Thursday, November 23, 2006

Limbaugh Explains "The Real Story Of Thanksgiving"

On the Nov. 21 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh presented "The Real Story Of Thanksgiving," which somehow had little to do with giving thanks, and more to do with praising the merits of capitalism.

LIMBAUGH: "Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? ... (W)hile most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson."

***

For conservatives, perhaps Limbaugh tells a heartwarming story.

Keeping in the spirit of his re-interpretaton of Thanksgiving, listeners may want to mark their calendars now, in case Limbaugh spews these other re-interpretations of upcoming holidays:

-- "The Real Story Of Hanukkah" (Dec. 16). "What the left won't tell you is that Hanukkah shows how desperate people can become if they don't have a sensible, pro-growth energy policy. Had these Jews committed to exploratory drilling, they may have had oil not just for eight days, but hundreds."

-- "The Real Story Of Christmas" (Dec. 25). "Santa Claus is representative of the success of American capitalism. Here we have a sole proprietor who succeeds because he doesn't have to worry about elfen labor laws. If the liberals had their way, Santa's workshop would have been closed years ago."

-- "The Real Story Of Martin Luther King Day" (Jan. 15). "The liberals don't want you to know that King was a Republican, and would not have supported the creation of this holiday. I believe there are quotes from King saying other Americans are more deserving. The fact that those Americans are white males is irrelevant."

Check your local listings ...

49 Comments:

Anonymous trinity said...

Actually, I think that version of "The Real Story of Thanksgiving" that Rush tells is based upon something that Rush H. Limbaugh, Sr. put together years ago, which in turn is based upon William Bradford's "Of Plymouth Plantation" journal. Rush makes it available every year at this time.

It's quite factual, and the point that Rush, and his father before him, is making, is that real history, based upon written historical records, isn't really taught in school anymore. The story of the first "Thanksgiving" and the struggles the Pilgrims faced when they first landed here, is extremely interesting, and should be taught in our schools. It no longer is.

In fact, here's one teacher's version of how the lesson should be taught...

"Teacher Bill Morgan walks into his third-grade class wearing a black Pilgrim hat made of construction paper and begins snatching up pencils, backpacks and glue sticks from his pupils. He tells them the items now belong to him because he "discovered" them. The reaction is exactly what Morgan expects: The kids get angry and want their things back.

Morgan is among elementary school teachers who have ditched the traditional Thanksgiving lesson, in which children dress up like Indians and Pilgrims and act out a romanticized version of their first meetings.

He has replaced it with a more realistic look at the complex relationship between Indians and white settlers.

Morgan said he still wants his pupils at Cleveland Elementary School in San Francisco to celebrate Thanksgiving. But "what I am trying to portray is a different point of view." "


Now, if this teacher wants to include "a more realistic look at the complex relationship between Indians and white settlers", he can work that into his 3rd grade lesson planner anytime. Why does he have to spoil the traditional story of Thanksgiving for the kids by conflating the two issues?

Gee, wonder what he's got planned for, dare I utter the word?...Christmas.

8:42 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

http://katiefavazza.townhall.com/

8:43 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

It's quite factual, and the point that Rush, and his father before him, is making, is that real history, based upon written historical records, isn't really taught in school anymore.

I'm not sure what's more annoying. Having to hear about these politically complex stories of Thanksgiving -- which, it seems, are being taught by a minority of school teachers, or having to listen to conservatives complaining about it. Do conservatives do anything but complain? First off, gimme a break with this idiotic blanket statement that "It isn't anymore." Really? Based on what evidence? An anecdote you have in this article about a misguided fool of a teacher? How much mind control do you need to have?

Also, isn't it possible that we aren't perfect? I don't think anyone really expects that anywhere from 300 to 400 years ago, perhaps we, as well as the Native Americans, were somewhat less than civil in the way we acted, no? Would anyone begrudge either side if they didn't exactly live in peace in a pretty strange world at the time? Clearly, this teacher seems to be overdoing it, but c'mon, you act like the whole country is being indoctrinated. Give it a rest.

Good grief. And now that the holiday is over, all the bullshit Christmas complaints are going to begin again. Friggin' great. What a bunch of whiners.

8:54 PM  
Anonymous ayeshahaqqiqa said...

The real story is that the Pilgrims came to the New World financed by capitalist adventurers. They didn't find the gold they hoped; instead they nearly starved to death-only the Wampanoags stepped in to help out. Actually, the experiment in socialism Limpaws talks about was survival mode for these folks.

12:45 AM  
Anonymous KingFlorez said...

He's seriously disturbed

He knows the world is the way he wants it to be, so he's put his right-wing spin on Thanksgiving.

12:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

absolutely

he could spin anything to sound as if it were orchestrated by Ken Mehlman or Karl Rove, even if it took place hundreds of years ago. It's part of his agenda -- that our nation has always favored traditional conservative values ... like slavery, and child labor, and women being barefoot and pregnant. SARCASM

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Lastlaughin08 said...

Rushitbag is no more qualified to speak on these matters than Charles Manson

Who the hell is this drug-riddled clown, anyway?

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Freedom_from_Chains said...

Why he's Americas Truth Detector!

If he's our truth detector, we are in some deep, deep, shit.

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Sooo, the evil-socialist-Indians (American Indians that is) provided life-saving welfare to the Pilgrims, and then after the Pilgrims found their feet they killed nearly all the Indians. Kinda like the Right's goal today of destroying the entity (US Government) that helped them survive and thrive? Survival of the fittest, wait... not ready... not yet... okay NOW, get 'em! Sounds a bit like a social Theory of Evolution.

And if Santa were a capitalist - in the model of today's successful GOPers - he would have had the toys built with the cheapest labor on the planet (read: most disavantaged, most easily exploitable), sheltered away from pesky tax burdens and labor-laws, and then he would have sold his "product" by way of under-paid workers at mass-retail behemoths that callously squash all other retailers foolish enough to follow the rules, and then tell the kids that didn't get any presents that their Mommy's and Daddy's should have just worked a little harder and been a little smarter. Sorry kids Santa can't coddle you, it's in your own best interest.

I used to want Rush O'Hannity to go away. Now I want them to just keep on talking. Because the only people that buy their lines of lies are the people who ONLY get their information and world-view from those sources. The rest of us, the majority, see the ever widening chasm between Rush's world and reality for what it is.

2:35 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Clearly, this teacher seems to be overdoing it, but c'mon, you act like the whole country is being indoctrinated."


BINGO! It's called "the dumbing down of America", Dave G., and it's a lot more widespread than you seem to think. It's also very deliberate. Nothing like an ill-informed electorate to keep American citizens from making waves. You like to read. There are several good books out there that document what I'm talking about.

First off, gimme a break with this idiotic blanket statement that "It isn't anymore." Really? Based on what evidence?

I think you'll find that generally speaking, kids today are not really learning as much American history as kids used to in the past. The focus is no longer on the things that made this country great, like our early history, our Founding Fathers, the Constitution, etc. Check out a current history textbook, and you'll see what I mean.

Also, isn't it possible that we aren't perfect? I don't think anyone really expects that anywhere from 300 to 400 years ago, perhaps we, as well as the Native Americans, were somewhat less than civil in the way we acted, no?

No. That doesn't pertain to the Pilgrims in the least. They weren't "less than civil". They were good people, through and through. That's what I was complaining about. (whining if you will) The Pilgrims didn't unjustly take anything from anyone.

I think you'd learn something too, Dave, from reading Bradford's journal. I know I had never heard the complete story before I heard Rush do a segment on it years ago. Michael Medved featured something similar on his own radio show yesterday. It's really a fascinating historical record. Why do you guys seem to have such a problem with picking up some extra knowledge along the way? Sheeesh!

5:04 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

ayeshahaqqiqa said...
"The real story is that the Pilgrims came to the New World financed by capitalist adventurers. They didn't find the gold they hoped; instead they nearly starved to death-only the Wampanoags stepped in to help out. Actually, the experiment in socialism Limpaws talks about was survival mode for these folks."


I don't know what the investors may or may not have hoped to find. I haven't come across anything mentioning gold in anything I've read.

In any case, the Pilgrims certainly weren't seeking gold or anything else, other than the opportunity to enjoy the religious freedom they were denied in England. You're as ill-informed as that teacher. Maybe he taught you back when you were in elementary school?

As far as the communal living that the Pilgrims tried out, that didn't work so well. They didn't begin to prosper until they were each given their own plot of land to work. Once they were responsible to produce for themselves, they put their backs into it. Great lesson there. Why you all seem to be so resentful of it, is beyond me.

5:25 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ditto said....
"The rest of us, the majority, see the ever widening chasm between Rush's world and reality for what it is."


Earth to Ditto. You only think you make up the majority. You have to get out more. ;)

5:27 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

It's called "the dumbing down of America", Dave G., and it's a lot more widespread than you seem to think. It's also very deliberate. Nothing like an ill-informed electorate to keep American citizens from making waves.

No, that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about some kind of evil liberal plot to make Americans hate their country, which is nonsense. The dumbing-down part I can agree with -- just hearing how we rank 37th or whatever the hell in math around the world (totally made-up stat, but I don't have time to check the real numbers) is enough for me to know American public schools are't doing the job they should be doing. Knowing that the average news programs spend more time on how Paris Hilton f***ed half of a bar's patrons before getting thrown out than on elections is enough evidence for me on that subject.

That doesn't pertain to the Pilgrims in the least. They weren't "less than civil". They were good people, through and through.
Again, didn't say they weren't good people. But in desperate situations people do certain things, and they had issues with their survival. It doesn't make them any less good. I'm not saying they should be demonized like this idiot is doing.

Why do you guys seem to have such a problem with picking up some extra knowledge along the way?

We've been dumbed down. I blame the schools.

5:28 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Once they were responsible to produce for themselves, they put their backs into it. Great lesson there. Why you all seem to be so resentful of it, is beyond me.

We're not resentful of it. What we're resentful of is the way that Rush Limbaugh is taking this and applying it to suggest that "all liberals" do is "believe in socialism," which is a bunch of crapola, to feed his hungry viewers more stuff on how liberals are something less-than-human and want to indoctrinate everyone into their socialist communal lunatic asylum where everyone gets forced abortions at least 1 time a year, while they're not in the middle of becoming heroin addicts (on purpose) and having lots of gay sex (but only after getting a gay marriage) while we wipe our butts with the American flag.

That's what we resent - that Rush is, for lack of a better word, dumbing-down things in a way to draw a lesson from something to try to put a finger in the eye of people he despises already.

There are plenty of wonderful examples in our American history of our rugged spirit of individualism, just as there are plenty of examples of our communal spirit in helping each other. But once again, Rush's lesson is "SEE, HA! LIBERALS ARE JERKS!" That's simplistic dumbing down.

5:33 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

trinity dry-heaved;
"You only think you make up the majority. You have to get out more. ;)"

Yes, I need to get out and buy a paper - I want to see how the elections went.

Even Limpaugh said he was tired of carrying water for those guys... He just can't keep up the jerry-rigged justifications, the revolving rationalizations, the vicious vitriol against the ever-increasing chorus of critics coming from the "conservative" camp, and the sunny-faced stoic spin of an unforgiving, painful reality that he was paid to help create.

Limpaugh is to refined-intellectualism as McDonalds is to fine-cuisine. And people like trinity sound FAT from too much trans-conservatism.

6:26 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

I am not a history expert nor do I profess to be even close to being one. My wife is a retired school teacher who was a special education teacher that taught students who had difficulty with various subjects, one being history.

What she told me was that the pilgrims left England going to Holland to escape the Church of England influence. Once in Holland and getting tired of their lifestyle there they found investors to pay their way to America. There was some type of re-payment agreement for the pilgrims to send payment back to their investors. In 1620 in America there was no real well known goods that could be sent back for payment. Since oil, tobacco, cattle, grains, automobiles, textiles, machinery and the like was not availble, then that leaves the possiblity of furs, gold, spices, slaves, or some types of trinkets or a neblous term "riches". Pick what you like!

My question to Rush or anyone who agrees with Russ is if the Pilgrims' socialistic effort was not successfull, then how did they survive the boat trip over, re-pay the investors after 7 years and become a success that still thrives today? I would like to see Russ take about 100 people that agrees with him to a foreign land in December with habitants about the same latitude as where the pilgrims landed with just the clothes on their back and no modern conveniences and have everyone fend for themselves and see if they can survive! Give them an acre a piece to do with what they may and I wager they would not make it past the first winter if they did not work together for the group but stuck to doing everything soley by themselves. I even have my doubts they would make it with all working together because repukes have a hard time thinking of anyone but themselves!

Humans are social animals and without socialization, we would not survive. One of the basic tenets of survival for the human race is the family, which is a very socialistic societal unit!

I say Russ is full of "himself", which is a big bucket of S..t!Anyone who agrees with him is made of the same material!

12:33 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"No, that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about some kind of evil liberal plot to make Americans hate their country, which is nonsense."


Nonsense? I don't think so. I'm not sure if I would call it an evil liberal plot, Dave. It's just a matter of people on the FAR left, saying what they truly believe, and that is that America is a force more for evil than for good. That is where the "nonsense" comes in.

If you don't fit into that category, then good for you. A lot of Democrats do not fit into that category. On the other hand, a lot of them do. So don't take it personally if you are not part of that ilk, because in that case, I'm not painting you with that same brush. No need to be defensive.

Bottom line is that the majority of textbooks today are a great deal more negative in the way they portray our country than they used to be, and there is an awful lot of political correctness to be found in today's curriculum, which isn't such a great thing either, imo.

1:55 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"What we're resentful of is the way that Rush Limbaugh is taking this and applying it to suggest that "all liberals" do is "believe in socialism," which is a bunch of crapola..."


Dave, again, I have no way of knowing how much or how little you agree or disagree with your party's leadership. In any case, there is absolutely no doubt in the world that the liberal Democratic party of today is extremely socialistic, (or progressive if you prefer) and getting more and more so all the time. If you don't think that's the way to go, you might want to look into changing your political party affiliation.

2:03 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ditto said...
"Even Limpaugh said he was tired of carrying water for those guys... "


You're such a dope, Ditto. By saying he was tired of "carrying their water" for them, Rush only meant that they should be out there making the case for themselves, rather than depending upon conservative radio talk show hosts to do it for them. It's not that he didn't agree with the positions he defended. He did, or he wouldn't have defended them.

There were many times when my husband and I heard Rush or some other host take pains to help clarify the administration's position on an issue, and we would look at eachother and ask why the President or someone in his administration is not out there making the case and explaining their position for themselves, kind of like FDR did with his "Fireside Chats".

They're the politicians after all. They should know all about the importance of public relations and getting their message out. If they don't make that effort to win the public debate, perhaps they deserve to lose. That was Rush's point.

2:24 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ditto said...
"Even Limpaugh said he was tired of carrying water for those guys... "


You're such a dope, Ditto. By saying he was tired of "carrying their water" for them, Rush only meant that they should be out there making the case for themselves, rather than depending upon conservative radio talk show hosts to do it for them. It's not that he didn't agree with the positions he defended. He did, or he wouldn't have defended them.

There were many times when my husband and I heard Rush or some other host take pains to help clarify the administration's position on an issue, and we would look at eachother and ask why the President or someone in his administration is not out there making the case and explaining their position for themselves, kind of like FDR did with his "Fireside Chats".

They're the politicians after all. They should know all about the importance of public relations and getting their message out. If they don't make that effort to win the public debate, perhaps they deserve to lose. That was Rush's point.

2:24 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Sorry for the double post, David.

2:25 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Here's a partial relevant excerpt that addresses the socialism issue. The rest can be found at the URL below.

4. Economic liberty — 1623

"While still in Holland, the Pilgrims sold all they owned, and still didn’t have nearly enough to finance their expedition. They turned to the private investors who demanded that in the New World the Pilgrims own and farm the land in common, put the fruits of their labors each day in a common storehouse, each taking out the same amount, no matter how much — or little — they put in.

The Pilgrims objected on the grounds that it was a mistaken socialist, collectivist arrangement, against God’s principles of private property and economic justice , based on "as ye sow, so shall you reap." But the investors, while not philosophical socialists but pragmatic business men, insisted, on the grounds that it would provide a convenient arrangement for the dividing of the expected profits."

http://tinyurl.com/yzeyqc

2:40 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"Dave, again, I have no way of knowing how much or how little you agree or disagree with your party's leadership. In any case, there is absolutely no doubt in the world that the liberal Democratic party of today is extremely socialistic, (or progressive if you prefer) and getting more and more so all the time."

I think Trinity you have outdone even yourself with making nieve statements.

You obviously have a lot to learn about the Democratic position.
The claim is even more nieve than your claim the other day about the uselessness of even trying diplomacy with Iran.

6:46 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said... God’s principles of private property and economic justice , "as ye sow, so shall you reap."

God also meant this in regard to social relationships with other people as well, such as "Do into others as you would have them do unto you" and five of the ten commandments that deal with social issues!

Trinity, I have wondered many times about your political leanings. Are you a member of or associated with someone who is a member of PNAC? You have a lot of their views!

8:38 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

In any case, there is absolutely no doubt in the world that the liberal Democratic party of today is extremely socialistic, (or progressive if you prefer) and getting more and more so all the time. If you don't think that's the way to go, you might want to look into changing your political party affiliation.

BWAAA! Yeah, as if. You have no idea what you're saying. "Extremely socialistic." A phrase that makes no sense for one, and isn't true to boot. But whatever, I'm sure Mark Levin will explain to you why I shouldn't be living here when I coudl be living in some kind of collective agrarian paradise where I can force everyone else to have gay marriages. yay.

11:12 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"You obviously have a lot to learn about the Democratic position."


AND

Dave G. said...
"BWAAA! Yeah, as if. You have no idea what you're saying.


Really? Well then perhaps you two bright lights can educate me as to the Democratic positions on taxation.

Doesn't your party support a progressive tax, as opposed to a proportional tax? And if that statement is true, which it undoubtedly is, then how does that differ from the old "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs" formula?

I mean, that's straight out of the "Communist Manifesto", so how the heck can you dispute the fact that your party has a strong tendency towards socialism? Please enlighten me.

2:03 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"Trinity, I have wondered many times about your political leanings. Are you a member of or associated with someone who is a member of PNAC? You have a lot of their views!"


How could you wonder about my political leanings, whoop? I'm an open book over here. I am a conservative who believes in smaller government, tax breaks for those of us who pay taxes, and a strong military to defend our freedoms, and good border and immigration policies so that our country is not overrun with people that are here illegally.

I'm not a member of anything other than the Republican Party, and that's only so that I can vote in primary elections. Do I agree with many of the principles that PNAC stands for? Of course I do. Why? Are you all caught up in conspiracy theories or something? Is PNAC another boogieman for your side to demonize? BOO!

As a matter of fact, some of the names I see underneath the PNAC "Statement of Principles" are people I greatly admire.

http://tinyurl.com/6c3l

Like President Reagan, I believe in peace through strength, and that America is a tremendous force for good in the world. Perhaps you disagree.

2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Like President Reagan, I believe in peace through strength, and that America is a tremendous force for good in the world."

Since you believe this, you must admit then that your Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice gang really f---ed things up big time.
We have neither strength or peace, but we do have an America perceived as anything but good.

4:29 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I mean, that's straight out of the "Communist Manifesto", so how the heck can you dispute the fact that your party has a strong tendency towards socialism? Please enlighten me.

Give me a break. I would have to conduct some more research to intelligently answer your concern, but, in spite of that, there is plenty out of the Republican, Bush Administration and Christian Right doctrines that could be easily interpreted to be straight out of Hitler/Nazism, Communism and Facism playbooks.

4:35 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said... I believe in peace through strength, and that America is a tremendous force for good in the world. Perhaps you disagree.

I agree with the statement of peace through strength . The big difference is our definition of strength. Since you agree with PNAC you must mean military strength, strength through fear of "my way or the highway",strength through economic sanctions against a country that does not act the way we want them to act, strenght through fear of an invasion if they do not embrace our type of government, strenght through total intimidation and strenght through bullying tactics.

My definition of strenght is honesty, respect, understanding, cooperation, war only when absolutely necessary, and learning about other people, other nations and other customs.

I agree with you that we have been and CAN be a tremendous force for good in the world again. We have lost a lot of that with this administrastion and is aided by many people like you that have given them more energy to continue eroding our world standing!

Your agreement with PNAC means you are delighted with the fact that a small % of Americans become extremely wealthy through our war-mongering and war machinery policies and a small % of our poor get killed protecting that war-mongering policy!

Based upon your definition of strength what is our nation going to have when the world runs out of petroleum energy that runs all of war machines? Most all of our war machines run on petro or electricity generated by petro. To defeat the U.S. now would be easier if the enemy cuts off 90% of our electricity.

As I have said before, it is your beliefs, the PNAC group and the current repukes beliefs that are scaring the hell out of me. Who is going to fight all of your and PNAC's wars? It is certainly not you guys and it is certainly not me!

11:15 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"I agree with you that we have been and CAN be a tremendous force for good in the world again. We have lost a lot of that with this administrastion and is aided by many people like you that have given them more energy to continue eroding our world standing!"


Our world standing? Oh whoop, give it a rest. I don't know how you manage to put your pants on in the morning.

In case you missed it, Islamo-extremists tried to bring down the WTC back in 1993, long before President Bush was even elected. They've hated us forever.

They've been using terrorist methods against us for decades now. Their numbers are growing, and they are spreading their violent message of jihad all over Europe. Things are already pretty bad over in France and England.

There are sections of France, "no-go" zones, that cannot be policed by the French authorities, because the radical Muslims demand to be left alone to be ruled by Sharia law. The police are too afraid to enter into these neighborhoods. This is what they want to establish throughout all of the world, whoop.

So stop worrying so much about why other countries don't like us. They don't like us because they're jealous of us. They don't like us because we show leadership, when they don't know the meaning of the word. They don't like us because we stand up for what is right, when they are too cowardly to. We've saved Europe before, and if they don't wake up soon, they may end up needing our help yet again.

I really can't stand to hear Americans spout the crap that you just did in your last post. You're so brainwashed at this point, and you so hate George Bush, that it's affected the way you think.

Golda Meir once said that "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

There's a lot of truth in those words. I would apply that same concept with regard to George W. Bush. It's difficult for us to agree or to work together on much of anything, as long as your side is so filled with hatred for this man.

12:27 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Give me a break. I would have to conduct some more research to intelligently answer your concern,"


You're kidding, right? Please don't tell me this is the first time that you've ever heard someone mention that liberals engage in the redistribution of wealth? Take from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots"? You simply cannot be serious.

But don't take it personally. The Republicans are almost as bad these days. They're like the slow train to socialism, and Dems are the express. It's absolutely sickening.

12:33 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"To defeat the U.S. now would be easier if the enemy cuts off 90% of our electricity."


Well duh! Of course it would. What the hell do you think Iran has in mind for us, if not to invade Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the entire Middle East, and control all of the oil?

But in case the thought has not yet occurred to you, whoop, it is not just our "war machines" that run on petroleum, but our entire country, our whole economy. Why do you think it's so important for us to make sure that Iran doesn't become even more of a threat than it already is?

1:00 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"The claim is even more nieve than your claim the other day about the uselessness of even trying diplomacy with Iran.


Yes, it would be utterly useless, twot. I stand by that comment. Or have you forgotten what happened when Neville Chamberlain tried using diplomacy with Hitler? :rolleyes:

Do you know what Iran wants, twot? It wants nuclear weapons. You know what else it wants? It wants an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. You know what else it wants? It wants us out of the Middle East. You know what else it wants? It wants to invade and take over its neighbors. You know what else it wants? It wants to make Israel disappear. You know what else it wants? It wants radical Islam to take over Europe. You know what else it wants? It wants to destroy America.

So, I'm wondering exactly how many of these "wants" would you be willing to let Iran have, twot?

1:41 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Oh, and then there's Syria. Syria could definitely help us by not allowing the Sunni-based insurgency to keep crossing back and forth across their border. They could stop the weapons traffic. They could hand over the former Baath Party leaders, too, while they're at it.

But then, what would Syria want in exchange? Most likely they would demand that we help Assad get back the Golen Heights from Israel. More land for "peace", since it has worked so well for Israel in the past. (sarcasm off)

Syria also wants to prevent the investigation of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's murder, which they almost certainly had a part in.
Then there was the more recent killing of anti-Syria Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. I guess they don't want to be blamed for that assassination either. To get something from Syria, I guess we're supposed to close our eyes to all this, right? And you know Syria doesn't do anything that isn't first approved by Iran. So, these are the countries we want to sit down with?

2:12 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said well duh! Of course it would. What the hell do you think Iran has in mind for us, if not to invade Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the entire Middle East, and control all of the oil?

The same reason we invaded Iraq, to get control of the OIL!

Where is this administrations' effort to fund alternative fuels research and to encourage America to conserve? They are oil barrens and there is no money in it for them do anything but to kill for more OIL? So America's survival is based purely upon our addiction to OIL which we can not break!

What do we do about China, India, Russia and the other nations whose appetite for OIL is also growing daily? We just "stay the course" because it has been so successfull!

Once again, what is going to be our strength when the world runs out of oil( I will not be alive then)and we have no energy for all our war machines and to supply us with electricity? We can not go back to the dark ages where we would have to walk or ride horses everywhere!

But, we would still be loved by the world because we are good guys!.

Trinity, you talk about democrats wanting to take from the haves and give to the have nots. Tell me the difference from war profitering that takes money from all the taxpayers and gives it to the wealthy or the difference in the laws that protect big business from financial ruin but gives the little guy very little protection or the differrence in legislation that gives our taxpayer dollars via pork-barrel spending to huge corporations. We have government wellfare in both directions with big business getting the largest majority of it. Our government is not a good steward of our taxpayer dollars!!

I do agree that a smaller government with totally fair and equitable taxes is also my preference.

3:55 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity said, "Yes, it would be utterly useless, twot. I stand by that comment. Or have you forgotten what happened when Neville Chamberlain tried using diplomacy with Hitler? :rolleyes:"
Do you know what Iran wants, twot? It wants nuclear weapons. You know what else it wants? It wants an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. You know what else it wants? It wants us out of the Middle East. You know what else it wants? It wants to invade and take over its neighbors. You know what else it wants? It wants to make Israel disappear. You know what else it wants? It wants radical Islam to take over Europe. You know what else it wants? It wants to destroy America."

1. Don't make irrelevant Hitler comparisons.
2. Don't impose the Bush Administration's self-serving interpretations upon what Iran wants, without fully investigating all sides of the issue.
3. Don't make such claims like "diplomacy cannot work" without offering a viable alternative.

7:59 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I like whoop's use of numbering, so I'll do a few.

1. Yes, taxes are indeed a way to redistribute assets in an economy. Nobody has any doubt about what they are. It's also a way of recognizing that a person's worth to a society is not just measured by their wallet. Compare the average NFL wide receiver to the average cop. Who does more for society? Exactly. It still does not = socialism, but I'll never change your mind on that anyway.

2. Trinity believes we're showing leadership by continuing to blow things up in Iraq. Bravo.

3. Our world standing is indeed important -- we'll miss it when it's gone completely. This has nothing to do with not fighting terrorists. It means not sacrificing the ideals our democracy stands for in order to do so, nor does it mean involving ourselves in an unneccessary war when there are potentially larger threats looming.

4. Speaking of larger threats, Iran does indeed seem to be a larger threat. How you see them as a country sending armies across the world to destroy everybody shows your inflated sense of paranoia. More likely they want to acquire WMD and use that to become a regional power. Diplomacy, force, and military strategy are things that all go into dealing with a country like this. However, our army is a bit bogged down in Iraq, leaving us without many choices. It's too bad our president didn't think more than one step ahead on the chess board to recognize where the threats are rather than just cavalierly running into Iraq and unleashing chaos.

5. As for the President, we don't hate him so much as we're disappointed. I think i speak for the liberals on this board when I say he did well in going into Afghanistan and squandered it (along with lots of other stuff) in Iraq. He's a terrible president, and so give up this "irrational hatred" argument, because what it really is amounts to A) you projecting your own hatred of Clinton onto us, when we've got good reason to dislike this president and B) your inability to form an argument as to why we should still be in Iraq, instead blaming it on our "irrational hatred."

6. And don't make irrelevant Hitler analogies.

9:47 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I agree with Dave G.
Nevertheless, Trinity here is a recent story you should read in Time offering several good reasons why the U.S. should be talking diplomacy with Iran.
http://tinyurl.com/yecnz4

10:30 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I meant to say earlier that I agreed with TWOT's numbering. Sorry bout that.

12:40 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"The same reason we invaded Iraq, to get control of the OIL!"


Again, if we wanted to CONTROL the OIL, we would have simply taken control of Kuwait and Iraq's oil fields when we had 500,000 troops there during the first Gulf War. So please stop spouting radical leftist talking points. Lay off the Koolaide for a bit, whoop. I know you'll never agree with me, whoop, but we went into Iraq for very different reasons than you think.

On the other hand, we certainly cannot just sit around and allow Iran to cut off the free world's access to the oil market either, can we? And that is exactly what we will be dealing with if we simply pack up our troops and "redeploy" the hell out of Iraq.

As for conserving oil, just take Carter's 'sage' advice and turn the thermostat down, and wear a sweater.

Our government is not a good steward of our taxpayer dollars!!

I've been saying that for years. I'm glad we can at least agree that smaller government and a fair and equitable tax system would be a good thing.

As far as the world's addiction to oil is concerned, I have no doubt that we are capable of developing alternate energy sources when the need arises. I just wish someone in either party would make the case to begin working on that right now, before we're in a real crisis.

And just for the record, I have no problem with alternate energy, in as many forms as possible. But unlike most liberals, neither do I have a problem with simultaneously accessing and developing the many oil/coal/oil shale and tar sands resources we have right here in our own country.

You're critical of the Bush Admistration for not working on this problem, but Clinton had eight years in office as well. What did he, a Democrat do? Under Clinton our dependence upon foreign oil increased as well. Why not allow the oil companies to access our own resources? Why doesn't either party ever seem to make headway with this issue? We keep going around in circles and accomplishing nothing, leaving ourselves open to real disaster and economic collapse.

2:02 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

On the other hand, we certainly cannot just sit around and allow Iran to cut off the free world's access to the oil market either, can we?
Um, leaving Iraq will not result in this. Particularly when Saudi Arabia remains the world's largest producer of oil. This would posit an Iranian invasion of Saudi Arabia (who knows if they have the manpower for it) where the entire world does not respond. It's a paranoid scenario.

I just wish someone in either party would make the case to begin working on that right now, before we're in a real crisis.
Al Gore's been talking about this for years. Of course, most conservatives consider him a lunatic.

2:15 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
" Trinity here is a recent story you should read in Time offering several good reasons why the U.S. should be talking diplomacy with Iran."


Thanks, twot. I read it. I just disagree with it. With the exception of the President's program to have informal contacts with the Iranian people themselves, most of whom are VERY pro-Western, and do not hate America. That part I agree with.

And the fact that Congress has funded these citizen exchanges is promising. In essence, this is what Pope John Paul II, President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did with the people of Poland, and I'm all for it. The Iranian people need to know we support them in their quest for liberty.

The Iranian people, the majority of whom are quite young, do not want to live under Sharia law. They hunger for more freedoms, just like the people of Iraq, and people everywhere, if given the choice.

And just to point out the obvious, neither twot's nor Dave G.'s opinions that my Hitler comparisons were irrelevant, make them so. That they don't recognize or accept the validity of my analogy, 1) is no surprise, and 2) explains a lot, and 3) says it all, actually. You're both in denial.

2:33 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Um, leaving Iraq will not result in this. Particularly when Saudi Arabia remains the world's largest producer of oil. This would posit an Iranian invasion of Saudi Arabia (who knows if they have the manpower for it) where the entire world does not respond. It's a paranoid scenario."


Paranoid? IYO. Unfortunately, it's probably inevitable. Or perhaps you are gullible enough to believe that Iran's nuclear ambitions are solely energy-related. After all, you just said that President Armadinajad, unlike Hitler, would never lie to you. You're so special.

2:40 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Al Gore's been talking about this for years. Of course, most conservatives consider him a lunatic."


True. But Al Gore is a radical environmentalist and a bit extreme for most of us. And I don't believe he is for any new drilling is he? At least, I don't remember him supporting anything like that, despite his own personal interests in Occidental Oil Co. Yes, Gore is a little bit of a hypocrite on this whole energy issue, and has no problem with profitting off of oil himself.

