Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's not only neocons who desperately need enemies, like Ahmadinejad, to succeed so that they'll have an excuse to bomb bomb bomb Iran, or any place they damn well please. It's also the paleocons and the concons (conspiracy conservatives), or whatever Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, could be called these days.
Hard to categorize and hard to completely dismiss, Scheuer is the thickly bearded guy who's been all over the media the last few years calling his cable hosts "Sir," speaking out against the Iraq war, and making the sensible case that one reason "they hate us" is because of our support of Israel--not unlike paleo Pat Buchanan. But Scheuer's getting so wigged-out lately (writing in his most recent book, Marching Toward Hell, that Americans are now in "a place worse than hell"), that he's been finding common ground with Fox News' brightest conspiracy star, Glenn Beck. On Beck's show the other night, the two got themselves into such a froth over lax security on the Mexican border that Scheuer let loose with this:
"The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."
Come again? "Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government will protect them effectively, consistently, andwith as much violence as necessary."
Beck bobblehead-nods his assent. This is the kind of doomsday scenario he's been predicting on his laughable "War Room" segment, in which Scheuer has served as one of the hysterics, saying that if "bubbas" take up arms against the government, "I don't think you want to defuse it."
Actually, Beck does have his standards when it comes to whackjob guests. Last week, he hustled Congresswoman Michele Bachmann off the air as soon as she likened the U.S. census to the U.S. internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That was over the top for him, but Scheuer's bin Laden thesis, well, it's philosophically sound!
And to think that conservatives, of all stripes, took great offense when CIA director Leon Panetta said of Dick Cheney: "[I]t's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
What is insane are the views of people like Ms Savan who dismiss the idea that Bin Laden or other terrorist groups might try and come across the Mexican border with some form of WMD.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 5:03pm
Nukes are not small things. What makes you think they are going to be able to transport a nuclear weapon to a target of opportunity with out at some point being noticed.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 5:20pm
Also what makes you think they could carry it? Not a lot of vehicles are crossing the Mexican border it's mostly people on foot.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 5:20pm
i'll never understand why this fractional segment of the politically-active American public identifies with such morose logic; but remember, 1 in 5 of Americans is potentially one of these loose-wingnuts, and they believe AT LEAST this much... FOX incites these people each and every day, through carefully crafted bias, and it is a growing powder keg, to be sure
but these people don't for the most part walk among us; they live in their suburban gated security-patrolled neighborhood, or in very nearly any rural setting in the great expanse that is America. Lotta churches out there in "Neverland" and many of these sects believe some pretty maniacal, apocalyptic sh*t...
F*ckin' A.
Posted by calandra_speaksout at 07/02/2009 @ 5:39pm
Nukes are not small things. What makes you think they are going to be able to transport a nuclear weapon to a target of opportunity with out at some point being noticed.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 5:20pm
Do you understand how small the package for Chemical and Bio weapons can be.
Do you remember the Tokyo Rail Station Attacks using Sarin gas? small bags were punctured
http://tinyurl.com/2l4og
Remember Anthrax?
<Diseases considered for weaponization, or known to be weaponized include anthrax , ebola, Marburg virus, plague , cholera , tularemia, brucellosis, Q fever, machupo, Coccidioides mycosis , Glanders, Melioidosis, Shigella, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, typhus , Psittacosis, yellow fever , Japanese B encephalitis , Rift Valley fever, and smallpox [17][31]. Naturally-occurring toxins that can be used as weapons include ricin, SEB, botulism toxin, saxitoxin, and many mycotoxins. The organisms causing these diseases are known as select agents. In the United States, their possession, use, and transfer are regulated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Select Agent Program.>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare
Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 6:27pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 6:27pm
How, exactly, do you propose to defend against biological weapons? Particularly something like Q fever that has an incubation period, is highly infectious and transmits through the air?
Personally, I would be surprised if there were not some form of WMD attack in this century. The question is not if, but when. Even while accepting that fact, let's be real about our capabilities of stopping this kind of thing. Biological weapons labs can be set-up with the skill set and less than a million dollars. The only thing stopping people from going this route is that biologic weapons aren't directional and are going to spread and kill many beyond those intended. It's not the weapon of rational actors.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @ 7:08pm
How, exactly, do you propose to defend against biological weapons? Particularly something like Q fever that has an incubation period, is highly infectious and transmits through the air?
Personally, I would be surprised if there were not some form of WMD attack in this century. The question is not if, but when. Even while accepting that fact, let's be real about our capabilities of stopping this kind of thing. Biological weapons labs can be set-up with the skill set and less than a million dollars. The only thing stopping people from going this route is that biologic weapons aren't directional and are going to spread and kill many beyond those intended. It's not the weapon of rational actors.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @ 7:08pm
Actually, we are in agreement on this subject. I personally believe it has only been by the grace of G-d that we haven't seen this kind of attack yet.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 7:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 6:27pm
Hmm, why do you think they chose the method of driving to planes into buildings, which would seem much more logistically complicated if bringing biological or nuclear weapons into the country is easier. Could have taken out many more people than with planes and would have sent a hell of a bigger message.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 7:29pm
Actually, we are in agreement on this subject. I personally believe it has only been by the grace of G-d that we haven't seen this kind of attack yet.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 7:10pm
Well we have just not an effective one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 7:30pm
What is insane are the views of people like Ms Savan who dismiss the idea that Bin Laden or other terrorist groups might try and come across the Mexican border with some form of WMD.
~"antisocialist" at 5:03pm
And to make matters even worse, those pesky wetbacks have even resorted to home made submarines to deliver drugs to the U.S. It's easy to imagine those same subs being used to navigate the California irrigation canals for surreptitious nuclear attacks on high value inland targets like, say, Riverside or something.
I says that no measures is too extreme when it comes to defending the homeland including torture, wiretapping of U.S. citizens......., you name it.
I'm just thankful to the Lord that Barack Obama has not put a halt to those tactics --even though he has pretended to.
Whew.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 7:33pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 7:33pm
No one is talking about Mexicans bringing WMD over. We are talking about members of Al Qaeda or perhaps the largest threat being Hezbollah which has thousands of cells now in Latin America, funded primarily by Chavez and drug dealing (which I have noted in previous threads).
Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 7:50pm
What these trolls are saying about destroying America to save it was like what was said during Vietnam: fighting to preserve peace is like screwing to preserve virginity.
Posted by geographycat at 07/02/2009 @ 7:53pm
No one is talking about Mexicans bringing WMD over.
~"anti"
Nor was I. But those "thousands of cells" of Hezbollah-whatever-islamofascists-put'em all in a giant barrel could easily comandeer one of those Mexican subs as a nukeel-er delivery vee-hi-cle.
I'm on yer side on this one, Lar.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 7:57pm
Lar?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 8:13pm
Process comment - Sixteen posts and zero mention of the central claim of this article:
"The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."
You cons all in silent agreement on this one?
Posted by winyahn at 07/02/2009 @ 8:30pm
Actually, we are in agreement on this subject. I personally believe it has only been by the grace of G-d that we haven't seen this kind of attack yet.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 7:10pm
I mean during World War 2 the Japanese did send over those blimps that it was thought could be delivering biological weapons.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 8:40pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 7:29pm
"...why do you think they chose the method of driving to planes into buildings, which would seem much more logistically complicated if bringing biological or nuclear weapons into the country is easier..."
Bringing a biologic weapon or nuclear device into the country is trivial. One of many methods I could think of is to launch a small inflatible boat or submersible from a ship underway and have divers bring it at 3 in morning in a private beach. Same goes for delivery out of an aircraft, smuggled in a shipping container or thousands of other avenues anyone with some creativity can dream up.
The main problem is in the weapons themselves. Creating a functional nuclear device is a non-trivial exercise that requires expertise and materials only available at the state level - and then only a few.
Creating a biological weapon is easier, but they are much less effective as weapons. They don't lend themselves to targeting, many have severe limits on their effectiveness. Even if you take an effective agent like Black Death in the 1300s, then you have to deal with boomerang effects where it migrates across the entire globe. Effective agents are difficult to make, and unless you are hell bent on sacrificing yourself, it doesn't make much sense to use them.
A strategic hit on the World Trade Center on the other hand? That's symbolic gold. No one gets killed beyond people that can be plausibly maintained as some kind of evil person, and it serves as a tool for propaganda and recruitment that letting lose a disease wouldn't accomplish.
The goal isn't body counts. The goal is attention.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @ 9:35pm
We've seen endless, senseless violence. Car bombs, suicide bombers, drones, black on black shootings, IEDs. We are the world. M. Jackson.
Posted by winyahn at 07/02/2009 @ 10:03pm
The goal isn't body counts. The goal is attention.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @ 9:35pm
Which I agree with entirely. A nuke would be stupid. If they set off a nuke I think even they know it would not help them. In the end all it would serve to do is galvanize the world into stomping their asses out. A WMD is a threat. Nothing more. If they had the capability they I think they would have done it by now.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 10:49pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 10:49pm
I agree that using one would bring the different governments of the world to eradicate those responsible, but I disagree that WMD are just a threat. They will be used by someone - probably someone that looks for rewards in an afterlife or people looking at the world through a particular lens that convinces them on this course, such as a Timothy McVeigh or a Unabomber.
But, despite this, there really isn't much to be done. The whole notion of keeping Israeli style borders is silly in the context of our country, and there is nothing that you can do beyond standard police work and keeping a minimum level of border security. So, I think this amounts to a non-issue because of the limits on what we can do to prevent it - not because it isn't going to happen (it will).
"Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government will protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary."
This part is kind of funny, really. It's part of the punishment mentality, but the problem with punishment, as anyone with experience with operant conditioning will tell you, is that it almost never works and has many bad and unpredicatable effects. The best way to reduce the threat of attack is to reward behaviors by individuals and countries that work against attacks.
This idea that the government can effectively stop this kind of attack - and the implication is through the military - is stupid. It's like people who believe in missile defense or tying CDs to their rear view mirror to stop radar guns.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @ 11:16pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 7:10pm
This is not a comment on your post. I just wanted to pass along this link, since I figure you are going to be checking back on this thread.
Key quote: "The fraction of tax units paying no income tax varies widely by filing status and type of unit. About 47 percent of single filers will owe no tax, compared with 38 percent of joint filers and 72 percent of heads of household. More than half of elderly tax units and tax units with children will pay no income tax this year."
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf
I'll add this to the list of useful things I have learned from you. While I am in favor of a progressive tax, I am not in favor of 47% of people paying no taxes or getting a refund. If Republicans focused on this statistic - rather than just talking about taxes, you might have more people taking a second look and wondering whats wrong with this picture.
I'm fine with paying income taxes, but I'm not fine with half of my fellow citizens not paying any income tax.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @ 11:28pm
especially if they are billionaires....
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2009 @ 12:35am
Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @ 11:16pm
I agree wholeheartedly. Are we going to create a military state on our border? Dig a mote. It's too easy to smuggle something into a country, no one has managed to stop ever. Shown by the fact that we have covert operatives working in other countries. You can go anywhere with sufficient imagination and you can get things into those places.
I personally think if it's going to be anyone it will be North Korea. I think Iran is posturing, I think Bin Laden doesn't have a nuke nor will he get one because there aren't any countries, including Iran, who are willing to deal with the consequences of giving Bin Laden a nuke that he uses in a populated zone because once we trace where the nuke came from they will pay just as badly as he will.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2009 @ 12:39am
Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @11:28pm
Many people can barely pay the exorbitant rents, house payments, insurances (don't even think medical) , state & local taxes.
Paying a federal tax would be an impossibility unless you're one of those people who think that eliminating cable tv & beer expenditures would free up a grudging recalcitrance to contribute like yourself.
Anti, the dyspeptic right wing flagelant must be shouting heavenly praises after reading your post.
Posted by Sorelish at 07/03/2009 @ 01:27am
Please stop the "secure the Mexican border to stop terrorist" yammering. Its just plain silly. You might want to secure the borders for other reasons, but its not a plausible strategy for stopping terrorist. Why? Because we have 5000 miles of unprotected border with Canada and 6000 miles of coastline. Why doesn't anyone talk about securing these? How many terrorist attacks in US border have occurred after the terrorist crossed the Mexican border?
Posted by massprogress at 07/03/2009 @ 04:24am
'll take OBL since it would be quick (the pain, that is) and our reactions would be just as quick, decisive and UNITED!
Ain't that a bitch!
Posted by Happy at 07/02/2009 @ 4:40pm
Hmm....what's crazy are the unpatriotic crazies here wishing our country harm.
It has gotten to the point where conservatives now actively promote the idea that democracy should end in the U.S. Even with Horror Show W. in office, I did not ever hear that the govt. should be overthrown. All the liberals wanted was justice and impeachment. These ideas are a bit too quaint for our crazy friends here.
Posted by erazma at 07/03/2009 @ 06:17am
All the liberals wanted was justice and impeachment. Posted by erazma at 07/03/2009 @ 06:17am
Just as long it's your (the libs) definition of justice, right?
Posted by fram at 07/03/2009 @ 07:11am
"Ilya" at 7:04 am
Thanks, always enjoy your level headed diatribes. Looking forward to the peaceful future under Russian and/or Chinese hegemony.
Hey, is it just me or does anyone else see a resemblance between Michael Sheuer and Michael J Fox in that werewolf movie of his?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/03/2009 @ 07:16am
Before I forget again.
Ilya, how's your other grandpa doing lately? I mean the cross dresser from Transexual, Transylvania.
He was always such a fun guy, and less violent than the rest of the clan --especially after a heavy night of plum brandy. Last saw him many years ago across the border in Novi Sad I think.
Oh, the memories.
Sigh.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/03/2009 @ 07:29am
I'm fine with paying income taxes, but I'm not fine with half of my fellow citizens not paying any income tax. Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @ 11:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
income tax used to be known as a rich man's tax. I wonder why?
when I reported on the 90% top tax bracket we used to enjoy, and enabled the gov't to pay its bills, I was met with howls of derision from the right and the left. now this idea is represented on the talking heads shows.
remember you heard it here first.
you might want to reconsider your statement,sr. the problem is not the fact that many people are too poor to pay income taxes, but rather than the rich pay too little.
Eisenhower had the 90% tax bracket. Jfk lowered it to 75%, now it stands at 30%. do I have to draw you a picture?
Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 08:47am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/03/2009 @ 07:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
well, ilya, beyond the "protocols of zion" edge, i think you have some very valid points there.
"Osama Bin Scapegoat, AKA, Al The CIA guy, "leader" of Al-CIADoh!, is DEAD -"
i suspect you are correct here. i think the man is dead and is being "el cid"-ed...after el cid, hero of the spanish reconquista, died, they armored his body up and posed it tied onto his horse and rode "him" out for all the troops to see...
and although i think the IMAGE of obama has indeed been used by certain segments of the once ruling rightwing coup here...he's never been "just" a scapegoat.
"Take my word for it. They don't - even if they actually EXISTED, they don't. "
i don't know. i feel if they had a nuke they would have used it. who knows? in the cold war i know the US developed backpack engineering nukes and nuclear artillery shells, both relatively small and portable. i assume the soviets had similar devices...
"the US Empire needs to fucking end. For EVERYONE'S benefit. "
could not agree more...
"By my count, your wanna-be Empire has now Murdered around 50,000,000 people world-wide post WWII - let's not even discuss the GENOCIDE of the Native Americans who once numbered 25-30 Million and, from the 1900 census, numbered slightly under 200,000. "
i'm sure the 50 million figure is debatable, but i'll not argue it. the results, direct or indirect of our actions worldwide since WWII probably have resulted in widespread suffering and misery, but we did not work alone here...and the native american thing...yeah no shit - bringing that up and expecting any american other than a self loathing uber dippy LEFTwingnut to wring his/her hands and wail to the heavens is the argumentative equivelant
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/03/2009 @ 10:47am
of calling somebody a nazi...
"God save us all from "democray" and "capitalism" - American-style!"
again, in total agreement.
---------------------------------------------------
let me point out a couple or three points though, ILYA.
1. as a student of history i have yet to identify a nation/state/empire of great power and scope that did not commit vile sins. the greater the power the greater the potential to cause misery as well as alleviate the same. sometimes the misery is a result not of malice or arrogance, but accident. when the giant rolls over how many lilliputians get crushed?
2. i understand your consternation at the break-up of yugoslavia, but PLEASE do not get too "holier than thou" in light of your serb countrymen's murder, rape, pillage and genocidal activities directed at ethinic minorities in your corner of the balkans.
regardless thanks for laying off the angry potty mouth. not that i'm a prude, its just that i like your perspective and actually agree with lots of stuff. its just that eventually someone from up on high will likely ban you.
you make better points with a light sprinkling of profanity any way, rather thanslathering it on too thickly...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/03/2009 @ 10:59am
CIA = Certified Idiot Arsehole
Untold billions in budget year after year, but 19 jerks -- mainly Saudi lads -- armed only with cardboard cutters slip right past the CIA, many warnings from honest staff ignored. Either gross criminal negligence or willfull neglect. Which some might say was business as usual for this de facto scam, the CIA. So Tenet the boss atth helm 911 gets the nationīs highest civilian medal. The distinct odor of mendacity prevails.
Posted by sloper at 07/03/2009 @ 11:15am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/03/2009 @ 09:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
MORE ANGRY NON-SEQUITER HYPERBOLE PLEASE.
but like it or not the world IS moving into a multipolar phase like it or not.
i remember the collapse of the soviet union and the golden opportunity the united states had to truly usher in a golden era of development and justice. we stood alone on top of the world and instead of choosing to lead by respectful example and turn at least SOME swords into ploughshares...
but we could not escape the power of our military-industrial complex, nor could we escape the deterministic ideology of satano-aynrando obverse democratic fascism either...
sans the "protocols of zion" babble, you are correct in identifying the arrogantly corrupt financial robber barons elite who worked hand in and with militarists to drive MY nation into the dustbin of history...
but our opportunity to save the world in the near future has passed. the best bet we have now is to largely retract militarily and work toward establishing economic autarky and resource independence.
the only nations we should trade freely with are those who share our levels of social development (or, as in the case of western europe, exceed it...) and those who share belief in democracy and peaceful sustainable development.
then, when we have our own house in order (or at least are on the right track to this goal) we can lead by example. we CAN help others without imposing our selves.
but i have no problem, ilya, with what NATO did i yugoslavia in the 90's. one of the few time since WW2 that the US got something right in terms of military intervention.
it must be difficult for you to simultaneously detest the racist nazis who considered you to be inferior and brutalized with glee
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/03/2009 @ 11:35am
all they considered inferior, but to harbor such angry nationalist sentiments that resemble nothing more than classical fascism (national socialist variety) AND to partake in "protocols of zion" speculation is...
interesting.
not that i'm sticking you for your nationality. not at all. as a son of the american south, if there's one thing that chaps my ass quick its some numbnut self flagellating lefty crusader sticking ME for the sins of my ancestors...
but i fully admit the ugly history...not that i'm ashamed - I DID NOT PARTICIPATE in that crap and have never defended such. i just love the truth, even the ugly truth.
if you expect me, as an american to apologize for the sins of my countrymen, past, present, and future...
fuck you...
like that? i thought you'd appreciate that little smart f-bomb...
see? there's definitely room for f-bombs...far more effective when used sparsely, like anything.
have a nice day.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/03/2009 @ 11:44am
Posted by Sorelish at 07/03/2009 @ 01:27am
"Paying a federal tax would be an impossibility unless you're one of those people who think that eliminating cable tv & beer expenditures would free up a grudging recalcitrance to contribute like yourself."
Let me humbly submit that it would be much harder to stage the Iraq war if the people that currently pay zero income tax or get a refund had to give up their cable tv & beer to fund it.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 08:47am
"Eisenhower had the 90% tax bracket. Jfk lowered it to 75%, now it stands at 30%. do I have to draw you a picture?"
I'm not against paying taxes or a progressive taxation system that taxes the highest income earners more. This is precisely why Republican whining about taxes doesn't work for me. People that make more should pay more, and taxes are currently at historic lows. So, this argument is a poor one.
That said, there is something fundamentally wrong in a federal taxation system that depends only on the top half of earners to fund it. To flip the old saw, "It's representation without taxation."
If you are going to have a say in how money is allocated, you should have some skin in the game, even if it is a token 1-5% of your income. If you think it is important to implement plan X, then you should be prepared to feel a bite in your wallet along with everyone else.
But, if you aren't paying anything, what do you care about the financial consequences of Iraq? Or Medicare? You don't, because it is someone else's money. People care when it starts to be their money. I think everyone beyond a certain minimal threshold should be contributing something and that minimum threshold shouldn't include half the population.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page_printable.php?PageID=19
Posted by srjenkins at 07/03/2009 @ 1:17pm
"But, if you aren't paying anything, what do you care about the financial consequences of Iraq? Or Medicare?"
this is specious.
the folks who pay no income tax still pay plenty other taxes.
the financial consequences of the war are cutbacks in social services, which the poor and working poor and even the middle class depend on.
in addition it is the poor that make up the ranks of the military.
try to think beyond yourself and any resentment you may have toward those less well off than you.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 1:31pm
From the Washington Times:
Powell airs doubts on Obama agenda
By Jon Ward (Contact)
Originally published 11:44 a.m., July 3, 2009, updated 11:45 a.m., July 3, 2009
Colin Powell, one of President Obama's most prominent Republican supporters, expressed...."I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them," ...in an excerpt of an interview with CNN's John King, released by the network Friday morning....
"And we can't pay for it all," said Mr. Powell...
Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 1:33pm
I'm not against paying taxes or a progressive taxation system that taxes the highest income earners more. This is precisely why Republican whining about taxes doesn't work for me....
Posted by srjenkins at 07/03/2009 @ 1:17pm
I want to know, SRJ, if Repubs don't `whine' about taxes, who will? It may not `work' for you, but it does `work' to keep taxes as low as politically feasible, under whatever environment we're in, no?
You also said: "People that make more should pay more,..."
And throughout our history, that has been the case, even before the advent of income taxes....those who generate the most economic activities, thus wealth, have always paid more. Even under a flat tax scheme, that will remain true.
Last, you said: "That said, there is something fundamentally wrong in a federal taxation system that depends only on the top half of earners to fund it."
Unfortunately, you aren't willing to put your considerable intellect to fight for fair taxation so that everybody pays, at the Federal level!
Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 1:40pm
IlyaKuryakin .... Thanks for some of the wittiest and most spot-on posts I've read in a long time. Let's hope we can find the cornerstone of this evil empire before it destroys us all for it's own greed and arrogance.
Posted by DejaVu at 07/03/2009 @ 2:21pm
a Single megalomaniac murderous greedy state run by an international baking cartel
time to make the donuts
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/03/2009 @ 3:17pm
Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 1:31pm
"...the folks who pay no income tax still pay plenty other taxes..."
As does everyone. I estimate we pay about 60 cents of every dollar of income to the government when you factor in property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes and so forth. I don't have any problems with paying taxes.
"...the financial consequences of the war are cutbacks in social services, which the poor and working poor and even the middle class depend on..."
For every dollar spend on war, what do you estimate is cut from social services and how much is simply adding to the national debt? I'd suggest there is a rather weak relationship here. The government, in fact, goes out of its way, to make it hard to figure out exactly how the "War on Terror" was funded. So, this hypothetical voter who considers the impact of our foreign policy on the social services she receives doesn't have much of a basis in reality.
"...in addition it is the poor that make up the ranks of the military..."
I was an enlisted person. I grew up in a single parent household, and my mother was a police officer. I joined the military to help pay for college, which I paid for myself through taking out loans and so forth.
"...try to think beyond yourself and any resentment you may have toward those less well off than you."
Given these facts, this is rather amusing statement. The only resentment I have is that half my fellow citizens are not paying any federal tax. Any definition of poverty that includes half the citizenry is a bad definition. This isn't Rio de Janeiro, and we don't have significant populations living in slums. So, what we have going on here where part of the population is not in poverty but are getting a free lunch.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/03/2009 @ 3:37pm
Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 1:40pm
Republican whining about taxes and their bad understanding of economics is what makes the federal government fiscally unsustainable. The notion that cutting taxes increases revenues (by supposedly growing the economy) is just one example of an idea that hardly ever works in the real world.
When I say richer people should pay more, I mean on a percentage basis, not only on a real basis. If you receive more of the benefits of living in a society, you should receive a bigger portion of the bill.
Also, as a practical matter, I've looked into the issue enough to know that a flat tax wouldn't pay the bills. It only works if you pretend that there will be some kind of explosive economic growth to fuel tax revenues, and this is not supported by the empirical evidence. It's just another example of Republican wishful thinking where they want to pretend their ideas are reality, and they aren't.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/03/2009 @ 3:47pm
...Republican wishful thinking where they want to pretend their ideas are reality, and they aren't.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/03/2009 @ 3:47pm
Care to wager, at some point.....Magic will adopt Republican idea of cutting taxes to spur growth? I'm not sure he will...he may view a momentous transformation to a socialist economy as his `calling' and damn the people.
I can't convince you that cutting taxes work to increase revenues....guess you don't invest for a good portion of your surplus money! When capital gains tax rates were high, hardly anybody sold appreciated assets....they held or rolled them into something else....what do you know about the exclusion from CG by rolling houses?
At 15% CG rate, it becomes almost a non-factor...hence Cali and the US Treasury benefited enormously. At that rate, it also assist in the highest-and-best-use of capital.
I use CG as a big example...and it works similarly with ordinary incomes. I have zero incentives to work harder or more once I hit the top marginal rate.......you find paying 60% of total income taxes acceptable or even HAPPY, I don't!
Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 3:56pm
When I say richer people should pay more, I mean on a percentage basis, not only on a real basis.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/03/2009 @ 3:47pm
I am ambivalent on this.....philosophically, I am not actually opposed to paying proportionally more. My objections are primarily based on:
1) Us humans will NEVER agree what the right progressive rates should be (clearly, this has been the case in the US as these rates are all over the board);
2) No matter what the rates, there will be bleeding hearts that think they aren't progressive enough, which infuriates most of us sheep producing the wool;
3) The changing of these rates, become political fodder/stepping stones for the lowest life form: politicians; and
4) The mathematics of numbers where there are always more takers/looters than those paying the highest marginal rate, tyranny of the majority!
Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 4:05pm
For every dollar spend on war,
yes, it has been put on the credit card. however it not only will have to be paid eventually, but we are paying interest on that. so in one way or another, social services are negatively affected. it's called "guns or butter".
Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 4:20pm
Posted by srjenkins at 07/02/2009 @ 11:16pm
I agree wholeheartedly. Are we going to create a military state on our border? Dig a mote. It's too easy to smuggle something into a country, no one has managed to stop ever. Shown by the fact that we have covert operatives working in other countries. You can go anywhere with sufficient imagination and you can get things into those places.
I personally think if it's going to be anyone it will be North Korea. I think Iran is posturing, I think Bin Laden doesn't have a nuke nor will he get one because there aren't any countries, including Iran, who are willing to deal with the consequences of giving Bin Laden a nuke that he uses in a populated zone because once we trace where the nuke came from they will pay just as badly as he will.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2009 @ 6:11pm
Sorry for way late repost.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2009 @ 6:11pm
Dig a mote
the word you are looking for here is moat
Moat, a water filled ditch surrounding a castle as an aid to existing fortification.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 6:39pm
Notwithstanding the fact that there is very little thoughtful and intelligent public discussion about anything in this country anymore, it seems to me that it is high time to talk about exactly what characteristics and rhetoric constitute indications of a genuinely fascistic political perspective -- and no, I don't mean to say, nor would it be responsible to suggest, that these FOX lunatics are in the mold of Nazis out of 1930s Germany. But retire these silly terms like "paleocons" and "neocons" already! Certainly, a political party that embraces the likes of Bush and Cheney and has the repugnant Rush Limbaugh as its defacto spokesman has forfeited the right to be called "conservative." But the question must be posed, and with the highest degree of seriousness: If Glenn Beck is not a fascist, then who is? And if he is, for whom does he speak, and to whom is he speaking? Can we talk about what the word actually means? Is there an American brand of fascism taking root today, and if so, what are the political perspectives and qualities that make it so?
Posted by DavidBates at 07/03/2009 @ 10:14pm
Haven't been here for a while.
Do you wing nuts also cross-dress? Or is it that you think any of us care about your simple-minded drivel on the Nation website. (I showed them liberals what truu Ameicakans thinks)
I thought a circle jerk was more your style but I guess I was wrong. Have fun you pitiful losers.
Scoreboard, baby. And probably in four and eight and twelve years from today. Keep up the good work.
You're what makes the Republic party what it is today.
Posted by Demtothebone at 07/04/2009 @ 12:17am
I seem to recall Charlie Black one of McCains advisors making the same statement. These are people who need an attack on the US to justify their own agenda and to be "right" in their judgment. Otherwise they are just what they appear to be....Nut Jobs. What is sad is they do have a public voice rather than a quiet room in an asylum. Beck and Hannity have both resorted to toys to explain their positions. Apparently to communicate their strange and sick views to people on the bottom of the IQ scale, because it flies in the face of common sense. I guess you have to find support somewhere or somehow even if it is that 25% of the population who even today think it was Iraq who was responsible for 9/11
Posted by ROinReno at 07/04/2009 @ 07:50am
Here's to the hope that the "mushroom cloud" will appear over Fox Noise's studios.
Perhaps Glenn Beck will do it himself in a Timmy McVeigh goes martyr moment.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/04/2009 @ 10:12am
"The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."
See, I'm not so concerned with a lone wacko on Glenn Beck (or is that two?..heheh)...
what's REALLY GOOD is tha "average conservative" like HAPPY and Larry/antisoc AGREE with the lone wacko.
The Right's continueing plunge in to madness indicates how weak their political hand is. They wouldn't be going so nuts, if they knew they were still viable for 2012.
Posted by Mask at 07/04/2009 @ 11:33am
Glenn Beck is a coward, exhorting others to do violence against americans, from his cozy perch.
whattaslimeball.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/04/2009 @ 12:18pm
It's a shame that Michael Scheuer is resorting to this kind of argument. His books on Bush's foreign policy failures were educated and well thought out. It's a disservice to him to throw these bombs out into a public forum.
Posted by bwamba at 07/04/2009 @ 2:02pm
Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 3:56pm
Obama may use the "tax cuts leads to economic growth" argument. But, I think right now that's a lie. Tax cuts are going to lead to increased debt payments, which will do little to grow the economy. The same debt problem exists for individuals as it does for government.
Also, look at the numbers. Reducing taxes does not lead to increased government revenues. The analogous situation isn't investing, it is retail. Sure, you can reduce prices and some retailers make a niche out of that and live off volume. But, this only works for certain types of products - which is why you see certain patterns in these kinds of retailers, whether you are talking about Wal-Mart, Aldi, or the dollar store industry. There's no such thing as dollar-store government.
Many people don't work just for the money, Happy. People want to get paid what their worth, but work serves many other purposes.
Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 4:05pm
I'm not sure what to say to this post. Nobody wants to pay taxes. There are also plenty of "sheep" producing exploited "wool" - whether it is by capitalizing on lower foreign labor costs, through living off investment income on money they never earned, etc.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 4:20pm
How much does concern for the national debt and possible future sacrifice of social services really impact what people care about in this country? I'd say the number that fit that profile are a tiny minority.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2009 @ 6:11pm
I agree about the difficulty of securing borders. I disagree about likely agents of WMD. I think it is more likely to be an extremist group of some sort, and if I had to guess, an internal one that believes it is acting in the interests of the Founding Fathers.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/04/2009 @ 2:33pm
I agree about the difficulty of securing borders. I disagree about likely agents of WMD. I think it is more likely to be an extremist group of some sort, and if I had to guess, an internal one that believes it is acting in the interests of the Founding Fathers.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/04/2009 @ 2:33pm
Hmm, I could see that possibly. Aside from the World Trade Center and Pearl Harbor the most effective attacks on US soil have been from Americans.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/04/2009 @ 7:02pm
Hardly anyone really addressed the issues brought up in this post. To me they are staggering in their implications.
Posted by chaoszen at 07/05/2009 @ 01:11am
Now imagine that you're not an American - and you wish to protect your country from US invasion or other unwanted interference - like say a CIA-backed coup or US meddling in the political process.
The US has all these WMDs, and a great many means of delivering them, and are the only ones who have historically used them, etc. They have this vast military: 26 US air force bases in 14 countries; 86 Army bases in 9 countries; 26 US Marine bases in 7 countries; 15 US Naval bases in 9 countries, aside from the vast military machine in their own country.
And now imagine that you read an article which describes how Americans, and in particular, ones of the most militaristic and aggressive politics, are "worried" about some perceived external threat. Perhaps they want MORE of this insane militarization?
Posted by mikecope at 07/05/2009 @ 03:40am
Hardly anyone really addressed the issues brought up in this post. To me they are staggering in their implications. Posted by chaoszen at 07/05/2009 @ 01:11am
Like Biden on ABC. It's like they're selling it. "Tonight we have a rilly big shew for yew, ladies and gennlmun...
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/05/2009 @ 09:58am
Biden told ABC's ''This Week'' that Israel can determine for itself ''what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.''
Ummm, as a sovereign nation
does the same apply to Iran?
I'm just asking
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/05/2009 @ 10:03am
Perseopolis - pretty interesting flick.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/05/2009 @ 10:09am
As Magic is hard at work "Destroying America", hundreds of John Galts in-training, are preparing for the "Save It" phase:
Record Number of People Are Listening to Atlas Shrugged
Washington, D.C., June 22, 2009--The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and the media have been reporting on the surge in sales of Ayn Rand's classic novel Atlas Shrugged over the last six months. Not surprisingly, sales of the Atlas Shrugged audio book are also making impressive gains.
According to Blackstone Audio, one of the publishers of the full text audio edition of Atlas Shrugged, 16,000 audio copies of the novel were sold in the first five months of 2009, compared to around 20,000 in all of 2008. "This is a huge increase," noted Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "This year audio copies of Atlas Shrugged are selling at about twice the rate as last year."
Reports from trade sources have indicated that book purchases of Atlas Shrugged have also spiked recently, having tripled in the first four months of 2009 compared to the first four months of 2008. "The tripling in sales of Atlas Shrugged is remarkable," said Dr. Brook, "especially considering that in 2008 a new all-time record in annual sales of the novel was established with more than 200,000 copies sold in the United States."
More than 6,500,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold to date.
"Given the striking similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day, more Americans are reading and listening to Atlas Shrugged than ever before," said Yaron Brook. "Hopefully, they will find in Atlas Shrugged the principled solutions to the problems we face today."
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2009 @ 11:15am
I prefer Tony Hillerman, personally. Sharpens the ol' Occams Razor
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/05/2009 @ 12:43pm
The point always missed with respect to Rand / Atlas Shrugged and John Galt is this. John Galt would never ever vote or plead with others to vote for him on complain like a Limbaugh and Anti 24-7 about others who see the world differently. These fools make a major cognitive error. They so want to believe in the ultimate ideal Rand proposes, that there's a radical and beautiful fairness to life. That we get what we earn. That ingeniousness and diligence and perseverance and cleverness and toughness and grit are the keys.
This is a beautiful half-truth.
There's another truth as well. One Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, Buddha emphasize.
At a certain stage of development (ethnocentric to egocentric, prior to world centric, see "Spiral Dynamics" for insight into macro-developmental stages) humans see, know, believe, feel, experience only the first of these truths. They have not yet the capacity to begin to incorporate the second of these foundational truths.
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 2:18pm
Speaking of old Yugo & its currency ... i was in belgrade on business fall '89 when the inflation rate appeared to be running close to 100% per DAY. prices were changed on menus twice daily. this was no fluke & it was clear the country was about to shatter. germany & the vatican were pumping hard to back their favorties in the crack-up, slovenia & croatia.
Posted by sloper at 07/05/2009 @ 2:26pm
Posted by calandra_speaksout at 07/02/2009 @ 5:39pm:
Wow, I always thought of the 'loose-wingnuts' as being you guys (and gals) on the left.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/05/2009 @ 2:51pm
The point always missed with respect to Rand / Atlas Shrugged and John Galt is this. John Galt would never ever vote or plead with others to vote for him.....
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 2:18pm
You can say a shitload of "The point always missed with respect to Rand / Atlas Shrugged" on a host of life & political issues, particularly from those of the collectivist mindset like yourself.
The key points those of us who admire Rand, are far more important to impart to the masses....Individual rights!
And for the John Galts of the world, which Rush does a fair job of promoting, is for us Galts to NOT help YOU to sustain yourselves by enslaving us......as Rush is proud to proclaim that he wants Magic's policies to fail, for America's sake....and we do that by NOT generating as much innovation, productivity and taxes for you to waste on all your `good' intentions....why should we help you to deprive us of our liberty and reap the fruits of our labor?
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2009 @ 2:53pm
You're a follower fake-Happy, never a leader! Keep brown-nosin' Rush, Rand, Reagan. With so much ass in your face you never ever will know what your missing! Seriously! LMAO!!
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 10:22pm
At least, I am not following Your Messiah over the cliff....but I applaud all of you as you get ever closer to the cliff edge thinking you too, can walk on air and fly! So far, so good, you lemmings are still marching in formation!
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2009 @ 10:49pm
You see what you are.
I've never said Obama is: 1) a Messiah, or 2) my Messiah.
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 11:27pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/04/2009 @ 10:46am
Wow. So it's the Illuminati and the Free Masons that are to blame! I knew it!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/05/2009 @ 11:57pm
Glen Beck is clearly a nutcase.. I do think hes in the majority when it comes to righties though.. very scary to think that people at home could actually take Glen Beck seriously.
Posted by e4phil at 07/06/2009 @ 03:03am
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2009 @ 2:53pm
Sure, HAPP, sure. You and "hundreds of thousands" of "John Galts" are going to drop off the grid and out of the economy and let us "statists" go to hell and then come back to pick up the pieces and form a libertarian paradise.
Just like the more militant ones will "take their MREs and 9mms and head up into the hills to wait out the collapse and then come back down to re-build civilization"...
just like the Rapture Rascals are waiting on teleportation Up Yonder and the Tribulation....
others????
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 06:24am
Just a small technical note, during my time as an ordanance officer in the Army, there are small nuclear devices that can be carried by a single person in a backpack (weighs about 80lbs). Not a huge nuke by any means (1.5 kilotons), but enough to kill thousands in an urban area - the Russians had similar devices and who knows if they are all accounted for
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/06/2009 @ 08:47am
Beck is an American terrorist. He should be imprisoned in a secret jail, raped with a toilet plunger and waterboarded under the strict supervision of cheney's water doctor-police. Ha! But then, so is cheney, so is bush, so is the entire bush group.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 07/06/2009 @ 09:38am
others???? Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 06:24am
Reminds me of that Harlan Ellison story: A Boy And His Dog. Post nuclear society, telepathic dog, betrayal stimulates the appetite. 'nuff said.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/06/2009 @ 10:00am
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/06/2009 @ 10:00am
Actually, should remind you of "The Survivors" with Robin Williams and Walter Matthau. In the end, the "Galtish" leader (which would be Rush to HAPPY), unlike his declarations of the "imminent doom" of the country and end of civilization...
is found in possession of hundreds of municipal bonds, all GOVERNMENT-backed with pay-out dates years hence.
Same fools...different eras.
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 10:07am
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2009 @ 2:53pm |
Poor Happy...thinks he's a stock wiz, but didn't know you can't short stocks < $2 on e-trade, thinks he's John Galt, when he couldn't support himself without the collective if he tried, and who can't stop projecting his fear of people who actually work for a living without admitting that he's just a lazy bloodsucker going over the edge with his host organism.
Let go while you still can, you ignorant tick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFEC1UkeHUU
Posted by snowball777 at 07/06/2009 @ 11:08am
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2009 @ 2:53pm
A discussion on Ayn Rand that includes calling someone else a messiah? The irony! Ever consider what happens in a world governed by laissez-faire governments - like Ayn Rand advocated, Happy?
