Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in San Francisco

[Wind Stick Devil <wklemmer1@yahoo.com>]

<< And Harvard, Oxford, Brandeis - or for that matter the speciously-named "Citizens for the American Way >>

 

A bogus comeback and you know it. You brainwashed Rightwingers just can't face the reality of the reality you're living in. No matter how goddamn awful the Bush administration performs, you Righties cast your eyes away and make excuses. AND YET, when a Democrat was leading this country (very well, I may say), you nitpicked on ever little m*otherf*cking thing. Or did you blank those moments out?

Stephen Goodman <spgoodman@earthlight.net> wrote:

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Wind Stick Devil

To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com

Sent: Friday, 09 September, 2005 15:08 PM

Subject: Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in San Francisco

Hahahahahahahaha....

 

<< hidden agendas >>

 

Look at the Right. All those bogus "think-tanks", i.e. Heritage Foundation. These buzzards, and those like them, have been co-opting the ability of Americans to think for many years. Finally, the Left has woken up will begin funding their own "think tanks" to counter the years of propaganda spewed by the Right.

And Harvard, Oxford, Brandeis - or for that matter the speciously-named "Citizens for the American Way" - haven't just popped up overnight, have they?  The Left maintains their own dream and wishes to enforce it, so how's that different to what you're going after?

How does anyone know YOU know what the hell you're talking about when you characterize these organizations? I already heard nonsensical stuff coming from the Right that, for example, the MoveOn.org is a Communist organization.

Ah, but when I express my opinion I don't think everyone should share it.  As far as moveon.org goes, they're a group of people previously hypnotised by Al "Pay Me" Gore, who just can't get with the fact that it's 2005, and can't do what their domain name pretends it wants to do, while spamming with a nearly evangelistic ferocity.

Stephen Goodman <spgoodman@earthlight.net> wrote:

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Wind Stick Devil

To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com

Sent: Friday, 09 September, 2005 13:42 PM

Subject: Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in San Francisco

<< Of course quite a few so-called "anti-war" types are
quite often something more - "anti-democracy", or "anti-capitalism",
"leftist", "socialist", communist", or plain old "anti-Republican".  >>

 

And some of them like blueberry pancakes.

 

Not an answer.  You don't generally hide a predilection for pancakes, whereas the Stop the War group is funded greatly by folks whose main agenda has nothing to do with the war.  That wasn't a very good attempt at deflection, and I didn't categorize anyone except with respect to a hidden agenda anyway.

Some of them also like to sunbathe or visit museums. It's foolish to categorize people into one of two camps. The common practice of the Right to discuss, bash, trash, etc. so-called "Liberals" is a case in point. What the hell is a Liberal anyway? People have many varieties/combinations/permutations of beliefs. If I don't particularly believe in the efficacy of the death penalty, does that make me a Liberal?

Again, irrelevant.

It's an age-old tactic to create a "bogeyman" a la Goldstein in Orwell's '1984'. In the 21st century in the US, it's the "Liberals" who are the bogeyman.

In your case, a Straw man huh?

The Windmeister

Stephen Goodman <spgoodman@earthlight.net> wrote:

Actually it becomes incumbent upon people who take on the "anti-war" mantle
to accurately identify their political affiliation(s) so that the public -
the people they're trying to win over to their argument - will know what the
agenda really is. Of course quite a few so-called "anti-war" types are
quite often something more - "anti-democracy", or "anti-capitalism",
"leftist", "socialist", communist", or plain old "anti-Republican". Funny
how this is rarely done. What do such folks have to hide, and why? Is it
because their actual agenda is known to turn off people who would otherwise
be hoodwinked effectively into supporting something which, if they really
thought about it, may be repugnant to them? I've found a disturbing
tendency on the part of protest movements in the past 15 years or so to be
less concerned with whether they're VIEWED as "right" than whether they're
actually "right" or not. For me Political Correctness (spawned during a
particular non-Republican's term) is nothing more than the outgrowth of
someone else's inane need to oppress others through imitation
intellectualism and cooked numbers. Individuals of all kinds and colors
tend to rebel against this when they know what it actually is, which is most
likely why some items are often blurred a bit or put under a banner
presenting something "more palatable" and therefore easier to SELL.

Alas, honesty is still the best policy, and not just for "someone else". I
suppose I'm some kind of "bigot" for expressing this opinion. Beware
however - expressing an individual opinion is usually averse to the
interests of the Left, or for that matter cults like Scientology.

I was asked to play a London event in 2002 that was initially described to
me as a "gathering of like-minded people", then it was said to me that it
was "in the interest of peace", and finally described to me as an "anti-Bush
rally". I persist in the belief that politics should be peoples' own
business, and I don't care for GroupThink either. If this makes me a
conservative, then I guess I'm one of those, but not in all manners. I also
make it a point not to adhere to stereotypes, or other pre-constructed
expectations. I suppose doing so could make me a "contrarian", or perhaps
just a non-conformist. I prefer the latter.

It's a good thing that in San Francisco (and the rest of the United States
of America) you can't be imprisoned without trial and put to death just for
expressing an opinion that opposes some Ayatollah's Fundamentalist Regime.
No, Pat Robertson doesn't even come close.

Stephen Goodman
* Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
* http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack
* http://www.medialinenews.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shirkey"
To:
Sent: Friday, 09 September, 2005 06:05 AM
Subject: Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in San Francisco


>
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 12:03 AM, Larry wrote:
>
>> You're dead-on, Matthew: this anti-war stuff is the typical, knee-jerk
>> response of far-left-wing America-haters.
>
> And thanks for your own knee-jerk response that does nothing more than
> stereotype all anti-war sentiments as the "knee jerk responses of
> far-left-wing America-haters." Yep, I'm glad you took the time to think
> that one through. Personally, I prefer the anti-war sentiments to the
> pro-war ones. Call me "crazy"--or "left-wing," or "anti- American,"
> or...(fill in the blank with your preferred stereotype of the moment).
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com