On 7/18/07, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would assume that with respect to most things in life, if Richard Scaife had an opinion about it, you would cite Scaife's support as a reason to be against. So, logically, we should assume that Scaife questioning Bush's mental stability means that Bush is likely mentally stable and following a well-reasoned policy. Moreover, Scaife was the alleged funder of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," so presumably this editorial is part of that conspiracy, which means that Scaife's call for a troop withdrawal must be part of a secret agenda intended to identify Bill Clinton's recent paramours and embarass Hillary. Remember, follow the money.<
no, I'd say that even if a right-wing turdbucket (sorry that I repeat myself) like Scaife thinks that Bush is crazy with his Iraq war, it may actually be true. But my impression is that he's crazy himself, so it doesn't work. By the way, he's only "an" alleged funder of the vast RWC, not the only one. (or is it RNC?) "following the money" only works for some political stuff. I'd say "follow the structure" instead: look at the social structure of capitalist domination, exploitation, and alienation. Or "follow the power." -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
