Justin Raimondo -- Jon Stewart: Wimp, Wuss, Moral Coward

[Winehole23]

Jon Stewart: Wimp, Wuss, Moral Coward (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/05/jon-stewart-wimp-wuss-moral-coward/)


Can a Democrat commit war crimes? Of course not!


by Justin Raimondo, May 06, 2009



I was a bit surprised, albeit pleasantly, to see Jon Stewart nail Harry Truman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4pV27_7PI) as a war criminal. After all, Stewart is a typical Hollywood liberal, whose politics are by now a staple of the corporate, anodyne culture that permeates the airwaves, and this naturally excludes everything that might challenge the liberal groupthink that constitutes the conventional wisdom in the Age of Obama.



Certainly, in "respectable" quarters, criticism of anything or anyone connected to the great liberal "anti-fascist" crusade, the "Good War (http://polandtj191.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/iwo-jimaww2.jpg)," is strictly verboten, and surely an intelligent guy like Stewart knows this. Yet – contrary to what he said later – this wasn’t an argument that arose in the heat of the moment, in the context of a robust discussion (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/04/30/jon_stewart_and_cliff_may_debate_torture.html) with obnoxious neocon Clifford May (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/12/29/wmd-cargo-cult/) on the alleged merits of torture.



No, Stewart had apparently thought this one out, at least to some extent, because when May asked him if he thought Truman was a war criminal for nuking two Japanese cities, he didn’t just say "Yes" – he went into a whole riff about how, if we had first demonstrated the power of this new weapon on an uninhabited atoll somewhere, and then informed the Japanese government that they’d better surrender, or else that would happen in Japan, then and only then would it be okay to drop the Big One. The audience cheered him on, as he took apart the frenetically hysterical May, whose ferret-like features and organizational affiliations (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/May_Clifford) make him the perfect spokesman for a policy described by Stewart as "temporary insanity." Yet, a few days later, Stewart was back to the same subject, minus the rabid ferret, this time reversing his stance – and apologizing (http://www.theweek.com/article/index/96149/Video_Jon_Stewart_apologizes_for_calling_Harry_Tru man_a_war_criminal) for calling the little haberdasher a war criminal.



My, that was quick.


Alas, apparently not quick enough for the executives at whatever network Stewart appears on – yes, I know, I have to be the only person in America who doesn’t watch his show – who no doubt would have preferred that he never said it at all. It was clearly the execs who reined in the freethinking Stewart and laid down the law, and the first law of "controversial," "provocative," and indubitably "edgy" television commentary is to never – ever, ever! – allow a deviation from the conventional wisdom that falls outside the contemporary Left/Right paradigm.



Rule number one in this game is that everybody must play their assigned role. You’ve always got to be "in character." If you’re on the Left, you can take on George W. Bush, murderer of hundreds of thousands (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq) of Iraqis – but not Harry Truman, killer of even larger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II#B-29_raids) numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) of innocent Japanese civilians. Rightists regularly excoriate the crimes of Stalin (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087/antiwarbookstore), yet they are expected to remain silent when it comes to war crimes committed by the U.S., such as the "Phoenix program (http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Program-Douglas-Valentine/dp/0595007384/antiwarbookstore)" during the Vietnam conflict – and they rarely disappoint.


This enforcement of a dubious double standard, by the way, goes beyond the issue of war crimes and mass murder. If you’re on the Right, you’re allowed to express unlimited disdain (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/165deuiu.asp) for the thuggish Hugo Chavez – indeed, it’s a veritable obligation – but even a hint of contempt for the equally thuggish Benjamin Netanyahu (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/787766.html) and his neo-fascist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9923), will earn you enough brickbats to build a Wall of Separation (http://pomomusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2005/06/The-Wall.jpg) between your ideological comrades and yourself. Likewise, lefties are allowed to cuddle up (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081215/penn/single) to Fidel Castro (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/cuba/castro_2-12-85.html) while inveighing against Augusto Pinochet (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html).


In any case, Stewart’s apology was embarrassing: for him, for the studio audience (which giggled nervously, and inappropriately, at awkward intervals), and for me. As he looked into the camera and babbled about how wrong he was – without giving a single reason, never mind a good one – you could almost see his strings being pulled by his corporate masters.
So let’s see if I get this straight: it is not okay to torture a member of al-Qaeda, who no doubt has information we need in order to stop terrorist attacks. Instead, we have to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996) treat him as a prisoner of war according to the rules laid down by the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, it is okay to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, to incinerate entire cities (http://www.amazon.com/First-Into-Nagasaki-Eyewitness-Post-Atomic/dp/0307342018) and poison the land for generations to come, as long as your name is Harry Truman.


Am I getting this right so far?


I have stayed away from the torture "debate" for a number of reasons, because, after all, the issue isn’t debatable. Not in a civilized country, that is. We might as well debate the merits and demerits of infanticide or coprophagia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia). Normal people don’t argue about these things; they simply turn away in revulsion.



Another reason for my abstention from this ongoing brouhaha – which seems to have consumed the left wing of the blogosphere ever since Obama took office – is that there is something remarkably phony about the high moral dudgeon of the liberals when it comes to this non-question. How much moral moxie does it really take to come out, guns blazing, against torture? I mean, you don’t have to be a saint or anything to enlist in a campaign to ban pulling off the fingernails of defenseless prisoners, you just have to be halfway normal.



Furthermore, there is another reason to be suspicious of the liberals-against-torture campaign that now monopolizes the capacity of certain pundits for outrage: the amount of noise being generated about this issue very effectively – and conveniently – drowns out opposition to the rest of Bush’s ugly legacy, principally the ongoing occupation (http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/1158896.html) of Iraq and Obama’s escalation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102652_pf.html) of the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/05/us-strike-kills-dozens-of-afghan-civilians/) and Pakistan (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/432820/obey_issues_a_vietnam_warning). Exhausted by their 24/7 calls to expunge the stain of torture from America’s conscience – which is to be accomplished, supposedly, by trying Bush, Cheney, and the Republican gang for war crimes – the liberals have no moral energy to take on Obama’s wars.



Thus what passes for the Left in the America of 2009 is perfectly happy to make demands they know will never be met and rail against a practice that even those who advocate it in certain circumstances seem uneasy about. It’s so much easier than coming out against the foreign policy of a popular president whom liberals regard as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln (http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama%2BAbraham%2BLincoln&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-32,GGGL:en) and Martin Luther King (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-32%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=Obama%2BMartin%2BLuther%2BKing&btnG=Search) combined.



It doesn’t seem to matter that those policies are murderous (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/05/us-investigates-reports-of-massive-civilian-toll-in-afghanistan/), just as Bush’s were, and potentially even more disastrous for the U.S. in terms of "blowback." If we are signing on (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/04/07/progressive-warmongers/) to an occupation of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan that will make our activities in Iraq seem like the briefest of episodes, then liberals of the Kossack/Huffington Post/Jon Stewart sort don’t want to hear about it. That’s because they’re okay with it – as long as we don’t torture people individually, you see, by making them think they’re drowning (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) or throwing them against a wall (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530). Obama’s in the White House, and all’s right with the world!



Once Dear Leader has determined that it’s imperative we actually kill people en masse, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the defense of the United States, as we are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan – well, then, it’s nothing to get too excited about. Indeed, it’s actually praiseworthy (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-23-afghanistan-poll_N.htm), positively Truman-esque – and we all know what a heroic figure the gnome-like machine politician Truman was!


Cliff May and his ilk know what side they’re on, they know what they believe and what they want, and they are quick to home in on the many contradictions of ostensibly antiwar liberals like Stewart, whose instincts are good, but who don’t know anything but the permitted pieties about America’s role and actions during World War II (http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X/antiwarbookstore). That’s why liberals are rendered practically speechless by ritualized neocon invocations of "Hitler" and "Munich" every time (http://justinlogan.typepad.com/justinlogancom/2004/12/speaking_of_god.html) a supposedly deadly threat to the U.S. arises somewhere in the world.



For a moment, however, Stewart saw through the veil of myth and prejudice (yes, racial prejudice (http://tinyurl.com/csm2s3)) that obscures the truth about what we did to Japan, which was ready to make peace (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html) on reasonable terms. Roosevelt’s insistence on unconditional surrender, upheld by Truman, rationalized mass murder on a scale never before seen, and at the time the liberals fell right into line, with nary a pip or a squeak from any of them.



It was inside the military and the U.S. government that dissent raised its head. Truman’s decision went against the advice of Generals Douglas MacArthur and Dwight David Eisenhower (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm), not to mention his own secretaries of state and the Navy. In 1963, Eisenhower told Newsweek: "The Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing."



Oh, but please don’t confuse us with the introduction of needless facts. What are you, one of those obstructionist Republican extremists? In the wake of Stewart’s faux pas and subsequent Soviet-style self-criticism, one thing is clear: measures must be taken. It is necessary – in this, the Age of Obama – to establish a firm doctrine from which no one, no matter how popular, how "provocative," or how "edgy" they might be, is allowed to dissent, and it is this: no Democratic president can ever be guilty of a war crime. No, not even Lyndon "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" Johnson. Which means Obama has a license to obliterate Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran (as his secretary of state said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1nmGmtD18) she would like to do), and we can get on with the important business of conducting political show trials of our favorite Republican villains.
And all’s right with the world…


To conclude: yes, Stewart is a wimp, a wuss, and a moral coward – but he’s very far from alone.

[101A]

Crap, I don't know how to respond to this. It criticizes EVERYBODY. The author, and poster, need to pick a side and stay on it!

Somebody lock this thread, it's useless.

[Winehole23]

What, is there some rule against everybody being wrong?

[Kermit]

Crap, I don't know how to respond to this. It criticizes EVERYBODY. The author, and poster, need to pick a side and stay on it!

Somebody lock this thread, it's useless.

:lmao

You're either with us, or against us.

[DarrinS]

Better start rewriting those history books.


Oh, and if you see a WWII vet from the greatest generation in US history, give him a good solid loogey to the noggin.


Sincerely,


Leftist Douchebag Royale

[Winehole23]

Justin Raimondo is a libertarian and a man of the right. Are you familiar with Randolph Bourne?

[Winehole23]

Was Eisenhower a leftist douchebag for saying Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary?

[Kermit]

Better start rewriting those history books.


Oh, and if you see a WWII vet from the greatest generation in US history, give him a good solid loogey to the noggin.


Sincerely,


Leftist Douchebag Royale

My generations better.

[Homeland Security]

Yeah, it's really easy for your powerless little pissants to sit up on your moral soapboxes and fling your monkey feces at the people who actually run countries and make tough decisions.

[DarrinS]

Justin Raimondo is a libertarian and a man of the right. Are you familiar with Randolph Bourne?



I didn't care for his piece. Fuck, while we're at it, let's go back and revisit war crimes of WWI, the Spanish-American war, Civil War, etc. etc. etc. As long as we're looking forward, right? We need to nip this America=Evil thinking in the bud before it takes root in the national me-first conscience.

[DarrinS]

My generations better.


It would be generation's, BTW.


Why is your generation still living in a democracy and not speaking German?

[Kermit]

:lmao

Suck my dick by the way.

Nothing wrong with speaking German.

[Blake]

I wonder what the author's opinion of Hannity is.

[DarrinS]

:lmao

Suck my dick by the way.

Nothing wrong with speaking German.



You're generation is fucking clueless. I'm guessing you're in your 20's.

[Winehole23]

We need to nip this America=Evil thinking in the bud before it takes root in the national me-first conscience.The refusal to face the moral dimension of statecraft corrupts, and the mindless worship of militarism and state power authorizes future evil.

Balls to fake civil piety.

[Kermit]

I'm ten. My generations rocks. Go sauerkraut!

[LnGrrrR]

Crap, I don't know how to respond to this. It criticizes EVERYBODY. The author, and poster, need to pick a side and stay on it!

Somebody lock this thread, it's useless.

LMAO

What, you don't like a fair rant against all sides?

I agree with the thoughts of the writer.

[Winehole23]

I wonder what the author's opinion of Hannity is.Raimondo thinks he's a moron, like most reasonable people do.

[LnGrrrR]

Better start rewriting those history books.


Oh, and if you see a WWII vet from the greatest generation in US history, give him a good solid loogey to the noggin.


Sincerely,


Leftist Douchebag Royale

Yeah, because lefties are always spitting on war veterans from WWII! And killing babies! And forcing our children to smoke weed and learn about masturbation!

[LnGrrrR]

You're generation is fucking clueless. I'm guessing you're in your 20's.

It's "your" for the first one.

[Kermit]

It's "your" for the first one.

:lmao

Dammit.

[Extra Stout]

I didn't care for his piece. Fuck, while we're at it, let's go back and revisit war crimes of WWI, the Spanish-American war, Civil War, etc. etc. etc. As long as we're looking forward, right? We need to nip this America=Evil thinking in the bud before it takes root in the national me-first conscience.
Anything America does is inherently good because America is like my daddy. My daddy could never do anything bad. I love my daddy. If anybody says my daddy did something bad then I hate them.

[DarrinS]

It's "your" for the first one.


You were quick to pick up on my sarcasm. :toast


Your retarded.

[Kermit]

You were quick to pick up on my sarcasm. :toast

dorftrottel

[Winehole23]

Hey Darrin, topicality.

Care to respond to the substance of the OP and the replies, or do you just do ad hominems?

[DarrinS]

Anything America does is inherently good because America is like my daddy. My daddy could never do anything bad. I love my daddy. If anybody says my daddy did something bad then I hate them.



Well, for many Americans these days, the govt is their sugar daddy.

With the WWII generation dying out, let the pussification and self-loathing of America commence.

[Extra Stout]

According to the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, all human beings are inherently flawed, all their actions are inherently corrupt, and their best intentions add up to ashes. Everyone fails to live up to the moral standard.

Except America. America is exempt from all that. It is perfect, flawless, without blemish. Sort of like how God united deity and humanity in Jesus, he united deity and government in America. The Constitution lays out God's divinely inspired form of government. That's why Baptist churches keep an American flag behind the altar.

Buy your Patriot's Bible today!
http://www.thomasnelson.com/CPRImages/ProductMedium/1418541532.jpg

[Spurminator]

I didn't care for his piece. Fuck, while we're at it, let's go back and revisit war crimes of WWI, the Spanish-American war, Civil War, etc. etc. etc. As long as we're looking forward, right? We need to nip this America=Evil thinking in the bud before it takes root in the national me-first conscience.

