Classic Gribbit’s Word Disputes Leftist Name Calling
Posted on March 24, 2006
Filed Under War on Stupidity
In a response to a comment made on a thread that I wrote yesterday, I have decided to re-print something that I wrote on the old Gribbit’s Word last April concerning some of the names that the lefties like to call us.
The Fascists/Nazi Comparison, What Is A Neo-Con Anyway?
There is a growing sentiment in the liberal world that conservatives are fascists and nazis. This falsehood is a deliberate misdirection from the truth. Let’s take a moment to analyze the tactic. The left is putting out a message that you should fear the conservative agenda. That we are out to control the world through oppression and in some cases war. Now, who’s putting forth the fear in that statement? The liberals want you to fear a world lead by conservatives. They want you to fear the prospect of peace and stability. It’s the liberals who are putting out fear. They keep a grip on the elderly by putting forth rhetoric that Republicans are out to take away Social Security and Medicare Benefits. They tighten their grip on the union worker by putting forth rhetoric that Republicans are money grubbing Corporate types who don’t care about their workers. They keep a grip on the African-American crowd by putting forth rhetoric that the Republicans are the party of the rich, white business owners who are out to keep the poor from advancing. And because minorities have a higher percentage of impoverished, they succeed in holding on to that grip.And now there is a new term that I don’t understand. Neo-Con? Neo meaning new. And Con which I take is a contraction for Conservative. So it must mean New Conservative. So it must be a Dumocrat who finally saw the error of his/her ways. But the moonbats use the term as if it were to mean some sort of right-wing ultra conservative. But if that is true, how can they be new? I finally have come to the realization that they just don’t know what neo means.
First off, Republicans do not want to take away benefits from the elderly. Social Security is here to stay. But there is a financial problem. Past Congresses have borrowed against the trust fund though the years to the point that the “trust fund” is nothing more than a file cabinet drawer full of bonds. Come 2008, the Babyboomers are going to begin to collect benefits. The largest generation of Americans will put such a strain on the spend as you go system that we aren’t going to be able to sustain payment. This is fact. But liberals with the help of groups like the AARP are running television ads which depict the President’s plan as a complete tear down of the system. These ads lead the viewer to believe that the system that we have grown to depend upon will be changed. And as we all know, when the government changes something, it always comes out worse than it started.
The system needs to be fixed. And the President put forth an idea that would help solve future benefit difficulties. He put this forward as a means of sparking debate. To kick start the process so to speak. But instead of coming forward with a proposal of their own, Congressional Dumocrats attacked the President’s plan. The proposal that the President put forward isn’t a fix for the system. It’s a way for younger workers to grow a larger nest egg for their own retirement. Instead of insisting on hearings and committees to find a way to make the system solvent, they are on television scaring the hell out of Americans.
Now think back. Remember your history? Who told his people that a segment of their population was to blame for their plight? Who scared his people into believing whatever he told them. I recall some fella named Hitler doing that. Don’t you? The National Socialist Party (Nazis) used racism and fear to hold the people in line. The National Socialist Party and Italy’s Fascist Party were aligned. Who is using fear now? Dumocrats.
Next, Dumocrats like to put forward the idea that Republicans are pro-rich. Well in a sense they are right. But not in the way that they put it. Republicans put forth ideas that have positive impact on the economy. Building wealth is building business. Building business is creating jobs. Then more work that is available, the more workers in the work force. The more in the work force, the smaller the amount of people putting a drain on the public welfare rolls. And thus, reducing the size of the government. And keep in mind, that most working people now a days have a retirement investment plan called a 401k. That is money that is being put into the stock market to create more wealth. Wouldn’t it make sense to have more people working so they could put more money into their 401k’s?
The Dumocratic Party likes to use the civil rights movement as their platform for holding the African-American vote. But what they don’t want you to remember is, that the party that was mostly against civil rights legislation were the Dumocrats. Long time Dumocratic leader Robert Byrd (D WV) was not only a member of the KKK, he was a Grand Dragon. Southern Dumocrats were the obstructionists of civil rights legislation. Republicans are a party of inclusion. We believe that anyone can succeed if they apply themselves. Nothing in life is easy. If you work hard to better yourself, and to better you position in life, you will be rewarded for that hard work. It’s called the American dream. And hard work builds wealth, which builds business, which employs people who invest to build more wealth.
And as far as being war mongers. Woodrow Wilson (D NY) was President when we went to war in 1917, WWI. FDR (D NY) was President when we went to war in 1941, WWII. Harry S. Truman (D MO) was President when we went to war in Korea in 1950. John F. Kennedy (D MA) was President when we sent troops to South Vietnam as military advisors in 1962. LBJ (D TX) was President when our military advisors became combat troops as the civil war in Vietnam escalated. Gerald R. Ford (R MI) was President when our troops withdrew from Vietnam. Jimmy Carter (D GA) was President when our military was down-sized at the end of the draft putting the United States in a position of weakness. It was Jimmy Carter who was President when hostages were taken in Iran. The very day the Ronald Reagan (R CA) became President that those hostages were released. The terrorists knew that Reagan wouldn’t let it go anymore. They know he would take a stand. It was Reagan who built our military into the toughest, best equipped, best trained, all volunteer fighting force on the Earth. It was George H. W. Bush (R ME) who was President when the Berlin wall came down. The Soviet Union broke up, Germany re-united, and Kuwait was liberated. William Jefferson Clinton (D AR) was President when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. And he did nothing. He was President when the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed and virtually nothing. He was President when the Cole was nearly sunk and retaliated with cruise missiles. He lead our troops into Somalia, a quagmire. And allowed Saddam Hussein to thumb his nose at us for 8 long years. And do you know why Saddam did that, he knew that Clinton wouldn’t do anything. George W. Bush(R TX) was President on September 11, 2001 when Islamic terrorists crashed 3 airplanes into buildings and actually had a 4th that failed. And he went to Afghanistan to track down those who did it and remove the government who permitted them to operated out of their country. And now it’s a new democracy. It was Bush, that sent troops into Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions which Saddam Hussein was violating. And now Iraq is a new democracy. And now democracy is spreading throughout the middle east. And it’s a Republican that is at the forefront.
Then there are those who believe that George W. Bush is a dictator. Well, FDR was the closest we have ever had to a dictator. He ran for President 5 time and was elected 4 times. He attempted to initiate domestic reforms that the Supreme Court ruled were Unconstitutional. He then tried to stack the court. He tried to put forth and initiative that would add a Justice for each Justice that achieved the age of 70. So he wouldn’t have to ask Congress to approved of it, FDR initiated Lend/Lease to arm Britain against Hitler. No, George W. Bush is no dictator.
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “Classic Gribbit’s Word Disputes Leftist Name Calling”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Well Done!! You could stand in for Rick Roberts, talk show host 760 KFMB San Diego.
Rick rocks! And, you rock, too. Thanks for the excellent post and analogy.
I would like your permission to cross post this to my weblog.
Respectfully,
Bosun
Have at it Bosun…
Absolutely, crosspost. Link and trackback to let us know.
Only one major error I noticed, and it was Somalia. President Bush Sr. was the one who ‘led’ us to Somalia at the end of his term, under pressure from the U.N. and humanitarian lobbyists.
It was under Clinton that it became about snagging Adid and equipment requested that would have made the mission safer for the troops was denied to them out of fear of making it too ‘high-profile’.
Umm… NO you are incorrect. Slick Willy was President during the Somalia operation.
U.S. Invasion of Somalia, 1993
U.S. and allied troops invaded and occupied Somalia in the early 1990s, bringing a reign of terror. U.S. troops considered Somalis less than human and called them “skinnies” or “sammies.” On September 19, 1993, the U.S. Army 10th Mountain Division shot missiles into a crowd from a helicopter, killing 100 unarmed people. U.S. troops flew their powerful Black Hawk helicopters low over markets, streets, and neighborhoods at any hour of the day or night. The intense downdraft from the helicopter blades damaged and destroyed entire neighborhoods, blowing down homes, mosques, market stalls, and walls. (My source was a Communist website just so you know.)
Slick Willy and his so-called wife, infested the White House beginning on January 20, 1993 at 12 noon.
Our initial invasion did take place in December of 1992, during President George H.W. Bush’s term, however, the operation was turned over to the Useless Nations in May of 1993 and our military presence was reduced to 2,500 troops. These were decisions made by our Commander-In-Thief William Jefferson Clinton aka Slick Willy. A moron in the ways of military tactics.
Then he went on to move against Haiti then into the Balkins. It seems that Clinton was no stranger to operating against nations which had no tactical significance as a threat to the United States. But bomb our embassies what does he do? He attacks empty tents in Afghanistan using Cruise Missiles. Attempt to sink one of our war ships? He sends in more Cruise Missiles against abandoned training camps. Spineless snake.
RanbaRal, It is true that President Bush started sending troops and humanitarian aid in in the last couple of months of his administration. It was at that time that Clinton’s folks were getting ready for transition. There was a power vacumn transition, so to speak. Now the Democratic side of the house really supported the humanitarian angle. The 102nd (Democrat controlled Congress did not have issue with it. I believe Clinton’s advisors thought that this was a good tool to use as the entered power. Here we have a “dove” president coming into office with little experience in military matters and questions about him conduct during Viet Nam. Clinton surrounded himself with like minded advisors. From January 20th 1993 - October 3, 1993 it was President Clinton’s baby. And, his adminstration was responsible for shaping policy in Somolia (and ignoring our military personnel.) The UN was mismanagement maximus. So, in that context, Gribbit did a good job with that commentary. Bush played a small role initially. Clinton was the Commander in Chief for the shaping, policy, and operational phase of that project.
Hey Kennedy pulled the plug on the Free Cubanos during the Bay of Pigs at the 11th hour because he did not feel comfortable with the operation. Thanks to that, good old Fidel has been around ever since.
Gribbit, I was to busy bring up the rear to know what you were doing as Point man.
Clinton has some looney advisors who mismanaged most everything really important.
He was a bandaid President and very handy at bombing asprin factories and empty terrorist training camps.
Old bin Laden was really shaking because of Bill. I imagine that he and the rest of his shaman al-Qaeda boys were sitting around the tent drinking arabian coffee and laughing about Bill the Infidel. Infidel Bill flying off the handle with his cruise missles not having a clue what he was doing.
For sure, al-Qaeda thought they knew how to conquer the US after the Black Hawk was shot down in Somolia and Bill ran with his tail between his legs.
“And now there is a new term that I don’t understand. Neo-Con? Neo meaning new. And Con which I take is a contraction for Conservative. So it must mean New Conservative. So it must be a Dumocrat who finally saw the error of his/her ways. But the moonbats use the term as if it were to mean some sort of right-wing ultra conservative. But if that is true, how can they be new? I finally have come to the realization that they just don’t know what neo means.”
First — it is ironic that in a post complaining about ‘name-calling’ you repeatedly use the clever epithet ‘Dumocrat.’
Second — most liberals don’t understand neoconservatism. In calling the neocons converted leftists, you get surprisingly close to the actual definition. But I’m not sure you have much of a clue, either.
The forefathers of neoconservatism (Irving Kristol, the CCNY crew, etc), were former Communists who turned conservative when the academic left turned anti-war in the 60s. A true neocon is a patriotic, military-supporting liberal of sorts: unlike a paleocon or traditional conservative, he is not an isolationist or a believer in the need for small government.
Neoconservatism partially explains why the Republicans, not the Democrats, are now seen as the hopeless, meddling idealists in foreign policy. Pointing out that the positions were reversed in WWII is a useless argument against the Democrats, because the two parties were simply of a different composition in Roosevelt’s time than in ours.
One can find the more academic side of neoconservatism in Leo Strauss and his student Allan Bloom. Their cult of dedicated scholars — the Straussians — are deemed responsible for educating many of the people who had a great influence in bringing about the Iraq war.
Great article!
When it comes down to it, I much prefer the cute little nicknames the Left has for us, vs. the ones we have for them. Surrender Monkeys, Defeatocrats, Demorats, Loons, Leftards, and so on.
Never said Bush shaped policy there, just started us off there. I just didn’t feel like breaking out my research material and writing an essay, so instead gave the off the top of my head Reader’s Digest version.
It was Bush sending them there initially that let Clinton get away with the “I didn’t even know we had people over there” line to the footage of Shughart and Gordan being drug through the streets.
RanbaRal,
You gotta be kidding me. IF, Clinton said he did not know they were there, it was BALONEY. He was the Commander in Chief. He got daily operational briefings. He was the guy, along with his advisors who escalated the Somalia operation. I advise you to talk with military people who were on the ground. Some will talk, others will not. They will fill you in on the relationship of the President, Secretary of Defense, Cabinet and all the rest.
I have heard a couple things about the way Clinton ran things, but, I am going to keep those comments to myself. He was supposed to know. If he did not, he was incompetent. Without a doubt that President Clinton knew about our troops on the ground, and received briefings on the subject. When the helicopter went down, unless he was getting pleasure from Monica or another girlfriend (I think that was before Monica) and ordered his advisors not to interrupt, he was briefed about it till the end. Then again, if he was playing golf, maybe he told the advisors not to bother him, but, that too is unlikely.
I am not sure how much you know about the government and chain of command. Clinton knew, and more than likely he and his Sec Def drug their feet and did not act. Our people were waiting. The military was waiting for assistance that did not come. A lot of it was the foreign United Nations forces that did not back us up.
Part of the rife was the United States and United Nations were not playing on the same sheet of music, so to speak. We did not have the right equipment and we did not have the support we needed. The democrat controlled congress also knew.
Check out the information from the Philly Inquirer
http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/
Email Mark Bowden, he might still he with the Philadelphia Inquirer. I think you will be able to locate his email. Bowden might talk with you. Then again, he might not. Read his book and his account of what happened. Delta force will tell you to go were the sun does not shine. But if you do enough research you might get hooked up with some retired Rangers or other special forces who may discuss it with you. However, you might want to tread lightly, it is still a very sore subject. Don’t act liberalist around them. You did offend me by the “Clinton said he did not know,” baloney. Obviously you never served. And, I am not going to do your research for you get in there, roll up your sleeves and start to research. You were bright enough to catch the fact that Bush was there for a short time in the early stages.
Remember the adminstration power vacumn and that Clintonistas thought that this was going to show the country how savvy he was was. It showed me he had a bad group of advisors and did not listen to his military. Not all were cowboys on a cake walk.
Here I go, pull up a stump and sit with me for a spell, RanbaRal. Let an old warrant officer set you straight, well just a little. As, I am conservative, hate lawyers, hate liberals, and hate socialists. But, I am a good guy and I do love my country and those who serve.
Opinion Journal had a good article about Just call me Bill.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002091
“We can understand Mr. Clinton wanting to defend himself, but as usual he can’t get his own facts straight. His introduction of Somalia here is one of those breathtakingly brazen attempts to dodge responsibility for which Mr. Clinton is justly famous. Here’s the real history:
President Bush the Elder sent U.S. forces into Somalia in December 1992 to aid the United Nations in relieving a massive famine. In May of 1993, four months into his term, President Clinton declared that mission accomplished and pulled out most of the U.S. force. In a speech on the South Lawn to associate himself with the effort, he extolled the decision to intervene: “If all of you who served had not gone, it is absolutely certain that tens of thousands would have died by now.” It was a “successful mission,” he said, and “proved yet again that American leadership can help to mobilize international action.”
But back in Somalia, with no U.S. deterrent, Somalia’s warlords began fighting again. After a series of bloody attacks on U.N. peacekeepers, Mr. Clinton launched a new mission: In August 1993, he sent in a force of Rangers and Special Forces units to capture the brutal warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid and restore order.
That force asked for heavy armor–in the form of Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles–as well as the AC-130 gunship, but the Clinton Administration denied those requests. On October 3 on a mission to pick up Aidid, two Black Hawks were unexpectedly shot down; in the ensuing urban gun battle, 18 American soldiers were killed and another 73 injured.”
The ugly thing is Just call me Bill does not always tell the truth and depending on who he is talking to you may get several different answers. Son, he knew. Your beloved President has embellished the truth a time or to. He also told the country that he did not have sex with that woman. And, then he redefined the meaning of is. He knew. And do not let anyone tell you differently. Now, listen to Rush Limbaugh for 30 days (just monday through friday at least one hour a day.) Then listen to Micheal Savage in the afternoons same amount of time. BTW, Micheal hates Rush, Sean, and Bill with a passion. After 30 days, we can sit down and talk again.
Also, let me know what Mark said, if he gets back with you. I hope that he does. You may learn a thing or two. (Al-Qaeda operatives were at Mogadishu, you can bet on it.)