www.probush.com - which is worse: being a joke or not?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Okay, lookee here: http://www.probush.com

At first glance, it looks pretty sincere. But take a look at the store. A "We'll Miss You Ari!" t-shirt? A "traitor" cap? Now look at the "Official Al Gore is a Dick" page: http://www.probush.com/gore_page.htm
It says:
Looking at these numbers helps one to understand the wisdom of our forefathers in creating the Electoral College system. The difference in the vote count in just New York City might have elected Al Gore, in a popular vote only system. But still Al Gore remains a DICK about the whole thing.

Soooo. It appears that this is all a joke. But is that good? You know that hundreds of people see this site and think, "Yeah...right on!" Is there going to be a twist at the end, whenever that may be? I guess these people are happy that they're taking money from ultra-conservatives, through cap/t-shirt/poster sales and all that. I'm confused.

― Ernest P. (ernestp), Sunday, 8 June 2003 00:39 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.probush.com/gore3.jpg

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 8 June 2003 00:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think it's a joke.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 8 June 2003 00:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it makes me feel like I might be sick.

― kirsten (kirsten), Sunday, 8 June 2003 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I want to believe this is a joke but either way I can't help but be amused by "We Are The World" playing in the background of the hate mail page

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 8 June 2003 00:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Looking at these numbers helps one to understand the wisdom of our forefathers in creating the Electoral College system. The difference in the vote count in just New York City might have elected Al Gore, in a popular vote only system. But still Al Gore remains a DICK about the whole thing.

If you try to hard to figure out what they're saying here your head will explode

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 8 June 2003 00:59 (twenty-two years ago)

the conservative ice-cream company (about which i created a thread some months back) isn't a joke. they're quite serious about selling "i hate the french vanilla" and "iraqi road" ice cream.

and whether or not the people who are responsible for www.probush.com are serious, i have known people who have seriously said things not too dissimilar to that bit above about about gore. maybe not those precise words, but the same thoughts nonetheless.

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

wow ernest, you probably have much more faith in humankind than any of us, because it ain't a joke. I know everything points to it, but I think it's no more a joke than Liz Phair's new image.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Sunday, 8 June 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

The skeptic in me urges me to think that this is some strange Andy Kaufman-esque "Is it real or not?" piece of comedy, but yeah, I haven't completely ruled out that it is totally (and incredulously) sincere.

Other odd tidbits from the site:
I would urge all Americans to email the Sci-Fi Channel and express their displeasure in the casting of Susan Sarandon in the mini-series Children of Dune.

Their message to Dave Matthews:
Dave I have to admit that I'm extremely disappointed in your speaking out against the President and addressing his policy as "un-american". While your actions certainly classify worthy of being added to the traitor list, in our great respect for your music and lyrics, we will postpone your being added to the traitor list.

And have you looked at the traitor list? Laurie Anderson, Bill Frisell, Jim Jarmusch, John Sayles...why are they selecting these relatively obscure people who would most likely be (warning: gross generalization ahead) unknown to ultra-conservatives?

And at the very bottom of the page are two pictures, one of Ari Fleischer and one of Henry Kissinger, with the caption "Clones?". Immediately, I thought "Here's the proof that it's all a joke!" but then I remembered that there are people today who actually respect and admire Kissinger. Then I felt sad.

These things are amusing to me, yet they also make me feel very queasy.

― Ernest P. (ernestp), Sunday, 8 June 2003 16:43 (twenty-two years ago)

*shrug*

Only thing I'll say here is that when I want to feel patriotic or when I want to indulge my fannish self, I go to the Free Republic site. They have these "day in the life of" picture threads of George W. Bush that I always seek out when I go there.

Don't know if this is a joke or not. But I do know that Kissinger did win a Nobel Peace Prize. *waits a moment* Now you know how I felt when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize.

*disclaimer: above post written by a Republican*

― Dee the Lurker (Dee the Lurker), Sunday, 8 June 2003 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Another thing: I know that these types of jokes exist, because I have friends who used to do this sort of thing. (I know that doesn't prove anything, with regards to www.probush.com) They would write these outrageous, incredibly ultra-conservative rants, throwing in phrases like "whoring Babylon," and send them to the local newspaper. Then, we'd be tickled to death when they actually printed them. And one of my friends reminded us that there are bunches of people out there who probably cut out these letters from the paper and stick them on their refrigerators.

