Liberals: 9-11 Deaths were Good Thing

[Bush92]

The Making Of John Walker Lindh - TIME
American Taliban John Walker Lindh, product of liberal environment and hippie parents. He is also gay.

 

[sealybobo]

Ward Churchill 9 11 Victims Were Little Eichmanns That Got What They Had Coming Liberal Quote Database
Recently Megan Kelly interviewed former professor and liberal darling Ward Churchill who infamously said that the attacks on the twin towers were acceptable actions. Liberal blogosphere and web sites have been coming to his defense. Also, note the other stories on the tabs to the right on the page I posted. All straight from talking points of Democrats. Nawwww, the Democrats haven't went too far left. Nawwww the socialist haven't taken over the party.
The Justice of Roosting Chickens Ward Churchill Speaks Democracy Now
Here is another leftist site that advocates for Churchill. This mans views would easily fit with the opinions of the lefty bloggers on this board.

If you had empathy you would be able to put yourself into the mind of a radically brainwashed muslim from Saudi Arabia. They are told by the rich that rule their country that America is the devil. And we are the police of the world so I do see how the rest of the world might not love us. I went to Greece when Clinton was president and they were complaining about him. Imagine how they felt when Bush lied the USA into Iraq and we buddied up with Turkey to be close to Iraq.

Anyways, the terrorists don't see us civilians as innocent. We are part of a society they hate. And we are much more powerful than them, so you cry when they do tactics you don't like like fly planes into buildings and kill civilians? Sorry they don't have a military to go toe to toe with ours.

We have all the nukes, aircraft, ships, radar, gps, military, tanks, etc.

And if you aren't smart enough to get the Little Eichmann comment, you are probably still banning the Dixie Chicks too because they said they were embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. I'm embarrassed he's from the USA.

 

[Bush92]

Mommy took the future terrorist to go to the cinema to see Malcolm X...at age 12.

 

[Bush92]

Ward Churchill 9 11 Victims Were Little Eichmanns That Got What They Had Coming Liberal Quote Database
Recently Megan Kelly interviewed former professor and liberal darling Ward Churchill who infamously said that the attacks on the twin towers were acceptable actions. Liberal blogosphere and web sites have been coming to his defense. Also, note the other stories on the tabs to the right on the page I posted. All straight from talking points of Democrats. Nawwww, the Democrats haven't went too far left. Nawwww the socialist haven't taken over the party.
The Justice of Roosting Chickens Ward Churchill Speaks Democracy Now
Here is another leftist site that advocates for Churchill. This mans views would easily fit with the opinions of the lefty bloggers on this board.

If you had empathy you would be able to put yourself into the mind of a radically brainwashed muslim from Saudi Arabia. They are told by the rich that rule their country that America is the devil. And we are the police of the world so I do see how the rest of the world might not love us. I went to Greece when Clinton was president and they were complaining about him. Imagine how they felt when Bush lied the USA into Iraq and we buddied up with Turkey to be close to Iraq.

Anyways, the terrorists don't see us civilians as innocent. We are part of a society they hate. And we are much more powerful than them, so you cry when they do tactics you don't like like fly planes into buildings and kill civilians? Sorry they don't have a military to go toe to toe with ours.

We have all the nukes, aircraft, ships, radar, gps, military, tanks, etc.

And if you aren't smart enough to get the Little Eichmann comment, you are probably still banning the Dixie Chicks too because they said they were embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. I'm embarrassed he's from the USA.

So you think 9-11 deaths were a good thing.

 

[tosacco]

The Making Of John Walker Lindh - TIME
American Taliban John Walker Lindh, product of liberal environment and hippie parents. He is also gay.

Meet Ann Coulter--Deadhead - Democratic Underground

Anne Coulter followed the Grateful Dead around. What's yr point?

 

[Bush92]

The Making Of John Walker Lindh - TIME
"Yemenites say the blame for Lindh's radicalism lies elsewhere, however. A language teacher says Lindh came from the U.S. already hating America. And Lindh's correspondence from Yemen evinces an ambivalence toward the U.S. In a letter to his mother dated Sept. 23, 1998, he refers to the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa the previous month, saying the attacks "seem far more likely to have been carried out by the American government than by any Muslims." By October he writes home, saying, "Although I'm not particularly fond of the idea of returning to America, I do have a four-month vacation in about six months. This means you'll probably be seeing me again before you expected."
It was Lindhs up bringing in a liberal anti-American home.

 

[Bush92]

"Leaving Yemen in february 1999 turned out to be tumultuous. YLC director Saleem says Lindh was detained when he tried to leave the country without an exit visa and was taken to the school he had abandoned, to clear matters up. "His face was awful," says Saleem. "I think he was tired of Yemen, tired of everything, and he wanted to go home." But even when Lindh was finally permitted to return to the U.S., the drama was not behind him. Life at home, he soon discovered, had undergone a dramatic change. In late 1998 Frank said he was gay and moved out. On June 30, 1999, not long after Lindh's return, Frank filed for divorce from Marilyn. Three days later the Lindhs sold their home in San Anselmo at a profit of approximately $270,000."
-oooooppppps little Talibanny had gay daddy.

 

[Bush92]

"He was ready to stay with me," says Hayat, "but I pushed him into the madrasah." Nevertheless, the businessman appears to be jealous of Lindh's relationship with the teacher he recommended, Mufti Iltimas Khan. The mufti does not discuss the nature of his relationship with Lindh, though he seems happy to talk about the young man. "Everyone who saw him wanted to talk to him and to look at him and to look at his face. A very lovely face he had, John Walker."
-and the liberal Talibanny himself is gay. The perfect storm. Anti-American , anti-Christian, gay, from kooky liberal home.

 

[Bush92]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Anarchy is the ultimate goal of communism. Read Marx. His ultimate goal is the absence of government. That would be the left of the spectrum. Although an argument can be made that the spectrum is a circle, but I do not see anarchy as the goal of the right wing fringe.

 

[tosacco]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Anarchy is the ultimate goal of communism. Read Marx. His ultimate goal is the absence of government. That would be the left of the spectrum. Although an argument can be made that the spectrum is a circle, but I do not see anarchy as the goal of the right wing fringe.

The fact that you are conflating anarchism and communism suggests you haven't spent a lot of time reading about either.

 

[Bush92]

^^^ that is actually a completely valid argument.

Tosacco just said terrorism is valid.

 

[Bush92]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Anarchy is the ultimate goal of communism. Read Marx. His ultimate goal is the absence of government. That would be the left of the spectrum. Although an argument can be made that the spectrum is a circle, but I do not see anarchy as the goal of the right wing fringe.

The fact that you are conflating anarchism and communism suggests you haven't spent a lot of time reading about either.

You are 100% wrong on both.

 

[Bush92]

After the 1993 WTC attacks, why wouldn't the FBI and CIA have offices in this massive complex at the epicenter of world free market capitalism for security purposes?

 

[Bush92]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Anarchy is the ultimate goal of communism. Read Marx. His ultimate goal is the absence of government. That would be the left of the spectrum. Although an argument can be made that the spectrum is a circle, but I do not see anarchy as the goal of the right wing fringe.

The fact that you are conflating anarchism and communism suggests you haven't spent a lot of time reading about either.

Marxist Politics – The State Withers Away
In Marxist perception of human social development, the state evolved at a point in history when it was necessary, and it will cease to exist when it is no longer necessary for society. It is a mere transitory phenomenon. Engels says, “The State is...simply a product of society at a certain stage of evolution.”7

Lenin supports the idea that the state is necessary only in a capitalist society because it is responsible for engendering class antagonisms. He stresses the necessity of eliminating the bourgeoisie, which in turn will eliminate the need for the state: “Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely crushed, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes...only then ‘the state...ceases to exist,’ and ‘it becomes possible to speak of freedom.’”8 Since freedom to Marxists means no government at all, until the classless society is established freedom is an illusion. Lenin continues, “So long as the state exists, there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.”9

Marxists believe “only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed...”10 Communism must be established worldwide in order for Marxists to consider their political ends achieved, and at that time in history, the state will wither away completely. If the state exists anywhere in the world, then classes still exist as a threat to a completely classless society.11
See more at: Marxist Politics
Educate yourself dupe.

