Is it also conservative scare tactics that some liberals have defended what Chavez and Ahmadijahd said? In other words a democrat said that its Bush's policies that led up to this? I've never seen liberals and other so much in love with the enemy. Its like Jane Fonda siding with the enemy all over again, she is no longer alone. Think about Charles Wrangell, Liberals say we have to give terrorists rights but leaders of other countries don't have the right to free speech in this country. They know what to say, they learned it from the Bush Bashers.
What does that have to do with "crazy liberals wishing another terrorist attack to happen on our soil?" Chavez and Ahmadinejad are surely not our friends but they haven't attacked our country. Moreover, "Liberals" are not out there wishing for another terrorist attack. It's absurd. Churchill suggested in a 2001 essay that many 9/11 victims were not innocent, which is ridiculous, of course. But it was not a call for further terrorist attacks on America. They guy is a professor of ethnic studies and his activism centers on the American Indian Movement, not liberal politics. His work is primarily about the U.S. and its historical treatment of political dissenters and of American Indians. To him the US government is not innocent in its treatment of same. Kind of a kook, perhaps, but his enemy is the White Man for exploiting the Indian and his political leanings are unclear. Wikipedia does not describe him as politically liberal and his own web page has no clear political dogma. He posts essays that address his Indian rights agenda, responds vigourously to the charge that he supports terror, and comdemns "Holocaust Denial" thoroughly. Ward Churchill Znet Homepage But he has not "wished for another devastating terrorist attack on our soil".
when you claim the victims were not innocent and were little eichmanns, thats pretty much the same as hoping for another attack. it isnt saying the exact same words, but it means the same basic thing and is just as bad. i think it says alot about you that you classify a ****ing madman as "kind of" a kook.
Well pretty soon i wont be able to go the the movies at all. Sean Penn and Danny Glover. Brad Pitt , Stephen Baldwyn. But you know what they just make crap movies now anyway i wont be missing much. Hollywood is so out of touch with America.
Of course it doesn't. And you know it. You just can't admit it. Ahhh. I point out that your example of a liberal "wishing another devastating terrorist attack on our soil" did nothing of the kind, so you try to make it something personal about me. How lame can you get? If it makes you feel any better, Thesaurus.com reveals that "madman" is a synonym for "kook". :lol:
i can't admit it? i just said it isnt the same thing. but certainly if you think the people in the world trade center are little eichmanns, it would stand to reason that you would like to see them attacked again. "As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire, the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved and they did so both willingly and knowingly." - ward churchill i dunno what to tell you dude, this churchill guy says innocent murder victims are not innocent, i expected less favorable words from you about him. if you would read you would notice i had "kind of" not kook in quotes. and anyways it is clear kook is not nearly negative enough a term. also you need to understand how synonyms work, they are not literal equivalents. "kind of a kook" makes him sound like the weird guy at your office who wears a funky tie.
Who was favoring him? I said his comments were ridiculous and called him a kook! My point was only that he is not an example of "liberals wishing for another terrorist attack on US soil." No American is wishing for another attack--liberal, conservative, moderate or non-partisan. Perhaps there is some real kook out there wishing for one, but not the kook you cited. Ishtishle just likes to bash liberals and makes up stuff to do it. I'm kind of surprised that you defended him. Coming up with Churchill was a good example of someone that is anti-government to the point of absurdity. But he just isn't an example of "crazy liberals" wishing for another attack. The notion that only conservatives are patriotic is utter hogwash.
i actually do think conservatives are more patriotic. liberals are the ones i think are more likely to call america an evil military-industrial kill factory. you hear that on occasion. and in general i think conservatives are more into the military and the country and stuff. but yunno, that is of no real consequence, and i can surely think up plenty of negatives for conservatives. only the martinocrats know the true path.
Indeed, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph come quickly to mind. They don't lamely protest the government, they just blow up government buildings and bomb the Olympics. :dis: