Revolution

“Inferiors revolt so that they may be equal; and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions.” –Aristotle

It never ceases to amaze me how many people in our free society are absolutely clueless about the realities outside of our freedom. Our contry is governed by a Constitution that acknowledges our inalienable rights, and while many have attempted to alter them precious few of those attempts have succeeded so far. Today, however, we face more threats to our freedom than ever before and we’re smiling as it happens.

Che Guevara has become a cultural icon. A lying, thieving mass murderer has been elevated to a hero’s status by a generation that has absolutely no clue what he did and what his ideals caused. Che has been plastered on shirts, mugs, bikinis, jackets–one guy I know has the bastard tattooed on his arm. A movie has recently been made starring Benicio Del Toro as Che–and Del Toro said that playing Che was like “playing Jesus Christ, except Che doesn’t turn the other cheek.”

How did we get here?

How did we get to the point that our lawmakers will exalt Che as a hero of the Cuban revolution who kicked out the wealthy (Rep. Diane Waters)? How did we come to a point where supposed ministers of the Christian faith will engage in race-baiting while quoting Che? How, somebody please tell me, did we come to a point where we would elect a president who holds a murdering terrorist like Bill Ayers–who regularly quotes Che as well when he teaches–in high regard?

On September 11, 2001, the New York Times unwittingly ran an interview with Ayers in which he bemoaned not having done enough and actually said he wouldn’t rule out getting involved in his revolutionary antics again. He should have been arrested as soon as those words escaped his lips, but in today’s America, there’s no such thing as treason. There’s no such thing as sedition. We get indignant as all hell when 19 jihadists hijack four planes and kill nearly three thousand people, but when we do have a chance to stop terrorism before it kills, we sit back, fold our arms and say, “oh, he doesn’t really mean it.”

My generation’s love affair with Che chic is a ticking time bomb and Ayers is the living, breathing proof of it. He only runs free today because of a small technicality; his “civil rights” were violated while he waited for trial. Today, Ayers advocates teachers pushing his agenda: that teachers should organize their students to “provoke resistance to American racism and oppression.” It’s this attitude that has led so many young people, some I have even taught in martial arts and church, to believe that America owes the whole wide world.

We owe more than an apology, though. If you listen to these “enlightened” kids, they’ll tell you that it’s all America’s fault that so much of the rest of the world lives in poverty. We haven’t done anything to stop it, so it must be our fault, right? That’s similar to Che’s teachings: that the rich are at fault for all of the world’s ills.

I’ve met plenty of rich people that I didn’t like. I’m not, however, willing to spend one second blaming them for everyone else’s problems today. Che helped Casto wrest control of Cuba through a revolution that many in my generation right here in America believe was a long time coming. We needed change, they say. The rich had too much. The problems of the poor were their fault.

Horsehockey.

Fidel Castro and Ernesto “Che” Guevara were not members of the poor as many would have you believe today. They were both from priveleged families; Castro was an attorney and Che quit medical school to take part in the great revolution. What they were is far more simple: power-hungry. They saw an opportunity to have more and they took it. Their bloody revolution had nothing to do with making others equal–they sure as hell weren’t equal to those they claimed to be fighting for. It was all about being superior. If it weren’t, Cuba would be far more free today, and thousands of those who survived that revolution and now live in America wouldn’t balk at the droves of American brats who don Che t-shirts emblazoned with “viva la revolucion” on them because it’s cool.

Without freedom to temper it, revolution is a lie. The American Revolution created a free country because those who fought were willing to step down and give the people the right to decide–without holding a gun to their heads, the way Che did.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Revolution

  1. Have you ever asked any of these Che’ disciples if they know anything about the man and his life? Sometimes people blindly follow and don’t know squat about who they are following.

  2. “but in today’s America, there’s no such thing as treason. There’s no such thing as sedition.”

    I agree. The much hailed Drug War in Mexico would end tomorrow if we rounded up every junkie and put them in prison. No demand means no supply. We could bankrupt the drug cartels by cutting off their demand.

    Anyone who shoots heroin hates America and supports the Taliban. Stig a rig in your vein and support someone who kills American soldiers. If that isn’t complicity to murder then what is?

  3. “How, somebody please tell me, did we come to a point where we would elect a president who holds a murdering terrorist like Bill Ayers–who regularly quotes Che as well when he teaches–in high regard?”

    No matter how hungry you are, no matter how weak from starvation you are, never ever eat the rats.

    The October meltdown of 2008 scared too many people and they sat down and ate the rats. So now we are stuck with a vermin peddler.

  4. “How, somebody please tell me, did we come to a point where we would elect a president who holds a murdering terrorist like Bill Ayers–who regularly quotes Che as well when he teaches–in high regard?”

    Probably for the same reason that conservatives, by and large, hold Oliver North in high regard. But, more to the point, who ever said that Obama holds Ayers in high regard? The men barely even know each other, yet the right, in a highly concerted effort, has tried to paint the men as best friends. And for the record, Ayers never murdered anyone, nor has he ever been charged with or tried for such a crime. Terrorist? That’s a bit of a stretch, and it’s one you can unfortunately get away with. But most terrorists don’t have any regard for human life, and Ayer’s desperate acts of vandalism made sure that no one was around to be hurt or killed. I’m sure I’ll get the requisite outrage and accusations of condoning his actions, so let me just go on record by saying that I don’t condone or agree with his actions. This was obviously a passionate and desperate man who saw thousands of deaths being needlessly carried out day after day, and probably felt somewhat helpless to stop it. He had a good idea (opposing the Vietnam war), and lousy tact (causing massive amounts of damage to government property). To label him a murderer or a terrorist completely undermines his position and his intent. The people that bomb abortion clinics and snipe off their doctors (sometimes in churches) – those people are murderers and terrorists, because they knowingly and willfully kill people they disagree with in order to intimidate others who would dare perform or get an abortion. They also take a good idea (ending abortion), but compromise their own pro life position by committing murder. Big difference.

  5. Robert the inanity of your comment is such that it is puzzling even to know whether to respond to either your misstatements of history, Orwellian definitions, or self contradictions.

  6. “This was obviously a passionate and desperate man who saw thousands of deaths being needlessly carried out day after day, and probably felt somewhat helpless to stop it. He had a good idea (opposing the Vietnam war), and lousy tact (causing massive amounts of damage to government property). ”

    I am very passionate about gay rights but I don’t burn down churches to make my point. During the worst of the AIDS epidemic and the endless deaths of thousands I did not torch a federal building at 2AM. I had choices and I made the right choices.

    Bil Ayers was and still is a weak person. He chose by his own volition to stoop to darker actions to make his point. There is no excuse nor explanation that justifies it.

    I am well aware he and Obama are not friends and Obama was not aware at the time this man was helping to raise money for him. But, once Obama learned of this man’s history he refused to return the money. That’s where Obama screwed up. Either Obama is dumb as a box of rocks or full or arrogant hubris that can’t be measured. Either way has him coming off as looking like the chump we all know he is.

  7. I don’t know if the millions of people slaughtered by the communists after we left would share Ayers and your opinion about the “needless deaths” and I’m sure many in north Korea wish that there had been a few more needless deaths if it would have secured their liberty from the tyranny of Kim Il Song.

  8. “Robert the inanity of your comment is such that it is puzzling even to know whether to respond to either your misstatements of history, Orwellian definitions, or self contradictions.”

    If that was an attempt to deconstruct what I said, you failed. Badly. Do you always use vague and inane rhetoric to tell others they’re being inane while not explaining why?

  9. Do you always use vague and inane rhetoric to tell others they’re being inane while not explaining why?

    Not always, but only when confronting those who seem impervious to reason and responsive only to empty platitudes like “Change.”

  10. “I am very passionate about gay rights but I don’t burn down churches to make my point.”

    That is precisely my point. He was obviously desperate enough to do something like that. And this isn’t exactly the 60’s either. You don’t see women in the street with coat hangers to declare their independence in regards to abortion rights like their bra burning counterparts of four decades ago. From what I hear, it was a wild and radical time to be alive.

    So while you and theblackcommenter can dismiss my opinion with today’s logic and faux eloquence (respectively), the fact remains that the man told you all why he felt compelled to do the things that he did. I may not understand his actions, but I accept his reasons.

    “Bil Ayers was and still is a weak person. He chose by his own volition to stoop to darker actions to make his point. There is no excuse nor explanation that justifies it.”

    You’re right. I wasn’t justifying, I was merely claiming that the labels of murderer and terrorist were inaccurate at best.

  11. “I don’t know if the millions of people slaughtered by the communists after we left would share Ayers and your opinion about the “needless deaths” and I’m sure many in north Korea wish that there had been a few more needless deaths if it would have secured their liberty from the tyranny of Kim Il Song.”

    You’re singing the same song that persuaded good people to go into that mess in the first place. Kennedy was right when he said that in the end, it was their war to win or lose…

  12. Do we really think that Ayers had no intention of killing anyone when he set off a bomb in the Pentagon? And do we really believe that he had no complicity whatsoever in the incident in which three of his comrades in the Weathermen were killed while assembling a nail bomb? Where, exactly, did they plan to set this nail bomb (which, by the way, is a device built for the explicit purpose of causing as much death and injury as possible)? Maybe actually calling him a murderer is taking it a bit far, but I believe he had every intention of causing injury or death and calling him a terrorist is perfectly justified.

    Who else uses these kinds of tactics to get their point across?

  13. Since I can’t apply my 21st Century view thanks to Robert I’ll time warp back. I’ve seen the documentary The Weather Underground. What those people expected to happen in the U.S. (violent revolution) was not only unlikely, it was idiotic to consider.

