! ! ! !
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.


Monday, July 26, 2004

put away those skull caps, scarfs and crosses people

looks like berlin is following suit after the french began banning "religious symbols". only instead of banning them for students, in berlin, it's the public sector employees facing the ban. quite frankly, if this were tried here in the us, the hand wringers would be up in arms over the apparent abridgement of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the rest of us would be saying: right on. keep 'em seperate folks.


Blogger Edvardicus said...

Bo, your continued references to Germany and their approach to civil liberties is bewildering. This agin is the culture that gave the world Prussian Militarism and National Socialism.

7/26/04, 10:21 AM  
Blogger bothenook said...

i've been doing so with a reason. you will note that i often include the french as well. now why would that be? could it possibly be because the democratice PRETENDER for the presidency has continuously remarked that we should be following the lead of "the french and the germans"? although he has toned that down tremendously since after the primaries, because now he's talking to an audience of more than just true believers. glad you finally figured it out. "old europe" has been held up as this paragon of elan and civility, and i'm lifting the skirts a little to show the dirty feet below the ball gowns. these are the folks that kerry has on many occasions courted favor from. that's all.

7/26/04, 11:38 AM  
Blogger Edvardicus said...

Puhleese. When Nato helped on in afghanistan,none of you neocons were dissing the Germans. Spare me the condescention. I've harbored no illusions about the germans since before you were born Junior. You do have a hard time with opinions that are born out of a non-partisan point of view, don't you? I remember when the Spanish were Fascists, the Germans have always been Fascist, since at least Martin Luther broke with the catholic church. Old Europe is just that, Old and feeble. The eastern bloc.... same thing. The soviets oppressed them so they are pro-american, but most of these new democracies sided with the germans during WWII and scratch the surface and you will find the same anti-americanism that you will find in Germany, France, or Spain. As for the Italians, my mothers husband typified them. They are a bunch of loudmouthed louts who eat and drink too much and oppress their wives and female children. I have no use for any of these euro-trash with the possible exception of the Irish who are all poets but tend a little too much toward melancholy for my taste. Matter of fact I'm not very fond of my own country men who by and large are too attached to NASCAR and Budweiser. I'm rather partial to the Chinese as a Culture save their brutality toward the tibetans and a propensity toward the use of slave labor in their manufacturing process. The Japanese are racist and their cultural arrogance is a bit much. The Aussies are fine sportsmen and hold their Fosters well but have sullied themselves by their treatment of the Aboriginies. I guess that makes me a bit of a misanthrope, I don't see much in humanity that I care for. Need I go on?

7/26/04, 8:55 PM  
Blogger bothenook said...

ah dwardo, once again sweeping right through the point on to grand fallicies... the point, once again, is to continue pounding on the leadership of the dems almost pathological need to emulate the "nobility and social acumen" of the old europeans. that was a quote of kerry's i heard on that dratted NPR one night. you see, you have a blindness that is common, one that comes from seeing the big ball of fire talking without looking behind the curtain to see who and what is running your political party.

(this ought to be good) your turn

7/26/04, 9:10 PM  
Blogger Edvardicus said...

Not unlike yourself over there on the right wing of the spectrum, unable to see past your own propaganda mill. Of course I resort to broad sweeping generalities to make my point. Painting with a broad brush is exactly what the cryptofascist republican whoremongers do to everyone left of atilla the hun. Hence the demonization of a perfectly descriptive word like liberal which means "of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism: of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives." ." The etymology of liberal is from Middle English, Middle French, and from Latin: liberalis, suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives."
So don't talk to me about fallacies or being blinded by flashes of light. Look behind the curtain yourself and you will see propaganda miesters like Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, and Ann Coulter spinning away like dervishes. You NeoCons feel like you have a trademark on truth. Well, its only your version of the "truth". After all 60 million Germans thought they recognized the truth in the 1930's and 1940's. Let me recommend one of my favorite books to you, entitled The Mass Psychology of Fascism by Wilhelm Reich. Another is "Eichmann in Jerusalem : a report on the banality of evil" by Hannah Arendt." Should be required reading for all bloggers.

7/27/04, 9:27 AM  
Blogger bothenook said...

and i quote:

"especially : of or constituting a political party associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives."

i'm afraid that even the "liberals" in this country didn't read that definition. since the beginning of "liberalism" as a political force, the economic freedom espoused by the liberals is to free the general public of any need to worry about their economy, because we are going to take it all away for programs "we" feel are for the good of the people, regardless of how small a slice of the total that may be. and the greatest driving force in the "liberal" world is to not only get the active participation in the government by making huge swaths of the populace dependent on government programs, but they insure the rest of our participation by garnishing our wages "for the good of ...."
so how does the modern liberal movement satisfy those definitions that you so graciously posted as a means of educating me? or is this typical of the left, sqawk out one side of the mouth to distract the easily swayed, and bark out the other passing laws to keep the rest of us in line? smoke and mirrors, friend, smoke and mirrors.

7/27/04, 3:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home