... or is it? Back then, our country was under the rule of a tyrant who wanted one religion for all and the unwavering obedience of his people.My how times don't change.
In the same way that Hugo Chavez likes to tout the spirit of Simon Bolivar about like a marinette in the dumbshow that is his brand of totalitarianism, so too does W try to distract us from his foibles by drawing our attention to even worse times in American history.
As our country honors past Presidents, (I did an extra set of squats on my day off in honor of our POTUS-es at the gym today) George Bush couldn't pass up making another pitch for the war in Iraq:
''Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life,'' [...] and as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone.''
Or Black people. Cuz you know, they were slaves back then, Dubya. Funny how the founding fathers' generosity excluded a large chunk of the people around them but was rather meant for Muslims on the other side of the planet, nearly 300 years later.
I would bet you my apple tree that George Washington would have cared as much about the Iraqi civil war that we helped create as much as I care for our current President's myopic view of history.
Funny how our President interprets the actions of a people inspired by the Age of Enlightenment by wanting to limit people's freedoms every which way he can. If the Revolutionary War was the precursor to the liberation of the Iraqi people, then what the hell does it mean for Americans today?
For W it would mean taking away basic human rights from gay people, the introduction of a fanatical brand of Christianity into our public schools, the end of programs that help minorities forge ahead, and total disregard for the environment.
To compare the war in Iraq to the battle for our nation's freedom is offensive. The founding fathers didn't battle England so they could become the world's police state. To compare the Revolutionary War to 9-11 is ignorant, even by W's standards.
Still, we are in a revolutionary moment in history -- let's pull a 1776 on Bush and declare our independence from his tyranny once and for all.
19 comments:
It reminds me of Belize's quote in Angels in America:
"The [man] who wrote the national anthem knew what he was doing. He set the word 'free' to a note so high nobody can reach it. That was deliberate. Nothing on earth sounds less like freedom to me."
Funny how that works.
GCL -
If he's such a tyrant, name ONE routine part of your life that has changed since he took office. ONE. You invoke slavery and Hugo Chavez, so you should have plenty of ways to show how your day-to-day life has immutably changed under the "tyrant" we now have in office.
Thanks, David, for showing us why liberals should never be trusted to run this country again.
(I did an extra set of squats on my day off in honor of our POTUS-es at the gym today)
My aren't we self-less.
As our country honors past Presidents, George Bush couldn't pass up making another pitch for the war in Iraq:
Actually, he should make more.
Funny how our President interprets the actions of a people inspired by the Age of Enlightenment by wanting to limit people's freedoms every which way he can.
Such as....? Can you provide an example of this liberal lying point? I dare you to sack up.
For W it would mean taking away basic human rights from gay people,
Let's see... DADT & the DOMA (handed down by a liberal pres.)...If you don't have any to begin with, what's there to take away?
the introduction of a fanatical brand of Christianity into our public schools,
What "brand" would that be? He's United Methodest (not particularly known for fanaticism). Secondly, why is it ok to teach Islam? I mean if there's separation of church and state (which there isn't) that should include mosques too.
the end of programs that help minorities forge ahead,
First of all, which programs are you talking about?
Secondly, such programs are unconstitional.
Thirdly, do you mean to tell me that the minorities are totally incapable of grabbing their balls to do what needs to be done? Are they nothing more than mere field hands on the liberal plantation that can only survive by their massuh's benevolence?
and total disregard for the environment.
Pardon me? Who's been pushing cleaner diesel, which clogs school bus fuel lines in the cold? Who's been pushing subsidies for Ethanol causing the price of corn tou doulbe and the price of tortillas in Mexico to climb? Then again, since we found out that Ethanol contributes to smog more than gasoline, I guess you might be right.
To compare the war in Iraq to the battle for our nation's freedom is offensive.
To say "fuck you!" to the 25+million Iraqis we freed is offensive. To want to give the finger to our soldiers is even more offensive.
The founding fathers didn't battle England so they could become the world's police state.
You need to go back to school and demand a refund.
To compare the Revolutionary War to 9-11 is ignorant, even by W's standards.
I know I'm not as nuanced and erudite as you, but I can't find any evidence that he did.
let's pull a 1776 on Bush and declare our independence from his tyranny once and for all.
Exactly WHAT tyranny would this be then?
This post is asinine even by your standards. If I hated everything so much, I think I'd hop my happy ass to PR where you don't have to pay taxes and bitch about free services from America all day long.
I agree almost totally with TGC.
One more point:
Or Black people. Cuz you know, they were slaves back then, Dubya.
1. What on earth does George Bush have to do with slavery in the 18th century?
2. If the founding fathers had not crafted the document the way they did, slavery would have lasted much longer. America actually did something to put a stop to it while there were plenty of Christian slaves in Africa, and Europe (especially Spain, Portugal and Britain) had their fair share of slaves at that time.
Whee! Potpourri!
While one might quibble about the diction another might choose to use to make a point, one can certainly agree with the basic premise.
1)DADT is arguably a better military approach than pre-DADT. Earlier "discovery" of same-sex orientation put one at risk of dishonorable discharge as well as jail time.
2)DOMA was a political decision signed "in the dead of night." It was not Mr. Clinton's best moment.
3)Decisions have meaning. Here is a quote from Mr. Bush's speech: "George Washington's long struggle for freedom has also inspired generations of Americans to stand for freedom in their own time. Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life. And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone. He once wrote, 'My best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever in any country I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom.'"
Note the implied connection between 9/11 and 1776--"...a new war to defend our liberty and our way of life..."
(Unknot those knickers. It is a new war, but Iraq--which had no connection to 9/11 nor a plausible connection to Al Qaeda--is the wrong battlefield--the fight should've been finished in Afghanistan before any new engagement.)
(Oh, OK, knot 'em up. I know you want to. That doesn't mean, though, one has to pay attention.)
Interesting post; interesting responses. Words do matter.
Agape
p.s. The tune of the national anthem was a British drinking song; "free" just happened to fall on that high note, but the point is interesting.
I can't believe the comments I'm reading here. Do any of you really think this war is about anything except oil and power? Do you really think W gives a shit about the Iraqi people, who, by the way, are not big fans of Americans anyway. AND...our president has taken money away from domestic needs to fund this war. We see it in the education system, the health care system, and by the way, he has changed my life, I pay more taxes than many people make in a year and I can't get married and enjoy the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy -even if they beat their spouses or abuse their kids. Wait until the fog clears after the next election and you all see what a disaster this war has caused us at home.
James,
our president has taken money away from domestic needs to fund this war.
The only constitional authority the federal government has is to spend money on defense, NOT on healthcare and eductaion and all that other bullshit!
Do any of you really think this war is about anything except oil and power?
Where is the oil? where is the power? Can you show one shred of evidence to support your theory???
(Psst)
U.S. Constitution--section 8 clause 1: ": The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
"General Welfare" (Yes, it has expanded over the years. Too much? Perhaps, but debatable. Bull droppings? Perhaps, but debatable.)
Mas agape.
(sigh)
Debatable for some, Gene. But the founding fathers never dreamed that General Welfare extended to anything beyond the protection of our freedom. Read all 10 clauses- they address protection and general welfare. If the founders thought that taxes should be paid to individuals for health care and education, they would have spelled it out.
Evidence of W's tyranny:
-- launching a war that the majority of Americans did not war
-- his overinflated sense of self and purpose that has given the middle finger to our allies
-- the maniacal reaction his supporters have to any intimation that W is infallible is the same reaction people in Cuba have when you question Fidel
-- he has nominated ultra conservative people to the highest court in our country
-- while he may have assembled the most diverse cabinet in the history of the Presidency none of those arriviste Uncle Toms would be where they are were it not for affirmative action, a concept W wants to do away with
-- in the face of a LOSING WAR he insists that the solution is emptying our coffers further so the defense sector and oil companies can continue to make buzillions off dead soldiers and civilians.
I could go on...
AND...our president has taken money away from domestic needs to fund this war.
Let's see. So far we've spent $368 billion on Iraq. We spend $500 billion EVERY YEAR on education alone. Somehow I don't think you have any idea of the concept of honesty.
Not only that, but we only imported about 2% of our oil from Iraq last year. One would naturally think, if what you said was true, that we would have gotten a lot more than that. Further, the majority of our imports don't even come from the ME. Our top importers are Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. I would think that if it were only about the oil, as dishonest liberal douchebags contend, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to invade those counries and it would have been a hell of a lot easier/cheaper to transport.
But then that's reality and we can't have that from the libs, now can we?
Now to supposed "evidence of Bush's tyrany":
-- launching a war that the majority of Americans did not war
Actually they did. Not only that, but we had the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which dictated that the President would do whatever necessary to remove Hussein from power. Besides, the people are not the Commander In Chief. But, the majority of the people's representatives approved the Iraq invasion. In other words, the majority DID want it.
-- his overinflated sense of self and purpose that has given the middle finger to our allies
Maybe I'm not as nuanced and erudite as you are, but that doesn't seem to be a complete thought. At any rate, the "allies" of which you speak were making ass loads of money from the Oil For Fools scandal. Of course they didn't want their cash cut off. But that's not an example of tyrany.
-- the maniacal reaction his supporters have to any intimation that W is infallible is the same reaction people in Cuba have when you question Fidel
You constantly surprise me with more and more asinine posts. If you actually bothered to look (and if you were honest), you'd find many Bush supporters who question his actions regularly. I can't think of a single person who considers him "infallible". Not even he himself.
-- he has nominated ultra conservative people to the highest court in our country
I think "ultra" is a bit of a stretch, but still this is hardly a surprise. Would you say lord BJ is a tyrant for nominating "ultra" liberals to the bench? Of course you wouldn't.
-- while he may have assembled the most diverse cabinet in the history of the Presidency none of those arriviste Uncle Toms would be where they are were it not for affirmative action, a concept W wants to do away with
And yet it's still there. It took the people in MI to get rid of it (sorta). And by that, I see that you support telling a person they can't do something (school, job etc.) based on the color of their skin. You disgusting bigot.
But that doesn't make him a tyrant. If he were a tyrant, it wouldn't exist anymore, right?
-- in the face of a LOSING WAR he insists that the solution is emptying our coffers further so the defense sector and oil companies can continue to make buzillions off dead soldiers and civilians.
It's only a "losing war" in the minds of those who are invested in our defeat for their political gain. 25+ million people are free from real tyrany. The majority of the country is mostly free from the attacks that are going on. Look at the Kurds as an example. Look at the south of Iraq. You won't find stories in the drive-by media about either because it doesn't fit their template of defeat.
Furthermore, as I've pointed out above, we've spent less in 4 years in Iraq than we spend in one year on education. If you combine the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, it wouldn't scratch the surface of the amount we spend EACH YEAR in social services like education, Medicare, Socialist Stupidity etc.
For the THIRD time, I'll ask you AGAIN for evidence of the defense sector and oil companies "make buzillions off dead soldiers and civilians". And BTW, Halliburton is NOT an "oil company". KBR is a construction company.
I could go on...
Please do. It's your blog, after all, and so far you have not given ONE shred of evidence that Bush is a tyrant. And of course as I always say, if Bush were a tyrant, the libs would be in love with him. Obviously, he isn't.
Um...a Heritage Foundation website, dated December 3, 2003, states the Federal Budget for education in the latest budget is/was 58 billion.
none of those arriviste Uncle Toms would be where they are were it not for affirmative action
Low. Why do liberals turn into racist pigs whenever they see successful black Americans? Although I am not surprised by the comment, it's a new low for you GCL.
I don't know to what extent Rice and Powell benefited from affirmative action (I would like to see the evidence though), but they both support affirmative action!
he has nominated ultra conservative people to the highest court in our country
Indeed! Harriet Myers was clearly an ultra conservative nut case!! And that John Roberts!! Who's next?? Joe Scarborough?
Gene, a more recent and relative analysis from the always excellent Heritage Foundation:
federal education spending has grown dramatically over the past six years under President Bush and the Republican Congress. But more importantly, whether it’s Republicans or Democrats increasing federal funding, more federal dollars have not improved American education in recent decades.
Mr. Bailey, there is little distance between the Heritage Foundation's assessment of education and the one I have, based on 35 years in the classroom (although it's been almost 9 years since).
The point was funding.
The quality is worthy of its own posting. (For a preview, I think that without parental responsibility as a major component of public education any "reform" is doomed to failure. And that's just the beginning of the worms in that particular can.)
Gene,
I wasn't trying to rebuke your comment- just provide updated evidence that domestic spending is increasing under Bush.
GCL -
You and I have quite a few fundamental disagreements, but your reply that runs under the guise of "Evidence of W's Tyranny" doesn't even make your case. It does, however, expose something far more sinister about the way you see the world.
I have a lot of disagreements with Bush - many of which you know about. Most of what you say are no more than tired old copy points (i.e., "oil companies can continue to make bazillions off dead soliders and civilians," etc.) that are no more provable than they were years ago when first uttered.
What I will say, however, is your pejorative and offensive use of the "Uncle Tom" slur (code for minorities who break from the pack and don't share your views). You ought to read up Condoleeza Rice's background and accomplishments - most of which had nothing to do with affirmative action (her provost positition at Stamford and fixing their budget was not helped by race-based admissions or promotions) before deriding her with perhaps the most offensive of characterizations that can be said of an African-American.
If a conservative spoke this way of Barack Obama, you'd see it as evidence of their racist proclivities. What do you think it says about you?
Food for thought.
Um...a Heritage Foundation website, dated December 3, 2003, states the Federal Budget for education in the latest budget is/was 58 billion.
Yeah. I misread what I was looking at and accept responsibility. However, the fact still remains that military spending as a percentage of GDP is still very low and we still spend more domestically than we have in Iraq.
Further if you combine all the spending on education in the comparable amount of time, we did spend more on Iraq, but not by a whole hell of a lot.
Further still:
-- in the face of a LOSING WAR
Did you happen to catch the Public Opinion Strategies poll (libs love polls, as long as it fits their agenda) that showed the majority of Americans (53-43)say "it's still possible" to win in Iraq?
How about that 53-46% believe the libs in congress are going too far?
Or that 56-43% favor standing behind the president in a time of war, even if they disagree with policies?
Or that 57-41% support keeping our soldiers there to finish the job?
Kinda pisses in your Cheerios, eh David? Guess the liberal war on truth isn't that successful.
BTW David, since you support Affirmitive Action, why don't the liberal candidates just let "Osama Obama" have the presidency?
Post a Comment