Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

View article without comments

Right Silly Arguments

by Mark Drolette Monday, Jul. 26, 2004 at 3:45 AM
drolette@comcast.net

How come so many screwball claims about the left from the right come right from left field? Why don’t conservatives balk at throwing so many verbal wild pitches? How many really bad baseball analogies can one introduction contain? Fret not: A look at a few of the ongoing dippy assertions made about liberals is now at the plate.

One of my favorite Monty Python bits involved the "Ministry of Silly Walks." I have begun to think perhaps there should also be an "Agency of Silly Arguments"--a building appropriately equipped with an obsolete, dangerously unstable right wing--considering how many (stereo)typically daft contentions I regularly hear from those who disagree with me politically. It's not that folks on the right don't have valid points, because obviously (at times) they do, but some of the things emanating from that direction sound like they come straight from some book entitled "Really, Really Dumb Ways to Try to Make My Point--Whatever It Is." Are there just as equally dimwitted things said from the left? Yes, but this is my column, not yours--so nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah. (That was just for example's sake.)

OK, first, some housekeeping: Name-calling is NOT debating. I know this might be a difficult concept for some at first, especially for those who have done it since just after (or before, or maybe even during) birth, but there's pretty much nothing I haven't heard, and most of these didn't quite attain knee-slapping level even on their maiden passes. Some of my, uh, "creatively challenged" critics think it's original and witty to employ variations of my last name. Believe it or not, this has already been done. Granted, I didn't hear the first one until I was well into my twos, but nonetheless, you're just a tad late. As timelessly hilarious as are "Droolette," "Do Little," and, of course, the classic "Droopy Drawers," you really don't want to be trying to steal someone else's prime material, now do you? If you are an inveterate name caller and still aren't quite sure whether it's time to move on, here's a sure-fire test for you: Take out your driver's license (provided your home state allows you on its roads), and look at the birthdate. If the year's prefix is "19," the last two numbers don't matter: You are too old to call people names--period. Stop it now.



All right, time to move on and address silly argument #1: Voicing political dissent endangers American troops in Iraq and aids the enemy.

First, let's view the weird dichotomy contained in this claim: Rationalizations for invading Iraq have changed more often than a check forger's signature, but the latest (false) one is that America attacked Iraq to actually help it, by benevolently bestowing our God-given gift of democracy (including, one might assume, freedom of speech) to the Iraqi people, even though they didn't really ask us for it. Strangely, though, according to this argument’s champions, it's just not OK to try this annoying First Amendment crap at home.

But that contradiction is obvious, so here's what I see as really bizarre about the first part of this knotheaded assertion: Just offhand--and this may be a little hard to follow so, please, stay with me here, but--and again, this is only my best guess--it would seem that the troops were most likely endangered by.……………...THE MAN WHO SENT THEM THERE!!!!! (Color-coded, diagrammatical chart showing how this conclusion was reached available upon request; instructional video included.)

As for dissent voiced in America "aiding the enemy": Just how, exactly, does this work? After at least a minute of deep thought, I imagined the following scenario taking place somewhere deep inside Iraq:

"Captain Abdullah, sir, our Iraqi Insurgency Division of American Dissent Monitoring has just picked up some anti-war chatter from a couple of college students in Boise, Idaho."

"Hmm...How would you describe it, soldier: mild cynicism, angry disillusionment, or stupefying outrage?"

"The last one, sir."

"All right, then, by Allah, that's the threshold we’ve been waiting for. Immediately send out a message across Iraq, from the largest cities to the smallest villages, via our Super Secret Communications System--you know, the one with the tin cans and the very long string--and tell everyone that we have received the critical message to attack."

"Should I break out the smoke signals, too, sir?"

"Yes, by all means. We sure don't want to miss an opportunity like this."

"Yes, sir. Will do, sir."

Well, I must say that, at first, this claim seemed to be fairly ridiculous. However, after closer inspection, it now appears monumentally inane.

Silly argument #2: Lefties hate America.

You know, I see how uber-conservatives could say this about me personally since I have the DeGaulle to often praise the land that, in the GOP’s world view, is a giant breeding ground for America’s arch-enemies: France. And this argument might also have some validity if liberals as a group were, say, leading a NASCAR boycott, because it's hard to get more American than stock car racing. But we're not, and I've always thought the focus of this assertion has been slightly off anyway: I don't think it's as much about hating/loving America per se, but rather much more about what one thinks of American VALUES. You've heard of 'em: things like liberty, justice, equality, human rights, representative and participatory democracy, just to name a few. And if you look real closely at that last one, that's exactly what lefties (and righties, and middies; or is it middlings?) are doing when they speak up about what they see as wrong or right (maybe I should say: “correct”) with America. The following should be obvious (though apparently not to everyone), so I'll state it for the record: People become active and vocal because they LOVE America’s ideals and want to promote their more consistent application, not because they hate anything.

As for me, here's ironclad proof I care deeply about my country and that for which it stands: I force myself to read entire George Will columns. I do not do this for pleasure (this is called an "understatement"); I do it from a sense of duty as an American, to be as informed as possible. And, boy, let me tell you: Some days, I have to give it two or three shots (Jim Beam preferred; at least, it would be if I still drank) before I can make it to Will's closing line. If that ain't love for my country, it don't exist. (I do not, however, make myself listen to Rush Limbaugh. This would be crossing the line from love for America straight into depraved masochism.)

Silly argument #3: Liberals dine on infant flesh. (Whoops, wait a sec...I'm sorry, my assistant tells me though this one’s been conceived, complications have arisen during development. There's no chance conservatives won’t insist on its eventual delivery, however, whether it’s wanted or not.)

Silly argument #3: (corrected): All liberals love Bill Clinton.

Oh, please!! For one thing, I don't, so that disproves the theory right there. But beyond that, plenty of people of the non-conservative persuasion can't stand him, if for no other reason than that Clinton's mere existence has sent dittoheads and their kind into banshee-like apoplexy for years, and shocking though this may be, there are a handful of us who are actually just a wee bit weary of the shrieking. Shameless self-promotion time (in keeping with the Clinton theme): I wrote a piece (link at bottom) showing why Bush is SO much worse than Clinton could ever dream to be, even in Bill's most conniving, sex-obsessed, money-grubbing, lying, sleazy pardoning, liberties-squelching, sick fantasies. (Hey, did I get the right rant right? For a much more comprehensive and realistic, albeit over-the-top, recitation of Clinton's transgressions, replay any Limbaugh show from the last twelve years; the pre-rehab ones are the best.)

Silly argument #4: Liberals are against the war because they're pacifists.

I realize that saying, "That's about as dumb as a sack full of hammers," is not considered a mature counter-argument. But since "mature" and my name rarely find themselves inhabiting the same sentence, I feel at liberty to say: "That's about as dumb as a sack full of hammers," though this may be slighting the hand tools' collective IQ a bit--and possibly the sack's. (I assume I'll now hear from the HADL [Hammer Anti-Defamation League].) This silly argument is so tempting to use, I believe, because it lets the speaker off the hook from doing any menial-type work, like thinking. If one just categorically states all anti-war sentiment stems from pacifism, then no pondering is needed regarding other reasons that may exist for protesting the war, like perhaps it was in reality a needless, senseless, unjustified, illegal, immoral, brutal, long-desired American imperialistic assault. Yes, these are finely-nuanced, hard-to-see details which, admittedly, could very well take all of up to a few seconds' worth of contemplation to discover, but the precious time spent should well be worth it.

A snide corollary often accompanies the all-pacifism, all-the-time charge: "If liberals had had their way in World War II, we'd all be speaking German." Ignoring completely that it was one of the American left's all-time heroes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who—for years--pushed for U.S. entry into the war in opposition to entrenched domestic isolationism, this is also an absurd and defaming attempt to somehow conflate the world-saving Allies' defeat of Germany and Japan in World War II with the diametrically differing circumstances surrounding Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Besides, why is it always "German"? What, there’s something wrong with Japanese? Sure, it may harder to learn, but German is just so, well, "Old Europe."

Silly argument #4: Liberals are Marxists.

This one's true, at least for me, and frankly, I've never seen what the big deal is. The Marx Brothers, at their comedic peak were not only hilarious, but brilliant social commentators, too. As for the non-actor brother who became an author--Kyle, I think his name was--I've never read him. I assume he must have also been something of an important figure in the textile industry, as I've heard a lot over the years about Marx and linen.

Silly argument #6: Liberals disdain personal responsibility.

Apparently, we left-wingers should immediately chastise ourselves for our unrelenting fecklessness, and begin following the administration's sterling lead of accepting responsibility in all matters like: its lackadaisical treatment of pre-9/11 warnings; the phony Iraq war justifications; insufficient protection for American troops; no post-war exit strategy; detainees' torture; the blowing of Valerie Plame's CIA cover; withholding from Congress accurate cost information about the Medicare prescription drug bill; the EPA's lies about New York's air quality after 9/11; the "average" 83 tax cut hornswoggle; swearing to uphold the Constitution and then proposing to amend it to enact unequal rights; the trashing of decades-old international alliances; the lack of an intelligent energy policy to help wean America from the poisonous oil teat, the…oh, wait a moment, please. (It's my assistant again.) What's that you say, Emily? The president hasn’t taken responsibility for ANY of these things? No kidding?? OK, then, readers...never mind.

Additionally, the right has done its level best these past few years to make patriotism a hot topic, so let's see how this applies regarding "personal responsibility." The most basic responsibility any patriot has is to defend the Constitution, being duty-bound to take action whenever he or she sees our basic American law threatened. Now, I certainly understand that attaching little American flags to car antennas, singing along with Toby Keith and applauding his big ass-kickin' boot, making cracks about the French, and listening to Limbaugh making cracks about us, all run a very close second on the old patriotism scale to actively raising loud, long alarms about the Bush administration and its ongoing shredding of, and utter contempt for, the Constitution. But, hey, since they're so doggoned close, let's call it a draw, OK?



Silly argument #7: Liberals hug trees.

I've never, ever hugged a tree--ever. I have, however, certainly embraced my share of bushes--floristically-speaking, of course. I had to give it up, though, when our current president was appointed: The psychological implications were just too icky.



All righty, that's it for today: I have to hurry to my “How to Engage in Class Warfare and Elitism and Not Show It” course over at the Kumbaya Center. But if I have convinced just one person who employs any of the above ditzy claims to stop--well, it's not nearly enough, but I guess it's a start. For those of you who just can't help yourselves and insist on carrying on the baleful tradition of using right silly arguments, might I suggest you gently grab your dog (if you don't have one, any dog will do; just put it back when you're done), sit that puppy down, and yammer on. Be forewarned, though: Don't be surprised, if at some point, the animal yawns, gets up, and walks away, for even a canine's love for mankind has its limits.



To read why Bush has out-Clintoned Clinton, go to:

http://newjersey.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/12259











Report this post as:

Congratulations, B.A.!

by Mark Monday, Jul. 26, 2004 at 7:51 PM

I think you just set a new world record for false dichotomies.

Report this post as:

Very good, Bush Admirer, but...

by I See Clearly Sunday, Aug. 01, 2004 at 11:02 PM

Very good, Bush Admirer, but... you have forgotten to mention that Bush chose the criminal path in all of your examples. When you commit as many crimes against the Constitution, the American people, and the World as this bunch has, back in my day, we used to call them Criminals and not make excuses for their crimes. Do yourself a favor and dig a little deeper; you just might change your mind.

Report this post as:

I see BA is hanging on for dear life!

by Black November Monday, Aug. 02, 2004 at 12:15 PM

He's going to be forced to change his moniker in a few months after Kerry breaks his foot off in Dubya's ass.

Report this post as:

Standby for Bush Landslide

by Bush landslide Saturday, Aug. 14, 2004 at 2:16 AM

Voicing political dissent endangers American troops in Iraq and aids the enemy.

