helping commies get to know knives
Sunday, May 02, 2004
As you know, yesterday was International Workers' Day, a commie holiday where communists get upset that 1 person got killed in Chicago while ignoring the millions of people that they murder with their communist democratic policies using the ideology of commie-mocracy. They also spout some retarded garbage about an eight hour work week. Of-course, that part is completely false since no one was forcing employees to work for employers that needed round the clock workers to be competitive. So the disgusting filth wanted to make it illegal for anyone to work more than 8 hours in a day. I assume the stupid filth wanted to kill all farmers, thereby starving the whole country. Mother Fucking CSPAN was showing a speech by Castro who was blathering on communist statistics about infant mortality rates (no, he didn't say anything about the mortality rates under communist dictatorships or how Stalin's "statistics" missed Stalin killing 7 million people in the Ukraine). Well, to make a long story short, there is a knife shaped hole in my television and vomit all over the room.
I was talking with Osama bin Texan and he pointed out to me that my interpretation of the pic I posted yesterday was incorrect:
I naturally assumed some democrat had dressed the woman in a burqua against her will, and then some other democrat had beaten the women for wearing a burqua. Well, it turns out that the first picture was somehow supposed to represent the "normal" state, like in "before and after" pictures. I kind of like the second picture since I could see the evidence of the crime and I assumed violence and death would be swift as the woman took her revenge. Well, now it turns out that I'm supposed to somehow respect the first picture. Last time I get involved in a domestic violence dispute. With any luck the woman was probably one of these.
In other news, Osama bin Texan and Bad Commie were reading this article:
Russert did not play the tape to congratulate Kerry for his truth-telling. On the contrary, he was clearly calling him on the carpet. He even suggested that "a lot" of Kerry's allegations had been discredited. In fact, every word that Kerry spoke then has been shown to be true [A Lie] in an abundance of testimony. Even now, new revelations pour out. For example, the Toledo Blade just won the Pulitzer Prize for unearthing the story of an army company that went on a seven-month rampage in Vietnam, routinely killing peasants, burning villages, cutting off the ears of corpses. Troops in the field can hardly engage in such conduct over a period of months without the knowledge and at least tacit approval of higher authority.
Kerry answered warily. He began by trying to make light of the clip. "Where did all that dark hair go? -- that's a big question for me," he joked. He went on to say that although some of his language had been "excessive," he was still proud of the stand he had taken. His predicament is worth pondering. The powers that be, with the approval of mainstream opinion, had sent him into a misbegotten war whose awful reality they covered up. When he helped uncover it, it was not they but he who was punished. [A lie] In short, by sending young men into an atrocious, mistaken war, they created a truth so distasteful to the public that its disclosure, by discrediting the discloser, keeps them in power.
Kerry's equivocations are indeed related. For if as a soldier in Vietnam in 1968 and '69 he was brought face to face with one reality -- the human reality of the war -- then as a presidential candidate in 2004 he has been driven up against another -- the political reality that no antiwar candidate of modern times has ever made it into the White House. One might think that Kerry's good sense and bravery in opposing the Vietnam War three decades ago might stand him in good stead today. (How many Americans now think getting into Vietnam was a good idea?) But as the Russert interview shows, just the opposite is the case. It is Kerry's bravery as a soldier fighting the mistaken war, not his bravery as a veteran opposing it, that helps him in his bid for the presidency.
And so just as Kerry bowed to political reality by distancing himself from his old testimony while expressing continued pride in it, so he bowed to that same reality by voting for the Iraq authorization (while expressing opposition to "the way" the President went to war). Even today he will not acknowledge that his vote -- and the war -- were a mistake. Kerry is stuck between politics and truth. After the Congressional vote on the war, however, a peculiar thing happened. Kerry's political sails, far from filling with a fresh breeze, began to flap idly in the wind. Polls and pundits agreed: His nomination was dead in the water.
Such is the archeology of the dilemma that Kerry and the Democratic Party face today. Their flip-flopping, which is real enough, is between the truth as they see it and politics as they know it to be. The party is an antiwar party that dares not speak its name. Its candidate is energized, but with a borrowed energy. He has a backbone, but it is a borrowed backbone.
The antiwar movement that has lent Kerry and his party this energy and this backbone faces a dilemma, too. On the one hand, it needs Kerry to win, even though he refuses to repent his vote to authorize the war. On the other hand, neither the movement nor Kerry can afford to let the antiwar energies that were and remain a principal source of their hopes and his, die down. The movement must persist, independent of Kerry and keeping him or making him honest, yet not opposing him. If truth must be an exile from the mainstream of politics, let it thrive on the margins.
Jonathan Schell, Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People (Metropolitan).
This, my fellow stabbers, is what communist filth spouts as its running away in full retreat. I was explaining to Osama bin Texan that it's not considered truth, if you take an action opposite to the truth you supposedly espouse. It is considered lying. Kerry said that he and every other American soldier was a war criminal. Why didn't he shoot himself, if that was true?
Osama bin Texan said:
ObT: Kerry was a truth teller and the commie nation couldn't handle the truth. Kerry said we raped, killed, committed war crimes . . . and yet he his still PRO-WAR. He has a principled position that terrorizes both sides. War is necessary ==> terrorizes liberals with the truth. All your heroes are common criminals ==> terrorizes conservatives with the truth.
I said that terrorizing people was certainly good, but that you have to look at the kind of terrorism Kerry was engaging in. The only kind of war Kerry thinks is necessary is fighting side by side with Hitler, Stalin and Saddam.
And Kerry doesn't want to do anything about the common criminals, except to join them. This is what is known as stating the other side's position as if you believed it and then doing the exact opposite.
At this point, I had terrorized the terrorist, and Osama bin Texan was forced to switch subjects:
ObT: The point is, the other choices for president don't admit they are wrong, and continue to be wrong. Like an alcoholic, the first step is acknowledgement. The United States is a drunkard addicted to the vodka of Commienism.
Only Kerry says we have a problem, so he is our only hope.
Consider the desperateness of our situation - a north-eastern Yankee Liberal who keeps a "manservant" is our only hope. Think about that.
Yes, well, I wouldn't go running into the arms of a serial killer just because your daddy was mean to you, ObT. That's right, ObT, W is your daddy!
Comments: Post a Comment