Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today?

A reader writes:

You articulated what I have been thinking for years about Limbaugh,
Hannity, Savage, and these supposed conservatives.

If you listen to Limbaugh, Savage, and Hannity on the radio or TV you
discover that their perceptions of terrorists and U.S. Democrats and
liberals are identical, as is their level of vitriol for both groups,
and the methods they expouse for dealing with them: obliteration,
actual or rhetorical.

Their rage is contagious. You either buy into it or become agitated
with them and have to turn them off. This dichotomous 'all or none'
'good and evil' thinking (called splitting in the psychoanalytic
literature), to me, is not healthy.

Andrew Sullivan responds:
With Hannity, you only have to read the title of his recent book:
"Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism".
The fact that he can equate liberalism with terrorism and decribe each
of them as "evil" means he has given up on democratic discourse. I wish
it had given up on him.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

DT wrote:

>I'm pretty confident about how Chaplin
>would feel,

Chaplin would side with America's enemies as he usually did.

> the surprise (based on what turned out
>to be horrendously bad insider info) was
>how the Pennsylvania voters felt.

You know nothing about PA politics.

First, Bob Casey, Jr, is a pro-life Catholic
as is Rick Santorum. Hence, this cut into
conservative support for Santorum.

Second, Santorum was always too
conservative for PA. He won 2 elections
only against very weak opponents. The
last time out, Ed Rendell, who would
have beat him, wanted to run for governor
instead. So Santorum's opponent
was a non-entity by the name of Klink.

Then again, Rendell was re-elected
in a landslide, which helped Casey.

There was no way Santorum was going
to win, Bush or no Bush, against the
son of a famous PA governor.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
> DT wrote:
>
> >I'm pretty confident about how Chaplin
> >would feel,
>
> Chaplin would side with America's enemies as he usually did.
>
> > the surprise (based on what turned out
> >to be horrendously bad insider info) was
> >how the Pennsylvania voters felt.
>
> You know nothing about PA politics.

All I know about PA politics is what I heard from someone who claimed
to be an insider in state politics there. It's hardly my fault if that
person does a complete flip flop and changed their opinion 180 degrees
from before to after Nov. 7. I don't know why I'm surprised. That same
person supports and defends the very highest public official who thinks
it is perfectly acceptable to lie for political purposes.

My inside source should have known better. He was warned: " By the
promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They
do not fulfil their promise, they never will. Dictators free themselves
but they enslave the people." (One of the most significant parts of the
Military Commissions Act was to 'absolve' officials of culpability and
legal liability for torture.)
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

bachusio.RemoveThis@rogers.com
wrote:

>To endure the smear-slinging of a
>died-inthe-wool traitor of the values
>America was founded on like yourself -
>hey, that's a real bummer.

You don't know the first thing about
what "America was founded on"

>And while you applauded your Leader as
>he rushed to war, with insufficient
>equipment,

That's false. The military war was over in
a few weeks.

> with no plan, no policy, resulting in the
>deaths of nearly 3000 young men and
>women - as you cheerlead even as it's
>clear the whole debacle was doomed
>from the beginning - as is
>made apparent by Rumsfled's dismissal
>- you have applauded a debacle of
>incompetence and the slaughter of 3000
>of your fellow Americans for purely
>political reasons.


And what "political reasons' might those
be?


>Because, as your Leader says, anyone
>who's against it 'wants the terrorists to
>win'.

I think you do.

>That's the kind of smear you guys would
>dole out to anyone who questioned

No, not "anyone." Just people like you.


>"stay the course" (oops, sorry, I forgot -
>the Leader says he didn't say that!).
>Smearing simply to beat down any
>opposition to Rumsfeld working his
>miraculous
>magic in Iraq - almost 3000 dead -
>torture - the country bogged down in
>quagmire.

>All because of an arrogant man too
>proud to change course when his idiotic
>theories were proven resoundingly false.

Democracy is an "idiotic theory?"
Or don't you think Arabs and Kurds
are capable of it?


>And because of 'party-over-country' guys
>like yourself who smeared on his behalf
>and tried to beat down opposition 'cause
>he's "your guy".

I doubt that you're much of a nationalist
when compared to your left-wing ideology.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

WHY AL QAEDA'S HAPPY

NY Post ^ | November 11, 2006 | RICHARD MINITER


AMERICA'S enemies are gloating over this week's election results - and
the Bush administration's air of imminent retreat.

Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, the tremendously gifted Zalmay
Khalilzad, is said to be on the way out.

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of
their predicament, they voted for a level of reason," said Ayyub
al-Masri, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. In a recording posted on jihadi
Web sites, he called Bush a "lame duck" and accused Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld of "rushing to escape."

The group boasts of having 12,000 fighters in Iraq who have "vowed to
die for God's sake." That is not a bluff, according to several
high-ranking members of the intelligence community: Al Qaeda in Iraq is
more dangerous than ever.

"Al Masri is much more effective than [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi," one
intelligence officer told me. After U.S. forces killed Zarqawi in June,
al Qaeda consolidated its control over tribal leaders and Sunni
insurgents - who'd otherwise be starved for money and ammunition.
Zarqawi's divisive lieutenants have been replaced.

(One was found in a dumpster last week.)
And bin Laden's control is stronger than ever. Al Masri talks to al
Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al Zawahiri, on a daily basis.

After delighting in the Democrats victory and Bush's capitulations,
Masri added: "We haven't had enough of your blood yet."

Tehran was also celebrating.

"This issue [the elections] is not purely a domestic issue for America,
but is a defeat for Bush's hawkish policies," said Iran's Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "This defeat is actually an obvious victory for
the Iranian nation."

This week, Iran is completing military exercises in the Gulf, testing a
new long-range missile. It continues to develop atomic weapons....
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George,

You just can't help yourself starting these damned politcal threads,
can you?

:-)

Anyway, give it up. A "thumpin'" is a "thumpin."

I did not expect the Democrats to do as well as they have, but they
did. Give your devil his due, and congratulate those who supported the
Democrats with their votes. It is called courtesy, and it goes with
winning.

For 2008, it might be wise for the GOP to move back towards the center
to help regain all those lost moderate seats. Otherwise Repubicans may
be seeing more of the same, and worse, in the next election cycle.

DBP

George Shelps wrote:
> WHY AL QAEDA'S HAPPY
>
> NY Post ^ | November 11, 2006 | RICHARD MINITER
>
>
> AMERICA'S enemies are gloating over this week's election results - and
> the Bush administration's air of imminent retreat.
>
> Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, the tremendously gifted Zalmay
> Khalilzad, is said to be on the way out.
>
> "The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of
> their predicament, they voted for a level of reason," said Ayyub
> al-Masri, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. In a recording posted on jihadi
> Web sites, he called Bush a "lame duck" and accused Defense Secretary
> Donald Rumsfeld of "rushing to escape."
>
> The group boasts of having 12,000 fighters in Iraq who have "vowed to
> die for God's sake." That is not a bluff, according to several
> high-ranking members of the intelligence community: Al Qaeda in Iraq is
> more dangerous than ever.
>
> "Al Masri is much more effective than [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi," one
> intelligence officer told me. After U.S. forces killed Zarqawi in June,
> al Qaeda consolidated its control over tribal leaders and Sunni
> insurgents - who'd otherwise be starved for money and ammunition.
> Zarqawi's divisive lieutenants have been replaced.
>
> (One was found in a dumpster last week.)
> And bin Laden's control is stronger than ever. Al Masri talks to al
> Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al Zawahiri, on a daily basis.
>
> After delighting in the Democrats victory and Bush's capitulations,
> Masri added: "We haven't had enough of your blood yet."
>
> Tehran was also celebrating.
>
> "This issue [the elections] is not purely a domestic issue for America,
> but is a defeat for Bush's hawkish policies," said Iran's Supreme Leader
> Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "This defeat is actually an obvious victory for
> the Iranian nation."
>
> This week, Iran is completing military exercises in the Gulf, testing a
> new long-range missile. It continues to develop atomic weapons....
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

Quoth Carnahan:

>If you listen to Limbaugh, Savage, and
>Hannity on the radio or TV you discover
>that their perceptions of terrorists and
>U.S. Democrats and liberals are
>identical, as is their level of vitriol for
>both groups, and the methods they
>expouse for dealing with them:
>obliteration, actual or rhetorical.

Nope. that's the modus operandi of the
left, which eqiates conservatism with
fascism and Nazism (see rhetorical behavior on this group.)

Liberals are not the moral equivalent
of terrorists, they are the moral equivalent of Neville Chamberlain,
i.e. appeasers.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

David B. Pearson wrote:

> George,
>
> You just can't help yourself starting these damned politcal threads,
> can you?

Did you really expect him to?

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

"Oh, it's crying time again..."
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

Richard Carnahan wrote:
> A reader writes:
>
> You articulated what I have been thinking for years about Limbaugh,
> Hannity, Savage, and these supposed conservatives.
>
> If you listen to Limbaugh, Savage, and Hannity on the radio or TV you
> discover that their perceptions of terrorists and U.S. Democrats and
> liberals are identical, as is their level of vitriol for both groups,
> and the methods they expouse for dealing with them: obliteration,
> actual or rhetorical.
>
> Their rage is contagious. You either buy into it or become agitated
> with them and have to turn them off. This dichotomous 'all or none'
> 'good and evil' thinking (called splitting in the psychoanalytic
> literature), to me, is not healthy.

Where DID Ann Coulter disappear to, anyway?

>
> Andrew Sullivan responds:
> With Hannity, you only have to read the title of his recent book:
> "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism".
> The fact that he can equate liberalism with terrorism and decribe each
> of them as "evil" means he has given up on democratic discourse. I wish
> it had given up on him.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

David Totheroh wrote:

> Richard Carnahan wrote:
> > A reader writes:
> >
> > You articulated what I have been thinking for years about Limbaugh,
> > Hannity, Savage, and these supposed conservatives.
> >
> > If you listen to Limbaugh, Savage, and Hannity on the radio or TV you
> > discover that their perceptions of terrorists and U.S. Democrats and
> > liberals are identical, as is their level of vitriol for both groups,
> > and the methods they expouse for dealing with them: obliteration,
> > actual or rhetorical.
> >
> > Their rage is contagious. You either buy into it or become agitated
> > with them and have to turn them off. This dichotomous 'all or none'
> > 'good and evil' thinking (called splitting in the psychoanalytic
> > literature), to me, is not healthy.
>
> Where DID Ann Coulter disappear to, anyway?

She wrote a column last Wednesday that was more than usually
incoherent. I'm guessing she was drunk when she wrote it, which should
surprise no one.

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

David B. Pearson wrote:
> George,
>
> You just can't help yourself starting these damned politcal threads,
> can you?
>
> :-)

Now waitaminnit...I don't agree in any way with George's politics, but
he did not start this thread. That would have been Shush.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

WaverBoy wrote:

> Now waitaminnit...I don't agree in any way with George's politics, but
> he did not start this thread. That would have been Shush.

Waitaminnit yourself! When I started the thread, it was about
Chaplin's politics, not George's.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today?