Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Are we about to hand Iraq over to Tehran's mullahs? | Main | 2006 Endorsements (Part V) »

Friday, October 13, 2006

Self haters

I am about to leave Orange county for Los Angeles and before doing so, I'd like to tell you about the people I came across in San Francisco. People who hate their own government and even have no desire of working for, what they call it, their oppressive country. One thing you notice in cities like San Francisco, Bay area and other left wing cities, is the people's hatred for their own selves and the sense of self-victimization among the so-called intellectuals. You know, they feel the world hates the US and its people and it is their fault that the universe hates them.

It's just amazing to see people who were lucky enough to be born and raised in the US but hate the very country that has given them freedom to hate this or that.

Many people told me that president Bush wants to hurt Iran and when I told them no, he doesn't wish to do so and he is an honorable man, many started yelling at me or asking me if I live in this planet. I asked them would it be okay for you guys to see people of Europe under the rule of Nazis or Iraqis being tortured or killed under the rule of Saddam and all I heard in response was that Bush lied, we invaded a country that never hurt us and the most funny thing they told me was that they need to see more evidence of Nazis crimes or Saddam's crimes against their own people to be able to justify crimes of the US in other countries. To them, America is the world's biggest oppressor since the US is oppressing Cubans, Mexicans, Iraqis, Iranians and even Europeans. To them, Sept. 11th terrorist attacks could be an inside job and the US is fighting the terrorism for more oil and natural resources. They are for illegal immigration from Latin America to the US. They are for appeasing the Mullahs of Iran and little dictator of North Korea. These people don't understand what a weak US means and when I told them that a less strong US won't be able to stand against the communist China or Islamic militants, they seemed not to care. They have been raised in such a safe and free country that they can't fathom what real oppression means or does.

These people's mentality is sick. I have no doubt about it. They hate themselves to a point where they can't see others at all. It was incredible to see how they dislike every thing about themselves.

They couldn't understand when I kept telling them most of the world's hatred for the US is based on jealousy and historical animosity but they were really unable to comprehend it. It's really unfortunate that these people have closed their eyes on reality and live in their miserable land of dreams in which they have no sense of honor and understanding.

Cross-posted @ The Spirit of Man

Posted by Winston on October 13, 2006 in International Affairs, Travel | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834f1742569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Self haters:

Comments

"The Roman church changed in the early 1970's, where services in the language of the people were finally allowed."

Amazing fact that, don't you think?

After centuries of folk using the printing press, getting more "learning," and questioning so much.. it wasn't until the 1970's that the Roman church provided Mass in the language of the people.

Maybe for some, the dark ages didn't end really, until the 1970's.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 11:19:14 AM


Ian:

Yet, Bibles were available for all to read.

If the people had any questions, they were free to ask.

If they just went out of a sense of duty without making an effort to learn the tenets ... well, their loss.

Any kind of understanding involves a certain amount of work and, at times, understanding that assumptions which had carried a person up to that point of his life really mean diddly squat in the big picture.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-14 11:23:45 AM


"There was nothing inteligent about guy's calculation anybody could do it. Distance traveled 30 m acceleration 9.81m/s2, initial velocity 0"

So might have been practicing his physics equations.

"Sick was the guy's total emotional detachment and treating this particular event as question of elementary physics."

Actually,what is sick that you assume that because the guy's outward reactions were what it was, that you assume he was emotionally detached.

Who made you the god of emotional reaction/outward appearance?

"As long as you do not have any problems with passing away of your father I would stay away from the subject"

Wnat do you mean, exactly, by "problems?"

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 11:45:13 AM


Ian, To acknowledge inherent rights, absolute truth would have to be realized and accepted by all. Until such time, all rights remain arbitrary. By what authority then would you legislate an inherent right to resolve moral issues which would be indisputable other than we just believe its the right thing to do; don't we?" The old saying ; "who made you judge?" applies.

Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-14 11:45:46 AM


Seems to be more than just Americans who suffer from self-loathing.


Inherent rights cannot exist in a world of secular evolutionary reductionism. In that world, rights are subject to whoever has power.

Only in a world where we are GIVEN inherent rights by our Creator, do they exist. Can't have your cake and eat it too... (just a comment, no time to debate the whole 'meaning of life' thing.)


On an aside, the Church chose Latin as the official language, which it still is, to prevent the abuse of the meaning of its doctrine and the Bible. Latin doesn't change in meaning the way vernacular does. (Take the word 'gay' for instance.)
The Church decided that the lay people were not able to understand the Latin (education no longer believing it relevant) so a case was made to allow vernacular. (Yes I realize that not that many people in history have known Latin, but then not many could read-and many parishioners learned the Mass)In some parts of the world, by the way, the vernacular was always used, for example the Maronites in Lebanon use Arabic. To keep safe the 'True' meaning Latin is still 'official' and translations are done from Latin. (They tried letting North America translate its own, but eventually had to do the translations under the auspices of the Vatican in order to get it right.)

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-10-14 11:53:41 AM


"Ian, To acknowledge inherent rights, absolute truth would have to be realized and accepted by all."

Not at all. No "absolute" truth, whatever that means, is required by me to recognize your inherent rights. You might not want to recognize mine, but that's regardless.

"Until such time, all rights remain arbitrary."

No. Only those rights that an authority wishes to recognize are arbitrary.

"By what authority then would you legislate an inherent right to resolve moral issues which would be indisputable other than we just believe its the right thing to do; don't we?" The old saying ; "who made you judge?" applies."

Huh?

First, I don't need to legislate inherent rights. Whatever authority decides to recognize has nothing to do with whether there is a logical argument for inherent rights.

Secondly, any moral issue is easily and without having to give much thought to, governed by inherent rights.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 12:02:30 PM


"Inherent rights cannot exist in a world of secular evolutionary reductionism. In that world, rights are subject to whoever has power."

You suffer from the same logic problems as many others do. Inherent rights "exist," but are sometimes not recognized. I don't give a shit if some authority doesn't recognize my inherent rights; I still have them.

"Only in a world where we are GIVEN inherent rights by our Creator, do they exist. Can't have your cake and eat it too... (just a comment, no time to debate the whole 'meaning of life' thing.)"

Take a peak at Bastiat for a better rebuttal of your opinion, than I could offer. Please feel free to logically rebutt Bastiat:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G16368


"On an aside, the Church chose Latin as the official language, which it still is, to prevent the abuse of the meaning of its doctrine and the Bible. Latin doesn't change in meaning the way vernacular does. (Take the word 'gay' for instance.)
The Church decided that the lay people were not able to understand the Latin (education no longer believing it relevant)"

Absolute bullshit. The Roman Catholic church feared the education of the masses. Way long before folks found latin not relevant.. like.. way back when the printing press was created.. and prior, the Church didn't want just anybody to get an education.

"so a case was made to allow vernacular. (Yes I realize that not that many people in history have known Latin,"

Bullshit. MANY have known Latin throughout history.

"but then not many could read-and many parishioners learned the Mass)In some parts of the world, by the way, the vernacular was always used, for example the Maronites in Lebanon use Arabic. To keep safe the 'True' meaning Latin is still 'official' and translations are done from Latin. (They tried letting North America translate its own, but eventually had to do the translations under the auspices of the Vatican in order to get it right.)"

*Snort*

Ummm... shall we discuss the "dark ages?"

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 12:09:32 PM


Ian you made my point. No moral authority, then inherent rights do not exist except in one's own imagination (opinion). Without authority, law is powerless. Since you seem to infer that inherent rights came about via evolutionary fashion, I suggest that's only your opinion will remain illogically so until you are able to establish your authority on the subject. The only authority I've understood to be qualified on the subject is the Creator. But as I understand you, pardon me if I'm wrong, you don't 'cotton' to that.
Seems to me then that we creatures on this planet assume 'godlike' perogative. We can choose to accept right as wrong and vice versua. Dealer's choice. Today its this way, tomorrow who knows?

Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-14 12:46:46 PM


"What do you know about logic, you seem to use this term quite often??"

I don't know "about" logic, but I use it.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 12:48:37 PM


"No moral authority, then inherent rights do not exist except in one's own imagination (opinion)."

Perhaps in your mind, but not mine.

"Without authority, law is powerless."

Sorry? We were discussing "law?"

"Since you seem to infer that inherent rights came about via evolutionary fashion,"

I implied no such thing. I don't know what you are fantasizing about.

"I suggest that's only your opinion will remain illogically so until you are able to establish your authority on the subject."

Well, I'm a bit tired at the moment, but if you want a logical and rational argument for inherent rights, I'll provide you with one later.

In the meantime, whether or not you agree you have inherent rights, I'll fight for your inherent rights.

Are you suggesting you don't have any inherent rights?

"The only authority I've understood to be qualified on the subject is the Creator."

That's nice. Do you commune with the Creator regularly, and have some revelation with regard to your being and mind?

I'll refer you to Bastiat as well:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G16368

"But as I understand you, pardon me if I'm wrong, you don't 'cotton' to that."

I believe in a creator.

"Seems to me then that we creatures on this planet assume 'godlike' perogative. We can choose to accept right as wrong and vice versua. Dealer's choice. Today its this way, tomorrow who knows?"

I have no clue what you are saying, exactly.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 12:55:50 PM


Karol: You must be aware "Ian" is about much more than humble opinions, he simply knows everything, he's a condescending asshole, in my humble opinion.

The Liberals could use a person with his great knowledge right now, maybe he could give some advice to the "Beer and Popcorn" guy, Scott Reid, poor guy's having a hard time defending the indefensible.


Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-14 1:13:09 PM


"logic is a part of math."

You are wrong. Math is logic. Logic is not a part of math. Math is meaningless without logic.

Logic comes from the word, "logos," Greek for "what is spoken"

Get yourself educated.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 1:15:13 PM


Liz J:

"You must be aware "Ian" is about much more than humble opinions, he simply knows everything,"

You are incorrect. I do not know everything.

"everything, he's a condescending asshole, in my humble opinion."

In my humble opinion, you are a Silly Bitch that uses ad hominem and is unable to understand logic.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 1:23:21 PM


Hate of the Church is so emotional - totally not based on logic, derived from the rational world God created .(An understanding of this stuff is taught in Catholic highschools -good ones, anyway.)


- the Church has been responsible for the education of many, long before such a thing as public education appeared.

- by 'not many', I meant of course not many of the average people over the span of history. Over the span of history, most people could not even read. Learning the Mass was a major part of their education.

- the Church (read"how the Irish saved Civilization") was a way out of the 'Dark Ages'.


Ian, you seem to have very strong FEELINGS about stuff. Are any of your FEELINGS happy?

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-10-14 1:32:19 PM


"Hate of the Church is so emotional - totally not based on logic,"

Agreed. Just as Love of the Church is so emotional - totally not based on logic

"- by 'not many', I meant of course not many of the average people over the span of history. Over the span of history, most people could not even read."

Which of course, the Roman Catholic Church discouraged.

"an, you seem to have very strong FEELINGS about stuff. Are any of your FEELINGS happy?"

I have no strong FEELINGS about facts.

I am absolutely happy. However, my "feelings" have nothing to do with fact or truth.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 1:35:52 PM


"Did you try Kurt Gödel as I have asked you to do??"

Not yet.

Did you read Bastiat as I asked you to do?

"A man from the island of Crete travelled to Athens. Upon his arrival he stated to Greek philosophers that; all inhabitants of island of Crete are liars and everything they say is a lie.

Was he telling the truth?"

Silly word games.


Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 1:37:49 PM


Paradoxes are silly word games. A paradox does not exist, in reality, by their very nature.

I don't play silly word games. You obviously do.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 1:50:26 PM


Please forgive me while I state the obvious:

The minute commenters respond to Ian Scott, the thread goes to H*ll. This was an interesting thread for a while. It's now got totally bogged down in irrelevant Scottisms.

Too bad.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-14 1:59:06 PM


"The minute commenters respond to Ian Scott, the thread goes to H*ll. This was an interesting thread for a while. It's now got totally bogged "

In other words, you are not interested anymore.

Which of course, is neither right nor wrong.

Take care, batb.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 2:04:32 PM


I suggest someone is affected by verbal diarrhea. The thread is half full by his words.

