|
<< And Harvard, Oxford, Brandeis - or for that matter the
speciously-named "Citizens for the American Way >>
A bogus comeback and you know it.
In whose interpretation? Again, it seems very
important to you to not only express your opinion, but drive it into other
peoples' heads as well. This is one of the characteristics of insecurity
of belief. Like some evangelicals to an extent, actually.
You brainwashed Rightwingers just can't face the reality of the reality
you're living in.
And only you can define what that is for us, is that right?
No matter how goddamn awful the Bush administration performs, you
Righties cast your eyes away and make excuses.
That's an echo of the years 1992-2000. Of course Bubba was a
great president! Say it enough but it won't become true.
AND YET, when a Democrat was leading this country (very well, I may
say)
That was predictable, though misguided.
, you nitpicked on ever little m*otherf*cking thing. Or did you blank
those moments out?
Rwanda and the rest of every 'military' action between
1992-2000? The under-the-table deals with the Chinese? The stalking
of critics? The secret deal with the IRS giving Scientology tax-exempt
"religion" status? The dubious death of staff? No, don't think I'll
ever forget that.
Stephen Goodman
<spgoodman@earthlight.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, 09 September, 2005
15:08 PM
Subject: Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in San
Francisco
Hahahahahahahaha....
<< hidden agendas >>
Look at the Right. All those bogus "think-tanks", i.e. Heritage
Foundation. These buzzards, and those like them, have been co-opting the
ability of Americans to think for many years. Finally, the Left has woken
up will begin funding their own "think tanks" to counter the years of
propaganda spewed by the Right.
And Harvard, Oxford, Brandeis - or for that matter
the speciously-named "Citizens for the American Way" - haven't just popped
up overnight, have they? The Left maintains their own dream and wishes
to enforce it, so how's that different to what you're going
after?
How does anyone know YOU know what the hell you're talking about when
you characterize these organizations? I already heard nonsensical stuff
coming from the Right that, for example, the MoveOn.org is a Communist
organization.
Ah, but when I express my opinion I don't think
everyone should share it. As far as moveon.org
goes, they're a group of people previously hypnotised by Al "Pay Me" Gore,
who just can't get with the fact that it's 2005, and can't do what their
domain name pretends it wants to do, while spamming with a nearly
evangelistic ferocity.
Stephen Goodman
<spgoodman@earthlight.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, 09 September, 2005
13:42 PM
Subject: Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in
San Francisco
<< Of course quite a few so-called "anti-war" types are
quite often something more - "anti-democracy", or
"anti-capitalism",
"leftist", "socialist", communist", or plain
old "anti-Republican". >>
And some of them like blueberry pancakes.
Not an answer. You don't generally hide
a predilection for pancakes, whereas the Stop the War group is funded
greatly by folks whose main agenda has nothing to do with the war.
That wasn't a very good attempt at deflection, and I didn't categorize
anyone except with respect to a hidden agenda anyway.
Some of them also like to sunbathe or visit museums. It's foolish
to categorize people into one of two camps. The common practice of the
Right to discuss, bash, trash, etc. so-called "Liberals" is a case in
point. What the hell is a Liberal anyway? People have many
varieties/combinations/permutations of beliefs. If I don't
particularly believe in the efficacy of the death penalty, does that
make me a Liberal?
Again, irrelevant.
It's an age-old tactic to create a "bogeyman" a la Goldstein in
Orwell's '1984'. In the 21st century in the US, it's the "Liberals"
who are the bogeyman.
In your case, a Straw man huh?
The Windmeister
Stephen Goodman
<spgoodman@earthlight.net> wrote:
Actually
it becomes incumbent upon people who take on the "anti-war" mantle
to accurately identify their political affiliation(s) so that
the public -
the people they're trying to win over to their
argument - will know what the
agenda really is. Of course quite
a few so-called "anti-war" types are
quite often something more
- "anti-democracy", or "anti-capitalism",
"leftist",
"socialist", communist", or plain old "anti-Republican". Funny
how this is rarely done. What do such folks have to hide, and
why? Is it
because their actual agenda is known to turn off
people who would otherwise
be hoodwinked effectively into
supporting something which, if they really
thought about it, may
be repugnant to them? I've found a disturbing
tendency on the
part of protest movements in the past 15 years or so to be
less
concerned with whether they're VIEWED as "right" than whether
they're
actually "right" or not. For me Political Correctness
(spawned during a
particular non-Republican's term) is nothing
more than the outgrowth of
someone else's inane need to oppress
others through imitation
intellectualism and cooked numbers.
Individuals of all kinds and colors
tend to rebel against this
when they know what it actually is, which is most
likely why
some items are often blurred a bit or put under a banner
presenting something "more palatable" and therefore easier to
SELL.
Alas, honesty is still the best policy, and not just
for "someone else". I
suppose I'm some kind of "bigot" for
expressing this opinion. Beware
however - expressing an
individual opinion is usually averse to the
interests of the
Left, or for that matter cults like Scientology.
I was asked
to play a London event in 2002 that was initially described to
me as a "gathering of like-minded people", then it was said to
me that it
was "in the interest of peace", and finally described
to me as an "anti-Bush
rally". I persist in the belief that
politics should be peoples' own
business, and I don't care for
GroupThink either. If this makes me a
conservative, then I guess
I'm one of those, but not in all manners. I also
make it a point
not to adhere to stereotypes, or other pre-constructed
expectations. I suppose doing so could make me a "contrarian",
or perhaps
just a non-conformist. I prefer the
latter.
It's a good thing that in San Francisco (and the rest
of the United States
of America) you can't be imprisoned without
trial and put to death just for
expressing an opinion that
opposes some Ayatollah's Fundamentalist Regime.
No, Pat
Robertson doesn't even come close.
Stephen Goodman
*
Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
*
http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack
*
http://www.medialinenews.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shirkey"
To:
Sent: Friday, 09 September,
2005 06:05 AM
Subject: Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in San
Francisco
>
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 12:03 AM, Larry
wrote:
>
>> You're dead-on, Matthew: this anti-war
stuff is the typical, knee-jerk
>> response of
far-left-wing America-haters.
>
> And thanks for your
own knee-jerk response that does nothing more than
>
stereotype all anti-war sentiments as the "knee jerk responses of
> far-left-wing America-haters." Yep, I'm glad you took the
time to think
> that one through. Personally, I prefer the
anti-war sentiments to the
> pro-war ones. Call me
"crazy"--or "left-wing," or "anti- American,"
> or...(fill in
the blank with your preferred stereotype of the
moment).
>
>
Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
