for George Bush is Great2/2/2006 c1 Sonia Doherty
About several points in your essay:
1. "The Left often say that it is not the American Government’s duty to go into other areas and tell them what to do, but is it moral to stand by and wait as totalitarian governments around the world terrorize their citizens?" And yet we have instances such as Abu Ghirab? Are we the government of freedom or terror?
2. "Unfortunately, however, among the neighborhood of governments (i.e. the international level) there are no police, or the police may be slow and/or corrupt." Does that mean we must the police of the world and violate national and international law?
3. " But I ask: is it noble to fight a battle to help others and then run away before the job is done?...This is no ordinary war. This is a war for liberty. This is a war to bring democracy to the rest of the world, to give people freedom. Only in free countries like America will you not be executed by the government for being a homosexual. " And yet we discriminate against homosexuals for being what they are and we execute criminals at the expense of the taxpayers? We execute people too.
4. "Spreading democracy around the world will also create more trade opportunities that benefit not only American businesses but the businesses that do business with the American businesses. Everyone wins with free trade, but free trade is often difficult when a totalitarian government exists." Actually only the big bullies of countries like the G8 benefit from free trade.
5. "Many people think that spreading Americanism will destroy other cultures, but it won’t. Spreading American culture will in fact create culture. First we have to define what Americanism is. Americanism is based on the principles of individual freedom and capitalism. Therefore, establishing these principles in another country won’t destroy its culture. Culture includes things like the type of food worn and the type of clothes worn. If individuals have the freedom to wear these clothes and eat these foods, then the culture will still exists." We DESTROY culture. We have destroyed the culture of the Indians and we are well of the way to destrying the Arab culture, dress, ways of life.
And you call this "the land of free"? This essay is just opinions and not facts.Sonia Doherty
About several points in your essay:
1. "The Left often say that it is not the American Government’s duty to go into other areas and tell them what to do, but is it moral to stand by and wait as totalitarian governments around the world terrorize their citizens?" And yet we have instances such as Abu Ghirab? Are we the government of freedom or terror?
2. "Unfortunately, however, among the neighborhood of governments (i.e. the international level) there are no police, or the police may be slow and/or corrupt." Does that mean we must the police of the world and violate national and international law?
3. " But I ask: is it noble to fight a battle to help others and then run away before the job is done?...This is no ordinary war. This is a war for liberty. This is a war to bring democracy to the rest of the world, to give people freedom. Only in free countries like America will you not be executed by the government for being a homosexual. " And yet we discriminate against homosexuals for being what they are and we execute criminals at the expense of the taxpayers? We execute people too.
4. "Spreading democracy around the world will also create more trade opportunities that benefit not only American businesses but the businesses that do business with the American businesses. Everyone wins with free trade, but free trade is often difficult when a totalitarian government exists." Actually only the big bullies of countries like the G8 benefit from free trade.
5. "Many people think that spreading Americanism will destroy other cultures, but it won’t. Spreading American culture will in fact create culture. First we have to define what Americanism is. Americanism is based on the principles of individual freedom and capitalism. Therefore, establishing these principles in another country won’t destroy its culture. Culture includes things like the type of food worn and the type of clothes worn. If individuals have the freedom to wear these clothes and eat these foods, then the culture will still exists." We DESTROY culture. We have destroyed the culture of the Indians and we are well of the way to destrying the Arab culture, dress, ways of life.
And you call this "the land of free"? This essay is just opinions and not facts.Sonia Doherty
1/2/2006 c1 
19Kat-Renee Kittel
I agree with most of what you have written here... we have to respond to abuse, even internationally. And Bush has more Chutzpah than Gore or Kerry could have even tried to muster in the same situation as going to war. Bush knows the power of not trying to run a "popularity contest."
I forgot who said this: "America is great, because America is good. When America ceases to be good, then she ceases to be great."
Yet I have become disheartened at what "Americanism" has become.
"Americans like to think that our country is a place where 'all' citizens get a fair trial from a jury of our peers. But if lawyers are allowed to deceive, fabricate, smear and intimidate without consequence, where is the fairness? Our criminal justice system has become a farce where High-priced lawyers armed with vivid imaginations run wild And with civil courts taking years even to be heard while legal expenses mount astronomically. So if you possibly can, stay away from all this. It is a cesspool of corruption; even if you win you'll get hurt. I love this country, but I despise what our so-called system of justice has degenerated into...If you are looking for an honest day in court, well, you have my sympathy, because you are not likely to get it." Bill O'Reilly, "Who's Looking Out For You?"
It's truly tragic that my husband and I can vouch for what O'Reilly says in his book. See my biography essays, A Light Shining in the Darkness, and Why I'm Fond of Richard Belzer.
Kind regards, Katie.
19Kat-Renee KittelI agree with most of what you have written here... we have to respond to abuse, even internationally. And Bush has more Chutzpah than Gore or Kerry could have even tried to muster in the same situation as going to war. Bush knows the power of not trying to run a "popularity contest."
I forgot who said this: "America is great, because America is good. When America ceases to be good, then she ceases to be great."
Yet I have become disheartened at what "Americanism" has become.
"Americans like to think that our country is a place where 'all' citizens get a fair trial from a jury of our peers. But if lawyers are allowed to deceive, fabricate, smear and intimidate without consequence, where is the fairness? Our criminal justice system has become a farce where High-priced lawyers armed with vivid imaginations run wild And with civil courts taking years even to be heard while legal expenses mount astronomically. So if you possibly can, stay away from all this. It is a cesspool of corruption; even if you win you'll get hurt. I love this country, but I despise what our so-called system of justice has degenerated into...If you are looking for an honest day in court, well, you have my sympathy, because you are not likely to get it." Bill O'Reilly, "Who's Looking Out For You?"
It's truly tragic that my husband and I can vouch for what O'Reilly says in his book. See my biography essays, A Light Shining in the Darkness, and Why I'm Fond of Richard Belzer.
Kind regards, Katie.
12/28/2005 c1 11Vivix
"It is the American Government’s destiny to destroy those who take away liberty"
I don't really believe it's America's duty to do anything, but I can't put up a full argument in a review. So I'll just move with a small issue. Your comparison of the Iraq war with the abused child seems fallacious. Something more apt is this situation. Your neighbor tells you that Bad Neighbor is abusing his kids. You go to the often ineffective sheriff, but has the support of most of the community, who maintains that the kids are fine. You pack up guns anyway and 'save' the kids. But then, come court, you charge him with extortion, which he was indeed guilty of, and the neighbors knew of years ago. The sheriff chastizes you for acting rashly, and not letting Social Services do their work. You maintain for some time that the abuse was real, until it's proven that no abuse had taken place. Then, years later, when many of the community how hate you for it, and others have forgotten about it, you issue a public apology about moving in with false information.
Sure it's a bit longer, but at least I was entertained writing it and it's a bit more accurate.
11Vivix"It is the American Government’s destiny to destroy those who take away liberty"
I don't really believe it's America's duty to do anything, but I can't put up a full argument in a review. So I'll just move with a small issue. Your comparison of the Iraq war with the abused child seems fallacious. Something more apt is this situation. Your neighbor tells you that Bad Neighbor is abusing his kids. You go to the often ineffective sheriff, but has the support of most of the community, who maintains that the kids are fine. You pack up guns anyway and 'save' the kids. But then, come court, you charge him with extortion, which he was indeed guilty of, and the neighbors knew of years ago. The sheriff chastizes you for acting rashly, and not letting Social Services do their work. You maintain for some time that the abuse was real, until it's proven that no abuse had taken place. Then, years later, when many of the community how hate you for it, and others have forgotten about it, you issue a public apology about moving in with false information.
Sure it's a bit longer, but at least I was entertained writing it and it's a bit more accurate.
12/25/2005 c1 chitoryu12
USA! USA!
USA! USA!
12/23/2005 c1 tofujunky
*gawks at afiretotheleft's review*
Holy atomic dump, Batman!
*gawks at afiretotheleft's review*
Holy atomic dump, Batman!
12/23/2005 c1 57tofujunky
"The Left often say that it is not the American Government’s duty to go into other areas and tell them what to do, but is it moral to stand by and wait as totalitarian governments around the world terrorize their citizens?"
Bush and the Right once spoke strongly against nation-building; now it's suddenly 'unamerican' and 'immoral' not to do so.
"If the father next door were sexually abusing his child and you knew this, would you be comfortable standing by and doing nothing?"