That's a minor argument. "Human shields" notwithstanding, liberals are more annoyed that no one's listening to them, period.

Liberals only believe in dissent for themselves while pushing militant feminism, militant homosexuality, affirmative action, anti-Christianity, anti-unity and Orwellian politcal correctness on others. How many kollij kampuses have "free speech codes?"

Lefties hate America.

Only the White, Straight, Capitalist, Christian, gun-owning, home-schooling, government-distrusting, tax reducing part of it.

Liberals dine on infant flesh.

Depends on your view of abortion, whose advocates make a lot of money.

Liberals are against the war because they're pacifists.

They're against the war because they're short-sighted, have no understanding of history and think appeasing vicious enemies actually works. Look folks, if 80 years of needless suffering and 100 million dead worldwide from communism isn't enough evidence, you're never gonna "get it."

Liberals are Marxists.

Might as well be. A democrap is a socialist is a communist is a marxist.

Liberals disdain personal responsibility.

Now this is a tricky one. The liberal promoters of poor-me victimhood are actually very disciplined, hard working charlatans. The foolish believers of the poverty pimps' lies are the ones who lose, and lose big.

Report this post as:

Hmm...

by Mark Saturday, Aug. 14, 2004 at 11:18 PM
drolette@comcast.net

"Look folks, if 80 years of needless suffering and 100 million dead worldwide from communism isn't enough evidence, you're never gonna 'get it.'"

Still fighting the Cold War, eh? I don't really see how that is germane to what is going on in today's America (and, hence, the world), but if dreaming of reds under beds helps you sleep at night, I guess it beats counting sheep--or even tallying those with ovine mentalities.

Report this post as:

Those who never learned history...

by Bush landslide Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 12:18 AM

>>>>> "Look folks, if 80 years of needless suffering and 100 million dead worldwide from communism isn't enough evidence, you're never gonna 'get it.'"

Still fighting the Cold War, eh? I don't really see how that is germane to what is going on in today's America (and, hence, the world)

>>>>> Thanks for proving my point.

>>>>> Democrats are the new reds, and communism is alive and well in America. There's hardly a difference between the Communist party platform and the Democrats' plans for America: confiscate all guns, restrict free speech, eliminate religion, high taxes for everyone and a huge, inefficient government to regulate all businesses, behavior and to "manage" the economy; all in the name of 'fairness,' of course.

>>>>> American liberals were Soviet Russia's "useful idiots" during the Cold War, who begged Reagan to back down against the Evil Empire. Now the same hippie dinosaurs and the brainwashed generations to follow are "useful idiots" for the islamofascists, once again begging us to lower our defenses against homicidal Arab followers of a fanatical religion.

>>>>> I don't know what makes a modern liberal. The only excusable factors are youth and inexperience. Once those are put away with time, the still-liberals are naive, gullible, ruled by emotions, part of the teacher's union or mainstream media, or cold cunning class warfare opportunists like Hillary and Sharpton.

>>>>> May the scales eventually fall from your eyes.







Report this post as:

where as the riech are liars and thugs

by You are food Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 12:23 AM

But they still can't make a convincing argument.

Report this post as:

Typical liberal response

by Bush landslide Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 12:29 AM

Typical liberal response.

Heavy on bullshit, light on truth.

You lose.

Report this post as:

Typical nonliberal response

by You are food Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 12:36 AM

Devoid of any basis in fact or reality.

Report this post as:

You are fool

by You are fool Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 3:39 AM

You are fool...
scarface.jpg, image/jpeg, 245x302

Why don't you try sticking your head up your ass? See if it fits

Report this post as:

tsk tsk tsk

by more rational Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 7:59 AM

BA, you're truly delusional.

Clinton's main achievement was going from a waitresses' son, to a Rhodes Scholar, to the Governor's office, then the White House. He was and is a brilliant mind. Even his enemies concede this.

Bush is not smart, and even his allies concede this fact. He's had a terrible record with the economy, and increased the national debt. He went to war on false premises. Nobody really disputes this anymore.

Bush's problem is that he has a booze-pickled brain. A great communicator makes complex ideas simple to understand.

Bush takes complex ideas, simplifies them to understand them, acts on them, and then explains it all in gibberish so nobody really understands what he's saying.

His die-hard fans are not too smart, so, they get fooled.

Report this post as:

which democrats?

by more rational Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 8:07 AM

" Democrats are the new reds, and communism is alive and well in America. There's hardly a difference between the Communist party platform and the Democrats' plans for America: confiscate all guns, restrict free speech, eliminate religion, high taxes for everyone and a huge, inefficient government to regulate all businesses, behavior and to "manage" the economy; all in the name of 'fairness,' of course. "

Ha ha. Right. You've been spending too much time in the survivalist bookstore. Stop eating that weird dry food they sell there. It's getting to yoru brain.

The present situation is neoliberalism. The "war on terrorism" is a distraction from this larger trend in globalization.

Report this post as:

calling lefty on his bull

by Bush landslide 04 Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 8:27 AM

" Democrats are the new reds, and communism is alive and well in America. There's hardly a difference between the Communist party platform and the Democrats' plans for America: confiscate all guns, restrict free speech, eliminate religion, high taxes for everyone and a huge, inefficient government to regulate all businesses, behavior and to "manage" the economy; all in the name of 'fairness,' of course. "

>>>> You can't refute a single word I've written here and it was wise of you not to try. Since you're an admitted socialist (a communist wearing a white shirt) you should know better than I the very small differences between those calling themselves democrats and those calling themselves socialists.

The present situation is neoliberalism. The "war on terrorism" is a distraction from this larger trend in globalization.

>>>> "Neoliberalism" is just a fancy-schmancy word for "free-market capitalism." It works, socialism doesn't.

>>>> Re: your brief interlude of Clinton worship above, Slick Willie is not a Rhodes scholar, he merely attended Oxford. And 90s welfare reform, where Willie was kept at bay, worked. Thank God the days of our worst, most corrupt president are well behind us.



Report this post as:

I KNEW I should have read the paper first thing this morning

by Mark Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 1:04 PM
drolette@comcast.net

"Thank God the days of our worst, most corrupt president are well behind us."

Did W just resign??

Report this post as:

take the bait, monkey

by Bush landslide 04 Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 7:44 PM

You lefties are 0WN3D by your own dumbth.



Report this post as:

Maybe you skipped over this part

by Mark Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 7:56 PM

Name-calling is NOT debating. I know this might be a difficult concept for some at first, especially for those who have done it since just after (or before, or maybe even during) birth, but there's pretty much nothing I haven't heard, and most of these didn't quite attain knee-slapping level even on their maiden passes... If you are an inveterate name caller and still aren't quite sure whether it's time to move on, here's a sure-fire test for you: Take out your driver's license (provided your home state allows you on its roads), and look at the birthdate. If the year's prefix is "19," the last two numbers don't matter: You are too old to call people names--period. Stop it now.

Report this post as:

name callin'

by Bush landslide 04 Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 8:14 PM

Name-calling is NOT debating. I know this might be a difficult concept for some at first, especially for those who have done it since just after....

----If it's a 'debate' you're looking for, you're invited to read

"calling lefty on his bull" a few posts above. That pretty much sums up everything the left in '04 stands for.

If you are an inveterate name caller and still aren't quite sure whether it's time to move on, here's a sure-fire test for you: Take out your driver's license (provided your home state allows you on its roads), and look at the birthdate. If the year's prefix is "19," the last two numbers don't matter: You are too old to call people names--period. Stop it now.

----It is unfortunate that this call for civility comes after three decades of infantile name calling and tantrum-throwing from the left.

----Conservatives who don't approve of failed programs like Head Start are "Nazis." Any and all Black conservatives are "Uncle Toms" and worse. That's but two examples of leftist intolerance.

----Granted, you are not personally responsible for all the conduct of the left, but from what is shown here I don't think you would refuse to help hang a B**h = H**ler banner. Just a guess.

----Quid pro quo remains in effect.

Report this post as:

You asked for it

by Mark Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 at 8:43 PM

---Democrats are the new reds, and communism is alive and well in America.

This is nothing more than extremely tired, trite, and laughable red baiting, with absolutely no support given for your “argument.” Thanks, though, for another one I’ll try to use in “Right Silly Arguments, Part II,” although it’s so silly, it may not be possible to riff on it.

---There's hardly a difference between the Communist party platform and the Democrats' plans for America: confiscate all guns, restrict free speech, eliminate religion, high taxes for everyone and a huge, inefficient government to regulate all businesses, behavior and to "manage" the economy; all in the name of 'fairness,' of course. "

Wow. Where, exactly, is all, or any, of the above to be found in the Democratic Party platform? Specifics, please.

--- "Neoliberalism" is just a fancy-schmancy word for "free-market capitalism." It works, socialism doesn't.

If a completely unfettered free market is so great, why does the huge new Medicare prescription drug bill preclude the feds from exercising their massive bargaining power to bring about lower drug costs for seniors? Why are states precluded from buying cheaper Canadian drugs, which are mostly all made in the U.S. to begin with and then shipped north?

----It is unfortunate that this call for civility comes after three decades of infantile name calling and tantrum-throwing from the left.

Again, specifics, please. And whatever you offer up had better be sufficiently worse than the accumulation of years of even just Rush Limbaugh diatribes.

----Conservatives who don't approve of failed programs like Head Start are "Nazis." Any and all Black conservatives are "Uncle Toms" and worse. That's but two examples of leftist intolerance.

Again, specifics, please. This is an ongoing pattern in your “debating” style: Broad, over-arching generalizations that cannot be taken seriously by anyone interested in real debate.

----…I don't think you would refuse to help hang a B**h = H**ler banner. Just a guess.

Well, guess again, then. It is also a not-so-subtle form of name-calling that is rather ugly.



Report this post as:

Yuck!

by WilliamPitt Monday, Aug. 16, 2004 at 1:09 AM

I can't believe I'm seeing people posting on LA-IMC saying good things about a bunch of fascists like Clinton, the Democrat party, and those who call themselves "liberals" like the moran who penned the original comment. I don't want anything to do with either the left or the right. Both of them want to tell me what to eat, where to sleep, how to fuck,..... Kiss My Ass! Kerry or Bush, it don't matter, we're screwed for another 4 years. Anyone who thinks Kerry will be better than Bush is as much the enemy as the neocon asholes themselves. Die already!

Report this post as:

called

by Bush landslide 04 Monday, Aug. 16, 2004 at 1:26 AM

---Democrats are the new reds, and communism is alive and well in America.

This is nothing more than extremely tired, trite, and laughable red baiting, with absolutely no support given for your “argument.”

----Oh? How can it be “red-baiting” if there aren’t communists afoot?

Thanks, though, for another one I’ll try to use in “Right Silly Arguments, Part II,” although it’s so silly, it may not be possible to riff on it.

------Dude, you’re in such denial, it’s mind boggling. Take the current Donkey platform to its logical conclusion. Oh wait, I already did, below.

---There's hardly a difference between the Communist party platform and the Democrats' plans for America: confiscate all guns, restrict free speech, eliminate religion, high taxes for everyone and a huge, inefficient government to regulate all businesses, behavior and to "manage" the economy; all in the name of 'fairness,' of course. "

Wow. Where, exactly, is all, or any, of the above to be found in the Democratic Party platform? Specifics, please.

------I’m not going to do your homework for you, but a few links are provided below.

If a completely unfettered free market is so great, why does the huge new Medicare prescription drug bill preclude the feds from exercising their massive bargaining power to bring about lower drug costs for seniors? Why are states precluded from buying cheaper Canadian drugs, which are mostly all made in the U.S. to begin with and then shipped north?

------For some reason, tragically, Republicans have degenerated so that there’s really not a dime’s difference between the two major parties. Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like.

-----As Dems and heatlth care goes, the Great Socialization Plan of the 90s was the first (and last) time they’ll try to overtly force their nonsense down everyone’s throats. They’ll now keep it under the radar, just like they do in “education.”

