News Snipet 'Blog

Do Something!
Find Elected Officials
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

See Issues & Action
Select An Issue Area:

Contact The Media
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

Other things
Find Affordable Care!"
Other things
Sunday, September 10, 2006
The Snipet Education Center has taught that the slippery slope of socialism leads to communism then to fascism. Of course this was not original with the Snipet as such was taught by everyone from Plato to Stalin. Here is further evidence that socialists prefer fascism over freedom. - Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq: "'The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'' Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. 'Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'' Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq � even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq. "
posted by Jack Mercer @ 9/10/2006 06:49:00 PM  
  • At 9/11/2006 08:24:00 AM, Blogger Helen Losse said…

    Concerning "The Snipet Education Center has taught that the slippery slope of socialism leads to communism then to fascism. Of course this was not original with the Snipet as such was taught by everyone from Plato to Stalin.

    Here is further evidence that socialists prefer fascism over freedom."

    Just because this has been doesn't mean that's the only way it can be. You'd think no one has been or believes anyone else could be "born again." People have been waged war through military battles since the beginning of recorded history. You'd think there is no other way, unless, of course, you'd read the Bible.

  • At 9/11/2006 09:01:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Hi Helen!

    Rockefeller here indicates that being under fascism is better than being amidst the struggle for democracy and freedom. R would have been a British loyalist and would have chosen to leave the United States under the heal of fascism (monarchy)--he would not have been a revolutionary who believed that all men should live free and believed it strong enough to die for it.

    Yes, Iraq is in the throes of change (The United States went through 100 years of it before it stabilized) which many an Iraqi believes in (in spite of what you or I believe)--to tell these people who are dying in what they believe is their own struggle for freedom that they were better off under fascism is not only insensitive, it is a disgrace.

    Don't you think?


    Helen, throughout history the cycle has always been the same--it has never changed--even the United States is experiencing it:

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world�s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
    Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

    I think you and I know the only way this cycle will be broken.

  • At 9/11/2006 10:35:00 AM, Blogger Smorgasbord said…


    I could be wrong about this, but I don't think Rockefeller was saying that Iraq would be better off under Saddam. I think he was saying the world at large would be better off with him in power.

    As you know, there are two parts to the Iraq invasion: Iraqi freedom, and the war on terror. It seems to me that Rockefeller is mum on Iraqi freedom and saying the war on terror part would have been better served by not invading. Personally, I agree (if that is his meaning).

  • At 9/11/2006 10:50:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Hi Smorg!

    GREAT to hear from you!

    Of course I don't agree with Rockefellar if he was saying that either. A world free of despots who oppress and torture their own people is a better world. (Although you know my position on the Iraq war--I'm still there :)

    Of course, I am not much of an armchair quarterback like these guys. Hindsight is 20/20, but who knows whether the war on terror would be better or not without the Iraq action--Omniscience is something I still lack.

    Hope you are well,


  • At 9/11/2006 11:03:00 AM, Blogger Smorgasbord said…

    It's unfortunate that we don't have the benefit of a parallel universe where we can play out different "test" scenarios before we implement them in real life. That would be great! We should get our best scientists on it, but until then...

    The basis for my feeling that invading Iraq weakened the war on terror is that it exacerbated, rather than alleviated, the core problem in the middle east: instability. Instability is the major reason the area is so prone to dictatorships. Dictators provide order through brutal force. If I was an Iraqi, I would support the US invasion 100% because it removed a brutal dictator who oppressed me and my family. Somewhat ironically, if I was a member of al-Qaeda I would also support the US invasion of Iraq because it removed order and replaced it with chaos - the ideal environment for terrorism to flourish.

  • At 9/11/2006 11:06:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Much truth in that, Smorg.

    I think this problem will always be with us until something comes along that truly changes people's hearts--without a change of heart people will do what comes natural to them, and that is sad for the world.


Post a Comment
<< Home
About Me

Name: Jack Mercer
About Me:
See my complete profile

"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".

Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.

Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.

In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.

WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.

Other things
Template by

Free Blogger Templates


free hit counter