If anyone was actually saying America=Evil, I'd agree. The problem is that every time you guys hear any criticism or second-guessing of past military action or foreign relations, you decry it as some kind of traitorous slander... "Obama's on a world tour to tell everybody how bad we are." Etc.

I hope and pray we never have another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I can't think of any circumstance under which I would support such action today, and I don't think there's anything wrong with re-examining the necessity of the action in 1945. History can't be rewritten but analysis can.

[Extra Stout]

Well, for many Americans these days, the govt is their sugar daddy.

With the WWII generation dying out, let the pussification and self-loathing of America commence.
Dwight D. Eisenhower criticized the use of nuclear bombs, therefore Dwight D. Eisenhower was a self-loathing pussy.

[DarrinS]

Wow, this Justin Raimondo must be one conflicted dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Raimondo

Raised Roman Catholic, but now atheist. Openly gay, but has supported Pat Buchanan? WTF?

Has supported Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, and Dennis Fucking Kucinich?

This guy is like a comic book character.



The only think I may agree with in his article is that Stewart should have stuck to his guns. I'm sure Mr. Raimondo would have never used that particular phrasing.

[Winehole23]

Yeah, it's really easy for your powerless little pissants to sit up on your moral soapboxes and fling your monkey feces at the people who actually run countries and make tough decisions.Our form of government assures our privilege to do so. Are you having second thoughts about that? Did mean old Justin Raimomdo hurt your feelings?

[DarrinS]

Dwight D. Eisenhower criticized the use of nuclear bombs, therefore Dwight D. Eisenhower was a self-loathing pussy.


So, he said Truman was a war criminal?

[Spurminator]

Buy your Patriot's Bible today!
http://www.thomasnelson.com/CPRImages/ProductMedium/1418541532.jpg


Oh my god, it's real.

[DarrinS]

If anyone was actually saying America=Evil, I'd agree. The problem is that every time you guys hear any criticism or second-guessing of past military action or foreign relations, you decry it as some kind of traitorous slander... "Obama's on a world tour to tell everybody how bad we are." Etc.

I hope and pray we never have another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I can't think of any circumstance under which I would support such action today, and I don't think there's anything wrong with re-examining the necessity of the action in 1945. History can't be rewritten but analysis can.


Then we better keep a close fucking eye on Pakistan.

[Homeland Security]

Our form of government assures our privilege to do so. Are you having second thoughts about that? Did mean old Justin Raimomdo hurt your feelings?
You are free to fling your feces, and we're free to point and laugh at you in your little cage.

"Oh no, we didn't act like the world is just a meadow of pixies and daffodils where everyone joins hands and sings Kumbaya."

Guess what, life sucks, people die, and if you want to be in power, you have to do some of the killing. If you don't, the other guy who wants to be in power kills you. America has given you meaningless little people a lot of leeway, whereas other countries with more justice and less patience would have just put a bullet in your skulls and gone on with the program.

[Extra Stout]

So, he said Truman was a war criminal?


Then we better keep a close fucking eye on Pakistan.
You are a master of strawmen and diversion. Can you keep a coherent thought together?

[DarrinS]

You are a master of strawmen and diversion. Can you keep a coherent thought together?



This, from the poster who went here.





According to the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, all human beings are inherently flawed, all their actions are inherently corrupt, and their best intentions add up to ashes. Everyone fails to live up to the moral standard.

Except America. America is exempt from all that. It is perfect, flawless, without blemish. Sort of like how God united deity and humanity in Jesus, he united deity and government in America. The Constitution lays out God's divinely inspired form of government. That's why Baptist churches keep an American flag behind the altar.

Buy your Patriot's Bible today!

[Extra Stout]

This, from the poster who went here.
I'm guessing most of the people in this thread knew exactly where I was going with that.

[DarrinS]

I'm guessing most of the people in this thread knew exactly where I was going with that.


Hey, you brought up Ike and I asked you a simple question. The OP was about Jon Stewart backpedaling on calling Truman a war criminal. Pretty on topic if you ask me.

[Winehole23]

"Oh no, we didn't act like the world is just a meadow of pixies and daffodils where everyone joins hands and sings Kumbaya."Not a very good impersonation IMO.


Guess what, life sucks, people die, and if you want to be in power, you have to do some of the killing. If you don't, the other guy who wants to be in power kills you.Japan was ready to give up. Truman's mule-headed insistence on unconditional surrender made the bomb necessary politically, not strategically.


America has given you meaningless little people a lot of leeway, whereas other countries with more justice and less patience would have just put a bullet in your skulls and gone on with the program.
True. Does it give you a vicarious thrill?

[Winehole23]

Well, for many Americans these days, the govt is their sugar daddy.You don't have much room to criticize. It's your security blanket.

[PixelPusher]

Prosopopeia, though not particularly apt.

Japan was ready to give up. Truman's mule-headed insistence on unconditional surrender made the bomb necessary politically, not strategically.

True. Does it give you a vicarious thrill?

You do realize you're arguing with an ironic troll, right?

[Winehole23]

You do realize you're arguing with an ironic troll, right?I do.

Usually HS is funny, but the mean-spirited truculence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truculent) of his posts in this thread made me think I might actually have struck a nerve.

[Extra Stout]

Hey, you brought up Ike and I asked you a simple question. The OP was about Jon Stewart backpedaling on calling Truman a war criminal. Pretty on topic if you ask me.
I don't know if Ike used the very loaded term "war criminal." That is a finger-pointing word that shuts down any further discussion. But he definitely said that the dropping of two nuclear bombs which resulted in thousands of civilian deaths was unnecessary.

Firebombing Dresden was also totally unnecessary and wouldn't have happened if Roosevelt had still been exercising control.

What should have been the obvious point is that we should be able to look at our past and critique decisions that were made, things that we don't want to repeat, that aren't consistent with our values, even among those whom we respect and admire for the greater part of their work. To do that doesn't mean we are saying "America = evil." To claim that is idiotic. No country gets it right, because countries are full of flawed people. Governments are run by flawed people. If we had a scale of government virtue, where 0 was Nazi Germany and 100 was the ideal of perfect altruism and wisdom, the U.S. might deserve a 4. But 4 would be close to the highest score anybody has ever gotten.

I basically cribbed Al Franken for the "America = daddy" theme. I read his book years ago for opposition research. I rolled my eyes when I read it. "We don't do that," I thought. In retrospect, he was totally freaking right. What the hell happened to the "government is the problem" type of conservatism? When did it become "government is the authority we can always trust and we must never question its benighted wisdom" conservatism? Bob Dole championed the 1950's, secessionists seemingly champion the 1850's, so what is this last type? Championing the 1350's?

Now I'm not exactly a big fan of Justin Raimondo, but he nailed one thing on the head. There is no altruism in sitting in judgment of what "the other side" when one's own side does and has done the same things. The first thing to do is to look at the things we ourselves are doing and if we really think they are bad, stop doing them. Our culture is haunted by some guy a lot time ago who said something to that effect.

It's nice once in a while to have somebody who speaks as a prophet in the wilderness to the ideals we are supposed to be aspiring to, rather than discussing the latest, greatest way we are going to compromise them in the name of expediency. That it has to come from a guy like Raimondo maybe should give us pause to what utter failures the rest of us have become.

[DarrinS]

I don't know if Ike used the very loaded term "war criminal." That is a finger-pointing word that shuts down any further discussion. But he definitely said that the dropping of two nuclear bombs which resulted in thousands of civilian deaths was unnecessary.

Firebombing Dresden was also totally unnecessary and wouldn't have happened if Roosevelt had still been exercising control.

What should have been the obvious point is that we should be able to look at our past and critique decisions that were made, things that we don't want to repeat, that aren't consistent with our values, even among those whom we respect and admire for the greater part of their work. To do that doesn't mean we are saying "America = evil." To claim that is idiotic. No country gets it right, because countries are full of flawed people. Governments are run by flawed people. If we had a scale of government virtue, where 0 was Nazi Germany and 100 was the ideal of perfect altruism and wisdom, the U.S. might deserve a 4. But 4 would be close to the highest score anybody has ever gotten.

I basically cribbed Al Franken for the "America = daddy" theme. I read his book years ago for opposition research. I rolled my eyes when I read it. "We don't do that," I thought. In retrospect, he was totally freaking right. What the hell happened to the "government is the problem" type of conservatism? When did it become "government is the authority we can always trust and we must never question its benighted wisdom" conservatism? Bob Dole championed the 1950's, secessionists seemingly champion the 1850's, so what is this last type? Championing the 1350's?

Now I'm not exactly a big fan of Justin Raimondo, but he nailed one thing on the head. There is no altruism in sitting in judgment of what "the other side" when one's own side does and has done the same things. The first thing to do is to look at the things we ourselves are doing and if we really think they are bad, stop doing them. Our culture is haunted by some guy a lot time ago who said something to that effect.

It's nice once in a while to have somebody who speaks as a prophet in the wilderness to the ideals we are supposed to be aspiring to, rather than discussing the latest, greatest way we are going to compromise them in the name of expediency. That it has to come from a guy like Raimondo maybe should give us pause to what utter failures the rest of us have become.



Well, I agree with all of that, I just think that calling Truman a war criminal is a little over the top. It's very convenient with 60+ years of hindsight. I don't think the bomb was dropped for the same reasons that Saddam gassed the Kurds.

[DarkReign]

Crap, I don't know how to respond to this. It criticizes EVERYBODY. The author, and poster, need to pick a side and stay on it!

Somebody lock this thread, it's useless.


What, is there some rule against everybody being wrong?

I think this is the first time I have seen you miss the point. Woot!

j/k

[angrydude]

digging up Truman again?

Talk about beating a dead horse.

[Ignignokt]

I don't know if Ike used the very loaded term "war criminal." That is a finger-pointing word that shuts down any further discussion. But he definitely said that the dropping of two nuclear bombs which resulted in thousands of civilian deaths was unnecessary.

Firebombing Dresden was also totally unnecessary and wouldn't have happened if Roosevelt had still been exercising control.

What should have been the obvious point is that we should be able to look at our past and critique decisions that were made, things that we don't want to repeat, that aren't consistent with our values, even among those whom we respect and admire for the greater part of their work. To do that doesn't mean we are saying "America = evil." To claim that is idiotic. No country gets it right, because countries are full of flawed people. Governments are run by flawed people. If we had a scale of government virtue, where 0 was Nazi Germany and 100 was the ideal of perfect altruism and wisdom, the U.S. might deserve a 4. But 4 would be close to the highest score anybody has ever gotten.

I basically cribbed Al Franken for the "America = daddy" theme. I read his book years ago for opposition research. I rolled my eyes when I read it. "We don't do that," I thought. In retrospect, he was totally freaking right. What the hell happened to the "government is the problem" type of conservatism? When did it become "government is the authority we can always trust and we must never question its benighted wisdom" conservatism? Bob Dole championed the 1950's, secessionists seemingly champion the 1850's, so what is this last type? Championing the 1350's?

Now I'm not exactly a big fan of Justin Raimondo, but he nailed one thing on the head. There is no altruism in sitting in judgment of what "the other side" when one's own side does and has done the same things. The first thing to do is to look at the things we ourselves are doing and if we really think they are bad, stop doing them. Our culture is haunted by some guy a lot time ago who said something to that effect.

It's nice once in a while to have somebody who speaks as a prophet in the wilderness to the ideals we are supposed to be aspiring to, rather than discussing the latest, greatest way we are going to compromise them in the name of expediency. That it has to come from a guy like Raimondo maybe should give us pause to what utter failures the rest of us have become.


so why did you entertain the idea of dragging wall street executives on the streets and getting them severely killed by mobs?

[Winehole23]

digging up Truman again?

Talk about beating a dead horse.We just retrofitted his national security state for 9/11, and the new administration seems eager to expand our military empire abroad.

I think it's timely.

[Ignignokt]

so why did you entertain the idea of dragging wall street executives on the streets and getting them severely killed by mobs?

[Winehole23]

so why did you entertain the idea of dragging wall street executives on the streets and getting them severely killed by mobs?Maybe because their fiduciary irresponsibility wrecked our economy, caused a global, synchronized recession, and we had to pawn the future prosperity of the USA to save their asses. I'm pretty sure ES had other reasons, but that one's enough for me.

[Ignignokt]

Maybe because their fiduciary irresponsibility wrecked our economy, caused a global, synchronized recession, and we had to pawn the future prosperity of the USA to save their asses. I'm pretty sure ES had other reasons, but that one's enough for me.

:toast

Wow, you just threw away your strenght in argument there over detainee rigths and cruel and unusual punishment.

[DarkReign]

so why did you entertain the idea of dragging wall street executives on the streets and getting them severely killed by mobs?

Because theyre not innocent, unlike the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

BTW, I didnt know Japan was ready to give up. Seems I must do some reading.

[Yonivore]

I posted this video elsewhere in the forum but, it completely evicerates the "Truman was a war criminal," meme.

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/Jon_Stewart%2C_War_Criminals_%26_The_True_Story_of _the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/;jsessionid=abckNkTdX-KCWbaYDT_ds (http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/Jon_Stewart%2C_War_Criminals_%26_The_True_Story_of _the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/;jsessionid=abckNkTdX-KCWbaYDT_ds)

I suspect the lesson could equally be applied to Dresden as well.

Oh yeah, Jon Stewart apologized (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/stewart_apologizes.asp).

[DarkReign]

WH23 said it better than me...big surprise.

[Winehole23]

:toast

Wow, you just threw away your strenght in argument there over detainee rigths and cruel and unusual punishment.Not really. Neither one of us called for officials to lynch bankers. We just think it's a shame they didn't have to face the justice of the mob. Or to put it another way, that the American mob lacks the probity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probity) and martial courage to see that a fitting price is paid for their reckless destruction of our wealth.

[Yonivore]

Because theyre not innocent, unlike the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

BTW, I didnt know Japan was ready to give up. Seems I must do some reading.
They didn't give up after Hiroshima. In fact, they weren't going to give up after Nagasaki -- and actually tried to stop their "god" leader from surrendering by attempting to kidnap him on the way to the radio station from where he would announce the Japanese surrender.

And our Islamic extremist enemies of today are even more fanatical than WWII Japanese.

