Repeatedly ranting the standard socialist/leftarchist anti-capitalism
party line? Huh? I've been following Samantha's posts since 9/11 and I
haven't seen much of anything I'd call anti-capitalist. Anti-American
maybe, but really not even that. Samantha started off obviously furious
about 9/11. On 9/13, for example, she wrote that:
"The long term effect of playing it diplomatic and making only token
response is screaming from all communication channels. Such responses
over decades led directly to the events of
Tuesday. I want to do more than "discourage" future attacks. I want to
remove the groups who are the threat and the governments who support
such threats. They can be angry but they will
respect us or else. We are not the aggressor. They are."
On 9/14 she wrote:
"Arrogant? We deserve to be righteously angry and dig out those who did
this to us.
Arrogant? Our system IS better than that of most of the pestholes that
hate us and threaten us and our citizens at every opportunity. Or don't
you care to notice the distinction?
Arrogant? We very seldom "throw our weight around" really. With our
power most nations would really be arrogant and extremely expansionist.
But we are not. We often don't even
use our power when we despearately need to. We will not play by rules
that require us to be nice to those who play by no rules at all."
As the debate has progressed her position seems to have changed quite a
bit -- enough to make me wonder whether there are two Samanthas, though
both seem to have the same e-mail address. Admittedly, her position has
changed in response to calls for genocide, nuking Afghanistan, and other
such extreme measures.
Perhaps Samantha was ranting the standard socialist/leftarchist
anti-capitalism party line prior to my joining the list on or about
9/11?
Steven
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT