The Liberal Hangover

by iosaf Mon Dec 01, 2003 18:25 Barcelona, Catalonia EU.

You are propoganda resource for the US Republican Party, and I have a collection of negatives taken when Clinton was inaugorated as President of the USA. You support the Republicans, and well I prefer the Democrats, but I never in a lifetime thought to think Clinton was "good".
We hate Bush, it is true, and we hate what he represents:
the most subversive attack on the ideology of the American Republic since it's foundation.
and for what he is presided:
The inability or will to protect either the North American homelands or European states from extremist terrorist threat.
The inclusion of European states in a series of wars that have broken the post War Global concensus of threat resolution.
The unprecendented attack on liberal values, including the systematic arrests of Green party activists, anarchists, socialists and muslims.
The unprecendented manipulation of truth and distortion of fact to facilitate a war for energy and strategic advantage to the detriment of one of the bloodiest of conflicts upon "our European frontier" to wit Israel.

Now you argue poorly for the US Right. And Clinton will never argue for the Left, but for the moment since he started his "republican analysis" essays and interview in the European Press, he is playing a rôle in opposing the evil cabal that both you and Bush serve. As such he is slightly more paid, certainly more implicated and hypocritical and very much less funky than the other Columbines (Mr Moore) but that's how it is.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=21492

now i reckon you'll be deleted for crossposting.

by Raymond Kinanne Mon Dec 01, 2003 19:57

First of all I am not talking “crap”. I am expressing my own views and if you do not agree with them I would expect the same courtesy I would give to your own: read them and respond in a reasonable unhysterical manner with out resort to bad manners.
I am not a member of the Republican Party nor am I a “propaganda resource”.
If you would read my opinion piece again you will read that Republicans were indeed negative of Clinton.
They did not HATE him they way the Left does as if he were the Anti-Christ except for mental unstable extreme right skinheads.
Clinton did take down Milosevic and liberated the Kosovars from slaughter and annilhation and for that he should be seen as a hero because that time he and Blair flew in the face of the U.N. by going to war with out the need for permission. I would call Clinton “good” wouldn’t you? Or would you prefer a Greater Serbia and mass graves brimming with rotting Kosovar corpses?
I would think that the attack on 9/11 was the “greatest attack on the ideology of the American Republic since its foundation” or did I miss something? The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the American people was surely attacked by fanatical religious maniacs who hijacked four commercial airliners full of innocent men women and children and crashed them the Pentagon, the centre of the Defence Department whose very existence is the defence of the Republic, and the World Trade Centre one of the commercial centres of the nation’s largest city killing thousands of innocent people including firemen and police officers performing their duty to help them? Or are I missing something?
You say Bush has “the inability or will to protect either the North American homelands or European states from extremist terrorist threat”. Excuse me while I roll on the floor and laugh.
The Taliban government who had established an extremist Islamic state gave sanctuary to Ossama Bin Laden and permission to use their territory to set up Al-Quadia terrorist training camps. Since the terrorists who attacked New York and Washington on 9/11 trained there and if any further attacks occurred those attackers would come from this source surely the removal of the Taliban from power, the destruction of these camps and the pursuit of Ossama would be “protect either the North American homelands or European states from extremist terrorist threat”.
Bush showed a lot of “will” in pursuing that aim did he not?
“The post-War global consensus of threat resolution”? Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing.
Did France, Great Britain, U.S.A, Russian, China, Japan, Iran, Iraq, Israel etc. ever have a consensus?
Each of these countries has conducted wars without the approval of the UN.
The consensus if there every was one is that countries are free to resolve wars how they wish usually with decisive force.
Green party activists, anarchists, socialist and muslims have been arrested because it is they who are are launching “the unprecedented attack on liberal values.” The Green Party if they came to power in America would tax us all into poverty and impose so many environmental restrictions as to make industry of any kind impossible.
Anarchists answer to a problematic world to destroy it totally instead of trying to make it a better place.
Muslims ( the extremist variety in particular) want to replace our tolerant democratic society with a theocracy where homosexuality and lesbianism, religious freedom, abortion, divorce ( for women), women’s rights, secular education, separation of church and state and free speech abolished.
When was the truth distorted and manipulated?
George W. Bush told the world that Saddam Hussein possessed and was developing weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological and gave terrorist support and commited genocide against his own people.
All of this was true.
The war was indeed to needed to secure our energy and strategic advantage. Oil resources are needed to for our domestic needs, power and industry. Coal is not an efficient fuel.
U.S. policy has not been to the detriment of the conflict in Israel. Israel ( the only democracy in the Middle East) is under attack from Islamic terrorists who wish to commit genocide against millions of Israeli men women and children. The U.S. continue to support their fight to defend themselves from tyrants such as Yasser Arafat.
If a cabal of evil liberates Afghanistan and Iraq from murderous tyranny surely it cannot be evil. Ever heard the expression “How can Satan be divided against Satan?”
Michael Moore is in fact “ implicated and hypocritical.” His film “Bowling for Columbine” although quite funny is based almost completely in falsehoods.
For instance the scene in the bank where he is given a gun immediately after he opens an account was an absolute fabrication.
To claim Moore is the intellectual equivalent of Clinton is like saying Larry Flint is an equal of Stephen Hawkins because they both ride in wheelchairs!

