are owned an explanation? an apology? You can't give the lame argument that Saddam was a bad man, we all know that, there are several "bad" men in the world, we aren't out attacking them.
You harp on the resolutions, well what about the 88 other countries that are in violation of UN resolutions. Why don't we go bomb Israel, they are in violation of quite a few.
If I know a guy is a millionaire and I don't see him for a while and again see him and he's driving a nice car, I assume he's still a millionaire. Doesn't mean he is. We can't go to wars on assumptions and circumstantial evidence. Get your head out of bush's ass and see what's truly going on. We should at least be SCREAMING for an INDEPENDENT inquiry, but I imagine that would embarrass bush and company quite a bit.
(JM) Can you kindly provide for me one example in our nation's history where we went to war as the aggressor? Also, what more could Bush have done diplomatically? He gave Saddam every chance to cooperate. Do we blame Saddam for being an ass? No! We blame Bush, of course. Again, I do not understand this "blame America first" crowd- just a bunch of spoiled brat idiots who, if they lived any where else in the world for about a year, would be on their hands and knees begging to come back to the U.S. I personally would tell them to "piss off!" The U.S., while not the Garden of Eden as so many utopians would like it to be, is still a beacon of light in a world of darkness. Read What's So Great About America? by Dinesh D'Souza and I guarantee it will alter your frame of mind.
Let me ask you this, if it was ever proven that Saddam had his hands on W.M.D.s, would you worry that he would use them? I mean, would you even be concerned...at all? Or are you so confident in the greatness of his benevolence over someone like...oh, let's say...Bush?
Your refusal to capitalize Bush's name only shows me how deep your bias goes and how absurd your claim of neutrality and independence is. Just like your utter refusal to read a column by Bill O'Reilly.
Concerning the other countries in violations of resolutions, how many do you feel are as dangerous as Iraq was? Should we honestly be concerned about Israel? Are they a threat to us? And, as for the countries that may actually pose a threat, how many are worse than Iraq was? How many of those dictators tried to kill the President of the U.S. A loyal American, despite his or her politics, would be affronted by such an attempt. Of course, an America hater would see that as no justifiable means to target Iraq. I agree that this alone would not suffice for a cause for war, but it certainly is a valid factor when assessing the threat that they pose.
I agree that there ought to be an independent inquiry, and the Bush administration's resistance does make me suspicious. You have to read, or listen to, What's So Great About America? by Dinesh D'Souza.
Mrs. T. and I
(Mrs. T) We have just returned from a vacation in Montana. We have family that live just outside of Bigfork (near Kalispell)--about 40 miles outside of Glacier National Park. We go frequently, because we love the area, but one observable fact that sticks out as obviously as the American flag without its stripes is that there is no one--NO ONE!-- of color. It is as white as Wonder Bread. Even native Americans (mostly Blackfeet) are relatively few. More disturbing than the lack of diversity is that the people I talked to don't see anything abnormal about it, and because of their lack of exposure to other cultures, they become completely bewildered about things that are "different." A major topic of discussion revolved around a family from California that had recently built their retirement home there--and it had a resemblance to Chinese architecture. And they weren't even Chinese! When asked if he doesn't mind that there isn't more diversity in the area, my resident relative replied, "Well, there are already a lot of poor white people here. Why would black people want to live here?" It never occurred to this family member that being black doesn't mean being poor. It seems to me prejudices exist due to lack of exposure to and understanding of cultural diversities.
(JM) Well, you just knew that I could not resist replying to your last email. I still wait, with great anticipation, for a cogent explanation as to reason for the dire need for diversity and specifically why it is so crucial for societies' benefit since many educated people are prejudiced as well (I am reminded of this every time a conservative tries to speak at Bezerkley). Sure, it is interesting, even fascinating, to meet people from other nations and learn about various ways of life. My favorite place on earth is Disney's EPCOT where I walk straight to the portion containing the various countries. Nothing pleases me more, in fact, than to experience a wide array of cultures. Having said that, I must confess a skepticism, and strong concern for the current trend of coerced diversity. There is something artificial and insincere about this new political fad, and even sinister, for forced diversity seems synthetic and pointless. The best diversity is that of a natural sort. Telling people to mingle for their own edification and enlightenment, and stressing to them their bigotry and ignorance for not doing so (i.e., socially pressuring and forcing them) will actually stir resentment and, in the long run, cause them to resist and eventually to dislike one another- the opposite intention. Now that is truly disturbing.
Why ought we to be disturbed by the existence of homogenous societies? Are they taboo now? Does this same disturbed feeling apply to non-white homogenous nations as well? There are many peoples around the globe who are even more ignorant and hateful of outsiders than those in Montana- no, it’s true! For instance, how accepting are the various tribes in Africa of strangers? Does not a white face appear as strange and unwelcome to them? What of the many Asian societies? Are not interracial marriages frowned upon in China, Japan, Korea, etc.? Are Middle Easterners as accepting of foreigners as we? What would one of these men say if his daughter we to marry a "white devil"? It appears to me that prejudice exists all over the world and always has, yet which culture is the most accepting of outsiders? Answer...western culture. Did not slavery exist in every corner of the earth at some point or another and does it not still exist in many places today? Yet democracy and the abolition of slavery were begun by whom? Answer...white westerners. In point of fact, where does slavery exist most prevalently today? Answer...Africa. And did not the Egyptians and Muslims also engage in slavery in their history? Has anyone studied the origins of Liberia? The Native American fallback response is futile and false because it existed among many of their tribes as well.
Lastly, if an assumption is made that black equals poor, then who is to blame for this fallacy? Are we not told that programs such as affirmative action (cute name isn't it?) are absolutely necessary for black success, equal opportunity, and diversity? Honestly, who is truly responsible for this misconception? When Halle Berry does commercials for the M.L.K. Foundation, which imply that segregation would return instantly if funds are not given, does she not reinforce these fears through scare tactics? And am I as a white male entitled to be offended by that commercial and for the assumptions it makes? Also, don’t many minority groups voluntarily and willingly segregate themselves? I do not have the benefit of a sheltered life and from viewing things through rose-colored spectacles atop an ivory tower. Down here in the muck of life, things appear very clearly and I realize that those who see things differently often times do not really see at all.
P.S. Is white no longer a color?
Not absurdity as much as money.
P.S. I admit to striving to be one of those "over-compassionate, over-understanding" people.
I am glad that we allow people to sue for injustice, have heath care for the elderly and indigent, provide food stamps and assistance for the poor, etc., etc., but there is far too much abuse out there. We are tying the hands of the police, doctors, business owners, etc. and we are removing their incentive. I fear that insistent, nonsensical over-compassion and over-understanding of a major minority of persons (often times despicable persons) is hurting the overwhelming majority of people. Even as an anti-religioso I still feel it is silly to make such a fuss about the pledge. When I was in high school I stood quietly and respectfully did not recite it. It would have never occured to me to sue because the majority of people are religious. If in another country, it would never occur to me to sue because a god different from mine was more popularly worshipped- I would respect the beliefs of those whose country I was in. The majority is not always right, but we are to the point now where the minority rule simply because they are louder and more active. Common sense must rule regardless if it is endorsed by the majority or minority. Absurdity rules in America today. What do you think?
endearingly,
JM
(Mrs.T.) Im (sic) afraid even incompetent surgeons pass med school. (Think about some of the students that will graduate with you and get a pharmacy license). I'm glad you got to witness one of the good ones.
