On 2002-03-19 14:25, Marc Lamb wrote:
Uh, guys, you might want to read what Mr. Reed wrote. It's raw revisionism of American history and pure Marxist class-envy. Label Mr. Reed anything you like, but make no mistake he is a young, Marxist radical.

He's still young enough to snap out of it before any real damage is done.

However, being that he actually links to sources that still respect Noam Chomsky, hey, if the shoe fits...

Where to start about Chomsky?

Well, this one is pretty good. It's an article on ANTIWAR.COM, a source that even Stonewall will not consider fascist, and it says things like:

"We are supposed to believe the man is a dangerous subversive, and that his cult status is somehow a threat to the war effort, a potential fifth column on campus. Well, you can relax, because, as it turns out, the guy is a fake, a fraud ? yes, that's right, he's just another interventionist, albeit one dressed up in peacenik drag."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j011802.html

On 2002-03-19 14:25, Marc Lamb wrote:

Lamb: Uh, guys, you might want to read what Mr. Reed wrote. It's raw revisionism of American history and pure Marxist class-envy. Label Mr. Reed anything you like, but make no mistake he is a young, Marxist radical.

Please elaborate.

On 2002-03-19 12:45, firemind wrote:

NEWS FLASH....

omigod. did you just say "news flash" to preface making a point?

whoa. :smile:


TK

Ref: firemind's Antiwar.com link on Mr. Chomsky.



I read and enjoyed that article when it was first posted, weeks ago. Chomsky, like, for example, Peter Singer, is a fairly intelligent, articulate thinker. The fact that both of them come to pretty whacked-out (by my standards, at least) conclusions as to "what is to be done" does not in the least detract from the accuracy of the pictures they portray of reality.


Chomsky, in <u>Manufacturing Consent</u>, presents an extremely well-documented study of propaganda and organs thereof in a democratic society. While it's doubtful his solutions wil actually make anything better, a reader with an active mind will take from that book a better understanding of where we are, and of how we got here.


Now, since this stemmed from a statement that Chomsky had been 'discredited', I must point out that, in my mind, having the wrong answer does not 'discredit' one -- especially when other, perhaps correct answers can be drawn from the same logical base. Chomsky comes to the wrong conclusions, but he generally follows a very good path.

On 2002-03-19 14:25, Marc Lamb wrote:

Lamb: Uh, guys, you might want to read what Mr. Reed wrote. It's raw revisionism of American history and pure Marxist class-envy. Label Mr. Reed anything you like, but make no mistake he is a young, Marxist radical.

"Please elaborate," asks Mr. Reed.


Even if you're serious here, Mr. Reed, nothing I say is going to carry any credibility with you.

If you're indeed serious here, Mr. Reed, perhaps former comrade, Mr. Rush would be pleased to consider what you wrote and elaborate on the it's revisionist nature and Marxist underpinnings.

Marc:

And, to be perfectly honest, I'm still not sure that you, like Gorbachev, have really lost your first love.

Well, jeez, Marc, of course I haven't! My first love was social justice and a society in which nobody is left behind to rot or enslaved to someone else's greed. I haven't abandoned that love. Why should I?


To be sure, I've revised some thought about how to get there. And I was never enamored of the oppression characteristic of Soviet society.


But here's what it comes down to, Marc. Those who insist on pigeonholing liberals and socialists with Stalinists aren't objecting to the oppressive means which Stalin (ostensibly) used to seek a just society. They're objecting to the idea of a just society itself, and use the red stain of Stalin's methods as a convenient tool to smear anyone who seeks such a society, regardless of what means they would advocate.


There's nothing more threatening to the greedy and unscrupulous than a just society. And they'll smear the idea with guilt-by-association or any other tool that comes to hand.

But anyway, how does it feel, Mr. Rush, to have once toyed with the idea of supporting a Nazi?

You talking about Bush here? I don't think he's a Nazi. But anyway, he's not the first loser I've toyed with supporting. Mistakes are allowed.


jds:

Let's hope that the polarization between Left and Right is resolved at the polls rather than on the battlefield of 'Civil War II'!

