Ugh
Over at America’s Shittiest Website™, Lisa Schiffren is having a meltdown over Mike Huckabee:
What do you think God’s standard is on anchor babies and birthright citizenship? (Manger!) Does Huckabee’s God believe in borders? What is God’s monetary policy? Is Jesus a capitalist? How much economic disparity will he tolerate? Wouldn’t God want us all to have health care? Nice shoes?
What about rendering unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s, and unto God that which is God’s? Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU. Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand.
So apparently it’s okay to shove religion down the throats of women and gays to advance an anti-gay and anti-choice agenda, but it is beyond the pale for anyone to use religion to advance an agenda seeking social justice. Apparently God hates fags but loves poverty. These people are truly loathsome.
Oh, and just who exactly is this “Ceaser” that we are supposed to render stuff to?
Chafze?
Beware… the Ides of March.
“Who invited the Christ-humper?”
“Uh, you did, Karl.”
“Get him the fuck outta here. He’s pissing on the carpet!”
Mighty nice Big Tent you got here, be a shame if sumpin were ta happen to it…
He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU. Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand.
Well, last time I checked, the ACLU wasn’t running a candidate.
Doesn’t she mean to say ‘the best advertisement ever for voting Democratic’?
“Oh, and just who exactly is this “Ceaser” that we are supposed to render stuff too?”
Center for Applied Software Engineering Research (CeASER)? I assume this means that we are supposed to pay tithes to the IT guys.
Ceaser the Ceasick Ceaserpent?
Can anyone explain the (Manger!)?
Apparently God hates fags but loves poverty
Yeah, and don’t forget it was that cocksucker God who told Bush to go ahead and invade Iraq, because don’t worry, there won’t be any casualties. This is according to Pat Robertson.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/politics/campaign/21pat.html
I want my two dollars!
Ol’ Power Glutes linked to her post approvingly:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/yglesias-awar-6.html
Smart of him to leave out the first paragraph.
Is Ceaser in any way releated to Desister?
Related. DAMMIT.
Oh, God, “Liberal Fascism” is the cover story. Wasn’t this a respected magazine at one point? Oh, wait, no.
If Hillary loses Nevada and Huck wins SC I might have to declare this my favorite electoral year evar.
I just hope that proposition in Cali to split their electoral votes doesn’t go through.
It means that, as far as Schiffren is concerned, if Jesus had been born in a barn outside Dubuque, he’d still be a Palestinian and should have been deported before he could take away any more construction jobs from U.S. citizens.
dlauthor: yeah, Ceaser is Desister’s debrother.
Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU. Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand.
Nothing like stating definitely there that they are fully aware of the separation of church and state, and that they are perfectly willing to use it when it’s useful to advance their agenda or divide political opponents. But when it’s not in their interest, it’s bar the door Katie!!
(holy shit, I’ve waited a long time to use that in a comment. It felt good).
sorry I screwed up the block quotes. stupid html. The code, not the Mencken.
Actually, it’s Katie bar the door.
She is simply relating the Parable of No Talents.
desirability of abortion on demand?
What the hell is she talking about? She doesn’t believe Huck is anti-avortion enough? He won’t have Dr. Tiller taken out and shot so he fails her test?
Wow.
Is this like the part in the film where Nedry cuts the power and the dinosaurs the the old guy created start to break loose and kill people and the old guy is like, “ZOMG WHAT HAVE I CREATED??”
Y’all enjoy your Christian fundamental extremists.
Ceaser is neither loose nor tight.
Ceaser is neither black nor white.
I try to keep him on a short leash.
I try to calm him down.
I try to ram him into the ground, yeah.
Can’t fight the Ceaser
Can’t fight the Ceaser
Can’t fight the Ceaser
I can’t see him till I’m foaming at the mouth.
Omigod! This is Unix! I know Unix!
Ceaser Romero, who player Jkoer on Batman.
I preferred Farnk Gorshin as the Ritalin myself.
But since we’re talking about Caesar, it’s Eunuchs.
Has anyone noticed Penny-Arcade recently ripping the Clown Hall a new one?
http://www.penny-arcade.com
aren’t anchor babies all stillborn, what with being underwater and all?
or am i missing something?
They’ve created a monster, and now they’re going to have to feed it.
Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state.
And this is the cruelest misfortune of all – Mike Huckabee’s success might actually force them to actually examine their blather. Untwisting a psychic knot like that would be painful for anyone.
“Is Jesus a capitalist? How much economic disparity will he tolerate? Wouldn’t God want us all to have health care? Nice shoes?”
Hey, hey. Slow down there, God-boy. Don’t go gettin’ all “new testimenty” on us.
This one’s for you, Blue
I’m your vehicle baby
I’ll take you anywhere you wanna go
I’m your vehicle woman
By now I’m sure you know
That I love ya (love you)
I need ya (need you)
I want to, got to have you child
Great God in heaven, you know I love you
Hillary=hawk Huckabee=dove
So who will you pick, when push comes to shove?
Ceasar is a pit bull. Must be 100,000 pit bulls named Ceasar. If a pit bull named Ceasar decides that you’re going to render something unto him (usually part of a leg), it’s going to be hard to stop him.
I can probably handle the new shoes thing. I’ll check it out.
You rang? Just send it to 9xx7 1xth Ave SW, Seattle, WA 98106.
I’ll see that all that belongs to Ceasar get to him. Promise.
I think she misspelled my name. And I don’t care if you render it unto me, cause if you don’t I’ll just take it.
Dr. BLT = Codpiece
Jonah = merkin
So who will you pick, when your brain ain’t workin’?
Would that be the Hinayana, Mahayana or the Vajrayana?
yana, yana, yana!