(JM) I was fortunate enough to be able to witness open heart surgery today! It was remarkable. I stood just behind the surgeon watching over his shoulder as he explained to me what he was doing. The patient was getting a CABG done. They pulled a vein from his leg and sewed it onto his heart. I was there for the whole thing- from the time they brought in the sedated and drowsy patient, cutting his chest open, performing all of the surgical intricacies, and sewing him back up again. I was mesmerized. These people are real heroes in my opinion. It is such a shame that, in our society, we idolize athletes and rock stars rather than people of consequence, people who really make a difference. Not only that, but then we sue the pants off of them! I heard on the radio this morning about a doctors strike. Lawyers are just waiting outside of the recovery room hoping for the opportunity to cash in, so to speak. It's sickening. Anyway, I apologize for going off on a rant. I merely wanted to share this unique experience.
ta ta, JM
(Mrs. T.) Is this story supposed to make me feel sorry for the 10th man?
(JM) This is the single best tax analogy I've ever seen! I hope this solves the controversy once and for all.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT !
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
I know that pity is reserved for those less fortunate (bums, criminals, crack whores, etc.), and never for the hard working and successful. No, the story is meant to convey the preposterous arguments made by those opposed to tax cuts. I think that this analogy is as concise as any I have ever seen. Any tax cut will benefit those who make more money because the more you make the more the govt. takes. Why should the poor (< $30,000/yr) get a tax break if they hardly pay any income taxes in the first place? Sure, we can get into "loopholes" and "write-offs", but the gist of this issue is demonstrated in that brilliant analogy. I have to work until May before I get to keep MY money! And where does it go?! If it were spent more wisely, then that may be something, but it is squandered to a saddening degree. So...miss me?
(JM) Well, you just knew that I could not resist replying to your last email. I still wait, with great anticipation, for a cogent explanation as to reason for the dire need for diversity and specifically why it is so crucial for societies' benefit since many educated people are prejudiced as well (I am reminded of this every time a conservative tries to speak at Bezerkley). Sure, it is interesting, even fascinating, to meet people from other nations and learn about various ways of life. My favorite place on earth is Disney's EPCOT where I walk straight to the portion containing the various countries. Nothing pleases me more, in fact, than to experience a wide array of cultures. Having said that, I must confess a skepticism, and strong concern for the current trend of coerced diversity. There is something artificial and insincere about this new political fad, and even sinister, for forced diversity seems synthetic and pointless. The best diversity is that of a natural sort. Telling people to mingle for their own edification and enlightenment, and stressing to them their bigotry and ignorance for not doing so (i.e., socially pressuring and forcing them) will actually stir resentment and, in the long run, cause them to resist and eventually to dislike one another- the opposite intention. Now that is truly disturbing.
Why ought we to be disturbed by the existence of homogenous societies? Are they taboo now? Does this same disturbed feeling apply to non-white homogenous nations as well? There are many peoples around the globe who are even more ignorant and hateful of outsiders than those in Montana- no, it’s true! For instance, how accepting are the various tribes in Africa of strangers? Does not a white face appear as strange and unwelcome to them? What of the many Asian societies? Are not interracial marriages frowned upon in China, Japan, Korea, etc.? Are Middle Easterners as accepting of foreigners as we? What would one of these men say if his daughter we to marry a "white devil"? It appears to me that prejudice exists all over the world and always has, yet which culture is the most accepting of outsiders? Answer...western culture. Did not slavery exist in every corner of the earth at some point or another and does it not still exist in many places today? Yet democracy and the abolition of slavery were begun by whom? Answer...white westerners. In point of fact, where does slavery exist most prevalently today? Answer...Africa. And did not the Egyptians and Muslims also engage in slavery in their history? Has anyone studied the origins of Liberia? The Native American fallback response is futile and false because it existed among many of their tribes as well.
Lastly, if an assumption is made that black equals poor, then who is to blame for this fallacy? Are we not told that programs such as affirmative action (cute name isn't it?) are absolutely necessary for black success, equal opportunity, and diversity? Honestly, who is truly responsible for this misconception? When Halle Berry does commercials for the M.L.K. Foundation, which imply that segregation would return instantly if funds are not given, does she not reinforce these fears through scare tactics? And am I as a white male entitled to be offended by that commercial and for the assumptions it makes? Also, don’t many minority groups voluntarily and willingly segregate themselves? I do not have the benefit of a sheltered life and from viewing things through rose-colored spectacles atop an ivory tower. Down here in the muck of life, things appear very clearly and I realize that those who see things differently often times do not really see at all.