2:55 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

And just to point out the obvious, neither twot's nor Dave G.'s opinions that my Hitler comparisons were irrelevant, make them so. That they don't recognize or accept the validity of my analogy, 1) is no surprise, and 2) explains a lot, and 3) says it all, actually. You're both in denial.

Anything can be compared to Hitler. That's the point. Comparisons to Hitler become irrelevant the moment they're made, because they're immediately going to sway an argument in an emotional direction by bringing up the worst man of the 20th century. That's why they don't do anything to advance the discussion. Ahmadinejad seems like a crazy man on most levels, but it's reductive to just say he's Hitler, and call anyone who doesn't agree with you a Nazi appeaser. It doesn't even begin to get to the root of the issue at all. This is what makes it a useless comparison.


Unfortunately, it's probably inevitable. Or perhaps you are gullible enough to believe that Iran's nuclear ambitions are solely energy-related. After all, you just said that President Armadinajad, unlike Hitler, would never lie to you. You're so special.

I never said his nuclear ambitions are solely energy-related. In fact, I really don't know what you're getting at in the slightest. I'm saying you're showing a form of paranoia by saying Iran will take over the world if we leave Iraq. It makes no sense on logistical levels and political levels, and our foreign policy needs to be a little smarter than "They're coming to get us."

With the exception of the President's program to have informal contacts with the Iranian people themselves, most of whom are VERY pro-Western, and do not hate America.
They're not as pro-Western as they were a few years ago.

They hunger for more freedoms, just like the people of Iraq, and people everywhere, if given the choice.
But are we there to grant them a choice? Like we did in Iraq?

3:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"I never said his nuclear ambitions are solely energy-related. In fact, I really don't know what you're getting at in the slightest."


I didn't say YOU said that. I said Armadinajad is saying it. And what I am getting at is this. You seem to doubt that Iran has designs on Saudi Arabia and the surrounding nations. I said I believe there is no doubt that it does. So does the Saudi Royal family.

So, what exactly is YOUR point, aside from automatically disagreeing with every statement I make?

Dave G. said...
"Anything can be compared to Hitler. That's the point. Comparisons to Hitler become irrelevant the moment they're made,"


I'm not talking in a vacuum, Dave. I made a specific reference to the foolishness, the gullibility and the hubris of Neville Chamberlain, the great appeasor, thinking he could trust and believe in the promises that a man like Hitler made to him.

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

So my point is that you cannot negotiate with dictators. What's so hard to understand about that?

1:54 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"I'm saying you're showing a form of paranoia by saying Iran will take over the world if we leave Iraq."


Iran, together with radical Islamic fundamentalists everywhere. Don't you ever actually listen to what their ultimate goal really is? Or more importantly, when someone is telling you that they intend to fly the flag of Islam over the White House, and that they will not stop killing until the entire world submits to Sharia law, why on earth would you not take that threat seriously? Why does one have to be paranoid if they do?

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I'm not talking in a vacuum, Dave. I made a specific reference to the foolishness, the gullibility and the hubris of Neville Chamberlain, the great appeasor, thinking he could trust and believe in the promises that a man like Hitler made to him.

You're still talking in a vaccuum. We all know what Chamberlain did. What you're not doing is relating it to anything that's going on now other than making facile comparisons that "he negotiated and if we do we're Chamberlain and he's Hitler." That's as far as you're going with the depth is. Which is a half-inch deep.

So my point is that you cannot negotiate with dictators. What's so hard to understand about that?
But negotiating and diplomacy are two different things. It takes no guts to not talk to your enemies.

Iran, together with radical Islamic fundamentalists everywhere. Don't you ever actually listen to what their ultimate goal really is? Or more importantly, when someone is telling you that they intend to fly the flag of Islam over the White House, and that they will not stop killing until the entire world submits to Sharia law, why on earth would you not take that threat seriously? Why does one have to be paranoid if they do?
Who? Al-Qaeda? Sure. But isn't that the point of fighting them in the first place? Isn't that what we're doing and what we set out to do?

And where are you getting that Iran has designs on the United States? How would they hold the territory, for instance? They couldn't win wars in Iraq in previous years. How much human capital do they have to expend to try to take over the U.S. if they could ever take over another country in the first place? This is what I mean about paranoid and jacking up your fear into something the size of Saturn. Do you somehow doubt that anyone thinks Ahmadinejad is not a dangerous man? But talk about reality here, and not fantasy. For all the supposed toughness of Iran, all I see from them is a lot of jawboning. Which isn't to say they aren't a threat, because they assuredly are. But you're still speaking in terms of paranoia - as if the only real choice is either meekly submitting to them or blowing them to hell. That's a false choice; it doesn't exist.

Nobody's saying we shouldn't take them seriously. We're saying we should take them very seriously. But I'm still not sure what your point is. It seems to be that Iran is going to take over the world so therefore we should ___? Bomb them? Nuke them? I'm still not sure what you're advocating.

3:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares