Right-wing hack takes dirt nap

[Comrade Rage]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aFB8ThwzaU1A&refer=us

Today, former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow died of cancer at age 53. Tony Snow was the replacement for Scott McClellan, since McClellan wasn't as far to the right as Bush would have liked.

This capitalist propagandist's death came 53 years to late. He started out as a Fox News moron and then worked his way up.

Does anyone have any sympathy for this guy? Even our resident capitalists have to admit that this man was a total liar.

[Dean]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aFB8ThwzaU1A&refer=us

Today, former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow died of cancer at age 53. Tony Snow was the replacement for Scott McClellan, since McClellan wasn't as far to the right as Bush would have liked.

This capitalist propagandist's death came 53 years to late. He started out as a Fox News moron and then worked his way up.

Does anyone have any sympathy for this guy? Even our resident capitalists have to admit that this man was a total liar.

I said the same thing when Pinochet and Saddam died. These people were scumbags, but shouldn't we be more upset at their utter failure to become positive and self-actuated members of society, rather than gleeful that they died? It seems to me like a total loss: not only were they scumbags in life, but they were never able to turn their lives around in any meaningful way.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aFB8ThwzaU1A&refer=us

Today, former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow died of cancer at age 53. Tony Snow was the replacement for Scott McClellan, since McClellan wasn't as far to the right as Bush would have liked.

This capitalist propagandist's death came 53 years to late. He started out as a Fox News moron and then worked his way up.

Does anyone have any sympathy for this guy? Even our resident capitalists have to admit that this man was a total liar.

Me. I called round my entire neighborhood,family and friends to stand round a picture of him taking it in turns to kiss it and wish him goodbye.



Na just fucking with ya I laughed.

( then i went on the whole guilt trip for doing that but don't tell anyone, its uncool)

[Robert]

Even our resident capitalists have to admit that this man was a total liar.I have to do nothing of the kind. Whether Tony Snow has told more lies than you, I have no idea, but I don't think he was a "total liar," and I don't wish slow death by cancer on anyone.

Tony Snow's side role in the elimination of the psychotically homicidal Hussein regime, the result (if not the means) of which every sane person supported, was one of his many positive contributions to the civilized world. He was also a thoughtful, fair minded interviewer and devoted family man.

I think you are the individual calling elsewhere for termination of parental rights for failure to support communism [you can't even get your commie friends on the board to support that Khmer Rouge(atre) lunacy], and so, yes, I enthusiastically oppose your every political impulse, including this, your crude and heartless defamation of Tony Snow.

May he rest in peace.

[IcarusAngel]

lol. Tony Snow isn't worth worrying about but that post above his hilarious.

This in the ME are on fire since the removal of Saddam Hussein, and the religious fanatics have run amok and have been slaughtering people ever since, and, coupled with America's brutality, has produced a society far more "psychotic" and chaotic and oppressive than even Saddam.

Not to mention the other problems it caused, such as dangerous nuclear proliferation.

For Christopher Hitchens to make dubious arguments like "we owe a debt to Iraq" because the United States allowed massive slaughter in Iraq through the sanctions and actually supported Saddam in many ways (including giving him chemical weapons, and blocking an attempted overthrow of him), or that the war is an ongoing process since '91 is even more ludicrous than it appears if you actually know some history about the British attempts to control the region and America's "attempts" to bring democracy to the middle east.

[Robert]

America's "attempts" to bring democracy to the middle east.

In Iraq at least, it's far more than an "attempt." A wobbly democracy is in fact taking hold there, and whatever the pace, democracy is taking hold there faster than communism is taking hold anywhere.

Icarus, go and re-read of the establishment of the United States from, say, 1775 to 1783. You think it was easy? Silly? It seemed silly to the British as well. At the time.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't have much sympathy for someone who acted as a mouthpiece (albeit a slow and totally incompetent one) for unjust war and leaders who should be thrown away into the worse prison this side of the equator.

Hopefully his family copes. That's all.

[Sendo]

In Iraq at least, it's far more than an "attempt." A wobbly democracy is in fact taking hold there, and whatever the pace, democracy is taking hold there faster than communism is taking hold anywhere.

Icarus, go and re-read of the establishment of the United States from, say, 1775 to 1783. You think it was easy? Silly? It seemed silly to the British as well. At the time.

Gee that's funny, because I could swear that local elections and grassroots democracy spontaneously swelled in the vacuum of a post-Baath Iraq. Then Bremer canceled the elections, segregated people by sectarian lines, enforced a massively unpopular capitalist system, and then 1.2 million or so people have died since 2003. And then a corrupt, but marginally nationalist complicated mess of a government was established and whose role is to rubber stamp Washington's orders, but surprisingly (to Washington) they kick and scream every step of the way now.

I could also swear that communist societies have taken hold before, only to be squashed by foreign troops. I also think that communism is gaining ground in the world as more and more people become class conscious as living standards degenerate and people become more polarized between worker and owner. Labor is fighting back in many parts of the world, Americans are turning even further to the left, and social democratic regimes spring up in Latin America. So yeah, Mao's state is completely lost to the pages of history, the USSR is dead, and Cuba hasn't been able to "export" revolution in the narrow sense of the word. But this is hardly an argument for "communism isn't holding ground."

There's also the false dichotomy of "Democracy vs. communism" For the umpteenth time:
Capitalism and socialism are economic systems; democracy, oligarchy, and authoritarianism are methods of governance.

As far as the US goes 1775-1783, there was a rebellion masterminded by oligarchs with some traces of revolutionary fervor in its rank and file. Afterwards there was the Articles of Confederation of America (some anarchist guy thought it was pretty good in relative terms). After a farmers' rebellion in Massachusetts, the elites got together to draft a new central government and undemocratize state involvement as much as possible. The Constitution was created and the authors begrudgingly added the Bill of Rights and the very privileged state governments ratified a document that even a strong majority of white, male Americans were opposed to. Some democratic venture that was. Tell me again of the enlightened benevolent nature of our slave-owning, sexist, indian-killing "founding fathers."

[Dean]

As far as the US goes 1775-1783, there was a rebellion masterminded by oligarchs with some traces of revolutionary fervor in its rank and file. Afterwards there was the Articles of Confederation of America (some anarchist guy thought it was pretty good in relative terms). After a farmers' rebellion in Massachusetts, the elites got together to draft a new central government and undemocratize state involvement as much as possible. The Constitution was created and the authors begrudgingly added the Bill of Rights and the very privileged state governments ratified a document that even a strong majority of white, male Americans were opposed to. Some democratic venture that was. Tell me again of the enlightened benevolent nature of our slave-owning, sexist, indian-killing "founding fathers."

I was wondering what kind of pithy comment I could use to reply to Robert but you said just about everything I wanted to :)

[Bud Struggle]

Before this thread goes away--let me say that I liked and admired Tony Snow. He (like us all,) had his beliefs and predjuices but in his personal life and in his political commentary, but I believe he tried to be open and honest and fair with regard to the Americn government and its dealings.

He had a bit of a dirty job to do with the Bush administration. Who hasn't shoveled some shit in their lives? But again he handled the job with grace and dignity no matter how distasteful it was.

In this world there are really very few people that have the same views on politics, life, economics, etc. Just because people hold different thoughts doesn't make them bad or evil or ever wrong--it just makes them different. And it's only when we interact with thoughts different than ours that we grow and learn. I am growing and learning in my interactions on RevLeft--I also grew and learned from listening to Tony Snow.

Tony made me think--and that's a fine of a gift as one human being can give to another.

I for one will miss Tony Snow--Rest in Peace.

[Robert]

So yeah, Mao's state is completely lost to the pages of history, the USSR is dead, and Cuba hasn't been able to "export" revolution in the narrow sense of the word.Louder.


After a farmers' rebellion in Massachusetts, the elites got together to draft a new central government and undemocratize state involvement as much as possibleOh, the farmers really wanted to get in there and write the constitution, but the elites locked the doors on them, right? Wrong. The delegates to the conventions were delegates. And only the elite knew enough political theory to recognize the importance of and consecrate a separation of powers.


Capitalism and socialism are economic systems; democracy, oligarchy, and authoritarianism are methods of governance.
If you had ever taken the trouble to read the Constitution, you'd note that it is replete with references to commerce, bills, taxation, revenue, and a host of other concepts alien to the moneyless system that thrives in the heads -- but nowhere else -- of leftist dreamers. If you want a revolution in the USA, you're going to need a new constitution. And the elite will write it.


Tell me again of the enlightened benevolent nature of our slave-owning, sexist, indian-killing "founding fathers."

Again? I didn't say it the first time. All I said was that the making of a democracy from scratch is slow and painful. And just as the American revolution was a joke to the British, it's apparently still a joke to you.

If it were up to people like you armchair revolutionaries, Americans would probably still be governed by a British monarch!

[Bud Struggle]

That's quite a rout of your opponent there, Robert! :lol:

[Labor Shall Rule]

In Iraq at least, it's far more than an "attempt." A wobbly democracy is in fact taking hold there, and whatever the pace, democracy is taking hold there faster than communism is taking hold anywhere.

Icarus, go and re-read of the establishment of the United States from, say, 1775 to 1783. You think it was easy? Silly? It seemed silly to the British as well. At the time.

A 'democracy'? It seems you aren't acquainted to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East (and the rest of the developing world) for the last one hundred years.

Far from having a high turnout, less than 50% of all Iraqis participated in the elections, with the Sunnis mostly abstaining (only 4% of Falluja, a 'Sunni' city, voted). The international election observers were kept away (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28599-2005Jan22.html?sub=AR), while there was widespread reports of ballot fixing and even of voters being turned away from the ballot box. Allawi, not to mention, was Washington's handpicked man on the scene.

But hey, do you expect a 'democracy' in a spot where CIA-trained death-squads reign (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001317.html) and where over ten thousand prisoners are being illegally hold without a court order? We sure have democratized the hell out of the liberated with our secret air wars that has successfully killed thousands!

[RedFlagComrade]

In Iraq at least, it's far more than an "attempt." A wobbly democracy is in fact taking hold there, and whatever the pace, democracy is taking hold there faster than communism is taking hold anywhere.

Icarus, go and re-read of the establishment of the United States from, say, 1775 to 1783. You think it was easy? Silly? It seemed silly to the British as well. At the time.

What the fuck...that's plainly ridiculous, just like the rest of your posts on this thread.

A bunch of other people have already pointed out how completely and utterly undemocratic the early U.S. was (and still is :))...Sendo pretty much nailed it.

But nobody has really pointed out that America post-revolution and Iraq are mutually incomparable anyway. Was Iraq being governed by an imperialistic colonial foreign power from which it was struggling to achieve freedom...No. Was early America invaded against the wishes of the people by a different, powerful Empire with the aim of replacing British rule with a puppet government of it's own, an Empire whose only true motivation lay in seizing control of the resources of the American colonies?

Fucking stupid brainwashed Yanks!

Final Note...A death by cancer is horrible, I wouldn't wish it on anybody even a Stalinist. Seriously Brick, Fuck off.

[Robert]

But nobody has really pointed out that America post-revolution and Iraq are mutually incomparable anyway.That's because no one compared them in the first place. The only point was that new democratic societies don't spring up overnight. If you can't recognize that, you'd better abandon your revolution today. Not that you'd ever participate in a real rebellion anyway.

on edit: as for this:


Far from having a high turnout, less than 50% of all Iraqis participated in the electionsIf you are insinuating that the Americans suppressed that vote, you need a psychiatrist. And what do you mean "less than 50%"??? Do you know what percentage of registered voters actually vote in general elections in the UK? http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htmTake a guess before you click on the link, and then go shed more tears for your dear departed friends Saddam, Odai, and Qusai.

[RedAnarchist]

Quote:
Tell me again of the enlightened benevolent nature of our slave-owning, sexist, indian-killing "founding fathers."

Again? I didn't say it the first time. All I said was that the making of a democracy from scratch is slow and painful. And just as the American revolution was a joke to the British, it's apparently still a joke to you.

If it were up to people like you armchair revolutionaries, Americans would probably still be governed by a British monarch!


Yeah, because the 13 Colonies weren't anything like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Jamaica or any other former colony which gained indepedance in the last 100 or so years.:rolleyes:

[Farrellesque]

A 'democracy'? It seems you aren't acquainted to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East (and the rest of the developing world) for the last one hundred years.

Far from having a high turnout, less than 50% of all Iraqis participated in the elections, with the Sunnis mostly abstaining (only 4% of Falluja, a 'Sunni' city, voted). The international election observers werethere was widespread reports of ballot fixing and even of voters being turned away from the ballot box. Allawi, not to mention, was Washington's handpicked man on the scene.

and where over ten thousand prisoners are being illegally hold without a court order? We sure have democratized the hell out of the liberated with our secret air wars that has successfully killed thousands!


1) 50% is actually an incredibly voter turn-out considering that insurgents threatened anyone who showed up to cast their vote WITH DEATH. Mind-blowing actually, and a credit to the Iraqi people. Did you see any news reports from the elections? I did. It was genuinely touching to see how many of the people were smiling, cheering and singing, simply because they were allowed to exercise one of the most fundamental rights in any democracy.

2) 50% is also as high/higher a turnout in many modern, Western democracies.

[Robert]

It was genuinely touching to see how many of the people were smiling, cheering and singing, simply because they were allowed to exercise one of the most fundamental rights in any democracy.

