| Flying Pig Spotted: Rangel, Pelosi, CONDEMN CHAVEZ'S ATTACK ON BUSH |
![]() Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2007 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July My Links Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective Watts Up With That? Internet Haganah Jihad Watch Ponder the Maunder The Dissident Frogman Barking-Moonbat EWS Just Barking Mad! The Malaria Clock Project Valour-IT Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD... 10 Myths of Islam tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog
|
posted by: akelso (reply) post date: 09.21.06 (11:07 am) Hmmmm, yes Chavez was truly "over the top," you think? Still, he only swung back verbally at the military aggression mounted by the Bush administration, in exactly the spirit of that violence: Axis of Evil!! Evildoers!! A Crusade!!! Bush and Chavez are well-matched for there inaiblity to bring civility to the table. Chavez expressed the moral outrage of people without a voice at the U.N. - Bush has appalled and humiliated this great nation beyond our likely ability to recover any time soon. Neither win a place at the table of civility, I fear, but Bush is the most dangerous man on earth. posted by: thoolou (reply) post date: 09.21.06 (1:13 pm) You forgot to shriek "Haliburton," and "Global Warming!" You Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers are getting so desparate, it's almost comical. Seen any gulags in your part of the country yet? Take a deep breath, and maybe a tad of lithium... Do a little research on how Chavez came to power, huh? Sakes. posted by: thoolou (reply) post date: 09.21.06 (1:46 pm) akelso: Rickety Straw Man, BTW. "The Republicans and “red” America appear to be able to maintain great respect for the values that delivered this country into the 21st Century, arguably, the most powerful and benevolent empire the world has ever seen; despite our turbulent and ugly past. It appears that Democratic politicians and “left” leaning voters possess a guilty conscious about the path our Nation took to the 21st Century, and thus are uncomfortable with American supremacy; perhaps thinking/feeling that America is not deserving of the vanguard role it plays on the world stage and espousing its values as synonymous with “universal” values I wonder, how are the past atrocities that America committed in the name of Manifest Destiny, its participation in Slavery, its reluctance to embrace emancipation, its well intentioned, but tragically misguided effort in Vietnam, any more vile than; • 16th through 19th Century history of the Western European Monarchies • French and German lack of racial and ethnic diversity in modern times • China’s long history of human rights abuses • The oppressive regimes of all Middle Eastern Totalitarian Dynasties • Czarist, Stalinist, or Putins’ Russia Is seems by comparison, that at the dawn of the 21st Century, the United States stands alone as a Nation that allows for both the full expression of human freedom while successfully assimilating all races, religions and genders into its society. Republican politicians and “red” American voters seem to have a profound appreciation of our nation being the only in recorded history to be founded on an “idea”, with its expression finding a sacrosanct home in the Declaration of Independence. I suspect those supportive of Bush’s foreign policy think and feel that this country has lived up to that founding ideal, and therefore can be an example to all nations; in other words, we have become, that “City on a Hill” The politicians and voters on the “left” appear to be mired in seeing what’s wrong with America, more than seeing what’s right, and thus find themselves turning away from joining the fight to win the global WOT; there also appears to be an all consuming “2000 Election” temper tantrum that manifests in sophomoric demagogic exhortations geared toward reclaiming the White House. I wish these shenanigans could fall innocently into the historical bin of political self flagellation and rabid partisanship. The vituperative journalism of 1789 demonstrates that political nastiness is indigenous to our Republic; the stakes were high; so thus too was the rhetoric; however, in that era, the cycle of war amongst Nations was quite regular, and despite the horror of those wars, none of the great military powers faced extinction as a result of their never ending declarations of war. Today, we face a starkly different paradigm. “Toto…we’re not in Kansas anymore” could be the literary equivalent of the global economy and weapons capability of the 18th Century compared to the petrodollars that fund global terrorism in the 21st Century, and the nexus between terrorists’ interest in obtaining WMD, and their financial interlocutors." douglas-from-nyc, Via Free Republic. posted by: irishred (reply) post date: 09.21.06 (4:03 pm) I couldn't agree with you more...it should be very interesting. posted by: thoolou (reply) post date: 09.22.06 (1:37 pm) Reply to: akelso BTW, here are a few edicts issued 10 days ago by the man you deem less evil than President Bush: Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who "disrespect" the president or his functionaries in private; "the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly." There's more: Article 444 says that comments that "expose another person to contempt or public hatred" can bring a prison sentence of one to three years; Article 297a says that someone who "causes public panic or anxiety" with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications. Guess who? Hugo! Please read something other than the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. posted by: thoolou (reply) post date: 09.23.06 (7:21 am) I saw that you had been back Audry. What? No refutation? |
![]() |