----It is unfortunate that this call for civility comes after three decades of infantile name calling and tantrum-throwing from the left.

Again, specifics, please. And whatever you offer up had better be sufficiently worse than the accumulation of years of even just Rush Limbaugh diatribes.

"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?" -- Song from the show of left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

----P.S. Limbaugh uses facts to support his arguments. Liberals don’t.

----Here’s a sample of Democrat “tolerance.” It is an opinion piece; the quotes are not.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110002638

---If you wanna get really kooky:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID60/31643.html

----Conservatives who don't approve of failed programs like Head Start are "Nazis." Any and all Black conservatives are "Uncle Toms" and worse. That's but two examples of leftist intolerance.

Again, specifics, please. This is an ongoing pattern in your “debating” style: Broad, over-arching generalizations that cannot be taken seriously by anyone interested in real debate.

-----Is there someone “interested in real debate?” Where are they?

----…I don't think you would refuse to help hang a B**h = H**ler banner. Just a guess.

Well, guess again, then. It is also a not-so-subtle form of name-calling that is rather ugly.

-----The B**h = H**ler dopes are quite real. 9 times out of 10 I’d be correct in my hunch, as the comrade-media site is Red Square circa 1984.

----Insults is what this site degenerates into all the time. It’s no trouble at all. I can stand the heat. Can you?

Report this post as:

Complaint Dept. is closed

by Lenin Monday, Aug. 16, 2004 at 1:33 AM

I don't want anything to do with either the left or the right. Both of them want to tell me what to eat, where to sleep, how to fuck,..... Kiss My Ass! Kerry or Bush, it don't matter, we're screwed for another 4 years. Anyone who thinks Kerry will be better than Bush is as much the enemy as the neocon asholes themselves. Die already!

>>>> Tough shit. This "too cool for school" attitude of non-participation is exactly why we're in this mess now.

>>>> If you don't like the 2 big parties, you're free to start your own.

Report this post as:

For Bush Landslide 04

by Mark Drolette Monday, Aug. 16, 2004 at 2:38 PM
drolette@comcast.net

Yes, actually I am interested in real debate: honest, respectful, mature debate. Are you? I’m not so sure, because let me give you the “logical” response to one of your comments.

----P.S. Limbaugh uses facts to support his arguments. Liberals don’t.

“Logical” answer: Liberals use facts to support their arguments. Limbaugh doesn’t.

There. Glad we settled that. Here’s another example of non-debate:

----Oh? How can it be “red-baiting” if there aren’t communists afoot?

To which, if I were in a sarcastic mood, I would reply (since your statement provides no factual support whatever): Your thoughtful, in-depth analysis certainly supports your startling contention that “Democrats are the new reds, and communism is alive and well in America.” (By the way, unless I am mistaken, “red-baiting” refers to accusing people of being Communists; it doesn’t mean trolling for Communists.)

Here’s some more:

---"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?" -- Song from the show of left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

And this proves your earlier contention that there have been “three decades of infantile name calling and tantrum-throwing from the left” just how, exactly? Do you know that three decades equals thirty years, and all you have done is print some quote with no context from some alleged radio guy to whom I’ve never listened? I guess at this point maybe I should respond with Limbaugh’s quotes about the Abu Ghraib abuses as being akin to fraternity pranks, but you know what? The only thing that would prove is that Limbaugh is an insensitive blowhard who has said something incredibly stupid. Using your “logic,” though, I should take this remark as “proving” that the right has engaged in decades’ worth of compassionless, offensive ramblings.

And so it goes. So, yes, I do desire to engage in real debate. If you decide you wish to do so, also, you just let me know.









Report this post as:

Go Bush!! Bush rocks!!

by Barney Monday, Aug. 16, 2004 at 4:04 PM

Kerry is such a loser....

Report this post as:

Lenin

by WilliamPitt Tuesday, Aug. 17, 2004 at 1:24 PM

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you vote for Democrats just because they're not Republicans, guess which side you're on? Trading one fascist for another does nothing. Don't tell any of us active in the struggle that you care about others and then stump for Kerry or any other fascist as being the better of two evils. You're only making yourself look like a bigger asshole than you already are.