While on Revleft the people were frowning, wailing, and cursing. I wanted to say "gnashing," but then I would have had to add "teeth" and then it wouldn't be all nice and balanced like "smiling, cheering and singing."

Hey Farrellesque, how come your avatar isn't imprisoned like that of all the other running dogs around here?

Good post.

Hey Red, who said "no" to your monarch first, the Americans or the Africans?

Now show me a nice curtsy. Not sarcastically, either! I can always tell when you're being sarcastic. (Or is it "curtsey"? We don't use that word much over here.)

[RedAnarchist]

While on Revleft the people were frowning, wailing, and cursing. I wanted to say "gnashing," but then I would have had to add "teeth" and then it wouldn't be all nice and balanced like "smiling, cheering and singing."

Hey Farrellesque, how come your avatar isn't imprisoned like that of all the other running dogs around here?

Good post.

Hey Red, who said "no" to your monarch first, the Americans or the Africans?

Now show me a nice curtsy. Not sarcastically, either! I can always tell when you're being sarcastic. (Or is it "curtsey"? We don't use that word much over here.)

What? Did you even read what I said?

Why would America still be under a British monarch's rule if almost every other colony Britain had is now independant?

[Comrade Vasilev]

Sorry guys, I don't buy into any of that Christian 'love your enemy' crap, I like it when my enemies die, especially reactionaries.

[Pawn Power]

Yeah, because the 13 Colonies weren't anything like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Jamaica or any other former colony which gained indepedance in the last 100 or so years.:rolleyes:

Well, there is an important difference. The US was founded, and has remained since, an imperialist project. Its independence was grounded in a desire for economic independence- that is, the 'freedom' to expand, carry out genocide, and enslave African people.

[Robert]

Why, Red? Because America led the way. Getting rid of a monarch seemed unthinkable before 1776. We were even ahead of the French (1789) in that regard.

Of course, you Brits are STILL happy having a queen for some reason, after all these long years. Please at least tell me you don't support her footmen and train bearers with your taxes. I KNOW you'd revolt before you let that happen, right? :laugh:

Now are you going to show me a nice curtsey or not?

[RedAnarchist]

Why, Red? Because America led the way. Getting rid of a monarch seemed unthinkable before 1776. We were even ahead of the French (1789) in that regard.

Of course, you Brits are STILL happy having a queen for some reason, after all these long years. Please at least tell me you don't support her footmen and train bearers with your taxes. I KNOW you'd revolt before you let that happen, right? :laugh:

Now are you going to show me a nice curtsey or not?

Getting rid of a monarch was unthinkable before 1776? That happened after the English Civil War in the 1640s, and Rome even had a monarch at one point before it became a republic.

Actually, most people are apathetic towards the monarchy. They have no power and no real role and we wouldn't miss them if they went.

[Robert]

Red, good point on the English Civil War. I confess I forgot that. But I'm sorry, if you all were really apathetic about the monarch, you'd have turned off the lights at Buckingham Palace a long time ago.

I'll make you a deal: if you'll put on a coat and tie and sing "God Save the Queen" and put it on youtube for all to see, I'll put on one of those commie berets and sing The Internationale and put that on Youtube.

Have we got a deal? Come on, it'll be hilarious. I'll even go first, but you have to swear on Lenin's tomb and your mother's honor that you won't back out of the deal.

[Farrellesque]

Hey Farrellesque, how come your avatar isn't imprisoned like that of all the other running dogs around here?



You were saying? :D

[RedAnarchist]

Red, good point on the English Civil War. I confess I forgot that. But I'm sorry, if you all were really apathetic about the monarch, you'd have turned off the lights at Buckingham Palace a long time ago.

I'll make you a deal: if you'll put on a coat and tie and sing "God Save the Queen" and put it on youtube for all to see, I'll put on one of those commie berets and sing The Internationale and put that on Youtube.

Have we got a deal? Come on, it'll be hilarious. I'll even go first, but you have to swear on Lenin's tomb and your mother's honor that you won't back out of the deal.

We're apathetic about the government but we haven't had a revolution (yet ;)).

I wouldn't sing that royalist arse-kissing dirge in a million years. Although don't let that stop you singing the Internationale.

Lenin's tomb? Thats an attraction for Leninists, not Anarchists.

[Demogorgon]

If it were up to people like you armchair revolutionaries, Americans would probably still be governed by a British monarch!
Still be governed? America wasn't governed by the British monarch before the Revolution, so where that would have come from I don't know.

You need to drop the romantic starry eyed look at history and observe what really happened. Neither Britain nor its American colonies were Governed by the King. Both were governed by elected Governments (chosen by male property owners) and had a non-governing King as a figurehead. The form of Government that America selected after the revolution was in fact very similar to Britain's. The differences were that the figurehead king was replaced by a Governing President with the post of Prime Minister abolished, the House Of Lords replaced with a Senate composed of Aristocracy chosen by the state congresses and the Congress not having the same control over the Government as the British Parliament did.

It was more democratic than the British form of Government because the franchise was expanded, but not that significantly, otherwise it was a very similar system, simply adapted to suit federalism.

Oh and having no monarchy was hardly unthinkable back then. There were quite a few European Republics at the time.

[pusher robot]

Sorry guys, I don't buy into any of that Christian 'love your enemy' crap, I like it when my enemies die, especially reactionaries.

Not all ethics come from religion, you know.

[Bud Struggle]

Not all ethics come from religion, you know.

That's what the good Comrade is pointing out, except the ethics in question is rather vacuous :



Originally Posted by Comrade Vasilev http://www.revleft.com/vb/right-wing-hack-t83959/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/right-wing-hack-t83959/showthread.php?p=1196618#post1196618)
Sorry guys, I don't buy into any of that Christian 'love your enemy' crap, I like it when my enemies die, especially reactionaries.

[Robert]

Demo, good answer. I yield on mopst points, We did, however, actually have a Royal Governor (John Murray) I also think he was appointed by the crown.

You overlooked an opportunity to really wound me in this debate:

You guys had much cooler uniforms.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Yaq9n8KTcG9vyM:http://allthekingsmentoysoldiers.com/images/ATKMAWIBritishInfantry1.JPg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:XBqvLpcjJNxByM:http://www.1776web.com/Fife%2520%26%2520Drum.jpg

We looked like a bunch of raggedy-ass commies!

[Comrade Vasilev]

Not all ethics come from religion, you know.
What are these 'ethics' you speak of, sounds like bourgeois idealism to me, I support aggravated class warfare, nothing more.

[Robert]

aggravated class warfare, nothing more.

Aggravated? Wazzat?

[Comrade Vasilev]

My friend, do yourself a favor and improve that post, somehow, anyhow, before Pusher Robot reads it. Please.
As far as I am concerned counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries like yourself shouldn't even be given an outlet to speak, if only an outlet for screaming after being beaten with a bat.

[Lost In Translation]

Sorry guys, I don't buy into any of that Christian 'love your enemy' crap, I like it when my enemies die, especially reactionaries.
Comrade, no need to stoop as low as the Bourgeois.

[Robert]

after being beaten with a bat.

Oh, murder you mean? Okay. Got you.

Revleft has rules against using words like "*****ing," but this kind of stuff is a-okay.

[Lost In Translation]

Oh, murder you mean? Okay. Got you.

Revleft has rules against using words like "*****ing," but this kind of stuff is a-okay.
:lol:

[Comrade Vasilev]

Oh, murder you mean? Okay. Got you.

Revleft has rules against using words like "*****ing," but this kind of stuff is a-okay.
As far as I am concerned being against the working class is the greatest and worst crime of all, far in excess of murder.

[Lost In Translation]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aFB8ThwzaU1A&refer=us

Today, former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow died of cancer at age 53. Tony Snow was the replacement for Scott McClellan, since McClellan wasn't as far to the right as Bush would have liked.

This capitalist propagandist's death came 53 years to late. He started out as a Fox News moron and then worked his way up.

Does anyone have any sympathy for this guy? Even our resident capitalists have to admit that this man was a total liar.

Wow, I had to dig deep and push away all the death threats, generalisations, and tough words by some of the comrades (I won't point fingers) to find the original intent of this thread.

Who is the replacement for Snow, then?

[Demogorgon]

Demo, good answer. I yield on mopst points, We did, however, actually have a Royal Governor (John Murray) I also think he was appointed by the crown.

He was, but it would be done on the advice of the Prime Minister.

I think I should clarify the role the monarch had at the time. The ability to veto legislation had already been lost in practice and the right to dissolve Parliament was rapidly going, and at any rate could only be done when the King felt there was nobody capable of forming a Government with the support of the House Of Commons and therefore new elections were needed. The principal role of the King was to lead the negotiations after an election to see who would become Prime Minister. It was the King's responsibility to appoint whoever the House Of Commons was most likely to support to the post and therefore the King had an important role in helping to build the necesary coalition for the Government.

The other major role of the King was to appoint officials, including to the colonies, but it was the Prime Minister and the other Ministers that actually decided who would get appointed.

[Robert]

Thanks, Demo. You know your stuff. Deep down, I actually like the idea of a King. Especially if, that is, ... no, I suppose not.