Of course not. You do what any righteous and moral man would do: transfer the father to a new parish.
"I certainly wouldn’t stand by and do nothing. I would call the police and do everything I can to get that father in prison."
So you call police. The police invades the area and - oops - shoots a few innocent residents along the way, but manages to catch the father. Now they have a couple of unexpected dead bodies laying around. "Oh well," you say, "It was well worth it." You become a hero. The police gains support. The people grants billions of dollars to the abused child so he could rebuild his life. He grows up and becomes a child molestor.
The moral of the story: Don't call the police.
"Most people would think that is good."
Most people don't think.
"But I ask: is it noble to fight a battle to help others and then run away before the job is done? Is it noble to raid the neighbor’s house to attack the father who is abusing his son and daughter only to run away because it is too tough?"
Is it noble to feed a hungry man one day, but not the next? Yes. Is it noble to scratch your ass when it itches? Also a yes.
Bush and his gang waged war against Iraq for the reasons you suggested in those questions? That's new.
"This is a war to bring democracy to the rest of the world, to give people freedom."
While granting more power to our fascist leaders.
"Terrorists around the world seek to destroy freedom by destroying the source of freedom"
Abortion clinics? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts?
"which is America."
Oh.
"America by definition is based on the creed of individual freedom."
And executive powers over freedom of individuals.
"By this definition anything anti-American is anti-freedom and anything anti-freedom is anti-American."
And anything anti-Bush is anti-American and anything anti-American is anit-Bush.
"It is the American Government’s destiny to destroy those who take away liberty. It is America’s destiny to spread democracy. To not do so is morally equivalent to ignoring the pleas of an abused child next door."
Oh my, you speak in jest, yes?
-tofujunky
57tofujunky"The Left often say that it is not the American Government’s duty to go into other areas and tell them what to do, but is it moral to stand by and wait as totalitarian governments around the world terrorize their citizens?"
Bush and the Right once spoke strongly against nation-building; now it's suddenly 'unamerican' and 'immoral' not to do so.
"If the father next door were sexually abusing his child and you knew this, would you be comfortable standing by and doing nothing?"
Of course not. You do what any righteous and moral man would do: transfer the father to a new parish.
"I certainly wouldn’t stand by and do nothing. I would call the police and do everything I can to get that father in prison."
So you call police. The police invades the area and - oops - shoots a few innocent residents along the way, but manages to catch the father. Now they have a couple of unexpected dead bodies laying around. "Oh well," you say, "It was well worth it." You become a hero. The police gains support. The people grants billions of dollars to the abused child so he could rebuild his life. He grows up and becomes a child molestor.
The moral of the story: Don't call the police.
"Most people would think that is good."
Most people don't think.
"But I ask: is it noble to fight a battle to help others and then run away before the job is done? Is it noble to raid the neighbor’s house to attack the father who is abusing his son and daughter only to run away because it is too tough?"
Is it noble to feed a hungry man one day, but not the next? Yes. Is it noble to scratch your ass when it itches? Also a yes.
Bush and his gang waged war against Iraq for the reasons you suggested in those questions? That's new.
"This is a war to bring democracy to the rest of the world, to give people freedom."
While granting more power to our fascist leaders.
"Terrorists around the world seek to destroy freedom by destroying the source of freedom"
Abortion clinics? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts?
"which is America."
Oh.
"America by definition is based on the creed of individual freedom."
And executive powers over freedom of individuals.
"By this definition anything anti-American is anti-freedom and anything anti-freedom is anti-American."
And anything anti-Bush is anti-American and anything anti-American is anit-Bush.
"It is the American Government’s destiny to destroy those who take away liberty. It is America’s destiny to spread democracy. To not do so is morally equivalent to ignoring the pleas of an abused child next door."
Oh my, you speak in jest, yes?
-tofujunky
12/23/2005 c1 27Typewriter King
Marry Christmas, all. With a title like that, someone is bound to come in an "disprove" the thesis with the gospel of poll numbers. :)
“Go into a music store in this country and chances are you will see hardly any music.”
You must have synesthesia if you can see music, and you've previously explained your sexuality, so I can imagine what sort of food you wear.
"The Left is starting to win."
Win what, the race to prove who can screw us over fastest? I know of no politico with an election coming up that inspires confidence from the public.