    The U.S. wasn’t Cuba with grinding poverty and no social safety nets. It wasn’t Angola trying to throw off colonial rule. The U.S. with its democracy, standard of living, and social welfare system was something the poorest person anywhere in the world would envy. Rebell against that? Never.

    The only revolutionary spirit that existed in America at that time was in the mind of a bunch of drugged out hippies and out of touch social activists. A very small insignificant number of people to start with that never grew into anything of substance. They are either all dead from the drugs or they sold out to the very establishment they so dearly attempted to overthrow. Chumps one, chumps all.

  14. It’s easy to see why Robert is so condescendingly smug in his comments about the relationship between Obama and Ayers. He’s either intellectually dishonest or too deluded by his partisan worship of Obama to see that he has ignored what became the bigger issue when it came to Ayers, namely Obama’s lies and evasion concerning their relationship. Robert is so busy trying to distinguish Ayers from being a terrorist that it never occurs to him that he’s said more about the relationship between Obama and Ayers in his comments than Obama ever has.

    If Ayers was not a terrorist, but rather “a passionate and desperate man” committing acts of vandalism (as Robert calls it, “lousy tact”), then why didn’t Obama say so? Why did he instead just refer to Ayers as a guy “who lives on his street”? Why was Obama’s standard answer when Ayers was brought up that Ayers engaged in terror—oops!…had LOUSY TACT when Obama was only 8 years old? Why did an anthropologist (not a journalist) have to publish articles alerting the public to Obama and Ayers working together for years on the Annenberg Challenge educational foundation?

    As usual, an Obama supporter addresses the issue in a complete vacuum. The lies, evasion, and dishonesty are ignored and treated as completely inconsequential to the analysis. Accordingly, the analysis itself is worthless.

  15. “You’re singing the same song that persuaded good people to go into that mess in the first place. Kennedy was right when he said that in the end, it was their war to win or lose…”

    Should we have left the UK to the mercy of the Wehrmacht, because that was also the UK’s war to lose?

    Anyway, you forget that it was not just their war to win or lose, there was a little more to it than a little civil war. The Chinese and the Soviets were bankrolling the North Vietnamese and the VC, while the US was bankrolling the South. Now what happens when the US cuts funding for the South and the Soviets and the Chinese don’t cut funding?

    We knew if we cut funding the South would lose the war, however they were doing good, not great on their own but as long as they had the financial and technical support of the US they would not lose and you would have ended up with the same situation you have in Korean with the country split but at least half of the country would not have ended up in communist slavery.

    The Tet Offensive destroyed the VC as an effective fighting force, but the news media made it looked like this spectacular loss for the VC was really a loss for the South and the US. Hell had the government actually tried to win the thing in the first place the war would have been over by 1967 at least. The US had a policy of not bombing the Northern part of North Vietnam, this is where all the military supplies came in had the bombed the hell out of it it would have cut the supply lines even before they got to the Ho Chi Minh trail through the jungles and the VC would have been starved out of weapons and given up sooner or tried something like the risky Tet Offensive sooner and been crushed faster. Plus with air power, DC made a policy that each sector was marked off as either Navy or Air Force territory so if a Navy Pilot saw a good target in Air Force territory he was under orders not to fire at it and to leave it alone. Plus the actual bombing targets were picked in DC and they just did it for small scale political reasons and BS. they wouldn’t let the military destroy the North’s ports so the soviets and Chinese could dock their supply ships there all day long and resupply North Vietnam as much as they wanted.

    Before I get further off on a rant I’ll say this. South Vietnam was an ally and we abandoned them. And because of that a lot of people ended up dead in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

  16. Apparently, Sean has no clue what the characteristics of or the definition of the word smug is, so let’s do a little analysis (likewise with condescension). Taking the man’s given reasons and giving my opinion by expounding them is smug. Outright condemning his actions is condescending. Pointing out the fact that the two hardly knew each other is partisan. I’ll just say this (because apparently I engage in “personal” attacks): Sean’s representation of my opinion is fucking idiotic, as is his baseless assertion that I somehow worship the president. Sean knows nothing about me, so I will respond in like kind by assuming that Sean is probably the type of person that if he had kids, he’d keep them home on Tuesday because he’s got an idiotic and irrational fear that the president is merely using his speech to school kids as a springboard to brainwash them into supporting his government takeover of health care and his other socialist endeavors. If ever the case for restrictions on breeding were to be made, this would surely be one of those instances.

    Sean, in case you are the least bit interested in facts, have a look, then complain of smug condescension if you so desire:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

  17. Robert, just so I’m clear:

    Guy who sets off bombs at government buildings to protest a war and also has a connection with Barack Obama—not a terrorist.

    The facts show that it was Hillary Clinton who brought up the Annenberg Challenge in the debate and I accuse Barack Obama of lying and being evasive about his relationship with William Ayers because he clearly had no intention of ever copping to it—I’m a candidate for compulsory sterilization.

    If I have children and as a parent, I make the decision to keep them home from school Tuesday because I would prefer they don’t watch a speech given by Barack Obama—I have idiotic and irrational fears worthy of vicious ridicule.

    You’re right, Robert. Obviously, “worship” doesn’t begin to cover how you feel about Obama. (Now, if only I could think of a stronger, more accurate word…idolize? exalt? venerate?…)

  18. “Guy who sets off bombs at government buildings to protest a war and also has a connection with Barack Obama—not a terrorist”

    Let’s go out on a very long limb and say you’re right. These same wingnuts who are so concerned that Obama was “paling around with terrorists” are precisely the same hypocrites who cast another vote for W. after learning of his family’s ties to the Bin Laden family. For those people who had no qualms voting for the guy whose family was apparently buddy-buddy with ACTUAL terrorists to now holler about how un-American someone is is beyond scummy. Let’s just remember that next time you want to bring up terrorist connections.

    “The facts show that it was Hillary Clinton who brought up the Annenberg Challenge in the debate and I accuse Barack Obama of lying and being evasive about his relationship with William Ayers because he clearly had no intention of ever copping to it—I’m a candidate for compulsory sterilization.”

    Well, if you read the factcheck.org article, you would know that Obama never tried to hide the fact that the two were separately appointed to serve on the same educational board. The fact that he didn’t bring it up on his own shows that it had no pertinence to any issues that the American people were dealing with every day. It sounds to me that cons are pissed in general because their diversions from real issues didn’t work. So glad to see that washed up hippies who committed acts of vandalism forty years prior was more important than the economy that the cons were tanking on their way out the door…

    “If I have children and as a parent, I make the decision to keep them home from school Tuesday because I would prefer they don’t watch a speech given by Barack Obama—I have idiotic and irrational fears worthy of vicious ridicule.”

    Worthy? There’s something wrong with you if you don’t ridicule it. If you are really so paranoid and delusional to genuinely believe that the president’s speech on education and the importance of staying in school and getting good grades is somehow a pretense for unleashing your marxist mind control over fourth graders, you are more than deserving of ridicule. It is most certainly idiotic and especially irrational, given that not one person raised an eyebrow when previous Republican presidents did the exact same thing. Not only is that idiotic, it’s hypocritical. I feel sorry for any kid who has this kind of nitwit for a parent…

    “You’re right, Robert. Obviously, “worship” doesn’t begin to cover how you feel about Obama. (Now, if only I could think of a stronger, more accurate word…idolize? exalt? venerate?…)”

    Yeah, you conveniently left out ‘rational’, and ‘capable of critical thinking’, and ‘not a brain dead drone who needs FOX News to tell him what to be outraged about’ (especially when they encourage the elderly to shout “the government better keeps their hands off my Medicare!”)

  19. “For those people who had no qualms voting for the guy whose family was apparently buddy-buddy with ACTUAL terrorists to now holler about how un-American someone is is beyond scummy. Let’s just remember that next time you want to bring up terrorist connections.”

    Well, Robert, now I’m confused. Maybe you can explain the difference to me between “paling around with” and being “buddy-buddy.” If the guy that bombed the Pentagon (among other targets) lives in Obama’s neighborhood, threw a political fundraiser for him, and then worked with him on an educational foundation for several years and that does not constitute “paling around,” then what exactly meets the threshold of “buddy-buddy”? Did bin Laden and Bush pledge the same frat or something like that? Tell you what—go check your copy of Farenheit 9/11 (I’m sure it’s already cued-up in your DVD player) and remind me again how they are connected—I’m not sure, but I seem to remember something about them riding Sea-Doos together on several weekends in Laughlin, Nevada.

    You know what? Nevermind. I just remembered—whatever the connection is, Bush can just say that he condemns bin Laden’s deplorable acts from the past and that bin Laden is “not someone he consults on a regular basis.” There. That was easy!

    And one other quick point about the connection between the Bush family and the bin Ladens: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

    “The fact that he didn’t bring it up on his own shows that it had no pertinence to any issues that the American people were dealing with every day.”

    You’re right. Obama didn’t feel the need to discuss it because it wasn’t pertinent to “the American people.” Of course, if it had been “pertinent” to the American people, I’m sure he never would have shut up about it. Isn’t it funny how editors at the NYT, The Washington Post, the LA Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC all believed that Ayers wasn’t “pertinent” too? That’s so weird! What a coincidence!

    “If you are really so paranoid and delusional to genuinely believe that the president’s speech on education and the importance of staying in school and getting good grades is somehow a pretense for unleashing your marxist mind control over fourth graders, you are more than deserving of ridicule.”

    Actually, I don’t believe that. Obama no longer has the charisma to convince a 4th grader to climb aboard the Obama Statist Express (even with its dazzling team of flying unicorns). I just think the whole idea is a joke because I can’t believe Obama has the guts to face this generation of children. He’s saddled all of them with crushing debt that can only be paid with half or more of their adult incomes, he’s in the process of crushing the businesses that might have given them jobs with cap-and-trade, and he’s not going to give up until the healthcare system they inherit is a bureaucratic, useless Euro-nightmare. And yet he still plans to beam his ugly mug into their classrooms and try to get them all jazzed up about “civic duty,” “public service,” and “giving back to the community.” I find the whole thing shocking and obscene. These kids are going to wake up as young adults and feel that they’ve been stolen from. They aren’t going to want to “give back” jack shit, thanks to Obama.

    “a brain dead drone who needs FOX News to tell him what to be outraged about’ (especially when they encourage the elderly to shout “the government better keeps their hands off my Medicare!”)”

    Funny you should mention the elderly being concerned about their Medicare benefits. As much as you’d love to believe that their fears were drummed up by the “haters” at Foxnews, that’s actually not the source of their anxieties. Once again, the controversy came directly from the one individual who has told more lies about healthcare reform than anyone: Barack Hussein Obama. Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the evidence…

    June 14, 2009: Obama proposes $313 billion in Medicare and Meidcaid cuts.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/14/nation/na-obama-radio14

    July 27, 2009: Obama appears at AARP’s townhall meeting and states unequivocally that “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.”

    Look, Robert. It’s okay. YOU LOVE HIM. You want to have his babies. We get it.

  20. “And one other quick point about the connection between the Bush family and the bin Ladens: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…”

    Isn’t it funny how supposed terrorist ties are only of uber importance when you can level the charge at those on the opposite side of the aisle? I love how the very real, documented ties between the Bush family and the family of the man who claimed responsibility for the murders of 2,752 people are of little consequence, while the drugged out hippie who destroyed some government property is such an important issue for you to champion. Kind of makes you seem like a bit of a sycophant, no?

    “You’re right. Obama didn’t feel the need to discuss it because it wasn’t pertinent to “the American people.” Of course, if it had been “pertinent” to the American people, I’m sure he never would have shut up about it”

    Have you known anyone besides a) rabid right wing psychos, b) gullible and suggestible suckers, or 3) racist rabid right wing psychos give this more than a minute of their time? Probably not, because most people were too busy worrying how they were going to put food on the table to worry about some stupid bullshit that happened when they were kids, let alone even alive. People don’t care because they know it’s such a thin thread to hang someone on. They don’t care because they’re too smart to be distracted by things of no consequence. I get that you’re upset that the guy is free. I get that you’re pissed that he was never charged with anyone’s murder and never served any time. And I’m sure that it infuriates you that he’s a respected member of the academic community. But don’t you think that if he were the mass murdering terrorist you make him out to be that he’d either be charged with being as such or at the very least that the terror crusaders in the Bush Homeland Security Dept. would have had him under lock and key? Don’t you think that the university that employs him would have the slightest problem hiring him? And do you think the city of Chicago would have made him educator of the year if any of this nonsense would have stuck all those years ago? You people are grasping at straws trying to change the opinion of him that’s stood for decades. Good luck with that, little one. I personally don’t give a shit about the guy one way or another, it’s just that someone has to correct the loonies when they try to create phony associations out of whole cloth.

    “I just think the whole idea is a joke because I can’t believe Obama has the guts to face this generation of children. He’s saddled all of them with crushing debt”

    Ha, that’s a joke right? Here we are again, back at square one. Some lunatic comes out of the woodwork to pretend to give two shits about the debt of the nation when a Democrat is in office. I wonder, Sean, was all this righteous indignation present when the previous president managed to rack up over five trillion dollars in debt in eight years? Were you old enough to bitch about Reagan’s insane borrowing, where he managed to rack up more debt than George Washington through Jimmy Carter COMBINED? No, you bottled up all your whining and went bitchcakes when the guy with a D after his name comes in and has an actual reason to spend money. What’s the reason, you ask? Why, to pay for the tow truck to pull the economy out of the ditch that the last guy drove it into, of course.

    People like you make my stomach turn, because I’m sure you had no problem spending trillions of dollars to kill people, and then you turn around and complain when that money is actually going to help people. Instead of caterwauling like a kid who just had his toys taken away, why don’t you just take your tax cut that people like you are so fond of and shut the hell up? I don’t hear one single con out there complaining about the two wars that Bush never paid for. Or about the Medicare Part D fiasco he never paid for. All of a sudden, these cons are concerned with debt? Give me a break. And you can’t win with people like these. They either label you a tax and spend liberal, or they bitch at the Democrats when they borrow money to appease the ones bitching about taxes in the first place. Although they have no problem when their own guy is the one doing the borrowing. Except when you borrow, you have to pay interest as well, making tax and spend the superior option. You can’t have it both ways, freeloaders.