Blue Buddha said
They’ve created a monster, and now they’re going to have to feed it.
Oh no, mate. It’s worse than that. They’ve created a monster, fed it, raised it, watched it grow to terrifying strength-
and now they’re out of food.
Maybe tycho from penny arcade should stop by these parts. He seems quite adept at eviscerating these clowns, even relative to video games.
Nice find, Foxy!
Condi could use a new pair of shoes too. But she’ll have to wait until a natural disaster hits so she can go shopping.
Frig, I can’t find the abortion on demand channel on my cable box. It keeps trying to get me to watch The Bourne Supremacy instead. Maybe I need to feed in a note from my girlfriend’s parents?
Oh, it’s NICE shoes. You willing to settle for sensible? Christ, you guys always want the damned moon.
Saul said I was a “codpiece.” I hope none of you will take this the wrong way. He was clearly suggesting that I offer protection, and that I am good at offering such protection.
The type of protection I offer is protection from ill-conceived notions and tortured logic. I just wanted to clarify that point for Saul.
Dr. BLT is GOD’S codpiece. Booyah. What-what?
What do liberal fascist REALLY want? Nice shoes on demand!!
When saul said you were a codpiece, I think he meant it more in the “fraudulent” “narcissistic” and “lump in the pants” senses.
Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state.
typical. The merits of a principle vaccillates with one’s current short-term political situation.
Let’s not put words in his mouth, Liberal Fascist. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.
On the California electoral votes: Rest easy, that’s not happening. It’s not on the ballot in February so it’s off the table at least for this year.
Apparently the Republocrats fought among themselves about whether to invest huge amounts of money and energy into that instead of, you know, the actual election. It was almost certainly a losing cause anyway.
Nothing wrong with codpieces. I keep loose change and an emergency back-up whisky bottle in mine.
Hillary may be a corporate-driven supporter of the military industry, but she’ll listen to Congress and follow the Laws of our country;
Huck is a religionist loon who’ll send the bombs after anybody the evangelistas want and won’t stop until he thinks he hears his God tell him to.
Dove my ass. He’s using his piety as a cover for his authoritarian and totalitarian Christianity.
“Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state.”
I was frankly surprised to notice that this sentence didn’t begin with “If he becomes the President…”
This statement inherently reflects an underlying assumption that Huckabee will become the President of the United States. Otherwise, how could he possibly wield such an influence?
And I’m going to spar tonight, so I’ll be wearing MY codpiece…..
And, in the words of Rod Stewart (no, I’m not going to mention that little rumor), You Wear it Well!
What do you think God’s standard is on anchor babies and birthright citizenship?
Um…wasn’t Jesus born Roman and Jewish?
(Manger!)
Danger?
Does Huckabee’s God believe in borders?
No. Whose does? The Jesus of Suburbia?
What is God’s monetary policy?
Mostly gold. But backed by frankincense, and myrrh.
Is Jesus a capitalist?
Yes, but a very bad one.
How much economic disparity will he tolerate?
I’m not even a Bible Scholar and this is an obvious one (the answer is: none).
Wouldn’t God want us all to have health care?
Have you read the Bible? He committed genocide against humanity at least twice. So a big NO on this one. Although Jesus did heal the sick. So, God, no, Jesus, yes. But only a miracle-based health care system.
Nice shoes?
No. If He did, he wouldn’t have made Jesus wear Birkenstocks.
“Mostly gold. But backed by frankincense, and myrrh.”
Not only gold, incense and myrrh, but…
Certified Gold, Incense and Myrrh:
http://mtdalton.blogspot.com/
You folks make it just too easy for a certified song pimp to pimp songs.
In my hippie days in Bellingham in the nineties, I loved sporting my Birknestocks. But man, did those puppies stink in the summer.
The fact that I played Jesus in Superstar does not refute this. In fact, it is central to my point.
Birknestocks. LOLzers!
Oh, and just who exactly is this “Ceaser” that we are supposed to render stuff too?
He makes a damn good salad.
And isn’t a codpiece what a fish uses to shoot other fishes?
Jesus’ monetary policy is to prevent inflation. Duh.
Between HRC and Aw Shucksabee, I’d vote for HRC, if only because it would finally kill the idea that the DLC knows what the hell is going on and her fuck-ups would be easier to fix that the Christofascist Fuckabee.
1. As you do unto the least of these so you do unto Me.
2. Believe in borders? Hell, God has SEEN borders!
3. Give away all that you have and follow me.
4. No.
5. None.
6. Yes.
7. No.
8. What about it?
“And isn’t a codpiece what a fish uses to shoot other fishes?”
Very cute. Very clever. Yes, liberals are capable of being truly funny. There is a God!
Could be some sort of lesson you might want to model personally. But my guess is, not.
Really, thelogos? You would rather vote for Hillary over Huckabee? You would rather sacrifice a few more soldiers in Iraq if it means not having to hear an evangelical sermon on CNN every couple of days?
Heehee:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/what_happened_t_2.html
“Could be some sort of lesson you might want to model personally. But my guess is, not.”
Cid, viscious!
And isn’t a codpiece what a fish uses to shoot other fishes?
Yes, and now he’s gonna pop a cap in your bass.
Cichlid viscous. More your speed.
Oh, and just who exactly is this “Ceaser” that we are supposed to render stuff too?
It’s the pseudonym for the playwright, Tom Stopper.
I’m hoping I do learn that lesson, Cid, so I can pass it on to you.
Can anyone explain the (Manger!)?
As Jaysoos said at the Last Supper, “Take! Eat! This is the citizenship papers you deserve!”
Rendered in French, this would read “Prenez! Manger!….”
