Fun Infused Games  |   Evil Scale  |  |  |   Starcraft Live  |   Fun Pages  |   Your ad here. Twitter RSS 
Home  Archive  Search  Forum  Members  Subscribe  Links  About  Advertise
One Minute Of Truth With A Liberal part 3
by Mark on 10/6/2005 (17)

In a rare, candid, unplugged interview with famed liberal activist C.Norman Krappwell, Krappwell has agreed to tell the truth to any questions asked to him for exactly one minute.

Smooth Operator: "Hello, Mr. Krappwell. Good to have you back. Are you good to go?"

Krappwell: "Lets do it."

Smooth Operator: "We've noticed that Liberals have what seems to be a selective form of observation, that is to say you seem to be able to completely overlook Bush's successes, and focus on his failures. Is this true?"

Krappwell "(laughs) Of course it's true. I read today that Bush foiled 10 major terrorist plots on American soil since 9-11, but so what? How does that help me? I have to make an impact for my party, and I cannot, and will not give Bush any credit when anything goes right, as that would be contrary to our agenda, which is to destroy Bush and the Republican Party, at any cost, by any means."

Smooth Operator: "Pardon me, but isn't that the very quintessence of how a tyranny functions? Burning books? Selective truth seeking to fit one's power agenda?"

Krappwell: "My you're in rare form, today. Big yes again. When you want power -I mean political power capable of shaping nations, even the world- you'll do anything to get it, anything. I...don' about the truth. Do you get that, pal? What if Lenin cared about the truth, or Stalin, or Hitler? They would have talked themselves right into the firing squad. Sometimes the truth has to suffer to obtain one's end. The end justifies the means, always, every time."

Smooth Operator: "You mean that you endorse Stalin? And Hitler? Can you please explain?"

Krappwell: "I didn't say I endorse Stalin and Hitler, dumbass, I only said I approved of their methods. Look, jerk, I have no interest in Bush successes if that's what you want out of me. Okay, you got that...but let's not be coy about Revolution, about what it takes to make one work. In short, I will never, ever give Bush a success, period. It just can't work for me...I mean us, period."

Smooth Operator: "W-Wow. Shakes me up more every time. Tell me this, if you and your lackies succeed and do indeed take back America, what can you offer that is better than what Bush is offering, if anything?

Krappwell: "When we get back in power -and that's when, not if- what we have to offer the American people will be the right way because it is our way. Let me hammer this home...when Hitler gave orders to annhilate everyone who wasn't Aryan, was that unjust? Hitler was an elected official, after all. Who was going to argue? Not if you held a gun to everyone's head and told them what you had in mind was perfectly just, and even legal. Who cares what anyone thinks when you're in power? Whether there is truth in politics is merely a matter of semantics. All that matters is that we get back in power. Might makes right every time."

Smooth Operator: "My...well that concludes our time together. Do you have personal successes that you would like to share with America before you go?"

Krappwell: "Let me answer that this way. We don't admit to failures. We only punish others for their own. Thanks again for your time."

