A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
An opinion piece.....
Published on November 21, 2005 By Rightwinger In Politics
Why does the Left, that entity which claims to so admire things like freedom of speech, the press, thought and things like Human Rights, why do they always seem to embrace the totalitarians and tyrants? The dictatorships and despots?
Why do they, these arbiters of unfettered personal expression, always find ways to explain away their favorite tinpot Hitler's oppressive indescretions and apologize for their abuses?

I've seen these questions debated again and again here on JU; why do the dictatorships get a pass, while the democracies, the ones they SHOULD be supporting, always seem to come under their fire?
Like when they do things such as impose sanctions against dictators and their nations, and especially when they increase their building of arms to stand against the oppression symbolized by the totalitarians. Instead of working to free the oppressed, it seems the liberals are more than happy to let their favorite tyrants go merrily about their business unmolested.

For example, as Jimmy Carter spent four years coddling the Soviets and schmoosing Fidel Castro, all the while ignoring, and even lending tacit support to, Leftist stirrings in Central Amercia and Africa, democracy lost ground the world over. We got weaker by the day.
Ronald Reagan went into office and, eight years later, against the warning cries and apologizing of Democrats in the House and Senate, and that of liberal elements among our "allies" (all of whom would have been much more than content with some level of peaceful co-existence with the USSR), had virtually ended forty years of Cold War, advancing the frontiers of democracy everywhere.
Leftwing elements the world over decried his policies as fascist, militaristic and oppressive. This, even as he funded the upgrading of Voice of America and Radio Liberty and supported and nutured the fledgling, suppressed Solidarity movement in Poland to the chagrin of the Polish government, the USSR and the "Democratic" Republic of Germany (East Germany).
And what of his aid to the beseiged Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? Those people, he backed against direct Soviet aggression.
Where were the cries of "militarists!" and "oppressors!" from demonstrators outside Soviet and Eastern Bloc nation's embassies?

The Bush 41 Administration attacked Iraq to the derisive cries of the Left, who kept imagining, or perhaps wistfully envisioning, another Vietnam quagmire. Instead, sadly for them, the war was over in 100 days; their blustering, beloved tyrant Saddam's tail was tucked firmly between his legs until January 1993, when Slick Willy the (Barely) Closet(ed) Socialist came into office and let America be pushed all over the place by the UN and their anti-American mafia of grafters and rabid Internationalists.
He spent the next eight years squandering or frittering away America's newfound, rightly-claimed status as Sole Superpower.

Then came Bush 42 and 9-11....liberals the world over, though "saddened" by the great loss of life, understood completely how the Islamics could come to hate us for our arrogance and riches, and to strike us so coldly and callously. Some of the more pure-biled lefty America-lasters even cheered.
In 2002, it became clear, as it had for about a decade, that Saddam just may have been dabbling in a WMD program. Senators and members Congress from both sides agreed, again, as they had for about a decade, that the intelligence data was well-represented, and that something must be done. Soon.
So, off to war we went.
As time progressed, however, it became apparent that the sought-for WMDs were not presenting themselves as promised; so, like the sore-loser, cowardly weasels they are, the Democrats started carping against the Bush Administration, forgetting the data they all agreed on as being correct, in a thinly-disguised effort at payback for "stealing" the election from their robocandidate, Aldroid Gore.
And, true to form, the Left always finds ways to excuse Saddam for his behavior, and to apologize to everyone for and explain away, ignore or gloss over, the rape rooms, torture chambers, the mass graves, the multiple, opulent, czarist palaces....etc, while at the same time berating the US for it's "poor behavior" and "torture"; like giving terrorist prisoners "pink bellies" (slapping their bellies until they become pink.....like the bully in 3rd grade did to you).
What's next? Decrying the noogies and swirlies inflicted on the poor prisoners? What about pants-ing? Would that be considered torture, too?
Nothing the US is doing in Iraq is right or good, especially the toppling of a tyrant and the attempted installation of a free, democratic government. Who wants that, right?
Not the Democrats; they want:

1. Bush to be impeached. Why? Because; they don't like him.
2. The US to lose in Iraq; mainly so we can be embarrassed, and if all goes well, maybe a strong man can take control again, and lord his will over the entire country. That they can understand and support, after all. "Of the People, by the People"?.....too messy.

Why do they do this? Why do they love dictators?

I think I know; I think we all do......

The Left loves Big Government.

What represents the purest, most unalloyed form of Big Government than an omnipresent dictatorship, one which holds all the cards and controls and manages the very lives of the people it rules, even down to what can and can't be purchased or owned?
Dictatorships (especially Socialists) own everything, and decide who gets what and when. This is an ideal which appeals very much to the Socialist in every Democrat/liberal.
Unfortunately, since many of them serving in the House and Senate now were radicals and long-haired hippie demonstrators in the 60s, this ideal is very attractive to them.

Also, a dictatorship doesn't have to stand for opposition to its tenets from dissidents and naysayers who point out its faults, as the Left has to in the Democracies.
The nitpickers and faultfinders in a dictatorship are jailed or killed outright for their opinions, rather than debated and/or tolerated. Wouldn't the Clintons and Kerry have loved to do either to such complainers and troublemakers Limbaugh and Hannity, Coulter and Sowell? You betchya they would.
Freedom of expression is wonderful, so long as you're not the target, and with its ongoing implosion, the Democratic party has been the bullseye for many a sharply-thrown dart from the Right.


So, That's why I think the Left loves its tyrants. You're free to disagree, however.....after all, Communism is dead.
Thanks for that, Mr. Reagan.

Comments (Page 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Nov 22, 2005
most of them weren't any more anti-communist than gus hall. they were cruel thugs who preyed on their own countrymen and played yall for fools in order to enrich themselves.
---kingbee

But they were cruel, pro-American thugs, opposing something we opposed, or offering something in the region we wanted, or else we wouldn't have supported them and helped them into power in the first place.
The Soviets used to do the very same, exact thing.....but who always got nailed for it by people like you? The US. Is that fair...not at all.

Can you name the last prominant liberal whose popularity wasn't raised by accusations of misbehavior?
---PT2K

This is because of the whole "rebel, anti-authoritarian" thing. Liberals do passionately love the person who dares to be an individual, after all. It's all about the "Me", right?
Also playing into it is the relaxation of morals on the Left.
I mean, when you don't like rules, you tend to look with more favor on those who flout them, and show less respect for those who follow them.



Carvel just replied "It don't matter how much smelly mud you throw on them, no one like a person who shovels it into another persons face in the first place. Just put down the shovel and start building something instead, we may just win some support, for a change."
--Lee1776

It absolutely astounds me that Carvel could actually get that message past the inch-thick layer of liberal rhetoric that lines his mouth; at least one of them seems to be getting it. It all comes down to "If you haven't got something nice to say, don't say it."
Man, if they stop whining and complaining about everything, they might just get to be a force again. I hope they don't get it and keep on whining and complaining.

well said rightwinger. I have nothing to add, just wanted to lend some support.
--Modman

Thanks, MM...Baker, drmiler....Thanks for the support, guys. And to everyone who's posted here so far.

Kingbee:

You always seem to have a good grasp and command of some particular facts that I do not have. Admittedly, this often frustrates me because I just don't have the time to look everything up in order to give you a really good thrashing.
That's all well and good, but as for this article, I'm not seeing you addressing the actual point of the post itself. You're using this grasp of these facts I refer to in order to chip away at smaller issues you have with my line of reasoning. Fine, I understand were you're coming from, but I have yet to see from you an outright, firey dismissal of my point itself, that liberals (and in general the Left as a whole) love and suck up to dictators.
All I'm getting is you trying to cloud the issue with your "Nyah, Nyah....your side does it, too....Nyah, Nyah!"

Is this because even you can't/won't deny something of which you can't debate the truth?
on Nov 22, 2005

Hmmm...I had no clue. You better not tell China!


And also Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam.

Hmm, like he said, communism is dead!

The Zombies just dont know it.

on Nov 22, 2005

In answer to your question, the right does not ignore them either, and indeed there are enough examples of propping up right wing dictators, during the cold war.  Since then, there has been a very low tolerance of dictators by the right, but as you note, a growing tolerance of them on the left.

So looking at why today (and even why yesterday like Nicarauga), why do they do it?  It gives the US a black eye.  Pure and simple.  They hate the fact that the US is king of the hill, and anything that knocks them down a peg or 2 must be good.

on Nov 22, 2005

Reply By: stevendedalusPosted: Monday, November 21, 2005
In case someone would want to ask why Roosevelt, as a Democrat, was so hot to defeat the Fascist dictatorships...I say this:

Fascism is a phenomenon of the extreme Right. 'Nuff said?


Father, forgive him for he knows not what he says!

damn!  You just made me use my last Insightful for the day!

on Nov 22, 2005
So looking at why today (and even why yesterday like Nicarauga), why do they do it? It gives the US a black eye. Pure and simple. They hate the fact that the US is king of the hill, and anything that knocks them down a peg or 2 must be good.
---Dr. Guy

Hmm...interesting. Thanks, Doc.
on Nov 22, 2005

how does that explain decades of support for people like the somozas, mobutu, the shah, batista, duarte, the greek colonels, etc.? rightwinger seems to believe all their sins were mitigated by being 'anti-communist'.

Rightwinger is right.  That does not make the support right, but it does make him right.

on Nov 22, 2005

Hmm...interesting. Thanks, Doc.

Sorry I was late! I missed this yesterday.

on Nov 22, 2005
I'm trying to get rid of post #16. I revised it, and it posted twice. Anyone else having problems with the "edit" feature? Hmm...but it let me edit this....I don't get it. Anyway, #17 is the revised version.
on Nov 22, 2005
Rightwinger is right. That does not make the support right, but it does make him right.


Thanks, Doc.

Sorry I was late! I missed this yesterday.


No problemo.
on Nov 22, 2005
Well, dictatorships are dictatorships, there's just no arguing with those people. However, a democracy allows us the freedom to disagree. Right? So, sometimes, we do.
---UBob

I hit this before, but something still bugs me about it.

"Democracy allows us the freedom to disagree."

Hmmm...yes, it does.

But it's with a high level of blatant hypocrisy that that right is freely used to demonstrate on behalf of governments and rulers that do not offer it to their own subjects, and to denigrate those that do, for opposing them.

People marching in Washington or London, Paris or Berlin, demonstrating against American actions in the Middle East, are perfectly free to do so.
If only the people living in the nations in question had the same freedom.
Perhaps then those actions wouldn't have been taken in the first place.
on Nov 22, 2005
Could you provide a link or two to polls saying that the Democrats are gaining ground in the 2008 elections. Because the polls I have seen shows that nothing has changed in the last few months.


I was referring to the upcoming elections in 2006. There are a ton of polls there indicating that people would rather see Democrats controlling congress. Some polls it's not a huge margin, but some show a preference of Democrat by as much as 17%.Link

I think it's way too early to speculate on 2008. There's no telling who's even going to run yet.
on Nov 22, 2005
People marching in Washington or London, Paris or Berlin, demonstrating against American actions in the Middle East, are perfectly free to do so.
If only the people living in the nations in question had the same freedom.


Unfortunately they usually do have the freedom to demonstrate "against American actions in the Middle East", they just don't have the freedom to demonstrate against their own country's foreign policies.
on Nov 22, 2005
they just don't have the freedom to demonstrate against their own country's foreign policies.


Um....yes. I know that.

Precisely why it's hypocritical of people living in the democracies to demonstrate against their own government's attempts to stand against and end oppression, while at the same time tolerating, never mentioning or even ignoring and explaining away the oppression itself, in the other countries.
on Nov 22, 2005

I was referring to the upcoming elections in 2006. There are a ton of polls there indicating that people would rather see Democrats controlling congress. Some polls it's not a huge margin, but some show a preference of Democrat by as much as 17%.Link

Hey Clueless.  Next years elections are local, not national.  National numbers dont mean shit.

on Nov 22, 2005
Hey Clueless. Next years elections are local, not national.


I was responding to his request for the links to the polls I was looking at.

How exactly would you differentiate between a local and a national election? 33 Senate seats are up, and all Congressional seats are up. How exactly is that not "national"?

Link

Who's clueless now jackass?
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5