    “I find the whole thing shocking and obscene. These kids are going to wake up as young adults and feel that they’ve been stolen from. They aren’t going to want to “give back” jack shit, thanks to Obama.”

    Yeah, and as has already been explained, you apparently didn’t have enough sense to find anything shocking and obscene the last time this happened, on a much larger scale, and with no good reason. I have a pretty good feeling that you’re far too ignorant to be ashamed…

    “June 14, 2009: Obama proposes $313 billion in Medicare and Meidcaid cuts.”

    You didn’t even read your own article, did you? If you had, you’d know that a portion of those savings come from eliminating bureaucratic waste, some of it comes from no longer subsidizing hospitals who treat uninsured patients (I figured you’d like that one), and from no longer subsidizing pharmaceutical companies who routinely rip off the elderly. And even if that did manage to screw with Medicare, what the hell do you care? You’re probably one of the Dick Armey followers who thinks that Medicare is socialism anyway.

    “July 27, 2009: Obama appears at AARP’s townhall meeting and states unequivocally that “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.”

    That’s absolutely true. None of the above scenarios put forth by the link you provided would result in a reduction of benefits. I think perhaps you need a lesson on what Medicare benefits actually are.

    “Look, Robert. It’s okay. YOU LOVE HIM. You want to have his babies. We get it.”

    Well, good, we wouldn’t want you to have a sane or rational thought, now would we?

  21. “I love how the very real, documented ties between the Bush family and the family of the man who claimed responsibility for the murders of 2,752 people are of little consequence, while the drugged out hippie who destroyed some government property is such an important issue for you to champion.”

    Wrong, Robert. I whole-heartedly condemn the attacks on 9/11 and those responsible. I also condemn the bombings of William Ayers and the Weather Underground which resulted in the deaths of three of their members from one of their own bombs, and the 1970 bombing of an SFO police station that was likely a WU operation in which one police officer was killed and another severely wounded in his face. See, I condemn ALL OF IT. You, on the other hand, can’t even bring yourself to call Ayers a terrorist, notwithstanding the sickening pride he exudes when recounting his violent escapades in his books and the complete lack of remorse he’s shown in interviews. In fact, you summed up Ayers as follows: “He had a good idea (opposing the Vietnam war), and lousy tact (causing massive amounts of damage to government property).” Yes, “lousy tact,” indeed. Bombing police stations, the private residences of judges, the Petagon—how VERY rude of him. Robert, I condemn all terrorists and all terrorist acts. You, however, need to evaluate factors like what the particular cause is, whether it’s sufficiently leftist for you to admire, body count, etc. before making up your mind.

    Additionally, it wasn’t until AFTER the conclusion of Ayers’s outlaw crusade of “lousy tact” that Obama decided to launch his political career at a fundraiser in Ayer’s home and work with him for years on the Annenberg Challenge. Since Ayers and the vile, hideous, fanged critter he lives with (Bernadine The Bloodthirsty) were established members of the elite moral relativists of Chicago, Obama most certainly knew about their hip, edgy, counter-cultural pedigrees and was more than happy to accept their public support, not to mention accept a prestigious board of directors position at the CAC. All of this took place AFTER Obama was aware of Ayers’s involvement with the Weather Underground (and the involvement of that unspeakably frightful and revolting, Fellowship-of-the-Ring-inspired battleaxe he lives with, Bernadine The Barbaric). But then again, what difference does the timing make if what Ayers (and that foul, slithering homicidal pit-viper he lives with) engaged in since according to you, it wasn’t terrorism to begin with?

    Nonetheless, if post-9/11, Osama bin Laden starts throwing political fundraisers for George W and/or their philanthropic pursuits start overlapping in some tangible way, then I guess you’ll have a point. So keep me posted.

    “Have you known anyone besides a) rabid right wing psychos, b) gullible and suggestible suckers, or 3) racist rabid right wing psychos give this more than a minute of their time?”

    Well, by your definition, Robert, no. Because it’s abundantly clear that by giving this issue more than a minute of my time, I qualify as a) a rabid right wing psycho, b) a gullible and suggestible sucker, or c) a racist rabid right wing psycho. You don’t see anything wrong with that, Robert? A Presidential candidate has strong political and professional connections to a couple who spent their youth building bombs (and getting three of their friends killed in the process), bombing police stations, judges, and the Pentagon, and in the last couple of years expressed no remorse for these actions in interviews and had his portrait taken trampling an American flag, and for me to want to know more makes me: a) a right wing psycho, b) an idiot, or c) a racist.

    Thanks for clearing that up, Robert, and for confirming what I already knew—asking questions about Obama or his past connections is crazy, idiotic, and/or racist.