My views will be deleted? Hmmmm.
Sounds like an assault on liberty to me.
Ever heard of free speech?

by me Mon Dec 01, 2003 20:57

in the last 4 years 2500 Serbs and other non nationals have been killed in Kosovo: Zoran Zivkovic, Berliner Zeitung Decmber 1 2004,
point being, the west doesn't follow through and makes a bollox of it, but believes its own lies

by me Mon Dec 01, 2003 21:02

that should be 2003, there's also a lot of Depleted Uranium there... Most of us just believe in fair play. We also hate Al Quida. they damaged the UN with suicide bombers, The US Admin damaged it with Colin Powell's lies and other underhand means.

by Captain America Mon Dec 01, 2003 23:28

Too often those chearleading for the American dream overlook simple historical facts. Both Raymond and Iosaf are guilty of this. Do not forget that those who began the "American dream" first stated that it stood for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property, and the very same person who strongly argued for this version of the dream (James Madison) also argued that it was the goal of the elite minority to keep the ignorant masses away from any real decision making processes. I could go on, as I'm sure many are aware of the politics of the "Founding Fathers". The American Revolution is a sloppy title, as there was no revolution. It only saw the split of the British Empire. And, since the 1840's, it has overcome that Empire, so much so that the English military now structures itself to follow in America's lead.
For other issues, to suggest that there was no "anti-Clinton political movement" reveals
that Raymond also enjoys ignoring more current history. Furthermore, to suggest Hillary has "far-left sensibilities" reveals shoddy political analysis. Try adding some actual facts along with your assertions, I'd be interested in what you'd use. The Clintons were moderate only in the sense that they were moderate Republicans. Labour issues and foreign policy are prime examples, so too were Clinton's welfare reforms.
As far as tampering with the election, there is no need for quotation marks, but maybe you can let me know why you'd use them. If you were fully aware of what happened in 2000, you'd be angry as well.

Your insight into the president's decision to go to war is interesting as it continues with your knee jerk political analysis.

"The Left vilifies Bush because he insists on calling a spade a spade"
Is that like how Republicans named a CIA agent in public after he disagreed with the war?
What did Rumsfield call his buddy Saddam when he personally visited him, and presented him with a pair of golden cowboy boots from Reagan?

and the beat goes on.

by David Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:40

These are all based on pre-christian Epicurean ideas, Thomas Jefferson was very attracted to the teachings of Epicurus, a hellonistic philosopher who set up his Gardens 350 years before the birth of christ and who taught his students to worship friendship as the only source of justice, The pursuit of pleasure was life's only worthwhile aim (pleasure being the absence of pain and including far more than just desires of the flesh) He believed that one could not be happy as long as one had mistaken beliefs in gods of power, he urged all his students to life quiet lives away from the public eye (stay out of politics) and that the best way to spread his philosophy was one to one, because you can only make friends on one to one basis.
Basically Epicurus was one of the first Anarchists, there were some "cynics" before him who totally rejected all the laws of state and society but these were mainly just rebels for the sake of rebellion.
If Epicurus could see his ideas twisted into some evangelical power trip he would be spinning in his grave

by iosaf Tue Dec 02, 2003 13:12

(and didn't get deleted).
So shitypoos, I might have to stand by what I wrote....will I.... won't I.... heck no, it's all total bollox, If I dedicated myself to such crap I could possibly get a syndication deal with some north american radio.
So what are my true feelings:
Clinton and Bush: bad men.
USA: bad state republic was thrashed centuries ago by genocide.
David good writer.
Perhaps on wrong side.

