Comments (19) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   scottfreitas said, 22 days ago

   Y’all Lefties DO realize that a phrase like “jobless recovery” lines up with Orwell’s “1984” Newspeak perfectly. See for yourselves by comparing actual quotes from “1984”:

   “Freedom is slavery” (makes about as much sense as “jobless recovery” don’t it?)

   “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

   “Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the (Demoncrat) Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.”

   The mainstream media already follows these patterns, Lefties. They will show Osama saying the exact opposite of something he said just a few days or weeks earlier, and never bother pointing this out or showing people the earlier footage which they know exists. And they do this EVERY DAY…

2. 

   dtroutma said, 22 days ago

   Calling the MX missile “Peacekeeper” was ultimate “1984” newspeak, in 1984, from “Mr Newspeak”- Ronald Reagan.

3. 

   scottfreitas said, 22 days ago

   No it wasn’t. Did the Soviets ever launch nukes at us? Did we ever have to use any MX missiles against them?

   “Peace through Strength” isn’t Newspeak, it’s reality. If China, Russia, North Korea, or any one of a number of other countries thought they could overpower America militarily, they would immediately attempt to do so.

   So long as one factors in Reality, some seemingly contradictory slogans are true. WEAKNESS invites CONQUEST. That is the reality of the world we live in. Our “Peacekeeper” missiles did ineed help preserve PEACE. The same way the Right To Bear Arms also promotes peace, by discouraging both criminals and government from assaulting the populace unchecked.

   Sorry if abstract thinking isn’t your forte. It is statements like JOBLESS “economic recovery” that are obvious Newspeak phrases, along with calling taxes “investments” and “contributions”…

4. 

   Ken Warren said, 22 days ago

   I’m not sure how all of this has anything to do with unemployment or the recession, I have to point out that any real study of history shows that “armed to the teeth” almost always leads to war.

   We and the Russians may not have gone to war in our countries but we sure went to war in a lot of other countries.

   I know that this has nothing to do with subject of the cartoon, but anytime someone mentions Gun Leading To Safety I have to ask “Safety from who, from what?” Do you really think someone is going to knock down your door and you blast them as they come in? Do you think the terrorist are going to run through the streets with their AK47’s while you pick them off.

   Where do you keep your gun? Somewhere you can get to it? Well then so can anyone else (such as your kids).

   If you own a gun then you have made you and your family less safe, it you own a gun is far, far more likely that you or a member of your family will shoot someone by accident, or shoot themselves, then it is that you will defend your home against evil.

5. 

   toasteroven said, 22 days ago

   scott: Some light reading for you.

   http://tiny.cc/KJjvq - Orwell - You and the Atomic Bomb

   http://tiny.cc/7j8GK - Orwell - Politics and the English Language

   Peace through Strength is as much a nasty, dishonest euphemism as anything in 1984, even if it is the reality. The phrase is built to cloud its actual meaning. If you think that nuclear stockpiles are or were a necessity, speak honestly and openly about it.

6. 

   scottfreitas said, 22 days ago

   The bullet–once fired from the gun–cannot be drawn back into the barrel.

   After the Soviets aquired atomic weapons, “Peace Through Strength” required the US to build up an atomic arsenal. It was a nasty nuclear catch-22. I didn’t like it any more than anyone else–I still don’t like it–but since we can’t uninvent the atom bomb we’re stuck owning them so that others WON’T use them against us..

   I’m quite sure Orwell understood that, even though he also hated it.

   You’ll notice Orwell thought we’d destroy ourselves within just 5 years, too. He was about as optimistic towards nukes as I am towards America’s national debt…

7. 

   toasteroven said, 22 days ago

   Fair enough. But as you said, it’s a rotten situation, even if it’s the only one we’ve got. I just feel that phrases like Peace through Strength and deterrence were used to disguise the inherent rottenness of it. MAD at least had the honesty to use the word destruction.

8. 

   petergrt said, 21 days ago

   Well, when JFK was elected, the US had roughly 2:1strategic nuclear missile advantage over the Soviets.

   After the Cuban missile debacle, the Soviets embarked upon the biggest military expansion in history, and by the time Reagan became president they held 3:1 advantage over the US in ICBM’s.

   The combination of MX and deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe brought the Soviets to negotiate the first real reduction of nuclear firepower.

   Remember the nuclear freeze protests of the era?

   Being a leftist means never to recognize an error - no shame, no conscience, just pure dog poop.

9. 

   a.c.d said, 21 days ago

   Actually, the reason we lived in a state of relative peace was because of the reliance on intergovernmental institutions like the UN who established clear rules and proceedures for how to fight, and more importantly, how NOT to fight. Coming off of WWII, people had little interest in the whole process of taking over countries, and instead had greater interest in fighting for depedency rights, as in, which group of states will be able to have unfettered access to the resources and more importantly as an outlet for surplus production, a problem that the US had greater interest in, as proven by their more rampart militarization, and involvement in countless more “civil” wars.
   International communication, trade and diplomacy have done more to foster peace and stability than anything weapon ever has. I would like to remind that China will NEVER attack the USA. It is written in their policy of non-intervention in other countries. The only reason they are militarizing at an alarming rate is because the USA is so militarized and so they (like the Soviets before them) dont trust the USA to not attack them. It is meant to be a deterrent again the US.

10. 

    omQ R said, 21 days ago

    I think Scott is what one calls a functional illiterate. i.e. Can read but doesn’t comprehend what he is reading.
    Which explains the fact he has read George Orwell’s 1984 but probably doesn’t understand its message.

11. 

    omQ R said, 21 days ago

    Ken Said: ”We and the Russians may not have gone to war in our countries but we sure went to war in a lot of other countries.”
    Thank you. The super-powers’ attitude of ”we’ll take the fight over there so they don’t fight over here” hasn’t quite ended yet. And bugger the consequences to those who happen to be “over there.”
    There were also proxy wars with only their own self-interest and influence in mind where one super-power armed & supported the one side and the other super-power armed & supported its adversary
    So much for M.A.D.

12. 

    churchillwasright said, 21 days ago

    ^ Ahh, but we (US and Russia) never armed them with nukes. So MAD has nothing to do with it.

    People like DTROUTMA will never concede that you can have peace through strength. He came back from ‘Nam a bitter young man, and now he’s a bitter old man. And who can blame him? The country totally screwed him and his comrades, spat on them on their return, all for what basically turned out to be nothing. In his eyes and those like him, the country can do no right, and is the reason for all that is wrong in the world (”DU rounds of course are part of the effort to make our weapons as dangerous to OUR troops, as the enemy.” - Rall 11/2)

    In their view, the world would be better off if we were as weak as everyone else. Of course in a perfect world he would be right. But he ignores the fact that while we were busy being weak, other nations would have been busy trying to be stronger than us Unfortunately, that is human nature.. I’m sure people like him never saw a point of Strategic Command, either (you know, those planes that fly 24/7 armed with nukes [the program may be called something else now?] But the fact is they kept us safe, too. To them, the fact that we haven’t been attacked proves that there was no threat to begin with, not that our strengh kept us from being attacked.

    BTW, can someone point out to me a war the UN averted?

13. 

    oldlegodad said, 21 days ago

    a.c.d. the Uselless Nations has had absolutely nothing to do with anything in the world scene, EXCEPT the WHO eradication of smallpox. And the USA paid for that and almost everything else, even the attacks on us.

14. 

    petergrt said, 20 days ago

    What positive thing can one say about an organization, that has Syria as its chair for human rights committee.

    It has been said that UN is 90% worthless and 10% harmful. I’d give it 50/50.

15. 

    DrCanuck said, 20 days ago

    re: The U.N.

    Americans apparently don’t play well with other countries.

    churchy said: “can someone point out to me a war the UN averted?”

    How do you point out something that DIDN’T happen? Sheesh!

16. 

    churchillwasright said, 20 days ago

    DR.SCHAMUCK: While I understand you can’t prove a negative, if the UN had negotiations of some kind– anykind– that averted a war somewhere– anywhere–, we would all know about it. You don’t think they have a PR division? The UN sycophants would make sure it was included in our kids history books! It’s never happened, and that’s why its not there. Sheesh!

17. 

    DrCanuck said, 20 days ago

    You’re right, churchy; something that did not happen DID NOT happen. Neither is it reported. I agree.

    And as we all know, the UN writes American kids’ history books. It’s what they do.

    (good grief)

18. 

    churchillwasright said, 19 days ago

    DR.SHAMUCK: ACD stated …”the reason we lived in a state of relative peace was because of the reliance on intergovernmental institutions like the UN…”

    I see no basis for that statement. Yet you must, since you decided to criticize me. Your logic? Since you can’t prove a negative, the statement must be true. After all, how can you report on a war that was averted by the UN when there was no war? Such a story would never have made the papers (or history books).

    The fact is, if the UN ever does avert a war, it WILL be historic. (future, improbable, tense)

    (good grief)

19. 

    MAMATRISH said, 14 days ago

    THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, BUT …….