You never fail to fascinate, macro90. You're basically advocating Thomas Friedman's position this time. Neither of you argue as convincingly as is possible.
afiretotheleft, your turn!
"...no matter what he does, you DO NOT call the president a terrorist..."
If he walked into a coffee shop with a suicide bomber belt and detonated, would that still apply?
"The mass matters, yes, but not the individuals."
What if the suicide bomber belt were a matter/anti-matter model? Would an individual still not matter? What if the bomber had a backpack of zero point energy, and had earlier planted a self-evolving worm on a strategic Internet hub? What if the bombed coffee house was in the United Nations building... or something actually important? =)
My point is that there are some "super-empowered individuals" gifted in finding "force multipliers" that allow them to manipulate the world. BOOM!
27Typewriter KingMarry Christmas, all. With a title like that, someone is bound to come in an "disprove" the thesis with the gospel of poll numbers. :)
“Go into a music store in this country and chances are you will see hardly any music.”
You must have synesthesia if you can see music, and you've previously explained your sexuality, so I can imagine what sort of food you wear.
"The Left is starting to win."
Win what, the race to prove who can screw us over fastest? I know of no politico with an election coming up that inspires confidence from the public.
You never fail to fascinate, macro90. You're basically advocating Thomas Friedman's position this time. Neither of you argue as convincingly as is possible.
afiretotheleft, your turn!
"...no matter what he does, you DO NOT call the president a terrorist..."
If he walked into a coffee shop with a suicide bomber belt and detonated, would that still apply?
"The mass matters, yes, but not the individuals."
What if the suicide bomber belt were a matter/anti-matter model? Would an individual still not matter? What if the bomber had a backpack of zero point energy, and had earlier planted a self-evolving worm on a strategic Internet hub? What if the bombed coffee house was in the United Nations building... or something actually important? =)
My point is that there are some "super-empowered individuals" gifted in finding "force multipliers" that allow them to manipulate the world. BOOM!
12/23/2005 c1 10Jeff Evans
Okay, here's the deal. Bush is not one of the greatest presidents, but he's good, but not for your reasoning.
Bush has had the most horribly tough two terms anyone could ask for. He's made mistakes, he's made good choice, becuase surprisingly HE'S HUMAN. But he's stood strong on his actions and stood for what he believes in, and politicains these days don't do what they think is right they do what the stupid public doesn't complain about.
Realize this, we are nothing. As individuals in a Republic, we are nothing. The mass matters, yes, but not the individuals. It's a complicated matter, but hey so is the Republic. OKay, our duty is to grow up and become productive, that's it. Serve your country. THAT'S IT. There is nothing in that that says you should critizes your government because some stupid pot head bands say so. (Not saying anything against pot heads, just most of them are stupid) Liberals don't know what they're talking about, Bush does. He may not be able to explain in ways the stupid public can understand, but he knows.
Now, Social Security is not his fault and I swear to God if any person would research it they'd realize that. End of that story.
Okay, Micheal Moore called Bush a terrorist. &%#$! Holy crap, no matter what he does, you DO NOT call the president a terrorist, that just demoralizes our country as a whole. "Hey look at America, they let their little people think they know something about how they system is run, ha!"
Ugh, all of you disgust me. Can't any of you research and support where you stand with FACTS.
10Jeff EvansOkay, here's the deal. Bush is not one of the greatest presidents, but he's good, but not for your reasoning.
Bush has had the most horribly tough two terms anyone could ask for. He's made mistakes, he's made good choice, becuase surprisingly HE'S HUMAN. But he's stood strong on his actions and stood for what he believes in, and politicains these days don't do what they think is right they do what the stupid public doesn't complain about.
Realize this, we are nothing. As individuals in a Republic, we are nothing. The mass matters, yes, but not the individuals. It's a complicated matter, but hey so is the Republic. OKay, our duty is to grow up and become productive, that's it. Serve your country. THAT'S IT. There is nothing in that that says you should critizes your government because some stupid pot head bands say so. (Not saying anything against pot heads, just most of them are stupid) Liberals don't know what they're talking about, Bush does. He may not be able to explain in ways the stupid public can understand, but he knows.
Now, Social Security is not his fault and I swear to God if any person would research it they'd realize that. End of that story.
