Yappy Republicans

Hi girls!

Rehab was great, and they told me, “it’s OK to think for yourself!”

I see that the Yappy Republicans are accusing those in disagreement of the very same! That’s funny.

Even more funny is the “We are rational, while you are irrational” squeek from the “far right.”

Rehab made a lot more sense than these dumb, overserious twits!

Anyway, stand in defiance and don’t forget that the president of Taiwan, South Africa, and the politicians representing Ireland were once perceived as “criminals/terrorists”, too.

OK, what is with this “fanatic” crap? The neocons are the fanatics as far as I’m concerned! Ask Fred Smith why the United States and Britain support the most “fanatical” regimes in the world, while quietly keeping their populace ignorant of this fact. Sophistry will no doubt sound convincing.

I’ve told you before that the biggest disability of US foriegn policy is its naked particularism. A lethal disability. Watch as proponents fail to acknowledge this in silent support.

If self expression is “fanaticism,” I see Tigerman, Cold Front, and Fred Smith as the biggest fanatics of them all . . . those little, twinky, outspoken men.

PS. Do republicans have to wipe their butts or do they not need such “irrational” actions?

Dunc

The “criminals” in Taiwan were fighting for democracy. Those in South Africa were fighting for democracy and freedom from racial prejudice. The Irish were fighting their colonial masters for autonomy.

Remind me: what exactly is it that the Taliban, the Palestinian suicide bombers and the Ba’athists are fighting for? Oh wait, I remember: the Taliban want to retain the right to throw acid in the faces of uncovered women in Afghanistan, and hopefully to extend that right across the “umma”; the suicide bombers in “Palestine” want to kill as many Jews as they can before “pushing them into the sea”; the Ba’athists simply resent the fact that they no longer wave an iron fist over their populace (500,000 to 1 million killed, was it?).

Maybe you can help me understand: how, exactly, are the Taiwanese, South African and Irish “criminals/terrorists” equivalent to the Taliban, Palestinian suicide bombers and Ba’athists?

Answer the goddam question! :slight_smile:

Why does the United States support the most “fanatical” regimes in the world? Why?

Your silly comments regarding the Taliban and others is equivalent to saying that the acts of a few represent the whole. Does this thought process apply to any criminal act that occurs in the United States too? Or is this modus operandi of discussion another example of particularism?

The degree of naivety of such comments is only matched by their arrogance.

So tell us, Princie, why does the United States continue to support the most fanatical regime in the world? Why?

And why does your average Yank believe that the 911 terrorists came not from Saudi Arabia but Iraq?

Dunc

[quote=“Big Dunc”]Answer the goddam question! :slight_smile:

Why does the United States support the most “fanatical” regimes in the world? Why?[/quote]
U.S. foreign policy is not a monolithic, unchanging entity. It may be a bit too nuanced for a Chomsky-ite to grok, but foreign policy can be good and bad and varying shades in between. That is, unless you think that Uncle Sam is the Great Satan.

Hardly. Again, it’s not all or nothing here, but there are varying degrees of shading. While Palestinian suicide bombers, from all reports, are indeed acting with the approval of a majority of Palestinians, the Ba’athist thugs currently sniping at U.S. forces are both feared and despised by Iraqis who want to get on with the business of rebuilding their country.
Iraqis unite for march against terror

My “silly comments” were made in response to the patently absurd moral equivalence (sorry, there’s that phrase again, but there’s no way around it here) you made between Taiwanese democracy heroes et al. and the Taliban et al.

The U.S. does not “support” fanatical regimes. Rather, as the most powerful and important country in the world, it has to deal with them. It’s called diplomacy.

Americans, in general, are not the brightest bulbs when it comes to knowledge of what exists beyond their noses. Having said that, more and more documented evidence is coming to light showing multiple links between Saddam and al Qaeda. And really, one of the hard and fast rules of human nature is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend–do you honestly believe that there was absolutely no contact whatsoever between them?

That, rather, would be naive.

Christ. He’s loose again.

[quote=“Dennis Miller”]I’ve always been a pragmatist. If two gay guys want to get married, it’s none of my business. I could care less. More power to them. I’m happy when people fall in love. But if some idiot foreign terrorist wants to blow up their wedding to make a political statement, I would rather kill him before he can do it, or have my country kill him before he can do it, instead of having him do it and punishing him after the fact. If that makes me a right-wing fanatic, I will bask in that assignation.

nytimes.com/2004/01/15/arts/ … ner=GOOGLE[/quote]

Miller will be “yapping” lots on his new show later this month. Should be great!

Christ. He’s loose again.[/quote]

Yep, that’s what you get for not flushing twice.