Meanwhile, I'll have to be more careful, just coz it looks like right wing american apologist neo-liberal half baked, believing in democracy and freedom stuff doesn't mean it's not sincere and passionate opinion.

:-)
[i do have a photo of Clinton though -don't know why but heck these things collect dust]

by Raymond Kinnane Tue Dec 02, 2003 15:24

David you are mistaken.
Firstly I am not a Christian and where you get the notion that I am one is not clear. Please illuminate me.
I agree that “pleasure being the absence of pain and including far more than just desires of the flesh”. In America we are wealthy and not at risk of starvation or want as is the case in Third World countries. But we do have the threat of terrorism and the removal of that threat would our pleasure.
I believe that mistaken beliefs in gods of power will not make us ultimately happy. I believe in total spearation of church and state. Jesus did not rise from the dead and Muhammed is not the prophet of Allah. However insane fanatical Islamic believers want to destroy my country and kill as many of my country men as possible where as the Christian right who I do not agree with use democracy to get their point across. I think Islam is therefore a greater threat.
“he urged all his students to life quiet lives away from the public eye (stay out of politics) and that the best way to spread his philosophy was one to one, because you can only make friends on one to one basis.”
Politics is not about friendship but about mutual self interest and interdependence.
Most of the life of human beings is about mutual self interest and interdependence. We are sociable animals not solitary beasts. When I meet a girl at a ticket desk at an airport I don’t want to be friends with her I want to purchase my ticket for my flight. she doesn’t want to friends with me she just wants to serve me and everybody else in the queue because it is her job.
If you want to make friends you can’t stay out of politics. Politics involves making alliances and allegiances with others to advance our own interests. Friends are people who benefit you and vice versa. We help each other materially as well as emotionally. If I’m down I go for a beer with my buddies in a bar and watch the game on T.V. If they are down I cheer them up in return. If that’s not politics I don’t know what is.
The pursuit of life liberty and happiness is not an evangelical power trip.
It is what every man wants.
In America we achieve it through hard work, buying and selling and democratic politics.
I presume that fundamentalist Islamic terrorists achieve happiness through killing themselves in suicide attacks against innocent civilians.

by Yossarian Tue Dec 02, 2003 18:34

What planet are you living on?
You say: "The pursuit of life liberty and happiness is not an evangelical power trip.
It is what every man wants."
I would agree that the desire for liberty and happiness is a common goal amongst most people. Do you not realise that it cannot be achieved at other peoples expense? Do you know why? Because then they won't be happy at being denied the aforementioned so that you can have it, in fact they may even want to take it back. You also say earlier in your diatribe that "In America we are wealthy and not at risk of starvation or want as is the case in Third World countries" (which is not totally correct either because there is a massive underclass in the US but on the grand scheme of things it is true). Why do you not draw the connection between the wealth of the US (as a whole) and the deprivation of other areas? Do you think that the yanks are just so brilliant that they managed to find the secret formula to wealth generation and kept it secret? Or perhaps the wealth of the US is based largely on economic and military domination predominantly since the second world war.
Your depth of analysis is childlike in the extreme. For example you say crap like this: "insane fanatical Islamic believers want to destroy my country and kill as many of my country men as possible where as the Christian right who I do not agree with use democracy to get their point across. I think Islam is therefore a greater threat." (tell that to the Iraqis). Never mind the unbelievable arrogance of such a statement but if you are going to make such an arguement can you not at least take it a step further, like, why do those "insane fanatical Islamic believers want to destroy [your] country"? For most people in the world the answer is obvious, look, listen and learn, stop professing your dogma like some oaf. If you think I'm being unfair, how about this little gem of yours: "In America we achieve [liberty and happiness] through hard work, buying and selling and democratic politics". Buying and selling is not necessarily hard work, democratic politics barely exists in your country (or mine) and hard work for plebs generally results in ill health of some sort but is surely no guarantee of happiness or liberty, especially in your country.
Or this: "I presume that fundamentalist Islamic terrorists achieve happiness through killing themselves in suicide attacks against innocent civilians". Sure the guys are blissed out when they think of blowing themselves to smithereens. They couldn't be a bit angry, surely? I mean you'd never do something like that if you were raging against oppression (or perceived oppression) for years, would you, you'd just lie back and take it like a man. Actually, the US got a relative bee-sting on 9/11 and the response is to destroy two countries and murder probably over 100,000 people. You can't have it both ways dude.

