Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Fantasy Island Doctrine

Here’s an oldie from when the Arab Spring began almost a year ago. The short discussion started out with a simple misquote that turned into a hoax, which then took a hard right toward fantasy.

The plane, boss! The plane!

Don’t get me wrong, fantasy is fine when you’re roll-playing – either in bed or with Dungeons & Dragons. Just not when dealing with real-world issues. Real-world fantasy can occur when you start from a pre-determined political outcome and attempt to forcibly fit it to your party’s goals. Instead of simply following the truth. Wherever it leads.

The names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty – and all the shady characters in between.


Two hours ago Sara Palin tweeted on her Twitter account:
"Can you name any country that became a democracy after a violent revolution? Honestly, can you even name one?"

Um... America?
*shakes head*

Umm… All of South America?

And yet, people still keeping talking about her as a potential Presidential candidate. America is a sad, sad place.

Well, we did have GWB in office for 8 years… what do you expect.

That’s so “Palin.”


Not defending that dolt, but that’s a fake quote.
um...to be fair, America also had something else--far better, might I add--to replace its then-controlling regime of the British Empire with. A violent revolution means nothing unless there's something better to replace that regime with. It's why African countries go thru violent revolutions like tissue paper, and pretty much nothing good ever comes of it. It's why the French revolution barely made a difference.

Plus, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Just sayin’.

Bill Mancuso
That was really a misquote of Sean Hannity who was not really saying that no country became a democracy after a violent revolution, just that political uprisings only happen when Democrats are in power. You know, because he’s a douchebag.

Yeah, that's a hoax that started on the Colbert Report over a month ago, only then it was attributed to Hannity, who didn’t really say it either.

Bill Mancuso
No. It was not a hoax. Hannity did say it, but was misquoted, as I said. His actual quote was, “Is this almost predictable? Conservatives, Republicans get in power, they want to advance the cause of liberty and freedom, i.e. Reagan, i.e. George W. Bush. Democrats get in power and you see this shift go on in the world. It seems to be connected. Am I off base on that? …The only democracy that has emerged when you see uprising like this, is in Iraq. Name me one other example. I can’t think of one in history.” And, if you were paying attention, I also said - he was not saying it never happened, just that it only happens when Democrats are in power. And somehow in his pea brain, the invasion, overthrow and occupation of Iraq under Bush was reduced to an 'uprising' and is now some mysterious democracy that only he can see. You know, because he’s a douchebag.

Regardless, Sarah Palin is an idiot.

That is correct, Bill--America is actually a democratic republic. Just curious though....why would those who hate Sarah Palin be following her Twitter account? I…don’t get that.

Ron types like Captain Kirk talks. I… don’t get that.

Bill Mancuso
I'm not sure why you brought up America being a democratic republic, since that's not the issue. It's true, but depending on one's choice of definitions, you could also say America is a republic or even a representative democracy. The issue at hand is Hannity lying about the Democratic party causing all the world's problems and rewriting Bush's invasion of Iraq as an 'uprising,' which means that Iraq's own people were the cause - which they were not. Not even slightly. Hannity doesn’t seem to understand that words have specific meanings assigned to them. Apparently, he thinks that when the U.S. under a Republican president invades other countries, it's in the name of Liberty and Freedom and said country WANTS the U.S. to invade. But when we DON'T invade other countries, and it actually IS an uprising by that country's own people, the U.S. Democratic Party caused it. Because he's a douchebag.

As for the reason why people who don't like Palin follow her... The same reason people who hate Howard Stern continue to listen to him. The same reason people rubberneck at crashes. The same reason people watch 'reality television.' The same reason Ricky and Stephen sent Karl abroad. The only reason (other than beer) people watch Nascar.

First of all, I was actually responding to Jordan; I accidentally addressed you instead. I apologize for that. Did you hear me back any of these people? I don't believe that you did. I used to be in favor of heading into Iraq, but I have historical knowledge now that suggests otherwise. Do I think absolutely nothing should've been done? No, but unfortunately the situation you speak of has roots in another situation that people think was not only long ago, but also believe has since passed...one of which I'm not under the impression either of which are the case at all. I'm no fan of Sean Hannity, or O'Reilly or any of those propagandists anymore than I'm any fan of Keith Olberman, Wolf Blitzer, or any of those guys. I'm also neither a Republican or a Democrat...though I do happen to like a few presidents from both sides, though that's neither here nor there. I'm a die-hard history fanatic, and I've discovered a lot of things about history in the last few years that many folks either don't know about, or many folks don't want the general public knowing about; I find them simply by seeing events in certain time periods not adding up when typical human behavior would suggest a certain outcome that is apparently reported in another way; things get glossed over. Napoleon mentioned several things about these situations as well.


I wouldn't call it "some mysterious democracy," as though it isn't really one, as it is, in fact, a functioning democracy, even if a fragile one. The current leaders in Iraq are hardly dictators. They were legitimately elected in accordance with a democratic constitution. Even western-looking Jordan, as politically modern as it is, is somewhat autocratic in comparison. The West planted a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and it has taken root. Shoots from this new tree began emerging before even the purple ink on the Iraqis' thumbs was dry, in Lebanon, for example. Now we have this new wave of truly democratic aspiration. Years from now we will look back upon Bush's "Freedom Doctrine", articulated in his second inaugural address, and regard it as a critical turning point in human civilization.

Peter, I certainly hope you're correct on that, but that would depend on Americans being consistent enough in our beliefs of freedom to support that in happening. Otherwise, I see another very likely possibility happening if all we have to offer is lip service, though I won't get into the very major details. All's I'll say is that I believe there's another factor in this that virtually no one is even considering or likely even taking seriously...and that factor may very well be counting on us *not* considering/taking it seriously.

And let's see if the riots and whatnot do in fact result in a freer, more prosperous Middle East. I can’t say yay to that, and I can’t say nay to that.

Ron knows and sees a lot of things that he can’t tell anyone about. And I can neither confirm nor deny what I just said.

Bill Mancuso
Ron - I'm totally with you on your thought process. Getting information from a biased source only leads to false information.

Peter - Please explain how Bush invading Iraq lead to the events in Egypt other than Fox 'News
' told you so while using blanketing generic terms like 'planted' and 'took root.' Maybe it's just me, but other than these things happening in the Middle East, I don't see any connection. At all. I think Egypt did it because Egypt wanted to do it. Not, "Hey, America invaded Iraq and that worked out wonderfully! We should take over our own country!" That connection is Glenn Beck-ian in logic. Meaning: no logic whatsoever. It's like saying when they tore down Penn Station in 1963, that planted the idea of tearing down other famous buildings, which took root, because now they are in the process of tearing down the 'Great Gatsby' mansion. After all, they are both in New York. Shoots from this 'knocking down famous buildings' tree began emerging all over America as many other famous buildings have been knocked down over the years. The Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, for example.

Except Beck would work in a connection between Hitler, Marxism, George Soros, communism and Obama.

And you can apply this style of non-fact connecting to any situation. A duck floats, so it must be a witch, right?

Believe it or not, America isn't the reason behind everything good and great and wonderful and awesome and the greatest, goodest, second amendment, America, God-given, guns, freedom, awesome that happens in the world. No matter what convoluted nonsense couched in patriotic verbiage Sean Hannity says.

Because he's a douchebag.

And a liar.

And Sarah Palin is an idiot.

Side note: Many countries moved their style of government toward democratic or republic from within long before Iraq was invaded and it was forced upon them from without. I understand you wish to attribute some sort of fantasy freedom/liberty accomplishment to President Bush. But there is faulty logic in randomly picking Bush's invasion of Iraq as the starting point of world freedom outside America and trying to tie it to the current Middle East events happening organically and independently of American involvement. Which is why I randomly chose 1963 as when the 'knocking down famous buildings' tree took root. Famous buildings were knocked down long before 1963.

Nobody replied after this. Did I make a valid point or am I just a big asshole to whom no one thinks is worth replying?

One of life’s mysteries.

Sincere apologies to the late Herve Villechaize.

No comments:

Post a Comment