Jan 24 2006
The Ever Shrinking Left
When the moderates departed the Democrat Party for the independent middle, they left the Democrats with the poor, lost, classless liberals. The liberals who honestly think we have no need to go to war after 9-11, and that is our fault Arab and Muslim societies failed their people.
It took some time, but the liberals finally came out of their little closets to announce to the world what they really think. And it is shocking to say the least. And will end up destroying the Democrat Party. For this is now the voice of the liberal left, the majority of the Democrat base, but a small, small fraction of the American populace – and it is a liberal journalist in a liberal news outlet (all emphasis mine):
DON’T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
Liberals are obsessed with bodily functions. And only a liberal stalwart would put ‘urinate’ in the same sentence as our ‘troops’.
If you’re wandering into a recruiter’s office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.
Another characteristic of the liberal-democrat is his need to denigrate those who make him feel insecure. Note the veiled insult in the word ‘wandering’, like wanting to defend ones country and family is some kind of mistaken path in life. And notice the reference to protecting the liberal where he wants protection, a clear acknowledgement that the liberal feels inferior to our troops. The liberal would like the security blanket for his needs, but to defend our nation is somehow a foolish thought.
Then comes the faux bravado, as the inferior liberal tries to look all big and bad
But I’m not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they’re wussy by definition.
Liberals are insecure on many fronts, which is why the lash out.
Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else.
Another liberal trick is to assume war is a desire, verses an unfortunate choice of those who wish to defend themselves. Pacifists wish that life would not highlight their unmanageable fear of confrontation. They are scared of confrontation – as we all are to some degree. But to avoid facing this fear, they pretend to themselves people who get beyond the fear and fight to survive somehow ‘want to’ do it. Pathetic really.
The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day.
The guilt trip. The liberal’s lamest argument for why they must be superior. They hide their fear of confrontation on the idea people who decide to protect themselves, and those that give them support, must feel guilty for not being scared like a liberal.
Of course, if the liberal had to acknowledge the pride in the act of defending this country it would further drive home how inferior they are. Not only are they afraid, but the guilt over being immobilized by fear must be tremendous.
This person is living in a self aggrandizing fantasy. Note how the following illustrates a world were this poor soul is vindicated and everyone else is wrong. We are witnesses to a Walter Mitty day dream of a hero coming to the rescue of America – in his own mind
understand the guilt. We know we’re sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.
After we’ve decided that we made a mistake, we don’t want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.
Oh what a glorious end for are hero! The dust has cleared and he was right all along! BDS is a serious affliction for some. Apparenlty it causes hallucinations and visions of personal granduer. And notice how he shares the same feelings as these poor saps we call ‘troops’
do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I’m tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.
Yes, clicking a link is as important and noteworthy as risking life and limb for an idea. What is so funny about liberals like this is they provide their own self-parody. The poor guy thinks he is equivalent to someone out defending the nation in Iraq. Can we not all see the desparation in this poor man’s need to be the equal of our brave troops. Can we not see his subconcience screams for relevancy. After all, he is a journalist, and that must be equal to a brave soldier!
He admits it himself
I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn’t so much as served on jury duty for his country.
Our poor insecure liberal seems to not heard of the phrase ‘actions speak louder than words’. Especially when the words are pure, self indulging fantasy.
But it’s really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I’m listed in the phone book.
Insecurity. And inferiority complex. A realization his life is nothing in comparison. So what does this liberal demand of the country to shore up his ego and make him comfortable with who is he and what he is not?
All I’m asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.
Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.
And someone pays this insufferable bore for this tripe? So this is the majority voice of the Democrat party. Someone who cannot be bothered with a recognition of what others have done for this country. A sad, pathetic little man who is obsessed with himself, and who cannot be bothered by others.
This is the democrat party folks. Repeat it for everyone to see. I have said many times, if you want to beat a liberal at the ballot box – simply let them talk.
I’d really think long and hard about spending your way out of bigger problems.