[Yonivore]

Maybe because their fiduciary irresponsibility wrecked our economy, caused a global, synchronized recession, and we had to pawn the future prosperity of the USA to save their asses. I'm pretty sure ES had other reasons, but that one's enough for me.
You should have equal outrage for Barney Franks, Christopher Dodd, et. al. They bear equal (probably more) responsibility for the mess we're in that do the AIG executives who attempted a soft landing in exchange for a retention bonus.

[Winehole23]

That would more like chopping off the snake's tail IMO, but I agree that our congresscritters deserve a handsome share of the blame.

[Winehole23]

And our Islamic extremist enemies of today are even more fanatical than WWII Japanese.They don't have an imperial war machine sustained by a prosperous state. Big difference.

[Winehole23]

Threatmonger's handbook (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3365446&postcount=1) #5 and #9.

[Yonivore]

They don't have an imperial war machine sustained by a prosperous state. Big difference.
So? They managed to kill almost as many people on 9/11 as the Japanese on 12/7. And, are intent on doing it again.

Besides, they have you defending them.

[Winehole23]

So? They managed to kill almost as many people on 9/11 as the Japanese on 12/7. And, are intent on doing it again.

Besides, they have you defending them.Threatmonger's handbook #10.


Rule#10: When challenged, immediately question your critics' patriotism, credentials, or seriousness.

[Yonivore]

That would more like chopping off the snake's tail IMO, but I agree that our congresscritters deserve a handsome share of the blame.
Without the Community Reinvestment Act amendments of '96 and the Government's heavy-handed requirements under them, banks wouldn't have made bad loans.

Without the bad loans, financial institutions would not have needed the financial instruments -- intended to hide that debt -- in order to stay liquid.

Without the Barney and friends covering for them at every turn and frustrating Bush administration attempts to reign it in, this mess would have come to a head a lot quicker and at a lot lower cost.

[Winehole23]

Bush pushed the mortgage sector like everybody else.

[Yonivore]

Threatmonger's handbook #10.
You're apoplectic over KSM being waterboarded but, yet, can see Truman's view on Japan?

That's idiocy and could be construed as a defense of KSM.

I'd rather be defined as a "Threatmonger," as found in your stupid book that an idiot who fought for the rights of terrorists until they were released to wreak havoc again...which is exactly what you're doing.

If we close Guantanamo, where are the terrorists going to go?

If we hadn't waterboarded KSM and friends, what plots would have been carried out? (that's right, Obama wont releast those memos.)

Yeah, you're complicit with al Qaeda. A useful idiot, I believe.

[Yonivore]

Bush pushed the mortgage sector like everybody else.
He pushed for ways to lend to more minority home-buyers.

ACORN and Democrats pushed for lending to people who could have never paid it back...all the while, Bush was trying to reign in the madness.

There's a difference...unless, of course, you're a racist and want to say Bush's efforts amounted to unwise lending practices because minorities are dead beats. Is that what you're claiming?

[Winehole23]

Assuming arguendo that Bush really tried to rein in the banks, he failed, while his party had control of both houses of Congress.

[Winehole23]

You're apoplectic over KSM being waterboarded but, yet, can see Truman's view on Japan?Douglas McArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, and two of his cabinet officials didn't see eye to eye with him either.



That's idiocy and could be construed as a defense of KSM.Fiat. There are terms missing in your syllogism. You know, the part where reasoning happens?
.

[ElNono]

Without the Community Reinvestment Act amendments of '96 and the Government's heavy-handed requirements under them, banks wouldn't have made bad loans.

The numbers don't agree with you... We already debunked the CRA myth at least twice before the elections. Use the search function please. And more important, drill it on your head for once.

[ElNono]

He pushed for ways to lend to more minority home-buyers.

ACORN and Democrats pushed for lending to people who could have never paid it back...all the while, Bush was trying to reign in the madness.

There's a difference...unless, of course, you're a racist and want to say Bush's efforts amounted to unwise lending practices because minorities are dead beats. Is that what you're claiming?

I bet a lot of that minority owned default swaps. :rolleyes

[Winehole23]

He pushed for ways to lend to more minority home-buyers.

ACORN and Democrats pushed for lending to people who could have never paid it back...all the while, Bush was trying to reign in the madness.And Republican majorities in both houses of Congress were powerless to help him. Poor Bush.


There's a difference...unless, of course, you're a racist and want to say Bush's efforts amounted to unwise lending practices because minorities are dead beats. Is that what you're claiming?No, but that was one unavoidable result of the predatory lending Bush never reined in.

[Blake]

WH23 said it better than me...big surprise.

:lol been there

[Cry Havoc]

Rule number one in this game is that everybody must play their assigned role. You’ve always got to be "in character." If you’re on the Left, you can take on George W. Bush, murderer of hundreds of thousands (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq) of Iraqis – but not Harry Truman, killer of even larger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II#B-29_raids) numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) of innocent Japanese civilians.

Perhaps because the war we fought against Japan, they were the aggressors? Say what you will about the bomb, they hit us first, and they hit us harder than anyone ever has before or since. As opposed to Iraq, where we deliberately murdered people for the express purpose of making money. Not for the defense of America (however over-zealous), not to send a controversial message to the Soviets that we would not hesitate to use any force necessary, but for oil. There's a reason for the distinction, and I do not think time will be kind to GWB. Yes, what Truman did was horrific (although the firebombings of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic weapons did), but war is war, and his actions are at least understandable, if no less wrong. Bombing cities out of fear for the lives of your own people will always trump killing for oil and profit.


Rightists regularly excoriate the crimes of Stalin (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087/antiwarbookstore), yet they are expected to remain silent when it comes to war crimes committed by the U.S., such as the "Phoenix program (http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Program-Douglas-Valentine/dp/0595007384/antiwarbookstore)" during the Vietnam conflict – and they rarely disappoint.

What's there to say? We have blood on our hands. Pretty sure that every other country in the world does too, except maybe Canada and the Swiss.


In any case, Stewart’s apology was embarrassing: for him, for the studio audience (which giggled nervously, and inappropriately, at awkward intervals), and for me. As he looked into the camera and babbled about how wrong he was – without giving a single reason, never mind a good one – you could almost see his strings being pulled by his corporate masters.
So let’s see if I get this straight: it is not okay to torture a member of al-Qaeda, who no doubt has information we need in order to stop terrorist attacks. Instead, we have to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996) treat him as a prisoner of war according to the rules laid down by the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, it is okay to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, to incinerate entire cities (http://www.amazon.com/First-Into-Nagasaki-Eyewitness-Post-Atomic/dp/0307342018) and poison the land for generations to come, as long as your name is Harry Truman.

Yes, DAMN him for wanting to keep his job! It must be nice to look back through the lens of 60 years of history and cast aspersions so readily.



Am I getting this right so far?


Why is this being asked? You mean, are the bombastic statements in your article actually making any decent points? No. So far it's been a waste of space, much like the above comment.


I have stayed away from the torture "debate" for a number of reasons, because, after all, the issue isn’t debatable. Not in a civilized country, that is. We might as well debate the merits and demerits of infanticide or coprophagia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia). Normal people don’t argue about these things; they simply turn away in revulsion.

