Comments Posted By AJB
Displaying 1 To 8 Of 8 Comments
I WILL MISS THE LEFT'S BUSH DERANGEMENT
I never understood the whole "Bush derangement syndrome" argument for the simple reason that Bush really was a bad president.
Conservatives seem to disagree with that. That's fine. But don't go accusing people with whom you disagree with of insanity.
If you can't tell the difference between a reasoned, rational critique of the many failures of the Bush Administration with blaming him for the tsunami or accuse him of plotting to cancel the 2008 election, or reintroduce the draft, or any one of a thousand stupid, idiotic, illogical, paranoid, delusional bullshit memes promulgated by every single major lefty columnist, commentator and blogger, I truly pity your towering ignorance.
And please read the goddamn post. You are so simple minded, anything that isn't in less than two dimesnions flummoxes you.
ed.
Comment Posted By AJB On 19.01.2009 @ 10:08
BLOODTHIRSTY JEWS BRUTALLY MURDER HAMAS BABIES
Could someone explain how ending West Bank settlement expansion would be tantamount to "national suicide" for Israel?
For the record, no rockets are being fired from the West Bank. Yet that has not stopped Israel from confiscating Palestinian land, demolishing Palestinian homes, and constructing new colonies populated by far-right Jewish fundies.
Comment Posted By AJB On 29.12.2008 @ 15:44
I'm a moonbat and I agree with this sentiment.
I think many of McCain's ads are pathetic personal attacks, but they're clearly not racist. Leftists who call these ads racist are doing their cause a great disservice by diluting the word "racist" and making themselves look like idiots in general.
Comment Posted By AJB On 4.08.2008 @ 11:33
IS THE UNITED STATES AN IMPERIALIST POWER AND DOES IT MATTER?
#7
Andy Said:They do so because lending money to governments without basic free market principles like transparency and accountability is throwing away money.
What's ironic is that a lot of the regimes the IMF/WB have supported over the years have been very unaccountable and opaque, but they professed to have "free market principles" and were thus supported. Do some research on Yeltsin-era Russia or Mexico in the 80s and 90s. There was a lot of corruption going on with the rapid privatization process but the IMF/WB kept the loans flowing anyway.
Besides, since when were transparency and accountability strictly values promoted by the free market? Government intervention plays a large role in making sure corporations are open and honest in their financial disclosures. Corruption is something that is found equally in both capitalist and socialist societies. A better correlation would be found in how democratic a nation is and how much corruption it has. Authoritarian nations in general have more corruption.
Anyways, you could argue that nations choose to take out IMF/WB loans and therefore are not "forced" to accept the free market. Fair enough. But there's still the issue of the US propping up free market dictators, overthrowing socialist governments, and implementing economic reform in Iraq before any democratic elections were held. Put together with the fact these economic policies often benefit US businesses, it's not very hard to see why the US is considered an imperialistic nation.
Comment Posted By AJB On 21.08.2007 @ 18:07
Maybe America wouldn't be so derided as an "empire" if it stopped trying to force the free market on to the world. I mean seriously, we have the IMF and World Bank making free market reforms a pre-condition for gaining access to credit, Bremer and the CPA attempting to turn Iraq into a Milton Friedman-esque dreamland (without the consent of the Iraqi people I might add), arms sales and military aid to undemocratic regimes that engage in policies favorable to foreign investors, and a history of overthrowing socialist governments even if said governments were democratically elected and represented popular will.
That often comes off as fairly imperialist.
Comment Posted By AJB On 20.08.2007 @ 16:24
I don't understand why making the Democratic Party an actual left-wing party is a bad thing. The GOP currently is much farther from the center than the Democrats are, and the playing field needs something to balance it out. Clinton was practically a centrist as president and the current Democratic Congress is still too interwoven with corporate interests IMO.
All this talk of "cleansing" and "purges" yet all the left has really done is cause Joe Lieberman, a man who accuses his own party of treason on a regular basis, to lose a primary in a fairly liberal state.
Comment Posted By AJB On 3.08.2007 @ 12:31
IN WHICH I AM HEARTILY SICK OF GLENN GREENWALD
And the statements by the Privacy Board (nice job in smearing dedicated public servants Greenwald) would seem to indicate that constitutional protections are carefully observed.
Why on Earth would a board that was appointed by Bush himself be suitable for judging a Bush program?
Comment Posted By AJB On 30.11.2006 @ 13:13
CIVIL LIBERTIES HYSTERIA MONGERS CAN BITE ME
So let me get this straight: a board with only one liberal on it (a rather centrist liberal at that) and was entirely appointed by Bush says that Bush's wiretapping program is okay, therefore Bush's wiretapping program is okay.
Let's say that Saddam Hussein was proclaimed innocent by a court of high-ranking Baath Party members appointed by Saddam himself. I don't think you would care for such a verdict.
Comment Posted By AJB On 30.11.2006 @ 13:09