Hm…”anchor baby”…sounds like someone we all know and love…
tigrismus said,
January 17, 2008 at 0:09
“And isn’t a codpiece what a fish uses to shoot other fishes?
Yes, and now he’s gonna pop a cap in your bass.”
Clearly, I’ve misunderestimated you, too, tigrismus. Cid, I bet you can’t top that one.
Shorter Lisa Schiffren: “It’s fine to pander to brain-dead wingnut fundies, but heaven forbid that a candidate actually be a brain-dead wingnut fundie.”
Yeah, and I heard Huckabee was planning on banning waterboarding and snowboarding. Some people just won’t be satified until they’ve taken away all of our fun.
Clearly, I’ve misunderestimated you, too, tigrismus. Cid, I bet you can’t top that one.
Cid’s got a bit of a cold. He’s clearing his trout before he tries.
Can anyone explain the (Manger!)?
Mary and Joseph actually asked to see the manager and things went downhill from there.
So, does anybody know ANY conservatives who argue in good faith, with real arguments, without a bunch of red herrings, straw man arguments, lame rationalizations, false dichotomies and other Goldbergian tactics?
If there were such a thing, I think I would enjoy engaging them seriously.
Unfortunately, we don’t get any of that from the Right. The shitheads we get can only be ignored or ridiculed, and the latter makes them pull out their favorite ace-in-the-hole, the victim card.
“The liberals were mean to me! All I did was call them fascists and act like a dishonest idiot and contradict myelf in consecutive sentences! Boo hoo hoo!”
I miss Bruce.
It is the piece of cod that passeth all understanding.
Jay B. said: Um…wasn’t Jesus born Roman and Jewish?
He would have been born a subject, but not a citizen of Rome. The Jews of that time, particularly the ones who lived around Jeruselem, were generally not citizens. That was something that was special about Paul. He was a citizen, which gave him special priviliges, like the right to a trial, and gave him a greater freedom of travel.
Good one, actor212. I’m a “sucker” for good fish humor. You might say it’s my Achilles eel.
actor-
I got no love for that bitch, and I rarely say that about the fairer sex.
I sort of like the “Manger!” bit, and the whole thing, really, because she’s kind of having an epiphany right before our eyes. “Wait a minute, Christianity is total bullshit! Why didn’t somebody tell me this??”
The thugs are going to go for a Twofer. It’ll be McCain/Huckabee or some
shit. The Warmonger and The Dove. The Agnostic and the Thumper. Dog
whistles for The Corps and The Wingers.
The chumps in the Religious Reichwing will vote for the ticket because, like
Bullwinkle always said “this time for SURE!” (they’ll get perpetual war on
brown people and an Abortion Amendment and Gay Marriage Amendment,
you know, just like the stupid fucking chumps have gotten these last 30 yrs
from the Reaganites and Bushies…well, they’ll get the war thing all right).
Dupes and chumps, one and all.
Jesus fed the multitudes with 5 loaves and 2 fish. Just think what Jesus could do with all of these fish jokes.
I’m a stone-cold long-term thinking pragmatist, Troll.
If I (and other reasonable beings) thought that all which come from Geebus-abee were a few sermons on CNN, I’d say why not, it’ll show how fucked christians in head are, and could reduce the power of that pernicious myth.
I am not alone in thinking that Cross-abee will do more with the executive authority which the boy king established than give a few sermons.
So, yeah, I think a few more soldiers dying in that shithole of Iraq would be worth more than having “The Shining City on Hill” become a theocracy.
Oh! Little Debbie was a morsel in ’85. She looks staight outta Better Off Dead!
(nods at Snowwy)
What happened?
He would have been born a subject, but not a citizen of Rome.
As long as we’re being technical, his father would have had to fuck his mother in order for him to be born, too. And also, he wouldn’t have been able to defy gravity or multiply food or any of that.
“So, does anybody know ANY conservatives who argue in good faith, with real arguments, without a bunch of red herrings, straw man arguments, lame rationalizations, false dichotomies and other Goldbergian tactics?”
“It is the piece of cod that passeth all understanding.”
Hoosier X, it looks like today, all you’ll be getting is a piece of cod and a few red herrings. May I suggest trying different bait?
Little Debbie looks like Ferris Bueller’s sister.
Ok, thelogos, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Little Debbie looks like Ferris Bueller’s sister.
Right down to the scorching case of herpes.
Yes, and now he’s gonna pop a cap in your bass.
Only because the bass was perched on the northern end of his crappie home.
I know you have plenty of red herrings. Is “cod” some kind of Newspeak for “straw man arguments”?
Funny. My mom went to Catholic school in the 1940s, and I remember her telling me how she won a debate for her team. She had to argue for separation of church and state. She won, not by citing the constitution, but by quoting Jesus–render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. Silly Republican christianists. God commanded us to separate the political and spiritual–and pay taxes too!
Why didn’t Debbie immediately surrender her ID card upon termination of employment, which requirement is noted on said ID card? Is Debbie Schlussel a Congressional scofflaw?
Citizen journalists, to Michigan! Alpha Team – check kerning! Bravo Team – check countertops!
Hoosier X said,
January 17, 2008 at 0:37
“I know you have plenty of red herrings. Is “cod” some kind of Newspeak for “straw man arguments”?”
Don’t make me laugh, I might have to re-examine some of my stereotypes of liberals. That was simply fintastic!
Um…wasn’t Jesus born Roman and Jewish?
Sadly, he was not. He was just a poor oppressed brown person in an occupied territory right smack dab in the middle of what are today the Occupied Territories. The census was to see how much the Romans could tax the locals, but unfortunately, “taxation” and “representation” don’t rhyme in latin.
The Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen, but only because his father had been one. He couldn’t vote, but it did come with perks, like one get-out-of-jail-free card. Just about everyone outside of Italy had to wait until 202 AD to be Roman, but by then it had lost most of its cachet.
Sorry, Theron.
Now I’m slow AND I’m a wise-ass.
#
Smut Clyde said,
January 17, 2008 at 0:22
It is the piece of cod that passeth all understanding.
That would be lutefisk.
The Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen, but only because his father had been one.
Did he have a fwend in Wome named Biggus Dickus?
What kind of psychologist tries purposefully to sow discord? A walking, talking 12-tone fugue state.
So, does anybody know ANY conservatives who argue in good faith, with real arguments, without a bunch of red herrings, straw man arguments, lame rationalizations, false dichotomies and other Goldbergian tactics?
The last two to go were John Cole and Andrew Sullivan, I think…
The conservatives have been running these emotional-reasoning-to-propagandize-the-masses games for decades. Every now and then I look up William F. Buckley vs. Noam Chomsky on Youtube. Just to see Chomsky take Buckley *down* like a punk-ass white belt every time Buckley opens his mouth and attempts to spew…
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t find these fish schticks very filling…
Though I am gratified that people are realizing WWJD is an actual question meant to provoke thought, and not just four letters to plaster on wristbands, t-shirts, bumper stickers, and baseball caps.
So when a fish goes struttin’, lookin’ to pick up the girly fish, he wears a mighty bloke-piece?
Yes, but we know that Catholics are eeeeevil and in league with Satan. Therefore, that kind of thinking will send you straight to Hell, where you’ll have a seat next to serial killers, atheists, fornicators and your puppy who couldn’t accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior, because he’s a dog.
Shorter Debbie: It’s YOUR fault, America! If you had just kept re-electing my islamaphobic boss to Congress, he would have never been forced to funnel money to Al Qaeda, and we would all be safer!
Jesus H. Christ, people! Has anyone on this whole thread spelled “Caesar” correctly? And don’t tell me it’s because this Schiffren individual did it first. That’s no excuse. If Billy Jones jumped off a bridge, would you jump, too?
And Clif! Lose the extra “o” at the end of yer post! Sheesh!
Holy mackerel, kids! I thought this was the advanced-placement class.
Oh. And someone tell that BLT thing to eat me. Its boringness should be illegal.
Has anyone on this whole thread spelled “Caesar” correctly?
Yes.
Holy mackerel, kids! I thought this was the advanced-placement class.
The eyes are the gateway to the brain – and stupid has osmotic properties.
Jesus fed the multitudes with 5 loaves and 2 fish. Just think what Jesus could do with all of these fish jokes.
I’m guessing a two week stand in the Catskills.
Yes, in fact. I did so here:
AND I made a pun… so there! 😛
If Billy Jones jumped off a bridge, would you jump, too?
Pile up your spare commas in front of the bridge and nobody’ll be able to jump from it.
That depends. Did Billy Jones jump because Rush or O’Reilly or Coulter told him to?
See? That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
Billy Jones is a fuckin idiot.
Oh, and that Bukkake, Lettuce and Tomato Sammich dork?
He’s a pie lover from now on. I couldn’t be bothered before, but now that he’s every other freakin comment he’s gotta enjoy some delicious pastry products…
mikey
“Every now and then I look up William F. Buckley vs. Noam Chomsky on Youtube. Just to see Chomsky take Buckley *down* like a punk-ass white belt every time Buckley opens his mouth and attempts to spew…”
I must be honest, Buckley clearly lost that debate. There are a few reasons for that. For one, I believe that Chomsky went in with a set of facts, dubious though those “facts” may have been.
Buckley either didn’t have a good command of the “facts” that he had gathered, or he allowed Chomsky’s more dominant personality to intimidate him, and he lost his cognitive footing in the process. Anxiety has a way of short-circuiting the brain, and I believe that, for one reason or another, Buckley was anxious and intimidated by Chomsky.
Chomsky was hiding behind “facts.” Underneath those “facts” is the underlying presupposition is the cynical notion that the United States is a big, bad bully.
When you study history, with that presupposition in mind, you tend to look for “facts” that will support that presupposition and dismiss “facts” that do not support it, or stand in direct opposition to such a presupposition.
That would be me.
I have an Ell-Jay, did a review of Liberal Fascism, it’s an open post.
…I don’t find these fish schticks very filling…
Fish have smallish schticks, RodeoBob.
You Ceaser; you brought ‘er.
Also, I just want to point out that I am not Dr BLT.
A woman is a woman and a man ain’t nothing but male.
A woman is a woman and a man ain’t nothing but male.
But the good thing about him is he knows how to jive and whale.
<i<http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/what_happened_t_2.html
Why disclose this, Debbie?
You know I have to use your rules of the game and declare you guilty by past association!
Debbie Schlussel…..on the side of the terrists and the enimies of freedom!!1!
Pam and other bimbos are going to have to answer for this, too.
mmm… seize-her
i didnt know huck was for abortion on demand, or did i read that wrong?
“Also, I just want to point out that I am not Dr BLT.”
Don’t feel bad. We can’t all be Dr BLT.
I always seem to come late to these comments threads…
The stock market may be taking a beating, but go long on Schadenfreude (SCH). I’m enjoying loads of it right now, reading about wingnut heads exploding over Huckabee. You can be 200% certain that if those same words which Schiffren wrote had come from anyone on the left, they would have been derided as the hysterical scribblings of prayer-banning, 10-Commandments-hating elitist Left-coast atheists who have little in common with the ordinary people in the flyover states.