Proverbs 26:4,5

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise to his own conceit.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-10-14 2:10:43 PM


kk, good thought..as the world turns...

Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-14 2:23:12 PM


"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

Remi, I'm taking a chance here.. don't want to be like you.. but have to let you know you are indeed, quite the fool.

Hey, let's quote some OT scripture.

Off topic, but when did Adam receive "life?" When he was being "formed" by God, or after?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 2:25:10 PM


"Paradoxes do exist,"

They do not exist in reality. They may exist in your mind, I guess.

"I grew up in tough part of a very old town and I have learned certain rules of engagement and they go as follows; do not steal from the kid or from the blind, do not kick the man laying on the ground."

My neighbourhood was like that as well, but we had another rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Your ignorance is well matched by your arrogance so please pick some different subject for discussion as I am experiencing some bad emotions; like someone kicking a dead horse."

You are blaming your emotions on me? Wow.. what power I have over you.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 2:27:48 PM


"Ian Scott, using his real name committed intellectual suicide today.
I have tried repeatedly to remove the rope from around his neck, but he insisted. What can be said about poor creatures that are lacking in emotional feedback?"

Emotional feedback? Like your writing about your own experiencing "bad" emotions?

KK... lol.. ummm.. if you're argument is to be won by the person who has "bad emotions," then feel free to use the rope.

And of course, you are free to continue to assert that paradoxes exist in reality. The very nature of a paradox is that which is impossible to exist in reality; but in some minds, paradoxes are fantasized about.

Shall we discuss Theseus' Ship?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 2:48:37 PM


kk,

Learn to differentiate between your fantasites in your mind and reality.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 3:08:50 PM


Ian,
"ABsolutely not. The mind, at times, recognizes emotion, but they are not part of the mind. Emotions are not rational."

Wow, still telling me how my mind works. The mind boggles. My emotions are part of my mind. See, I don't agree with you so it follows that I can't be perfectly rational either otherwise I would be in perfect agreement with you right now. Assuming you have a perfectly rational mind!

"Can't prove that at all. Never said I could. You however, by asserting "atheism," assert there is no god. Never was, never will be."

Another example of telling me how my mind works.
I never asserted there is no god... I asserted that I am an atheist, therefore I do not BELIEVE in a god...

To go further would be arrogant as I am not omniscient.

I believe it in the same sense that I believe in gravity. I can't prove that little flying pink elephants named Claribel are not holding me down.

If you wish to call that faith...ok with me. Again, I am not perfectly rational and never will be.

Getting back to inherent rights...as an atheist who believes in no god, I also believe in no absolute moral authority. I believe it to be an indifferent, hostile universe. Hence, no INHERENT rights.

Only those that we can agree to live by to our mutual benefit.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 3:21:07 PM


Ian Scott: you take care too. And try not to hijack these posts. OK? There's virtue in staying on topic...

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-14 5:03:20 PM


batb has it right. Ian Scott's nonsensical bafflegab and responses to it have ruined this thread.

The problem of the self-loathing, defeatist left was a great topic for discussion. The predominance of this sickness among the the North American political class and leftist educators from kindergarten on up will be our ruin. Somehow, and I don't know how, we have to reverse this situation. As Mark Steyn never tires of telling us - we've got to get our cultural confidence back - or we're doomed.

Posted by: JR | 2006-10-14 6:34:02 PM


kk:

The only paradox in regard to the Mobis Strip and the Klien bottle is that which exists in your mind. You may want to try observing these interesting shapes in their 3 dimensional form rather than looking at them in a 2d form.

Indeed, there are even mathematical equations for these shapes - where is the "paradox" other than in your mind?

Perhaps you have problems because the Klein Bottle is called a "bottle," and you have problems differentiating words from things. Perhaps then, you may be expecting to see a "bottle" that your mind conceives of when you read "Klien bottle."

For you to assert that these shapes are "paradoxes" are signs of your own mind's inability to understand multi-dimensional objects.

To be sure, the paradox is in your mind. Try hard at focussing on the fact that these objects, in a 3d world exist and there is no impossibility of their existence.

The impossibility is that only in your own mind as to your word worshipping.

*************

h20:

"My emotions are part of my mind."