P.S. Is white no longer a color?
Not absurdity as much as money.
P.S. I admit to striving to be one of those "over-compassionate, over-understanding" people.
I am glad that we allow people to sue for injustice, have heath care for the elderly and indigent, provide food stamps and assistance for the poor, etc., etc., but there is far too much abuse out there. We are tying the hands of the police, doctors, business owners, etc. and we are removing their incentive. I fear that insistent, nonsensical over-compassion and over-understanding of a major minority of persons (often times despicable persons) is hurting the overwhelming majority of people. Even as an anti-religioso I still feel it is silly to make such a fuss about the pledge. When I was in high school I stood quietly and respectfully did not recite it. It would have never occured to me to sue because the majority of people are religious. If in another country, it would never occur to me to sue because a god different from mine was more popularly worshipped- I would respect the beliefs of those whose country I was in. The majority is not always right, but we are to the point now where the minority rule simply because they are louder and more active. Common sense must rule regardless if it is endorsed by the majority or minority. Absurdity rules in America today. What do you think?
endearingly,
JM
(Mrs.T.) Im (sic) afraid even incompetent surgeons pass med school. (Think about some of the students that will graduate with you and get a pharmacy license). I'm glad you got to witness one of the good ones.
(JM) I was fortunate enough to be able to witness open heart surgery today! It was remarkable. I stood just behind the surgeon watching over his shoulder as he explained to me what he was doing. The patient was getting a CABG done. They pulled a vein from his leg and sewed it onto his heart. I was there for the whole thing- from the time they brought in the sedated and drowsy patient, cutting his chest open, performing all of the surgical intricacies, and sewing him back up again. I was mesmerized. These people are real heroes in my opinion. It is such a shame that, in our society, we idolize athletes and rock stars rather than people of consequence, people who really make a difference. Not only that, but then we sue the pants off of them! I heard on the radio this morning about a doctors strike. Lawyers are just waiting outside of the recovery room hoping for the opportunity to cash in, so to speak. It's sickening. Anyway, I apologize for going off on a rant. I merely wanted to share this unique experience.
ta ta, JM
(Mrs. T.) Is this story supposed to make me feel sorry for the 10th man?
(JM) This is the single best tax analogy I've ever seen! I hope this solves the controversy once and for all.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT !
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
I know that pity is reserved for those less fortunate (bums, criminals, crack whores, etc.), and never for the hard working and successful. No, the story is meant to convey the preposterous arguments made by those opposed to tax cuts. I think that this analogy is as concise as any I have ever seen. Any tax cut will benefit those who make more money because the more you make the more the govt. takes. Why should the poor (< $30,000/yr) get a tax break if they hardly pay any income taxes in the first place? Sure, we can get into "loopholes" and "write-offs", but the gist of this issue is demonstrated in that brilliant analogy. I have to work until May before I get to keep MY money! And where does it go?! If it were spent more wisely, then that may be something, but it is squandered to a saddening degree. So...miss me?
Mel and I
(Mel) Interesting video...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
(JM) Exactly, Bush Sr. was wrong in 1994. We should have gone all the way and taken Saddam out. He did not make the same error in judgement twice...did he?
(Mel) So in only your opinion, did the 1994 predictions not come to fruition from 2003 to present, or do you agree only with Cheney and disregard the NIE reports, military & Pentagon assessment, CIA, reporters on the ground, and common sense? If you are in favor of the administration's agenda, then why not enlist rather than writing biased blogs?
(JM) So, unless I enlist then I ought to shut up, is that it? Typical liberal argument...
Biased blog? What is wrong with that? I'm not allowed to express my opinions on my own blog? What ought to enrage you is so called "journalists" who are supposed to be impartial writing with a liberal left wing slant. Of course, as a lib yourself, this doesn't bother you at all does it? However, if they were all conservatives, well then you'd scream bloody murder wouldn't you?
Liberalism is a philosophy based on emotion and feelings. Conservatism is based on logic and rationale. You've chosen your side, and I have chosen mine. What's fair is fair. Peace...
(Mel) "We will be greeted as liberators", "the insurgency is in its last throws", bogus WMD argument, "Mission Accomplished", Abu Ghraib tortures, Guantanamo tortures, C.I.A. secret prisons, "Al Qaeda & Saddam link", "cheap & short war", Harriet Myers, "Heckuva job, Brownie", Alberto Gonzalez's "I don't recall", illegal wiretaps, outing a CIA agent, George Tenet, Cheney contradicts the 9/11 Report, White House, Pentagon, NSA, CIA...., "No Child Left Behind", "My Pet Goat", 1.5 yrs of vacation in 6 years of a presidency, immigration reform (700 mile fence for 2000+ mile border), scientists funded by Exxon Mobil to oppose climate change, media banned from showing images of flag draped coffins...this could go on forever.
Logical and rational, I think not, more like delusional and insane. There's a fine line between logic and ignorance. The game of dividing the country into being either liberal or conservative is kind of dumb. The world should never be seen in black or white...that only generates a simplistic view of how to interpret reality. America needs more intellectuals and fewer arrogant loud-talkers like Dr. Phil & Bill O'Reilly. By no means should you stop writing your blog, but in my opinion the administration needs more people like yourself that support this policy and are willing to simply "put your money where your mouth is".
Rupert Murdoch, FOX News owner: "We tried to shape the agenda" on the war in Iraq.
Choose a side that's not on either side of the great divide.
(JM) Isn't diversity great? Especially coerced diversity. We shouldn't allow people to mingle voluntarily, no no, we must force them to!
DIVERSITY STUDY FINDS THAT ETHNIC AND RACIAL DIVERSIFICATION DESTROYS THE BONDS OF SOCIETY...John Leo
(Mel) Putnum's ideas that new immigrants lack or degrade social capital in society is utterly false because it is due to strong social and familial relations that they survive and learn to navigate the American social and institutional fabric. White society largely exists (generalizing here) as atomized immediate family units, extended family are at arms length at best.
(JM) Uhmmm, black illegitimacy rate is 75%, hello? Illegal immigrants make up a disproportionate number of our federal prison population...hello? There are more black men between the ages 18 to 25 in prison than on the street, hello? Social and family relations??
(Mel) Finally, Putnum's analysis avoids addressing the role and legacy of white racism in this society in driving vulnerable ethnic groups into more insular attitudes towards other ethnic groups. In addition, the right wing cultural attacks on all non-european cultures creates a response from these cultures to champion and declare its own beauty, contribution and right to exist. Remember, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow is Beautiful! :-)
(JM) WTF are you talking about? The only racism that exists to a large extent and is institutionalized in America is that against whites and Asians. Affirmative action, hello? Chinese students with 4.0 GPAs are being turned away from California colleges because there are too many of them!!!! Trent Lott ring a bell?? Uhm...how about O.J. Simpson?! The Duke Lacrosse players, hello? Anyone there?
(Mel) So are you implying you have a problem with diversity, while you are married to a Chinese/Vietnamese woman? Would you rather we go back to the pre-Civil Rights days when everyone was segregated?
(JM) Now this is truly your most stupid argument. So let me get this straight, unless I cow tow to liberal demands and definitions about fairness viz-a-viz race and diversity, then I am a...what was that...pre-Civil Rights devotee? This is lesson one in the liberal handbook. If they disagree with you, then call them a bunch of racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobes...blah, blah, blah...very dull. Yes, I have a problem with FORCED diversity because it is profoundly stupid and harmful. You can't force people to mix who do not want to, and I have news for you, whites are the most willing to mix of all races and Americans of all cultures. You libs need to get your heads out of the clouds, take off those rose colored glasses, come down from your ivory towers, abandon your pie-in-the-sky hair brained schemes, and honestly evaluate your dumb ideas and acknowledge them for the failures that they are. Natural diversity is hunky dory, but don't call me a racist just because I don't succumb to your dumb ass philosophy, which is destroying the country by the way, and has just been proven false by a Harvard study.