Or they attempt to intellectually debate the matter in order to establish a moral clarity on the issue. I guess that's not normal though, but are you writing to a normal audience with this article?


Another reason for my abstention from this ongoing brouhaha – which seems to have consumed the left wing of the blogosphere ever since Obama took office – is that there is something remarkably phony about the high moral dudgeon of the liberals when it comes to this non-question. How much moral moxie does it really take to come out, guns blazing, against torture? I mean, you don’t have to be a saint or anything to enlist in a campaign to ban pulling off the fingernails of defenseless prisoners, you just have to be halfway normal.

Interesting. He just called a pretty large proportion of the right "weird". For it to be so easy for Obama to say, there certainly seems to be a lot of dissent, not the least of which comes from the former president.


Furthermore, there is another reason to be suspicious of the liberals-against-torture campaign that now monopolizes the capacity of certain pundits for outrage: the amount of noise being generated about this issue very effectively – and conveniently – drowns out opposition to the rest of Bush’s ugly legacy, principally the ongoing occupation (http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/1158896.html) of Iraq and Obama’s escalation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102652_pf.html) of the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/05/us-strike-kills-dozens-of-afghan-civilians/) and Pakistan (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/432820/obey_issues_a_vietnam_warning). Exhausted by their 24/7 calls to expunge the stain of torture from America’s conscience – which is to be accomplished, supposedly, by trying Bush, Cheney, and the Republican gang for war crimes – the liberals have no moral energy to take on Obama’s wars.

Sensationalism at it's finest. I see nothing of substance here at all.




Thus what passes for the Left in the America of 2009 is perfectly happy to make demands they know will never be met and rail against a practice that even those who advocate it in certain circumstances seem uneasy about.

Oh, well since I'm uneasy about pulling fingernails off or burning people or depriving them of sleep, that makes it so much less necessary to extricate ourselves from further repetition of the practice. "Excuse me, sir, I know you're kind of on fire right now, but we're really kind of iffy about whether we actually want to hurt you, so could you hate us a little less? Mmkay, thanks."


It’s so much easier than coming out against the foreign policy of a popular president whom liberals regard as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln (http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama%2BAbraham%2BLincoln&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-32,GGGL:en) and Martin Luther King (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-32%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=Obama%2BMartin%2BLuther%2BKing&btnG=Search) combined.

What's a good synonym for histrionic but with a much lower base IQ? Can I just use tumid and a really frowny face to indicate my displeasure here?


It doesn’t seem to matter that those policies are murderous (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/05/us-investigates-reports-of-massive-civilian-toll-in-afghanistan/), just as Bush’s were, and potentially even more disastrous for the U.S. in terms of "blowback." If we are signing on (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/04/07/progressive-warmongers/) to an occupation of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan that will make our activities in Iraq seem like the briefest of episodes, then liberals of the Kossack/Huffington Post/Jon Stewart sort don’t want to hear about it. That’s because they’re okay with it – as long as we don’t torture people individually, you see, by making them think they’re drowning (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) or throwing them against a wall (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530). Obama’s in the White House, and all’s right with the world!

Ahh, armchair journalism. Because shooting an enemy in a firefight is suddenly the moral equivalent of pinning him down while helpless to inflict pain?



Once Dear Leader :rolleyes
has determined that it’s imperative we actually kill people en masse, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the defense of the United States, as we are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan – well, then, it’s nothing to get too excited about. Indeed, it’s actually praiseworthy (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-23-afghanistan-poll_N.htm), positively Truman-esque – and we all know what a heroic figure the gnome-like machine politician Truman was!

I wonder what this guy pays for his 20-20 history vision.



That’s why liberals are rendered practically speechless by ritualized neocon invocations of "Hitler" and "Munich" every time (http://justinlogan.typepad.com/justinlogancom/2004/12/speaking_of_god.html) a supposedly deadly threat to the U.S. arises somewhere in the world.

You don't say. I'm about out of patience to respond at this point.




For a moment, however, Stewart saw through the veil of myth and prejudice (yes, racial prejudice (http://tinyurl.com/csm2s3)) that obscures the truth about what we did to Japan, which was ready to make peace (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html) on reasonable terms. Roosevelt’s insistence on unconditional surrender, upheld by Truman, rationalized mass murder on a scale never before seen, and at the time the liberals fell right into line, with nary a pip or a squeak from any of them.

What? Mass murder on a never before seen scale? How about the Holocaust? Stalin? Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombings. But since it's less sensational, this guy clearly wants nothing to do with actual research and fact-checking. If Japan was ready to surrender, it should have surrendered well before that, as it was clear for many weeks that they had no hope of winning the Pacific in any possible form.

The only success they had against the Americans were their kamikaze pilots, and even the vaunted Zeroes were being wiped out by the newer fighters. Japan held on stubbornly in a war it provoked, and guess what? War is hell. Amazing how history turns such a blind eye to the fact that they allied themselves to people responsible for the deaths of 6,000,000 Jews. It's not prejudice to hate them (at the time) for that.




It was inside the military and the U.S. government that dissent raised its head. Truman’s decision went against the advice of Generals Douglas MacArthur and Dwight David Eisenhower (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm), not to mention his own secretaries of state and the Navy. In 1963, Eisenhower told Newsweek: "The Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

lol firebombs

Nor was it necessary for Japan to ally themselves with Hitler or attack Pearl Harbor, either. They endorsed mass murder and attacked without provocation.




Oh, but please don’t confuse us with the introduction of needless facts.

REALLY not a concern with this article.



What are you, one of those obstructionist Republican extremists? In the wake of Stewart’s faux pas and subsequent Soviet-style self-criticism, one thing is clear: measures must be taken. It is necessary – in this, the Age of Obama – to establish a firm doctrine from which no one, no matter how popular, how "provocative," or how "edgy" they might be, is allowed to dissent, and it is this: no Democratic president can ever be guilty of a war crime. No, not even Lyndon "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" Johnson. Which means Obama has a license to obliterate Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran (as his secretary of state said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1nmGmtD18) she would like to do), and we can get on with the important business of conducting political show trials of our favorite Republican villains.
And all’s right with the world…


To conclude: yes, Stewart is a wimp, a wuss, and a moral coward – but he’s very far from alone.

:lmao

Wow. I can't believe I wasted so much time responding to this.

[Winehole23]

In a broad way I think Raimondo wanted to draw attention to the tunnel vision of progressives who pitch a fit over torture, but pardon Truman/Kennedy/LBJ reflexively for things that are plausibly even worse.

He's a polemicist and trades in hyperbole. You're quite correct that very many of his points don't stand up too well, but go too far IMO by suggesting that Raimondo has mounted some kind of defense of Japan.

What's valuable in the OP IMO is the moral focus on atrocities against civilians and the hypocrisy/spinelessness of progressive liberals like Jon Stewart.

[Cry Havoc]

What's valuable in the OP IMO is the moral focus on atrocities against civilians and the hypocrisy/spinelessness of progressive liberals like Jon Stewart.

I guess I find it a little interesting that he would target a TV personality that's pre-empted by cops running around in 3 inch shorts shooting themselves. Even Stewart doesn't take himself too seriously.

I believe that "liberals" are every bit as culpable for the horrors of the past as the right wing. Since when is Vietnam not viewed as a complete roto-rooting of the colon of America? Who makes excuses for that today or states that it was the right thing to do?

