Chris Dodd's Left School of Rhetoric
Like other leftists, Chris Dodd employs the rhetorical device of accusing your opponants of your worst behaviors:
'How many times can this administration and some of my colleagues here in this chamber claim that any debate, any dissent, or any action that departs even one iota from the President's policy is "un-patriotic?"Jingoism and facile claims about "supporting the troops," about "good vs. evil," and about "victory vs. defeat" can no longer be tolerated--in fact they should never have been tolerated.'
Should not have been tolerated? Who is attempting to silence any dissent or debate? Should not have been tolerated?
This is during a debate in which Dodd declared, "this resolution before us does not represent as forceful an approach to accomplishing that goal as I would propose." Dodd wants to cut off funding. This is supporting the troops? "Inverted logic," indeed. Dodd attempts to dress up surrender as were redeployment. He's a liar and so he accuses others of lying.
This is either because he can't tell the difference between victory and defeat, good and evil, or supporting the troops and withdrawing support, or he's a liar. I think he's not only a liar, he lying abouy who is lying and what they're lying about.
Not content to advocate bad policy, he wants to be a despicable person too.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Ingraham filled with Hate
Laura Ingraham is just filled with hate. She is now constantly remarking on how she has to turn off press conferences or speeched by the President on the immigration issue. This has progressed from pulling out her hair, and other references of her frustration. I don't know what she hates. Its probabaly the President's policy. But this kind of talk reflects someone eaten up with hate.
She has delued herself into thinking that no sensible person in their right mind holds an alternative view, and that the American people are united in opposition to the President's policy.
I wonder what kind of economic theory she has, because a Smithian approach of free flows of capital and labor is not any part of it.
Indeed this is more evidence of the three part division of American political ideology. This anti-Smithian economics clearly puts her out of the ranks of liberals and puts her into a conservative economic theory in which a patriarchial state looks out for its workers and protects them from evils like competition and its dire consequences like wages set by free and open markets.
Laura Ingraham is just filled with hate. She is now constantly remarking on how she has to turn off press conferences or speeched by the President on the immigration issue. This has progressed from pulling out her hair, and other references of her frustration. I don't know what she hates. Its probabaly the President's policy. But this kind of talk reflects someone eaten up with hate.
She has delued herself into thinking that no sensible person in their right mind holds an alternative view, and that the American people are united in opposition to the President's policy.
I wonder what kind of economic theory she has, because a Smithian approach of free flows of capital and labor is not any part of it.
Indeed this is more evidence of the three part division of American political ideology. This anti-Smithian economics clearly puts her out of the ranks of liberals and puts her into a conservative economic theory in which a patriarchial state looks out for its workers and protects them from evils like competition and its dire consequences like wages set by free and open markets.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Why the Dems Oppose the Surge
Because they are venal liars who can't be trusted with responsibility.
When Bush was holding troop levels flat, they complained that too few troops were in place (other than those who more honestly, but less responsibly just advocated cut and run). Now that they get the additional troops they claimed were needed, they oppose the move. Objecting to any move Bush makes is not a policy, its a playground tactic. Apparently this is what Pelosi means when she talks of government for the children.
Because they are venal liars who can't be trusted with responsibility.
When Bush was holding troop levels flat, they complained that too few troops were in place (other than those who more honestly, but less responsibly just advocated cut and run). Now that they get the additional troops they claimed were needed, they oppose the move. Objecting to any move Bush makes is not a policy, its a playground tactic. Apparently this is what Pelosi means when she talks of government for the children.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Senator McCaskill:
The Democrats are worried about an open-ended commitment in Iraq. Where the United States had made open-ended commitments, such as Korea, Taiwan, Greece, and Turkey - open ended commitments made by Harry Truman - these countries have advoided domination by hostile, totalitarian powers, and made a slow transition to democracy. The first two or three decades for each of these countries (with some exception for Turkey) were not democratic, but the American commitment and presence helped those countries build democracies. Sustained commitment since then helped solidify democracy in these places. The current generation has the same duties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places yet undetermined. What would Truman do? What would John Kennedy do? Are the democrats still willing to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Or has the Democratic Party and the Missouri Senator entirely embraced the Peace at Any Price policy of McGovern and the New Left, abandoning nascient democracies well before democracy is established and dominant? Where are Wilson, Truman, and Kennedy today? Where will you vote and where will your party vote? Abandon Iraq and condemn freedom's blossom? Or bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty in the Middle East?
The Democrats are worried about an open-ended commitment in Iraq. Where the United States had made open-ended commitments, such as Korea, Taiwan, Greece, and Turkey - open ended commitments made by Harry Truman - these countries have advoided domination by hostile, totalitarian powers, and made a slow transition to democracy. The first two or three decades for each of these countries (with some exception for Turkey) were not democratic, but the American commitment and presence helped those countries build democracies. Sustained commitment since then helped solidify democracy in these places. The current generation has the same duties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places yet undetermined. What would Truman do? What would John Kennedy do? Are the democrats still willing to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Or has the Democratic Party and the Missouri Senator entirely embraced the Peace at Any Price policy of McGovern and the New Left, abandoning nascient democracies well before democracy is established and dominant? Where are Wilson, Truman, and Kennedy today? Where will you vote and where will your party vote? Abandon Iraq and condemn freedom's blossom? Or bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty in the Middle East?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)