It's your side of the isle asking if Obama is black enough...liberals obsessed with race.
(JM sent) Disinformation by Richard Miniter
Do As I Say, Not As I Do by Peter Schweizer
Michael Moore pretends to be impartial...a true "documentarian". Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Dennis Miller...all come out and admit up front that they are conservative. But not Dan Rather, or Katie Couric, or Walter Cronkite, and on and on.
(Mel) I think something is wrong with you...You have one point of view on everything, and you're a part of the crowd that still believes that WMDs are in Iraq and that the world is as old as Genesis. I am totally opposed to reading anything that will influence me to spill your delusional rhetoric. The answer to end racism is to divide the races? You should be embarassed (sic) and then admitted.
(JM) Yep, you'll never read it and you'll forever remain brainwashed. And who the hell said I believed in Genesis? Do you see that? Do you see what just happened there? You made a totally off-the-wall assumption about me being religious simply because I am conservative. You are prejudiced!!! You're the damn BIGOT!!! I caught you! Did you see that? You're busted honey.....Oh yeah, and never read anything that might upset the balance in that delicate mind of yours, after all, you don't want to risk learning that you have been mislead all of this time. That sure would suck, although, better late than never, but you're too single minded to read beyond your cultish propaganda. Too bad...the truth is out there.
(JM) Exactly, Bush Sr. was wrong in 1994. We should have gone all the way and taken Saddam out. He did not make the same error in judgement twice...did he?
(Mel) So in only your opinion, did the 1994 predictions not come to fruition from 2003 to present, or do you agree only with Cheney and disregard the NIE reports, military & Pentagon assessment, CIA, reporters on the ground, and common sense? If you are in favor of the administration's agenda, then why not enlist rather than writing biased blogs?
(JM) So, unless I enlist then I ought to shut up, is that it? Typical liberal argument...
Biased blog? What is wrong with that? I'm not allowed to express my opinions on my own blog? What ought to enrage you is so called "journalists" who are supposed to be impartial writing with a liberal left wing slant. Of course, as a lib yourself, this doesn't bother you at all does it? However, if they were all conservatives, well then you'd scream bloody murder wouldn't you?
Liberalism is a philosophy based on emotion and feelings. Conservatism is based on logic and rationale. You've chosen your side, and I have chosen mine. What's fair is fair. Peace...
(Mel) "We will be greeted as liberators", "the insurgency is in its last throws", bogus WMD argument, "Mission Accomplished", Abu Ghraib tortures, Guantanamo tortures, C.I.A. secret prisons, "Al Qaeda & Saddam link", "cheap & short war", Harriet Myers, "Heckuva job, Brownie", Alberto Gonzalez's "I don't recall", illegal wiretaps, outing a CIA agent, George Tenet, Cheney contradicts the 9/11 Report, White House, Pentagon, NSA, CIA...., "No Child Left Behind", "My Pet Goat", 1.5 yrs of vacation in 6 years of a presidency, immigration reform (700 mile fence for 2000+ mile border), scientists funded by Exxon Mobil to oppose climate change, media banned from showing images of flag draped coffins...this could go on forever.
Logical and rational, I think not, more like delusional and insane. There's a fine line between logic and ignorance. The game of dividing the country into being either liberal or conservative is kind of dumb. The world should never be seen in black or white...that only generates a simplistic view of how to interpret reality. America needs more intellectuals and fewer arrogant loud-talkers like Dr. Phil & Bill O'Reilly. By no means should you stop writing your blog, but in my opinion the administration needs more people like yourself that support this policy and are willing to simply "put your money where your mouth is".
Rupert Murdoch, FOX News owner: "We tried to shape the agenda" on the war in Iraq.