by Raymond Kinnane Tue Dec 02, 2003 19:55

Yes happiness can be achieved at other people’s expense.
The average store owner pays his employees a wage but their work( selling his goods to customers) produces wealth far in excess of the wage that they earn. The shop owner gets wealthy on the back of his employees and achieves happiness. His employees do not complain because if they challenge his authority he can fire them and besides they need the wage to survive. They might be unhappy with how their boss threats them but how many store-owners in the United States or anywhere else in the world have their profits taken from them by unhappy employees?
Do you know why? Fear of being convicted and jailed for theft.
There IS a massive underclass in America but it’s NOTHING like any underclass in the Third World.
Why have surveys of Americans found that nearly a third of us are clinically obese?
If you want to starve to death in America it’s pretty hard, if it’s also almost impossible to diet, with all the food stores with mountains of food available at a cheap prices.
If I was a starving Ethiopian I would risk a journey in an airless cargo freight container to become one of the underclass in American society.
I draw an analogy between America and the rest of the world because the rest of the world sucks.
Our government actually let’s the economy flourish. IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID!
And it’s not a secret formula. Why don’t you read an economics book?
Low taxes for the rich, low government spending and low borrowing produce prosperity.
If you raise taxes too much, people are less likely to spend money and business suffers. If business suffers there is less income in people’s pockets and if they are taxed they will spend even less producing the goods that people need. This means less tax returns from business and because government spending is so high a drop in income taxes means they have to borrow.
So nobody is spending money for fear that it will be taxed and nobody can earn more money cause it isn’t being spent. The government can’t earn money through high taxes cause the money has already be taxed from them and spent. So the government have to increase borrowing or taxes. Prices are skyhigh and items people need are scarce.
Everybody ends up POOR!
But if you decrease taxes people will be more likely to pay them ( they like a reasonable price for their government) and will have more money left over to spend on the things they need. Businesses who sell these goods will earn more money and will be more likely to produce the things people need. Prices go down and more business is made, as more money is made and more people are needed to work therefore increasing employment and because there are more people employed there is an increased in the amount of taxes collected even though the rate of tax is lower.
The government does not have to borrow because it has sufficient tax incomes. It does not have to spend as much on social services because less people are poor.
Basic economics!
The fact is insane fanatical Islamic believers DO want to destroy my country and DO want to kill as many of my country men as possible whereas the Christian right who I do not agree with DO use democracy to get their point across. I DO think Islam is therefore a greater threat. That’s not child like that’s an ADULT assessment!
The Iraqis were are at present being attacked by the same Islamic Fundamentalists who are bombing and killing innocent Iraqi civilians and attacking Iraqi police who are trying to set up a democratic society with the help of America.
“Buying and selling is not necessarily hard work, democratic politics barely exists in your country (or mine) and hard work for plebs generally results in ill health of some sort but is surely no guarantee of happiness or liberty, especially in your country”.
Excuse me while I roll on the floor and belly laugh. Are you telling me that we have NO democracy in America?!! Are trying to tell me that buying and selling is not hard work? Are you telling me that “plebs” suffer ill health in a country where they have they greatest standard of living and life expectancy on earth and in ALL of human history, EVER?!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
And finally Islamic terrorists believe they will go straight to heaven if they become martyrs. The radical mullahs tell their poor sex starved fanatics that they will have 70 virgins for their to satisfy their carnal desires in the afterlife if they kill the infidel.
Extremist Islam has therefore made it their religious duty to kill Non-muslims especially Americans.
Are Muslims oppressed? I think so.
In America we criminals locked up who blew a fuse at in postal offices and brought their guns to work to shoot innocent co-workers dead. Right now they’re “oppressed” in prison cells waiting lethal injections.
If a nation like Palestine blames Jews for the faults of its own corrupt government which is impoverishing them and sends teenagers with explosive belts onto buses to kill innocent men women and children for no other reason than they are Jewish, then Palestine deserves to be oppressed. Just as Japan and Germany deserved to have their governments, armies and economies destroyed after invading half the world and killing millions of innocents “subhumans”.
Actually in your sick universe one only has to have “(perceived oppression)” for to attack innocents!
Do you think America is going to take 9/11 and as you say “lie back and take it like a man”?
We didn’t destroy Iraq and Afghanistan and kill 100,000 people.
Saddam and the Taliban did that already! Saddam killed 3000 people a month during his 30 year reign.
We went in and knocked those tyrants off their golden thrones and liberated 50 million people with the loss of less than 500 of our own combat troops. The vast majority of the deaths were among Taliban, terrorists and Iraqi soldiers. I wouldn’t call those bastards innocent!
The Iraqi and Afghan civilians I believe are happy at their expense.

by iosaf Wed Dec 03, 2003 13:26

don't treat it as if it was.
ever ever never.
I have decided to send my Clinton Photo to Fintan Lane in Limerick Prison.
[Fintan Lane, Limerick Prison, Mulgrave Street, Limerick, Ireland]
{you can send him something less troubling}

If someone could warn him, as it might be a bit of a shock, big envelope... oh goody, open it up, chelsea, hilary and billy .....euuerghhhh!

by Raymond Kinnane Wed Dec 03, 2003 14:51

Who are you talking about?
Is he someone important?
I have to say this is the first time I've every heard of him.

by David Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:44

I was trying to make the point that the principles on which the american dream was founded, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, have been used without irony to defend the conquests of the various Imperialists that have run america since it's foundation and these conquests are at complete odds with the meaning behind said american dream.

There are mistaken beliefs that cause unhappiness in mankind. Formost of these beliefs is that the successful pursuit of desires will result in the achievement of pleasure. Pleasure being both feelings of euphoria and the absense of pain. Unfulfilled desires cause pain. this can be agreed by most people. the unfulfilled desire to eat when hungry results in discomfort which will eventually lead to illness and death if left unfulfilled. the act of eating when hungry is a pleasurable one as the desire is being fulfilled and once one's hunger is satisfied the lack of that desire becomes pleasureable in itself.
Hunger is a desire that can lead to pleasure because it has limits that can be fulfilled. if hungry one only has to eat the correct quantity of food to satisfy that hunger and eliminate that desire for a while.
However, while all unfulfilled desires cause pain, often it is best not to try to fulfill them, instead happiness is easier achieved by eliminating such desires so that we no longer want to fulfill them anymore. If one is looking to achieve happiness, the desire for wealth can never be fully fulfilled so happiness can never be achieved. as you gather wealth there is always a desire to gather more if you are that way inclined. The same applies with power. if you desire power over others that desire can never be satisfied, each time you achieve some more power you will very soon desire more. it is like a hunger except that every time you think you are full, you suddenly find that you are hungry again.
The wealthy and powerful desire to secure their wealth and power but this can never be fully achieved so there will always be anxiety and pain, one may never enjoy the power that one thought one desired.

Epicurus taught to his followers that happiness lies in fulfilling necessary desires, to have enough food to not be hungry, to have enough clothes to not be cold, to have some place to live and to have enough friends to not be lonely.. happiness then can be maintained by eliminating desires that we can not achieve or where achieving such desires comes at too great a cost in terms of pain. he did not say that we should deny ourselves, if there is luxiurious food available to eat we would be foolish to shun it, but to not become reliant on eating such luxury for every meal.


There was a point made about muslims being authoritarian non democratic and christians being democratic? that is pretty laughble if considered for even a brief moment.
Christianity was imposed on the vast amount of the world by people promising paradise and threatening death and hell. `Libraries of competing greek Philosophy were burned to the ground, scrolls destroyed forever so that Christian doctrine would have no competition. (in 391ad the museum and libraries at alexandria were burned down by christian rioters and 20 years later, the surviving daughter of that museums curator was dragged into a church and brutally murdered for spreading greek thought amongst those earmarked for christianity) The christian faith was spread by force throughout the roman empire after Emperor Constantine converted to christianity in 312 and issued the Edict of Milan (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/European/edictofmilan.htm) which reversed the order where christians were persecuted in rome and instead shifted the persecution to those who did not believe that there was one divine father watching over us all.

This might all seem purely academic, but it is important to get a picture of what our society is built upon and where beliefs originated from.

by Raymond Kinanne Wed Dec 03, 2003 20:23

Are you telling me that i should refuse to have sex with my girlfriend when she crawls on bended knee for more after a marathon night of love making?
She is screaming for more and
I say " Think of Epicurus, baby!"
I've got my reputation as a studmuffin to consider!

by the bean-counter Wed Dec 03, 2003 22:08

Well maybe you should re-check the facts about the US Government not borrowing ....

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debt.htm

Seems like US Americans in general are real credit junkies ......
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm

Now is that real "wealth" or just the illusion of wealth ?

by Raymond Kinanne Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:48

Doesn't matter!
Bush announced the BIGGEST tax cut in U.S. history and as a result the economy is growing by 15% and rising.
Come election time unemployment will be plummeting and Bush will be a shoo in.