War vote

[REDWAVE]

The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly earlier today to pass Bush's war resolution on Iraq. The overall vote was 296 for, 133 against. Republicans voted almost unanimously for it, 215 to 6. To their credit, a majority of the House Democrats voted against the resolution, 126 to 81. This despite their leader, Dick Gephardt, supporting Bush on war. Hmm-- sniff-- do I smell a back bench revolt brewing? "Toady" Blair faces a similar problem with the Labourites in Parliament. The House's one lone independent-- Bernie Sanders of Vermont-- voted against war.

Senate approval is expected to follow shortly, since Daschle finally came out in support of war. This is a historic moment-- one which will no doubt have enormous repercussions throughout the world.

 

[The Squid King]

God help us.

 

[Guest]

 

[REDWAVE]

Squid

Although I'm not a religious person really-- Amen.

 

[RastaPope]

Just let me know when it's time to roast some marshomallows over the fire of camelfuckers.

 

[christcat69]

The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly earlier today to pass Bush's war resolution on Iraq. The overall vote was 296 for, 133 against. Republicans voted almost unanimously for it, 215 to 6. To their credit, a majority of the House Democrats voted against the resolution, 126 to 81. This despite their leader, Dick Gephardt, supporting Bush on war. Hmm-- sniff-- do I smell a back bench revolt brewing? "Toady" Blair faces a similar problem with the Labourites in Parliament. The House's one lone independent-- Bernie Sanders of Vermont-- voted against war.

Senate approval is expected to follow shortly, since Daschle finally came out in support of war. This is a historic moment-- one which will no doubt have enormous repercussions throughout the world.

Considering we're both in Nevada, surrounded by nuclear waste and test sites.... we should be packing. Don't you think?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly earlier today to pass Bush's war resolution on Iraq.

It's not a "war resolution", and the debate is being much more intelligently and accurately discussed here: Dixon's Way Better Thread on this Topic

 

[REDWAVE]

Commercial

That was a self-serving, self-promoting commercial advertisement by the DCL Media Group, Inc. We now return you to your regular programming.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Whatever. Here you go: Dixon's Way Better Thread on this Topic

 

[REDWAVE]

All right, now you've made me mad. I'm going to raid your thread.

 

[Aquila]

Re: Squid

Although I'm not a religious person really-- Amen.

Doesn't communism preclude the worshiping of a god.. something about religion being the oppiate(sp?) of the masses or some such other nonsens.

And no this is not in an angry tone, this is a curiosity question because I don't remember.

 

[sufisaint]

No more cheap oil.....cash in those stock now....better to take a 20% hit than a 50%...

 

[Sandia]

All right, now you've made me mad. I'm going to raid your thread.

Does that mean you're abandoning this one?

'Cause I did have something to say about this...

 

[REDWAVE]

Please do, Sandia. I always enjoy your comments. I'm certainly not going to abandon this thread. My remark to DCL was mainly a joking one, anyway.

 

[Sandia]

Someone told me this today: that the Democrats were positioning themselves for the election. They can't be accused of holding Bush up, now, and if anything goes wrong things will be his fault.

I was pleased to see the admonition about pursuing a diplomatic solution was still in there. As long as that's on the table, Bush isn't winning. It's the opposite of what he wants - he doesn't want a diplomatic solution.

 

[REDWAVE]

Political CYA

That's exactly what many of the Democrats in Congress are seeking to do: cover themselves on both sides. Take Hillary, for instance: she was very critical of the war resolution, but then voted for it. Like many pols, she's waiting to see which way the wind blows, and positioning herself to go either way. If the war is short and popular, she can say "I voted for it." If, on the other hand, it drags on and becomes unpopular, she can say "I warned against it."

 

[REDWAVE]

Senate votes for war

It is a sad, sad day in America. The Senate has now voted to approve Bush's war resolution, giving him the go ahead from both houses of Congress. The lopsided vote was 77 for, only 23 against. The Democrats were split, but a majority came down on the side of war, 29-21.