Smooth Operator: "Thank you."/tds/

page has been viewed 9711 times


1. by on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
How can we rate it correctly, there's no rating for silly self serving propaganda </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
2. by PF on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
This piece is absurd. The link between Islamic terrorism and Iraq is far weaker than the link between crony Bush oil interests and terrorism. It's their love of petroleum that forces our senseless support of Saudia Arabia (source of nearly all terrorists). That is also what's behind our interest in Iraq, not some fabricated terrorist factory. Our involvement in Iraq is our guarantee that the next generation of terrorists will feel completely justified in attacking us. Shame on Bush and his misguided idiots, and shame on anyone who has fallen prey to their absurd dogma.i </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
3. by Motz, autor on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Bush's love of petroleum? My suspicion is that you are quite fond, and in constant need, and blatantly thankfull, of the stuff too. Stop the hypocrisy.h= </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
4. by Kris on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Being fond is one thing... fighting a war under the guise of stopping terrorism is another. </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
5. by Kenny on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
I've got to agree with Kris on this. US policy passed the Absurd Expressway about 20 miles ago and is now driving, with its feet, down a road without a map. You want to take down brutal dictators the go after Darfur. This wasn't about dictators. Also, the comment about stopping terrorist plots, while novel is somewhat marginalized by the fact that of the 10 that were stopped, perhaps 7 of them wouldn't have been hatched had we not gone into Iraq. I can't support that with evidence, but you can't refute it either. Wars, specific wars and front not idiological ones, that are started by the US as an agressor have a history of not ending well. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat itui </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
6. by Motz, again on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
We live in such a finely tuned legal society. We take for granted the broad and sweeping protections we enjoy. If a U.S. citizen drives drunk, or snatched someones purse, or hits another person, the penalties are instant and swift. No where is personal liberty so protected and so revered. Let Iraq have the same. Why should they be denied liberty? Under Saddam, they were tortured and killed, women raped, men beheaded for simple, silly crimes. Let Iraqi children have a shot at a protected life. They deserve the chance, and it is our duty to provide them with that chance. Once again, 2 liberals turn their backs on human suffering to support their anti-Bush agaenda. Read the story again, and post something more intelligent. I am dissapointed with both Kris and Kenny, and expect something more.g </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
7. by Motz on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
oh, I forgot...hoot!isp </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
8. by Kenny on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Your disappointment stems from your own lack of ability to see the bigger picture. Your allegence to the party line rather than the facts is what you should be disappointed in Motz. Your argument that the people of Iraq deserve a better life than they had under Saddam is a fine one, it is off-base. Here are the things that it doesn't take into account. 1. Most importantly helping the Iraqi people was not our initial goal. Our inital goal was to find non-existant WMD. We invaded on bad intellegence and without a solid post invasion stategy. I know it is Monday morning qb'ing to say we should have could have, but it is true. To spin it and say that we invaded to overthrow a tyrant is disingenuous and wrong. If it were correct, how come we didn't have a plan in place to help with the infastructure before the invasion rather than racing to put one together months after Bagdad fell? 2. You assume that the US scanned the globe and found Iraq to be the worst dictatorship with the biggest potential to be turned into a shining beacon of democracy in the MiddleEast. Wrong and wrong. There are a dozen countries where people had it much worse than those in the oil rich Iraq. And as for democracy - give me a break. Democratic reforms, heck any governmental reforms, much come from the people if they wish to stick. I defy you to show me an example of a government that was imposed on people that has lasted for 200 plus years like democracy has. We "liberate" Iraq and yet do nothing for Darfur and North Korea and other places where many more people are dying and being severely repressed over and above what was taking place in Iraq in 2002-2003. You sir have the flawed logic and it is that type of logic that is costing American lives. </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
9. by Kenny on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
BTW - I thought I'd been around long enough and stated my opinions on enough issues that you would label me a liberal. I realize that is the en vogue thing to do when you disagree with someone in today's present politcal climate, but it is a silly, grade school assertion. You might as well call me a commie pinko rat. The world isn't black and white Motz, we're all not "fer it or again' it". Disagreeing on this issue doesn't make me a liberal. It just means I have a different opinion that you do...and that opinion seems to be gaining momentium - outside of the Bush "yes" men.?sid </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
10. by Motz on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
I support the war. I have my reasons. I have nothing more to say.g </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
11. by Kris on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
I hope we can make the best of the current situation because I feel this is a war we never should have been involved in. As Kenny said, the reasons Bush presented us with was that Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to other nations (which was BS from the beganing since Iraq was still in ruin from the first Gulf War), liberating a tourtured people was secondary. Between the lines though, this war was about oil. Bush would never say that of course, but it's not hard to see. And that's the bottom line.nemo </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
12. by Motz on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Okay, the foots on the other hand now. I remember it like yesterday...even though it was longer than that... We were a bunch of young fighter jocks stationed in Palo Alto. Not a care in the world. A girl at home, ice cold beers with pretty senioritas in the Capital City. A bunch of hot shots with everything to prove and no one to prove it to. We were on fighter intercept. Our job was to shoot down drug smugglers plying the lucrative Columbia-Panama route. And then one day... My commander, John "Ski" Kowalski and I picked up a radar blip. It was a cold Friday morning... I still can smell the jet fuel and chimichanga torillas in my nostrils...and this was no ordinary blip. When we approached it, it was not the usual Cessna single seater "treetop flyer": It was a full blown MiG-29! Painted on the pilot cockpit were the initials, "S.H.", inside a bushy, mustachioed young buck jock, I can still remember his cold scowling glare just like a cold beer on a hot Christmas morning. I let my guard slip... Kowalski was dead meat. The Iraqi side slipped, did a scissors and a straight-8 right on Ski's tail. He went down in a ball of fire... I've got a bone to pick, and it ain't been picked yet. This one's for Ski, wherever you are, Johnny, but I sure it don't smell too good, neither."0" st </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
13. by Motz on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
In any case, what's wrong with a war over oil? You've got that gas guzzling Ford Mustang that needs a crude oil feedbag every morning. Put up or shut up! </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
14. by Motz on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Oil is the lifeblood of America, and indeed, the world. Without we will die. We will starve to death. Medical supplies cannot be produced. Food supplies, refrigeration, technology of all kinds and applications. The list goes on and on. We can NOT afford to leave the Middle East oil supply in the hands of a bunch of murderous thugs. Out of the question. America's very health and survival depends on oil. We're out on a limb, and until we can perfect fuel cells and hydrogen vehicles, we have no choice. Deal with it.< </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
15. by Kris on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Mark, Bush's aim for oil isn't for the benifit of the country, it's for his and his friend's wallets. Now if we were smart, we'd develope our own oil supplies here in the country or work on alternative methods. All that oil in the middle east isn't going to do us any good once China's HUGE population starts to need it, then expect the prices to be sky high and we'll be desperate for other energy sources. src="h </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
16. by Katy on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
My thoughts on the war aside, I might add here that the people who are opposing looking for oil in the Middle East rather than in our own country are the same ones that threw a tantrum when we wanted to drill in Alaska. Figured I'd just throw that tidbit in there...?sid </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
17. by TheChuck on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
There is more Oil in the US then we will use in 100 years the problem is that the oil isn't easy to get to. before we just dug a hole and up it came, Now the vast resourses of oil are in cracks and run vertical not horizontal which make the oil pockets harder to hit thus more costly, hence the need for cheaper oil via the middle </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>

What animal is this a picture of?

x Enter the simple name for this animal... i.e., if you see a "north american grizzly bear", just enter "bear".
Surround you text with the following tags to use special formatting:
[B][/B] for Bold text.
[I][/I] for Italic text.
[QUOTE][/QUOTE] for a quote.

For example, in order to write "Smthop rules" in bold, you would enter: [B]Smthop rules[/B].




More referrals |  Add Site

Business   Editorials   Education   Entertainment   Feature   Food   Health   Law   Politics   Religeon   Site News   Space   Sports   Tech   US News   Video Games   World News  


Copyright 2010 Smooth Operator.
Website Design by SteeleITS - Privacy Policy