Okay, Micheal Moore called Bush a terrorist. &%#$! Holy crap, no matter what he does, you DO NOT call the president a terrorist, that just demoralizes our country as a whole. "Hey look at America, they let their little people think they know something about how they system is run, ha!"
Ugh, all of you disgust me. Can't any of you research and support where you stand with FACTS.
12/23/2005 c1 1Formerly
You are skilled in the ways of the force. But take care lest the dark side draw you in.
1FormerlyYou are skilled in the ways of the force. But take care lest the dark side draw you in.
12/23/2005 c1 15No Trust
“is it moral to stand by and wait as totalitarian governments around the world terrorize their citizens?”
Yes.
“If the father next door were sexually abusing his child and you knew this, would you be comfortable standing by and doing nothing?”
Red herring.
“I certainly wouldn’t stand by and do nothing. I would call the police and do everything I can to get that father in prison.”
And then the kid ends up in an even worse situation. Congrats.
“But I ask: is it noble to fight a battle to help others and then run away before the job is done?”
No, but it’s not ‘wrong’ either. But this is a red herring.
“Is it noble to raid the neighbor’s house to attack the father who is abusing his son and daughter only to run away because it is too tough?”
To play your game: it’s not ‘noble’ but then it isn’t ‘noble’ to get yourself killed, depriving your own children of a parent, and likely causing a disruption in the household that makes the intended beneficiary of your actions worse off.
“This is no ordinary war. This is a war for liberty.”
Well I guess the insurgents could kind of be said to be fighting for liberty. I wouldn’t make that claim though. The best of them are probably fighting for revenge. I would too.
“This is a war to bring democracy to the rest of the world, to give people freedom.”
Ah. There is your mistake.
Democracy is not liberty.
“Only in free countries like America will you not be executed by the government for being a homosexual.”
Are you making the claim that every country that doesn’t execute people for being homosexuals is free?
“Finally, we must address the issue of terrorism. Terrorists around the world seek to destroy freedom”
Terrorism is a tactic. It is a necessary component of modern war. Any honest general will say as much.
“by destroying the source of freedom, which is America.”
oh my god.
“America by definition is based on the creed of individual freedom.”
No, it is not.
“By this definition anything anti-American is anti-freedom and anything anti-freedom is anti-American.”
Wrong and wrong.
“The terrorists want to destroy freedom,”
Most want to destroy *someonone’s* freedom. After all that’s what war is – expanding your own freedom of action at the violent expense of someone else’s. Practically no-one on the planet other than a few professional philosophers cares about destroying freedom for its own sake, or even thinks in terms anything remotely like that.
“to replace it instead with religious rule,”
There is no other kind.
“where individuals do not have a say in how they live their lives-their lives are instead lived for them by force from the government.”
This is what all governments aspire to. Herders do not aspire to the ‘individual freedom’ of their cattle. Some governments are of course more successful than others.
“Without freedom there is nothing.”
Absurd.
“Without freedom businessmen cannot engage in free trade and the economy suffers. The terrorists have already done this to many countries of the world and the meme is spreading fast.”
So is terrorism a synonym for interventionism now?
“This meme puts a halt to freedom, it shackles the people of that country, making them live in fear and anxiety.”
Yes, in terrorism lies the beginning of government.
“Spreading democracy around the world will also create more trade opportunities that benefit not only American businesses but the businesses that do business with the American businesses.”
Protectionist schemes tend to win out in democracies.
“Americanism is based on the principles of individual freedom and capitalism.”
No.
“Therefore, establishing these principles in another country won’t destroy its culture. Culture includes things like the type of food worn and the type of clothes worn.”
I prefer spaghetti hats myself.
“Therefore, culture increases with American influence, not the other way around.”
You are mistaken. Culture increases with cultural interaction, as trade increases utility. This has nothing to do with American influence per se, except that Americans are people that interact with other people.
“It is the American Government’s destiny to destroy those who take away liberty. It is America’s destiny to spread democracy.”
Ironically, the people who actually started the US government would say otherwise. And did, very clearly.
“To not do so is morally equivalent to ignoring the pleas of an abused child next door.”
It is equivalent to not blowing up their house and then raping the kid yourself, assuming he survives, before giving him up to the hellish socialistic child “protection” system.
