February 21, 2006
-- by Dave Johnson
Before today the Republicans were sending surrogates around the country whipping up anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments. The right-wing, Bush-cult blogs were all lined up in anti-Islam frenzy. WE WERE AT WAR WITH EASTASIA!!!
But not today. Today we are at war with EURASIA! We have ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia! Today Democrats are racists for daring to question a Bush deal (even though it is largely Republicans who are questioning this.)
Rush this morning:
This is the first time in four years that I can recall a Democrat seriously being concerned about this group of people, and this is racism. This is racism. We are concluding that all Arabs are terrorists. We are concluding that every damn one of them -- be they a sheik, an emir -- they are all terrorists. They all have ties to terrorists and they all seek our utter, total destruction, and we can't risk an exception to that. They're all that way -- and welcome to racism Democrats, because the Democrats are leading the show on this just as well as a lot of conservatives are. So when Democrats are illustrating their racism, their xenophobia, they're also demonstrating that they fully acknowledge we have an enemy. Well, this is a tenuous position for them to take because their kook base doesn't believe any of this.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Another manipulation by Dave...... First, I note that you didn't counter Rush's comments with anything disproving what he said. Can you provide us anything, quote, statement or otherwise contrary to Rush's claims?
Why did you also fail to write or at least refer to Rush's total commentary? Why did you omit Rush's statements about how the United Arab Emirates are perhaps our greatest ally in the middle-east? About how denying that transaction would be a bad business move.... About how security most likely wouldn't change because that falls under the Coast Guard.....
Why don't you like to tell the whole story so that people can reach their own conclusions?
Posted by: Sickofspin at February 21, 2006 5:31 PM
I think Rush's - and your - comments pretty much speak for themselves.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 21, 2006 9:10 PM
Oh Dave, lighten up man!
Sure, two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, but this is about free trade!
Don't worry-be happy!
Posted by: grannyinsanity at February 21, 2006 9:14 PM
Rush's words are not "comments" at all; they barely rise to the level of portentious jibbering. This is Rush, the patron, the master-of-ceremonies of xenophobia, the distended gasbag who claimed that the obscene torture at Abu Ghraib was no worse than a fraternity hazing. Rush Limbaugh is the moebus strip of hypocrisy; if you keep walking on that surface you just come back to the place you were a moment ago.
Any "quotes or commentaries" that tend to disprove what Rush says would likely be other things he says from time to time.
Posted by: Copeland at February 21, 2006 9:22 PM
I'm scared out of my mind about this. I live within walking distance of the WTC site. I live right on the Hudson River. If I cross the street I can see down to the main NY harbor. I've always enjoyed watching the ships go up the river to dock at the piers just north of me. In other words, I'm surrounded by the NY harbor, and I already endured the trauma of 9/11 up close and all too personal. Not only were two of the terrorists from the UAE, but the financing for this came from there. It's well known that they've been involved in supplying nuclear materials to countries that are not our friends. It's less well known that several people in the administration have financial as well as personal ties with this "company."
What's frightening about having the UAE, and this is a state owned company, not a private company, take over control of shipping at the main ports on the east coast is not only that this exposes them to potential sabotage or importing WMD for terrorists, but that they will be able to study the strengths and weaknesses of our ports first hand, in depth, at their leisure, and give this information to terrorists. This is one of the areas in which we have NOT been taking most of the security precautions we should be taking anyway. If this isn't a total sell out of American security, I can't imagine what would be. Saying that objecting to this is racism is a smoke screen. I consider it treason.
Posted by: MJ at February 22, 2006 7:06 AM
You should have written
"O'Brien, er I mean Rush, this morning"
Posted by: Hume's Ghost at February 22, 2006 7:54 AM
- a) Limbaugh's comments speak for themselves, particularly amusing given winger's "Islamo Fascist" rhetoric.
- b) Tenet testified the CIA didn't take OBL out in '99 because Osama was schmoozing w/UAE Royal Family in Afghanistan that day: http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
- c) Notice this blog doesn't edit/remove/change poster's comments that don't fit the profile, as you do on your 2 bit little winger rag.
You calling STF manipulative is pretty damn amusing.
Posted by: JDMcKay at February 22, 2006 1:35 PM
If you call what happened at Abu Ghraib "obscene torture", what do you call it when terrorists behead someone, with a dull blade. Your hyperbole, and general misuse of the English language to try to support your incredibly weak positions eventually render the language usless to you. Which explains why you can't convince the average American voter that you're ideas are worth voting for. When you make a mountain out of every mole hill, you lose the ability to describe the mountain when you finally see one.
Posted by: HappyOD at February 22, 2006 3:52 PM
"If you call what happened at Abu Ghraib "obscene torture", what do you call it when terrorists behead someone, with a dull blade."
Obscene torture. Why? Are saying it is OK for the United States to torture people?
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 22, 2006 4:03 PM
"They're all that way -- and welcome to racism Democrats, because the Democrats are leading the show on this just as well as a lot of conservatives are. So when Democrats are illustrating their racism, their xenophobia, they're also demonstrating that they fully acknowledge we have an enemy. Well, this is a tenuous position for them to take because their kook base doesn't believe any of this." - Rush
So, Rush is frankly admitting that the conservative base is blatantly racist and the liberal base is not. Of course, those of us on the left have known this for some time, but I didn't think Rush would say it so plainly.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 23, 2006 8:20 AM
I bet my wife 50 cents that the first reply to my question would not answer the question, nor address the issue of hyperbole and misuse of language. I predicted to her that you would instead answer my question with the question "so you believe it's ok to torture?" Thank you for illustrating my point so well. You folks seem incapable of following a simple conversation. It's no wonder we keep winning elections and putting our judges on the Supreme Court. If you and your elected Democratic representatives ever had the skills to participate in a logical debate, you have lost them somewhere along the way. Your illogic and inability of communicate leave the average American voter confused about what you believe, and what you want. How many times do you have to lose before you suck it up and begin to debate these issues on their merits. There is a reason you continue to lose power. You have to change your tactics if you hope to regain any of your previous status. If you're wondering why I'm offering this advice to my adversary, it's because as a patriot, I'm concerned that the occasional relevent idea you guys come up with never see the light of day due to your poor tactics. So clean it up out there!
Posted by: HappyOD at February 23, 2006 11:36 AM
If you were honest you would note that I answered your question with "obscene torture."
Only then did I asked why you would ask such a question.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 23, 2006 11:48 AM
I stand corrected. I thought the "obscene torture" comment was meant to highlight your thoughts on Abu Ghraib. Now to the meat of your reply. If you use the same words to describe beheading as you do to describe stacking naked people on the floor, then it is going to be impossible for anyone to understand what you are saying. It's the same principle as using different words to describe a hunderd versus a thousand. Both are numbers, but there is a quantifiable difference. This brings me to:
Reason #3 the Right is beating the Dems:
Democrats think they can ignore or change English Language usage to fill gaps in their logic, or hide their real positions.
Orwell predicted this. They're not illegal aliens, they're undocumented workers. Democrats don't raise taxes, they increase investment. Please feel free to come up with your own examples. Actually, this tactic has some usefullness. But like most things, it's best in moderation. Not a trait people like Ted Kennedy are known for. As would be expected, the democrats have overused the Orwellian tactic to such a degree that the majority of voters now recognize it for what it is.
Posted by: HappyOD at February 23, 2006 4:53 PM
Happy should sample the Lemon Chicken at Gitmo--or better still --find out what happens to prisoners who stop eating.
There's nothing Orwellian about Happy's brand of banality--the banality of evil. We've seen this movie before. Cripes! These trolls are such a bore.
Posted by: Copeland at February 23, 2006 6:23 PM
Without any specifics in your reply, it's impossible for me or anyone else to determine why you believe I'm boring and evil. Which brings me to:
Reason #4 why the Right is beating the Dems
Democrats resort to personal attacks when they want to avoid discussing the issue.
Democrats find when they reveal their positions on issues, most people disagree with them. So Democrats must choose between 1. Having lots of disagreements 2. Always hide their positions 3. Try to discredit the other person, thereby avoiding the task of discrediting the other person's position. Over time, the easiest thing to do is to use personal attacks. It becomes habitual. I'm sure Copeland could have addressed some of the issues I've raised, but he's developed the habit of personal attacks, which after all, are perfectly acceptable in his peer group.
Posted by: HappyOD at February 23, 2006 8:10 PM
Your rhetoric is empty, Happy. Your atrocious (and banal) description of the crimes committed on helpless captives at Abu Ghraib as "stacking naked people on the floor" is contemptable, and a trivialization of those events. And your rhetorical placement of the comment attempts to associate it with someone other than yourself. It is a stale trick and convinces no one.
The rest of your of your accusations against Dems are vague and porous generalizations which are of no value as propositions. You are a bag of hot air. If anyone could figure out what your "positions" amount to, it wouldn't be necessary to insult you.
Posted by: Copeland at February 24, 2006 7:46 PM
Copeland, now that is an eerily Freudian reply. It sounds as if the reply is describing itself. In the spirit of explaining why your side continues to lose elections, I will use your reply as an example. The vast majority of Americans don't believe that Abu Ghraib is a problem. Yet your descriptions seem to place it somewhere between Saddam Hussein's and Hitler's crimes. This belief puts your party at odds with most voters, and coupled with other such beliefs, leaves voters unwilling to trust you with National Security. You mention the rest of my accusations against Dems, but I only made one accusation regarding your previous post, and that was that Dems resort to personal attacks when they want to avoid the issues. Then you proceeded to make a personal attack. If one didn't know better, one would think that you are a Republican plant, put here to make my point. Of course, you make these personal attacks because you actually believe that me and millions like me are evil. Now Copeland, doesn't it strike you as odd that all those people are evil, and the one thing they have in common is they all disagree with you. Now think about it. I know you could think your way through this if you could only get by your idealogically induced blindness. However, more on that subject later.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)