Wow. That’s one hella analysis. I knew that Wilson was an asshole and had questionable policies, but when you put the things he did into a contemporary perspective, it’s quite obvious that he tops the list for Worst Presidents.
Re: When you study history, with that presupposition in mind, you tend to look for “facts” that will support that presupposition and dismiss “facts” that do not support it, or stand in direct opposition to such a presupposition.
You just summed up Liberal Fascism…
“Oh, and that Bukkake, Lettuce and Tomato Sammich dork?
He’s a pie lover from now on. I couldn’t be bothered before, but now that he’s every other freakin comment he’s gotta enjoy some delicious pastry products…”
mikey
Once again, every insult that’s directed at this “Dr Bukkake” character, is one less insult directed at me.
I’m not sure why you’ve stolen from my sandwich, adding bacon and lettuce to Dr Bukkake’s mayo, but perhaps you’ve got the two of us confused.
The only pastry product I’ve ever been associated with is this MTV-Video-music-award-nominated music video by the band, Cake:
This Schiffren person seems to hold the opposite views from Jesus in every regard.
I think it would be fair to characterize this person as an “anti-Christ”.
I knew that Wilson was an asshole and had questionable policies, but when you put the things he did into a contemporary perspective, it’s quite obvious that he tops the list for Worst Presidents.
To be historically serious, maybe after GW Bush, Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, GWH Bush, and Andrew Johnson, in that order…
x_eleven:
Saw your mention of your LJ and review of Goldberg’s Doughpus. Had to go see. I admit I have some profound disagreements with you about the role of the state, but at base we seem to see things much the same way.
I’ll be friending your journal, unless you say me nay. 🙂
Chomsky was hiding behind “facts.” Underneath those “facts” is the underlying presupposition is the cynical notion that the United States is a big, bad bully.
Right. I mean besides the extermination of the American Indians, taking land by force from Mexico, attempting to invade Canada, invading and annexing Guam, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, and invading the Philippines, Nicaragua, Cuba, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Samoa, Haiti, Guatemala, Korea and Viet Nam – how could anyone have the idea that the US likes to throw it’s weight around?
As you say, just ignore those facts, and Chomsky has nothing. Except his logic and intellect and rigorous integrity.
No seriously. The American Protective League and Sedition and Espionage Act makes Bush’s DHS and Patriot Act look like fucking CandyLand. Wilson’s Atty. General detained and deported an estimated 6,000 – 10,000 “radicals” without due process or recourse. Sound familiar?
Like Eugene Debs, who in addition to being jailed was disenfranchised for life. Interestingly enough, most of the detained were radical leftists of some sort or another: socialists, communists, anarchists, pacifists, etc. This, too, is central to Jonah Goldberg’s point.
Sorry, I thought BB said “detained or deported.” Debs wasn’t deported, “just” jailed.
Wilson’s Atty. General detained and deported an estimated 6,000 – 10,000 “radicals” without due process or recourse. Sound familiar?
Just looked around quickly via Google and Wikipedia, and couldn’t find anything on Wilson deporting 6,000 – 10,000 people. Seems like a vague number. But if you can find some citations for it, I’ll look into it.
What I did find was that, after this act was passed, the *next* President, Hoover (#5 on my list) had about 10,000 people rounded up for possibly being commies – but only 248 were deported.
#
The only person I agree with 100% of the time on 100% of the issues is me. I can handle disagreement just fine.
“I’ll be friending your journal, unless you say me nay. :)”
Go ahead; I’ll friend you back.
I must say tho, BLT, thanks for giving me this:
I must be honest, Buckley clearly lost that debate.
It can be hard to admit when someone on your team lost, so I salute you.
Here you are: Palmer Raids
Right idea, but wrong presidents. Wilson was followed by Warren G. Harding, then Calvin Coolidge, then Hoover.
Oh! Little Debbie was a morsel in ‘85. She looks staight outta Better Off Dead!
who would have thought that blonde hair was died, I’m shattered at the deception…
I note she gave the now inducted congressman “… Hebrew Lessons…”, is that what the kids are calling it these days?
indited, indited, indited………
“I must say tho, BLT, thanks for giving me this:
I must be honest, Buckley clearly lost that debate.
It can be hard to admit when someone on your team lost, so I salute you.”
It can also be hard to notice when someone from the other side is at least making an effort to be intellectually honest. You have, and I commend you for that.
Furthermore, you haven’t resorted to the sort of churlish insults that some of the others here have resorted to. Some have attempted to sully my good name with cheap shots.
(Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes Beatles lyrics I’ve openly quoted which say, “Come together right now, over me” have nothing to do with bizarre forms of group sexual practices deemed suitable muse while under they were under the influence of LSD).
As for the “facts” that Chomsky was citing, some of those are subject to interpretation, not in the fact that they happened or did not happen, but in the manner in which events went down and the adjectives and nouns that are used to depict events——–adjectives and nouns that are often loaded.
I will also give you this——–What the United States has sold as noble has not always been so noble, and has, at times been barbaric. I would say the truth lies somewhere between the United States being the world’s SAVIOR and United States being the great SATAN.
Chomsky’s view is a bit too cynical, from my point of view, but I do understand where he is coming from, and why he draws the conclusions he draws.
I love how wingers equate any criticism of the United States, any AT ALL, as being somehow an indicator that the loyal American citizen making that complaint hates this country as much as an Iranian revolutionary from thirty years ago.
Yep, that’s comprehensive, unflinching, and admirable intellectual honesty – in Right Wing World.
I’m laughing so hard I’m leaking pee. This post and almost all the comments — priceless.
That’s the thing about tough love. It is harsh, and necessarily so.
A Briton writes:
Dr BLT’s response is a reminder to me that conservatives most resemble liberals these days, and vice versa.
I mean, if your son does something bad, like smashing up the car, you tell them off. You give them an earful. You show some tough love, harsh but fair. But you criticize your country for doing bad and the conservative gets all upset that you are not being all touchy-feely and huggy about it. All of a sudden they demand liberalism. ‘Chomsky is too harsh!’ they cry.
Another analogy: at work you should get your game on every day. You aim for excellence. If you goofed off every other day you would soon be fired. And yet when it comes to a nation’s actions, conservatives like BLT would prefer us to focus on the handful of days where the state did good, rather than all the times they were atrocious. Now, which is the more conservative attitude? Right, the aim for excellence. Who tries to hold the government to that high standard? Correct, the liberals. Who wants us all to excuse the slips? Them darned conservatives!
Yet another analogy: if a worker or a boss screws up, they deserve to be fired. No question, out on their ear. Pink slip time. That’s tough-minded business practice for you. And yet, George W. was re-elected to office. Not only that, but many American conservatives I spoke to said that he’d deserved a second chance! Tell me who is being liberal and who is being conservative here?
It seems to me that those darned conservatives are SO wishy-washy, touchy-feely, sentimental and out of it. It seems to me they need a dose of good, tough, businesslike, no-nonsense liberalism.
It’s tough love. Liberal style.
Right idea, but wrong presidents. Wilson was followed by Warren G. Harding, then Calvin Coolidge, then Hoover.
When I said ‘Hoover’ I was *of course* referring to *J. Edgar Hoover.* I said ‘next President’, but what I meant to say ‘Next to the President’ because in this one picture I saw him standing next to Wilson once.
I then erroneously pretended I was referring to Herbert Hoover, just to buttress what is essential to my point.
…But yes, looking at the news of that, it does seem pretty damn shameful. According to the Wiki article, about 10,000 people were arrested. A much bigger portion of the population then, too….the Wiki article says “only” 549 were deported tho.
So that could be enough to put Wilson in the worst presidents. Top ten, let’s say. He could be after Andrew Johnson, in my book. He didn’t directly go behind Congress’ back to illegally sell weapons to our sworn enemies, like a certain Bush I and Reagan, so they still beat him out IMHO…
Ahem; article actually said 550 deported. Why I read that as 549? A mystery.
Smut Clyde said,
January 17, 2008 at 0:22
It is the piece of cod that passeth all understanding.
Cod is my co-pilot. I’ll ask him but I expect some ambiguous “cod et mon droit” response. I mean, what the hake does THAT mean, cod? I doubt it’s a fluke, but I could be wrong. It has a certain tang to it.
I’m not totally buying into the tough love concept as applied to liberals. The reason is that while liberals seem to be so tough on the United States, they seem to want to make excuses or sweep under the carpet, the evil deeds that nations unfriendly to the United States do. If you’re going to exercise tough love, shouldn’t it also be applied to terrorists and to terrorist-supporting nations? Rather than tough love, I call it what others have called it: “Blame America First.”
It’s not that there isn’t plenty of blame to spread around concerning the United States, it’s just that if you’re going to assign blame, assuming first that the United States should have the lion’s share amounts to a set a blinders that allows you only to see where the United States is at fault and to obfuscate the stark evils of enemy nations and those who plan evil against you.
And liberals seem so hung up on waterboarding, but is that tough love? Only tough on the United States. I’m not sure I support waterboarding as a valid technique, but when somebody is planning to cut off your head, my head, or the heads of our children, or is planning to blow us all up, isn’t it time to consider making life a living hell for that person. Like I said, perhaps waterboarding is too severe, but my God, shouldn’t your first concern be what this person is planning on doing to you and your children?
Oh, by the way, it’s me, Dr BLT.
And, in the words of Rod Stewart . . .You Wear it Well!
Madame Onassis got nothing on you . . .
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and accept that as a compliment. Around here, with all of the insults flying around, I was tempted to read more into your comment than is warranted.
You’re simply saying I’ve got style, nothing more, and nothing less, and though I’m clearly unworthy of such praise, I’ll humbly and graciously accept your compliment.
“It’s not that there isn’t plenty of blame to spread around concerning the United States, it’s just that if you’re going to assign blame, assuming first that the United States should have the lion’s share amounts to a set a blinders that allows you only to see where the United States is at fault and to obfuscate the stark evils of enemy nations and those who plan evil against you.”
Unfortunately, we, the voters of the United States, have little enough influence on our own government, and very much less influence on the people you’re talking about, the ones in other countries. Now, if we can prevent the US government from short-sightedly screwing the citizens of other countries, perhaps our government can make some headway at convincing the ‘man on the street’ in Cairo, Calcutta or Caracus to use their influence on the radicals who would attack us.
We have weapons that we can’t use well because we use them badly. I’m speaking of commercialism, capitalism, and secularism. Our tendency is to say, “Profits come first, for US companies first, and then we’ll see if we can’t clean up what we’ve done to your country.” The result is that the poor schlub in Caracus, Calcutta or Cairo sees mainly the bad effects on he and his family, looks for an alternative, and gets an earful from the local radical, be that radical a communist or islamist.
Before we invaded Iraq, the Iraqi on the street probably didn’t like us too much (we were bombing them, you know, and the embargo was pretty harsh on the average man), but did not side with the radical islamists in the population. They had other enemies — Saddam and his Baathists, mainly — and were pretty secular, for an Arab country. So when we blew the place to hell, and screwed up the occupation (fire the army? are you kidding?!), they turned to the insurgency and the islamists (and even now, we can’t say it was many of them).