Choose a side that's not on either side of the great divide.
(JM) Isn't diversity great? Especially coerced diversity. We shouldn't allow people to mingle voluntarily, no no, we must force them to!
DIVERSITY STUDY FINDS THAT ETHNIC AND RACIAL DIVERSIFICATION DESTROYS THE BONDS OF SOCIETY...John Leo
(Mel) Putnum's ideas that new immigrants lack or degrade social capital in society is utterly false because it is due to strong social and familial relations that they survive and learn to navigate the American social and institutional fabric. White society largely exists (generalizing here) as atomized immediate family units, extended family are at arms length at best.
(JM) Uhmmm, black illegitimacy rate is 75%, hello? Illegal immigrants make up a disproportionate number of our federal prison population...hello? There are more black men between the ages 18 to 25 in prison than on the street, hello? Social and family relations??
(Mel) Finally, Putnum's analysis avoids addressing the role and legacy of white racism in this society in driving vulnerable ethnic groups into more insular attitudes towards other ethnic groups. In addition, the right wing cultural attacks on all non-european cultures creates a response from these cultures to champion and declare its own beauty, contribution and right to exist. Remember, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow is Beautiful! :-)
(JM) WTF are you talking about? The only racism that exists to a large extent and is institutionalized in America is that against whites and Asians. Affirmative action, hello? Chinese students with 4.0 GPAs are being turned away from California colleges because there are too many of them!!!! Trent Lott ring a bell?? Uhm...how about O.J. Simpson?! The Duke Lacrosse players, hello? Anyone there?
(Mel) So are you implying you have a problem with diversity, while you are married to a Chinese/Vietnamese woman? Would you rather we go back to the pre-Civil Rights days when everyone was segregated?
(JM) Now this is truly your most stupid argument. So let me get this straight, unless I cow tow to liberal demands and definitions about fairness viz-a-viz race and diversity, then I am a...what was that...pre-Civil Rights devotee? This is lesson one in the liberal handbook. If they disagree with you, then call them a bunch of racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobes...blah, blah, blah...very dull. Yes, I have a problem with FORCED diversity because it is profoundly stupid and harmful. You can't force people to mix who do not want to, and I have news for you, whites are the most willing to mix of all races and Americans of all cultures. You libs need to get your heads out of the clouds, take off those rose colored glasses, come down from your ivory towers, abandon your pie-in-the-sky hair brained schemes, and honestly evaluate your dumb ideas and acknowledge them for the failures that they are. Natural diversity is hunky dory, but don't call me a racist just because I don't succumb to your dumb ass philosophy, which is destroying the country by the way, and has just been proven false by a Harvard study.
It's your side of the isle asking if Obama is black enough...liberals obsessed with race.
(JM sent) Disinformation by Richard Miniter
Do As I Say, Not As I Do by Peter Schweizer
Michael Moore pretends to be impartial...a true "documentarian". Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Dennis Miller...all come out and admit up front that they are conservative. But not Dan Rather, or Katie Couric, or Walter Cronkite, and on and on.
(Mel) I think something is wrong with you...You have one point of view on everything, and you're a part of the crowd that still believes that WMDs are in Iraq and that the world is as old as Genesis. I am totally opposed to reading anything that will influence me to spill your delusional rhetoric. The answer to end racism is to divide the races? You should be embarassed (sic) and then admitted.
(JM) Yep, you'll never read it and you'll forever remain brainwashed. And who the hell said I believed in Genesis? Do you see that? Do you see what just happened there? You made a totally off-the-wall assumption about me being religious simply because I am conservative. You are prejudiced!!! You're the damn BIGOT!!! I caught you! Did you see that? You're busted honey.....Oh yeah, and never read anything that might upset the balance in that delicate mind of yours, after all, you don't want to risk learning that you have been mislead all of this time. That sure would suck, although, better late than never, but you're too single minded to read beyond your cultish propaganda. Too bad...the truth is out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