 

[tosacco]

More liberal love for the nation.

The thing is, these protesters are claiming to be anarchists. The modern liberals you refer to are typically for expanding the welfare state, more government, etc. Anarchists hold the "all government is violence" view and see the destruction of the state as their primary goal. The anarchists pictured above are closer to being tea partiers than they are to average liberals, most likely why all of them end up becoming libertarians around their 20th birthdays.

Anarchy is the ultimate goal of communism. Read Marx. His ultimate goal is the absence of government. That would be the left of the spectrum. Although an argument can be made that the spectrum is a circle, but I do not see anarchy as the goal of the right wing fringe.

The fact that you are conflating anarchism and communism suggests you haven't spent a lot of time reading about either.

Marxist Politics – The State Withers Away
In Marxist perception of human social development, the state evolved at a point in history when it was necessary, and it will cease to exist when it is no longer necessary for society. It is a mere transitory phenomenon. Engels says, “The State is...simply a product of society at a certain stage of evolution.”7

Lenin supports the idea that the state is necessary only in a capitalist society because it is responsible for engendering class antagonisms. He stresses the necessity of eliminating the bourgeoisie, which in turn will eliminate the need for the state: “Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely crushed, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes...only then ‘the state...ceases to exist,’ and ‘it becomes possible to speak of freedom.’”8 Since freedom to Marxists means no government at all, until the classless society is established freedom is an illusion. Lenin continues, “So long as the state exists, there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.”9

Marxists believe “only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed...”10 Communism must be established worldwide in order for Marxists to consider their political ends achieved, and at that time in history, the state will wither away completely. If the state exists anywhere in the world, then classes still exist as a threat to a completely classless society.11
See more at: Marxist Politics
Educate yourself dupe.

1. The way this comes about is potentially very different. Look at the debates between Marx and Bakunin; Bakunin thought the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was something to be cautious of, and predicted it would lead to fascism.
2. The most common form of anarchism today (for people that are really anarchists) is what Chomsky refers to as libertarian socialism, which, while Marx/Lenin/Trotsky and all of them never really outline what a communist society would look like after the state withers away (because that process could take hundreds or even thousands of years following the revolution), chances are it would not look like the society talked about by Chomsky and his contemporaries.
3. There is little place for God in a communist society, and this is at least open to debate in anarchist philosophy. An excellent piece is Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. This obviously can be contrasted with Bakunin's God and the State.

 

[rdean]

No....no....no. I need a number. How many are there who are too lazy to work and just use yours and my money to live? Let's get a number.

Well too bad for you. If a person is collecting welfare, they should be doing something! Not sitting around collecting other people's money. It isn't like unemployment where you have to prove that you are looking for a job, but it should be! OR they should at least be furthering their education or having job training. SOMETHING to better themselves so that they don't keep ending up on the welfare merry-go-round.

I really want to have this discussion with you. I want to identify who "those people" are.....and how many of them we have in the USA. Then...let's discuss the job training and educational aspect that you brought up. I am with you on that.

Come on. If you are really interested in this subject, you ought o be interested in determining just how many lazy-assed takers we have.

I already told you who those people are; the ones collecting welfare benefits. I suppose you could always google it to get a number, if there are numbers available. I believe it's quite a number of people though.

Please. I am trying to meet you on your turf. You must have a number. How about a dollar amount? How much do we taxpayers fork out to adult, able losers who refuse to work a job? Do you have that number?

I want to pin down the details. Then we can get to dealing with the problem. You with me?

Sorry. I'm not going for your bait. I'm on my dinner break. If you are interested in numbers, I'm sure you are more than capable of finding them and posting them here yourself.

In other words you were talking out your butt. Making a claim you couldn't back up. Proving you were indoctrinated with a "talking point".

Got it.

 

[ChrisL]

Well too bad for you. If a person is collecting welfare, they should be doing something! Not sitting around collecting other people's money. It isn't like unemployment where you have to prove that you are looking for a job, but it should be! OR they should at least be furthering their education or having job training. SOMETHING to better themselves so that they don't keep ending up on the welfare merry-go-round.

I really want to have this discussion with you. I want to identify who "those people" are.....and how many of them we have in the USA. Then...let's discuss the job training and educational aspect that you brought up. I am with you on that.

Come on. If you are really interested in this subject, you ought o be interested in determining just how many lazy-assed takers we have.

I already told you who those people are; the ones collecting welfare benefits. I suppose you could always google it to get a number, if there are numbers available. I believe it's quite a number of people though.

Please. I am trying to meet you on your turf. You must have a number. How about a dollar amount? How much do we taxpayers fork out to adult, able losers who refuse to work a job? Do you have that number?

I want to pin down the details. Then we can get to dealing with the problem. You with me?

Sorry. I'm not going for your bait. I'm on my dinner break. If you are interested in numbers, I'm sure you are more than capable of finding them and posting them here yourself.

In other words you were talking out your butt. Making a claim you couldn't back up. Proving you were indoctrinated with a "talking point".

Got it.

How is that? There are plenty of people collecting welfare. Just because I don't have the numbers doesn't mean I'm talking about of my butt.

Everything I stated was true. Why don't you post exactly what it is that you object to instead of making bogus accusations. Lol! Oh, that's right, you cannot because NOTHING I stated was untrue.

This is the typical intellectual dishonesty of liberals. Why I cannot stand them. Why a lot of them are nothing but POS. You all think you are clever or something, but you are so transparent to EVERYONE. It's actually amusing how disgusting the lot of you are.

Maybe you should get a job to support your family instead of whining about being able to sit on your butt doing nothing and collecting tax payer money. Lazy POS.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, and PS, you are also a LOSER at the game of life. Try not being such a loser and having some motivation to do something with yourself and improve yourself. And for God's sake, STOP having more kids!!! That should be considered child abuse IMO.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I really want to have this discussion with you. I want to identify who "those people" are.....and how many of them we have in the USA. Then...let's discuss the job training and educational aspect that you brought up. I am with you on that.

Come on. If you are really interested in this subject, you ought o be interested in determining just how many lazy-assed takers we have.

I already told you who those people are; the ones collecting welfare benefits. I suppose you could always google it to get a number, if there are numbers available. I believe it's quite a number of people though.

Please. I am trying to meet you on your turf. You must have a number. How about a dollar amount? How much do we taxpayers fork out to adult, able losers who refuse to work a job? Do you have that number?

I want to pin down the details. Then we can get to dealing with the problem. You with me?

Sorry. I'm not going for your bait. I'm on my dinner break. If you are interested in numbers, I'm sure you are more than capable of finding them and posting them here yourself.

In other words you were talking out your butt. Making a claim you couldn't back up. Proving you were indoctrinated with a "talking point".

Got it.

How is that? There are plenty of people collecting welfare. Just because I don't have the numbers doesn't mean I'm talking about of my butt.

Everything I stated was true. Why don't you post exactly what it is that you object to instead of making bogus accusations. Lol! Oh, that's right, you cannot because NOTHING I stated was untrue.

This is the typical intellectual dishonesty of liberals. Why I cannot stand them. Why a lot of them are nothing but POS. You all think you are clever or something, but you are so transparent to EVERYONE. It's actually amusing how disgusting the lot of you are.

Maybe you should get a job to support your family instead of whining about being able to sit on your butt doing nothing and collecting tax payer money. Lazy POS.

Until we establish a number.....we can't advance the discussion. Many, plenty, lots.........just don't cut it.

 

[Londoner]

A famous evangelical right winger said the same thing. He implied that America was targeted for its secular liberal values, and that people died because we are not a good Christian nation. The OP would never mention this, which is why nobody takes him seriously. He is purely a partisan hack.

I think the far right and far left are both wrong for exploiting innocent deaths to build their respective shoe boxes.