So what can the average American do? Say, “Hey! Let’s bomb some more of ’em, and waterboard them, too!” — the result is even more frustration with us, and more vigorous resistance (not to mention infighting in a civil war that exascerbates centuries-old frictions between muslim sects). If we want to be left alone, we need to learn to leave the “others” alone, and not rig the game and pull favorites, economically.
I did not say, by the way, that this is easy. We’ve been the bully in the alley for far too long to change our ways quickly, but, like the “trained gangs” of London when the first real police force was being assembled, our days are numbered. Change we must, and change we will, but it’s better to make our own changes rather than simply let the ‘forces of history’ (those pissed-off people we’ve screwed for so many years) make our changes.
When they’re running you out of town on a rail, get out front and lead the damned parade, proudly!
Ed
Oh, and just who exactly is this “Ceaser” that we are supposed to render stuff to?
You probably know him as “Caesar” – you know, that emperor fellow.
Huckabee: Theocrat for the ACLU
Does not compute.
BLT: I’m not totally buying into the tough love concept as applied to liberals. The reason is that while liberals seem to be so tough on the United States, they seem to want to make excuses or sweep under the carpet, the evil deeds that nations unfriendly to the United States do. If you’re going to exercise tough love, shouldn’t it also be applied to terrorists and to terrorist-supporting nations? Rather than tough love, I call it what others have called it: “Blame America First.”
Cracker, please. Let me rephrase your conservative talking point with an analogy:
There’s a storm outside. It’s raining hard. The wind is rattling the storm windows.
You say, “The wind is going to blow the house down! It’s the biggest threat! Augghhh!”
In the meanwhile, creepy Uncle George is finger-f*cking your 8-year-old daughter in the next room.
Now, cuz you’ve got right-wing brain-rot and have let your amygdala do the critical thinking for you, I’m going to have to lay it out for you:
The storm is the collection of perils that face every nation. The wind is the bogus threat of Islamofascism. The house is the USA. The storm windows are the Constitution. Uncle George is any power-grabbing motherfucker who would use fear to steal liberty. The eight-year-old girl is the American people. And you (by by “you” I mostly don’t mean you, BLT, cuz you’re pretty ok mostly) are the sheeple who let it all happen.
Newsflash, home-boy: The house is solid. The windows are sturdy. The storm will pass. But for as long as you let Uncle Ned stay, you’re at risk. Got it? Haji in his reed canoe is not a threat to you.”The call is coming from inside the house!!!!11!!” omg I just wet myself
aw fuck, s/b Uncle Ned throughout. but you ketch my driff, neh?
Generally they do. Conservatives tend to forget this. Or call liberals soft because they are insufficiently bellicose on the matter. Lest we forget, liberals were bitching about Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds back in the days when Reagan conservatives were shaking hands with the butcher and calling him ‘a man who you could do business with’. Who was making excuses there?
In some cases the American government deserves to be blamed first. In some cases not. Notice the careful use of the words ‘American government’ there. The administration is not, and never has been, America. At best it is an expression of the will of the American people, but that does not mean it embodies America.
This is an important distinction. I’m an Englishman, but I’ve observed that most US liberals believe in an ideal of America. They react against administrations who sully that virtuous ideal.
Many conservatives, and you appear to be one, don’t seem to make this distinction. You appear to believe that attacks on a conservative administration are attacks on America itself. That seems bizarre to me.
So let me state this plainly. Attacks on the Bush administration are attacks on the administration, its members and policies. They are not attacks on America. Criticism of G.W. Bush and his cronies is not, and never has been, a slur on the flag. Rather, it is a response to the deep betrayal of American ideals. It is a reaction to the un-American behaviour of conservatives.
First, as discussed above you need to distinguish between the administration and the country.
Second, if a nation deserves the lion’s share of the blame, it should receive it. Not all blame is equal. Why do conservatives demand ‘equal time’ only when it suits themselves?
Thirdly, most (not all, but most) liberals in my experience are not blind to the faults of others. However, they have (in theory) more control over their own government than an enemy. It is any wonder, then, that they focus on the things they can influence, rather than those they cannot?
There are other arguments here, far too long and complex to deal with in a single post. but at the end of the day most liberals I deal with are a pragmatic lot. Many of us weighed up the pros and cons of “Saddam = bad” with “blowback from invading Iraq’ and called it correctly. This does not mean we gave Saddam a pass, but that we went with the option less likely to result in wholesale chaos and death. We get to wear our ‘I Told You So’ T-shirts, albeit sadly rather than in triumph.
Similarly, when we look at Iraq today we weigh the “insurgents = bad” with “blowback from keeping Iraq as an occupied nation” and plump in the direction of withdrawal. This does not mean we think the insurgents are virtuous, but we do think it will de-escalate the conflict, and that this is the best course of action.
My position has always been that in an ideological war, such as one against terrorism or insurgency it is vital for the state to maintain a high moral ground. Sure, it’s an asymmetric war. Terrorists seem to literally get away with murder. But state atrocity only breeds more terror. It undermines the state’s legitimacy and provides ammunition of the enemy to raise money, recruit and gain sympathizers who may inform or help in myriad small ways.
The sensible state strategy has always been to avoid atrocity, however much your support bays for blood. The blowback is not worth it. Torturing the enemy only makes the enemy more likely to torture your own side. And it makes a great recruitment tool for your foe. The terrorist or insurgent thrives on the unjust deeds of the state. It proves his case. It makes his cause heroic.
However, a state that cleaves to the rule of law takes a crucial propaganda weapon away from the terrorist or insurgent. It restricts the state’s agents, but at the same time prevents them from alienating the population. The result is to deny the insurgent a ready supply of propaganda, of support, of money, of recruits. This is not to say that the insurgent cannot continue in such circumstances, but it severely limits his ability to expand his operations.
An excellent example of this was the Portugese experience in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau. In spite of their poverty the Portugese armed forces fought three wars simultaneously in three theatres of war for more than thirteen years, right up to the Carnation revolution that toppled the Salazar regime and triggered Portugal’s withdrawal from empire. Their success was something that the French in Algeria or the Americans in Vietnam could only dream of. The Portugese kept violence to a very low level for that time, and it’s notable that they did so without recourse to torture (they felt it unreliable and not worth the blowback) or atrocity. The one exception to this is notable, when a rogue colonel, assigned as a local governor in in Mozambique, proved so brutal that a massacre occurred at Wiriyamu in 1972. This proved a gift to FRELIMO and the government never quite regained the confidence of the population after that. This demonstrates the power of blowback.
Though it is a disrespectful term, I have to kind of laugh about being called “Cracker,” simply because most of my life I have noted examples in which I have been discriminated against because folks assumed I was from some foreign country, anything but Caucasian. I’m 100 percent Caucasian, Dutch Canadian-American to be specific, but you’d never know it by looking at me.
Even when I was about 5, a kid at a summer camp came up to me and called called me an “Indian” (the correct term nowadays is Native-Canadian). When I denied it, he thought it was because I was ashamed of it, and he said, “Don’t be ashamed, there’s nothing wrong with being an Indian.
You’ve all made some relevant points worth considering and, notwithstanding the “cracker” reference, you’ve been more respectful than some others I’ve run into here. To even give a conservative (though I consider myself a moderate one) the time of day here, at a blog community that is made up mostly of liberals, is noteworthy. You’re helping me break down my stereotypes of liberals as smug, and mean-spirited towards conservative thinkers.
We are all those things and more besides.
Well, I guess I can add honesty to the mix 🙂
Hey everybody! I’m still here! I was momentarily gone but now I’m back! Thank you all for showing me that you like me, you really like me! But don’t worry, I’ll keep checking back in so you won’t miss out on that El Cid humor you crave!
You may wish to consider the whys and wherefores.
If Liberals are smug, it’s only because they know they occupy the moral high ground. But hey, we’ve had our fill of smug conservatives and the past several years of them telling us that they were in charge and liberals were an impotent irrelevancy. So we are entitled to a little smug.
And if liberals are mean-spirited towards conservative thinkers, it’s because conservative thinkers have spent many years telling libs that they are self haters who are objectively supporting jihadists, and other trollish accusations. Frankly, it’s a wonder liberals aren’t meaner. They have certainly earned the right to some payback.
You may be one who has taken the moral high ground, but I wouldn’t say that this applies to all liberals. On the other hand, I believe casting all liberals as “self haters who are objectively supporting jihadists” or “an impotent irrelevancy” is highly unfair and rather ridiculous.
And yet flinging accusations about liberals being ‘blame America firsters’, as you have done, is just a short step away from ‘liberals hate America’, which is itself a skip away from ‘liberals are the enemy of the nation’. At least, that’s what it looks like from where I stand.
It seems to me that many of your fellow conservatives have taken those extra steps. Just look at the trolls here who have taken the ‘liberals = fascists’ calumny to heart. Liberals are rather fed up with it, which is why they get so cranky.
I would say what I’ve said falls far short of “liberals hate America” although there are probably a few that do.
My wife has a tendency to Blame Me First. Does that mean she hates me? I don’t think anything could be further from the truth. We often blame the ones we love the most.
Must… resist… responding…
But look at what you say in context. Dinesh d’Souza has written ‘The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11’; Ann Coulter wrote ‘Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism’; Sean Hannity penned ‘Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism’; and Michael Savage gave us ‘The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military’. Under that kind of assault is it any wonder that when someone paints liberals in general as ‘blame America firsters’ he seems, to a liberal eye, to line up alongside all these enemies?
Maybe we progressives have become so fatigued by the culture war that we can no longer distinguish between a gentle poke in the eye and the sharper stabbings from our critics. To this liberal they all look and feel much the same…
“Must… resist… responding…”
Note to self: Abandon all stereo-type-based tendencies to cast all liberals as lacking in self-restraint.
As far as the conservative attacks on liberals go, (and this goes for conservatives too that have experienced such attacks launched by liberals), let’s all stop to listen to the other side before automatically responding in accordance with stereotypes. Respond thoughtfully, not recklessly. I give that advice to myself as well, because I haven’t always practiced what I am preaching.
let’s all stop to listen to the other side before automatically responding in accordance with stereotypes.
[ticking off stereotype list]
…and that’s one more.
Funny. My mom went to Catholic school in the 1940s, and I remember her telling me how she won a debate for her team. She had to argue for separation of church and state. She won, not by citing the constitution, but by quoting Jesus–render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. Silly Republican christianists. God commanded us to separate the political and spiritual–and pay taxes too!
your mother never had the misfortune of meeting the Alabama Christian Coalition, then. I had the misfortune of being trapped in a window seat on a Southwest airlines flight by a pair who sat by me and started loudly discussing how misread that quote from Jesus is. They were campaigning again Gov. Bob Riley’s plan to make the tax system of Alabama more equitable. Did you know that people didn’t pay taxes in Biblical times?That’s the real, true history, according to the CC.
I was biting my lip until it bled to keep from blurting they didn’t know Caesar from a salad.
Whenever they start in with their God crap, I always burn to ask them who’s gonna break it to Chase/MBNA that they can no longer take interest on a loan?
Besides, if we gotta stone to death all the adulterers in the GOP, that’s gonna leave the convention pretty sparsely attended. (Not to mention the liars, the Sabbath violators, the Trafe-eaters, etc)
Manger!