Things you have to be a republican to believe.

7 thoughts on “Things you have to be a republican to believe.”

1. Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.
   1984 George Orwell

2. THINGS YOU HAVE TO BE AN IDIOT TO BELIEVE.
   That arming or doing business with someone is
   tantamount to declaring him a “good guy”.
   So that, for example, Roosevelt must have
   considered Stalin a “good guy”.
   That the abortion debate is about whether a
   woman can be trusted with decisions about her
   own body.
   That veterans’ benefits and combat pay should be
   determined without regard to any considerations
   other than military morale.
   That in order to oppose condoms in schools, you
   must believe they’re the only cause of the
   adolescent sex.
   That anyone has ever believed or argued that “HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart”.
   That it even makes sense to ask whether “tobacco’s link to cancer is junk
   science”, as opposed to the unthinkably
   subtle possibility that some studies might be
   junk science even though other studies *on the
   exact* same subject might not be.
   That anyone anywhere has ever declared that lying
   about a blowjob is an impeachable offense, and that by omitting the inconvenient phrase “under
   oath” you can make the whole issue go away.
   Et cetera. This kind of thing is really beneath
   you, Dave.

3. ???????
   http://www.nrsc.org/memberprograms/taskforce/splash.shtml
   http://www.BackToTheMainstream.org
   Maybe you should check out your sponsors…?

4. Maybe you should check out your sponsors…?
   Actually, the sponsors links are generated based on the content of the page, via Google’s adsense program. I really have very little control over what is displayed there – when I make political commentary, tha’ts fed into Google’s ad engine, and things appropriate to those subjects are posted.
   I believe that other folks who use Google have a right to have their ads here – if someone clicks on them, I make a little money – I enjoy the thought that if you click through to some right wingy fundy site, they actually don’t get any money, but I do. So click away! 8)

5. WotW comments:
   Et cetera. This kind of thing is really beneath you, Dave.
   This is also political satire. Taking comments like this at absolute face value removes any significance of the irony in the comments.
   But since you wish to make a point by point argument, lets look at the very last one you mentioned:
   That anyone anywhere has ever declared that lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense, and that by omitting the inconvenient phrase “under oath” you can make the whole issue go away.
   The independent counsel investigating Clinton’s financial dealings had ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT even remotely asking this question. It had no bearing on the case, and he was deliberately searching for ways to attack Clinton. There was no greater good served in that entire proceeding, and in fact, tremendous damage was done to the political environment, as a man was put in a positioin where he absolutely cannot lie, no matter what question is asked of him – and the questions themselves can not be questioned.
   And furthermore, given the scope and relevance of the question, do you IMPEACH a POPULAR president, who is doing WELL by the country, for this type of offense? You do not. You censure. Impeachment is a dramatic procedure where an attempt is made to remove a government official from office. Do you honestly believe that Clinton should be impeached for this?
   In the context of ‘he should never have been asked that question in the first place’, lets take GW, and put him under oath, and allow an independent counsel to ask -him- any question. “Did you have green beans for dinner last week?” If he says “No”, and that is found to be wrong, do we impeach him? The question is not ‘lied’ or ‘didn’t lie’. The question IMHO is “did this lie happen and threaten the US, it’s people, or it’s interests?” Can you honestly say this lie was a lie that anyone BUT the right wing political engine really cared about?
   I stand by my condemnation utter hypocrisy of the Republican party, where even the smallest slight by the Left seems to justify gross injustices on the right. This posting personified that hypocrisy by putting the comments in what I felt was a witty and satirical structure.

6. I promise not to belabor this further, and
   to cheerfully let you have the last word if
   you want it, but:
   1) I just don’t see what’s “satirical” about
   making a list of totally stupid political
   positions and then attributing those positions
   to your opponents, who have never taken such
   positions. I could as well say that “Only
   Democrats think owls are rodents” and call it
   political satire. It just seems pointless
   and entirely unfunny.
   2) Clinton lied about blowjobs under oath
   long before the independent counsel took any
   interest in the matter. I completely agree
   that if the independent counsel had raised
   this issue out of the blue it would have been
   grossly inappropriate. Given that Clinton
   had *already* committed the impeachable
   offense, I think it would have been derelict
   for the independent counsel to fail to pursue
   it.

7. I promise not to belabor this further, and
   to cheerfully let you have the last word if
   you want it, but:
   1) I just don’t see what’s “satirical” about
   making a list of totally stupid political
   positions and then attributing those positions
   to your opponents, who have never taken such
   positions. I could as well say that “Only
   Democrats think owls are rodents” and call it
   political satire. It just seems pointless
   and entirely unfunny.
   2) Clinton lied about blowjobs under oath
   long before the independent counsel took any
   interest in the matter. I completely agree
   that if the independent counsel had raised
   this issue out of the blue it would have been
   grossly inappropriate. Given that Clinton
   had *already* committed the impeachable
   offense, I think it would have been derelict
   for the independent counsel to fail to pursue
   it.

Comments are closed.