Letters to the Editor
walter_map
Published Letters: 1429 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Typical
[Read the article: The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Reading through some of the posts here, it seems that a great deal of confusion has been generated by the misuse of labels, namely, 'Conservative' and 'Liberal'.
'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' are generally defined by their positions. These positions are also defined as being 'Conservative' and 'Liberal', for various reasons, some of them not very good reasons, but no matter. The point is that a politician is conveniently labeled one or the other, depending on the positions adopted. The more 'Conservative' positions adopted, the more 'Conservative'.
Whichever those are. 'Conservatives' these days mostly stand for blatant hypocrisy.
Bush is a Conservative because he has adopted 'Conservative' positions almost exclusively. Because he's still defined as a 'Conservative' by his positions, which positions are still maintained by other 'Conservatives' who disparage him, attempting to change his label by calling him a 'Liberal' doesn't make him one,.
All it really does is make bigger liars out of most 'Conservatives'. They're stuck with Bush.
And yet, Bush is not merely a 'Conservative'. He's a 'Neoconservative', and it's been very clearly shown that neoconservativism goes well beyond garden-variety 'Conservatism'.
Bush is a de facto totalitarian. It could be argued that totalitarians deserve their own scale, ranging between Fascism and Communism, with nothing much in the middle, and that totalitarians aren't on the Liberal-Conservative political spectrum at all.
At least, that's the argument which could be made. The argument could also be made, and quite rightly, that contemporary 'Conservatism' has moved off to the totalitarian scale as well, insofar as its ideology is largely a cover for the embrace of corporatism, which is fascism according to the definition.
All told, Bush is a Conservative, but he is also a fascist. But the same could be said of most Republican politicians. And while Republicans may repudiate Bush, it should be very telling that they will still support his policies and will not override any Bush veto, which makes nearly every one a blatant hypocrite.
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
- John Stuart Mill
-
Ghosts
[Read the article: The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]'Reagan is now a National Airport and a national treasure. Bush I, in the rear-view mirror, is a far-seeing statesman. Even Nixon is lionised. How far back do you have to go to find a "ghost?" Taft?'
-- Valentinian
Reagan was a criminal. Bush I is a criminal. Nixon was a criminal. Having millions of right-wing brainwashees like yourself advocating their sainthood doesn't make them criminals any less. And the evidence against them is overwhelming.
Whine for us, neocon, and lie some more. It's always worked for you, hasn't it?
-
Kitt
[Read the article: The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps it was you, and not I, who misread Valentian's post. And perhaps intentionally, at that.
-
Kitt
[Read the article: The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You don't like my posts, don't read them. And neither shall I correct your spelling, or comment on your lack of content, or your other deficiencies.
Okay by you, Boss?
-
Crazy.
[Read the article: The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"We are having little success in making regular American voters see how crazy and brutal these blowhards really are."
-- timbuktom
Not enough of them, perhaps. But the ones who aren't being convinced are the ones who won't or can't be convinced, because they are as crazy and brutal as the blowhards they support.
Keep in mind that surveys over the last couple of years clearly show that a large fraction of Americans actually support fascism and its accoutrements: torture, destruction of civil rights, armed robbery and murder posing as imperial conquest posing as 'national defense', and so forth. American cultural history is a remarkably violent one. We do in fact have the kind of government a great many people want, and the kind that many others got weaseled into.
The real problem isn't with Republican neocons. They could be minimized if there was any effective political opposition to them, but there isn't. The Democratic leadership is nearly as bad as the Republicans, and for only slightly different reasons.
History shows that Americans have almost always been the warmongering type, and that the US has at almost all times been an empire, and that this is very unlikely to change in a manner which could be described as peaceful. Empire is antithetical to democracy, so it's doubtful Amerika has ever been much of a democracy.
Still, crackpot realism persists:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/30/crackpot_realism_persists.php
As for the Democrats, it's not a matter of political courage:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/01/maybe_its_not_a_lack_of_courage.php
Answer this question for yourself: Would you call the US a 'peace-loving' nation?
Would you really?
-
Timberman
[Read the article: The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]American cultural history is a remarkably violent one.
"Compared to whose? Violent yes, remarkably violent seems to me to overstate the case."
Compared to just about anybody's. Go read some history. Then go catch up on current events.
"Also, for what it's worth, I think you owe Kitt an apology."
Worth nothing.
"I didn't see any attempt to belittle you, only to help you."
You see what you want to see, just like most blindered Amerikans.
Your kind of help Amerika doesn't need. What it needs - you included - is the services of a psychiatrist specializing in cult deprogramming.
Get to it.
-
L.W.M.
[Read the article: The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You might be a little too hostile, aggressive and antagonistic an individual to go around accusing whole groups of people of being hostile, aggressive and overly violent.
Throw in the usual hypocrisy and more than a little cognitive dissonance and you too could be called a neocon.
Ya think?
Given Amerika's history would you consider Amerika to be a 'peace-loving' nation?
Or do you prefer to lie to yourself as much as any neocon?
Be honest. Let's see whatcha got. If anything. So far all you have is a lame and supercilious smear.
-
Tremblingman
[Read the article: The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]" Okay, Walter, I've got it Your number, that is."
-- William Timberman
That supposed to be some kind of threat, neocon?