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 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Nov 22, 2005
33 Senate seats are up, and all Congressional seats are up. How exactly is that not "national"?


Sorry to jump in at this late date... been a little busy w/ a new job and all.

The Senatorial and Congressional elections coming up in '06 are local elections. They may be for Federal office, but the elections are local. Only voters in the LOCAL districts (whether that district is a few square miles or an entire state) can participate. If you don't live in that district, you can't vote in that election (okay, you're not SUPPOSED to be able to vote. I'll leave Chicago out of it).

So, someone not living in the cities of Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Prince George County plus parts of Chesterfield and Dinwiddie Counties (all in Virginia) is ineligible to vote in the elections for the 3rd Virginia Congressional district. Hence, they're local. Similarly, if you do not live in the Commonwealth of Virginia, you cannot vote for the Virginia Senate seat that is up for grabs next year.

If it was a national election, people in San Francisco, CA could vote whether or not Randy Forbes keeps the 3rd Congressional District seat. Or someone in Peoria, IL could help decide whether or not George Allen gets to keep his Senate seat. Since they can't (they're outside the district), these elections are local.

Who's clueless now jackass?


If the shoe fits ...

Even if it doesn't, I've got a shoe horn ...

*hands Davad70 the shoehorn*
on Nov 22, 2005
Thanks for the civics class, but I do understand how elections work. If you follow where all this came from, you will see that my original point was that across the board, people are leaning towards voting for democrats. Here's a sample question from one of the polls;

"To begin, suppose the elections for U.S. CONGRESS were being held TODAY. Would you vote for the Republican Party's candidate or the Democratic Party's candidate for Congress in your district?" If other/unsure: "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward the Republican or the Democrat?"
on Nov 22, 2005
Is there a point to all this other than rightwinger is true to his sobriquet?
on Nov 23, 2005
Thanks for the civics class, but I do understand how elections work. If you follow where all this came from, you will see that my original point was that across the board, people are leaning towards voting for democrats. Here's a sample question from one of the polls;


If you truly understand then "why" did you make this comment?

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"?


The Senatorial and Congressional elections coming up in '06 are local elections. They may be for Federal office, but the elections are local. Only voters in the LOCAL districts (whether that district is a few square miles or an entire state) can participate. If you don't live in that district, you can't vote in that election (okay, you're not SUPPOSED to be able to vote. I'll leave Chicago out of it).


So in truth, who now is the jackass?
on Nov 23, 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%.


Thanks Davad for the link (something many don't provide around here)

But notice one thing, while the percentage ratings in these polls are showing Republicans historically losing 3-5%, the Democrats are only gaining 1%. Some even show losing.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.
"Do you think the country would be better off if the Republicans controlled Congress, or if the Democrats controlled Congress?"
11/11-13/05 Rep: 34% Dem: 46%
10/22-24/04 Rep: 41% Dem: 45%
(Just before last election)

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll
"What is your preference for the outcome of the 2006 congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?"
11/4-7/05 Rep: 37% Dem: 48%
5/12-16/05 Rep: 40% Dem: 47%


Democracy Corps Poll
"I know it is far ahead, but thinking about next year's elections, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your district where you live?"
11/2-6/05 Rep: 40% Dem: 48%
1/16-20/05 Rep: 43% Dem: 48%


CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll
"Thinking for a moment about the elections for Congress next year -- If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your congressional district: the Democratic Party's candidate or the Republican Party's candidate?" If unsure: "As of today, do you lean more toward the Democratic Party's candidate or the Republican Party's candidate?" Options rotated
10/21-23/05 Rep: 43% Dem: 50%
8/28-30/05 Rep: 41% Dem: 53%


I am just pulling some examples of data reflecting historical data here, and all of it is within the margin of error.

But it does show that while people maybe getting turned off from the Republicans, they are not flocking to the Democrats. The only reason IMO that Bush won this last election is because the Democrats somehow dug up a guy worse then Bush (go figure when you nominate a guy who made his name being a one time war critic, in the middle of a war). As long as the Dems keep being the party of "NO way", "No ideas" while hating everything GOP/Bush, voters will continue to vote GOP. If only the Dems stopped trying to make the Republicans look more evil then them, people may vote for them.
on Nov 23, 2005
Because, as was rightly pointed out, these are national/federal positions that people are being elected to. There has to be some differentiation between elections to fill local/state positions and national/federal ones. Everywhere I've lived in the US, people use the term local election when referring to elections to fill local/state positions and use the term national/general to refer to elections to fill federal/national positions. If you look around a bit, you will find more references to the 2006 elections as a national election than you will calling them "local". What do you call actual local elections then?

I may be a jackass sometimes, have never denied that. I can deal with being called that as long as you don't mind me calling you a little girl.

Why do you conservatives always feel the need to defend each other? Dr. Guy and RighWinger aren't little girls like you, they can handle their own.
on Nov 23, 2005
As I stated, the polls vary a lot. There's really no way to know until next year. We'll see.
on Nov 23, 2005
As I stated, the polls vary a lot. There's really no way to know until next year. We'll see.


Agree
on Nov 23, 2005

; Who's clueless now jackass?

Well, so much for your debating skills. Let me ask you a question. Are you going to vote for George Allen? His Opponent? No? Hey CLueless! That is because that is a local election and you are not a resident of that state. Now wipe that brown stuff off your face, and try learning how to debate first. And insult when you cannot.

on Nov 23, 2005
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?


i've tried to address your concerns here

Link

unfortunately i wasn't able to say everything that needed saying all at one time. fortunately there's a four-day weekend just within reach.
on Nov 23, 2005
I may be a jackass sometimes


If you say so.

Why do you conservatives always feel the need to defend each other? Dr. Guy and RighWinger aren't little girls like you, they can handle their own.


It's called team work, maybe if the Dems applied this idea they might have a chance at beating even the likes of Bush. One thing I have noticed on this site is that those who are republicans tend to back each other up with facts and statements while those who are Dems tend to fight thier own battles alone and I rarely see anyone else, Dem, back them up. Usually there are 2 or 3 different Dem points trying to be made in a single article from 3 different people instead of backing each other on the same point. JMO

As I stated, the polls vary a lot. There's really no way to know until next year. We'll see.


So if they do vary alot why are you so passionate at pointing out something that changes everyday just because it favors your point ATM? May I ask you this, is it possible for you to point out the good things about your party in order to convince me to switch sides rather than tell me how bad the other party is? What I mean is, I wouldn't buy a car from a deal who instead of telling me the features and cons of thier car they would bash all other cars not sold in their dealer. Just imagen:

" the new 2006 Toyota Corolla, the 2006 Honda Civic is slower, waste more gas and comes in horrible colors, get the new Toyota Corolla today".

I'm convinced, not.
on Nov 23, 2005
It's called team work, maybe if the Dems applied this idea they might have a chance at beating even the likes of Bush.


Well, I don't think beating Bush is an issue, since he's not running again. Perhaps you meant might have stood a chance?

Party solidarity isn't something the Democrats are struggling with at the moment. The GOP couldn't even get together and pass their own budget.Link

There are many more indications that members of the GOP are not on the same page.

Usually there are 2 or 3 different Dem points trying to be made in a single article from 3 different people instead of backing each other on the same point. JMO


Wow, that's a really damning statement about "us". We think on our own instead of following the crowd.

So if they do vary alot why are you so passionate at pointing out something that changes everyday just because it favors your point ATM?


I would hardly say that I'm "passionate" about them. As I said, I know people around here don't put a lot of weight in them. And I also said they very a lot. It's not as if I've gone on and on about how polls are then end all be all predictor of the future.

May I ask you this, is it possible for you to point out the good things about your party in order to convince me to switch sides rather than tell me how bad the other party is?


It is possible, but I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch parties. People can and will make up their own minds. I just tend to point out the ridiculous and/or inaccurate things people say.

they would bash all other cars not sold in their dealer.


Are you saying that I'm "bashing" the GOP by pointing out that Schmidt stood up there and lied in front of all her colleagues and the rest of the country on C-SPAN?
on Nov 23, 2005
Well, so much for your debating skills. Let me ask you a question. Are you going to vote for George Allen? His Opponent? No? Hey CLueless! That is because that is a local election and you are not a resident of that state. Now wipe that brown stuff off your face, and try learning how to debate first. And insult when you cannot.


Ok, show me some examples of people outside of JU using the term local to describe the 2006 elections. I'm quite confident I can show you one of people calling them national for every local you come up with. I know perfectly well how to debate, you just will never admit when you're wrong.

As usual, you are the one who started with the name calling and then get your panties in a wad when someone talks back to you in the same tone.
on Nov 23, 2005

As usual, you are the one who started with the name calling

Clueless to describe your state of being is name calling?  You really are clueless!  Calling a spade a spade is not name calling!  It is factual.  You may want to look up the definition of Jackass, or your party's symbol to see that clearly I am neither.

And you can just read my blogs to find out I do indeed admit when I am wrong.  That is if you are capable.

on Nov 23, 2005
OK, perhaps I should start talking as if my 7 years old is reading this. It's easy for people here to completely misunderstand what one is trying to say.

Well, I don't think beating Bush is an issue, since he's not running again. Perhaps you meant might have stood a chance?

Party solidarity isn't something the Democrats are struggling with at the moment. The GOP couldn't even get together and pass their own budget.Link

There are many more indications that members of the GOP are not on the same page.


To better explain, a person as bad as Bush, not Bush himself, or worse. I personaly find it sad when your best candidate can't beat our worst.

Your right, solidarity is not an issue for Dems, you all do a great job condeming yourselves all at once. What my real problem (which you failed to understand) is that while there are (example) 3 people debating in favor of Dems, each with a different complaint (let's be real that all you really do, and I mean you as in Dems) while everyone from the Rep side argues each complaint in unity. In other words. 1 Dem argues about the enviroment, another about the war and the other about how stupid Bush is, But the first one wont argue about #2s or 3s argument and #2 wont even hint at #3s or 1s argument, get my point?


Wow, that's a really damning statement about "us". We think on our own instead of following the crowd.


Following a crowd? So each Dem thinks something defferent? I thought that being part of a Party meant having something in common with them. And I don't mean just hating Bush. It almost seems pointless to get you to understand cause your just gonna continue to take me word for word and make me sound like I'm talking in a different language.

I would hardly say that I'm "passionate" about them. As I said, I know people around here don't put a lot of weight in them.


OK bad choice of word, hows about persistant?

And I also said they very a lot. It's not as if I've gone on and on about how polls are then end all be all predictor of the future.


Could have fooled me.

It is possible, but I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch parties. People can and will make up their own minds. I just tend to point out the ridiculous and/or inaccurate things people say.


Once again picking only the words you like, you never really did answer the question.

Are you saying that I'm "bashing" the GOP by pointing out that Schmidt stood up there and lied in front of all her colleagues and the rest of the country on C-SPAN?


And yet once again, nitpicking words. I don't believe I derected it to you in particular or about a specific person like Schmidt. I guess metaphores are not your thing. The last time you went on a date and your date wanted to know more about you, did you tell that person all your bad habits or did you tell the about your good side?

Example, I chose to be Rep because they "represent" what I believe the Govt should be (that's just one thing). You see how I did not bash the opposing party by not saying "I chose the Reps because the Dems suck". Is that too much to ask for? And I'm sure you will say the same of us, but like Dr Guy would say: we're not the ones providing the wood for the fires, we just burn them.
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5