We’ve doubled spending on education over the last 25 years and the performance chart is flat. We still have the same, big problems today that we had before we decided to double the funding.
Dear Sirs,
What most people forget is that money is simply an ordered mediator of exchange. What would you rather have: a toyota or a stack of green paper? Would you rather have a buck or a double cheesebeurger? Your choice. The utilitarian view says that a full belly is of more value than a pretty picture of GW. Unless you happen to be my ex-wife who has stuff she picked out of peoples’ trash 40 years ago.
The true assessment of wealth is what people have. You can buy a computer today for $500 that you couldn’t have bought at any price 20 years ago. Thirty years ago you could by a car for 1/3 of your monthly income that needed new tires every 10,000 miles and you bragged if you got 75,000 miles out of it. Twenty years ago calling Aunt Minnie in Nebraska was a momentous, once a yerr event. Now babies are coming with cell phone implants.
Analysis by $’s is static and in no way accounts for money’s true value.
Regards,
Roy
“**So this is the majority voice of the Democrat party.*** Someone who cannot be bothered with a recognition of what others have done for this country. A sad, pathetic little man who is obsessed with himself, and who cannot be bothered by others.”
**This is the democrat party folks**. Repeat it for everyone to see. I have said many times, if you want to beat a liberal at the ballot box – simply let them talk.**
Baloney… this is the majority voice of the Democratic Party…the ones who know Dubya and the Republicans are the problem, not the Troops:
“In early 2005, I joined several other Senators on a Congressional delegation led by Senator John McCain to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Pakistan. In Iraq, we visited Baghdad, Fallujah and Kirkuk and met with U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and ordinary Iraqis. In Afghanistan, we visited with Afghan leaders in Kabul and with U.S. troops at Bagram air base. During our trip, we expressed our support and the American people’s support for the servicemen and women that we encountered. It was a privilege to thank these men and women in person for their service. ”
“This was my second visit to Iraq and Afghanistan – I previously spent time with our troops in both nations over Thanksgiving weekend in November 2003. During that trip, I was honored to share Thanksgiving dinner in Afghanistan with servicemen and women from the 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum and to fly with members of the 914th Airlift Wing of Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. On my most recent trip, I encountered the same images I witnessed on my first: brave soldiers serving with courage, valor, and honor in defense of freedom. I am so proud of them and of their service. ”
“We owe our men and women in uniform an enormous debt of gratitude for their sacrifices. And recent experience has reminded us that they deserve more than just our thanks. We need to ensure that we are providing them with the support and resources that they need to get the job done”….Hillary Clinton
Dubya has lashed out at Americans “who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people.”
True, he said, some “honest critics” have condemned his decisions about Iraqi reconstruction, U.S. troop deployments and so on. But Bush drew a bright line between “responsible” opponents and the “irresponsible” kind, who raise doubts about the entire purpose of the war and thereby bring “comfort to our adversaries.”
In other words, it’s OK to criticize the White House for bungling the war after it started. But if you question how the war started, then you’re obviously helping the Bad Guys. And you’re hurting the United States.
The president has it exactly backward. By asking tough questions about the buildup to the war, Americans are acting in the very best traditions of their history. And it’s the president himself — not his opponents — who is ignoring this same history.
Start with Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president and one of Bush’s own heroes. We associate Lincoln with the Civil War, of course, so we forget that he was elected to Congress during an earlier conflict: the Mexican-American War. He opposed it, arguing that U.S. soldiers had incited the dispute needlessly.
“Marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure,” a young Lincoln told the House of Representatives. “But it does not appear so to us.”
Sixty years later, in the Spanish-American War, the United States would acquire the Philippines and Puerto Rico. But the Filipinos revolted against their new U.S. rulers, spawning a brutal overseas war — and a fresh round of critics back home. “God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles,” screamed the Harvard philosopher William James, a founder of the American Anti-Imperialist League.
The League also enlisted Mark Twain, who blasted the war in his own typically caustic style. “We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining 10 millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket,” Twain wrote. “And so, by these Providences of God — and the phrase is the government’s, not mine — we are a World Power.”