    As for the rest of your Obama-can-do-no-wrong screed, I’ve heard all of this pointless crap before—that I love government spending when a Republican is doing it so I have no standing to object when a Democrat spends four times as much. Spare me—I have ALWAYS believed excessive government spending is wrong. I said so when Bush was President and I’ve been saying so since Obama became President. I don’t care who is in office or what letter is behind their name, we cannot spend our way to prosperity to the tune of trillions of dollars. And your assertion that the “actual reason to spend money” is to “pull the economy out of the ditch that the last guy drove into,” has nothing to do with critical thinking skills. It’s an Obama talking point—and one of his most ludicrous. You’re obviously very critical of anything, anyone says that questions Obama’s policies in any way, but it’s all pointless if you can’t do the same when Obama tells you that spending trillions of dollars is going to put the country on easy street. It’s not going to happen and even Democrats are tired of the same old bullshit about “inheriting” a lousy economy. Even Gibbs finally dropped that meme and said this is Obama’s economy now.

  22. It really is astonishing that liberals will excuse the very real terrorism perpetrated by Ayers (even though he did it in a very stupid “I Love Lucy” sort of way) by accentuating some relationship between Bush and Bin Laden. It’s not hard to trick a liberal, apparently.

    What’s first NOT a fact is the closeness between any Bush and any Bin Laden. What is a fact is that Osama Bin Laden has been estranged from every other Bin Laden for nearly two decades now because he’s a dangerous extremist, and they aren’t.

    So even if GWB goes golfing with Bin Laden’s brother (or had his political career kicked off in his livingroom), so what? Of course we all know how ridiculous this claim is.

  23. “See, I condemn ALL OF IT. You, on the other hand, can’t even bring yourself to call Ayers a terrorist…In fact, you summed up Ayers as follows: “He had a good idea (opposing the Vietnam war), and lousy tact (causing massive amounts of damage to government property).”

    You conveniently omitted this:

    “let me just go on record by saying that I don’t condone or agree with his actions.”

    If you’re going to try to paint me into a corner for the purposes of winning an argument, at lease be honest about it and don’t gloss over the fact that we actually agree on the guts of the issue. What you’re doing by implying that I thought you weren’t applying the adequate amount of condemnation of 9/11 is misleading at best. We all condone the murder of innocent people (well, unless you’re part of that pro war crowd), but apparently we pick and choose which ties we want to play up, and therefore pick and choose which acts are more despicable. I see which side you fall on…

    “You, however, need to evaluate factors like what the particular cause is, whether it’s sufficiently leftist for you to admire, body count, etc. before making up your mind.”

    Like I said, I am capable of critical thought. On the one hand, you have radical and violent America hating wahabbist fundamentalist religious zealots whose only goal in life is to kill as many Westerners (particularly Americans) as they can. Then on the other hand, you had a group of radical anti war protesters whose only goal in life was to stop the deaths and maiming of thousands of people in Vietnam. So, in essence, you’re saying that the fact that rational people who need to decide what’s sufficiently important to take into account before issuing blanket statements like labeling someone a terrorist (given the connotation of the word in today’s world) is somehow irresponsible or stupid, when nothing could be further from the truth. I would submit to you that doing the opposite could quite easily be considered stupid.

    And another thing, why is it something to be admired when people in other parts of the world commit similar acts against their governments that they deem to be oppressive or empirical, but when it’s done here it all falls under the umbrella of terrorism? I can’t help but notice that no cons have been willing to call the Nicaraguan Contras terrorists…

    “Additionally, it wasn’t until AFTER the conclusion of Ayers’s outlaw crusade of “lousy tact” that Obama decided to launch his political career at a fundraiser in Ayer’s home and work with him for years on the Annenberg Challenge.”

    Obama “decided” to, eh? This is one of those times where critical thinking, rather than a partisan knee jerk reaction would come in handy. What cons refer to as Obama “launching his political career” (and they all use the exact same phrase. Brainwashing, anyone?) in Ayers’ home was actually an event for then state senator Alice Palmer to introduce her successor. And as for the Annenberg Challenge, it’s just more grasping at straws. The foundation “reflected mainstream thinking among education reformers” and actually enjoyed bipartisan support. As a matter of fact, Obama was on the board of directors, while Ayers was not. He was part of a separate arm of the foundation, working with grant recipients. How cons managed to twist this into being a radical foundation that the two worked very closely together on is still a mystery. Oh, wait, no it’s not; conservatives are widely considered inveterate liars, and rightly so.

    “Nonetheless, if post-9/11, Osama bin Laden starts throwing political fundraisers for George W and/or their philanthropic pursuits start overlapping in some tangible way, then I guess you’ll have a point. So keep me posted.”

    Well, if Osama Bin Laden turns himself in and decides to dedicate his life to the education of his country’s youth, gaining the respect of his peers in that field and somehow manages to erase the thousands of deaths he’s responsible for, we’ll be on equal footing. So, why don’t you keep me posted on that?