HALL OF SHAME

Prominent Democrats who voted for the resolution include Tom Daschle (S.D.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Joseph Biden (Del.), John Kerry (Mass.), Joe Lieberman (Conn.), and from my own state, Harry Reid (Nev.). They now enter the Hall of Shame.

THE PEACE CAMP

The most prominent Democrats voting against the war were Barbara Boxer (Cal.), Russell Feingold (Wis.), Edward Kennedy (Mass.), Paul Wellstone (Minn.), and the ancient Robert Byrd (W.Va.). The future of the Democratic Party belongs to them, if it is to have a future.

Barbara Boxer for President!

ODDS & ENDS

Republicans voted overwhelmingly, almost unanimously, for war. The sole Republican to oppose war with Iraq was Chafee of R.I. The conscience of the Senate Republicans-- and probably about as popular with his fellow Republicans right now as a backed up sewer with a dead body in it! Jeffords (Vt.), the former Republican turned independent and in effect allied with the Democrats, also voted no.


Cry foul, cry foul, cry foul, foul, venom; for MacBush hath murdered peace.

 

[Lost Cause]

"All we Are saying......

Is give war a chance"..........everbody sing!

www.fas.org

 

[SINthysist]

Yes, it was refreshing to see the Democrats vote against their convictions. Again and again I have talked about the deep schism in the Democratic Party. I saw a similar article to that this morning. The Democrats are closer than many would believe to becoming the Republican Party of the 30’s to 60’s, the perennial weak party. I’ll go get it. I thought of REDWAVE when I read it…

 

[SINthysist]

Stop Calling Them Liberals

John L. Perry
Thursday, Oct. 10, 2002

The dirtiest word du jour on campus right after World War II was "reactionary." Its desirable antonym, "liberal." What a difference half a century makes!

In those intervening years, the American left-of-center has been captured by radicals who are the worst sort of reactionaries.

The right-of-center, whose precursors were often unfairly denounced as reactionaries, has now become a citadel for authentic liberals.

It is time for conservatives to refrain from referring to radical-leftists as "liberals."

When Liberals Were Liberals

A reactionary in the mid-1900s was someone (usually over 30) perceived as heel-digging to thwart being dragged kicking and cussing into the brave, new post-war world, intent upon back-pedaling to the good, old pre-war days that were seldom as good as reminisced.

A liberal was someone (usually under 30) perceived as standing foursquare for freedom, liberty and justice enshrined by the Founding Fathers, intent upon applying those precepts to a new American beginning.

Reactionaries were reviled as selfish roadblocks to the future, yearning to turn the clock back to anything other than what was found in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Worth Fighting For

The general idea of liberals, as most collegians 50-plus years ago perceived themselves, was to put into practice what American forces in Europe and in the Pacific fought and died to keep alive.

Thanks to the GI Bill, campuses were enriched by an influx of veterans, some still wearing a flight jacket or battle fatigue stained with blood of fallen comrades and all determined to make up lost time in building their interrupted lives.

"Conservative" and "moderate" were words that seldom found their way into political discourse at favorite off-camps haunts.

Fall and Rise of the Far Left

There was of course an extreme of the left, its denizens recognized as the communists they were, routinely discredited by each new revelation of the god that failed them in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's Red China. Few in number and even less in influence on campus, they were tolerated but rarely embraced by most who considered themselves liberals.

When the Communist Party fell into the disrepute of a sick joke and was inexorably absorbed by the quicksand of time, that opened the way for liberals to occupy virtually the entire field to the left of the right, which had shed its own lunatic fringe.

Then, two unsavory things began to happen to earlier liberals: New "liberals" solidified their control over the machinery of the national Democratic Party. And into its ranks seeped ragged remnants of the old, along with bustling activists of the new, leftist-radicalism.

Home Becomes Unrecognizable

Those radicals elbowed out many Democrats who still adhered to the much-earlier brand of liberalism. The Republican Party picked up by default a number of disaffected Democrats. Others stuck around as nominal Democrats, increasingly alienated by the new leftward lunge of radicals running and ruining the national Democratic Party.

The eight-year-long Bill Clinton nightmare left many genuine-liberal Democrats in shock, shame, revulsion and despair. By then, the ultra-left had taken over the Democratic Party nationally, even as radical Islamists had hijacked much of an entire religion.

Are most of these new-left Democrats out-and-out communists? Not likely. Those old Marxists at least had the conviction to be steadfast to some sort of ideology. This current crop of radicals is without coherent direction or philosophic belief.

Red Fascism

Their agendas resemble in many ways those of European socialists, who have made such a mess of things on that continent. Theirs is a chic caricature of socialism Marx would have a tough time recognizing, a willy-nilly statist-collectivist belief in manipulating lives in conformity with politically correct agendas of the moment jumped up to satisfy insatiable splinter groups. The resemblance is as much fascist as Marxist.

In their own insidious ways, these new leftists are nonetheless subversive – not in the Cold War sense of beavering to incapacitate America for the greater glory of the Soviet Union. Yet they are as dedicated as any old-line communist to undermining what the United States has always stood for.

They are wreckers. They want to destroy. They want to discredit and bring down America. They are far less articulate about what they want in its place. If they have any theoretical communist kinship it is with Leon Trotsky, who believed that for things to get better they first had to be helped to get worse.

Soiling Their Own Lineage

They are only too happy to blame the United States as the root cause of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Anything that lessens America emboldens and elevates them. Their current devil is George W. Bush – not so much because he is of another political party as because he symbolizes the best of America, which is what drives them and their fellow America-traducers up the wall in rage. They manage to manifest themselves inside the skins of shopworn Hollywood performers whose real lives are even more obscene and dysfunctional than some of the roles they portray.

People such as they have infected every society throughout history. This latest flock of misanthropes in our midst is particularly noisy, bold and dangerous because they possess access to vast wealth and frightening segments of the American media of mass communications.

They call themselves liberals! What dictionary are they using? Obviously not the one that defines "liberal" as: "favorable to progress or reform … in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties … free from prejudice or bigotry …"

Reactionaries Redux

Today's far-leftists, masquerading behind the purloined garb of liberalism, are the epitome of bigots, pitting race against race, class against class. They find abhorrent the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution and demand radical-leftist judges willing to usurp the legislative function reserved to Congress.

Do they want bona fide reform? Horrors, no! What they call reform is to plow under the precepts of the Constitution.

These self-anointed liberals are no less than early-21st-century reincarnations of mid-20th century reactionaries. They find themselves, in ideology and actions, more at home with Joe Stalin's commissars and Benito Mussolini's black shirts than with Tom Paine's revolutionaries.

Their theft of the "liberal" label is unconscionable.

Keeping Strange Company

Just as unhealthy is the folly of contemporary conventional wisdom in institutionalizing the liberal label on these reactionaries, who revel in the unearned nomenclature. Ironically, it is here that leftist-controlled news media and many constitutional conservatives walk arm-in-arm.

Leftists love the sound of "liberal" and flock to wallow in it. Conservatives may think they are pronouncing a curse by calling them liberals, when they are actually giving radical-leftists protective coloration they don't deserve.

Instead, those true to the conservatives cause should open their doors – and minds – for genuine liberals to join them in taking their rightful place in the circle of supporters of what the Founding Fathers had in mind for America. The obligation to make common cause with authentic conservatives lies equally upon genuine liberals.

More at Stake Than Names

Whatever those two now choose to call themselves isn't what matters most. What does matter – enormously – is how they conduct themselves, as logical partners in defending the Constitution against the onslaught of the elitist radical-left.

Together, they can constitute the new, broad political majority that America has been awaiting.

Apart, by whatever names, they risk being reduced to ineffectual political minorities – which is precisely where the strategists of the radical left want them.


John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer, is a regular columnist for NewsMax.com and an "unreconstructed Adlai Stevenson liberal" who served two Democratic presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter..

 

[REDWAVE]

BiasMax

Ah, NewsMax-- that veritable paragon of journalistic integrity and objective reporting. They almost make Fox News look "fair and balanced" by comparison.