You don't have to guess. You can look at the robber baron phenomena at the turn of the century or you can look at the current economic environment.
Ayn Rand is a fine - as a phase for someone in high school or their first years of college that haven't been exposed to many ideas. But there is a reason people tend not to stick with it, and why that book is looked on with contempt by educated people.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/06/2009 @ 11:47am
Posted by snowball777 at 07/06/2009 @ 11:08am
A year from now, ask HAPP how his "John Galt" lifestyle is going....
Guarenteed? He'll "still be in the process" of achieving it....LOL
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 12:25pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/06/2009 @ 2:04pm
Curious, Ilya....are you ready to tell us what OTHER "nicknames" you have used on this blog in the past?
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 2:06pm
Galt's a metaphor for the roaring, soaring, chest pounding stage of egocentrism typical of teens. When adorers proclaim she's talking about "individual rights", just change the word individual to "big, inflated, immature teen ego" and agree with them wholeheartedly.
Anyway, it's easy to make fun of, of course, once you survive it. But lest we forget, it's a very critical stage for all of us to negotiate and hopefully survive and transcend without too many scars. We need to emerge from this with a tempered idealism, not too sour / defeated on the one hand (the left one?), and not too grandiose / hostile on the other (the right?).
In personalities like Happy and his heroes Rush / O'Reilly / Hannity, the transition is disrupted. They get stuck in the Galt-wannabe, grandiose / hostile mode. See everything forever more through this over-the-top, hero-villain, over-simplified heat.
Rand's conflation of psychological development and society/governance is endlessly alluring for folks at this juncture. She's pre-radio Rush.
Posted by winyahn at 07/06/2009 @ 5:16pm
Posted by winyahn at 07/06/2009 @ 5:16pm
it's a watered-down version of "The Turner Diaries"....or, I suppose, "TTD" is a crystal meth version of "Shrugged", given it came later.
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 7:57pm
All the liberals wanted was justice and impeachment. These ideas are a bit too quaint for our crazy friends here.
Posted by erazma at 07/03/2009 @ 06:17am
Yes indeed. Working with the system isn't for these folks. If the dems elect a president, then anything goes for these wack jobs. Assasinations, hoping for war, whatever, just as long as they can say I told you so....even though we were attacked on W's watch and that W and Cheney are the ones who let the country down. This doesn't seem to enter into their little warped minds. All these simple minded folks can say is that a LIBERAL is the president and that the founding fathers wouldn't have it this way.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 07:53am
This Scheuer guy deserves to have his ass kicked over his ears and Glen Beck right along with him. What the hell is the matter with Cheney and these morons? Do they really want another 9/11? These guys are salesmen for hysteria, paranoia and of course war toys.
The neocons keep forgetting that 9/11 took place during W's tenure in this White House. These aholes have money invested in this phony missile defense system they keep pushing to build and sell all over the world. This has nothing to do with truly defending the nation, but rather making money off defense contracts and keeping the 30% cowards in line.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 08:06am
If this blog is any indication, America will be destroyed from within. No terrorists need to punch their timecards.
Collectivism leads to tyranny leads to war. War it the ultimate control over the masses by government.
I'm hopeful we'll all wake up. Remember the Maine! (And the truth.)
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/07/2009 @ 4:04pm
Collectivism leads to tyranny leads to war.
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/07/2009 @ 4:04pm
Collectivism is such a loaded McCarthy / Ayn Rand term. It's silly to pretend you can use it separate from this pinkos-in-our-midst connotation.
If you are trying to use it in some more neutral way, try and choose a synonym, and you'll see how weak your argument is:
Collectivism leads to McDonald's too: "More Than 99 Billion Served."
Collectivism = Dittoheads, Rush/neocon's herd/followership.
A hell of a lot of people rebelled, COLLECTIVELY, against the tyrrany of the British resulting in the formation of our country.
New York Giants' fans are COLLECTIVELY for their team.
Hillary fans nearly sank Obama, and ushered in 4 more years of W nastiness - because of their COLLECTIVIST views.
The true meaning of the concept is neither good or bad, just means plural-human-perception/action. By using this particular word, you clearly have an agenda. Try and own it.
Posted by winyahn at 07/07/2009 @ 8:38pm
Liberal honest people have been accused and condemned as unpatriotic for saying so much less than this (take as example anti-war protesters).
Everybody's entitled to his/her opinion, such self defeating proposition though constitutes more than just political opinion, it is apology of terrorism. Yes, Mr. Scheuer is no better than Bin Laden because he thinks -as Bin Laden does- that these kind of violent acts are transformational since they induce fear in the people and when people fear they relinquish their rights to mighty and powerful Government (say specifically Bush and/or Cheney). His call for a "grassroots movement" is nothing more than a call to a collective neurosis.
Its time that all real patriotic Americans demand of the Republican party stop playing the politics of fear. We don't want to kill half a million of Iraqis to "feel more safe". Come on, where is our so called "ethical principles" or Christianity? If a former CIA major officer says this, you can believe that all what was said about the dirty plays and coups that CIA originated are true. I ask myself where do we stand as a country? We must recover our soul and our dignity as a nation from this fearmongers that only want to defend their privileges while misleading the public.
I would cherish to know what does the Supreme Court think about that: is it just a political opinion? Or can the person be accused in a trial as an apologist of terrorism?
I am convinced that
Posted by Frank42 at 07/07/2009 @ 10:06pm
There IS NO "America", there is ONLY what they SELL you as "America".
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/06/2009
Actually,
you get what you pays for
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/08/2009 @ 12:43am
Posted by winyahn at 07/07/2009 @ 8:38pm
Musicians' Collectives are a lot of fun, and the source of lots of good things, like gigs.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/08/2009 @ 12:54am