Report this post as:

No Pity for the Pitts

by Lenin Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2004 at 6:15 PM

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

>>>> What a brilliant cut-n-paste cliche.

If you vote for Democrats just because they're not Republicans, guess which side you're on? Trading one fascist for another does nothing.

>>>> Apparently all those Bush = H****r sign-holding fuckups would disagree with your false claim that, "both parties are the same." Altho they're becoming more similar all the time.



Don't tell any of us active in the struggle that you care about others and then stump for Kerry or any other fascist as being the better of two evils. You're only making yourself look like a bigger asshole than you already are.



>>> Unlike __your__ asshole, it's impossible for mine to "grow bigger" since my head isn't jammed up there. Don't even fuck with me, fuck. You're way outta your league.

>>> "Activist?" are you? Indeed. What's your solution? Cause around here it's only one of two. The majority here thinks the problems of government can only be solved with MORE AND TOTAL government control. The remaining 3 or 4 are "anarchists" who in a real state of anarchy would end up the first ones hanging from the lamp posts.

>>> Since you missed it the first time: If you don't like the 2 big parties, you're free to start your own. So until then, STFU and don't vote.

Report this post as:

Drollery w/ the Drolette

by Bush landslide '04 Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2004 at 7:32 PM

Yes, actually I am interested in real debate: honest, respectful, mature debate. Are you?

-----Pleasantly pointless.

I’m not so sure, because let me give you the “logical” response to one of your comments.

--------P.S. Limbaugh uses facts to support his arguments. Liberals don’t.

“Logical” answer: Liberals use facts to support their arguments. Limbaugh doesn’t.

---------Your statement is false. Mine is true. That's the diff.

There. Glad we settled that.

Here’s another example of non-debate:

----Oh? How can it be “red-baiting” if there aren’t communists afoot?

Your thoughtful, in-depth analysis certainly supports your startling contention that “Democrats are the new reds, and communism is alive and well in America.”

--------It's a "non-debate" because I am right, and you are not as right. As for democraps being commies, a rose by any other name would still be as RED. There's LESS of a difference between commies and 'crats than there are donkeys and elephants. Even a blind man can see where the 'crats are headed.



Here’s some more:

---"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?" -- Song from the show of left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

And this proves your earlier contention that there have been “three decades of infantile name calling and tantrum-throwing from the left” just how, exactly?

-----It's one of many, many examples of obnoxious leftist prigs. Since 90% of "journalists" vote democRAT, it's no surprise lefty loons get away with as hominem attacks too.

...all you have done is print some quote with no context from some alleged radio guy to whom I’ve never listened?

-----Neil Rogers exists. Do you? There's his racist song lyrics for all to see, but he gets away with it cause he's a red.

I guess at this point maybe I should respond with Limbaugh’s quotes about the Abu Ghraib abuses as being akin to fraternity pranks, but you know what? The only thing that would prove is that Limbaugh is an insensitive blowhard who has said something incredibly stupid.

---"Welcome to the America of George Bush, our very own Malice from Dunderland" These are YOUR words, aren't they? Talk about civility. You, sir, are demonstrating the Abe Lincoln definition of a hypocrite: One who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he's an orphan.

------And what if Limbaugh did say something stupid? Doesn't he have the right to broadcast without a liberal muzzle? Limbaugh has stated many, many times that he is merely an 'entertainer' and a 'harmless little fuzzball.' He's done a hell of a lot less harm than Bill Clinton and Ted "Swim" Kennedy.

Using your “logic,” though, I should take this remark as “proving” that the right has engaged in decades’ worth of compassionless, offensive ramblings.

------"Compassion" as defined by leftists is confiscating the $$$ from one group and handing it to another who didn't earn it (while taking a large cut for themseves). That doesn't take any skill, only force.

And so it goes. So, yes, I do desire to engage in real debate. If you decide you wish to do so, also, you just let me know.

-----You'll see this eventually, then you can give it a shot.

Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy