"Racist" is not another word for "You Disagree With Me."

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

• Tweet

"Black power" became an ally of Disingenuous White Liberals bid for complete control of the culture of America, and any voice of opposition was silenced with one word:


"RACIST!!!"

[IM2]

Wrong again.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

We disagree with one another's reality, IM.

[Coit]

You're whining yet again about how you can't be racist without being called a racist?

Seriously?

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

I'll bite.

How in the Holy Fuck can this:

We disagree with one another's reality, IM.

be considered "Whining?"

I don't think "whining" means what you think it means, sir.

[IM2]

We disagree with one another's reality, IM.

No badnews, there is reality and then there is what you are posting.

Because the American culture you talk about when black power was in vogue was a racist all lilly white male dominated by force of law and acts of terrorism. Sometimes both were going on at the same time.

COINTELPRO is just one example of along line of government actions designed to  maintain white supremacy in America.

If you were not such a dumb ass racist piece of shit, you would be able to understand that black power, and whatever white liberalsim is to you, are all part of american culture.

White boys like you do not get to define what American culture is based upon what you believe only.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

Here’s a puzzle for you. Why hasn’t the warmongering even slowed down with the left in power? Granted, according to Gallup a bare majority of Democrats support Obama’s bombing of Libya. Most Republicans and Americans favor it too. It is based on propaganda somewhat different from the Bush-era appeals to fear of mushroom clouds. So perhaps we can understand why Democrats have not yet pressured their president to stop the bombing.

But what about Afghanistan? Only 19% of Democrats think the Afghanistan war is worthwhile, according to a Washington Post poll from March. Two-thirds of Americans think it’s time to get out. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats want withdrawal by this summer. A year ago, Obama hinted this was an achievable goal. When he announced a surge in December 2009, he said the troops will start coming home in mid-2011.

Although most Americans, especially on the left, oppose this war, Congress has rejected resolutions demanding an end to it. And now the administration and military are talking about getting out in 2014, predicting a violent summer in Afghanistan – presumably one that the U.S. can’t afford to miss.

Many thought the ascent of the Democrats would end the bloodshed, if not immediately, soon enough. Two Three years have passed and there is more money being spent, more countries being bombed, and about as many Americans fighting and dying as when Obama took office.

Why much of the left backs the Libya war is an interesting question. Another mystery is why the president they elected to stop Bush’s wars has not done so. There are several factors suggesting there will be continuing bloodshed so long as the left is in charge.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

White boys like you do not get to define what American culture is based upon what you believe only.

Why not?

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

The Left’s Priorities

A straw poll from August 2009, half a year into Obama’s reign, said it all. Stanley Greenberg polled attendees to the Netroots Nation gathering of progressive bloggers, giving them a list of political issues and asking which two "progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most." Byron York reported:

    The winner was passing comprehensive health care reform, with 60 percent, and number two was passing "green energy policies that address environmental concerns," with 22 percent. Tied for eighth place, named by just eight percent of respondents, was "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."

    Then Greenberg asked which one of those issues "do you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently?" The winner was health care reform, with 23 percent, and second place was "working to elect progressive candidates in the 2010 elections," with 16 percent. In 11th place – at the very bottom of the list – was "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan." Just one percent of Netroots Nations attendees listed that as their most important personal priority.

In 2004 and 2005, progressives condemned Bush as a war criminal, called his invasion of Iraq an illegal war of aggression, and spoke openly of impeachment. They sounded like Bush’s war was their biggest political priority – more significant than domestic spending programs, regulation, abortion and other traditional hot buttons. By Obama’s first summer in office, only one out of a hundred progressive bloggers in this sample spent most of their time trying to stop America’s criminal wars.

This was a small cross section of the left, but it speaks to a general trend. Certainly under Democratic administrations, issues other than war become pressing. A charitable interpretation is that the left is fatigued from years of protest and the political dynamics discussed above push war to the background. A less charitable view is that they don’t actually hate war nearly as much as they pretended to, that they used it opportunistically as a partisan club against Republicans. An even more cynical guess is that they are every bit as self-centered and materialistic as they claim the rest of us are, and in exchange for health care subsidies and stimulus handouts, they are willing to look the other way as peasants are blown to bits in their name.

There are plenty of exceptions to this and hundreds, even thousands of left-liberal writers, lawyers, intellectuals, journalists and scholars who tend toward a much more radical, anti-partisan approach. A tiny minority of principled leftists oppose war vehemently and give it proper weight.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

Many left-liberals enjoy calling Bush the worst president in U.S. history, despite his many similarities to the current White House occupant. But even more telling is their understanding of history. Bush was supposedly a stain on America’s legacy in diplomacy. Comparing Bush to Wilson, FDR, Truman or LBJ, ask anyone on the left who is worse and 85% will answer Bush. Most would probably even say Reagan was worse. Heck, many will even say Hoover, a peacenik, was worse, simply because his alleged laissez-faire policies caused the Great Depression.

Yet Wilson, FDR and Truman, and possibly LBJ, are in a category of evil that does not just compare to Bush’s, but probably dwarfs it several times over. These men are given a pass largely because they were domestic messiahs – Wilson’s Progressivism, FDR’s New Deal, Truman’s carrying the interventionist flame and LBJ’s Great Society all win over the bleeding hearts. But there is something more at play here.

Wilson’s war might be criticized but his idealism is defended and even some historians with a radical streak want to vindicate the war against the Kaiser. LBJ killed more civilians than Bush, on top of drafting soldiers by the hundreds of thousands, but at least the left still questions his war in retrospect.

FDR and Truman, however, are different. World War II is really the key to our puzzle here. FDR is defended not despite his war, but largely because of it. He is a "liberal Democrat" who waged America’s most popular and celebrated military crusade. Left, right and center worship this war, and the left is proud to claim it as their own. It was the war of American social democracy teamed up with Soviet Communism against fascism. It was a global clash between the left and right, and the more virtuous side won. The left is a bit embarrassed about Japanese Internment and Hiroshima, but is otherwise proud to own the last U.S. war that was clearly won, that everyone in America loves.

But World War II was the worst war ever. Fifty million people died. America lost over 400,000 and its government participated in the murder of a million or more, easily. Over sixty Japanese cities and more than 100 German ones were razed to the ground. The war made virtually everyone involved in it worse, except the politicians and connected businesses. The most common retrospective humanitarian defense of that war – stopping the Holocaust – was surely not the motivation of FDR, who turned a boatload of Jews away from American shores. Indeed, people act as though the Allied saved six million Jews, rather than doing nothing about the slaughter for years, except perhaps to exacerbate the genocide.

FDR and Truman, conspiring with Stalin, worked to ship a million refugees back to slavery and death in Soviet Russia and did nothing as Russian troops exacted revenge on the Germans through ethnic cleansing and mass rape. Far from saving the world from totalitarianism, World War II ended in a stalemate between an expanded Soviet Union and an imperialistic United States that held the world hostage for decades under the threat of nuclear annihilation. No war conceived by Rumsfeld or Cheney comes close in its mass destruction.

Clearly, some of you Left-Leaning Ratbastards are sorely in need of a refresher course in U.S. History, or you are simply being intellectually dishonest...or both.

*spits*

[johnhp]

Here’s a puzzle for you. Why hasn’t the warmongering even slowed down with the left in power?

Who says Mr Obama is a leftist?

[IM2]

badnews,

You have got to be out of whatever few brain cells you got left.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

badnews,

You have got to be out of whatever few brain cells you got left.

Snappy comeback.

Left a bruise.

No.  Really.

[ivanm]

Many left-liberals enjoy calling Bush the worst president in U.S. history, despite his many similarities to the current White House occupant. But even more telling is their understanding of history. Bush was supposedly a stain on America’s legacy in diplomacy. Comparing Bush to Wilson, FDR, Truman or LBJ, ask anyone on the left who is worse and 85% will answer Bush. Most would probably even say Reagan was worse. Heck, many will even say Hoover, a peacenik, was worse, simply because his alleged laissez-faire policies caused the Great Depression.

Yet Wilson, FDR and Truman, and possibly LBJ, are in a category of evil that does not just compare to Bush’s, but probably dwarfs it several times over. These men are given a pass largely because they were domestic messiahs – Wilson’s Progressivism, FDR’s New Deal, Truman’s carrying the interventionist flame and LBJ’s Great Society all win over the bleeding hearts. But there is something more at play here.

Wilson’s war might be criticized but his idealism is defended and even some historians with a radical streak want to vindicate the war against the Kaiser. LBJ killed more civilians than Bush, on top of drafting soldiers by the hundreds of thousands, but at least the left still questions his war in retrospect.

FDR and Truman, however, are different. World War II is really the key to our puzzle here. FDR is defended not despite his war, but largely because of it. He is a "liberal Democrat" who waged America’s most popular and celebrated military crusade. Left, right and center worship this war, and the left is proud to claim it as their own. It was the war of American social democracy teamed up with Soviet Communism against fascism. It was a global clash between the left and right, and the more virtuous side won. The left is a bit embarrassed about Japanese Internment and Hiroshima, but is otherwise proud to own the last U.S. war that was clearly won, that everyone in America loves.

But World War II was the worst war ever. Fifty million people died. America lost over 400,000 and its government participated in the murder of a million or more, easily. Over sixty Japanese cities and more than 100 German ones were razed to the ground. The war made virtually everyone involved in it worse, except the politicians and connected businesses. The most common retrospective humanitarian defense of that war – stopping the Holocaust – was surely not the motivation of FDR, who turned a boatload of Jews away from American shores. Indeed, people act as though the Allied saved six million Jews, rather than doing nothing about the slaughter for years, except perhaps to exacerbate the genocide.

FDR and Truman, conspiring with Stalin, worked to ship a million refugees back to slavery and death in Soviet Russia and did nothing as Russian troops exacted revenge on the Germans through ethnic cleansing and mass rape. Far from saving the world from totalitarianism, World War II ended in a stalemate between an expanded Soviet Union and an imperialistic United States that held the world hostage for decades under the threat of nuclear annihilation. No war conceived by Rumsfeld or Cheney comes close in its mass destruction.

Clearly, some of you Left-Leaning Ratbastards are sorely in need of a refresher course in U.S. History, or you are simply being intellectually dishonest...or both.

*spits*

You have left out an important thing, the motive for the US entering these wars, and IMO it has little to do with whether or not the president at the time was liberal or not.

Bush's belief in proactive defense principle may have motivated him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.  This is still the prevailing overall military policy as far as I can tell. Saddam Hussein was viewed as a threat to peace in the Gulf region, and Bush took him to  task and finally put the barbarian down.  Afghanistan is a mixed bag, but some of  the reason for us going there was revenge for 911, and some may again be a proactive move to stop the terrorists on their home turf before they come here doing their dirt.

I don't know how much Mr. Bush's efforts has affected the terrorists, but we haven't had any more 911s here in the states, and things in the Euro countries have quieted down.
That is not saying the threat does not exist, but our challenges must have set them back.  Short of nuking countries who harbor terrorists, I don't know what more we can do.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

You have left out an important thing, the motive for the US entering these wars, and IMO it has little to do with whether or not the president at the time was liberal or not.

I'm sure this will be a source of debate and argument for decades.

What is unclear to me is why these people who were so Gung-Ho about being in the Middle East when Bush was at the helm are relatively silent now?

Where is Cindy Sheehan?