I think both your hope and your fear are likely to go unfulfilled. Every 4T has seen some measure of internal violence as polarization moved towards decisive conflict. All but the last one saw some kind of civil war. But only one saw the Civil War, a uniquely violent and destructive episode.


Most likely we'll see the violence this time around fall somewhere between the limited Depression-era labor disputes and the Civil War, neither as peaceful as the former nor as horrendously destructive as the latter. More along the lines of Bacon's Rebellion or the Patriot/Tory violence during the Revolution.

On 2002-03-19 16:05, Justin '77 wrote:
(see above)

I agree that you can sometimes learn a lot from someone's argument even if you disagree with the conclusion, I also think that it is reasonable to consider the pronouncement of "whacked-out" conclusions to be not to one's credit, that is, to do so discredits you.

Perhaps you think "discredited" is too strong a word. (I didn't use it in the post you are responding to, by the way.) You must agree that publically pronouncing "whacked-out" conclusions at least "somewhat discredits" a person.

And, if you agree with that, what do you say of a person who is a veritable fountain of "whacked-out" conclusions?

firemind,

I apologize. I got my forae mixed up. I was recalling an exchange from here.



Anyway, I think that what Chomsky does, for the most part, is a far cry from simply 'publicly pronouncing' his conclusions. What he does is closer to a (granted, commercial version of) researcher publishing papers. Just because the final conclusions are faulty -- even if consistently so -- does not necessarily mean that the paper itself is without value. Talented, intelligent people come up with wrong answers all the time. You need to be able to separate the last few paragraphs of a multi-chapter work from the rest, and be able to examine the pieces which make up the whole to find value.


I much more respect a person who uses good methodology, and consistently comes up with the wrong answers than I do an irrational ideologue who happens to luck out and get one right.

On 2002-03-19 16:12, Marc Lamb wrote:

Even if you're serious here, Mr. Reed, nothing I say is going to carry any credibility with you.

If you're indeed serious here, Mr. Reed, perhaps former comrade, Mr. Rush would be pleased to consider what you wrote and elaborate on the it's revisionist nature and Marxist underpinnings.

Sure, it would be nice to hear what Brian Rush has to say. However, let's remember what you said, "It's raw revisionism of American history and pure Marxist class-envy...Label Mr. Reed anything you like, but make no mistake he is a young, Marxist radical...I strongly advise anyone near or around St. Louis to grab your wallet, coz if you got one Mr. Reed believes it belongs to him, not you". You said it, not Brian Rush. Therefore, I want to hear the reasons from you.

Where do you see the revisionist history, and how would you go about correcting it?

And as for class-envy, you must've somehow misinterpreted my post. Let's look at the word "class-envy". Taken literally, that would mean that I am envious of another class. That would mean that I "hate" the rich because they are rich, or because they have power. I am for social justice and for individual liberty. So why am I against corporate power? Because corporations have bought the government, and they are using the government to give themselves more power and greed at the expense of the civilians. But of course, it is easy for anyone to call someone a Marxist, and then hide behind a curtain to escape accountability.

When someone posts anything, I would expect for them to be able to back it up. And since you called me a Marxist radical, and said that my history was revisionist, then I would expect for you to back it up. So, what are you waiting for?

On 2002-03-19 16:43, madscientist wrote:

And as for class-envy, you must've somehow misinterpreted my post. Let's look at the word "class-envy". Taken literally, that would mean that I am envious of another class. That would mean that I "hate" the rich because they are rich, or because they have power. I am for social justice and for individual liberty. So why am I against corporate power? Because corporations have bought the government, and they are using the government to give themselves more power and greed at the expense of the civilians. But of course, it is easy for anyone to call someone a Marxist, and then hide behind a curtain to escape accountability.

Amen!

Mr. Rush writes,
"Well, jeez, Marc, of course I haven't! My first love was social justice and a society in which nobody is left behind to rot or enslaved to someone else's greed. I haven't abandoned that love. Why should I?

But here's what it comes down to, Marc. Those who insist on pigeonholing liberals and socialists with Stalinists aren't objecting to the oppressive means which Stalin (ostensibly) used to seek a just society. They're objecting to the idea of a just society itself, and use the red stain of Stalin's methods as a convenient tool to smear anyone who seeks such a society, regardless of what means they would advocate.

There's nothing more threatening to the greedy and unscrupulous than a just society. And they'll smear the idea with guilt-by-association or any other tool that comes to hand."


I used the term "Bolshevik," Mr. Rush. The etymology of the Russian word, according to Merriam Webster's, comes from "bol'shii" meaning greater, and was first used in 1917 to describe "a member of the extremist wing of the Russian Social Democratic party that seized power in Russia by the Revolution."

As Stalin was, no doubt, a leading member of the Russian Social Democratic party in 1917, he was by no means the reason or cause of the Revolution. So to equate Bolsheviks with Stalinism is quite a stretch, Mr. Rush. The Bolsheviks were the duped and the dupers (of folks like Lincoln Steffens, Emma Goldman and Stuart Chase), Mr. Rush.

That such beliefs as the Bolsheviks, members of the Russian Social Democratic party, clearly held in Marxism led to tyranny, totalitarian Stalinism, massive death and privation, pollution of the enviroment, nuclear disaster and untold misery for millions for over seventy years is not surprising, of course, in hindsight.

What is surprising, is that anyone,in the glaring light of history, would want to continue to even consider the Marxist ideology of the Russian Social Democratic party which closely resembles your first love.

What I would like to know is, if Bush is so "dumb" and such a "loser," how come the American people have been so trusting of this guy for so long? Are the American people dumb losers?


Mr. Reed writes,
"But of course, it is easy for anyone to call someone a Marxist, and then hide behind a curtain to escape accountability."


Mr. Reed, you have made no secret of identifying yourself as a "radical leftist." That you would post an article wherein, as you put it, "the left says that they are growing very rapidly," and the piece praises a radical Marxist like Noam "post-World War II America was Nazi Germany" Chomsky, I can only come to the conclusion that you, yourself, are very much like a Bolshevik.

As you demonstrate with your writing, the labels, names, issues have changed, but the ideology, sadly has not.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-19 17:53 ]</font>

On 2002-03-19 17:49, Marc Lamb wrote:

<snip>
Mr. Reed writes,
"But of course, it is easy for anyone to call someone a Marxist, and then hide behind a curtain to escape accountability."


Mr. Reed, you have made no secret of identifying yourself as a "radical leftist."

True. But leftism does not equal Marxism.

That you would post an article wherein, as you put it, "the left says that they are growing very rapidly," and the piece praises a radical Marxist like Noam "post-World War II America was Nazi Germany" Chomsky, I can only come to the conclusion that you, yourself, are very much like a Bolshevik.

First of all I posted the article for the strict purpose of proving my point that both sides were growing because we were in 4T. Go back and read my post. Does posting an article praising Noam Chomsky make me a Marxist? I've posted Alan Keyes in the past. Does that make me a Christian Conservative? Even you should be able to answer that. I've posted numerous articles by Pat Buchanan, and even praised him in the past. Does that mean that I am a far right-winged Christian American nationalist? Maybe you have not noticed this, but I will post any article that I think is of value to this forum.

As you demonstrate with your writing, the labels, names, issues have changed, but the ideology, sadly has not.

I'm still waiting for your explanation.

On 2002-03-19 17:49, Marc Lamb wrote:

I used the term "Bolshevik," Mr. Rush. The etymology of the Russian word, according to Merriam Webster's, comes from "bol'shii" meaning greater, and was first used in 1917 to describe "a member of the extremist wing of the Russian Social Democratic party that seized power in Russia by the Revolution."

It was the "majority" (nominally anyway) faction led by Lenin. Trostsky and the Mensheviks recognized that Lenin's Bolshevist ideas would lead to autocracy and they objected. Even during the Russian Revolution, not all socialist revolutionaries were Bolsheviks. So you cannot say that, just because someone is a leftist, they are automatically a Bolshevik. It simply is not true.

As Stalin was, no doubt, a leading member of the Russian Social Democratic party in 1917, he was by no means the reason or cause of the Revolution.

Not in the eyes of the Mensheviks. They fully expected Bolshevism to lead to Stalinist autocracy. That is why they objected.

So to equate Bolsheviks with Stalinism is quite a stretch, Mr. Rush. The Bolsheviks were the duped and the dupers (of folks like Lincoln Steffens, Emma Goldman and Stuart Chase), Mr. Rush.

Emma Goldman was an anarchist. The anarchists simply did not get along with the communists. They tried to see eye to eye at a number of Internationales but never succeeded. They eventually went their separate ways. Emma Goldman may have been shipped to Russia but she was not a Bolshevik: Leninist, Stalinist or otherwise.

My memory is rusty on this leftist business, Marc, so I may not have things completely right. Please correct any errors that you see.

What is surprising, is that anyone,in the glaring light of history, would want to continue to even consider the Marxist ideology of the Russian Social Democratic party which closely resembles your first love.

But even if Brian and Robert are considering Marxist ideology (and it is not clear to me that Robert is), they are not considering the ideology of the Russian Social Democratic Party. Neither one is a Bolshevik and I do not think that either is a Menshevik in the 1917 sense of the word. Robert even calls himself a capitalist.

What I would like to know is, if Bush is so "dumb" and such a "loser," how come the American people have been so trusting of this guy for so long? Are the American people dumb losers?

If the polls are even accurate, they reflect support for the current "police action." His daddy proved that support does not necessarily extend beyond that.

Mr. Reed, you have made no secret of identifying yourself as a "radical leftist." That you would post an article wherein, as you put it, "the left says that they are growing very rapidly," and the piece praises a radical Marxist like Noam "post-World War II America was Nazi Germany" Chomsky, I can only come to the conclusion that you, yourself, are very much like a Bolshevik.

Neither Chomsky nor Robert is a Bolshevik, Marc. That is like saying that all rightists are Nazis. That is ignorance.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-03-19 18:49 ]</font>

On 2002-03-19 08:42, jds1958xg wrote:
Let's hope that the polarization between Left and Right is resolved at the polls rather than on the battlefield of 'Civil War II'! Better that said war end up never happening, especially since the two sides are currently dead even in their strength of support. After all, should one combine the near-even support both sides could count on with the very nature of a 4T, it would in all probability add up to a long and bloody conflict, if not the breakup of the Union.

Civil War mark II, unlikely

However we could at worst see political voilence in the streets on a regular basis, like Argentina is going through now.

On 2002-03-19 09:35, Marc Lamb wrote:


That Noam Chomsky is even still around, in light of history, touting Marxism is truly amazing.

What will history say about us who, having faced down the "evil empire," decide to have a civil war trying to fashion one here?

I dunno, it just doesn't seem plausible that the American people would choose to throw it all away for the sake egalitarian nothingness and economic slavery to the elite class of Bolsheviks like Brian Rush, Noam Chomsky and Robert Reed.

But, that's what the left wants.

Bad memes die hard, I amazed at how entrenched marxism is in the intellectual establishment in Anglo-Saxon countries. A massive mind wash is needed :smile:

Hi!

Mark Lamb writes, among other things, that FDR, with/without prior knowledge, had a gift handed to him, Mr. Butler. It was called Pearl Harbor , and came wrapped in the death of "tens of thousands," throughout the Pacific theater, of innocents in the days following December 7th.

The Four Freedoms speech was well before Pearl Harbor. It was 1941's State of the Union. Lend Lease and a rebuilding of US military was passed and well underway well before the Four Freedoms speech. In many respects, the ideals of the Four Freedoms were a fine tuning of a decision that had already been made, to forget isolationism, to embrace a military conflict against fascism. This doesn't imply that the ideals should be forgotten.

Pearly Harbor did not significantly alter US policy. It was just a green light to an active participation which was clearly seen as inevitable. You might try reading the speech.

What would be the point of losing our "wealth, freedom, political influence and military dominance," Mr. Butler?

The conflict exists at many levels: political, ecological, economic, military, religious, cultural, etc... I am not in favor of poverty for poverty's sake. I am just dubious that the concept of "zones of influence" can survive in a world where weapons of mass destruction are common.

Since the Age of Exploration, guns, germs and steel have given a few major powers the ability to force their will on other areas far away. Exploitation of military and economic advantages resulted in a division of wealth between the first and third world. If the third world acquires weapons of mass destruction, are zones of influence still cost effective? Should the United States attempt to maintain economic, political and military advantages "vital to our national interests" that keep other parts of the world from achieving the goals set out in the Four Freedoms speech?

From an ecological perspective, have we sufficient resources that everyone in the world can maintain the lifestyle currently enjoyed in the West? Can this be maintained indefinitely? I suspect not. To achieve security, we must defuse ethnic and religious strife. To defuse ethnic and religious strife, we should seek economic opportunity for all. To provide economic opportunity, we must better balance resources such that all have access. In short, the military, political, economic, religious and ecological perspectives do not exist in isolation from one another.

I have nothing against prosperity, but inequality is dangerous. Many Fourth Turnings are times when the establishment is put under siege by the oppressed. The Establishment looses. When weapons of mass destruction are involved, everyone looses.

So your "crusade," Mr. Butler, is to attack, subdue and occupy any country on this planet that fails to meet your standards of "freedom," Mr. Butler?

No. To paraphrase Thoreau in Civil Disobedience, it is not our duty to correct any wrong, no matter how large. It is, however, our duty not to be part of that wrong, not to benefit from wrongdoing. It is not our duty to overthrow every tyrant, to guarantee every Right, but Thoreau suggests a set of ethics by which we should not be allowed to profit from other's misery.

In my role playing career, one of my favorite characters was Joy Mudd, an android based on Asimov's concept of ethical Laws of Robotics, and Star Trek's concept of an emotion chip. She was programmed with Star Trek's Prime Directive, that it is improper for an advanced society to interfere with the normal development of primitive societies. She was also programmed with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, that she could not kill a sentient, or through inaction allow a sentient being to die.

In playing Joy through myriad imaginary adventures, I came to conclude that many moral and political problems are centered on a conflict between extended versions of the Prime Directive and Asimov's First Law. The first proposes freedom, that one culture shall not impose change on another, may not dominate or exploit another. The second proposes that life is sacred, that once lives are under threat, inaction is not an option. Action must be taken to preserve lives.

Joy was lucky. Her programming was very specific and prioritized. It was possible for Joy to uniquely answer most to any ethical/political problem. Accepting that Joy's answer is correct requires an assumption that her programming is the best of all possible programmings for androids. This is a dubious assumption at best.

We are not so lucky. We are not close to forming a list of moral / political assumptions, and putting them in a prioritized order that the lower priority principle should be discarded when it conflicts with a higher. We all have different values. Most of us cannot express them very clearly. Even when clearly expressed, we do not agree. Thus, this board is fractured by name calling and insults. Thus, the faction with more military force and willingness to use it might trivially set policy, or even achieve the delusion of victory.

This is not optimal from the perspective of either the Prime Directive or Asimov's First Law. And no, as a sentient being lacking an Asimov processor, I shall not claim that one of Joy's laws should always run at a higher priority than the other. I offer no pat and easy answers.

http://polyticks.com/home/Joy/

Mr. Reed claims,
"But leftism does not equal Marxism."

:lol: Well, only die hard lefties, like Christopher Gillen, will ever admit that it does. Good grief, a lot of Democrats don't like being called liberal either, these days. Some labels are just plain dirty words, Mr. Reed.

Marx had a maxim, Mr. Reed, it's very simple to learn, love and live. It goes like this:

<FONT SIZE="+2"><center>From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.</FONT></center>

And every lefty learns it, loves it, and lives Marx's maxim, Mr. Reed. Apply it to your post back there and you'll find it fits very well in your historical take on America's past. :smile:

On 2002-03-19 21:31, Marc Lamb wrote:



Mr. Reed claims,
"But leftism does not equal Marxism."

:lol: Well, only die hard lefties, like Christopher Gillen, will ever admit that it does. Good grief, a lot of Democrats don't like being called liberal either, these days. Some labels are just plain dirty words, Mr. Reed.

Marx had a maxim, Mr. Reed, it's very simple to learn, love and live. It goes like this:

<FONT SIZE="+2"><center>From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.</FONT></center>

And every lefty learns it, loves it, and lives Marx's maxim, Mr. Reed. Apply it to your post back there and you'll find it fits very well in your historical take on America's past. :smile:

Interesting definition of Marxism there; I take it you consider Marxism to be merely agreeing with the MAXIM (as opposed to agreement on the MEANS to achieve it?) I agree on the former and disagree on the latter (hence I consider myself a Marxist sympathiser); but it's all terminology at this point...

Mr. Butler:

More on those Four Freedom-flaunting fools at AVOT and that beloved, cuddly ham sandwich eater who should have been Roman Emperor in Mel Brooks' History of the World, Part I:

(For info and discussion)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins57.html

AVOT?

by Jeff Elkins

In yet another quest for speaking fees and the undoubtedly gargantuan servings of rubber chicken and potato salad that accompany them, that rotund rapscallion William J. Bennett has joined the War on Terror?.

Bennett has announced the formation of a new organization, AVOT, 'Americans for Victory Over Terrorism', and seemingly his primary targets are the homegrown, domestic variety of terrorist...specifically Lew Rockwell, and I would suppose by extension, anyone associated with LewRockwell.com.

Among others, that would be me.

America's mountainous moralizer used the occasion of his maiden AVOT press conference to lambast Lew for his slyly subversive column 'The Dread Prospect', wherein a Washington-free environment was imagined. A fantasy that millions of Americans probably share as the 15th of April creeps closer and closer...at least those of us who pay extortionate taxes to our masters in DC.

It would be laughable, if it weren't for some serious historical precedents in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave for suppression and and even violence against those who dissent from government policy.

On April 13, 1917, days after our entry into World War One, President Woodrow Wilson created the Committee on Public Information to promote the war via propaganda ? and eventually cheer on violent suppression of dissenters. A propaganda apparatus unparalleled in world history, under the leadership of journalistic muckraker George Creel, the CPI functioned as a de facto public censor, vetting nearly all published material about the war and helping to draft legislation such as the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.

Bennett's AVOT doesn't have a presidential imprimatur as yet, but given the backing by powerful New York financial interests and leading neocon war hawks close to the Bush administration, it might as well be co-chaired by Tom Ridge. Keep your eyes open for Bennett and his cronies on your television screen and in your war hawk weeklies. AVOT could well become the CPI of the 21st century. I'll guarantee you that this is what they lust for. The 'Patriot Act' already does a damn good job of imitating the Espionage Act and Sedition Act and even trumps them in many cases.

Make no mistake: William J. Bennett is a blubbery bully-boy who delights in the suppression of dissenting views on the left, but most especially in crushing dissent from the right. Bennett and others of his ilk have specialized in the destruction of the Bill of Rights via their evil war on drugs and and they most especially hate and fear the 1st and 2nd Amendments of the Bill of Rights. The horrific events of September 11th were a godsend for these enemies of freedom. In a mere six months they have managed to advance their timetable of slavery by decades.

Look for a increasingly hysterical campaign against those who speak out against the conversion of our formerly free republic into a police state where our airports are patrolled by eighteen year olds with fully-automatic M16s and a license to kill ? and where smirking government agents have a license to freely fondle our women and children. Probably coming soon to a bus terminal or government 'travel checkpoint' on a national highway near you.

Where will this publicity campaign be waged? Look for bully-boy Bill's message to be promoted on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the network news feeds, the War Street Journal or the so-called 'Free Republic' website. The Weakly Standard and the Goldberg Review are also very likely suspects.

Places you won't hear the siren call of slavery are web sites like LewRockwell.com, Antiwar.com, and the Libertarian Enterprise. Truly, web sites like these are the last bastions of free speech in the United States and each and every one need your support both financially and with your opinion columns and letters of support. If you want to achieve victory over terrorism, there's no better way.

March 19, 2002

Bob, here is Brother Bennett's battle plan for spreading the Four Freedoms to the corners of the earth. Now move in closer there so that you get in the frame. Say "cheese"!


http://www.avot.org/stories/storyReader$11

AVOT Statement of Principles

1. America is confronted with an enemy no less dangerous and no less determined than the twin menaces of fascism and communism we faced in the 20th century. And as we were victorious over them, so we must prevail in this, the first war of the 21st century. AVOT will, as its first task, remind citizens of the paramount importance of this effort.

2. The radical Islamists who attacked us did so because of our democratic ideals, our belief in, and practice of, liberty and equality. AVOT will take to task those who blame America first and who do not understand--or who are unwilling to defend--our fundamental principles.

3. America's foreign policy should be guided by those same principles upon which America itself was founded. AVOT will call for a foreign policy that emphasizes democracy and human rights.

4. In this war, our closest and most trusted allies must be our fellow democracies. AVOT will advocate steadfast support for our friends and oppose policies that place short-term "allies" above them.

5. By President Bush's declaration to Congress, America is at war with states that harbor terrorists or sponsor terrorism -- in all its guises. AVOT will inform Americans about nations that pose a threat to us or that help those that threaten us.

6. Because of the threat posed by radical Islamists and others, Americans will have to rethink many of their preconceptions about fighting terrorism. AVOT will defend policies that preserve civil liberties without sacrificing common sense and our common defense.

7. The best defense is a good offense, and America must have a military capacity that enables us to defend ourselves while rooting out terrorists. AVOT will support an increased budget for the Department of Defense, research and deployment of a missile defense system, and an even more capable military.

8. Improving our gathering and effective utilization of intelligence is a necessity. AVOT will support responsible efforts by our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies to collect and utilize more -- and more pertinent -- information and to facilitate interagency communication.

9. A necessary front in this war is the battle for international public opinion. AVOT will support radio, television, and other mass media patterned on Radio Free Europe to show how America has stood up for Muslims and other persecuted peoples throughout the years and to explain the virtues of democracy.

10. Finally, we must understand our enemies better. AVOT will encourage scholarly research into various aspects of Islamic theology, history, and culture. AVOT will hold such scholarship to a serious and rigorous standard.

Marc:

What is surprising, is that anyone,in the glaring light of history, would want to continue to even consider the Marxist ideology of the Russian Social Democratic party which closely resembles your first love.

What is unsurprising, in the glaring light of history, is that a person of low character and dubious honesty, such as you have repeatedly proven yourself to be, would stoop to using such nasty, irrational, propagandistic guilt-by-association and smear tactics to discredit ideas which they fear.


Please note, one and all, should any further evidence be required, the use in the above-quoted passage of the words "closely resembles" rather than "is." Please note the attempt at deliberate confusion between two ideas, one of which is universally condemned and the other of which has appeal but which Marc fears, because the two share aspects. And moreover, it is noteworthy that the shared aspects are precisely the desire for a just society that Marc fears.

What I would like to know is, if Bush is so "dumb" and such a "loser," how come the American people have been so trusting of this guy for so long? Are the American people dumb losers?

Stonewall answered this rather well; I can only add P.T. Barnum's observation.


Stonewall:


Marc isn't ignorant. He's simply duplicitous.

In the Opinion section of today's Washington Post AVOT's Mr. Wm. Bennett turns his firepower on that Principal of Darkness, the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania, the Demon Dubya. Say it isn't so, Bill!

Where Bush Rewards Terror



Israel, but I bet you guessed that already.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-03-20 07:11 ]</font>

"Please note, one and all, should any further evidence be required, the use in the above-quoted passage of the words "closely resembles" rather than 'is.'"


Off to a running start today, huh, Mr. Rush?

You're nitpicking, Mr. Rush. But, since your first love is communism (not sure whether to use a "C" or not), I be glad to amend my statement.

"What is surprising, is that anyone,in the glaring light of history, would want to continue to even consider the Marxist ideology of the Russian Social Democratic party which is your first love."


There, am I being "honest" now, Mr. Rush? :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-20 07:09 ]</font>

This is quite funny, actually. :smile:

"That depends on what the meaning of is, is." --William Jefferson Clinton