Conversely, some of the conservative movement are still attempting to convince people that the war in Iraq was prompt and just. Stewart may not be a super-courageous paragon of morality, but the other party will never admit they're wrong about anything.

[Winehole23]

It's not Jon Stewart's fault that people take the fake news more seriously than the real news, but in fairness, sometimes his coverage really is better than mainstream journalism.

[ChumpDumper]

Alas, apparently not quick enough for the executives at whatever network Stewart appears on – yes, I know, I have to be the only person in America who doesn’t watch his show – who no doubt would have preferred that he never said it at all. It was clearly the execs who reined in the freethinking Stewart and laid down the law, and the first law of "controversial," "provocative," and indubitably "edgy" television commentary is to never – ever, ever! – allow a deviation from the conventional wisdom that falls outside the contemporary Left/Right paradigm.I call bullshit. Either this guy is the stupidest, laziest writer in the world that he can't/won't find out which network Stewart is on, or he just didn't want to evoke the rather ridiculous image of COMEDY CENTRAL executives actually getting angry about this and forcing Stewart to apologize.

[Spurminator]

Stewart is in the same vein as O'Reilly, Olbermann, etc... his show is just a lot funnier.

[Spurminator]

I call bullshit. Either this guy is the stupidest, laziest writer in the world that he can't/won't find out which network Stewart is on, or he just didn't want to evoke the rather ridiculous image of COMEDY CENTRAL executives actually getting angry about this and forcing Stewart to apologize.

Yeah that part made me chuckle a bit... He's clearly seen enough of The Daily Show to know what channel it's on.

[Winehole23]

I call bullshit. Either this guy is the stupidest, laziest writer in the world that he can't/won't find out which network Stewart is on, or he just didn't want to evoke the rather ridiculous image of COMEDY CENTRAL executives actually getting angry about this and forcing Stewart to apologize.The assertion is completely unsupported, but I don't find it that implausible. Didn't Donahue get his show yanked for a much milder impiety? Norville too?

[ChumpDumper]

The assertion is completely unsupported, but I don't find it that implausible. Didn't Donahue get his show yanked for a much milder impiety? Norville too?They had shows on Comedy Central? I don't find either particularly funny.

[Winehole23]

Are you saying Comedy Central isn't afraid of losing its advertisers like every other channel?

[Cry Havoc]

It's not Jon Stewart's fault that people take the fake news more seriously than the real news, but in fairness, sometimes his coverage really is better than mainstream journalism.

Sorry for changing my response, I edited in quite a bit there after the fact.

Also, since when is a comedy central host supposed to be courageous? I would really like to see what Stewart could do if he actually tried to go legit (well more legit than he is) with his show. He's intelligent enough to get the job done, but my thought is that he doesn't want to be lost amongst the mass media, and is rather content just making people laugh and making the occasional joke about how the internet is a series of tubes or pointing out the hypocrisy of people in power. I can't in good conscience fault him for that.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you saying Comedy Central isn't afraid of losing its advertisers like every other channel?I'm saying the advertisers don't give that much of a shit about that particular issue.

[Winehole23]

Eh, could be.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, most of the demographic for that show don't know who Truman was anyway. So iPod and whoever is distributing Wolverine are going to pull their ads?

[Winehole23]

Good point.

[Winehole23]

Conversely, some of the conservative movement are still attempting to convince people that the war in Iraq was prompt and just. Stewart may not be a super-courageous paragon of morality, but the other party will never admit they're wrong about anything.This is what I don't get. It's so unrealistic and so dumb. It's so out of step with any conservative view of human nature. When did conservative politicians and policies become infallible?

What ES said about about American evangelicals being republicans first and Christians second is germane. Ideology has become a quasi-religious icon even for believers at this point, pushing Christ into the background.

For enlightened liberals of course, it replaced religion long ago.

[Homeland Security]

How unexpected it is to see the forum's usual tweed-wearing pseudo-intellectuals cheering on some fringe gay atheist libertarian weirdo for his oh-so-nuanced "pox on both your houses" diatribe. :rolleyes

[Winehole23]

You used to be funny. Now you're just bitter and sad.

[ElNono]

How unexpected it is to see the forum's usual tweed-wearing pseudo-intellectuals cheering on some fringe gay atheist libertarian weirdo for his oh-so-nuanced "pox on both your houses" diatribe. :rolleyes

Why do you hate America?

[Cry Havoc]

This is what I don't get. It's so unrealistic and so dumb. It's so out of step with any conservative view of human nature. When did conservative politicians and policies become infallible?

What ES said about about American evangelicals being republicans first and Christians second is germane. Ideology has become a quasi-religious icon even for believers at this point, pushing Christ into the background.

For enlightened liberals of course, it replaced religion long ago.

Ah, the not-so-subtle irony. If they would admit to being fallible, they would take a step towards lacking so much credibility.

[DarrinS]

How unexpected it is to see the forum's usual tweed-wearing pseudo-intellectuals cheering on some fringe gay atheist libertarian weirdo for his oh-so-nuanced "pox on both your houses" diatribe. :rolleyes

:lol


I've gotta at least give you style points for that one.

[Homeland Security]

You used to be funny. Now you're just bitter and sad.
Oh no! You've pulled out the most potent weapon in the whole liberal arsenal -- stern language!

I am undone!

[Homeland Security]

so why did you entertain the idea of dragging wall street executives on the streets and getting them severely killed by mobs?
For these liberal "intellectuals" to maintain their bona fides among their friends at cocktail parties, they simultaneously have to channel Che Guevara while mocking conservatives as violent mindless brutes. It's really quite an impressive balancing act.

I especially like ES's "I used to be a conservative until they got too stupid for me" concern troll act. That should win some kind of award for shameless douchebaggery.

[Homeland Security]

Why do you hate America?
America is great. It's the useless people whose existence I suffer, yet who still don't know their proper place that get on my nerves.

e.g, you.

[Winehole23]

For these liberal "intellectuals" to maintain their bona fides among their friends at cocktail parties, they simultaneously have to channel Che Guevara while mocking conservatives as violent mindless brutes. It's really quite an impressive balancing act.ES is a limousine lib?:lol

Minicons (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3178339&postcount=12) like HS can't imagine that the GOP can be ever criticized from the right. That's why everyone who contradicts superpatriot dittoheads gets called a dirty fucking hippie, regardless of their actual views. They think they own conservatism and enforce conformity to the party line like Jacobins. They don't realize their brand isn't even conservative anymore. It merged with Cold War liberalism in the 1970's and ultimately finds its roots in Trotskyism (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3027) through James Burnham, Irving Kristol and Max Schactman.

Jacobinism is understood as a form of elitist insurrectionary politics, in which an elite possessed of true social and political knowledge, believes itself entitled to seize and hold political power in the name of the people.
(http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/A_JACOBINISM.HTM)

I especially like ES's "I used to be a conservative until they got too stupid for me" concern troll act. That should win some kind of award for shameless douchebaggery.You should be the one handing out the award, that's for sure.

BTW, ES is still a conservative. Recognizing and regretting the parlous state of American conservatism makes him a realist, not a Georgetown socialite.

You, one the other hand, have no fucking idea what conservatives are supposed to conserve. You worship power and shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you. That is your conservatism.

[Cry Havoc]

ES is a limousine lib?:lol

Minicons (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3178339&postcount=12) like HS can't imagine that the GOP can be ever criticized from the right. That's why everyone who contradicts superpatriot dittoheads gets called a dirty fucking hippie, regardless of their actual views. They think they own conservatism and enforce conformity to the party line like Jacobins.

Perhaps conservatives should take the Tennis Court Oaths again. I mean, they want to secede anyway, right? :lol

[Homeland Security]

ES is a limousine lib?:lolI don't know what he rides around in, but he's definitely a hand-wringing weenie.


like HS can't imagine that the GOP can be ever criticized from the right. That's why everyone who contradicts superpatriot dittoheads gets called a dirty fucking hippie, regardless of their actual views.
:lol at you thinking throwing around a bunch of big words and quoting a bunch of obscure magazines makes you a conservative.

I'll tell you the difference between a liberal and a conservative. Let's say there's a problem that needs to be solved. Liberals sit on their hands, think about it, talk a whole lot, wring their hands some more, bring in some consultants, powder their faces, act ambiguously gay, blame America for the problem, wait until the problem snowballs, then implement some bureaucratic solution that does nothing to solve the problem but gives more power to the government.

Conservatives look at it, and figure out that most of the time there is no problem except that some losers screwed up their own lives. So they do nothing because there is no real problem. The times when there is a problem, like say somebody wants to attack America, or there are liberal traitors wanting to let people attack America because liberals feel guilty about inferior people getting inferior results, conservatives don't wait for 28 freaking studies on environmental impacts to get published. They take action.

That's why we are winners and you are losers.


They don't realize their brand isn't even conservative anymore. It blah blah blah obscure 1970's blah
Yeah, because if we want to reference an era when conservatism was really on top of things, let's go back to the freaking 1970's!


BTW, ES is still a conservative. Recognizing and regretting the parlous state of American conservatism makes him a realist, not a Georgetown socialite.

You, one the other hand, have no fucking idea what conservatives are supposed to conserve. You worship power and shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you. That is your conservatism.
I don't worship power. I exercise power. And no, 150 posts about "conservatives are too stupid for my superior intellect" does not make ES a realist or a conservative.

[ChumpDumper]

Someone needs to check his sarcasm detector.

[Winehole23]

You have no idea what conservatives should conserve.

You're so enamored of of the power of the state and punishing its enemies, that you forgot there's a republic, a people, and substantive liberties it's supposed to serve.

You're the fake conservative, not me or ES.

[Winehole23]

Someone needs to check his sarcasm detector.Really? He seems grim, not funny. I have yet to detect any humor. Can you point it out for me?

[Winehole23]

HS does blank parody suddenly? He used to be funny.

[ChumpDumper]

His deadpan shows much more discipline than the average politroll.

[Winehole23]

Perhaps conservatives should take the Tennis Court Oaths again. I mean, they want to secede anyway, right? :lolWhat a gruesome thought. The (American) third estate, with the GOP in the vanguard, establishing a "new" constitutional order.

(shudders)




http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7673/descent.jpg

[ElNono]

America is great. It's the useless people whose existence I suffer, yet who still don't know their proper place that get on my nerves.

e.g, you.

Let me guess. You also thought Sarah Palin was an intellectual and the best candidate the right had to offer...

[Winehole23]

His deadpan shows much more discipline than the average politroll.Well, he sure got me. My hat's off to him.

[PixelPusher]

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7673/descent.jpg

Just replace the "ic" at the end with an "ism" and that sign would be absolutely perfect.

[Ignignokt]

Not really. Neither one of us called for officials to lynch bankers. We just think it's a shame they didn't have to face the justice of the mob. Or to put it another way, that the American mob lacks the probity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probity) and martial courage to see that a fitting price is paid for their reckless destruction of our wealth.

So now you're a duel deity?

Plus ES's whole thesis on american evangelism is so broadstroke, for one i could name Sproul and Macarthur as evangelicist who put Christian principles above national identity.

2. Most americans have a strong sense of pride for their country, and happen to be christian.

3. Most christians outside of america are socialist because they live in socialist countries, not hard to understand.

4. I don't know of any churches who do sermons on the laffer curve, and reagonomics.:lmao ES, get off your high horse.

5. American evangelicals have always showed a jekyll and hyde attitude with our government. When the US has banned prayer and legalized abortion, american evangelicals felt that this nation was about to incur God's wrath. TO say that american baptist and evangelicals are 100% flag wavers is pretty ignorant. It wasn't to long ago that liberals were making fun of Hagee for being loyal to israel more than america.

[Ignignokt]

and extra stout has failed to anwser my original question.

[Cry Havoc]

4. I don't know of any churches who do sermons on the laffer curve, and reagonomics.:lmao ES, get off your high horse

Attend services at the University of Chicago once or twice.

[Ignignokt]

Attend services at the University of Chicago once or twice.

I could attend another "famous church" at Chicago too, but that one wont tell me about the evangelical movement either.:lol

[DarkReign]

For these liberal "intellectuals" to maintain their bona fides among their friends at cocktail parties, they simultaneously have to channel Che Guevara while mocking conservatives as violent mindless brutes. It's really quite an impressive balancing act.

I especially like ES's "I used to be a conservative until they got too stupid for me" concern troll act. That should win some kind of award for shameless douchebaggery.

OMG, whottt? Youre HS?!

[LnGrrrR]

I
I'll tell you the difference between a liberal and a conservative. Let's say there's a problem that needs to be solved. Liberals sit on their hands, think about it, talk a whole lot, wring their hands some more, bring in some consultants, powder their faces, act ambiguously gay, blame America for the problem, wait until the problem snowballs, then implement some bureaucratic solution that does nothing to solve the problem but gives more power to the government.

Conservatives look at it, and figure out that most of the time there is no problem except that some losers screwed up their own lives. So they do nothing because there is no real problem. The times when there is a problem, like say somebody wants to attack America, or there are liberal traitors wanting to let people attack America because liberals feel guilty about inferior people getting inferior results, conservatives don't wait for 28 freaking studies on environmental impacts to get published. They take action.



LMAO

Every hero has been a conservative! Every traitor has been liberal! RARR!!

[Ignignokt]

good thread.

[rjv]

Better start rewriting those history books.


Oh, and if you see a WWII vet from the greatest generation in US history, give him a good solid loogey to the noggin.


Sincerely,


Leftist Douchebag Royale

my father was in the battle of the bulge and he always thought the bombings were not necessary. his brother was in the pacific and he just felt that the bombings put us on the same level the japs were at.
WW II vets are not mythological icons. they are and were people with a myriad set of views but with one shared experience that allowed them all to come to the understanding that war is not a glorious event in any way, shape of form. it is hell.

[LnGrrrR]

What, is there some rule against everybody being wrong?

How else are the posters going to know whether to blindly support or fling ad hominems? Taking the time to know the issues takes too long! Just tell me if he's red or blue so I can start flinging mud already.

[Drachen]

This thread reminded me. Where is Extra Stout?

[Spurminator]

I especially like ES's "I used to be a conservative until they got too stupid for me" concern troll act. That should win some kind of award for shameless douchebaggery.

Wait a minute.... :lmao