― Ernest P. (ernestp), Sunday, 8 June 2003 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Here's an interesting article about the Nobel Peace prize, and whether or not it should be taken seriously (double-edged sword, here, eh?):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,900496,00.html

And there was also the famous comment by the American songwriter Tom Lehrer, who believed that "political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize".

― Ernest P. (ernestp), Sunday, 8 June 2003 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

dee how is carter winning the nobel peace prize comparable to kissinger winning the nobel peace prize?!?!!!! 'now you know how i felt when carter won' what, because hes a democrat?!!?

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Trife in dealing with political views other than his own shockah!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 8 June 2003 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

ned in smiling condescension shocker!! its a scandal!!!

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

*cue Prince*

SCAAAAANDALOUS!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 8 June 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.missajc.com/images/other/other-patriotic.jpg

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 18:10 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.missajc.com/images/other/other-understanding.jpg

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I sat on an airplane once in the row directly in front of two corpulent bearded men who spent nearly the entire flight discussing guns, bullets and how much they hated Al Gore. I'm serious, it was like Gore had personally taken a shit in their fucking breakfast. I'm not sure when exactly this was but I do recall that it was quite some time after the election was over and the recount issue had been buried. Whenever I see something that is so right-wing I have trouble believing it, I think of those two fat fucks and realize that sometimes you can apply too much critical thinking to certain situations.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 8 June 2003 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

one of my fav things i came away from the protests here with was how many assholes would yell 'I HATE SADDAM HUSSEIN!!! I JUST HATE HIM SO FUCKING MUCH!!! I WANT HIM TO DIE!!! FUCK I HATE HIM!!', like yeah you fratboys have been really involved in iraqi human rights issues for so long and have thoughtfully assessed his role in that, honestly what, is it keeping them up at night crying in their pillow hating saddam?? i wanted to say 'oh sorry for a second i thought you were talking about your father'

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

trife v. freepers: FITE!

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Trife is right though. It's completely understandable for someone to say "Fuck, I fucking hate Jimmy Carter, bleeding heart impractical not-what-the-country-needed gas crisis president," whatever the complaints against Carter may be - I don't have any particular love for Carter the president (though his fave charity, Habitat for Humanity, is rad). But the harshest thing anyone might have to say against Pres. Carter ain't shit compared to what history will have to say about Henry the K., who is a war criminal plain and simple. Because of military choices that he personally initiated (involving supporting DK forces pre-1975 against the Vietnamese), a quarter of the population of Cambodia died. Repeat: a quarter of the population. You can hang a lot of shit on Carter, but you can't suggest that he's complicit with genocide.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

neverminding his coddling of the shah or hussein, carter's role in the kwangju massacre is enough to place him alongside kissinger in a group of nobel peace prize winners with atrocious human rights records.

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)

no but you see carter is a democrat, republicans hate democrats so hes the equiv of kissinger to democrats

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:42 (twenty-two years ago)

oh, but he's on 'our' side - so it's okay! just like the protestors who suddenly worried about the 'precedent' bush would set by bombing without security council approval but didn't march over clinton bombing kosovo, sudan, bosnia, or nearly annual bombings of iraq, without security council approval. but hey, it's okay, he's not a republican!

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:42 (twenty-two years ago)

bob 'democrat wars' dole to thread!

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)

james there were mad protests for kosovo in d.c., i wouldve been there but i was fourteen, i think the reaction to bush is the culture of war he promotes, clinton was a shit when it came to bombings but he didnt sell violence and hatred to the american people because he knew the 45 yr old hippies who supported him wouldnt stand for it

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

also its sort of a breaking point issue, if you KEEP KEEP KEEP pushing for slander and impeachment yeah youll get a wag the dog eventually

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:47 (twenty-two years ago)

i heart trife!

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:50 (twenty-two years ago)

trife - what would you have done with Rwanda?

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Blount that's not true, there were protests aplenty about Clinton's filthy thoughtless campaign against the third world

in re: Carter vs. Kissinger, Cambodia's something I know more about than I know about other shit, so it naturally seems like an especially bad case to me -- just from the language, the Kwangju massacre doesn't sound quite as sustained as the four years the Kissinger bought for the people of Cambodia by attacking the Vietnamese at their borders, purportedly to "stop the spread of Communism" (as if Democratic Kampuchea was somehow better than, oh, ANY OTHER POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT)

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually I think it has more to do with the fact that Clinton was able to do his thing without getting the entire globe pissed off at America and driving the dollar to shit.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

are you going to tell me the protests over Clinton's bombing (and note he actually dropped more bombs on Iraq than both Bushes combined - to what end?) in any way approached the scale of the protests to Gulf War I or II?

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:56 (twenty-two years ago)

james youre not listening, when you give a war posters and tv ads and a fucking pr campaign then youll get a more visible negative reaction, clinton droppin bombs was on the dl

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

(re: the "on our side" thing - there's not a president from the last century without some serious diciness in his record, but there is nobody as flatly blameworthy as Henry Kissinger - and no, I didn't get this from reading the "case against" book [I haven't] but from reading Cambodian historians, many of whom are fairly conservative [Michael Vickery excepted, and often excoriated for being a DK apologist] e.g. Chandler especially)

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 8 June 2003 20:59 (twenty-two years ago)

and I'm not gonna pretend Carter's anywhere near as bad as Kissinger, but he's no Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi either. He's not even a Yitzhak Rabin.

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

and I'm not sure how Clinton keeping his bombins on the downlow counts as a plus in his column.

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

is trife suggesting Bush is using bombing as more of a pr tool than Clinton did?

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

taking sides: doing something wrong and hoping no one notices vs convincing everyone else to be evil too so you can do all the horrible shit you want!!!

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

seen on blounts truck:
http://www.missajc.com/images/other/bumperstickers/democrat_president_web.gif

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:07 (twenty-two years ago)

haha

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Why shouldn't he suggest that? I doubt if Clinton would ever have imagined trying to pull that flightsuit shit either. Bush rides his warmonger tough-guy image all over the fucking globe like it doesn't matter who he pisses off. At least Clinton had some fucking savvy.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

taking sides: doing something wrong and hoping no one notices vs convincing everyone else to be evil too so you can do all the horrible shit you want!!!

beeline to the "posts that made you laugh out loud" thread

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

honestly you keep bringing up the 'nobody protested clinton' thing which just isnt true, and clinton dropped more bombs than bushes i and ii, i got tired of that bullshit revisionism when every pigfucker libertarian uga economics major told me at the arch so dont try it now

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.missajc.com/images/other/bumperstickers/slavery_web.gif
'ending' fascism and communism!! also this was obv written by a yankee

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:11 (twenty-two years ago)

atlanta, hiroshima, dresden, reagan

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

bushie's top gun/cowboy bs is mostly for domestic consumption -- to stir up the bozos, the ted nugent redneck contingent and their versions of "manliness." so of course it doesn't sell overseas, no more than whatever the british or the chinese or the nigerian equivalent of bushie's stupid american chest-thumping would sell over here.

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

it's dishonest to pretend the two compared in scale in any way, or that the reason why didn't have as much to do with the party affiliations of the respective presidents as it did with the savviness of their pr campaigns

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

difference is clearly that clintons bombings were an uncharacteristic surprise, they broke the mold hed been set in after being in for six years, no one elected him as a war prez!! ever since bush won we were all waiting for the nukes to start flyin and with iran syria n korea (dmz whatever) its happening!! also clintons bombings didnt send a quarter million americans to another country to invade and get shot at

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:20 (twenty-two years ago)

THEY DIDN'T?!!!

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 24 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Jim Goad to thread

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:52 (twenty-two years ago)

haha athens housin some poor ass peoples!!! what is your job anyway blount

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:53 (twenty-two years ago)

'student'

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:55 (twenty-two years ago)

SIT DOWN MR BUSH WE IN CHARGE OF THE ECONOMY

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:56 (twenty-two years ago)

you'd think it would be easily dispelled once the "lucky duckies" look at their paychecks -- they look at how much comes out of their paychecks for social security and medicare, not to mention how much sales tax they have to pay after they cash their paychecks (which is surely as much a form of "double taxation" as taxing corporate dividends is).

it's obv. rhetoric whose only natural appeal is to wealthy republicans. though this being america, there's no doubt some racist overtones (i.e., this is the bushie rhetorical equivalent of raygun's "welfare queen" horseshit.)

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:56 (twenty-two years ago)

atlanta, hiroshima, dresden, reagan

Everyone's talkin' 'bout...big bombing.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 8 June 2003 21:58 (twenty-two years ago)

carter's role in the kwangju massacre ?
someone school me.

and mandela was complacent in his wives tortuing of dissidents.

― anthony easton (anthony), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Tad said re: sales tax: (which is surely as much a form of "double taxation" as taxing corporate dividends is).

sales tax != federal government

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:02 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah I hesitated with Mandela cuz of the wife, but the good so faaaar outweighs the bad (alot more than Carter's good outweighs his crimes - which were his crimes) that I overlooked it.

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:02 (twenty-two years ago)

of course sales taxes aren't federal taxation. i'm well aware of that.

but one of the rationales for cutting (if not eliminating) taxing individuals on dividends is that dividends are taxed twice -- once at the corporate level (when income is earned by the corporation) then at the individual level (when shareholders receive dividends out of the corporation's earnings-and-profits). supposedly, this "double taxation" is tantamount to a crime against nature to bushie and certain conservatives.

my arg about sales taxes being a form of "double taxation" is that you get paid money (which is taxed), then you take your post-tax dollars to the store and pay a sales tax (imposed by the state or municipality in which you live) on whatever it is you buy at the store. that sure seems like a form of "double taxation" to me (even if it isn't a regime imposed solely by the federal government). so why is one form "evil" but the other is perfectly acceptable?

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Millar brings up a solid point, which is taxation at the local level. Which, btw, is only going to get much worse because of the Bush tax cut. Starving the federal government, the same government that sends mandates to the states on how to administer Medicaid and other programs, is the most cynical thing about the current administration (even after the bogus "War on Terrorism" and invasion of Iraq).

Blount, could you actually school us about Kwangju instead of just rhetoricizing about it? I honestly don't know what it is, and I'd like to know, as I'm an admirer of Carter.

― hstencil, Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:11 (twenty-two years ago)

i put "double taxation" in quotes b/c in reality a lot of corporations arrange their affairs so that they pay little-to-no tax on their corporate earnings, not to mention that even a lot of people who get dividends already don't pay tax on dividends anyway (since they hold their stocks in qualified retirement plans, which are tax-exempt until they retire and so they won't benefit from a dividend tax-cut anyway).

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Sales tax strikes me as slightly more necessary than dividend income taxes.

Another funny bit is that by living on the right side of the digital divide we all can avoid sales tax on nearly everything save groceries (and by being in the military I avoid paying sales tax on those as well. So HA! etc.)

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

if any of us have long memories here, they'll remember the big stink that the congressional republicans raised about unfunded mandates under clinton.

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

yes clearly people wealthy enough to buy computers with internet access dont need to pay sales tax, lets leave it for walmart shoppers

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm not saying that sales taxes aren't necessary. but they aren't progressive -- almost everyone pays whatever sales tax your state and/or municipality imposes. this is in distinction to federal and (most?) state income tax regimes, with the different rates imposed on different levels of income.

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

i agree with tad, why are we pretending everyone who buys something has the same amount of money?? you make $10k a year, sales tax takes $700 of that, thats a lot of ramen!! sure if you make $100ksales tax takes $7k but who gives a fuck youve got enough to live on

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:20 (twenty-two years ago)

'cockburn' haha

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

hmmm, Blount I'm reading through that stuff, and it puzzles me as to why the Carter administration would allow that to happen. Seems so out of character.

― hstencil, Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:29 (twenty-two years ago)

also seems kinda weird that given the current climate in S.K., the Bushies aren't exploiting a chance to make the Dems look bad here.

― hstencil, Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:32 (twenty-two years ago)

the current climate in Sleater-Kinney?

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:34 (twenty-two years ago)

it's a rhetorical question h - Blount's completely right here - the presidents who look good to those of us who lean left (myself included) just do a better job of soothing our lefty leanings when they talk out of the other sides of their mouths.

Bush Jr does seem like a special case to me if only for his brazenness

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:34 (twenty-two years ago)

South Korea, you wannabe smartass.

― hstencil, Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:35 (twenty-two years ago)

alot of that can be placed at Zbigniew Brzezinski's feet

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:36 (twenty-two years ago)

oh J0hn I knew that, I just wanted to be enlightened as to the details of the "incident," rather than just yelled at about it. I mean, what good is it to reference these supressed events without actually talking about what they are? That's maybe one reason why no one knows about them!

― hstencil, Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:37 (twenty-two years ago)

but you were right the first time, john -- no american president has had an entirely admirable foreign policy. even the ones that liberals and lefties might otherwise like -- not just obvious targets like JFK and LBJ, but also FDR (he put the Somozas in power in Nicaragua), Wilson (invaded Haiti, which was then occupied by US troops for well over a decade), and Truman (Korea and the Cold War).

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:39 (twenty-two years ago)

it's just that even people who like Kissinger know he's an evil bastard, whereas Carter is always painted as a good man who's flaw was 'being weak' or an incompetent executive, even from the right. And to be fair in comparison with alot of Southern politicians of his generation he was a saint.

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:44 (twenty-two years ago)

oh I know, Tad - if I said anything that suggests I think there's been even one U.S. President whose record is entirely good, then I misspoke

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I wouldn't think that many liberals or fans of Carter (I am both) would excuse some of his other foreign policy blunders, though (esp. Iran).

― hstencil, Sunday, 8 June 2003 22:47 (twenty-two years ago)

to play devil's advocate for a moment -- Clinton's foreign policy adventures might actually come off better than those of certain other Democratic presidents. whatever one thought of bombing bosnia and serbia, it isn't as if Slobodan Milosevic or Radovan Karadzic were likeable (or that their actions were at all tolerable). and lest we forget, the sudan and afghanistan bombings were done in retaliation for osama bin laden bombing the us embassy in tanzania, not out of some "cowboy" impulse on his part or in his belief in nonsense like the "domino theory" (and no, i don't believe the "wag the dog" nonsense some on the far-right and far-left were trying to peddle re those incidents -- shit, not even Chomsky believes that [though he didn't agree with the bombings either]).

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 8 June 2003 23:04 (twenty-two years ago)

to be honest my problems with Clinton's 'adventures' had more to do with the details, methods, strategies involved than with the overall question of 'to bomb or not to bomb'. The foreign policy tragedies under Clinton either seem to be rooted in inaction (Rwanda) or a lack of willingness to 'finish the job' or let things 'get messy', the former of which led to gesture-by-bombing approach in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the latter of which led to the uglier episodes in the Kosovo campaign, but to be honest even these can hardly be said to have be all Clinton's fault.

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 00:08 (twenty-two years ago)

tad.
can the democrats do anything wrong in yr books?
im serious, they are all fucking sts to you aint they ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 9 June 2003 02:26 (twenty-two years ago)

no, they are not saints. and they certainly can do wrong. if i come off as advocating that they are perfect, partly it's because i feel that where they do thinks correctly they should be defended. esp. since the democrats get shot at from both sides, from the far right and the left. since there are more of the latter here, that's why my criticisms are directed towards them.

i don't necessarily disagree with, for instance, james' criticisms of clinton's foreign policy. what i was trying to say, however imperfectly, is that his foreign policy failings were of a different character than other democratic presidents -- they weren't motivated by racism (like wilson's to some extent), or being enraptured by extreme anti-communism or imperialism.

― Tad (llamasfur), Monday, 9 June 2003 03:46 (twenty-two years ago)

see i think they were.
i think that america from the beginning views itself as gaurdian of perfect ideals and feeling justified to use expansionist techniques to perserve those "ideals"

each president then comes from that history, and from the history of mannifest destiny, genocide, slavery and hipocrysy(sp).

i cannot then, often tell the difference b/w democrats and republicans.

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 9 June 2003 04:51 (twenty-two years ago)

anthony it takes a sort of willful ignorance to not recognize isolationism as the dominant foreign policy outlook for the overwhelming majority of its history, or to not see the difference between Wilson and TR (the two modes of American internationalism still today).

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:01 (twenty-two years ago)

ie. are you really not able to see a difference between the Kosovo war and the Mexican war?

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:03 (twenty-two years ago)

to play devil's advocate for a moment -- Clinton's foreign policy adventures might actually come off better than those of certain other
Democratic presidents. whatever one thought of bombing bosnia and serbia, it isn't as if Slobodan Milosevic or Radovan Karadzic were
likeable (or that their actions were at all tolerable). and lest we forget, the sudan and afghanistan bombings were done in retaliation for
osama bin laden bombing the us embassy in tanzania, not out of some "cowboy" impulse on his part or in his belief in nonsense like the
"domino theory" (and no, i don't believe the "wag the dog" nonsense some on the far-right and far-left were trying to peddle re those
incidents -- shit, not even Chomsky believes that [though he didn't agree with the bombings either]). "

to play devil's advocate for a moment -- Bush's foreign policy adventures might actually come off better than those of certain other
Democratic presidents. whatever one thought of bombing Iraq and Afghanistan, it isn't as if Hussein and Bin Laden were
likeable (or that their actions were at all tolerable). and lest we forget, the Afghanistan and Iraq bombings were done in retaliation for
osama bin laden bombing the world trade center, not out of some "cowboy" impulse on his part or in his belief in nonsense like the
"domino theory" (and no, i don't believe the "wag the dog" nonsense some on the far-right and far-left were trying to peddle re those
incidents -- shit, not even Chomsky believes that [though he didn't agree with the bombings either]).

boo-yah!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:10 (twenty-two years ago)

to play devil's advocate for a moment -- Roosevelt's foreign policy adventures might actually come off better than those of certain other
Democratic presidents. whatever one thought of bombing Dresden and Tokyo, it isn't as if Tojo or Hitler were
likeable (or that their actions were at all tolerable). and lest we forget, the Japan and Germany bombings were done in retaliation for the Axis bombing the US naval base in Pearl Harbor, not out of some "cowboy" impulse on his part or in his belief in nonsense like the
"domino theory" (and no, i don't believe the "wag the dog" nonsense some on the far-right and far-left were trying to peddle re those
incidents -- shit, not even Chomsky believes that [though he didn't agree with the bombings either]). "

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:16 (twenty-two years ago)

(actually you'd have to strike the Chomsky bit from that last one)(though he didn't agree with the bombings either)

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:18 (twenty-two years ago)

so do yall actually agree with Bush circa 2000 that Rwanda was the highlight of Clinton's foreign policy?

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:19 (twenty-two years ago)

see they claim isolationism, but they were never isolationist.
it is in many ways a question of degrees- ie kosovo less bad then mexico and kosovo was v. much an international effort-which makes it unusual.

see the other thing is that i dont want this to be a damned if you do, damned if you dont-i mean how can i argue for intervention in rwanada and then question serbia ?

i have no idea, am i a hypocrite ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:22 (twenty-two years ago)

kosovo was very much an international effort?!!!

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:25 (twenty-two years ago)

un security council to thread!

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:26 (twenty-two years ago)

along with europe's "armed forces"!

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:26 (twenty-two years ago)

see, nothing is ever "pure." even good and defensive foreign policy decisions and motives (i.e., the cold war and the policy of deterrence, keeping the rest of europe free from soviet communism) get mixed with bad and indefensible decisions and motives (i.e., vietnam and central america). you probably can't separate the two in some instances. but what are the alternatives? you have to look at what were the alternatives when certain policies were being enacted -- e.g., when the truman administration implemented the cold war policy of deterrence, the "alternatives" were the rollback policy of the right (abrogating yalta and pushing the soviets out of eastern europe, ignoring kennan's advise re the soviets' perceived defensive needs and limitations) and the do-nothing policy of the left (which ignored the truly evil nature of stalinism). i think that those three strands -- deterrence (roughly where the democratic party still stands, as well as some moderate republicans), rollback (roughly where bushco and the neo-cons stand), and putting yer head in the sand (roughly where far-right isolationists and far-left idealists stand) -- still animate american foreign policy debates. and if you stand in the latter camp, then i guess there is no "difference" b/c someone who believes in deterrence and someone who believes in rollback might undertake the same or similar military policies and actions. but the rationales are different, and i think that's important to understand.

― Tad (llamasfur), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:47 (twenty-two years ago)

it had nato, and i thot the un but maybe i am wrong.

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:49 (twenty-two years ago)

and i know that the lines between the three strains that i identified get blurry -- e.g., the republicans' position in the early stages of the cold war was something of a mix of rollback and isolationism; and the people who were against military action in iraq were those into deterrence (roughly the position of the non-neocon foreign policy establishment) and isolationism (the fringes of the anti-war movement), with most people somewhere in between.

― Tad (llamasfur), Monday, 9 June 2003 05:54 (twenty-two years ago)

alternative = burn baby burn.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 9 June 2003 15:37 (twenty-two years ago)

alternative = empty poses per usual

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 9 June 2003 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.