    P.S., kudos on admitting that Bill Ayers is not a terrorist, but rather a philanthropist.

    “Robert, no. Because it’s abundantly clear that by giving this issue more than a minute of my time, I qualify as a) a rabid right wing psycho, b) a gullible and suggestible sucker, or c) a racist rabid right wing psycho”

    Yeah, I guess time will tell which category you fall into.

    “You don’t see anything wrong with that, Robert?”

    No. What I do see as being a problem is the fact that we’re even having this discussion. It’s because people like you have to draw fantastical conclusions in your mind and then find someplace to shove them. Source after source have all come to the same conclusion, and that is that the two men did NOT have a close relationship. Yet, conservative blogs and those delusional folks hellbent on painting Obama as some radical, America hating threat to democracy have taken it upon themselves to singlehandedly undermine the legitimacy of the president. Well, I can tell you that you’re doing a piss poor job at it. So while you like to pretend that you’re in the mainstream with these wild theories, and that I’m some Obama worshipping lemming, the fact of the matter is you’re so far out in right field that anyone who thinks for themselves and applies the slightest bit of rationality to their thought process is viewed by people like you as verbally fellating the president. It’s ridiculous, and frankly, a little sad. You just don’t realize that you’re the one who’s got a mental blockage when it comes to the man.

    “Thanks for clearing that up, Robert, and for confirming what I already knew—asking questions about Obama or his past connections is crazy, idiotic, and/or racist.”

    Don’t you see that you’re not asking questions? You’re making outlandish assertions bordering on conspiracy theory and trying to convince everyone else that they’re wrong. Of course you don’t see that, we just went over this a second ago.

    “I have ALWAYS believed excessive government spending is wrong. I said so when Bush was President”

    Well, you must excuse me if I don’t take you at your word on that…

    “And your assertion that the “actual reason to spend money” is to “pull the economy out of the ditch that the last guy drove into,” has nothing to do with critical thinking skills. It’s an Obama talking point—and one of his most ludicrous”

    That’s funny, I’ve never once heard Obama say what I have. And if it’s so ludicrous, why is it working? Why are a majority of economists saying that the federal stimulus dollars that have already been spent, and the prospect of the rest of the money going out, have had the desired effect? Why have we gone from a projected negative six percent economic growth to an actual negative 3/4 of 1% growth, with a projected positive growth next quarter? Why has our trade deficit started to close for the first time in nine years? If this is all so ludicrous, and if dimwits like Eric Cantor can declare this a failure, and to just keep the rest of the money, why are we seeing these results? Let me guess, Reaganomics are just now kicking in?

    “You’re obviously very critical of anything, anyone says that questions Obama’s policies in any way”

    Not anything, just the mindless drivel that comes out of the right wing noise machine. I’m critical of it because it’s usually so demonstrably false. If you want to change your position on Afghanistan, and question Obama on that front, I’ll be right there with you. If you want to take issue with the stimulus package being 40% tax cuts (who knows, you might be upset that they aren’t going to the rich this time), we can find some common ground there as well. But what I see out of you is not critical thinking, it’s mob mentality. You’re pissed for the same reason every other con is pissed. He’s letting the Bush tax cuts (that were also never paid for, thank you very much) sunset, he’s let the world know that we are America and we don’t torture people, and he’s trying to take the necessary steps to make this a country that sees basic health care is a right, not a privilege. How any of that is bad is just over my head, I guess.

    I was recently listening to the Thom Hartmann Program, and he had Tom Tancredo on as a guest, and at the end of their debate, Thom asked a pretty simple question, but one that Tancredo couldn’t answer, and neither can I. He asked him to name one piece of legislation passed by a Republican president or authored by a republican legislator in the last 30 years that has benefitted actual human beings, rather than corporations (with the stipulation that he couldn’t name something like the Patriot Act because that was arguable at best). He couldn’t name one piece of legislation. Not one. And that’s a pretty damn sad state of affairs…

  24. “What’s first NOT a fact is the closeness between any Bush and any Bin Laden”

    It’s interesting that you can assert that caveat when terrorist ties concern a republican, but when a former “terrorist” has the loosest of ties to a democrat, you’re all over that like dead on Elvis…

  25. “It’s interesting that you can assert that caveat when terrorist ties concern a republican, but when a former “terrorist” has the loosest of ties to a democrat, you’re all over that like dead on Elvis…”

    You know, you guys were the ones talking about Bush and Bin Ladens being in kahoots a long time ago, sort of like a prelude to a theory.

    Ayers does not regret – so he says on 9/11 setting bombs. You don’t set bombs to make any point and then wind up accidentally killing people of your own group without being labeled a terrorist. That’s what he was, and if in fact Bush was as close to any Bin Laden as Obama was to Ayers, you guys would have never shut up. We wouldn’t have defended him either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s