Study and learn about your mind. It's the only one you have.

"I asserted that I am an atheist, therefore I do not BELIEVE in a god..."

Perhaps a better description then would be "agnostic?" Or are you prepared to discuss atheism further? Typically, atheism is a belief that no god exists.

*********

been around the block:

Is there anything preventing you from posting comments here that you think are more "on topic?"

Not being the owner of this blog, I can't say for sure, but I'd guess that Ezra wouldn't have any issues with you posting comments that you think are on topic.

Perhaps you can do that, instead of addressing me with regard to your complaints? I note that you have not bothered to scroll back up and attempt to actually rebut what I've written.

It seems to me, that IF I have gone off topic, then certainly your posts addressing me are even "more" off topic.

***********************

JR:

"Ian Scott's nonsensical bafflegab and responses to it have ruined this thread."

Nonsensical bafflegab? Do you have any argument against my assertion of inherent rights?


Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-15 4:50:26 AM


No doubt this Blog has a nasty case of Ian Scott Virus, he takes over all threads with his vast knowledge, can't help himself,as a Virus he spreads.
There is an option folks: IGNORE HIM! Just scroll on by.
Of course he'll still have this forum to profligate, spread his wisdom and gospel of the Left but he'll be preaching to the converted,HIMSELF.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-15 7:58:31 AM


Liz:

I agree.

Ian has an inherent right to express his opinion.

Yet, he has clearly demonstrated he is not to be taken seriously.

Best thing is to laugh and move on.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-15 8:32:55 AM


Winston,

Sorry another of your threads has been hi-jacked, but it only goes towards proving your point.

You need to pick up the new book by Bill O"Reilly "Culture Warrior". It is not available up here yet but is the New York Times best seller and available anywhere down there.

Go to fox news online and you can check out his talking points each night on his show, and if you haven't, I would highly recommend watching his show as covers in detail the kind of stuff you have witnessed yourself.

Of course the lefties will come on here and shriek how is a "right wing extremist", but if you watch his show enough you will learn he is not, he is a registered independent who is as hard on Bush as he on anyone.

He is simply fair, and uses honesty and facts to arrive at his conclusions, something people from the left cannot even fathom. He uses common sense which usually has him coming across as someone on the right, as common sense is usually always on their side.

In any event, as he often says, just listen to his point of view and arrive at your own conclusions. It is your right. He is on the leading edge of this culture war.

Rather than quote him I have copied some of his talking points and you can see he address's some of which you witnesses in San Fran. Of course we have our own version of San Fran up here called Toronto.

The Culture War and You!

Tuesday , September 26, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly

Today marks the release of my fourth adult non-fiction book, "Culture Warrior." It is by far the most intense book I've written. In fact, it's downright fierce.

The book investigates the battle between traditionalists like me, who believe the USA is fundamentally a noble nation, and the secular-progressives, "S-Ps", who believe America is flawed and needs drastic change.

This war affects us all. Yet many Americans don't know anything about it. That's why I wrote the book.

Today, this full page ad appeared in the secular progressive newspaper of record, The New York Times. The ad was a shot across the S-P bow. As they say in the land of the cliche -- it's on.

Already, the S-P smear machine is cranked up. In tonight's most ridiculous item, we'll play you comments by Rosie O'Donnell and Jon Stewart. They're amusing. The hateful stuff I'm ignoring until tomorrow.

Now the most important part of "Culture Warrior" is the chapter where the War on Terror intersects with the culture war. What the S-Ps advocate here is truly dangerous for all of us.

In weeks to come, we'll report on how the culture war is directly affecting you. And keep you posted about the attacks on the book. Believe me, the S-Ps will be furious with this expose. People like Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, not going to like this deal at all.

Neither will the media, because the biggest names in the TV news business and the entertainment business are analyzed and placed in culture war context.

In this book, no prisoners are taken. Don't tell the ACLU.

Finally, the success of any book comes from word of mouth. If the folks like it, the media can't stop it. Last week, I was up in Traverse City, Michigan and a middle aged woman approached me to sign an advanced copy of "Culture Warrior". As I did that, she said, "You're winning." I pray she's right. The country is at stake.

So there you have it. "Talking Points" hopes you check out "Culture Warrior." You can read a few pages of it on billoreilly.com

The Far Left Becomes Dangerous

Friday , October 06, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly

Some leaders of the Minuteman Project, the border protest group, were invited to speak at Columbia University, an ultra-left institution. Well, last night, they got this welcome from Columbia students and faculty:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Minuteman Project…

CROWD: (Jeers, shouting, screaming, loud noise.)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Things were obviously out of control. And Columbia police stood by and did nothing.

OK, no spin: Columbia University is a disgrace. It is not interested in free speech or learning, it is a place of indoctrination. Let us call it the "University of Havana, North."

All over the country these kind of fascist tactics are being used by fanatical secular progressives who seek to impose their views on others, and silence and/or harm people who oppose them.

This is becoming increasingly dangerous. People like Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, have been physically assaulted during speaking engagements. Attorney General Gonzales was disrespected at Georgetown University. Even Hillary Clinton has been shouted down by far-left loons. This kind of anti-American behavior must be condemned by all Americans.

And places that allow these hooligans free reign, like Columbia University must be held to account. Alumni should stop all donations to Columbia.

Finally, the reason all of this is happening is the S.P.s are losing, so they are angry and frustrated. Most Americans are not buying the radical agenda. Air America is tottering on bankruptcy and other far-left people are only accepted by a lunatic fringe. Nevertheless, the far-left smear Web sites continued to fan hatred and it has now even spilled over into the mainstream media.

There is no place for that kind of garbage in a country that prides itself on free-speech and responsible dissent.

It is time to confront these merchants of venom and let their masters know you will not buy their stuff, or donate to their causes, because if this kind of thing continues, it is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.

That is The Memo

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-10-15 9:03:27 AM


Ian,

My Webster's dictionary says
atheism: n 1: a disbelief in the existence of deity.

You wrote
"Typically, atheism is a belief that no god exists"

I wrote:
"I asserted that I am an atheist, therefore I do not BELIEVE in a god..."

Why the confusion?

Holding a belief and being unable to back it up with facts are two different things. I claim no special knowledge or powers. I only claim kinship with other humans who similarly hold beliefs and can't prove them yet do not arrogantly extrapolate that belief into feigning absolute knowledge.

In other words, I disbelieve in god but you are welcome to try to prove me wrong at which point I will change my mind.

Here I am, a person who by definition of not agreeing with you (whom I presume are perfectly rational) makes me less than perfectly rational.

Otherwise, if I were I would be agreeing with you. Right?

But then I ask myself. Why would a perfectly rational person bother trying to convince a self-admitted less than perfectly rational person that they can be perfectly rational?

It shouldn't be necessary?

My conclusion, you aren't perfectly rational either.

Therefore, I should no more believe you hold the key to knowing the one true set of "inherent" rights any more than I do.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-15 9:27:44 AM


Winston,

I should have included this clip, as you can see by the title and comments it address's exactly what you speak of.

Blaming America First

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly

Once again, I'm an oracle. I told you Monday night that far-left elements in the USA would blame the Bush administration for the North Korea nuke problem. And that's exactly what happened this morning.

Editorials in The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Baltimore Sun all blamed at least part of the situation on the president. The Sun was the worst, quote: "It's evident the White House has done a great deal to push North Korea and Iran into their current positions" — unquote.

Well, that's just bull. But it's standard secular progressive issue at the radical-left Baltimore Sun.

Let's look at the record:

The Clinton administration engaged North Korea for eight years. They chatted their heads off with the North Koreans — chatting, chatting, chatting. They actually came to an agreement: The U.S. would provide aid to that impoverished nation. North Korea would stop the nuke program. Everything was swell. Remember that?

Then, of course, North Korea violated the agreement and faked out the Clinton administration. It took our money and continued to develop nuclear weapons.

So, when President Bush took over, he decided to engage North Korea by using other nations in the region. So, the USA, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and North Korea all sat down and chatted and chatted and chatted. A tentative agreement was reached: North Korea would get assurances no military action would be taken against it. It would get more money. It would get diplomatic status.

In return, it would stop the nukes. Once again, North Korea violated the tentative agreement. So, this is Bush's fault? So, the S.P.s are blaming America for this insane nation's deceit?

Yep. That's exactly what they're doing.

It seems incredible, but the S.P.s continue their mantra that America is the danger to the world. How many pundits did you see today say that we should talk to North Korea?

Well, we have been talking our fool heads off for decades. The country is run by an insane leader. He is simply going to do whatever he wants. The same thing is true in Iran. The mullahs are going to cause trouble, no matter what.

Now, the solution to the madness is for the world to join America and confront the bad guys. But, so far, the world will not. They like to see America weakened.

Here in the USA, the secular progressive movement is epitomized by our pal Ted Turner, the founder of CNN.

Yesterday, Turner said this about the War on Terror and President Bush.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED TURNER: He said it very clearly. He said, either you're with us or you're against us.

And I had a problem with that, because I really hadn't made my mind up yet.

You know, what if you haven't made your mind up? You know, what if you're thinking about it, doing some studying, doing some reading? Because it's an important decision to go to war or whether or not to go to war.

I mean, you're either with us or against us — that's pretty black and white.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

As we all know, the S.P.s hate black and white. There's no good and evil in that world. There's no right or wrong. Everything is gray.

That is why, today, you have some far-left elements blaming America for North Korea's actions. Pitiful.

And that's The Memo.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-10-15 9:29:34 AM


I do not believe in inherent rights. Just because I may think I should have a certain right does not necessarily grant me the right to pursue the expression of it. Governments may attempt to legislate into law what it deems 'inherent rights'. It hangs in the balance of another election to correct the faux pas ad infinitum.

Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-15 9:46:40 AM


"I do not believe in inherent rights. Just because I may think I should have a certain right does not necessarily grant me the right to pursue the expression of it."

Well, at least you are honest.

So you'd agree then that folks in North Korea and other regimes don't actually have any rights; that indeed all they get, is just what the government says they should have?

I take it that you're also not into the foolishness of "democracy" as well - whatever will be, will be?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-15 5:34:50 PM


Hahahaha.

You're so funny, Ian.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-15 5:58:16 PM


SYF, can you form any logical deductions from Frico's statement other than what I'm proposing based on my questions to him?

I wonder if Frico, at the very least, recognizes the inherent right to life.

That would be a good start, don't you think, SYF?

What do you think, SYF?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-15 6:13:22 PM


"SYF, can you form any logical deductions from Frico's statement other than what I'm proposing based on my questions to him?"

Ooh, ooh, oooh! Let me, let me!

"So you'd agree then that folks in North Korea and other regimes don't actually have any rights; that indeed all they get, is just what the government says they should have?"

My imperfectly rational response is:

If there is no god then the universe really is indifferent. Hence, the objects in it have no inalienable (or inherent) rights endowed by their creator...or anything else for that matter.

So, yeah, the Nork peasants have no "inherent" rights. They only have what they agree upon mutually amongst themselves. Barring that, they are subjects to the greatest "power" in their lives that forces its will upon its subjects. ie. their government.

If you wish to fight for their "inherent" rights based on your beliefs as to what they are...best of luck to you.

In the pursuit of enlightened self-interest...I like the rights you suggest...in principle.

It's the practical we need to iron out.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-15 6:34:58 PM


SYF:
You know the antidote to the VIRUS!

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-15 6:41:46 PM


Liz:

Can't help it.

Every time I see Ian Scott's name, I can't stop laughing.

He's such a clown.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-15 6:48:45 PM


What I hear people discussing is basic human rights.

And, basic human rights have been defined by the UN.

If you believe that rights come from the creator, then you know where to go for the goods. But, if you think rights come from humans, then you have to know where you must go for them, as rights, basic or otherwise, do not get fulfilled without people doing that.

So, since people fulfill the rights, there is governance. And governance means state. And state means some type of incorporation or another, and all human constructed.

So therefore, those types of rights cannot be inherent, as there is no such thing as an inherent corporation, or any kind, no matter how much you would like to believe that it be true, in a Gdless paradigm.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-10-16 12:31:34 PM


Talking about human rights, you see the wall erected between China and North Korea?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193452213&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by: Lady | 2006-10-16 12:37:19 PM


"If you belive that rights come from the creator, then you know we're to go for the goods"
Lady,
Dont wanna start anything with you but dont you think that THIS IS the problem in ME right now ?

Posted by: Marc | 2006-10-16 12:47:47 PM


Marc,

Please note: I never used the religion card, or delineated it by belief. I did leave it as a matter of choice. It is either one, or the other, or both, with respect to both. But it cannot be just floating along on thin air, and made up, as responsibility comes from somewhere, as well as goes somewhere.

And no, belief in a creator is not at the core of the issues in the middle east. Dangerous ideology of the terrorist kind IS at the core. When you get that one right, you get it. When you do not get it, it all makes no sense at all.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-10-16 1:25:25 PM


What I get is that in "Islamofacist", there's "Islamo"...like for "Islam"...that is some sort of "religion" right ?
Where did I miss ?
I wasnt attacking you Lady...I was hightlighting something in your post that I think is a part of the problem there...
...as half the population.
I'm not an expert so If we're wrong...PLEASE help us.

As for myself, Im truly happy that both the chruch and the state is the foundment of our justice system. But I'm also glad that "people" can have a word to say in some changes in it too.

Posted by: Marc | 2006-10-16 1:49:52 PM


"And, basic human rights have been defined by the UN. "

Is this the same UN that can't define "terrorism"?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-16 5:20:19 PM


Getting back to the "self haters": The liberals are not really self haters. They are America haters. This comes from a psycological need that began to develop after the Second World War. One of the strands of this need can be found in the development of the concept of "cool"-the idea of the anti-hero-the romantic idea of the rebel,against society and the stability,morality and respectability. It is really a fight between Romanticism and Classicism. Liberals see themselves as Byronic heros fighting for what they percieve as the "underdog" thus the popularity of Che Guerva T shirts,communism,the idea of high taxes on the "wealthy" to distibute to the underdog "poor". This type of thinking convinces them in their own minds that they are fine people,saintly, even noble-"progressives" fighting the "man", "the system" "keeping it real" and even if they are multimillionaire Hollywood types they are desperate to show that they are still "jenny from the block",one of the "people",adopters of little black handbags{er-African Babies I mean}. These "progressives" hate religion{especially Christianity} because it speaks of universal truth,and condemns their preferred way of life,neo-paganism.{oh how "judgemental" I am being!}. The real hatred of America though,started after 1989 and the fall of the Soviet communist system. For years their university professors and the Intelligenca had been telling them of the superiority of Marxism over capitialism,and the romantic "struggle" against the wealthy nations,and that this struggle would be settled in the communist victory-"The people united can never be defeated","Workers of the World Unite"etc. "Uncle Ho Chi Minh" and Jane Fonda mounting an anti-aircraft gun. All a part of being "cool"- and when the most "uncool" Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union "the evil empire" and said that communism would be "thrown on the ash heap of history",how they laughed! Imagine this "stupid" {one of their favorite words-because they're so smart,you see} one time actor thinking that their favorite form of government was evil! Their professors and leftist economists had proved that communism/socialism was the way of the future! So when Reagan was proved right and the West and capitalism triumphed,they turned on America and capitalism with vicious,angry hate.They,the smart ones,had been proven wrong! They hate the success of America. They hate globalism/capitalism that brings jobs and wealth to the poor.Communism was supposed to do that! Their hatred of the sucess of America causes them to side with every enemy of America and capitialism that they can find. Even when insane Jew hating Muslims fly planes into buildings its America's fault. They long to see America defeated,even if it means utter chaos and the death and enslavement of millions. Their white liberal guilt will then be expunged-there will be no more rich people-all will be poor. Finally "social justice" will have been achieved. They of course do not see themselves being murdered by Muslim fanatics.No,they will be loved because they are "cool" with it. They will be recognized for what they are,social saints,lovers of all mankind,unjudgemental,glad to finally see the end of Christianity and Judiaism with all their rules and "you shalt nots". They actually hope for a return to pagan Rome and Greece with its homosexuality,adultery,pedophilia and all its other immorality.Freedom at last!

Posted by: Mister Right | 2006-10-17 4:13:01 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.