In the ensuing century, thousands of Americans would go to jail for opposing the United States’ foreign wars, military conscription or both. Socialist leader Eugene Debs received a 10-year sentence after he criticized U.S. involvement in World War I; on the eve of World War II, David Dellinger and seven other seminarians served 10 months at a federal penitentiary for resisting the draft; and during the Vietnam War, Muhammad Ali was sentenced to five years in jail (and was forced to relinquish his heavyweight crown) for refusing induction into what Ali called a “white man’s war.”
You don’t have to agree with everything those people said or did. But surely they were acting in the best U.S. tradition of democracy, which holds our leaders under constant scrutiny — especially during wartime. Antiwar spokesmen such as Lincoln, Twain and Debs did not aid the United States’ enemies, as Bush would now have it. Instead, they upheld the very principles upon which this country was founded: inquiry, free speech and the accountability of elected officials to the citizens who choose them.
Dubya and this Republican administration are sensitive to criticism because they make stoopid decisions based on flawed political ideology. That’s there problem, not ours.
The guy in the LA Times is a goofball. He can say whatever he wants. But the majority of Democrats know what the problem was, and is.
Have a nice day.
Here’s where we get the money: our citizens earn it in their businesses or by performing their jobs. They spend it on things they need. A lot of those things are imported. The cash ends up in the hands of foreigners. The U.S. government borrows it back. Note carefully that our consumers now have the stuff, and our government has the cash. Is this a good deal, or what? What the foreigners have is a debt instrument. Good for them. Here is why we take on debt: He who has the cash makes the rules. If we have the cash, we get to say how it’s spent. Remember, money is power. It is a force you squirt at the world to make it change. We drive the change, when and where we want. What the foreigners get is a debt instrument. They are passive investors. Those are the best kind. This is especially important with respect to China. China is accumulating massive amounts of our debt.
The above statement is so far from the truth that it amazes me so many have accepted it as fact.
First of all, our country’s wealth does not come from our citizens earning it in their jobs or businesses and second of all, country’s like China do not buy our debt as an investment, they are not passive investors.
The truth is that the United States can run such a high defecit because of the Petrodollar. Countries buy our debt because of the Petrodollar.
Here’s how it all began!!
In order to prevent this monetary transition to a basket of currencies, the Nixon administration began high-level talks with Saudi Arabia to unilaterally price international oil sales in dollars only — despite US assurances to its European and Japanese allies that such a unique monetary/geopolitical arrangement would not transpire. In 1974 an agreement was reached with New York and London banking interests that established what became known as “petrodollar recycling.†That year the Saudi government secretly purchased $2.5 billion in US Treasury bills with their oil surplus funds, and a few years later Treasury Secretary Blumenthal cut a secret deal with the Saudis to ensure that OPEC would continue to price oil in dollars only.
When OPEC prices oil in US dollars only, that meant that every country in the world needed a reserve of US Dollars to buy oil. Since the debt purchased by countries like China represents an IOU in US Dollars, it can be used to buy oil. We can spend to oblivion as long as the oil currency stays as the US Dollar.
What happens if OPEC decides to switch to, lets say, the Euro??
The result would be the transfer of wealth from the United States to the EU. Every country would flush out their US Dollars and exchange them for the Euro. There would no longer be anyone to finance the debt and the United States would transform into a Third World Country, practically overnight.
There were two countries that switched to only purchasing oil in the Euro, now there is only one. They were North Korea and Iraq. Iraq made the switch around the year 2000 and kept all of his Euros in a French Bank. Now you know why France and Germany were so against the Iraq war and why they are so friendly with Iran because they stand to gain the most by our financial demise. This is probably the main reason we are in Iraq and Bush was so determined to invade Iraq. One of the main reasons for the Iraq War is a currency war and the petrodollar.
While I don’t hold to the same conclusion as the following essay, it really opened my eyes to how the economy of the world really functions and how America’s economy depends on the petrodollar.
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth
by William Clark
SBD