But I like how you compare grown up civilians with helpless children, unable to work or act without the guidance of a caring grownup, unable to determine what is best for themselves in the context of their circumstances. This says a great deal about your basic assumptions about individuals, society, and government. I think perhaps there are fewer differences between the Islamist worldview and yours than you’d like to believe.
15No Trust“is it moral to stand by and wait as totalitarian governments around the world terrorize their citizens?”
Yes.
“If the father next door were sexually abusing his child and you knew this, would you be comfortable standing by and doing nothing?”
Red herring.
“I certainly wouldn’t stand by and do nothing. I would call the police and do everything I can to get that father in prison.”
And then the kid ends up in an even worse situation. Congrats.
“But I ask: is it noble to fight a battle to help others and then run away before the job is done?”
No, but it’s not ‘wrong’ either. But this is a red herring.
“Is it noble to raid the neighbor’s house to attack the father who is abusing his son and daughter only to run away because it is too tough?”
To play your game: it’s not ‘noble’ but then it isn’t ‘noble’ to get yourself killed, depriving your own children of a parent, and likely causing a disruption in the household that makes the intended beneficiary of your actions worse off.
“This is no ordinary war. This is a war for liberty.”
Well I guess the insurgents could kind of be said to be fighting for liberty. I wouldn’t make that claim though. The best of them are probably fighting for revenge. I would too.
“This is a war to bring democracy to the rest of the world, to give people freedom.”
Ah. There is your mistake.
Democracy is not liberty.
“Only in free countries like America will you not be executed by the government for being a homosexual.”
Are you making the claim that every country that doesn’t execute people for being homosexuals is free?
“Finally, we must address the issue of terrorism. Terrorists around the world seek to destroy freedom”
Terrorism is a tactic. It is a necessary component of modern war. Any honest general will say as much.
“by destroying the source of freedom, which is America.”
oh my god.
“America by definition is based on the creed of individual freedom.”
No, it is not.
“By this definition anything anti-American is anti-freedom and anything anti-freedom is anti-American.”
Wrong and wrong.
“The terrorists want to destroy freedom,”
Most want to destroy *someonone’s* freedom. After all that’s what war is – expanding your own freedom of action at the violent expense of someone else’s. Practically no-one on the planet other than a few professional philosophers cares about destroying freedom for its own sake, or even thinks in terms anything remotely like that.
“to replace it instead with religious rule,”
There is no other kind.
“where individuals do not have a say in how they live their lives-their lives are instead lived for them by force from the government.”
This is what all governments aspire to. Herders do not aspire to the ‘individual freedom’ of their cattle. Some governments are of course more successful than others.
“Without freedom there is nothing.”
Absurd.
“Without freedom businessmen cannot engage in free trade and the economy suffers. The terrorists have already done this to many countries of the world and the meme is spreading fast.”
So is terrorism a synonym for interventionism now?
“This meme puts a halt to freedom, it shackles the people of that country, making them live in fear and anxiety.”
Yes, in terrorism lies the beginning of government.
“Spreading democracy around the world will also create more trade opportunities that benefit not only American businesses but the businesses that do business with the American businesses.”
Protectionist schemes tend to win out in democracies.
“Americanism is based on the principles of individual freedom and capitalism.”
No.
“Therefore, establishing these principles in another country won’t destroy its culture. Culture includes things like the type of food worn and the type of clothes worn.”
I prefer spaghetti hats myself.
“Therefore, culture increases with American influence, not the other way around.”
You are mistaken. Culture increases with cultural interaction, as trade increases utility. This has nothing to do with American influence per se, except that Americans are people that interact with other people.
“It is the American Government’s destiny to destroy those who take away liberty. It is America’s destiny to spread democracy.”
Ironically, the people who actually started the US government would say otherwise. And did, very clearly.
“To not do so is morally equivalent to ignoring the pleas of an abused child next door.”
It is equivalent to not blowing up their house and then raping the kid yourself, assuming he survives, before giving him up to the hellish socialistic child “protection” system.
But I like how you compare grown up civilians with helpless children, unable to work or act without the guidance of a caring grownup, unable to determine what is best for themselves in the context of their circumstances. This says a great deal about your basic assumptions about individuals, society, and government. I think perhaps there are fewer differences between the Islamist worldview and yours than you’d like to believe.