Re: I'll tell you why not

This is sort of admirable, that you'd give him a "fair" hearing - but you can cut to the chase with a few glances.

1) The things he claims are refuted over and over by facts.

2) The articles he links as representative of his group, are refuted over and over again by facts. Consider this article he links, from before the election in 2000:

[link|http://www.olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/NewClass.htm|http://www.olimu.com...tary/NewClass.htm]

A Gore victory would consolidate the New Class domination of the Clinton years, make it unassailable. By his powers of appointment, Gore would make New Class values paramount in the judiciary and executive, as they already are in academia and the media.

Well the actual Gore victory was stolen in a defacto coup d'etat. What are the results?

There certainly is domination by a single class - the wealthy.

Their values are certainly "paramount in the judiciary and executive", and now also in media. Academia has no "values" as such - this is just a bogeyman they spin to support their unsupportable arguments.

BTW notice the self-consciously inflated tone of the writing. All these people see themselves as Neo-Aristotelians.

They are liars. Bill Clinton and his wife are famously mendacious.

Who's a liar? WMD spin anyone? ("Mendacious" - these people are born with silver thesauruses up their asses.)

In fact a disdain for the truth is fundamental to New Class values, and key to their obtaining high political office in a democracy.

The entire Republican worldview is based on deception and spin-doctoring designed to isolate the wealthy and entrench their domination over working people.

They are self-righteous.

Take a 10 minute glance at the smirking, self-satisfied drones on Faux News. Think Pat Robertson. He talks directly with God.

They are hedonists.

Cheney goes on canned duck hunts with a Supreme, where the only object is animal murder - not hunting as such. This is not only hedonism, it's sadism.

They hate the past.

Bush has trampled on every Presidential tradition imaginable - particularly the one that states - the CIC does not salute, nor does he don uniforms. The leaders of banana republic juntas wear uniforms. Everything in the neocon agenda shows an active hatred of the past - a willful disregard of history and tradition that shows their colors - radical collectivists.

They hate masculinity.

Compare the fake-ass pussy Bush with the real man Kerry. Even Clinton, as much as I despise him, could get it up.

They hate commerce.

The economy is destroyed, the trade deficit is gigantic, our manufacturing base is ruined. The neocons are the ones who hate commerce, because they confuse commerce with money.

And so it goes. Every single one of his links can be deconstructed in the face of facts and shown for what they are, stupid self-inflated bullshit by people who hide behind meaningless sentences as cover for their quivering fear and paranoia.

However, I was not referring to facts or even attempting to refute his statements, just get a little glimmer of where they might be coming from. I don't understand all the political ramifications of every link or article, they are entirely too complex for me to get much more than the barest understanding of. However, I was trying hard to remember the last President we have had who outright decided to go to war on a country without the support of Nato or having clearly been attacked first.

I wracked my brain, but I could not think of any. Even in WW2 we didn't actually join in until we almost had no choice. We drug our heels despite being asked for help.

Can anyone think of any other instance in history where a President declared war on a country without that country clearly attacking us first? I'm a little blurry on Kosovo and also on Grenada, but I still don't think we "invaded" either of those, did we?

My actual goal isn't to agree with what Marlowe posts, but to try and get some understanding of why he posts it, and what he's thinking about it. :) That's the first key to good communication, understanding. :) I think maybe he just wants to be understood. Maybe not, but I won't know till I try.

Nightowl >8#

Post #140,590 by deSitter 2/8/04 2:58:38 PM Reply	Re: I'll tell you why not This is sort of admirable, that you'd give him a "fair" hearing - but you can cut to the chase with a few glances. 1) The things he claims are refuted over and over by facts. 2) The articles he links as representative of his group, are refuted over and over again by facts. Consider this article he links, from before the election in 2000: [link\|http://www.olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/NewClass.htm\|http://www.olimu.com...tary/NewClass.htm] A Gore victory would consolidate the New Class domination of the Clinton years, make it unassailable. By his powers of appointment, Gore would make New Class values paramount in the judiciary and executive, as they already are in academia and the media. Well the actual Gore victory was stolen in a defacto coup d'etat. What are the results? There certainly is domination by a single class - the wealthy. Their values are certainly "paramount in the judiciary and executive", and now also in media. Academia has no "values" as such - this is just a bogeyman they spin to support their unsupportable arguments. BTW notice the self-consciously inflated tone of the writing. All these people see themselves as Neo-Aristotelians. They are liars. Bill Clinton and his wife are famously mendacious. Who's a liar? WMD spin anyone? ("Mendacious" - these people are born with silver thesauruses up their asses.) In fact a disdain for the truth is fundamental to New Class values, and key to their obtaining high political office in a democracy. The entire Republican worldview is based on deception and spin-doctoring designed to isolate the wealthy and entrench their domination over working people. They are self-righteous. Take a 10 minute glance at the smirking, self-satisfied drones on Faux News. Think Pat Robertson. He talks directly with God. They are hedonists. Cheney goes on canned duck hunts with a Supreme, where the only object is animal murder - not hunting as such. This is not only hedonism, it's sadism. They hate the past. Bush has trampled on every Presidential tradition imaginable - particularly the one that states - the CIC does not salute, nor does he don uniforms. The leaders of banana republic juntas wear uniforms. Everything in the neocon agenda shows an active hatred of the past - a willful disregard of history and tradition that shows their colors - radical collectivists. They hate masculinity. Compare the fake-ass pussy Bush with the real man Kerry. Even Clinton, as much as I despise him, could get it up. They hate commerce. The economy is destroyed, the trade deficit is gigantic, our manufacturing base is ruined. The neocons are the ones who hate commerce, because they confuse commerce with money. And so it goes. Every single one of his links can be deconstructed in the face of facts and shown for what they are, stupid self-inflated bullshit by people who hide behind meaningless sentences as cover for their quivering fear and paranoia. -drl
Post #140,633 by Nightowl 2/8/04 11:28:00 PM Reply	I do realize that However, I was not referring to facts or even attempting to refute his statements, just get a little glimmer of where they might be coming from. I don't understand all the political ramifications of every link or article, they are entirely too complex for me to get much more than the barest understanding of. However, I was trying hard to remember the last President we have had who outright decided to go to war on a country without the support of Nato or having clearly been attacked first. I wracked my brain, but I could not think of any. Even in WW2 we didn't actually join in until we almost had no choice. We drug our heels despite being asked for help. Can anyone think of any other instance in history where a President declared war on a country without that country clearly attacking us first? I'm a little blurry on Kosovo and also on Grenada, but I still don't think we "invaded" either of those, did we? My actual goal isn't to agree with what Marlowe posts, but to try and get some understanding of why he posts it, and what he's thinking about it. :) That's the first key to good communication, understanding. :) I think maybe he just wants to be understood. Maybe not, but I won't know till I try. Nightowl >8# "To become different from what we are, we must have some awareness of what we are." Eric Hoffer
Post #140,636 by deSitter 2/8/04 11:51:16 PM Reply	Re: I do realize that There was none. There were cases of shady starts - almost all of them - particularly the Mexican War and the Spanish War - what Bush did is unprecedented. -drl
Post #140,638 by Nightowl 2/8/04 11:58:01 PM Reply	Thanks, that's what I thought I was pretty sure it was unprecedented... a first, if you will. Nightowl >8# "To become different from what we are, we must have some awareness of what we are." Eric Hoffer

Welcome to IWETHEY!